Talk:Babylonian astronomical diaries

alternate title

Before I revert, I invite Staszek Lem to assure me that the subject matter really is also known as Astroniomical Diaries, with the extra i.

If that's a mere spelling error (along with the grammatical error "known was as"), I for one fail to see the benefit of lengthening the opening sentence to tell the reader that the Diaries (see what I did there?) are sometimes referred to without both adjectives. —Tamfang (talk) 20:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

No need to jeer off a simple typo. What you did was to mention the usage of a non-unique term in a disambiguating context, just as Abraham Lincoln may be called Lincoln or even Abe in context. Whereas the term Astromonical Diaries is a term for these texts,[1], etc., and accordingly the term redirects and highlights here. If you find something else wikipedia-worthy called "Astronomical diaries", feel free to disambiguate. Staszek Lem (talk) 04:22, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

When a typo that I previously corrected elsewhere is promptly repeated, I assert a right to ask whether it's intentional, even if that can be taken for jeering. —Tamfang (talk) 06:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I will agree for shortening of the first sentence if accompanied with the lengthening of the encyclopedic text. How about that? Staszek Lem (talk) 04:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

That's fine. It just looks silly in the opening sentence to say "The Big Bad Wolf, also known as the Wolf..." —Tamfang (talk) 02:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe the article's name should be Astronomical Diaries, and the first sentence say "The Babylonian Astronomical Diaries ..." ? —Tamfang (talk) 02:52, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Since these are not well known to wide masses, it is better to have a long title. May be you are right about big bad wolf. Let's see what happens. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Are the Babylonian astronomical diaries known to wide masses? Compare Geography (Ptolemy) and The Etymologies, off the top of my head; these don't have longer titles to compensate, somehow, for their obscurity to the masses. —Tamfang (talk) 06:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, my final answer (I suspect it should have been my first one): I don't know and don't want to decide without intervention of experts on the subject. In retrospection, it was my true reason to put two similar titles, so that those who know better would pick the right one. Since "wide masses" and experts don't seem to care, I don't think it is worth my time to waste figuring out the bestest of the best title. I am not an expert and I created this page for the sole reason of making good wikilinks in many places they were missing. If I knew a bit better on the subject I would have created a decent entry for DYK: the subject is DYK-worthy IMO. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)