Template talk:Editprotected

Archives:  1

id="editprotected", bot request
I wrapped the table in a div with id editprotected. This enables custom formatting of the box, like class="editprotected" would. But it needs to be an id, not a class, so that you can link to the request by adding #editprotected to the end of the talk page URL. This will fail to validate if there are multiple protected edit requests, but that should be a very rare and minor problem.

I also want to publicize a bot request to make a useful table of protected edit requests that should make it more convenient to handle them. CMummert · talk 17:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Please remove inaccuracies
The template gives the mistaken impression that greek and aramaic were the dominant languages in the northwest of india, when prakrit was. The Roman empire page does not show aramaic or egyptian as "languages in the southwest", it merely mentions them in the article. The mauryan empire article already mentions Greek and Aramaic as one of many languages used by subjects in parts of the mauryan empire. Please make the edit to improve the accuracy of the template. Sources can be provided upon request. Thank you.

Regards,

Devanampriya 17:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That request makes no sense to me - this template makes no claims about languages. Perhaps you are looking at some talk page that also includes this template. C Mummert · talk 02:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear CMummert,

The template states the following: "Languages: Prakrit, Sanskrit, Pali, Greek (northwest), Aramaic (northwest)".

Myself and other users have noted that Greek and aramaic were not the only languages spoken in the northwest, but that there were hundreds throughout the subcontinent. However, the insistent users said that Greek should be there because it is important to Europe.

The Roman empire had hundreds of languages, but greek and latin were the administrative ones, which is why the template only mentions those two: []. I, and other contributors, have made the point that this is a double standard and that other readers will draw the wrong conclusions (which is why we insisted on the administrative languages alone--Pali and Prakrit--to be listed. I hope I have better clarified my request. Thank you for your time and assistance.

Regards,

Devanampriya 00:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)