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.
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.
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)
Anyone? I consider this probably the most unimportant of tasks on Wikipedia, but if you believe it needs to be done . . .
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.
Instead of calling this the "Carlsberg papyrus", wouldn't it be more accurate to call it the "Carlsburg papyrus collection"? Or is this the accepted name for this collection of papyrus fragments? -- llywrch (talk) 17:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
According to the main source it is called the "Papyrus Carlsberg Collection", and from that source there is no evidence I can see that the collection and the "Carlsberg Papyrus" mentioned in the other source are one and the same. The "Carlsberg Papyrus" mentioned in the second source could be "among" the papyri in the Carlberg collection, but it isn't the collection itself. Andplus (talk) 18:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
This article badly needs rewriting by an expert. The first sentence, as written, identifies a single document, using a singular English noun papyrus. The second sentence discusses more than one document, using the plural noun papyri (acually this sentence is so poorly written that I don't understand it). The article jumps back and forth willy-nilly between singular and plural. If you mean to say that there is one medical papyrus in a collection of 600 papyri in Copenhagen, why don't you come out and say it?
It appears that the persons creating the article in 2007 did not understand what they were dealing with and never picked up on the difference. It does appear that there is a single medical papyrus within a much larger collection of papyri. I'll have to look into this further and confirm (with reliable sources). If this is indeed the case, I'll probably spawn a second article for the collection, and keep this for the medical text. Hi-storian (talk) 03:42, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
FYI, I removed the Languages link to the German article Papyrus Carlsberg 1. The medical papyrus described here is properly known as Papyrus Carlsberg VIII. Papyrus Carlsberg I contains the Book of Nut (known in German as the Nutbuch), which is mentioned in the opening line of the German Papyrus Carlsberg 1 article. There appears to be no German article on this papyrus. All other languages linked to this page appear to be correct. Hi-storian (talk) 22:12, 26 January 2016 (UTC)