User talk:Iry-Hor/Archive 10

WikiCup 2018 March newsletter
And so ends the first round of the competition, with 4 points required to qualify for round 2. With 53 contestants qualifying, the groups for round 2 are slightly smaller than usual, with the two leaders from each group due to qualify for round 3 as well as the top sixteen remaining users.

Our top scorers in round 1 were:


 * 🇺🇸 Aoba47 led the field with a featured article, 8 good articles and 42 GARs, giving a total of 666 points.
 * 🇩🇪 FrB.TG, a WikiCup newcomer, came next with 600 points, gained from a featured article and masses of bonus points.
 * 🇮🇳 Ssven2, another WikiCup newcomer, was in third place with 403 points, garnered from a featured article, a featured list, a good article and twelve GARs.
 * 🇺🇸 Ceranthor, 🇮🇳 Numerounovedant, Carbrera, 🇳🇱 Farang Rak Tham and 🇷🇴 Cartoon network freak all had over 200 points, but like all the other contestants, now have to start again from scratch. A good achievement was the 193 GARs performed by WikiCup contestants, comparing very favourably with the 54 GAs they achieved.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk) and Vanamonde (talk) 15:27, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Middle kingdom
What does mean.Last king depends on the scholar? Doug Weller talk 21:13, 1 March 2018 (UTC)


