Talk:Dol Guldur

Refs

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

As of today the article looks like this. LOTRrules (talk) 19:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Now this LOTRrules (talk) 18:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

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

I would not submit it just yet. There is so much to clean up it's hard to know where to start. I made a brief pass to fix the most obvious spelling and punctuation problems. For the next step, I would suggest focusing on the following:

• In refs, don't rely on fan sites unless they really are the ultimate source. Find the sources in Tolkien's books or reliable literary sources. That the external refs are all to fan sites is something of an embarrassment.
• Separate Notes from References; the Notes don't require full bibliographic citations, which can appear once in a separate References section.
• If you're going to use named refs (which is not a bad idea), please choose more descriptive names.
• Perhaps most important for starters, reduce the redundancy -- the article mentions several things several times over. Also, the article should limit itself to the geographical details and the events that happened here -- the details of Sauron's return to power in the Third Age, the White Council, and the hunt for the Ring are described adequately in other articles, which should be referenced.

Elphion (talk) 20:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, some ideas on improving the article:

• The article needs lots more real-world information about Tolkien's creative processes and the changing role of Tol-in-Gaurhoth/Necromancers Tower/Dol Guldur (for example have a look at the Development section of Elf (Middle-earth)). Some very relevant information appears in Mr. Baggins (book one of The History of the Hobbit).
• Find references in critical literature and use those, even in preference to citing the original texts. You'll have to be careful the sources that are reliable, and those that aren't. Have a look at some of the results for: http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=dol+guldur
• Adaptations: Try to find critical information with regards adaptations:
  • For start with: http://www.gamehobby.net/ and http://www.aeolia.net/dragondex/reviews-games.html for where to find reviews of ICE MERP. I know DG appeared in more than one ICE MERP book including the Mirkwood supplements - why not list them all? Likewise there is Decipher Inc.'s RPG and CCG which probably have some Dol Guldur references. Issue 317 of White Dwarf magazine had design notes by Matt Ward on The Rise of the Necromancer - so there should be some good Dol Guldur material there too.

Hope these notes help, and keep up the hard work! --Davémon (talk) 18:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

Another suggestion: many of the passages in the article that have been copied verbatim from fan-sites in the external references ought to be rewritten  Elphion (talk) 15:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

As of today it looks like this. LOTRrules (talk) 22:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

It now looks like this Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 11:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism?

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)

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)

Thanks. It deserves it. Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 14:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dol Guldur/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Surprisingly good article for a topic that is not major in the books.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   still needs work; see closing statement/note.

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

   A few things appear to be borderline OR, but I noted them through a {{fact}} template or a <!--...--> note...so I think that you will fix them.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   This is written in a partly in-universe style for some, but considering that it's kinda hard not to (with Tolkien's legendarium) I'll pass it.

   B. Focused:

   Veered off a bit at points, but I believe that I fixed them with my edits.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Could use a few more images, but there just aren't many out there for this kind of article; I know this from my experience with Shannara articles.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Please work on the prose; I fixed some but not all--I've read LotR, but not as indepth as this, so I can't change a few parts bacause I don't know what happened in the books, and I don't want to change the meaning of a sentence so that I give a false history. Very, very informative and an interesting read. the_ed17 14:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Today

As of today the article looks like this at GA. Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 14:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts regarding GA promotion

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)

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)

Re quotation marks: it is standard usage to cite language terms and their translations as a term in italics 'with translation is single quotes'. This is the style used, for example, by Tolkien himself and by most of the scholarly literature pertaining to Tolkien's work. While Maria is right about the prose having problems, this is not one of them. Elphion (talk) 08:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

Maria, these are not "Tolkien's idiocyncracies", they are standard academic style. I appreciate that WP has technical difficulties with single quotes, so I'll roll with the double quotes. The mentioned terms, however, should still be italics, not quotes, as indicated at WP:PUNC. LOTRrules had interpreted your previous comment to mean that they also should be quoted. Elphion (talk) 15:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

Incorrect claim corrected

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)

Language in "Reception"

I made a stab at bringing the Reception section closer to standard English, but someone who knows something about the games should review it; there are still several phrases I don't understand. Elphion (talk) 04:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Like what? LOTRrules (talk)

• "The entire sets of Dol Guldur in the game are on the Games Workshop website." ("The entire sets are" doesn't work grammatically, but I don't know what was intended, and couldn't find what was being referred to on the website.)
• "The campaign called "Assault on Dol Guldur" appears as the final part of the campaign." -- the campaign appears as part of the campaign? Again, I don't know what is intended.

