Talk:Amarna Period

Untitled

There are citations and descriptions of other texts within the body of the text that probably should be given as footnotes. 86.185.138.10 (talk) 01:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposed merger with Introduction to The Amarna Period: Amarna for Amateurs

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The discussion became irrelevant when the other article was deleted. A. Parrot (talk) 00:25, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

---

The recently created page Introduction to The Amarna Period: Amarna for Amateurs should be merged with this page as the current status of that page appears to violate WP:NOTGUIDE. Everymorning talk to me 21:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support I'd prefer it were deleted as there are few in-line citations but I understand some oppose outright deletion. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
• Delete or merge. I pretty much agree with Chris Troutman. It irks me when people create this sort of pointlessly redundant article. "Introduction to The Amarna Period: Amarna for Amateurs" is not an intuitive title and therefore not a good candidate for a redirect, but once something's created it's rarely politically possible to delete. A. Parrot (talk) 22:22, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, User:NawlinWiki just deleted it, so I guess it is possible some of the time. I suppose we close the discussion? A. Parrot (talk) 22:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

decapitate?

It's "Amarna Period" in the title but "Amarna period" throughout the article. —Tamfang (talk) 20:50, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

so what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8805:2305:F400:F899:EA1F:995:CD6E (talk) 15:28, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia also has an entry titled "The Armana Era"

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amarna_Era. The subject seems to be the same 82.15.39.58 (talk) 17:50, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Confusing

" It was believed that Smenkhkare was a male guise of Nefertiti. However, it is accepted that Smenkhkare was a male."

They can't both be correct. 109.144.209.159 (talk) 01:02, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Powerful Egyptians were presumed male when the names and depictions are gender-ambiguous. There are people accepted by scholars as male when it's not clear. They're really accepted, but it's really not clear. The copy could use some work I guess.

Temerarius (talk) 02:14, 1 October 2024 (UTC)