Talk:Cabbage

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

A cabbage is more special, in my opinion, than a stool because it's a organism, something that lives, of Arda. And organisms of Arda are, in my opinion, worthy enough for this wiki. This is of course only my opinion.

BTW:Are you sure there are no other references to Cabbages outside LOTR?

--Amroth 14:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

A stool was an organism. In any case, you haven't explained why organisms have particular qualities which make them so special; should we have an article on the common cold?

	Stool	Cabbage
The Hobbit	3	0
TLOTR	7	1
The Silmarillion	0	0
Unfinished Tales	0	0
TCOH	0	0
	10	1

10 times the number of references to stools than to cabbages. --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 15:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think Frodo would have been successful without eating all those cabbages when he was a young Hobbit. -- KingAragorn  talk  contribs  edits  email  16:21, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

That irrelevant comment is just a distraction from the issue; an issue which I'm not letting go (as everyone would seemingly prefer). --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 17:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

It was more a comment of indifference on the issue. There's certainly a point to be had about where we draw the line; a single reference to cabbage is probably pushing it a bit. Delete or keep, I don't mind either way. -- KingAragorn  talk  contribs  edits  email  19:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

We all have different opinions as to where to draw the line on relevancy, all we can do is form a consensus for the time being and go from there. We certainly don't want to offend anyone.

The fact that there is a 124 page book about Plants in Middle-earth makes me want to err on the side of too much information. If we decide to merge or delete the real-world plants later on, it really won't take much effort. --Hyarion 19:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC)