Tolkien Gateway


(Difference between revisions)
m (moved Talk:Crossbows to Talk:Cross-bows: Tolkien's spelling)

Latest revision as of 21:32, 19 October 2021

Sorry for the gentleman who just added info, but I propose this article to be deleted. Do I need to explain the reasons? --LorenzoCB 21:26, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Seeing as they only appear in adaptations (not in Tolkien's work) and have minimal significance there, I don't feel like we need this article. We do have an article just for Bows though, could we add a small bit of this information there under the Portrayal in Adaptations section? --Grace18 23:09, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
That's a nice idea. I included some info as you said in the Bows article. Now I wonder if we should delete this or make a redirect. I seriously doubt anyone will search "Crossbow" in the search engine. --LorenzoCB 12:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't think deleting it will hurt too much, if we take care of the two or three redlinks it creates. Typing crossbow in the search bar on TG will probably bring up the Bows article as an option anyway. --Grace18 14:25, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Agree. --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 15:32, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
First of all, the crossbows article is not new to TG at all, it's been a part of the wiki since 2009. The fact that I've been able to find more information on the concept portrayed in non-canon adaptations (all adaptations are non-canon) just emphasises it should be kept separately as an article on a non-canon concept.

The entire point of the article is to keep it away from the Bows article and creating unnecessary confusion among TG readers and Tolkien readers, especially newcomers.

While merging the Bow and Crossbow articles is technically possible, the resulting article will only create confusion among readers who are new to Tolkien and searching for infomation on his works and their setting online. We don't need to confuse readers by having an article where one section suddenly begins with a "This is non-canon" template warning. Less careful readers might overlook the warning or simply forget after a while and the resulting impression will be that crossbows were a canon concept, when they certainly weren't and were adaptation-only.

In the Legendarium, bows are canon, crossbows are not. Crossbows are adaptation-only, but they have appeared in adaptations of the works, whether we like it or not. If TG distinctly lists articles for non-canon concepts and characters, then something as non-canon as crossbows should be listed entirely separately.

The current state of the crossbows article is as good as it can be, and has all the relevant links and references it could have pertaining to the topic. Dragging all that content into the main bow article would create confusion and muddle the focus of the article.

There is also the matter of logical consistency. Bows and crossbows are distinct weapons, and the only thing they have in common is that they're used in archery. Knives and swords are both bladed weapons, but you wouldn't call both one and the same in terms of how they're held and used in combat. If anything, how one operates a bow or a crossbow is even more different than how one uses a knife or sword.

I am therefore against the merger of the two articles.

If anything, I'm for improving the main Bows article instead. It could use some updating in some of the references. I hope I have reasoned my case in a satisfactory manner. --A Hobbit Gentleman 12:00, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

On the one hand the article is pretty pointless, on the other hand Gentleman's arguments are reasonable. I'd like to point out to all editors that they can use other wikis for non-canon topics, like and Sage 11:44, 22 March 2021 (UTC)