This template 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.
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Infoboxes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Infoboxes 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.
This talk page is automatically archived by lowercase sigmabot III. Any threads with no replies in 90 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.
@Frietjes: Thanks for reverting my bold change. The mantra and abode field attracts a lot of vandalism, unsourced content, disruptive edit warring. A lack of underlying source, the nature and the diversity of their texts makes it unlikely that the situation will improve. The mantra field is the biggest problem, I don't understand why we even have it. The abode field too is problematic in almost all cases. The exception may be Kailasa or Meru for Shiva, and Vaikuntha for Vishnu. But there are problems there too, if you see the Indian texts. I wonder if you know a past discussion which reached a reasoned consensus for having these two fields. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:10, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
a person's birthday and age attracts a lot of vandalism, unsourced content, etc. but we keep it because it can be used properly. hence, we don't remove fields just because they are abused. we remove them if they are (a) not important or (b) can never/rarely be used properly. it sounds like you are arguing that they should be removed for one or both of these reasons, which is fine, but the vandalism angle is not a valid reason. back in the day, we had about a dozen different deity infoboxes. these were merged into one infobox, and the documentation had specific examples reflecting the different uses. yes, the mantra is an example that is specific for Hindu deities, but the abode was actually added for Etruscan, Greek, Mesopotamian, Canaanite, Roman, etc. deities. hence, we should really think of all types before removing for one. Frietjes (talk) 18:49, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Indeed. I missed the merged situation. The abode field is useful and needed elsewhere. You are right, we must leave it alone. That leaves the mantra field to discuss. Unless someone can explain with WP:RS, why even have it, I suggest we delete it because it is not important and can never/rarely be used properly. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:04, 11 December 2017 (UTC)