Talk:Neferirkare Kakai

Poor grammar in the 2nd sentence
What does "Neferirkare was the eldest son of Sahure with his consort Meretnebty known as Ranefer A before he came to the throne." mean? Was Meretnebty, Sahure or Neferirkare known as Ranefer A? Which person is the antecedent of "he" in the statement "before he came to the throne"? Is it Sahure or Neferirkare? I know lots of work has gone into this article but I've only got to the second sentence and the grammar is really pretty bad. It needs more work and I would like a way to bump featured articles from the front page if they're just not ready. Featured articles are supposed to be the best that Wikipedia has to offer but far too often they have significant problems. Greenshed (talk) 14:51, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I've clarified the sentence. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:10, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Changing BC to BCE
Why was the era style changed in this article with no discussion? It appears to have happened in a group of 50-100 edits made on 1st January 2018, none of which had an edit summary (as required) so none of which can be reviewed by other editors. There is no justification for converting BC to BCE as references, other comparable articles and the longstanding state was using BC.--192.173.128.34 (talk) 15:09, 21 April 2018 (UTC) Reverting blocked sock. Mojoworker (talk) 06:39, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Change it back. Greenshed (talk) 15:15, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This is really the least valuable thing I can think of to argue over. Some articles on this subject are using BCE: Nyuserre Ini, Neferefre; others are using BC Djedkare Isesi, Menkauhor. Edit summaries are not required, just so we're clear. They are preferred. The author chose to use BCE. Two people on a talk page without even 24 hour notice is not a consensus. Oppose pointless changes. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:04, 21 April 2018 (UTC)


 * If this is really the least valuable thing you can think of to argue over then why are you arguing over it? Why not, for example, address my point above about grammar? Agreed that edit summaries are preferred not required but the general thrust of 192.173.128.34's observations are still valid. Greenshed (talk) 16:13, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I did, I've clarified the sentence. You found one grammatical problem. You went ahead and changed BCE to BC without asking the author (not me), or any other person who is active on this page. The article passed FA with BCE. Good enough for them, good enough for the author, and good enough for me. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:16, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No the introduction of BCE was pointless. It was not part of the FA discussion or recommendations (as can easily be seen.) Author's approval is not required see WP:OWN. Instead WP:ERA says get agreement to make the change first and that was not done. I am a 3rd person now.--Tigranis (talk) 10:04, 23 April 2018 (UTC) Reverting blocked sock. Mojoworker (talk) 06:39, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I never said the change was part of the FA discussion, I said it passed FA with BCE. I.e. four supports and no complaints about BCE. Willful misrepresentation to suggest otherwise. I also said the change was made without any input from the author or anyone active, despite the pretense of a talk page discussion (seen above), and not that author approval was required. BCE had been uncontested for months, the stable version (that passed GA and FA) is thus the consensus version. It also wasn't introduced, it was written with BCE. The only part of the article that had BC before the January rewrite was the IB. Nowhere in the body of the article was either BC or BCE used. As can be confirmed with a quick scan of this 9k byte version of a currently 72k byte article. If you want to have this dull discussion to make the change go ahead. I've registered my oppose. That's kind of the point. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:42, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Personally I thought in my short time here that Wikipedia is about cooperation and I am happy to take part in discussions, I do not think it is "dull". It is quite clear - the article used BC from 2006 (when the first text with verified dating use was added) right up to this year. That's all that counts. The dating era is quite irrelevant to the FA status and was not discussed for consensus so it can safely be restored.--Tigranis (talk) 11:21, 24 April 2018 (UTC) Reverting blocked sock. Mojoworker (talk) 06:39, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I've indented your comment. To me this discussion is dull, not discussion itself. Greenshed's section above that needed some resolution is a discussion worth having, and I did rectify it immediately after I saw it. What bothered me was that the discussion was started and then unilaterally changed without time for response. If you start or participate in a discussion, you don't then act on it yourself 20 minutes later. Now I really don't feel like spending another second on this and so won't be responding further. If there is some issue that needs rectification, I can (probably) deal with that. On a sidenote: Do not confuse collaboration with cooperation, and collaboration does not mean agreement. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:23, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Fine I am returning the era style back to what it was on 1st January--Tigranis (talk) 14:23, 24 April 2018 (UTC) Reverting blocked sock. Mojoworker (talk) 06:39, 20 October 2018 (UTC)