User talk:TompaDompa

"Stars and planetary systems in fiction" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Stars and planetary systems in fiction has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 6 § Stars and planetary systems in fiction until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 19:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Dacian Kingdom year and area

Hello, I'd like to inquire about adding information regarding the size of the Dacian kingdom. For the period spanning from Burebista's reign to Dacia's peak around 50 BC, some scholars estimated to have been approximately 640,000 km². Moving forward to 100 AD, during Decebalus's rule, the kingdom's estimated size is noted as 400,000 km² according to information on the wiki page BalcanVali (talk) 00:59, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

The first and most important step is locating sources that give these figures explicitly. TompaDompa (talk) 04:05, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

The first source is actually on Wikipedia. On the page of Dacians, it says: "By the year AD 100, more than 400,000 square kilometers were dominated by the Dacians."

Then, during the Dacian kingdom under Burebista in 50 BC, some scholars consider that Dacia had approximately 600,000 square kilometers, saying that the expansion of Burebista extended from Pannonia to the Black Sea, from the Carpathian Mountains to the Balkan Mountains, and from today's Apollonia and modern-day Varna to the Bug River, It's possible to have had approximately 600,000 square kilometers BalcanVali (talk) 01:31, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

The page Dacians cites De Imperatoribus Romanis for this claim. The problem is that the source in question does not actually verify this claim—it says nothing about the Dacians ruling over 400,000 square kilometers. TompaDompa (talk) 15:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Kingdom of Decebalus 87-106

"By the year AD 100, more than 400,000 square kilometres were dominated by the Dacians, who numbered two million. Decebalus was the last king of the Dacians, and despite his fierce resistance against the Romans was defeated, and committed suicide rather than being marched through Rome in a triumph as a captured enemy"

this is in the page, check again BalcanVali (talk) 21:07, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

That's a quote from the Wikipedia article Dacians. However, WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. TompaDompa (talk) 21:12, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Would this be reliable

Curious if you'd consider this reliable (to avoid future heartbreak) - https://dam.gettyimages.com/viewer/universal/rc3x9h8n56vqfxvhx7fjs

It's a production document for the film Abigail (2024 film) (I recommend btw, really good) so it has great non-interpreted character descriptions but it's hosted on Getty Images which I think you or someone else has previously challenged. I've been unable to find it anywhere else and since it will be for the press I can't get it through the film's main website. EDIT: MIght be moot actually, can't see a way to reliably archive it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:07, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I have watched the film. I'm unsure if that document counts as being WP:PUBLISHED—was it made available to the public through official channels? I seem to recall leaked documents not counting as published for the purposes of being cited on Wikipedia, though I could be misremembering. If it counts as being published, an official document should be usable subject to the regular restrictions for primary and/or non-independent sources. I don't think being hosted on Getty Images should in itself be a problem–if the source is reliable because of who the author is, where it can be accessed shouldn't really matter (sometimes it may even be the case that the same source can be accessed through both high-quality and low-quality publishers or similar). I view this as akin to WP:EXPERTSPS—we allow, and I use, self-published sources when the authors are subject-matter experts. TompaDompa (talk) 14:45, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

It seems to be publicly available if difficult to access and someone has helped me to archive it so I think based on what you're saying it should hopefully be fine. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:17, 11 May 2024 (UTC)