Talk:Nekhen
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the Main deposit (Nekhen) page were merged into Nekhen on 26 November 2013. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
Untitled
[edit]paige wilson lives in logan ut —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.202.24.2 (talk) 00:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Proposed merge with Main deposit (Nekhen)
[edit]- 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 result of this discussion was to merge. I may have not waited long enough before carrying out the merge, but given how quiet this corner of Wikipedia is, we probably wouldn't have gotten any more input anytime soon. A. Parrot (talk) 04:57, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
It would seem logical that the content related to a single archaeological deposit would be better described as part of the article on the main site. PatHadley (talk) 20:09, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- I agree. If this article were very lengthy, there might be a reason to have a separate article on the Main Deposit, but instead it's fairly short. The contents of the Main Deposit are undoubtedly the best-known finds from Nekhen (the Narmer Palette is almost certainly the best-known artifact from the Predynastic and Early Dynastic Periods) and deserve more detailed coverage here than they get. The palette and the two maceheads already have their own articles, so there's really no reason to have a separate Main Deposit article that further isolates Nekhen from the most important finds in Nekhen. A. Parrot (talk) 22:55, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
proposal to use the Egyptian name
[edit]I have edited the article for many minor changes and propose that we shift to using the Ancient Egyptian name consistently for the site, as our article is entitled, not switching back and forth between it and the name used by the ancient Greeks. A redirect is in place for Hierakonpolis and it is noted three times at the top of the article as an alternative name, so that should suffice for references to that name.
In case there is no objection, I went ahead and made the changes that would be required. Please do not reverse all of the edits if there is not -- I will restore the Greek name where I have changed it if that is the consensus. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 19:45, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Requested move 11 November 2024
[edit]
It has been proposed in this section that Nekhen be renamed and moved to Hierakonpolis. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}} . Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. |
Nekhen → Hierakonpolis – More common name, more results on scholar and news, more recognisable and natural to English speakers Traumnovelle (talk) 03:51, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support. Theparties (talk) 21:02, 11 November 2024 (UTC)