For some odd reason, the template lists all the history of Sudan prior to Islamisation as prehistorical. The predominant cultures of the region were literate, throughout the majority of antiquity, and aside from their own monumental inscriptions, they appear in the recorded histories of other cultures. So that categorisation obviously doesn't apply, nor is it in line with the main article. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 04:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Template has been modified to include those civilisations which existed prior to Islamisation. With "circa", the "centuries" abbreviation might need a little retooling, but I didn't want to clutter the template too much. The dates are all accurate, so far as I can tell. :) Quinto Simmaco (talk) 04:47, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

@DervotNum4 you changed Turco-Egyptian occupation and Anglo-Egyptian occupation to Turco-Egyptian Sudan and Anglo-Egyptian Sudan respectively. I did this to keep the template in line with how other polities controlling Sudan are listed (Kingdom of Kush, Mahdist State, Republic of Sudan) but Kingdom of Kush, Mahdist State, Republic of Sudan were not an Military occupation, Imperialist, or colonist unless you are disputing that. Kingdom of Kush, Mahdist State, Republic of Sudan were state by natives to rule natives. a very strange comparison to be honest. FuzzyMagma (talk) 19:00, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

My edit was done because other links to Sudanese governments had their article names and I figured the the names Turco-Egyptian Sudan and Anglo-Egyptian Sudan did enough to imply that they were non-native establishments. DervotNum4 (talk) 19:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I really think this were the Eurocentric perspective creeps in. This is the Arabic equivalent of Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, hit translate to English and the title will read as “Anglo-Egyptian occupation of Sudan”.

Funny enough look to Muslim conquest of Spain, Occupation of Poland (1939–1945) (not Nazi Poland), and Occupation of the Baltic states (not Soviet Baltic states). Italian Ethiopia like it’s a flavour and not actually “Italian occupation of Ethiopia”. Funny how this place sometimes ticks

I know that your edit take the name adopted in English Wikipedia but it’s just upsetting FuzzyMagma (talk) 20:50, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Once again my edit was just to keep things consistant. Yes, your comments about Eurocentric perspectives are certainly correct to an extant, the Muslim conquest of Spain is named as such because that is the name all the historical texts written about it and they use because they have called it that for hundreds of years even though more accurate names could exist. I also find the name of Italian Ethiopia to be especially odd given that most sources I've seen do reffer to it as Italian Occupied Ethipia and that most of Europe at the time considered it as such.

However, I don't think that this template is the right place to start trying to change things. DervotNum4 (talk) 03:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

You are right. Not even Wikipedia is the right place to change it as per WP:RGW

PS: .. “the name all the historical texts” written in English FuzzyMagma (talk) 08:11, 21 November 2023 (UTC)