 * It means that if you ask the question "who was the last king of the Middle Kingdom?" to Egyptologists, you get different answers depending on whom you asked. Some Egyptologists (e.g. Allen & Ben-Tor) say the Middle Kingdom should end with Merneferre Ay of the midlle 13th Dynasty c. 1710 BCE as he seems to have been the last king to rule over all of Egypt before the Second Intermediate Period, others say it should be Sobekneferu c. 1800 BCE (e.g. Ryholt & Baker) because she was the last strong Egyptian ruler (the subsequent 13th Dynasty was very unstable politically and the 14th Dynasty might have risen very early), yet other Egyptologists would include the whole 13th Dynasty in the Middle Kingdom which would make the last king some unknown ruler living in a very chaotic period c. 1650 BCE (e.g. von Beckerath). This needs to be discussed in the article in a better way.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:16, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Sorry, lost track of this. I'll try to look at this soon. Doug Weller  talk 07:42, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * But what is the matter actually ? While the article clearly needs improvement, it is actually more accurate to either not specify a last king or to mention the competing hypotheses rather than specify only one last king, as if the end of the period was a well defined point in time. The same problem occurs for the Old Kingdom, where some scholars see Merenre Nemtyemsaf II as the last king, others Neitiqerty Siptah, yet others Neferirkare.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:48, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Ramesses VI
Nice work on Ramesses VI; strange choice though, considering both your usual, much earlier edit coverage and the size of this ruler. May I ask you why him? Khruner (talk) 15:06, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It's a succession of coincidences: I noticed an edit on the Ostracon of Prince Sethherkhepshef while patrolling against vandals (the edit was not vandalism actually) and realised the article was an orphan. I did a bit of research and found a way to link it from Ramesses VIII, and from there arrived on Ramesses VI's article. I quickly understood that the article was very very poor in terms of coverage and so decided it needed a bit of a brush-up. It's a bit refreshing to work on a different time period. Will try to make it to FA.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:38, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I see, I'd like to raise a pharaoh to GA once again, yet I lack both time, motivation, and a decent candidate among my favorite rulers... Khruner (talk) 17:45, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * What about Khyan ? A powerful Hyksos with a terrible article and I am sure, plenty of sources. Who are the pharaohs you are thinking about ? Iry-Hor (talk) 17:56, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The indomitable Tefnakht or the astute, bon vivant Amasis II, the problem with the latter being how to deal with the distinction between archaeological sources and abundant Greek traditions. If I have to choose a Hyksos, I'd probably pick Apophis, a remarkable figure of the SIP who, I believe, deserves a better article. Khruner (talk) 18:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah Tefnakht, well chosen, I qould appreciate reading more about him. As for Amasis II, reading his article I got the feeling that he was blessed by the gods of Egypt with a long reign and a death just in time not to face his enemies. For Apophis, you are right and he is most likely the most read article of the entire SIP. The trouble with such articles is that writing up is easier than cleaning up and the article already has a lot in it.Iry-Hor (talk) 18:42, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Amasis was a peculiar ruler, the combined archaeological and traditional sources give a disconcerting portrait of him: a thief in youth, then a soldier, an usurper, a lover of women, wine and food, the proponer of a cunning and shameless policy (he betrayed his allies more than once), yet renowned for his wisdom and loved by Egyptians and Greeks. John D. Ray wrote a little masterpiece about him on the generalist journal History Today, and I feel that whatever good I could write in his article would be just a bad copy of Ray's paper. Apophis is plenty of sources from which one can write about him, maybe even too much to handle in a reasonable time. I guess that only Tefnakht remains.. I understand the issue you raised, I usually prefer rewriting an article ex novo rather than integrate it with extra sources and infos. Khruner (talk) 19:20, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Any way you choose do it and whichever pharaoh you pick, this would remain a great improvement to wikipedia. It is remarkable that the coverage is great in that most pharaohs and topics have an article (like the ostracon article?!), but the quality is often very very poor. I must say your description got me really hooked on Amasis II, I would love to read more on him.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:41, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Question
By any chance do you have "Abusir IX: The Pyramid Complex of Raneferef, I: The Archaeology." by Miroslav Verner et al. published 2006. I figure it would be a great source if I could get it. In Australia the only library that holds it is in Victoria and I'm in Queensland. Perhaps better represented by taking a drive from Paris to a library in Naples. I could also try buying it in Genoa (or Sydney, Australia). Mr rnddude (talk) 13:22, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * no unfortunately I don't. I found that the series of Abusir books are the most difficult to find, as very few of them are online.Iry-Hor (talk) 13:26, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've tried several searches and haven't had any luck on it. Thanks anyway. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:30, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * There is an alternative. You can ask directly to one of authors or one of the editors for the book by email. No joke. Explain what you are doing and the kind of impressive impact that the wikipedia article you are working on has. Be frank and explain your troubles in locating the sources and gaining access to them, offer to update the author on the article status once it reaches FA or GA, and then ask for a pdf proof of the book. I did this once to access an article on Menkauhor Kaiu (essentially the only article in modern Egyptology entirely devoted to this pharaoh) and was given the pdf by the author Filip Coppens, of the Czech Institute for Egyptology. With Wikipedia's reputation being well known and much better in academia than journalists tell it, you have a serious chance of success.Iry-Hor (talk) 14:11, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know if you know this online resource, but you might find it useful: UCLA Encyclopedia of Egypt.Iry-Hor (talk) 19:18, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Cheers Iry-Hor. Yes, I know about the UCLA source. I'll consider writing an e-mail to Barta or Verner about the book, I remember that they're both authors of it. I'm preoccupied with another task for the time being, but will return to the pyramids soon. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:57, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Catherine Lynch
Please wait until tomorrow to nominate Catherine Lynch for deletion because it is currently on the front page in the DYK section. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:56, 11 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Ok but will notice that many readers have asked the notability question on the talk page today since she appeared in DYK. These people might want to know that the deletion case is open. How do you propose to do that ?Iry-Hor (talk) 09:58, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The article's creator has written a nice article about a subject that Wikipedia may not think notable. The general readers of Wikipedia will not understand the notability criteria. I remember how mortified I felt when a troll put a copyvio tag on an article I had written while it was a DYK on the main page. The article was Alexandrium monilatum, and there was no copyvio. The editor concerned was later blocked for disruptive behaviour. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:13, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I see CyberBot has put the tag back, but it must be disappointing for Iridescent, the editor concerned. Cwmhiraeth (talk)
 * We both agree on the article quality, an observation that I have underlined everywhere I talked about deletion. I am fine with waiting, I simply hope that this will not cause the discussion to go into a dead-end because of lack of opinions. Also, the author of the article is not a young editor (293,595 edits!!!!) whom wikipedia risk loosing out and so I think he would understand.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:20, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Catherine Lynch
I've closed this as speedy keep per WP:SKCRIT, as it was currently on the main page. If you want to to nominate it for deletion, you can do so when it is not on the main page. For what it is worth, the discussion looked to be heading for a keep or no consensus outcome. It might be best to wait for Iridescent to explain why he thought it was notable before nominating it again. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:17, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * So all the vote casted are lost ? Nobody argued that the article should be deleted today, we all agreed that no action should be taken before the article disappears from DYK. Wouldn't closing be a bit harsh with regard to the discussion ? That said, I have decided not to care anymore. Look the article is so irrelevant as to be an orphan. I am fine with it staying on wikipedia.Iry-Hor (talk) 16:20, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * And allow for the inevitable edit warring over whether or not to keep the banner on the article while it is on the main page to continue? This presents a Catch-22 in that we don't want to have a deletion banner on a main page linked article, but we also don't want it to not be advertised on the article itself for an entire day. Not to mention that it would create a hell of a back and forth of emotional responses from people and likely snipping and hurt feelings on both sides that don't exactly aid in the resolution of the AfD or the building up of the encyclopedia.If you decide to renominate it, I'd think you'd be fine to notify everyone who has participated thus far, but continuing the AfD while the article is linked to on the main page has too much potential for disruption, and is clearly covered under the speedy keep guideline. Again though, the discussion was heading for either no consensus or keep, and it seems likely to have been better to talk to Iridescent about it first, as he is unlikely to have created an article that violates the inclusion criteria intentionally, so getting his reasoning might have helped. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:30, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This sounds like a reasonable compromise. You can’t please everyone and there’s no hurry with this. Aiken D 16:57, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Iry-Hor: TonyBallioni is pointing out that you overlooked a rule, and that's why he speedy closed it. Nothing is ever lost on Wikipedia (well, deleted and oversighted material is lost except to editors with special privileges) and you or anyone else can start a second deletion discussion after it's off the main page. However, I came here to point out that you never did Iridescent the courtesy of notifying them that you'd nominated the article for deletion. Not only is that rude (you were even posting on their talk page without mentioning the AfD), but not notifying the creator—and other substantial editors of the article, who sometimes contributed more to it than did the person who started it—means the discussion is likely not to include the editors who are most familiar with the topic and the sources, and that means it may miss important aspects. Next time you start an AfD, please drop notification templates on people's talk pages. Don't assume they are constantly hanging over their watchlists; some of us have thousands of articles on our watchlists. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:32, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks for pointing this omission out, I had only pinged Iridescent and Gerda on the AfD page. Anyway I have decided not to renominate and to stop caring. Note the article is an orphan, someone might want to remediate to that.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:44, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

