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
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.
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The interpetation of the name is apparently quite convoluted.
On the face of things, it is simply written as sw.t bj.t.
The reading nswt-bjtj needs a lot of explanation, at least involving
the fact that the n sign was sometimes present in early times, spelling sw.t.n bj.t
the proposition that the archaic value of t used to be tj, hence sw.tj.n bj.tj
the interpretation of the n as preposition, i.e. reordering to n(j).sw.t(j?) bj.tj
The idea here is that the orthography of this archaic title was never changed after c. 3100 so that its signs cannot be taken to have the usual sound values. This needs explanation, and while the "transcription" as nswt-bjtj seems to be widespread, we have to make clear that it is a reconstruction that was never universally accepted (and apparently Beckerath 1999 rejects it as untenable based on the cuneiform transliteration). --dab(𒁳)10:06, 27 November 2017 (UTC)Reply
_01.svg){kind=small}
