Talk:Cabbage

From Tolkien Gateway
Revision as of 14:30, 8 April 2011 by Mith (talk | contribs) (Tweaked answer)

Latest comment: 8 April 2011 by Mith

On what basis do we need a specific article on this? --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 10:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It appears in LOTR, and adaptions (at least in LOTRO). I'll add some LOTRO-info to it, once. --Amroth 11:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I have consistently said, appearance in Tolkien's works or adaptations is not enough to warrant inclusion on this wiki; there are clouds and doors and clothes and mugs and floors and windows and water and carts and we don't have articles on them. Just because something exists in Middle-earth (or adaptations), does not make it particular/peculiar/special enough to warrant inclusion. There has to be something about them, some relevance to the stories, not simply that a character mentioned them in an off-hand remark! If "appears in LOTR, and adaptations" I think it is a dangerous precedent.
Seriously, this is becoming farcical now and is seriously rattling my cage; most of it, it's making me question my continued involvement here. --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 12:27, 8 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cabbages are, clearly, part of Arda's organisms, which makes them, in my eyes, special enough to include them. Would this have been an article about some random thing, Stool for example, than it wouldn't be special enough, in my eyes, to be included. But organism are. --Amroth 13:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cabbages are as "random" as stools; there is no logical differentiation between the two. There is one reference - one reference! - to cabbages in the whole of The Lord of the Rings and we're basing an article on this?! (There are seven references to stools, by the way.) What makes an inanimate cabbage more "special" than an inanimate stool? --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 14:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]