Talk:Amenemopet (princess)

First header

User:Knowledgekid87 turned this into a redirect to a list of Egyptian mummies. This wasn't a good change. People arriving at this page from a link would be required to search through a list to find the person they were looking for, the princes is more than just her mummy, and we lost all the category information which the page provides. As a result I have reverted the change. Furius (talk) 01:10, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

@Furius: Redirects are not uncommon, in this case the article was so short I chose to place the article in a larger one. You can still access the info, it doesn't take that long to scroll. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:13, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Linking to a list is not one of the purposes of a redirect (see Wikipedia:Redirect). What you have effectively done is deleted the page without going through the deletion procedure. I don't think that's justified for the following reasons:

1. The historical figure of Amenemopet is more than her mummy, so she deserves to have her own article, not just to be a part of a list
2. As its own article, this page has a large amount of category information which helps people to locate, e.g., all women from the 14th dynasty. Once tranformed into a redirect, that functionality is lost.
3. You are constructing a list of all mummies from ancient Egypt. If you ever complete that, there will be several million entries. Scrolling will be an issue.

Pinging User:Iry-Hor for an opinion and to promote broader discussion with other members of wikiproject ancient Egypt (I'm not sure who's active atm) Furius (talk) 01:23, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

You are mistaken, the page is not deleted, all of the information has been merged. not all historical figures are going to receive stand alone articles. If she is so important then why no mention at Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:28, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

As for the list of mummies from ancient Egypt list, this is why it is called a "dynamic list", I am trying to narrow the scope by getting rid of List of mummies which in my opinion is far worse. You can help out if you wish. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:35, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I totally agree with Furius the article on the princess should absolutely not be put into the list. The article may be short as it is but having it means it can be extended easily, while incorporated in the list it is highly disruptive and discourages further improvements. Thus I think the article should stay outside of the list so to say. I am pinging a few guys for their opinions Khruner, Udimu. Iry-Hor (talk) 08:24, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Knowledgekid87 Just to add that it is, unfortunately, not uncommon for Ancient Egypt articles to be untouched for long periods of time, owing to the small number of active editors on the subjects. Even pharaohs are plagued by this so you can imagine princesses... That being said, maybe now that you have raised attention about Amenemopet, it will receive some further edits soon. Perhaps Udimu or Leoboudv would be interested? Iry-Hor (talk) 19:30, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I was reading the Dodson/Janssen article on the tomb, where her label was found. It contained a mixture of bones, bandages and mummy remains. Labels were found with the names of princesses. According to my understanding, there is not one mummy that can related to a name. I would even recommend to delete this princess from the list of mummies. best wishes -- Udimu (talk) 20:47, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't know, I was just thinking about how many of the articles about ancient Egyptian people I created actually aren't notable for en.wiki standards. Unfortunately my sources don't mention this girl at all, and I guess it is difficult to get more of what Dodson & Hilton already says in their book (on which I'd love to put my hands someday). Anyway I believe that Udimu left an unfinished sentence in his last edit. And, Iry-Hor, it has been a while... glad to see you back in business Khruner (talk) 22:30, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

• I don't have any book sources on this princess at hand sadly. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:32, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I still think the princess should have her own article, especially since it was already there. I will try to see if I can find further references for her. Khruner I wish I was here more often, yet real life commitments make it really hard. Iry-Hor (talk) 09:10, 22 November 2016 (UTC)