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 articles
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 the WikiProject Phoenicia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Phoenicia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.PhoeniciaWikipedia:WikiProject PhoeniciaTemplate:WikiProject PhoeniciaPhoenicia articles
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
It seems unseenly for an Encyclopedia to omit the other possible names for this same site,
or for companion sites located within a couple of thousand metres from it, and also identified
with it!! Poor examination of your own sites leaves a lot of people to consider WIKI as a site
not to quote or even use! It is not my fault but that of the overseers of the entire project, who
receive cointributions, like mine, but never improve the product shown to the public! Shame.96.19.149.35 (talk) 23:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)Ronald L. HughesReply
Latest comment: 2 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This article should be deleted and the content should be transferred to the article called Avaris. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avaris They are the exact same archaeological site, it just has two different names. Then a search on either name should be funneled to the Avaris article. Plus the other article is better than this one as an encyclopedia source that informs you about what is there. This article on Tell el-Dab'a is just a bunch of inference without any data or description. I'm not saying everything in it is wrong, I'm saying is it unsupported by evidence. Plus the reader has no idea about the parts or the history of the archaeological site because it has just cherry picked a few random tertiary subjects. Dwarfseneb (talk) 20:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
_01.svg){kind=small}
