Tolkien Gateway

Talk:Stone of Erech

(Difference between revisions)
m (I agree with Sage)
Line 18: Line 18:
 
::::::I'd prefer two different articles, simply since "Stone of Erech" and "Erech" are two different concepts (as been pointed out above). To start evaluating the notability of the concepts in this case seems unnecessary to me.--[[User:Morgan|Morgan]] 06:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 
::::::I'd prefer two different articles, simply since "Stone of Erech" and "Erech" are two different concepts (as been pointed out above). To start evaluating the notability of the concepts in this case seems unnecessary to me.--[[User:Morgan|Morgan]] 06:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 
::::::: +1. Of course narrative-wise they have no distinct roles and the Stone is more significant than the hill; however the database describes the concepts as Middle-earth entities, not as plot elements, and the hill vs the stone are distinct entities in Middle-earth. I don't want to do a [[Wikipedia:slippery slope|slippery slope fallacy]], but merging the hill with the Stone would be like merging [[Keepers of the Three Rings]] with [[Three Rings]], or consider [[Rushock Bog]] an insignificant swamp and merge it with [[Westfarthing]]. [[User:Sage|Sage]] 15:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 
::::::: +1. Of course narrative-wise they have no distinct roles and the Stone is more significant than the hill; however the database describes the concepts as Middle-earth entities, not as plot elements, and the hill vs the stone are distinct entities in Middle-earth. I don't want to do a [[Wikipedia:slippery slope|slippery slope fallacy]], but merging the hill with the Stone would be like merging [[Keepers of the Three Rings]] with [[Three Rings]], or consider [[Rushock Bog]] an insignificant swamp and merge it with [[Westfarthing]]. [[User:Sage|Sage]] 15:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 +
 +
::::::::I agree with you, Sage: I want to merge Keepers of the Three Rings with Three Rings. --{{User:Mith/sig}} 20:22, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:22, 30 October 2012

The article on "Erech" already covers the Stone of Erech in full detail. The present "Stone of Erech" article is copied directly from the Encyclopedia of Arda, but to replace it would simply be a repeat of the information in the Erech article. I suggest that the "Stone of Erech" be changed into a redirect to "Erech" and the Stone of Erech image be incorporated into that article. This would combine a location (the hill) with an object/monument (the stone) but they are so synonymous that having two articles seems superfluous. --Gamling 23:54, 28 Oct 2012 (UTC)

I agree about merging but I think they should be merged into this article, and not the other way around. --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 14:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
+1 Mith. "Stone of Erech" is the more notable concept.-- KingAragorn  talk  contribs  edits  email  14:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
I made an attempt to differentiate the two articles. But if we decide for a merge I would suggest "the other way around" as the Stone is a part of the Hill. Sage 17:03, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
+1 tot Sage. --Amroth 18:40, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
However, most people - in English at least - will refer to "Stone of Erech" and will make no reference to the fact that Erech is the place on which it is standing. Erech is, after all, only notable because of the stone that is on it. --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 21:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
To merge or not to merge... Looking up all instances I found the following references:
"Stone of Erech" - 3 times
Just the "Stone" - 3 times
"Hill of Erech" - 2 times
Just "Erech" - 2 times
In The Complete Guide to Middle-earth both "Erech" and "Stone of Erech" are listed for the sake of completeness, which would also match having one article in "Category:Hills" and another in "Category:Monuments". If we keep just one article it appears that "Stone of Erech" would be better since the preponderance of references are to the Stone. --Gamling 22:16, 29 Oct 2012 (UTC)
I'd prefer two different articles, simply since "Stone of Erech" and "Erech" are two different concepts (as been pointed out above). To start evaluating the notability of the concepts in this case seems unnecessary to me.--Morgan 06:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
+1. Of course narrative-wise they have no distinct roles and the Stone is more significant than the hill; however the database describes the concepts as Middle-earth entities, not as plot elements, and the hill vs the stone are distinct entities in Middle-earth. I don't want to do a slippery slope fallacy, but merging the hill with the Stone would be like merging Keepers of the Three Rings with Three Rings, or consider Rushock Bog an insignificant swamp and merge it with Westfarthing. Sage 15:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree with you, Sage: I want to merge Keepers of the Three Rings with Three Rings. --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 20:22, 30 October 2012 (UTC)