- Good idea. I've added Govar's illustration as well as a few others. Thanks for the input. --Hyarion 22:42, 8 September 2006 (EDT)
- Hm, then I guess I'm still confused, which image are you referring to? The image of Morgoth/Melkor by Govar currently in the article was uploaded after you posted that so you must have been referring to another image. I suppose we should merge Category:Images of Melkor and Category:Images of Morgoth, I'll do that now. Thanks again for your input. --Hyarion 12:19, 10 September 2006 (EDT)
timo vihola picture
- Great suggestion, the image has been added. I have also moved all the Images of Melkor to Images of Morgoth --Hyarion 14:49, 11 November 2006 (EST)
can we add the elfenomeno images of him to the pictures of morgoth section?
- Thanks for your suggestion. Can you specify exactly which images you would like to see uploaded? If you like it might be easier to login and use the "Upload" link on the left so you could upload any images yourself. Thanks again for your input. --Hyarion 02:00, 16 December 2006 (EST)
mikel janin image
can we add the mikel janin image of him to the images of morgoth section?
This is just a minor detail, but it struck me as pretty strange (and somewhat out of context) while reading this article. It says that Morgoth "lusted after Lúthien". Now, the Silmarillion simply says that he "conceived in his mind an evil lust" ("lust" doesn't have the modern sexual meaning in Tolkien's writings, it simply means a wish, ambition or desire). Compare the passage in the Book of Lost Tales: "his dark mind pondered some evil", and in the Quenta (The Shaping of Middle Earth): "he plotted foul evil within his heart". In my opinion, the sentence of the article is making too many assumptions here.—Unsigned comment by 126.96.36.199 (talk • contribs).
- Good point. Feel free to change to a better wording. Thanks! --Morgan 19:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
It seems like this article has seen a great deal of increased activity lately. Much of it has either been irrelevant to Morgoth, misinformation, poorly written, and/or plainly false. I know everyone does what they can patrolling recent changes, but if some extra attention could be devoted to keeping an eye on this article for a bit, I'd appreciate it. I think it goes without saying this article is centric enough to the mythos that it should be of the upmost quality. Thanks. -Smog 06:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- I think you've volunteered for that role! --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 09:20, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- I am already doing what I can (this is one of the pages on my watch list.), but I cannot always catch everything. Due to the high number of repeated incorrect edits, I often cannot simply revert the changes. I was asking for others to possibly help me keep an eye on it for awhile if they had time. I would never request assistance with something I wasn't already doing myself. -Smog 02:36, 26 September 2014 (UTC)