With regards to bludgeoning and issue at AfD
You might want to give it break. I fully understand your frustration with policy poor votes, however the constant replies aren't going to result in anybody changing their minds. AfD's such as these tend to be ruled by personal opinions and not strong policy readings. You won't be able to draw out reasoned discussions in this manner. People dig in to their positions, or completely ignore you, when they've made a decision. I know, I've seen some really bad AfD's which devolve into arguments amounting to "this is an example of Wikipedia's bias against x". There is zero exaggeration in that statement. Whatever policy argument you may have, has already been presented by numerous other people on the !delete side of the argument. Same for the !keep side. In essence, people have read the comments and didn't care. They had made their mind up before then. At some point I'm going to post a !vote, and it'll be in the format of "argument for" followed by "rebuttal". I do that often for derailed AfDs. That will be two or three days from now because at this moment, and with the article being DYKed, I do not anticipate anything useful from such a comment. It's better when things wind down for the time being. You're just going to have to cop the ridiculous from both sides. I anticipate a no consensus ruling at the end of the AfD run. No consensus defaults to keep. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:43, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Goddamnit you are right. I will just stop, anyway I shouldn't care so much about Lynch.Iry-Hor (talk) 16:20, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I fall strongly on the side of "we are an encyclopaedia, we should bloody well look like one". I can't imagine any real encyclopaedia including this subject, though you have to keep in mind that we have millions of articles that aren't likely to be found anywhere else. How are you going with the interview questions for the Wikimedia blog? Mr rnddude (talk) 16:28, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I have done them a long time ago. I suspect Ed might have more important things to do before completing the blog post. What about you ?Iry-Hor (talk) 17:42, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've done the questions but at some point I'll need to go through them for a full copy-edit. I also need to be wary of using terms that are commonspeak for us, but not necessarily for outside readers. I kept using terms like "GA", "OR" and even "MILHIST" when writing my answers without thinking that not everyone is going to have the foggiest idea what those acronyms mean. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:47, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Ahah! everytime I read MILHIST I have a two seconds blank in my mind before I remember what it is... That said... our answers had to be copy-edited ? I think I wrote back more or less on the fly.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:51, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No, no. Copy-editing isn't required. I just need to perform one so that I'm sure the reader is clued into what I'm saying. I write messily wandering from thought to thought with no cohesion. I don't want to take my passengers from station A to station B and end up dropping them off at station D. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:57, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Cheeseburger award
Thank you kindly! It's much appreciated. I will continue to work on Cleopatra and the new sub-articles I've created, as all three of them are now GA candidates! Regards, Pericles of Athens  Talk 08:37, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Hedjhotep) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Hedjhotep, Iry-Hor!

