User talk:Captmondo/Archives/2010/August

Khufu's Pyramid Revealed

Hello Captmondo,
I see you have the book "Khufu's Pyramid Revealed" from Jean-Pierre Houdin in your library. I'm looking for this book, but it is hard to find. Where did you find yours?
Thanks --Cephas (talk) 19:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I actually got it from Jean-Pierre Houdin directly. He requested permission from me to use a picture that I had taken in this book, and he sent me a copy of it as a "thank you". When I get home I will look through it and see if the book has any contact info in that you might be able to use to get yourself a copy.

I highly recommend it by the way, as it provides a solid grounding in his ideas. Captmondo (talk) 20:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

You can find information about purchasing this book online from http://www.abydospublications.com/. Cheers! Captmondo (talk) 10:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Egypt/Ancient Egypt Watchlist

I made several changes/fixes to this page including fixing most of the red links. I do not recall exactly what I did so I recommend you get both versions and figure out the changes for future updates. Amongst other things you had the case of some things wrong (e.g., Category talk vs. Category Talk) and you had colons in category names (e.g., Talk:Category:-Class vs Talk:Category-Class). 173.50.233.227 (talk) 22:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

No end of rewriting

I reckon I have to change the first couple of sentences a bit: (1) I think the bit about the three texts is awkwardly written now (they are not really "sets of inscriptions", for one thing) and (2) I need to take out the word "likely" (I seem to be always doing that!) because the article is in British English and -- bad luck! -- "likely" is not used as an adverb in British English. I'll look back at what Cryptic said about those three texts. It seemed to me it was perfectly clear already. Andrew Dalby 08:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to the FA process on the English Wikipedia. ;-) Do what you feel needs to be done! Captmondo (talk) 12:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Collaboration

I was looking through Ahmose I the other day and felt a little worried myself about the lack of uniformity among references. I'm not exactly an expert on style, but I would like to tackle the internet references and replace them with something a little harder. I also have been noticing that JSTOR contains several times as many relevant journals as it did back in 2006, so there's bound to be something there worth including.

My current project is the Middle Kingdom of Egypt page, which I've been expanding with what I've got available, but ever since I graduated I haven't had the kind of library access that I used to have. I'm about two thirds finished with the political history, if this period interests you at all.

It is nice to see someone I recognize from before, and if you do have anything in particular you'd like to see written, I'm quite open to contributing. Thanatosimii (talk) 15:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Taking on the Middle Kingdom of Egypt article is ambitious. I don't have any specific book that deals with only that era, though I have several books in my library that cover that period as part of the broader sweep of Ancient Egyptian history. If you can provide an outline on what you are looking for in terms of major sections you would like to see covered, that would be a good place to start. (I recommend adding it to the talk page for that article, so that anyone else who might want to join in can also help).

As for me, once the Rosetta Stone article is finished with, I'd like to tackle a few pet interests of mine, such as Ay, Reserve head, and KV55. That and bringing the Ahmose I article up to date. You are right about JSTOR having considerably more information, and now that I have access to it (via my local library, which can be accessed online) I can source whatever is needed from there.

Cheers! Captmondo (talk) 18:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

It looks like they've made citations a lot more automated since I remember. I'm not sure that Ian Shaw should be credited for Gae Callender's chapter in the Oxford History though. Shouldn't the author get the credit instead of the editor? Thanatosimii (talk) 03:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, the citation system has been considerably updated since the time we worked on Ahmose I together. As for Callender/Shaw, there doesn't appear to be anything in the updated citation template that would allow for that from what I can see. In any event, whenever I have referenced that book, I have always referenced Shaw rather than the specific author for the chapter. Cheers! Captmondo (talk) 10:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Rosetta Stone FAC

Great work on the article! I had some comments on the FAC I hope you can help with. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I will see about addressing your points this evening. Cheers! Captmondo (talk) 14:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

We did it! Andrew Dalby 12:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Woohoo! ;-) Captmondo (talk) 14:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Sincere thanks for your help and guidance throughout the process. I feel I almost understand it now ... :) I can't immediately think of a suitable anniversary, can you? We must let Witty Lama know, when a date is fixed, because -- since this was originally inspired by the prize and all that -- it's one more detail to put in his dossier demonstrating that the Wikipedian-in-residence idea is a good one. Andrew Dalby 15:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The more I do this sort of thing, the less I understand it. ;-) The FA process has "evolved" (if that is the right word) considerably since my first forays in that area several years ago. In the end I think we only ever received two or perhaps three "Support"s for the article, with the rest being Comments, which is almost the opposite of how things used to work. Thanks to your work this process went as smooth as can be expected (though each time I help with an FA nom, I swear I'll never do it again. ;-)

I just left a quick note to Witty Lama as you suggested to let him know that the RS article made it to FA status. Am sure he will be pleased that his project is still providing dividends even after the last prize has already been handed out. Richard Parkinson at the BM should also be told about it.

