Talk:Morion (helmet)

Redirect search for "morion"

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no move of Morion (helmet) to Morion at this time, per consensus. JPG-GR (talk) 21:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that a search for "morion" should default to this article, rather than the article about the mineral. I did a GoogleFight, and the results showed that "helmet" was used more often than "mineral" with this term.

Here are the results: [1]--Tabun1015 20:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Seems fine. --Eyrian 20:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Using that tool and the terms "Morion quartz" and "Morion crystal" one gets results of "Morion quartz" 21,600 and "Morion crystal" 21,800. Both of these results are over double the results of those for "Morion helmet" (8,000). But as stated google fight is not exactly a reliable gage to use. -- Kevmin (talk) 04:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I tried to change it but they undid it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick19thind (talk • contribs) 19:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Not a significant difference, nor a reliable tool. A disambiguation page may solve the problem. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

"Not a significant difference, nor a reliable tool." I have absolutely no idea what you're referring to, or what you mean...could you rephrase it a little more clearly?^{I didn't see Kevmin's entry} As for a disambiguation page, that actually might be a better solution, but I have no idea how to do that. The article for the mineral would still have to be moved to "Morion (mineral)", and if no one objects (or does it themselves) within a day or so, I'll move it myself.--Witan (talk) 22:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. Move Morion to Morion(mineral) or similar and create disambiguation page at Morion It seems neither is miles ahead to me, so there is no primary article; page usage is even; [[2]] vs [[3]], britannica.com does mention the mineral, but some dictionaries don't. Neither seems particularly common to me. --Rogerb67 (talk) 02:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't know anything about the helmet. I'm the one who undid Nick19thind's cut-n-paste move of morion as that left the history of the article stranded. Now, the morion article is currently about a rather minor lapidary variety and could easily be moved to morion (mineral) which would free up the basic morion page for use as a disambiguation page. I have no objection to such a proper move and would be willing to do it if consensus exists. Vsmith (talk) 02:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I have a few things to say:

1.) I tried to move the mineral article to "Morion (mineral)", but Nick19thind already created it with his cut-and-paste move, so we're gonna need an admin to move the page.

In any case...

2.) Comment - The article about the mineral is extremely short, shorter than any other article in the table of varieties of quartz. I think it would be best to merge it into another article, such as smoky quartz or even the table in varieties of quartz. When all the info from the morion article is added into the table in the quartz article, it looks like this

Major Varieties

Morion

Dark-brown, opaque variety of smoky quartz resulting from irradiation of aluminium-containing milk quartz.

This is about the same length as the entry in the table for Chalcedony, and it encompasses all the current information expressed in the independent morion article.

This would free up "morion" for use by the article on the helmet. Now...

3.) Ok, a GoogleFight isn't the best tool, especially in close calls like this. However, I only knew that the word "morion" referred to the helmet. I never knew that there was a mineral with the same name. I bet the same is true with many other people. I think most people looking up "morion" would be looking for the helmet.

As such, I am going to Support the move of "Morion (helmet)" to "Morion", and also suggest a Merge of the article about the mineral, either into the article on smoky quartz or the table of varieties of quartz.

--Witan (talk) 22:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and added the merger tags on the Morion (mineral) page and the Quartz#Varieties section. You can weigh in on the discussion here--Witan (talk) 22:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Admin available - just let me know what you-all decide. Vsmith (talk) 23:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose the move of this article to the undisambiguated name. There's no clear primary meaning, so if any move is performed, despite there being only two meanings a disambiguation page should be created at the undisambiguated name. I'd suggest the mineral article be moved to morion (mineral), as if we merge to the table we are losing both current content and the opportunity to expand the stub. Andrewa (talk) 20:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

In response, I maintain what I said on the discussion page for the merge in regards to Andrewa's concerns and maintain my support of the move and merge.--Witan (talk) 23:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

No to proposed merge. Morion is not a major variety of quartz. It appears to be a variety of a variety (smoky quartz) and perhaps most is is artificially produced which further reduces its status as a valid mineral variety. As mentioned on talk:quartz the variety should most likely be merged with a revived smoky quartz article. Vsmith (talk) 03:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I want to point out that the entry in the table for morion was already there. My proposal is to merge the rest of the information in the article into that existing section, not to add it as a new section of the table. Whether it warrants being in the table at all is a separate discussion from the merger, and should be discussed on the Talk:Quartz page.--Witan (talk) 04:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment I really think that the naming of the mineral article, and its possible merge can be kept distinct. What is at Morion in principle depends only on WP:PRIMARYUSAGE. Whether Morion is an article or a redirect only affects things insofar as whether disambiguation can reasonably be provided at the destination page; if not, Morion may need to be a redirect itself for purely practical considerations. Can we stick to discussing the rename here? Thanks. --Rogerb67 (talk) 11:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Oppose merge. Morion quartz should have its own page. "Morion" could be a disambiguation with links to morion (helmet) and morion (mineral) articles.

I have now made a complete merge of morion into smoky quartz after moving to morion (mineral) and undoing the previous improper merge of smoky quartz into the local variety cairgram. I have made the morion article a disambiguation page. The incomplete merge of morion into quartz varieties was undone as morion is not a major variety. Geez what a mess. Straightened out now - I hope. Vsmith (talk) 03:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Photo disappeared

The first illustration has disappeared; I don't know why. It should be put back, since it gives a better idea of what a morion looks like than that photo. A morion is what the conquistadors wore. If you ever see the film Captain from Castile, Cesar Romero , who plays Hernan Cortez, wears a morion in it.AlbertSM (talk) 00:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

It was deleted from wikimedia commons with the comment "‎ ((c) Portal Fuenterrebollo & the image is from a Spanish stamp (non free!)...". A free replacement is needed. --Rogerb67 (talk) 01:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

What Metal are these made of?

Iron, Steel, Bronze, Brass? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.223.198.209 (talk) 05:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Morion (helmet). 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/20080704132253/http://www.realmcollections.com/p5/european-comb-morion-helmet.html to http://www.realmcollections.com/p5/european-comb-morion-helmet.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081012153444/http://www.aurorahistoryboutique.com/R000435.htm to http://www.aurorahistoryboutique.com/R000435.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080720003512/http://www.hermitagemuseum.org/html_En/12/2004/hm12_2_11_7.html to http://www.hermitagemuseum.org/html_En/12/2004/hm12_2_11_7.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928143420/http://www.colchestermuseums.org.uk/castle/castle_history.html to http://www.colchestermuseums.org.uk/castle/castle_history.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.apva.org/finding/cabasset.html

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) 18:13, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Shape

Is there a specific reason for the shape given? There must be reason why the back is left as open as the front (to do with the armies formation? or reverseability? If both sides were chainmailed I suppose it would be hard to tell if the soldier was front facing or back facing?

Just thought, one reason could be that the helmets with the larger "fins" could be used as a shield or crenelation if put down. That would mean that the it was the same time as soldiers started using rifles. Anticipating horizontal fire, rather than the arched arrow fire.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.10.92.192 (talk) 23:26, 22 August 2018 (UTC)