This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women 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.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
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 WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology 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.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
Did someone request a bot update? This update brought over this change. I suspect some human reading the current AfD pressed the update button to see what might happen, but I wondered if ListeriaBot keeps a record of who initiates such updates? Was it Wikidata:User:DeltaBot (a bot asking another bot) or a person? Enquiring minds wish to know! Maybe Magnus will know? Carcharoth (talk) 00:05, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Joe Roe:: with this edit you removed the nationality column. This was quite useful to sort by nationality. Also, if removing this, it would be best to make sure all the descriptions include nationality. Also, when supplying references over on Wikidata, the references would be provided with the nationality bit, not the "description" bit, presumably? Manual lists are more flexible than Wikidata-generated ones, aren't they? Carcharoth (talk) 12:05, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I removed it because it was redundant for the most part and every extra column reduces the readability quite significantly by taking up the limited horizontal space. Personally, although sorting is nice, I don't like the table format all, and I was waiting for the AfD to finish to investigate turning it into a plain text list per WP:TABLES. But I'm not particularly married to the idea of removing the nationality column as long as it is a table, so feel free to add it back if you want.
References unfortunately don't seem to be very useful at all: they just come over as bare URLs and in some cases self-reference Wikipedia, so some thought needs to be given to how to sensibly reference lists like this (if indeed they need explicit references at all). – Joe (talk) 14:03, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
References absolutely are needed. Wikidata needs to provide references for everything it outputs, or it will be considered unreliable. As I said at a different AfD, User:Magnus Manske/listeria test4 is a way to do references. An example of adding a reference to Wikidata is here (may not be quite right, but you get the idea). Carcharoth (talk) 14:09, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I added the references that way yesterday, but didn't think the result was worth keeping since they're not formatted properly and several of the links don't even seem to work. But I take your point that it's perhaps good to have something there, if only to show what work needs to be done. I was just wondering if an "implicit" reference (i.e. all these entries are from Wikidata, so follow the links to the article and/or Wikidata and you'll find references) was sufficient for WP:V purposes. In my experiences lists don't tend to have inline citations for every entry (but maybe they should). – Joe (talk) 16:03, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, I missed that you used the bot to do that. For some strange reason I had thought you did that manually! Yes, lists should have inline citations. See WP:Featured lists for some examples. Carcharoth (talk) 17:49, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following 14 edits on Wikidata were imported to this list with this update and included removing Aleida Assmann who as far as I can tell only studied Egyptology as a minor subject at university and her professional career is focused elsewhere. Carcharoth (talk) 12:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
_01.svg){kind=small}