Wikipedia editor Vexations just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Thanks!"

To reply, leave a comment on Vexations's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Vexations (talk) 12:00, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

List of Egyptian gods edit
Yea, I'm not an expert on Egyptology either; it would just be a shame that the list has very few minor gods/goddesses. There were some gods' name with question marks that I didn't put in the list. However, I will double check on the internet, thanks. Maybe for the gods/goddesses that are uncertain, I'll put a text that says "needs additional citations for verification" and we can keep it there? Kspecific2011 (talk) 09:50, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure we should keep the gods, you have a ref and a priori it is reliable, Budge being rather well known and respected. Furthermore, the goal of the list is to be as thorough as possible. We can perhaps ask user if he has good sources on the topic of minor Egyptian gods to have confirmation for at least some of them that Budge's list is not outdated.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:36, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Budge is well known among Egyptologists, but "well respected" and "reliable" are rather more complicated judgments. His understanding of the Egyptian language wasn't up to the best standards of his day, and his understanding of Egyptian religion, like that of anyone else in his time, was seriously flawed. I would expect that all or nearly all the gods he lists really do appear in Egyptian texts, but in most cases I don't have the resources to confirm them.


 * One thing worth pointing out is that Budge used an obsolete system of transcription that won't match what you find in any more recent sources that mention these gods. Another is that I'm not sure the list should be as comprehensive as possible, though it should obviously be more extensive than it is. If we succeeded in listing every known god, we'd be reproducing the eight-volume Lexikon der ägyptischen Götter und Götterbezeichnungen in article form, which would be… a bit too long. I think a reasonable standard would be to only list a deity if we can say something about its characteristics. With that criterion, the contextless names in listed in some Egyptian texts wouldn't be included, but, say, goddesses of the hours of the night would. That would mean removing some of the Budge-based additions but including plenty of others.


 * If you want to discuss the list further, Kspecific2011, feel free to post about it on its talk page. I'm fighting off an unpleasant cold and trying to wrangle with the last obstinate sections of a rewritten article on Hathor, so I doubt I'll respond right away, but I may be able to sometime in the next week. A. Parrot (talk) 21:38, 31 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Hey, some of the names of the gods in Budge's book may be obsolete, but I think we should include additional names in parentheses (I have added some), but I think the lesser known gods/goddesses have more exotic looking names. Also, the book does mention common gods like Osiris, Set, Hathor, etc., and if there's another name for them it would say so. If we add additional names in parentheses, this shouldn't be a problem. We should keep the contextless deities and put them in another list on the same page maybe called "List of obscure deities" or something. I have already separated the list into male and female parts. I also wonder how you have an objection on the page being too long, the list of Celtic deities page is 900+ deities long now. It's not like 1 person is writing all of them and if we have an additional section, it won't make scrolling a hassle. Anyway, good job on the page so far, I think you guys got all the major deities down.


