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.
I have moved this arcticle back to Demotic (after it was moved to Demotic language). My justification is that Demotic refers to both a language (or phase of the Egyptian language) but also to a writing system. The article discusses to both. Additionally only one page pointed to Demotic language. The other articles pointed to Demotic and referenced both the writing system and/or the language phase (depending on the article). —Nefertum17 09:07, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I have again moved this article from Demotic language back to Demotic. As stated above, the article, as it is now written, refers to both a language and a writing system. When/if there are individual articles for both aspects, I could understand the move, but as there are not, and other articles linking here refer typically to the writing system (though not always), this seems to be the best solution at the present time. —Nefertum17 14:14, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was move, of course. —Nightstallion(?) 21:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Demotic Egyptian → Demotic (Egyptian) – As the page itself explains, the correct term is Demotic, and "Demotic Egyptian" is something invented for Wikipedia. "Egyptian" was only added to distinguish it from Demotic Greek. Demotic is a disambiguation page, which is fair, but this page should then be properly disambiguated, not given an artificial name. We can then remove the silly disclaimer on this being a Wikipedia-only term. 22.214.171.124 18:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
I've copied this from the main article where it was placed by User:126.96.36.199 "Please make a citation how it is deshipered? Could you show us some example of Demotic and Coptic (in English transcription) and English below that? I don't believe that it was properly dechipered, as one symbol in one line sounds one way, and in other line, completly different." Doug Weller (talk) 09:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Observation: The article currently doesn't really address the evolution of the writing system at all from the hieroglyphs. This would seem to be a very interesting aspect of the topic. --Mcorazao (talk) 14:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I didn't see anywhere in the article how may characters there are in the Demotic alphabet. That seems like a basic fact that should be in the article. Did I overlook it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 14:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Also, what direction does it read? There's no mention of that either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 14:55, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, no idea why any of that information isn't included. Every deciphered alphabet entry on Wikipedia has a complete list of characters but for some reason I can't find one for Demotic anywhere on the Internet. Does that mean only a couple of letters were deciphered? I find it hard to believe that the Rosetta Stone inscription was made exclusively out of those few... Jaro7788 (talk) 03:07, 27 January 2017 (UTC)