Talk:Middle chronology

Which chronology do you like best?

"This has led to increased adoption of the short chronologies by some, including Wikipedia."

1. The sources Gurzadyan and Warburton don't say anything about wikipedia; besides this is maybe a sort of service alert.
2. You should say, "by some, including Wikipedia in English" because you don't know what the other wpedias will do. It.wiki will adopt the middle chronology instead... Furthermore for us wikipedians it's important to let the reader know which chronology we choosed more than to choose the right chronology. Who cares? We are not here to make this kind of choices: the only reason for wp to adopt ONE chronology is to avoid looseness. :-) What do you think about that? Thank you! --Pequod76 (talk-ita.esp.eng) 03:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

"Older" or "later"?

In the 3rd paragraph, "This has ... resulted in distortion and loss of accuracy for older dates as a sacrifice to provide greater accuracy for earlier ones." "Older" dates and "earlier" dates are the same thing, are they not? Instead of "earlier", perhaps "later" is intended. I don't know so I didn't make the change. Someone else will need to do that. - MarkFilipak (talk) 15:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC).

Requesting the move to Middle chronology

Can anyone please move the page Middle Chronology to Middle chronology? Is correcting the capitalization even possible here? Maybe, move it to a random name, and then to the suggested one to circumvent it?--Adûnâi (talk) 17:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Unnecessary Material

As this page is titled "Middle Chronology" it should chiefly discuss the middle chronology, its history and the arguments for it. I would like to request that some of the material regarding the short and long chronologies is moved to short and long chronology pages.

Ur-Pabilsag (talk) 17:10, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Feel free and go ahead! Zoeperkoe (talk) 17:31, 19 July 2021 (UTC)