Talk:Achaemenid royal inscriptions

Archaeology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology 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.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Iran Low‑importance

	Iran portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Assyria Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Assyria, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Assyrian-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.AssyriaWikipedia:WikiProject AssyriaTemplate:WikiProject AssyriaAssyrian articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ancient Near East Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ancient Near East related articles 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.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Achaemenid royal inscriptions appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 20 April 2023 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the Achaemenid royal inscriptions (one pictured) at Persepolis allowed for the initial decipherment of cuneiform?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2023/April. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Achaemenid royal inscriptions.

Did you know nomination

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: promoted by Cielquiparle (talk) 11:33, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

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.
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Hummingbird

Created by Onceinawhile (talk), पाटलिपुत्र (talk) and Falten-Jura (talk). Nominated by Onceinawhile (talk) at 20:56, 26 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Achaemenid royal inscriptions; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

Note: This is a replacement for Template:Did you know nominations/Decipherment of cuneiform scripts, as the other article was deemed not currently eligible. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:59, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

Cited: - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith
Interesting: - The hook is worded in a way that doesn't really emphasize why it's interesting. It takes it as a given that the decipherment of cuneiform occurred, when that's the "action" here. Might I suggest rewording to
ALT0a ... that the Achaemenid royal inscriptions from Persepolis allowed for the initial decipherment of cuneiform?

Image eligibility:

Freely licensed:
Used in article: - Easy fix: Either add the image to the article or swap out for one used in it.
Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: @Onceinawhile: Two issues, both pretty small. Also, I've made two small changes to the article—MOS:LISTGAP compliance and labeling the Livius.org link as "External links", not "See also". And I don't really understand the sentence The Behistun inscription, at over 3,000 words, dwarfs in length and importance any other inscription totaling less than 2,600 words; I would suggest rephrasing to be more clear. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 02:09, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Tamzin: thank you for your review. I have added the picture, with a detailed explanation. I have simplified the sentence you pointed out - I agree it was not clear. I am happy with your proposed ALT0a. Regards, Onceinawhile (talk) 08:09, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great!

Approved for 0a. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:10, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"In 1982, Pietro della Valle" is obviously a typo!

"In 1982, Pietro della Valle ..."

Since Pietro della Valle lived in the 17th century, this is probably a typo?

I do not want to introduce an error that's harder to spot, so I hope somebody with knowledge of the sources can fix it ... 2A01:C22:D0D8:5100:C0BA:3F0:E891:ED26 (talk) 15:24, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for spotting this. It was added in a bit of subtle vandalism in an edit earlier today. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:06, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Papyrus inscription?

Why is the Behistun papyrus called an inscription? Also, the Suez inscriptions of Darius the Great appear to be missing from the table. Srnec (talk) 21:32, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]