As for a date to get the article on the main page, there's no rush (we could wait until next March if we wanted to wait for the anniversary of the original proclamation) though I note that there are still main page slots available for the final couple of weeks for this month. Shall I just pick a day or would you like to hold off? Captmondo (talk) 15:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

If I can butt in here, I believe September 14 was the date Champollion discovered made his breakthrough about the phonetic nature of hieroglyphs (and then fainted according to Lettre à M. Dacier). If you end up deciding you want to run it soon, I believe that date is still open. Thanatosimii (talk) 18:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

That's a great idea. Andrew Dalby 19:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Terrific idea! Captmondo (talk) 20:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I just just put forward the proposal at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests under that date. Captmondo (talk) 21:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome

Thanks Captomondo for welcoming me to the Ancient Egypt Wikiproject. I try to contribute where I can. I have only had a chance to glance at the Rosetta Stone article, but from what I saw it looks very nice. I hopefully will have a chance this weekend to write a bit about the Third dynasty of Egypt. The literature does not always agree about who succeeded who :-) I have a nice book by Wilkinson and some other sources I can use to give an overview of the issues and the most common theories. That and I have been slowly adding more Theban Tomb pages. --AnnekeBart (talk) 16:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome! Am guessing the Wilkinson book you are referring to is Early Dynastic Egypt, which is a solid reference for that period. Tackling the "TT" tombs is also quite an undertaking.

Given your academic background, are you familiar with mathematical papyri like the Rhind Mathematical Papyrus or the Moscow Mathematical Papyrus? The former article in particular could do with some work—what's currently there is far too academically inclined, and its points are far from clear.

Glad to see another contributor in this space, and if you are ever stuck for a reference, let me know and I'll see if I can dug something up for you. Cheers! Captmondo (talk) 19:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes that's the Wilkinson book I have. The TT tombs is a huge job. I'm using Porter and Moss and Kitchen's Ramesside inscriptions vol 3 for that so far.

Yes I am familiar with those and other mathematical texts. I looked at the Moscow Mathematical Papyrus this morning. I should look at the Rhind Mathematical Papyrus as well. I have Gillings' book as well as Clagget's book about Egyptian math and Rossi's book about Architechture and Mathematics in Ancient Egypt and some other books. Classes are starting now, so life will be a tad insane for the next couple of weeks but I am planning to put those on my to do list. I think the page about Erastosthenes needs a bit of work as well.

Thanks for the offer for help. It's always nice to have someone to bounce ideas off of. I appreciate that. --AnnekeBart (talk) 01:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Rosetta Stone uncited passages

Overall, I was very impressed with the Rosetta Stone article and am glad to support it. The uncited passages I noticed were, in "Reading the Stone," the sentence "The discovery of the Rosetta Stone in 1799 would provide critical missing information, gradually revealed by a succession of scholars, that eventually allowed Jean-François Champollion to determine the nature of this mysterious script," which ends the first paragraph in that section, and the final paragraph of the article, which talks about Rosetta Stone software. Since the rest of the article was so well cited, these two passages stuck out. Whether it's important that they be cited is another matter. My impression is that every paragraph in an FA article should be cited, but I could be wrong. In any case, thanks for contacting me about this, and good luck on the article running on the Main Page. Jonyungk (talk) 20:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Rosetta Stone review

Hey mate! It's been a while since I've seen any activity at Talk:Rosetta Stone on the prose review. Are you interested in continuing? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 14:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello there! Yes, I am still interested, though after getting the article pass FA I took a bit of an (unadvertised) wikibreak. Am currently up north in the wilds of northern Ontario with only occasional Internet access, so I won't be able to respond to anything in-depth until I return to civilization early next week. Cheers!

Ah, very cool! I'm in no hurry whatsoever, so don't feel obligated to interrupt your wikibreak for me. Enjoy your vacation! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)