User talk:Admndrsn

Year-names

Hi! I am an Italian wikipedian. Two years ago I wrote an article about Mesopotamian year-names on the Italian Wikipedia (w:it:Nome di anno) and just some days ago I found that we have also a German and a Dutch version. The Wikidata element connecting these versions is Q1678656 (year-name). The English definition of this element is naming of years in ancient Mesopotamia. Now I see that you have created another element with the same name year-name (Q115642111) whose definition is broader (name of a year shared by several documents/data sets or organizations). I wonder if a merge is appropriate.

My questions to you are:

• The narrower definition, that seems to fit to, let's say, the 30th year-name of Hammurabi, is certainly compatible to the broader definition that you gave, but not viceversa. Your definition seems to include Japanese and Chinese year-names (see Ningo, Q24706) and other year-naming systems (as the limmu eponym system in Assyria), while the other element refers only to the Babylonian mu system, with a complete statement. Maybe these two elements need to be kept separated. What do you suggest? To merge or not to merge?
• Have you thought of creating the article w:en:Year-name on the English Wikipedia?

Let me know your thoughts on this matter. :) Pequod76 (talk) 16:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi Pequod76, thanks for your message. How about you adjust the label of your 'year-name' (Q1678656) to be called 'MU year-name' and then this would be a subclass of the broader 'year name' (Q115642111), which as you pointed out is more general.

I don't think merging would be wise in this case, since the distinction that your item makes is specific to Babylonia (but not necessarily the whole of Mesopotamia).

Also, thanks for the suggestion on writing the Wikipedia article on year-name, I will be happy to work on this. Admndrsn (talk) 19:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi Admndrsn, thanks to you for your answer. I'd be happy to follow your advise, but I have a problem: the sources never adopt any "mu year-name" denomination; they just say "year name", so that I feel a little embarrassed to adopt myself a name with no back up from the sources. If no expert intervenes, I feel it's okay to keep both elements with the same label, letting to the description to explain what it is about. Obviously, if you feel confident to choose another way... I hope to read your article on Mesopotamian year names quite soon! :)) --Pequod76 (talk) 22:06, 4 March 2024 (UTC)