Talk:Nebty name

Merger proposal
believes that the article Two Ladies should be merged into this one. The two articles cover pretty much the same subject, and Nephiliskos said of the latter article on my talk page: "Their quality is horrible, their refences very fragmentary and big parts of their content is redundant or concentrated too much on one subject". If anybody supports or objects to this merger, please say so below.
 * Merge. There are already articles on Wadjet and Nekhbet, so the only purpose of the Two Ladies article is to cover the hieroglyph and the pharaonic name that it always (or almost always?) accompanies. That's a job for one article, not two. A. Parrot (talk) 00:58, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

(*sigh!*) No, I do NOT wanna merge them. I wanna SHORTEN Two Ladies and Serekh... Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 10:09, 4 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose Merge / Support Reverse Merge to Two Ladies These articles cover independent concepts. Perhaps a reverse merge may be justified. Alansohn (talk) 05:46, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * by "reverse merge", do you mean merging Nebty name into Two Ladies? I could go along with that, though might not care for it.
 * Yes, that it was I mean, and I've modified my position above accordingly. The extensive, unexplained and unjustified removal of content from the Two Ladies article, including the merge proposal link, will be reverted. The purpose of the discussion here is being entirely subverted by . Alansohn (talk) 14:39, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not "subvert" the discussion (stop talking shit!). I clearly stated to User A. Parrot, that I would shorten the article and show the results to him. See here: . And now I'm simply explaining my action. If you have a problem with me, fine, I can make your life become worse in Wikipedia. Watch it! --Nephiliskos (talk) 15:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "Subvert" is exactly what you've done here. You removed the overwhelming majority of the article and removed the merge tag, your explanation being that you wanted to show another editor what the article might look like. If that's what you were trying to do, use your sandbox. Given that your approach to addressing the issues in this article is to talk shit and make threats -- "I can make your life become worse in Wikipedia. Watch it!" -- I do have a problem with you. Take a step back, take a very deep breath, and think about adopting a distinctly more collaborative approach. Alansohn (talk) 16:00, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Dude, you have read no single word of what I wrote, right? And you obviously have no idea about the subject we are discussing. Again, for the slow: I adumbrated to A. Parrot that I would show him the changes I had in mind and so I did. Now there's a smooth discussion about that. And, again, I simply give reasons for my actions (see below). But you interfere without having any idea and the first thing you do is understating me pure nonsense. What do you expect now? A flower buquet? A medal of honor? --Nephiliskos (talk) 16:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The problem is that the two concepts are closely related, and there isn't a huge amount that we can say about either of them. The Two Ladies article was padded with tangents and details before Nephiliskos cut it down, yet even then it was only about 1000 words long. After Nephiliskos's edits, it's only 206 words. If we leave it as it is, it will just be another stub lying around. The Nebty name article probably has some scope for expansion, but right now it's only 715 words.


 * As far as I can tell, the Two Ladies hieroglyph was used for only two things: to refer to Wadjet and Nekhbet, who have their own articles, and to mark the start of the Nebty name. We could cover both topics in one place, without having to alter the text from either article very much, if we make the merged article's scope be about the uses of the hieroglyph. A. Parrot (talk) 07:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

"Another stub lying around"? I'm sorry,, but that is pretty exaggerated. A stub is way less and right now there isn't much more you could write about that topic. And I, personally, prefer articles that are very short, but can explain certain terms than exhausting texts that miss their subject like a soccer ball that rolls past the goal. ;) My strongest argument for my action is, that both articles now stay with their subjects.

And the difference between the two topics is simple: "Nebty name" = royal title and crest; "Two Ladies" = religious euphemism. Well, I see clear reasons to at least keep these articles separated. Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 10:45, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge I share Parrot's opinion that the two should notions be discussed in the same article: the difference(s) between them are/is relatively subtle, in particular to non-specialists and even to interested lay-people like me (but wikipedia is here for that!). Besides, it seems to me that having both in one single article has two additional advantages:
 * 1) Nephiliskos (or any other knowledgeable editor) can explain the difference(s) between the two, and why there are two names;
 * 2) This single article can be the direction of the "Nebty name" links from all the existing pharaoh infoboxes. Indeed in the Royal Titulary section, it is possible to click on the "Nebty names", "Praenomen" etc. but these links send the reader to an article on the Five-names titulary which only summarily describes the nature and meaning of each name and completely equate Nebty name with Two Ladies names (hence my confusion). In addition not all pharaohs had 5 names so it can be confusing to readers. For these reasons, I think we could merge Nebty name with Two Ladies. I don't see any reason for personal attacks here, all we want and strive for is a better, clearer encylopedia.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 16:11, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

@ In fact, I think alike. I simply tried to show how to make the differences between a mere euphemism and an important, practically used royal crest. I simply dunno how to fuse them without creating the same confusions that already existed before my changes. The only detail I would indeed insist on would be to name the new article "Nebty name", because that's the true and most correct term for the Nebty crest.

In fact, I have no problems if others here do not agree with the radical change I made. But I have problems with users that understate me nonsense without knowing my quality work here and without reading my arguments. Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 16:21, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * @: Calm down, ok? I understand your anger, but there is no reason to start threatening others. That's no proper way to respond to insinuations (I think that's the word you were looking for)! Try to relax and wait for more professional (;-)) opinions. Alternatively, you could start a new "workshop" (heehee!) and save "your version" for now. What about that? ;o)
 * @: Your behaviour towards Nephiliskos... "baffles" me. You seem to have no real business here, neither you seem to be versed with the subject of this discussion. May you explain to us, as to why you start disrespecting Nephiliskos by insinuating "subverting the discussion"? He doesn't do that at all. He simply changed the article into the form which he indeed adumbrated to his colleagues, he surely expected the new version to be criticized or even resetted. In contrast, you jump into this discussion without giving any objective reasoning for a anti-vote, but you start throwing insinuations toward one of the participants. If I remember right, I have never seen Nephiliskos doing such things. He definitvely knows what he's doing, he's a high quality author. Maybe YOU should start to try respecting other authors work and reputation?
 * @ and : Maybe it helps Nephiliskos alot if you participate him when he's eventually beginning his "workshop" version? I'm sure he is aware of your critiques. My personal opinion: you should put the informations from the Nephiliskos-version into "Nebty name", because this is the most common and known term in connection the two goddesses.
 * Now calm down ye all, ok? --Dr.Lantis (talk) 18:54, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Well I can do the English phrasing and some copyediting no problem.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 07:49, 7 July 2015 (UTC)