Talk:Nergal

Please go to

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 09:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nergal is obviously NOT the son of Enlil or Ninlil.

Nergal the Babylonian pagan deity. Not Nergal the vocalist/Rhythm guitarist to the Blackened Death Metal band Behemoth; dumbass. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.168.242.86 (talk) 05:27, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a warning that, unless someone objects within the next day or so, I will be deleting the "In popular culture" section for this article. The section has become hopelessly clogged with irrelevant and uncited information. I do not normally like deleting entire sections all at once like this, but this section has very clearly gotten completely out of control and I feel that it would be irresponsible for me to leave the section here in the disgraceful state that it is in. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Amersfoj:, you restored the "In popular culture" section, but gave no explanation regarding your reasons why. Would you please care to explain why you think that the section should be included in this article? It is extremely poorly cited, most of the material in it has very little connection to the subject of the article, and it is poorly written, consisting of nothing but a series of bullet points. I can see nothing about it that is worth keeping, but I am willing to listen to you if you explain why you think that it should be kept. If we do keep it, we will need to heavily revise it to convert it into real prose, add citations to cover every single statement, and remove material that is not relevant to the subject of the article. Frankly, I think that the cost in labor of trying to revise the section is far greater than simply deleting it. --Katolophyromai (talk) 14:34, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Katolophyromai: I found your reason of "no one would disagree with me" a very bad reason so I undid your revision. Why should the section be removed?

@Amersfoj:, the statement in my edit summary that "no one would disagree with me" was not my reason for removing the section from the article; it was only my explanation for why I removed it sooner than I stated I would in my much lengthier explanation here on the talk page. My reasons for removing the section are already outlined above. If you would please read my first two statements in this section, they will provide an adequate explanation for why I removed the section and I why I do not think it is worth keeping in this article. --Katolophyromai (talk) 15:04, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that my reasons are fairly well outlined above, but, just in case you need more explanation, here are they are, numbered out for you:

1. The section is poorly cited. Here on Wikipedia, every single statement needs to have a citation. If a statement in a "popular culture" section like this one is uncited, it qualifies as
   original research
   .
2. Most of the information in this section is completely irrelevant to the Mesopotamian god Nergal, who is the subject of the article. Articles are supposed to stay on topic and not wander off. Even what little information in the section that is related to Nergal is largely trivial and insignificant. It is a
   Wikipedia policy
   that information in "Popular culture" sections should only be included if it is notable and relevant. In other words, anything that is mentioned in the section should be something that has drastically altered the modern portrayal and conceptualization of the subject of the article.
3. The section currently consists entirely of bullet points, which, quite frankly, is a terrible method of organization for this sort of material, which, if addressed, should be addressed using paragraphs, not bullet points.
4. Furthermore, the writing content of the section is extremely poor and it is frequently difficult or impossible to discern what the section is even talking about.

I would be very interested to hear your reasons for why you think that section should be kept. If we do end up deciding to keep the section, it will require major reworking. We will have to remove material that is not relevant, add citations to support all of the information that is kept, and rewrite almost the entire section to convey the information in prose rather than in bullet points. I personally do not think that the section contains anything of value to the article and I do not think that it is worth rewriting. --Katolophyromai (talk) 15:54, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Nergal. 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/20050422212706/http://www.mindwidth.com/ereshkigal/index.php?ID=1009&cat=3 to http://www.mindwidth.com/ereshkigal/index.php?ID=1009&cat=3
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050308042708/http://www.mindwidth.com/ereshkigal/index.php?ID=1010&cat=3 to http://www.mindwidth.com/ereshkigal/index.php?ID=1010&cat=3

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.

• 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) 08:25, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Nergal. 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/20090113233004/http://www-etcsl.orient.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/etcsl.cgi?text=c.4.15* to http://www-etcsl.orient.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/etcsl.cgi?text=c.4.15*
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090114023629/http://www-etcsl.orient.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/etcsl.cgi?text=c.4.15*&charenc=j to http://www-etcsl.orient.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/etcsl.cgi?text=c.4.15*&charenc=j

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.

• 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) 05:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Myths is secondary to Attributes, and perhaps to other sections.--Manfariel (talk) 01:38, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Manfariel: The current version of the article is pretty much garbage; it is horribly lacking in citations and there is a massive amount of important information that is omitted. I am planning on eventually just rewriting this article from scratch. The problem is that mostly all the articles about ancient Mesopotamian deities need to be rewritten and I can only rewrite them one at a time. When I finally get around to rewriting this one, I will make sure to reorder the sections. --Katolophyromai (talk) 03:52, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. I just went ahead and reordered the sections for now. The current status of the article is only temporary anyway, so it probably does nto matter, but it was easy enough to fix. --Katolophyromai (talk) 03:55, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the myths section, Nergal's various names are used interchangeably. While not wrong, per se, it's confusing, and the individual sections should at least use one name consistently within itself, unless the name change is somehow relevant. If it is relevant, it should be made explicit. (For instance: Does Erra become Nergal upon entering the underworld?) I'm not well versed enough to decide which names should be used. LordQwert (talk) 16:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know why the updated box is on this article? Is there some new information that needs to be added or can the box be removed?Morgan Leigh | Talk 01:54, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]