Talk:GDRT

GDRT has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 16, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
May 23, 2008	Good article reassessment	Kept

Current status: Good article

Ethiopia: History and politics Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethiopia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ethiopia 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.EthiopiaWikipedia:WikiProject EthiopiaTemplate:WikiProject EthiopiaEthiopia
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by History and politics (assessed as High-importance).

Biography: Royalty and Nobility

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility.

Politics Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes), which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Capitalization

Why all-caps? Explain or move? Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 20:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's just the tradition for names written only in consonants, like the tribe he was from is inscribed as "HBSHT" and other kings were `DBH, DTWNS, and MHDYS. Yom 20:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But would a lack of vowels justify the use of all-Caps? Seems it'd be Gdrt, Hbsht, `Dbh and Mhdys, in my mind - not a huge issue, just seems like a poor idea for formatting when transliterating the names, since it makes them look like organizations such as FLQ, PLO or SPCA Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 20:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure exactly. It might have to do with the fact that there are no upper- and lower-case letters. Writing it "Gdrt" might give that impression. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk 06:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it was Gdrt it would look as if this was a real name. I guess it is a convention of the semitists or ethiopists to write it like that, which perfectly makes sense. It could be Gedaret, or Gedera, etc. --Tiqur Anbessa 13:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's the standard form for all transcriptions of abjads. It's usually in {{smallcaps}}, though, and—if Gadarat is the form actually used by most scholars to vocalize the name—then it's probably preferable as the namespace to use for the article. — LlywelynII 03:00, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Llywrch

Anytime you can get the pg. numbers will be fine. I might just check out the book instead of always relying on online versions. If someone could find a map of SW Arabia (i.e. Yemen) and N. Ethiopia, that'd be a great addition, since finding a free picture of an inscription would be unlikely. ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk 07:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, we should probably remove some of the citations. I'm moving on to another Aksumite king for now, but I know you'll come by and clean up, Llywrch. I'm guessing we should remove citations where it's the same page in the same work, given that a different citation doesn't interrupt the text (i.e. if a whole paragraph is from one page, just put one citation at the end instead of a citation after each sentence). ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk 02:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

Here's a note: "Herausgegeben von Uhlig, Siegbert, Encyclopaedia Aethiopica: A-C." (plus page number).

My German is very rusty but I think that means "Edited by" etc. etc. (If I'm wrong, go ahead, laugh!)

I'm not familiar with that encyclopedia (no surprise there), but I imagine that it has discrete, long, signed articles. (Perhaps the articles are signed with initials, but their meaning can be easily looked up. And perhaps they're not signed, which will simplify things. Let's assume, though, that they are signed.)

Shouldn't the note instead read something like: Aloysius Schnabel, "Aegypt"; in Siegbert von Uhlig, ed., Encyclopaedia Aethiopica (Wiesbaden:Harrassowitz, 2003–), 1:103? (Examples are fictional, of course.)

In other words article author (if known), article, (multivolume) work, publishing info, volume number, page number. (There's no reason to repeat the publishing info a second time.)

Since this is not an alphabetically ordered list, there's no reason to invert names. -- Hoary 10:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll do that. Should the "Herausgegeben" be left out, though? — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 18:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did what you said, but I may have misinterpreted you. I used ibids throughout the text this time as well, but it makes the list rather long where using the <ref name="x" /> style might have been better. What do you think now? — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 18:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But now we have "Siegbert Herausgegeben von Uhlig", which I believe means no more or less than "Siegbert edited von Uhlig". Strange! (Or perhaps my German is non-existent.) -- Hoary 02:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is that what that means? I'll remove it then (babelfish gives "given change," but it's not reliable). — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 02:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly a participle, and it's certainly not part of somebody's name.

Yes, "ibid." seems awkward; I'd tend to use named (multiple-use) notes instead. -- Hoary 03:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Herausgegeben von" means "edited by" in German. --Tiqur Anbessa 13:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Failed GA

This interesting article has been failed because of its difficulty in reading, it needs a general copy edit. It also needs to consider these types of statements

Both Himyarite (against whom Saba was previously allied with Aksum) and Sabaean troops.

