Talk:Mouseion

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

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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.

Egypt Low‑importance

	Egypt portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Egypt 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.EgyptWikipedia:WikiProject EgyptTemplate:WikiProject EgyptEgypt articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Rename Musaeum to Mouseion

Requested move 12 May 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It was proposed in this section that Musaeum be renamed and moved to Mouseion.

result:
Moved. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (please mention me on reply) 23:52, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move logs: source title · target title

This is template {{subst:Requested move/end}}

Musaeum → Mouseion – It is jarring that the title of the page is Musaeum but that spelling is used only three times in the body of the article, versus nearly 30 times for Mouseion. Google Ngram suggests the former was overwhelmingly preferred in English texts before 1900 but the two spellings were about equal during the 20th century and Mouseion now seems to lead by almost 2 to 1. Either the article's title should be changed to Mouseion or the usages of Mouseion in the article, where not a direct quotation, should be changed to Musaeum; the former is preferable due to current English usage. Doctroid (talk) 13:23, 12 May 2023 (UTC)— Relisting. >>> Extorc.talk 18:29, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This is still the widely-recognized name, used in general references. The other form seems more limited to specialist works. (although most sources mention both forms). Walrasiad (talk) 22:27, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In favor. As mentioned, the current trend is to use Mouseion, which is the correct transliteration of the Greek Μουσεῖον, whereas Musaeum is the more antiquarian use. Besides, wouldn't be more jarring to change "Mouseion" to "Musaeum" everywhere in the body of text and yet leave "Mouseion" in the direct quotes? Shouldn't we strive for consistency? Guillermind81 (talk) 03:08, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.