If meticulous, Susa was an Elamite city, Nuzi was a Hurrian city, and Babylon should hardly be counted among the cities of the Akkadian empire, if not being Agade itself. Cities of Assyria could be supplemented by Khorsabad/Dur-Sharrukin.
Perhaps it is not so important where the article names occur in the template. --JFK 14:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2006-03-22T14:31:00.000Z","author":"Naphureya","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Naphureya-2006-03-22T14:31:00.000Z-Should_the_template_be_rearranged?","replies":[],"displayName":"JFK"}}-->
The last named article in the Mythology section, Nibiru, seems an odd choice. The ancient name for the planet Jupiter does hardly belong in the top four selection of articles about Mesopotamian mythology.
The choice of Nibiru is made from the books by the author Zecharia Sitchin where it is identified with the tenth or twelth planet X. The theories surrounding this aspect of Mesopotamian mythology is at best described as pseudo-science. No institutes in the world do any research regarding his concept of Nibiru.
Since this template:Ancient Mesopotamia is used as reference in articles with scientific contents Nibiru does not belong there. --JFK 14:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2006-03-22T14:31:00.000Z","author":"Naphureya","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Naphureya-2006-03-22T14:31:00.000Z-Does_Nibiru_belong_in_the_template?","replies":[],"displayName":"JFK"}}-->
I replaced Nibiru with Mesopotamian Mythology, and replaced Nuzi with Dur-Sharrukin. If you disagree with these changes please leave your comments here. --JFK 12:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2006-04-10T12:00:00.000Z","author":"Naphureya","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Naphureya-2006-04-10T12:00:00.000Z-Changes_made","replies":[],"displayName":"JFK"}}-->
Should Urartu be included in the template? Urartu was the archnemesis of Assyria and held some territories in Mesopotamia but so did the Hittite Empire.--Eupator 00:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2006-05-03T00:06:00.000Z","author":"Eupator","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Eupator-2006-05-03T00:06:00.000Z-Urartu","replies":[]}}-->
There is little justification including Urartu but excluding the Hittites, or the Medes and Persians for that matter. --JFK 20:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2006-05-08T20:21:00.000Z","author":"Naphureya","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Naphureya-2006-05-08T20:21:00.000Z-Urartu","replies":["c-Eupator-2006-05-16T15:25:00.000Z-Naphureya-2006-05-08T20:21:00.000Z"],"displayName":"JFK"}}-->
I think that there are several issues with the template as it is now.
In order to 'remedy' these 'issues', I have made a bold proposal to reorganize this template (which would turn it into a footer, rather than a sidebar). The proposal can be found here. The main points are:
While I think that this new template would be a significant improvement over the older one (and it could for example also be used as a guide to (re-)organize/improve (sections of) the page on Mesopotamia, I would like to gather comments/suggestions before implementing.--Zoeperkoe (talk) 18:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2011-10-30T18:40:00.000Z","author":"Zoeperkoe","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Zoeperkoe-2011-10-30T18:40:00.000Z-Bold_proposal_for_reorganization","replies":["c-Ploversegg-2011-10-31T20:30:00.000Z-Zoeperkoe-2011-10-30T18:40:00.000Z"]}}-->
I agree the template can use some attention, but I would advise strongly against expanding its scope. It anything, the scope should be narrowed. By "Ancient Mesopotamia", I submit that we should understand Ancient Near East. Not the Chalcolithic, and not Hellenism. What would be the point of a template allowing you to navigate between topics of the Neolithic, and topics of the Roman Empire? Exactly: no point. The ANE spans the Bronze and Iron Ages, say 3000 BC to 330 BC (Sumer to Persian Mesopotamia). This is a perfectly reasonable time-span to cover under "Ancient Mesopotamia": for earlier times, say "prehistoric Mesopotamia", and for later times say "Hellenistic / Roman era Mesopotamia" (and finally Asuristan for the Sassanid period). --dab (𒁳) 07:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2011-11-04T07:27:00.000Z","author":"Dbachmann","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Dbachmann-2011-11-04T07:27:00.000Z-Bold_proposal_for_reorganization","replies":[],"displayName":"dab"}}-->
Urartu is named Urartu, not Ararat. That's why the article on Urartu is also called, well, Urartu. Can you please explain why you don't agree with that name, and why you want it so desperately changed to Ararat? Let's start with this one, and we after that is settled, we can move on to the language issue.--Zoeperkoe (talk) 19:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2011-11-23T19:04:00.000Z","author":"Zoeperkoe","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Zoeperkoe-2011-11-23T19:04:00.000Z-Recent_changes","replies":[]}}-->
Isn't the template too large? I guess the template must concentrate on article whose "main" topic is Mesopotamia related. I can not understand why the template is not called "Ancient Near East". For example the link "cities" in the template is a link to "cities of the ancient near east".Xashaiar (talk) 20:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2011-11-23T20:39:00.000Z","author":"Xashaiar","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Xashaiar-2011-11-23T20:39:00.000Z-Too_large_and_not_specific","replies":["c-Zoeperkoe-2011-11-23T21:39:00.000Z-Xashaiar-2011-11-23T20:39:00.000Z"]}}-->
Lokasi Pengunjung: 3.21.98.234