Template:Did you know nominations/Decipherment of cuneiform scripts
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: superseded by later nomination, closed by dying (talk) 14:08, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Decipherment of cuneiform scripts
Inscriptions at Persepolis
- ... that the initial decipherment of cuneiform was based on the Achaemenid royal inscriptions from Persepolis? Source: Mousavi, Ali (2012-03-14). "VI. PERSEPOLIS AND THE PUZZLE OF THE CUNEIFORM INSCRIPTIONS". Persepolis. DE GRUYTER. pp. 113–122. doi:10.1515/9781614510338.113.
In this way, the exploration of the ancient ruins at Persepolis proved to be one important key to the development of historical and archaeological studies in the first half of the nineteenth century.
Created by Onceinawhile (talk) and पाटलिपुत्र (talk). Nominated by Onceinawhile (talk) at 12:58, 26 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Decipherment of cuneiform scripts; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
- Comment
@Onceinawhile: this does not seem to be eligible for DYK as most of it was transferred from cuneiform, see WP:DYKSG A5 (new text). It could be eligible if it became a WP:GA. TSventon (talk) 16:17, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Hi TSventon, I don’t remember that rule being applied before – for example my DYK Template:Did you know nominations/Ugaritic texts. But I accept that on a relative basis this is perhaps a more significant ratio. As a solution could I keep the same hook but swap the nomination to the Achaemenid royal inscriptions article? Onceinawhile (talk) 19:55, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Onceinawhile, I would suggest a new nomination with a link to this one. Ideally provide another QPQ, but you could try reusing Hummingbird as this nomination didn't need a full review. Achaemenid royal inscriptions contains the hook fact, but you would need to add the reference immediately after it.
- I don't know what happened in 2018, perhaps you were lucky, perhaps the rules were different. There are a lot of rules so it is easy to miss one. TSventon (talk) 20:17, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- TSventon, thanks, I have done so. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:59, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Hi TSventon, I don’t remember that rule being applied before – for example my DYK Template:Did you know nominations/Ugaritic texts. But I accept that on a relative basis this is perhaps a more significant ratio. As a solution could I keep the same hook but swap the nomination to the Achaemenid royal inscriptions article? Onceinawhile (talk) 19:55, 26 March 2023 (UTC)