A couple of others I think I figured out, but as I said, others should review this to be sure I made sense of it. Elphion (talk) 01:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The first should read:

• "The entire figurine game sets of Dol Guldur from Games Workshop can be viewed on their website."

The second should read:

• The campaign, "Assault on Dol Guldur", appears as the final part of the main campaign in the game."

I think this sounds more concise. Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 11:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not more concise, but it makes better sense. ("Concise" means "short, brief".) The first one is still grammatically awkward. "Entire" generally modifies a singular noun, so "entire sets" doesn't work. What kind of sets are we talking about? Card sets? Theatrical sets? Sets of figurines? Elphion (talk) 01:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it's getting really pedantic now. The meaning would be too restricted if we keep re-writing it. Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 17:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree; striving for clarity in language is not pedantic. Until the recent exchanges here I did not understand what the passage was talking about. Elphion (talk) 17:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Etymology of Guldur

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)

Infobox

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)

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)

The appendix (I presume you mean Appendix B) says no such thing. Accounts vary because Tolkien left different drafts; but no account gives the story as you summarized above.

Appendix B, entry for TA 2951, says that three nazgûl were sent back to Dol Guldur. Khamûl is not mentioned by name.

Unfinished Tales ("The Hunt for the Ring", i, p. 338) says Khamûl abode in Dol Guldur as Sauron's lieutenant, with *one* other nazgûl. (CRRT speculates that the third mentioned in App B returned to Mordor, but also mentions the obvious possibility that JRRT simply changed his mind.) Note 1, p. 352, says JRRT's notes indicate that both Khamûl and "his companion from Dol Guldur" were present in the Shire.

But it is clear that all nine came to Eriador to hunt for the Ring, i.e., when Khamûl left Dol Guldur, so did the other one or two. Tolkien says this explicitly in "The Hunt for the Ring", and it is implied in LotR, since all nine are present at the Ford of Bruinen. There is no mention of nazgûl at Dol Guldur after that -- we don't know who led the attacks on the Elves from there.

So, for the infobox, who commanded Dol Guldur?\\ (1) Sauron\\ (2) Khamûl as Sauron's lieutenant\\ (3) no further information.

Elphion (talk) 22:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

I certainly agree with that - but I'm obviously going further in drawing conclusions from it! :) 4u1e (talk) 10:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Dol Guldur/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

The article fails criteria 3.a. Broad in its coverage.

• The article lacks any real-word context for the impact of the fiction.
• The article lacks any acknowledgment of the creative process that went towards the creation of the fiction.
• The article lacks any reference to critical literature that discusses the fiction.
• The article is mostly in-universe, and plot summary.

While the article is mostly very well written, and covers the material it has excellently, the lack of non-fictional content in the article means it should be de-listed as a GA. --Davémon (talk) 21:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

4u1e comments

For my money, the article comes at this from the wrong angle. Although the appropriate wording (..in the fictional world of ...) is used to ensure that the reader is aware that this is a fictional location, the article is still written as though we are discussing a real place with a real history.

WP:WAF tells us that "Articles about fiction, like all Wikipedia articles, should adhere to the real world as their primary frame of reference." This article does not do that. If we are using the real world as our primary frame of reference, I would expect to see sections dealing with the role the location plays in the books it appears in, how and when the location was dreamed up by Tolkien, what influences the location has had on other writers, film-makers etc. I would not expect to see details of the 'history', 'culture' or 'politics' of the location. Given Tolkien's predilection for inventing languages, a section on the etymology of the name would be relevant, but should be about the author and how and why he invented this name, and not about the fictional backstory he invented.

In summary, I think what I'm saying is that the current article has good, well referenced content, but as it stands is far better suited to a site like Tokien Gateway (also a wiki) than Wikipedia and could in fact usefully be transferred there. In its current form it should certainly not be a GA. For Wikipedia, new material should be added that focusses on the out of universe perspective, and the current content should be heavily trimmed back (to perhaps a quarter or less of its current length) to act only as supporting material for the out of universe stuff.

I suspect that there is actually very little to say about Dol Guldur from a real world perspective, and that may suggest that the topic should not have a dedicated article at all. However, that depends on what real world stuff can be dug up. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 07:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

There are some excellent suggestions for improving the article there. As there have been no challenges, the article has been delisted. --Davémon (talk) 10:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Image

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)

File:Dol guldur.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Dol guldur.jpg, 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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link 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 {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:21, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:43, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

"Hill of black magic" listed at Redirects for discussion

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)