Talk:Iškuza

	This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Western Asia

Article says this river was "likely the Volga" but somebody at en.wikipedia has redirected the name to Aras (river). This is discrepancy on a topic I do not know anything about (here to copyedit and wikilink) so I am recording this as a question I had. I went with the redirect since these are frequently set up by people who know the material. But there is no guarantee that that is true in this case so somebody should check and I do not currently have time for this rabbit hole, only a quick edit while waiting for something. Elinruby (talk) 01:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did a copy edit and found no more than minor issues of idiom. Ideally someone who speaks Russian well should verify this, perhaps if some editor is interesting in expanding the article for Russian. I am leaving that tag up as this is emphatically not among my skills. Elinruby (talk) 02:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the information on Iškuza is inextricably part of the history and anthropology of the Scythian people and requires significant information from the other pages relating to Scythian history. Therefore I suggest that the contents of this page should be merged into the Scythians page. Antiquistik (talk) 20:49, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The two articles are ~198,000 and ~46,000 bytes. Clearer article structure is probably needed, but I'm not sure a merge would be an improvement. Srnec (talk) 00:02, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Srnec: Most of the information on this page is already on the Scythians page. The only parts which would really have to be added there are the infobox, the History section, and the kings' family tree. It wouldn't be moving all of the 46K bytes of the Scythia page into the Scythians page. Antiquistik (talk) 09:16, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Oppose until this proposal is done properly and clearly, using the correct
  Scythian cultures should probably be built up. Johnbod (talk) 18:00, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I see Scythians is now 205,000 crude bytes after you have moved more stuff in. Let's be clear - this is too long. Changes should be reducing not increasing this size. Johnbod (talk) 18:45, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And didn't you say at ANI that you would reverse your undiscussed ERA changes here? The article was always BC until this half-assed edit, which only changed the first era style. Johnbod (talk) 18:51, 19 September 2022 (UTC).[reply]

@Johnbod: the information I have already moved is content that had to be moved irrespective of whether a merger should or should not happen. They reference each other and other information on the Scythians article that made them useless within the Scythia and Iškuza ‎pages.

I am less certain whether the information on the Scythia and Iškuza ‎can or cannot stand alone, given how they also non-negligibly reference each other, although less than than the content about archaeological developments. Which is why I have made two merger proposals, so the issue can be discussed.

However, I was under the impression that I had in fact correctly followed the procedures for a merger proposal. Since it appears that I was wrong about this, I would need to request you to help me correctly understand and follow the procedures.

As for the ERA changes, I did reverse as many of my edits as I could find, but this one must have escaped my oversight. I apologise for this mistake and will do better going forward. Antiquistik (talk) 19:44, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Antiquistik (talk) 18:21, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be confusion in the article about centuries. All of the text supports that Iškuza ended by 600 BC, which was the very end of the 7th century. It doesn’t mention a single date in the 6th century BC. The infobox says “c. 7th century BC–c. 600s BC”, which is equivalent to “from about the seventh century to the late seventh century.

Would it not be clearer and at least as accurate to change most occurrences of “6th century” to “end of the 7th century”?  —Michael Z. 21:34, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This name needs to be explained and, its choice as the article name probably defended. Is it established scholarly standard? Looks real at least, per Encyclopedia Iranica, it seems to be a variant of "Aškuza" in Akkadian transcription. --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 14:29, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This page is a disaster. Heavens knows where "Iskuza" comes from, because the page doesn't explain it. The lead and short description say the article is about a kingdom, the infobox gives its a name: Skudata or some such, alongside a map, and then the rest of the article just prattles on redundantly about

Iskandar323 (talk) 17:19, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]