Talk:Ubaid period

message: This article has had only two major contributors: its originator, 155.97.8.73 (16:49, 12 December 2003), and John D. Croft (00:32, 19 February 2006), who contributed somewhat the greater amount.  Both of them used "BC" style, and the article was written in that style until 16:20, 25 February 2006, when 85.77.105.226 switched it to "BCE" style (without even leaving an edit summary).  This was clearly a no-no by the "don't mess with it" ruling about style disputes, established eight months earlier. So I have reversed the illegitimate style-change. -- Lonewolf BC 03:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverting to "BC" style 

message: I've reverted this edit. I don't believe the chronology of Ubaid as given in the article is based solely on radiocarbon dating (consider TL dating on the pottery from the late period), and if the chronology can be pushed back more than 800 years than the traditional dates given, then it should be no problem to directly source scholarly material on Ubaid giving the modified dates. However, giving the dates as found in the article's references, and then saying "use this web calculator or table to get the true dates" is original research. Brando130 (talk) 08:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Radiocarbon dates 

message: Rather than create a new article for the al-Ubaid 
site, I'm just going to add a few refs, a coord, and
a Archaeology section to the Ubaid Period article
and leave the redirect as it is, unless someone
thinks this is silly.Ploversegg (talk) 17:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Site vs Period 

message: Zoeperkoe, can you please explain the reasons for your edit.  Many thanks. John D. Croft (talk) 05:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The Ubaid period and Tell Ubaid are not the same. Just like the Halaf period is not the same as Tell Halaf, the Jemdet Nasr period is not the same as Jemdet Nasr, the Uruk period is not the same as Uruk, and so forth. Halaf, Jemdet Nasr and Uruk already have separate articles for period and type-site, separating those for Ubaid as well is the consistent thing to do.--Zoeperkoe (talk) 06:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Please explain reasons for edit

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Ubaid period. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080910214744/http://www.gulfnexus.org/articles/geo/2006a%20Parker%20et%20al.pdf to http://www.gulfnexus.org/articles/geo/2006a%20Parker%20et%20al.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:19, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The later chronology was somewhat confused, and I tried my best to clarify. Also adjusted some headings. In my view, the regional character of Ubaid should be explained some more. In different regions it had a different character. Y-barton (talk) 00:41, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Later periods of Ubaid 

message: When I click on any of the maps, the overlay text showing city names and locations are not shown. The small view shows the cities, the big view does not. Seeing only the mountains and waters is not useful for learning about ancient civilizations, need to see the actual ancient civilizations also on the map.
If it requires a secret handshake to display it in the "correct way", then i bet most Wikipedia readers are not trained to know it.
This affects the Mesopotamia image with cities, and the larger Eurasia image with the contemporary civilizations. 35.141.31.136 (talk) 18:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maps missing markups in full view