Tolkien Gateway


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
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)
Since I'm the culprit who created the article about cabbage I supposed I should speak up. Today (4/8/11) marks my 30th day since I signed up for the Tolkien Gateway. I still feel that I am a newcomer and I didn't know about this controversy. I will explain why I wrote the article.
When I first started writing articles I did check the "General Site Policy", "Standards", and "Deletion Policy" under the Community Portal. I saw no guidelines regarding what should be included or not (other than vandalism). Skimming around using the "Random Page" feature I found articles on flowers, trees, games, actors, and so on, so I believed that the inclusion policy was to create a concordance of everything related to Middle-earth (if it was just supposed to be canonical items then why all the gaming items?).
I have been adding articles from The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien and one of them was Letter 154 in which Tolkien talked about the "game" of creating a fully detailed imaginary world. He recognized the sketchiness of his creation, with not enough information on clothes, agricultural implements, metal-working, pottery, architecture, music, and other topics. In other writings Tolkien stressed that the best way to create a fantasy world was to put in as many real world details.
Therefore I added Cabbage both as "something mentioned in the works of Tolkien" (concordance idea) and "something that gives a detail on the agro-economy of the Shire" (details that help make Middle-earth feel "real" idea).
I have been collecting notes for a possible article on Beer, finding all references to this subject in The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. Regarding this subject there are at least 3 stances this site could take:
1. "Beer" is way too common a subject and shouldn't be included; it's not something found only in Middle-earth.
2. Only particular instances should be mentioned that are special to Tolkien's world: The best beer in the Eastfarthing at the Golden Perch decided Frodo on taking his short cut to avoid a delay. Gandalf put a 7-year enchantment on Butterbur's beer for his good news. The beer of 1420 was especially good and became a byword.
3. All mentioning of beer should be included so that users curious about an exhaustive list can find it here: Balin had beer at Bilbo's unexpected party, Bilbo's favorite bath song included beer, the beer at the Prancing Pony was so good it relieved Sam's misgivings about the place, and several other instances.
At this point I don't know if an article on "Beer" is wanted or not, or if so at what level of detail. As I said, I didn't know about this controversy and if there's a determination to take this article out I won't be offended. I would suggest that some kind of policy or guideline be developed and put into the Standards.
Perhaps it's just as well that my article on cabbage brought this all to a head.Unsigned comment by Gamling (talk • contribs).
I'm in favour of something along the line of option 2. --Morgan 20:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Just to let you all know, there is another place where cabbages are mentioned: Mr. Bliss. --Amroth 09:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Option 2 seems the most sensible. -- KingAragorn  talk  contribs  edits  email  12:14, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Well said Gamling, with a punch line! I agree with everyone else so far in that option 2 should be our goal. Although to be honest, I don't see the harm in allowing for option 3 if an editor has the time to research it. Who knows, a visitor may be writing a paper on alcohol in Tolkien's works and wants to know how many characters drank beer, or is planning a Tolkien-themed get together and wishes to only serve food and drink mentioned in The Lord of the Rings. Is cabbage still on the outlying ring of notability? Of course. But it's well written and we can easily merge it down the road should we change our stance. --Hyarion 14:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm in favour of opinion 2, however I'd personally also like an article writen like Option 3. I'm a fan of articles like this, Apples and Dogs. --Amroth 18:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)