Talk:Stone of Erech

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)