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
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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Egypt 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.EgyptWikipedia:WikiProject EgyptTemplate:WikiProject EgyptEgypt
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa 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.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesFormer countries
This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot. Any sections older than 28 days are automatically archived to Archive 3. Sections without timestamps are not archived.
This is an improper use of the edit request template. The template is for proposing specific actionable changes. Access to edit the article is not granted on a request basis because that isn't how page protection works. Beyond that, and with respect, the quality of the writing in this request indicates a command of the language that is well-below the necessary standard to directly contribute to a current FA. If you have an edit you'd like to propose, you can place it within this section and have an experienced editor check over it. Before doing so note that Wikipedia prohibits original research. Any proposed change needs to be backed by a high-quality (i.e. academic) reliable source. There are other policies and guidelines that may need to be taken into consideration, but cross that bridge when you get to it. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:23, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The years in subsection titles within the "History" section contradict with our own articles of these periods. For instance, our article stated that the Middle Kingdom ranges 2134–1690 BC, while various parts of our article on the Middle Kingdom stated that it ranges from "2040 to 1782 BC", or even "c. 2055 BC–c. 1650 BC". Should we at least take a look at these periods and check their accuracy? If we cannot form a consensus on when these periods occured then it might be better to remove years in subsection titles and let the subtopic articles discuss about the nuances of each estimated period in detail. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to rework some of the history section, but one of the obstacles is Shaw 2003 (The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt), the most frequently cited source in the article. The citations don't seem to be wrong, but their pagination is slightly off from the edition I have—e.g., the current Citation 17, about the expansion of the Protodynastic state based at Nekhen, is listed as p. 62 but is at 64–65 in my edition, while Citation 65, about Alexandrian mob violence, is listed as p. 410, but I found it on p. 418. Obviously, the article doesn't need to use the same edition that a random editor happens to have, but the Archive.org link given in the template for Shaw 2003 seems to have the same pagination as my edition, meaning the article links to an edition that doesn't actually verify the current citations. A. Parrot (talk) 16:05, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Naively, I wondered if this was an issue with the isbn used but when I checked the version of this article that went FA back in 2009, the isbn for Shaw was actually for Clayton's Chronicle of the Pharaohs. (The citations are given as Shaw (2002) but the source is given as Shaw (2003)). I wondered if maybe a 2002 version would be fine but nope, the pages are still a little out. For example, citation 39 of this 2018 revision says Shaw p.188, which is partially supported by p.188 of the 2002 version, but not entirely; the rest is on p.169. The archive.org link no longer works but I have a copy so I can help page corrections : ) Merytat3n (talk) 09:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help. I'm hung up on citations 164 and 168. They're such broad statements that I can't see how they could ever have applied to a single page, or even a reasonable range of pages. Shaw's book never mentions Sile and Buhen on the same page, for example. This text and these citations were present in the original FA version in 2008/2009, so they make me worry that there was never a tight correspondence between text and source. And if that's the case, all the citations need to be checked. A. Parrot (talk) 05:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think your fear is very well founded, if what we've seen with Shaw is anything to go by. Out of (morbid) curiosity, I decided to check citations 165, 166, and 167. Straight off the bat, citation 165 has an incorrect author (should be Manfred Gutgesell) and should be page 365, not 366-7 (from what I can tell, the edition on archive.org has the same pagination as the original 1998 edition - thanks eBay). Page for citation 166 is correct but the article text is not reeeeally supported, especially the general statement in the first half; all it says about Seqenenre II is that he was probably killed in battle, implying, I guess, that he was leading the army. Citation 167 is correct! It just needs a page number - the quote is from the abstract. Merytat3n (talk) 10:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Merytat3n: I have to ask: should this article be delisted? Fixing up an article through the FAR process generally takes less effort than FAC, so if an article is salvageable, it's better to salvage through FAR than to delist and then hope it's FAC-eligible at some later time. But if the source-text integrity is as loose as this, the only choices are to go through the article sentence by sentence and find citations for every single statement, or to delist. I don't know about you, but I don't have time for the former (and probably not the sources, either, for non-religious topics that aren't covered by general reference works on AE). A. Parrot (talk) 16:02, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Throughout the entire article, the Roman era is shown as a part of ancient Egyptian era. However, in the general template box, the era stops after the fall of the Ptolemaic dynasty. Should the Roman Egypt be considered as a successor of Ancient Egypt or the Rashidun Caliphate BlackRider90 (talk) 02:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here is that the fall of the Ptolemaic dynasty marked the end of ancient Egypt's political independence, but its distinctive culture (its religion and writing systems) survived, dying out centuries after the Roman conquest but centuries before the Rashidun one. As far back as early 2005, when it was really just an outline, this article has encompassed the Roman period. But the extinction of ancient Egyptian culture doesn't have a hard end date—it's a gradual process that mostly took place between AD 300 and 500. Templates like the one at the top of the article push editors toward the well-defined and quantifiable, so they tend to go with the loss of independence in 30 BC. A. Parrot (talk) 19:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
level-3 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 20:08, 4 February 2025 (UTC)