Ancient Near East Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ancient Near East related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Politics Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Phoenicia Template‑class

This template is within the scope of the WikiProject Phoenicia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Phoenicia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.PhoeniciaWikipedia:WikiProject PhoeniciaTemplate:WikiProject PhoeniciaPhoenicia articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

This template is too big and unhandy, which makes it confusing and severely reduces its usefulness. I think it will work best if it's broken into several nested collapsible templates. There's a couple of examples of what I'm talking about: Template:Marvel Cinematic Universe, Template:Wikipedia essays Flordeneu (talk) 18:36, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fully agree. This template is far too complex to be edited and read. Zoeperkoe (talk) 08:25, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I like it the way it is. 162.119.232.104 (talk) 03:22, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@पाटलिपुत्र: While putting the nonexisting rulers in italics is "a" solution; I still think that it is inherently quite problematic to put this nonexisting rulers in a real chronological framework. Listing the purely fictional antediluvian Sumerian rulers in the real Uruk period is just pure speculation and not backed up by any relevant sources. What's your view on this? Zoeperkoe (talk) 15:43, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Zoeperkoe: Good point. I agree that they are legendary, but probably not much more than several of the early Pharaos... And we do list them as legendary, so we are not deceiving anyone. It also seems that it is customary on Wikipedia to list legendary rulers, as in List of Chinese monarchs or List of Mesopotamian dynasties. To your point, in order to avoid the direct association to the Uruk period, maybe we should list them at the very top then, according to their supposed regnal years (counted in the tens of thousands of year...), as they do for the Chinese rulers (who are more realistic with their legendary chronologies though). I'll try something. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 17:03, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly better. I would prefer to have a template that only includes more or less real rulers, but I guess that's too much to ask. I would suggest, however, to remove the prehistoric part that you added (so Ubaid period, "Sumerian period" (whatever that is) and Pre-Dynastic period (and the corresponding periods in other regions). It still looks very weird now, and because we don't have any names for rulers for prehistoric periods anyway, adding these periods in this template doesn;t provide any useful information. Plus, this template is already so large that adding even more information is just not an improvement. Best, Zoeperkoe (talk) 08:12, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the Prehistoric part (Someone had added Ubaid, so I kind of incorporated that). I'll try something. By the way, several of the Pharaos who are in italic actually have some level of archaeological background. Shouldn't these ones avoid italics? Best पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 08:20, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about Egypt, so I try to stay away from that as much as possible ;) Zoeperkoe (talk) 08:31, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, when I have time I'll check the individual articles and correct accordingly. Best पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 08:43, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked and I can't find a single article linked in this template which uses BCE/CE dating. Perhaps you can provide an example? Either way, I'd be willing to hazard a guess that 90+ per cent use BC/AD.

Several of those articles include this template. An example is the Sargon of Akkad article. That article has a notice telling editors to specifically use BC/AD dates. I'm pretty new to Wikipedia, so correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that mean we should either remove the template from the article or change the dating conventions in the template?

My argument is that this template would better fit in with the associated articles if it used the same dating conventions. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ficaia (talk • contribs) 20:51, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What counts is the date format in which this template was first created, and it is BCE/CE. Please check MOS:ERA. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 21:05, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The MOS states: "Use either the BC–AD or the BCE–CE notation consistently within the same article". Should we then remove this template from Sargon of Akkad and other pages using BC-AD dates? That would be a shame, because this is a great template. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ficaia (talk • contribs) 21:10, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is generally not considered a problem. In order to avoid edit-warring the rule of primacy is generally what counts. By the way, there are about 40-50 articles using BCE-CE in this template. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 21:28, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by law of primacy? You pointed me to the MOS, and it states an article should not have conflicting dates. Are there any articles using BCE/CE dates which also use this template? If not, then we're only introducing inconsistency by having BCE/CE dates in the template. It seems like the most harmonious solution would be to alter the dates here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ficaia (talk • contribs) 21:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rule of primacy: "it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change." per MOS:VAR. Again there are about 50 articles in this template which use BCE-CE (many of the articles of the most ancient rulers). I have to go. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 21:41, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The rule of primacy only applies as long as there is a consensus not to change the style for that article. And consensus can change.

How would one go about seeing if there is a consensus to change a controversial matter like date style? (I'm not joking: this has led to a lot of grief.) Common sense would suggest that one first leave a note on the talk page announcing the proposed change, then waiting for a response. How long? Because few talk pages are reviewed frequently, IMHO I'd wait at least 2 months, & 6 months would be better. We are not in a hurry to complete articles. If no one objects, or even comments, then make the change, & we can assume the new style is considered to have priority. However, if someone does object (which is obviously what happened here), then a discussion follows & one seeks a consensus about the change. And note that some pages are under the purview of one or more Wikigroups: if an active Wikigroup is monitoring the page, then they should be notified. And if they have agreed to a specific style for their pages, that should be observed. All of this applies whether the change is CE/BCE -> AD/BC or AD/BC -> CE/BCE.

And for the record, I am agnostic about which date style is used, AD/BC or CE/BCE -- although I will laugh with everyone else at edit wars over this point. -- llywrch (talk) 20:06, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]