Talk:Dol Guldur

message: I need help with the refs, and have completely re-written that article from this.  I will look for citations, I had prepared an article like this before but lost the sources nonetheless if you want to delete stuff then discuss it here first. LOTRrules (talk) 22:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Found many citations at last. Will start to write them in in the next couple of days. LOTRrules (talk) 23:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added pictures and maps which should be enough with the fair use licenses up to date. Just locating final citations and dates. LOTRrules (talk) 17:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Completed most of the citations, just need to expand the adaptations section and check to avoid use of in-universe style language. LOTRrules (talk) 23:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I think I have expanded it as far it would go. Need someone with experiance to look at this section in detail as I am unfamiliar of other adaptations. I will try to make it less in-universe...LOTRrules (talk) 13:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A culture section has been included and many of the sections expanded. Referances will be coming in the few days. LOTRrules (talk) 19:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As of today the article looks like this. LOTRrules (talk) 19:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Now this LOTRrules (talk) 18:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Final copy before submission to get it reviewed for mistakes LOTRrules (talk) 18:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Re: critical literature being preferable to citations of the text:  Both have their place.  Certainly we want to promote the notability of Tolkien by showing that there are critical treatments.  But the WP articles serve a valuable function by identifying where in Tolkien's opus various ideas and events are discussed; such citations are very useful (and, I suspect, more useful to most of our readers than the critical references).  Elphion (talk) 21:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  One problem with this article is that it is structured in an in-universe way, bordering on OR. Critical literature (and I'm including the commentaries of HoTH and HoME in that) wont just help establish notability but will also ground the article in the real-world, and therefore be encyclopedic, which focusing on primary sources as research material can never do.  Davémon (talk) 16:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

text: As of today it looks like this. LOTRrules (talk) 22:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It now looks like this Lord of Moria Talk Contribs 11:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Refs

message: IP user 87.102.86.73 recently removed a fair amount of cruft from the article.  This has been reverted by LOTRules, who called it vandalism.  This is not vandalism; it reflects what others of us have said:  there is too much bloat and irrelevant material in this article.  Elphion (talk) 18:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is not related to Dol Guldur entirely, but it does tell more about its history and what it did in LotR. I believe that it should stay. the_ed17 14:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. It deserves it. Lord of Moria Talk Contribs 14:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For making Dol Guldur a GA? Sure--it was a good article after all. (HA, I love puns.) the_ed17 14:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism? 

message: Not to rain on anyone's parade, but I have my doubts about this article's recent promotion to GA-class.  First and foremost, I do not think it fulfills the GA criteria as easily as the reviewer has stated; the prose is indeed poor (it's very difficult to follow and many terms and names are not introduced or described fully), but there are also issues with formatting.  Several of the refs are naked external links and the citations are not consistent throughout.  Also, use double quotations and not single: "black magic" instead of 'black magic', and do not use italics when also referring to something in quotation marks: "Naked Hill", not "Naked Hill".
The main thing that bothers me about this article is that it mostly deals with in-universe details and therefore has a complete lack of critical and thematic elements discussion.  Without these important out-of-universe details, it is certainly not broad enough in its coverage.  Most of what is here now is far too entrenched in LOTR, which unfortunately violates WP:WAF: "Wikipedia articles should describe fiction and fictional elements from the perspective of the real world, not from the perspective of the fiction itself."  Nowhere is there mentioned anything about the subject's importance in the stories other than how it relates to plot and characters.  What have scholars/critics said about it?  Furthermore, the only sources, from what I can tell, are either the primary works or summaries of those primary works.  Was there nothing else available?  What about reliable, third-party, published sources?  I'm not even sure there is a true establishment of notability; why is this area notable in the works?  Why is it important to us, as readers?  The lead is incredibly confusing; The War of the Ring isn't even mentioned in the lead, nor are any concrete dates.  When was it built?  When was it destroyed?  Again, why is this notable?
I'm disappointed that such an underdeveloped article was promoted so quickly to GA; much more work needs to be done in order to assure that it is broad enough in its coverage and that it is well written and properly formatted.  Although I do not doubt that the work can be done, if the article is not improved further, I'm afraid I will have to list it at WP:GAR for review.  María (habla conmigo) 15:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll take care of this in next 48 hours. And I'll give thorough explanations later on citations. Lord of Moria Talk Contribs 21:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Although I do understand your reasoning is based upon scholarship, Elphion, Wikipedia's style guidelines say differently.  According to Wikipedia:PUNC#Italics, the foreign term should be in italics and its translation should be in double quotes.  The same guideline says, For quotations, use only quotation marks (for short quotations) or block quoting (for long ones), not italics. (See Quotations below.) This means that (1) a quotation is not italicized inside quotation marks or a block quote just because it is a quotation, and (2) italicization is not used as a substitute for proper quotation formatting.  As for the double vs. single quotes, per WP:PUNC, Quotations are enclosed within "double quotes". Quotations within quotations are enclosed within 'single quotes'.  I'm afraid our MOS trumps Tolkien's idiosyncrasies. :) María (habla conmigo) 12:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you think of the article so far? Is it going in the right direction? Lord of Moria Talk Contribs 12:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

