This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Egyptological subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient EgyptWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient EgyptTemplate:WikiProject Ancient EgyptAncient Egypt articles
We should have an article on every pyramid and every nome in Ancient Egypt. I'm sure the rest of us can think of other articles we should have.
Cleanup.
To start with, most of the general history articles badly need attention. And I'm told that at least some of the dynasty articles need work. Any other candidates?
Standardize the Chronology.
A boring task, but the benefit of doing it is that you can set the dates !(e.g., why say Khufu lived 2589-2566? As long as you keep the length of his reign correct, or cite a respected source, you can date it 2590-2567 or 2585-2563)
Stub sorting
Anyone? I consider this probably the most unimportant of tasks on Wikipedia, but if you believe it needs to be done . . .
Data sorting.
This is a project I'd like to take on some day, & could be applied to more of Wikipedia than just Ancient Egypt. Take one of the standard authorities of history or culture -- Herotodus, the Elder Pliny, the writings of Breasted or Kenneth Kitchen, & see if you can't smoothly merge quotations or information into relevant articles. Probably a good exercise for someone who owns one of those impressive texts, yet can't get access to a research library.
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
@John B123: This article is not unreferenced. The references are just in incorrect format, but clearly on the page. Can you please remove the unreferenced tag and replace it with a more appropriate one? Thanks—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 17:40, 20 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Naddruf: I would have thought cleaning up the references would be more important than the tag applied. It's not obvious that the page is referenced. --John B123 (talk) 17:54, 20 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
The section concerning the actual description of this particular menat is short, and could be folded into the existing menat page as a notable example. The menat page itself is reasonably sparse, already uses the Met menat image, and could do with the general menat content that is present on this page. Let me know what you think Merytat3n (talk) 10:25, 22 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Merytat3n: I don't know what the protocol is for this situation, but I have something else to say. If you do merge this to menat, you might want to look in the history of this article for more information. The original author included several paragraphs about menats in general that was removed because it was not relevant to the subject. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 16:30, 22 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Naddruf: Yeah, I've checked out the past versions of this page. As it currently stands, the article still has a section on menat in general that would probably be better on the menat page. I am just worried that moving that info will leave this as a very short page! I'm not sure that this particular artefact has been studied much? I will check the Met's selected references and see what they say about it. - Merytat3n (talk) 22:16, 22 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
_01.svg){kind=small}
