Talk:Hatshepsut problem

This redirect 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

WikiProject Ancient Egypt to-do list:

Needed 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.

Merge

Unless anyone objects, I'm going to recommend this article for a merge or redirect to Hatshepsut. This article is a stub that doesn't say anything that isn't already said in the main article. --Managerpants (talk) 15:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No need to merge, delete

As you stated, the article says nothing that that isn't already in Hatshepsut -- no need to merge this article into it. The information in this article is redundant and nothing would be lost by deleting it. A link to the site exists already at the article on Hatshepsut and the author states, I hope this site is helpful to you in your studies. I truly was fascinated with the story of Hatshepsut, and I worked hard to ensure the accuracy of the information found on this site. However, I am not an Egyptology scholar. This site should be used as an additional resource to primary and/or published research.

The dilemma has been resolved -- and information to dispel it shown to have been readily available among the writings of ancient historians -- seems unnecessary to perpetuate it. 83d40m (talk) 00:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion is fine with me. I'm new to this whole process, and I didn't want to ruffle any feathers. :-) --Managerpants (talk) 03:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is good that you are cautious and your consideration of other editors is another important characteristic. One way to achieve consensus is to use the notice you inserted and wait for responses, another is to contact the editors who contributed to the article of concern. It does not seem that there are very many who have contributed to the Hatshepsut problem, so contacting each might be another way to build consensus about the action you feel is warranted. Some editors merely take the action they believe is best... and see what the response will be, but that does ruffle feathers at times. Until one becomes familiar with an article and a topic, caution is best, but thoughtful and well intended actions should be respected by others, even if they disagree and prefer another action. Let's see who chimes in about your suggestion. As you can see, I would support deletion of the stub because I believe that the topic is already covered adequately at Hatshepsut, hence, I think that merger is not necessary. Someone might want to expand this article, but then they should do that instead of leaving such a weak stub. 83d40m (talk) 00:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. And thanks for the advice! Much appreciated. --Managerpants (talk) 01:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this mumm is soooooo scary and freaks me out —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.21.52.38 (talk) 00:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]