Talk:Minas Morgul



Untitled

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

move.

Requested move
While known as Minas Ithil for longer during the timeline of Midde-earth, Minas Morgul is more commonly recognised, due to use in the most mainstream of Tolkien's texts, The Lord of the Rings. This would also bring it into line with Minas Tirith/Minas Anor. Google hits ratio is 200,000:26,000 in favour of Minas Morgul. Minas Morgul currently exists as a redirect. --UrbaneLegend 14:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~ 


 * Support - Minas Morgul is the more recognized name. --CBDunkerson 18:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Translation of the name "Morgul"
In this article, the meaning/translation of 'Minas Morgul' is given as 'Tower of Black Sorcery', from minas, "tower", mor-, "black, dark", and -gûl, "sorcery". But in the Nazgûl article, Nazgûl is derived from nazg-, "ring", and -gûl, "wraith, spirit". Is there a mistake with the article (instead of the 'Tower of Black Sorcery', the 'Tower of Dark Wraiths') or does -gûl have a double meaning? --JonnyLightning (talk) 04:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Placed Notability Tag
Not the subject of multiple independant secondary sources as required by WP:NN and does not have any real world content as clarified by WP:FICT Guest9999 22:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)]]

Tag Contested
This subject has notability, editing and referencing as needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.83.99.216 (talk) 06:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Referenced
The former was me, --T.S.Boncompte 06:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC). I have referenced the Minas Morgul Article beyond doubt, established it's real-life notability and therefore, in my humble opinion, removed any cause for this article being deleted.

Unreferenced material
Article has been tagged for needing sources long-term. Feel free to reinsert the below material with appropriate references. DonIago (talk) 12:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Third-party sources

 * "Minas Ithil". Encyclopedia of Arda. Mark Fisher. 23 October 2004. Retrieved 8 March 2012.
 * Hammond, Wayne G.; Scull, Christina (2005). The Lord of the Rings: A Reader's Companion. Houghton Mifflin.

The above are 3rd party sources. Derivatives of an authors work are in themselves third party sources too. GimliDotNet ( Speak to me, Stuff I've done )  15:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * How are they third-party sources? They were expressly written to discuss in-universe material. They aren't external reviews and they in no way establish that Minas Morgul has significance outside of the franchise.
 * Also I am formally contesting your removal of the notability tag and will request assistance at WP:EA. DonIago (talk) 15:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * How are they not third party sources? Tolkien writes a book, another author writes a book about that book - ergo it is a third party source! That's what third party sources are not just reviews in newspapers. GimliDotNet ( Speak to me,  Stuff I've done )  15:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Third-party sources would establish the significance of Minas Morgul outside the framework of the LotR franchise. I suspect those sources do not do so, but if they do, please provide more information as to how they do so. I have posted at WP:EA regarding your unilateral removal of the "Notability" template; hopefully there will be a response and ideally a third-opinion here shortly.
 * To my mind what you're saying is akin to saying that the "Star Trek Companion" establishes that Star Trek is a notable subject. A publication intended from the beginning to discuss a specific subject does not, to my mind, establish the significance of that subject. DonIago (talk) 15:52, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

By the way, the instructions for the Notability template explicitly state, "If the template is re-added, please do not edit war over it. Questions of notability can be resolved through discussion or through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If the article exists within the scope of a specific WikiProject it may be beneficial to invite feedback from the group." I am consequently requesting that you re-add the template as a show of good faith pending a consensus to remove it. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 15:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The article needs work for its tone, it is far too in universe, however the third party sources above are good enough to establish notability. You are confusing the two issues.  GimliDotNet ( Speak to me,  Stuff I've done )  16:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Might I suggest that instead of focusing on any misinterpretation I might be doing you instead provide sources that are more clearly not third-party sources? That would moot my concern entirely. In the meantime I am hoping other editors will offer their input. And I still believe the tag should remain in the article until there is a consensus to remove it.
 * I will note that in a worst-case scenario I am prepared to follow the advice I received at EA and nominate this article for deletion. I will hope it does not come to that. DonIago (talk) 17:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * please nominate. You have failed to show how the sources above fail WP:GNG. GimliDotNet ( Speak to me,  Stuff I've done )  17:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I've nominated it myself. If the third party works cited are not good enough then the article is never going to be fixable. GimliDotNet ( Speak to me,  Stuff I've done )  17:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd like to think there are other sources of note out there, or that the material here may be suitable for merging into a larger-scope article, but I guess we'll see how things play out. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 17:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Not strictly related to this situation, which the AFD essentially resolved with a ruling of No Consensus, but I have started a discussion regarding what I feel to be the underlying issues at VPP. Opinions are welcome. DonIago (talk) 13:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Errors
There are several assertions in this article that are incorrect, in particular the ridiculous assertion that the orcs in Minas Morgul had become "isolated" from those in Mordor proper. The conflict between Shagrat and Gorbag had nothing to do with any ostensible "isolation," whether geographic or political, apart from the tendency of orcs to quarrel with others of different units or tribes in the absence of strong leadership. The illustration of an emblem from the city is also wrong, as Tolkien describes the token of the Morgul orcs as a "ghastly disfigured" moonface, not a skull beside a crescent moon. This is all unsourced speculation and simply wrong. 124.33.208.179 (talk) 08:09, 17 July 2014 (UTC)Vainamoinen
 * Why not be bold and make appropriate changes then? DonIago (talk) 12:51, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:37, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Minas Morgul As Seen In Shadow Of War.jpg