User talk:Ichthyovenator

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot. Any discussions older than 30 days are automatically archived to the latest archive (see navbox to the right).

Andreas Palaiologos scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the Andreas Palaiologos article has been scheduled as today's featured article for July 29, 2021. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 29, 2021, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

For Featured Articles promoted recently, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.

We suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:36, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Shalmaneser V

The article Shalmaneser V you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Shalmaneser V for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cplakidas -- Cplakidas (talk) 20:01, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

King of Sumer

Hi Ichthyovenator, I saw you did a lot of nice work on articles like King of Sumer and Akkad and Akkadian royal titulary. I was wondering whether you were also interested in creating a short separate article on the title King of Sumer (just a stub, if need be, with 1-2 sources)? King of Sumer currently redirects to Sumerian King List, but that's rather weird since that article doesn't deal with the title as such (and also shouldn't, as it's about the cuneiform text). Best, --Zoeperkoe (talk) 08:21, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

@Zoeperkoe: Hi. I agree that the current Sumerian King List article is problematic - it essentially combines what should be two or three different articles; an article on the document itself, a list of rulers of Sumer (with legendary content, such as the reign lengths in the list, kept to a minimum) and an article on kingship in Sumer (titles, perceptions and evolution of kingship etc.; AFAIK most of the rulers in the SKL would not actually have titled themselves as 'kings of Sumer'); the latter two might be combinable to one.

I've mainly worked on the late stages of Mesopotamian history (Neo-Assyria and Neo-Babylon) so I'm not as familiar with old Sumer, but I have planned to work on this and I can definitely try and set up a short start to an article sometime soon :) Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:55, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

If you don't feel up to it, then please don't feel pressured at all! I agree on the state of the article on Sumerian King List. I've been working on a draft in my sandbox that would address some of these issues, but I am not sure whether I will eventually post it, as it seems that the article on the SKL draws a lot of attention and discussions, for some reason, and I'm not sure I'm up to that...

And yes, the SKL rulers would not be termed king of Sumer, but simply lugal, as I understand it, but that makes the current redirect from King of Sumer to Sumerian King List all the more weird.

Anyway, keep up the good work! --Zoeperkoe (talk) 10:32, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

@Zoeperkoe: Thank you, no pressure at all! As I said, I have been thinking about working on this for some time. I think your draft looks like it is going to be far superior to what the current article is. It's a great start at something that summarizes and discusses, rather than reproduces, which I believe the actual Sumerian King List article should be like. You should definitely keep working on it! :) In my experience there aren't that many active Ancient Near East editors on Wikipedia anyway and a fully realized edit of your version is going to be better than what we have so I don't think there will be much opposition. We'd just have to make sure that the list of rulers, or at least a list of rulers - I'm envisioning something like the more standard lists of monarchs, with some more nuanced approximate regnal dates where possible (rather than relying on the SKL itself) - is kept somewhere else and not removed from Wikipedia entirely. I can get to working on something soon. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:27, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

GAN Backlog Drive - July 2021

Good article nominations | July 2021 Backlog Drive
July 2021 Backlog Drive: This Thursday, July 1, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number, length, and age, of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 10+ good article reviews or participated in the March backlog drive. Click here to opt out of any future messages. --Usernameunique

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence

I visited today the article Nebuchadnezzar II and the difference since my last visit is simply astounding! I see you have done this for all Assyrian and Babylonian kings, I did wonder why Nabopolassar's article is much longer than his son's. From a reader who is interested in the ANE, thank you so much for your astonishing contributions to the topic. Well done! Gsueso2 (talk) 14:49, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@Gsueso2: Thank you very much! The ANE is among the historical periods and places I find the most interesting. Nebuchadnezzar was the last of the Neo-Babylonian rulers I got to because his article needed more research and thoroughness than the others, given that he is by far the most famous. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:37, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Here, I will give this back to you, I do not want it

Homo longi I'll be responding to you here since it is arguably quite unprofessional to argue on an unrelated user's talk page (something I explicitly told you twice). Your last response to me on Joe Roe's talk page is ridiculous:

'We both know you are trying to recruit editors to support a second attempt at a move, without waiting a significant amount of time, as advised by Joe Roe. In addition, we both know you are obsessed with trying to change the article name to Homo longi even though there was no consensus. May I suggest you move on to other activities now; the issue has been resolved by a neutral third-party, unlike what you espouse to be.' You are directing several wild accusations against me here so I'll respond to them one at a time. 'We both know you are trying to recruit editors to support a second attempt at a move, without waiting a significant amount of time, as advised by Joe Roe' is blatantly false. I'm explicitly holding off on making a second attempt at a move and instead asking at relevant WikiProjects if there would be interest in conducting one. Joe Roe advised waiting a few months (not a 'significant amount of time' on the level of 'several years', as suggested by you). As Joe Roe explicitly said, there are also no regulations against starting a discussion sooner. You are yourself guilty of recruiting hand-picked editors to support your position previously, so I feel like you're just projecting here.

'We both know you are obsessed with trying to change the article name to Homo longi even though there was no consensus' is ridiculous considering your obsessive, and arguably disruptive considering they were based on misunderstandings and you for the most part never responded to those that refuted you, comments in the discussion on the article's talk page. Homo longi is objectively the better title based on Wikipedia policy, a position I hold on to given that none of the opposing voters refuted the points I made, and I'd argue that a majority did agree with that considering the final votes were 16-10. I think you understand just as well as I do that 'no consensus' means that the issue is not resolved, just that the discussion grew stale. I don't see why you would oppose a second move discussion since strong, policy-based arguments are just as likely at making the case for the current title ('Dragon Man (archaic human)') stronger (i.e. resulting in "keep" rather than "no consensus") as they are at getting the article moved. It should be in your interest as well. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:21, 8 July 2021 (UTC)