text: What I mean to say is that standard academic style is not always in line with Wikipedia's MOS.  I agree that language terms should be in italics and their translations in "double quotes" as per the MOS -- I said as much in my previous comment.  There was one instance that I saw in which a term was not only in italics but also in quotations; "Like this".  I think we're all agreed that this is incorrect and it has apparently been fixed since I first mentioned it.  María (habla conmigo) 15:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thoughts regarding GA promotion 

message: Before my edit it was stated that Legolas was the son of Oropher. Indeed Legolas is actually the son of Thranduil.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.124.143 (talk) 07:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect claim corrected 

message: I'm wondering if Tolkien went backwards in his language construction, in Icelandic galdur means magic, so it's a short vowel flip away from guldur black magic. --Stalfur (talk) 09:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology of Guldur 

message: When Sauron returned to Mordor, he sent 2 or 3 (accounts vary) nazgûl back to Dol Guldur, with (according to one account) Khamul as the one in charge.  At that point, arguably Sauron was still the "lord", but direct command had been given to Khamul.  Is there any indication than anyone else was ever in charge?  Why does the infobox keep getting reverted to "two nazgûl"? Elphion (talk) 07:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The appendix clearly states that when Khamul left two other nazgul were left in charge (how can accounts vary? Tolkien explicitly states there are two). Lord of Moria Talk Contribs 20:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

text: I think what this discussion is telling us is that an infobox does not work well for an imaginary location that is only sketchily described, and for which varying versions of 'the truth' exist. 4u1e (talk) 07:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't agree.  But the infobox is no place for a fine-point discussion of what the author intended, nor for theories with no textual support. Elphion (talk) 20:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly agree with that - but I'm obviously going further in drawing conclusions from it! :) 4u1e (talk) 10:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: The images in this article are very, very poor quality and are basically one (not very good) artists impression of the works. In this case it actually lowers the tone of the article Carl Sixsmith (talk) 07:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:59, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Dol guldur.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Dol Guldur. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071114171453/http://www.icewebring.com:80/ICE_Products/M2/M2_2014_Dol_Guldur.php to http://www.icewebring.com/ICE_Products/M2/M2_2014_Dol_Guldur.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:21, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Dol Guldur. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080512035815/http://uk.games-workshop.com/dolguldur/spider-conversions/1/ to http://uk.games-workshop.com/dolguldur/spider-conversions/1/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080706191816/http://uk.games-workshop.com/dolguldur/miniature-gallery/1/ to http://uk.games-workshop.com/dolguldur/miniature-gallery/1/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:43, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Hill of black magic. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  Hog Farm (talk) 22:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Hill of black magic" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]