Talk:Seljuk Empire

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

THE NAME OF SELJUQ[edit]

The name of Seljuq comes from SALCIK -after Selcuk... Sal meaning in Turkish=RAFT and cık=little (supplementary) Selçuk=Little RAFT.. and Raft was very important for Seljuqs.For example Oğuz Turks couldnt pass to Volga river without Raft.Just winters when river freezed. Sorry for Bad english but anybody dont talk about their name origin. And Source "Jean Paul Roux" his book: Faune et Flore sacrees p134, and Turkish writer Doğan Avcıoğlu History Of Turks p372" Please add this information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.224.87.216 (talkcontribs) 11:34, January 22, 2008 (UTC) – Please sign your posts!

Variant spellings/transliterations[edit]

Just a general note: during recent edits I found many inconsistent uses of variant spellings (such as, of course, "Seljuk" vs "Seljuq"), and I expect there may be more. This is an issue in other articles too and it's almost as much an issue in reliable sources themselves. (Even more so in the context of Islamic Turkic dynasties, where varying English transliterations of Arabic, Turkish, and Persian versions of the same names/terms are all in the mix.) For the sake of minimizing reader confusion, we should do our best to stick to a consistent spelling throughout the article. Important alternate spellings can still be mentioned in parentheses or footnotes.

Rather than add a maintenance template for what will likely be an ongoing minor issue, I'm just leaving this comment here to encourage regular editors of this article to keep an eye out for other inconsistencies. If there is disagreement or uncertainty about which spelling should be preferred by default, perhaps we could also discuss here. Cheers, R Prazeres (talk) 21:45, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image galleries[edit]

User HistoryofIran (talk · contribs) is seemingly on a crusade to erase all image galleries as in [1] [2] [3]. But image galleries are clearly allowed when used adequately and when they bring something to the article: WP:GALLERY: ""A gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images." They are especially useful (and widely used) when describing visual arts. What is frowned upon is "a gallery consisting of an indiscriminate collection of images", which is not the case here. Comments welcome पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 13:59, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep the poor assumptions to yourself, I've got nothing against galleries if they are properly made and relevant enough [4]. Perhaps you want to cite the rest of the text; "Just as we seek to ensure that the prose of an article is clear, precise and engaging, galleries should be similarly well-crafted. Gallery images must collectively add to the reader's understanding of the subject without causing unbalance to an article or section within an article while avoiding similar or repetitive images, unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made." Adding every image you can find of a cup is not exactly that. HistoryofIran (talk) 14:04, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You've been doing this for years, it's getting old (these are not even all the diffs).
  1. [5]
  2. [6]
  3. [7]
  4. [8]
  5. [9]
  6. [10]
  7. [11]
  8. [12]
  9. [13]
  10. [14]
  11. [15]
  12. [16]
  13. [17]
  14. [18]
  15. [19]
  16. [20]
  17. [21]
  18. [22]
  19. [23]
  20. [24]
HistoryofIran (talk) 14:06, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Using galleries to document an article, as long as it is made in a relevant manner, is extremely current pratice on Wikipedia (random pick: [25], [26] etc...). You are the only one taking such as radical stance against galleries (... and with such animosity I might say). If your point is that galleries are OK if they are "well-crafted", well please help craft them better and enlighten us. Just blanking them is not the solution, and is certainly not the mainstream approach on Wikipedia. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 14:17, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can't really compare articles literally about visual stuff to this (WP:OTHER also applies).. but I don't disagree with you. As I said, I have nothing against galleries (but they are not a must either, obviously depends), but yours are typically not well-crafted. Sure, I'll see what can I do, but it won't be right now - I'm planning to expand this article in the near future, will be more practical to do it then. Also, Art of the Seljuks of Iran (name obviously needs to be changed to "Seljuk art" or "Art in the Seljuk Empire", something like that, depends on how WP:RS views their art and that of the Sultanate of Rum I guess) might be of interest to you. HistoryofIran (talk) 14:31, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HistoryofIran: It's good news that you are planning to expand this article. I am looking forward to it, and I know that your contributions will be highly valuable. In the meantime, may I suggest that you let other contributors do what they can? I might not be a gallery genius, but I am fairly confident that my galleries are not crap either. The gallery about metalworks you deleted here was made by other contributors than me, I merely improved with refs, and supplemented with more relevant examples. This work deserves to be kept and be improved upon. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 14:42, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the WP:GF comment, I've returned the favour and reverted myself. There's still some time left when I'll expand the article (a long list of to do stuff) and fiddle with the images, in the meantime I'm sure you and other contributors can continue improving the article and its choice/placement of images. HistoryofIran (talk) 14:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 16:25, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad this was resolved. As a general note, if the article does get overburdened with images, we should prioritize keeping images that are directly relevant to the text and focus on trimming ones that are more tangential; e.g. the images in the arts section are clearly complimentary to the text (and a few of us have also worked on them recently), whereas most images in the history section don't contribute directly relevant information otherwise (i.e. unless it's a depiction of an event or person mentioned in text), so I'm more inclined to move or remove those if needed. Cheers, R Prazeres (talk) 17:56, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Islamic Arts of the Book[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 12 April 2021 and 26 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Millsnaps (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Figapartmenttoast, Autonomous owl ch.

— Assignment last updated by TroublingMoo (talk) 17:07, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]