Talk:Stone of Erech: Difference between revisions

From Tolkien Gateway
Latest comment: 29 October 2012 by Amroth
No edit summary
mNo edit summary
Line 6: Line 6:


: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. [[User:Sage|Sage]] 17:03, 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. [[User:Sage|Sage]] 17:03, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
::+1 tot Sage. --[[User:Amroth|Amroth]] 18:40, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:40, 29 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)Reply[reply]
+1 Mith. "Stone of Erech" is the more notable concept.-- KingAragorn  talk  contribs  edits  email  14:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
+1 tot Sage. --Amroth 18:40, 29 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]