Talk:Wepwawetemsaf

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility.

Ancient Egypt

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.

Appropriateness of description

Added: Should the description "of exceptionally crude quality" and "generally described as of poor workmanship" be removed. Adakiko (talk) 04:39, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User Iry-Hor who wrote this should be ashamed. Not only do they blaspheme and mock by taking the name Iry Hor in vain what on earth is the disgusting derogatory in tone in this article?

How dare you refer to a historic work as "exceptionally crude" and "of poor workmanship". Who are you to disrespect history like that?

It is offensive and karmic I find it offensive and I think you are of exceptionally crude quality and poor workmanship. Personal viewpoints and opinions like that are not acceptable on Wiki and have no place on it. Facts backed up with sources only!

Change the derogatory tone of this article or I will do it myself! 2A00:23C8:AB80:8001:85CA:64C7:5D2:E5F1 (talk) 05:16, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The "derogatory" information you are removing is backed by reliable sources and is not the opinion or viewpoint of any particular Wikipedia editor. PohranicniStraze (talk) 05:28, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2A00:23C8:AB80:8001:85CA:64C7:5D2:E5F1Yes I would never have written "exceptionally crude" and "of poor workmanship" if this weren't precisely the words used by the source ! Also I would like to point that this article is not my article nor is any other article on wikipedia. You are more than welcomed to edit the article with reliable, well referenced additions. Iry-Hor (talk) 08:49, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those are direct quotes from the sources who are experts in this field. Clearly in the sources. That they would make those statements would be of interest to the reader. Appears only mentioned as it's the only known contemporaneous artifact. If not for that, it would likely be "housed" in someone's basement at best. Adakiko (talk) 23:42, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree opinions not needed. Leave the guy alone eh? Ts4221 (talk) 04:46, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ts4221: It is fine if you disagree. Per wp:BRD, get wp:consensus before removal. That's how Wikipedia works; it's not a wp:BATTLEFIELD Adakiko (talk) 04:48, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]