Talk:List of kings of Babylon

Section
The numbering scheme article gives no useful information with respect to numbering of monarchs. We shouldn't include irrelevant links. john 04:32, 9 May 2004 (UTC)


 * As it's not linked as numbering of monarchs, but as numbering scheme it would be highly unusal if it would. Obviously if there were one, this would be a better link. The article lacks wikification BTW. -- User:Docu


 * In the meantime I added a bit to numbering scheme and I even found the specialized article. Please contribute to the list. -- User:Docu

[ro4444]:

When I edited the Sealand dynasty kings list, there was a nonspecific [5 Kings] in between Gulkishar and Ea-Gamil. I found another list that had four kings in between the two, and edited those in. However, there still may be a king missing from the list.


 * ok, we are getting to a point where sources should be cited: There are various contradictory lists, and rather than just blending them together, we should explain the situation, and make clear which lists have what. dab (&#5839;) 09:09, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * http://www.hostkingdom.net/ancmesop.html#Babylon

hostkingdom generally has reliable lists, which is why I use it.User:Ro4444


 * I'm afraid you don't understand. With 'sources' I don't mean web pages. I mean manuscripts, i.e. the actual lists. the website you give is horribly unencyclopedic, they don't even say which chronology they use. (Middle Chronology?) See for an example of a 'reliable' source, which gives manuscript readings.  I honestly don't know how you can decide whether 'hostkingom' is 'reliable', seeing that they give not a single source... dab

(&#5839;) 09:25, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, it has a whole list of sources:

http://www.hostkingdom.net/append.html

With at least a few covering ancient times. Also, the original list was definately created from this webpage: http://www.friesian.com/notes/newking.htm#babylonia Ro4444

Writing conventions and fonts
All the special signs used by Assyriologist when transcribing words from the Akkadian language is not found at Wikipedia, and are very rare fonts anyhow. We should better limit our use to the letters in the English alphabet. This make the words more easy to find and use in an encyclopedia for non-experts. The velar h and the emphatic s and t are better written with plain h, s and t. It is doubtful even if š should be used in favour of sh, at least not in entries without a redirection to -sh-.

I have edited the king list in according to the above. --JFK 14:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, š / Š is included on most Microsoft Windows systems... AnonMoos 08:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Dynasties
There are two Ninth Dynasties. I suspect that the first group is actually part of Dynasty VIII--the website mentioned above as the original source of this list has these kings listed under Dynasty VIII--but I have no knowledge of the subject beyond that page and this, so if someone can back me up on this and fix it, that would be great.

That would clear up the following problem with Dynasty VIII, however, regarding Dynasty VII: a single ruler is not a dynasty. A dynasty is by definition a series of rulers. Perhaps someone could suggest an alternative nomenclature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.66.104 (talk) 19:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Short chronology, Tables
Would there be a problem if I tabulated the king lists and converted them to short chronology? (like the Sumerian king list) Categorystuff (talk) 00:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Nabu-kudurri-usur (Nebuchadnezzar II)
There is a difference between the dates in the Table and the Picture and other references. Which Dates are right? 624 – 582 BC or 605–562 BC? 80.187.103.77 (talk) 08:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Salted
Gérard Gertoux has been salted for a reason. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:49, 14 December 2021 (UTC)