Talk:Cirith Ungol (band)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wrong picture[edit]

The picture for Greg Lindström is actually a picture of Armand Anthony, who have played guitar live with the band when Greg have not been able to do so. Revener (talk) 21:46, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled[edit]

I know that this page needs some adding to it, yet I don't feel proficient enough to do so yet. Please give me a hand! Desdinova 20:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cirith Ungol (band). 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 04:38, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used in this page has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The file Cirith Ungol Logo.svg on Wikimedia Commons has been nominated for speedy deletion. View the deletion reason at the Commons file description page. Community Tech bot (talk) 04:36, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 14 September 2023[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: (non-admin closure) No consensus. Opinion is divided between the band being the primary topic, the LOTR place being the primary topic, and there being no primary topic. The plurality of support is for the status quo (of the LOTR place being primary); a "no consensus" close results in the same outcome. Walt Yoder (talk) 22:33, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cirith Ungol (band) → Cirith Ungol – Much more evidence of notability displayed in this band's article than for the random bit of fictional geography they're named after. The undabbed link currently redirects to a small section of Mordor, an article which only mentions Cirith Ungol briefly. The only reason that would be PTOPIC is because the band is clearly named after it, but I don't think that should override anything else. And the loss of the redirect could be solved with a hatnote. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 17:56, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Meraxes (pointing to the fossil species, instead of the fictional dragon) may be a useful precedent here. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 15:24, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm not so sure. I mean, I've never even heard of this band, but I certainly have heard of the random bit of fictional geography. Then again, I may not be a representative sample size. Edward-Woodrow • talk 18:01, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Edward-Woodrow I don't know that I had heard of either, but one of them has a Wikipedia article and the other doesn't appear likely to get one anytime soon. That's my main point. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 18:17, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. What utter drivel. Obscure band against something known to millions of Tolkien fans. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:35, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And yet one merely occupies a single sentence of this website, while the other languishes in the obscurity of a full article, six album articles (one for a comp), and edits by a number of editors since 2006. Makes those millions of Tolkien fans' knowledge seem pretty trivial, methinks. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 14:59, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's only because detailed descriptions of fictional elements are generally unpopular on Wikipedia. But to suggest that the band is more notable than the fictional place after which it's named is bizarre. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:37, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Find me the coverage for the fictional place which shows it meeting GNG or whichever SNG is relevant. As far as I saw from my own search, this place has been covered in plenty of niche Tolkien-centric online locations, but we don't typically consider those reliable so I wouldn't assume they are. And if my assumption is correct then our actual standards of notability, as opposed to your "millions of Tolkien fans" assumption, are not met. I don't see anything bizarre about that. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 11:04, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is all irrelevant given we're here to determine whether this is the primary topic or not. GNG or SNGs are therefore not applicable. A redirect can still be a primary topic, and the fictional place is one by any measure. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:48, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above. and WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT seems to be applicable here. – robertsky (talk) 15:40, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. We don't determine primary topics based on what individual editors have heard of, but on what the reader base at large is seeking—and pageviews suggest that the reader base is more interested in the band than in the redirect to a fictional mountain pass that doesn't even merit a full subsection in its article. At the very least, this is a WP:NOPRIMARY situation, but I think the band is a clear primary topic here. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:12, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Turn Cirith Ungol into a dab. I think if this discussion proves anything it's that there isn't a clear primary topic here. Jenks24 (talk) 07:52, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Dabs for two pages aren't very common for the reason that hatnotes can much more efficiently accomplish the job. And I'm not convinced by any of the arguments above that the band doesn't meet PTOPIC just because there's likely never going to be room for more information on the fictional location than what we currently have. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 11:01, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, dabs for two pages are very common indeed and standard practice if neither is considered to be primary topic. But, as I've already said, this is not the case here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:49, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Notified: WP:WikiProject Middle-earth. ~~~~
Edward-Woodrow • talk 14:05, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Anyone searching for the valley in Mordor can find it easily enough via a hatnote. Just make sure that the history at the Cirith Ungol redirect is preserved.-- Verbarson  talkedits 14:36, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is no reason to move the article; they can find the band easily with a hatnote. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:23, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, this is a here-today-gone-tomorrow band, and contrary to assertions above, it certainly isn't the PRIMARY topic here; the "place" gets over 800,000 hits, the "band" well under 400,000. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:21, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per necrothesp. Any search for reliable sources will turn up far more literature on Tolkien's tower than some band or other. For more abut why RS matter, see WP:NOTABILITY. I just searched for "Cirith Ungol" on Startpage, DuckDuckGo, Brave and Mojeek. These cover a mix of Ggogle/Bing scrapers and independent databases. Generally speaking, a Tolkien web site came out top, with the band sharing roughly 50% of returns. So even the OP's claim that it is more widespread than Tolkien material appears false, never mind how reliable those sources are or aren't. Now let's turn to WP:COMMONSENSE. Tolkien's epic is a massive global phenomenon that has spawned both a vast academic literature and a vast merchandising industry. The band has never had a single hit in over 50 years of trying. I mean, good grief! — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:37, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    1. I never used the word "widespread", nor did I argue it.
    2. "never mind how reliable those sources are" is the exact opposite of how this website usually works so why should it change now?
    3. Bands don't need hit songs to be notable, but being around for 50 years and releasing on multiple notable record labels helps a lot on that front.
    4. This one tiny aspect of the greater Middle-earth universe is not significantly responsible for the franchises success. Notability isn't transferable, and what you're saying flies in the face of that. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 17:11, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as per most of the arguments given by others who oppose. Strebe (talk) 05:44, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cirith_Ungol_(band)&oldid=1206700690"