The links to other articles should address statments made in brackets thats what the links are for. Where translations of scripts have been used they need to presented such that each variation is treated equally with a reference. The map is too dominant within the page it needs to be reduced. Gnangarra 11:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give an example of how it needs a general copy edit?
The "statement" that you quote clearly isn't a statement -- it lacks a main clause. I'm happy to say that it doesn't appear in the article. The article does say: Both Himyarite (against whom Saba was previously allied with Aksum) and Sabaean troops were used in the attack, ... (I've elided the second clause of the sentence.) What's wrong with that?
The links to other articles should address statments made in brackets thats what the links are for. I don't understand this.
One valid criticism could be made of the map: one text color is hard to read. But what do you mean by "too dominant"? And do you really think that (even if the colors were adjusted) it would be legible if smaller? Is it a matter of excessive "weight" (in bytes)? (But the file is a small one.) -- Hoary 11:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. this is due to difficulty of reading the article with continual stops for clarifications Gnangarra

3. Parts 2 and 3 are the same there is an over use of this style (clarifying statements) in the article. Gnangarra

4. the concern is the physical size of the map Gnangarra 11:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...I must say I'm a bit surprised you failed this on copy-editing problems but not Storm of October 1804. Either way, I don't understand the following: "Where translations of scripts have been used they need to presented such that each variation is treated equally with a reference." What is this referring to? I only showed one inscriptions, for which I have provided two translations. Are you referring to those about the war in South Arabia? That would be too in detail, I believe, as those inscriptions are not actually by GDRT and aren't as ambiguous. Moreover, it would be a huge burden if every article based on ancient inscriptions that have been translated had to explain in detail the transliteration (e.g., the Battle of Kadesh). As for the image, one reason why it was so big was that I couldn't get rid of the borders and white space from the image, which I've figured out how to do. I'll try to fix the colors as well to be more legible (maybe make the lettering bold or something). I still believe that the map is very important to understanding the article and therefore should be in a pretty prominent position (i.e. relatively large size). If you think that the clarifying in parentheses is bad style, then I'll try to incorporate it. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 16:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Storm of October 1804, was a renomination that I had previously failed. When it reappeared on the nonimation list all the major concerns had been addressed and the copy edit was to do with UOM format, which I also helped to fix. With this article I think that what I suggested may cause a significant rewrite and alteration to presentation of the article that would be best done over a longer period than 7 days, I also know that it could be done effectively in less, but we do have other lives. If you would like this article can be considered on hold and that if we are happy with the result by the 21st I'll promote straight away. With the translation I was particularly concerned about the Aksumite inscription where Alexander Simar translation was given prominance over the other translations by way of format. I do think that the parentheses is bad style and I believe that this article should have every opportunity to become FA. It's friendlier to point that out privately with the article editors here than see an article go to FA and have it pointed out there. If you would like me to review again at anytime just ask, I have this article on my watch list and will read edits, do minor copy edits that I see anyway. Gnangarra 17:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, put it on hold. I think I can integrate all of the parentheses fairly easily. I guess I'll put the Jamme translation in the same format as Sima's or integrate them both. Unfortunately, I doubt this can get to FA, however; there's simply not enough information from what I've seen. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 20:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've tinkered a little with the linguists, I dont think the use of 'Dutch' contributes to the article if anything it could confuse why a is Dutch linguist being quoted for an Ancient Arabian script. The map looks a lot better. Gnangarra 10:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why's a Dutch linguist being quoted for an Ancient Arabian script? Because he happens to know about it and he happens to be Dutch, that's why. True, those whose cognitive capacities are toward the left side of the infamous "bell curve" may be confused by this, but they won't be reading this article in the first place; they'll be busy with Pokemon or whatever. OK, the fact that he's Dutch doesn't add to the article, so take it out by all means. But how is the article improved by linking "linguist" (a perfectly normal word, comprehensible to people whose interests aren't limited to the Pokemon level) or by redlinking linguists who aren't likely to get articles? -- Hoary 10:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of points. First, is the man Alexander Sima, or is he Andrew Sima? There's at least one instance of each. Secondly, the section on South Arabian involvement contains a paragraph (starting "Andrew Sima") that really does rather strain the concentration. I suggest chopping it into two or more smaller paragraphs; doing this well will of course require a little rewriting of each constituent paragraph, which is something I'm reluctant to do. -- Hoary 10:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, his name is Alexander, I've fixed it. As Hoary noted, "Dutch" refers only to his nationality, he is an expert on South Arabian inscriptions. I don't mind about the linking of linguist, it doesn't really take away from the article, though it is a bit unnecessary. Either way, I've integrated all of the parenthetical notes into the text, replaced the map with a new version with much larger lettering and without the large border. Wrt the South Arabia paragraph, I split it into two, beginning with "although Saba' was previously allied...," where the text begins to talk about Saba' turning on Aksum. I've relisted it at the top with a "on hold" notice as per above; anything more that needs to be done, Gnangarra? — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 02:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Passed GA

Congratulations on your efforts, this article is now a GA article. Gnangarra 03:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA Sweeps

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I have decided after som consideration that the article just about meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article does have problems: The lead is too short, presentation of the sources are a little confusing and for the uninitiated there is no introduction as to the unusual spelling of the name (and why is it always in capitals?). Nevertheless, on balance I have decided to keep this as a GA. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, Jackyd101 (talk) 17:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]