Talk:Sennacherib's Annals

Move? (2009)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was  Done. Discussion both opened and listed at Wikipedia:Requested moves for at least 5 days with no objections against the move. — Aitias // discussion 00:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

---

• Sennacherib's Prism → Taylor prism — Original article was at Taylor prism, someone added a slightly more substantial new article Sennacherib's Prism and then the content from the first article appears to have been merged there, instead of to the earlier of the two articles; Taylor Prism is also the much more common (and easier to spell) name — Clinkophonist (talk) 02:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

Requested Move (2010)

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.

Basically withdrawn since this really is a request to split the article and not move it. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Taylor prism → Taylor prism and Sennacherib's prism respectively. — Taylor prism and Sennacherib's prism are actually different objects. A casual search seems to confirm that they hold the same content. Yet, two different locations hold each, the Oriental Institute of Chicago hold the "clay prism of Sennacherib, while the British museum holds the Taylor prism. It seems the merge that was requested earlier wasn't justified at all. --Tauwasser (talk) 01:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose that's a useless title, has a period, and is not a "title", it's a sentence fragment. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 04:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
• 'Comment' if you want to split the article, you are using the wrong process. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 04:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Whatever the merits of the existing article and title, this is a bad way of approaching it, it verges on disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. If you want the merge reversed, say so, and we can deal with it on its merits. There may be a case for moving to "Taylor prism and Sennacherib's prism" or something similar, but let's judge that on its merits, we certainly don't need that "respectively". PatGallacher (talk) 13:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
  • See WP:POINT. PatGallacher (talk) 13:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
• Jeez guys, it was supposed to request a split to "Taylor prism" and "Sennacherib's prism" respectively. Sennacherib's prism(s) could hold all info on the (seemingly) three prisms ―　the Taylor prism being one of them　― and the other two. I'm just a casual Wikipedian who wanted to correct a severe mistake. I was interested what the other two of the "three accounts discovered so far which have been left by Sennacherib of his campaign against the Kingdom of Israel and Kingdom of Judah" were and noticed here that the two prisms are actually different objects ("Some of the Assyrian chronicles, such as the baked-clay Taylor prism now preserved in the British Museum, and the similar Sennacherib prism, preserved in the Oriental Institute, Chicago, date from very close to the time."). If I misused the template, I apologize. Still, doesn't give you the right to suspend common sense and assume I'm proposing an idiot title along with punctuation. I'm sorry I cannot provide more detailed info on the two prisms, just that they are not the same physical objects. So yeah, I would request the article renamed "Sennacherib's prisms" or something adequate along those lines (since one of the prisms is seemingly known as "Sennacherib's prism", a plural title that might be easily confused might not be adequate; propose something better) and then explain the three prisms in there, redirecting Taylor prism to that article. That is, if there are three prisms total. I couldn't find what the third account would be, though I suspect it is a prism as well. I was originally going to make reference to the three accounts in each other, hence noticing the error. --Tauwasser (talk) 13:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment this move request should now be snowballed out (see WP:SNOW) as a newbie error (see WP:NEWBIE) which the proposer has effectively withdrawn. Further discussion should take place further down the talk page.

• Thanks for labelling me a newbie, I needed that... Also, I didn't withdraw, but whatever. It seems I spurred the right discussion so whatever. --Tauwasser (talk) 00:42, 18 May 2010 (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.

Title of article etc.

Should the merger of this article be reversed, and we go back to having two articles on the two prisms? If we keep a single article, should it have another title? Comments please. PatGallacher (talk) 15:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it is ok, except it should be Taylor Prism, as a proper name. Alternatives: Taylor and Sennacherib Prisms, Sennacherib Prism (London and Chicago), and so on, but so long as redirects are in place it's not the end of the world. The first line of the article is clear enough. Note the only ref on Chicago calls it the "Sennacherib Prism" with no possessive; since there is no suggestion he had it in the living room this is the proper form. Note also the Israel Museum in Jerusalem has one too [1]. Given this is also called the "Sennacherib Prism", maybe that gets it by 2/1. In any case I would strongly oppose splitting the article, given the objects are effectively identical. Johnbod (talk) 16:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I largely agree, although I would go for "Taylor and Sennacherib Prisms" as the best title, and the article will need some minor copyediting to reflect this. PatGallacher (talk) 16:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that works with all 3 included, which I have now done. Johnbod (talk) 16:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• Are we all happy to go to Taylor and Sennacherib Prisms then? Johnbod (talk) 12:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

All three are exactly same prism, just ancient copies of each other, and the Taylor Prism is simply an example (albeit the first known) of a Sennacherib Prism. I therefore propose simplifying the article name to Sennacherib Prisms to be in line with WP:CRITERIA "Conciseness – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects." I note there didn't appear to be any strong views for or against any of the three alternatives three years ago (above). Does anyone else feel strongly either way now? Oncenawhile (talk) 21:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, a better name is simply "Sennacherib's Annals" (228 google books hits) or "Annals of Sennacherib" (254 google books hits), seeing as the contents of all the prisms is just that. I have a preference for the former as it is more concise. We can expand the article to reference the other artifacts which contain only part of the annals (the three prisms in the article contain the final version).

Oncenawhile (talk) 19:57, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Sennacherib's Annals

Cyberbot II has detected links on Sennacherib's Annals which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.bible-history.com/empires/prism.html

  Triggered by \bbible\-history\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:01, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Sennacherib's Annals

Cyberbot II has detected links on Sennacherib's Annals which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.bible-history.com/empires/prism.html

  Triggered by \bbible\-history\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:47, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Sennacherib's Annals

Cyberbot II has detected links on Sennacherib's Annals which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.bible-history.com/empires/prism.html

  Triggered by \bbible\-history\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:47, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

London Jerusalem and Chicago? Am I missing something?

Seems odd. Am I missing something obvious here? 107.19.16.191 (talk) 14:43, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Probably. In the 19th century the locals just weren't interested in this stuff, but Westerners were, and bought what turned up on the local art market, or was excavated. Johnbod (talk) 18:28, 28 January 2023 (UTC)