 * I just separated the article into major, minor, and lesser known deities. Let me know what you think. Kspecific2011 (talk) 23:08, 31 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Personally, I don't have anything against a very long list, in particular since we might never reach the completeness of the encyclopedia on Egyptian gods mentionned by Parrot. I do however have trouble with the (nice) idea of breaking down the list in male / female, major /minor. Indeed, some of the gods where both male and female (sometimes depicted as a male, other times as a female, see e.g. Hedjhotep), furthermore, the decision to class a god as a minor or major deity is almost certainly original research, unless there is a consensus in sources that classify a god as major or minor. Such a consensus won't be found for most gods so that while a nice idea, the classification might not be feasible in practice.Iry-Hor (talk) 05:00, 1 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Well, can you verify the minor deities, maybe not the lesser known ones? Also, it might not be accurate how major, minor, and lesser known is separated. If you can edit the inaccuracies, that'd be great. Kspecific2011 (talk) 16:33, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Hey, can you help me
Hey, it's nice to see you. I created my first article on Tayt, Egyptian goddess of weaving, clothing, and mummification. I'm new to this, can you help me? The paragraphs I wrote are on an image of a piece of paper. How do I get rid of the paper? Can you help the page become better, thanks. Kspecific2011 (talk) 17:15, 3 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Sure I would be glad to help, when I wrote the article on Hedjhotep I was precisely thinking that it would be great to have an article on Tayt as well. I am not sure to understand your question : where did you write the article ? Did you publish it already ? Iry-Hor (talk) 18:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Yea, I wrote the article on Wikipedia. You can search for it "Tayt". But there is a problem with it.Kspecific2011 (talk) 18:14, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * So what is the problem with the article ? It seems pretty good overall, some of the sources aren't top-notch (the online websites are usually not that reliable) but you did a rather good job for your first article! NOTE: I edited the hieroglyphs.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:02, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, Yngvadottir edited it. I had indented it and the picture of the hieroglyphs was low quality. Kspecific2011 (talk) 08:59, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I see what happened the cause of the trouble was most likely spaces (like an indent) that you had placed at the beginning of a paragraph (this causes the paperlike aspect to show up). One thing to do once you have created an article such as this one is to make sure it is not orphaned. That is, you need to think of articles where Tayt might be mentionned and edit those pages with a wikilink pointing to the new article. This will help readers find the articles by following links. I already added Tayt to the article on Clothing in ancient Egypt and the Egyptian Gods infobox, which you added to the bottom of the page (yes such templates must be updated manually!). We know that Tayt is linked to on the page about the list of Egyptian gods as well, but it is always good to keep thinking about new places where the article might be relevant to wikilink to (e.g. places where artefacts mentioning Tayt have been found, see Harageh for an example related to Hedjhotep). You will be able to follow the readership of the article here, so far we only see that you have been on the page a lot while editing it! Finally, one thing that you can do is see Wikipedia in the other language on the same subject. For example you will see that these wikis disagree with the hieroglyphics that we have put up (or maybe there are variants), see here, here, here and here. Such variants are important and could be recorded.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:15, 4 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Hey, I added a redirect for page Hedj-hotep. Kspecific2011 (talk) 13:40, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Cool! Iry-Hor (talk) 17:26, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Hey, I made all the sections in list of Egyptian deities collapsible. You can hide/show it now. Was that a good idea? Kspecific2011 (talk) 06:44, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Well I don't personally see the point of doing that, but as long as it is on [show] by default I am perfectly okay with it. You might want to consult the MOS on lists to see the kind of things that show up well.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:51, 7 April 2018 (UTC)


 * There is lag and delay on slower computers when the list gets too long. I thought it might make help make it smoother with collapsible sections. By the way, articles can't have sections on [hide] by default (with a few exceptions), it just shows up as invisible. Kspecific2011 (talk) 06:58, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay I am not used to work on very long lists, so I have never seen the use of collapsible boxes in article section anywhere. But for the references, I am pretty sure it is strongly discouraged. Of course, there are no rules on wikipedia so feel free to revert me on Tayt if you want.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:03, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Neferirkare Kakai scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the Neferirkare Kakai article has been scheduled as today's featured article for April 21, 2018. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Today's featured article/April 21, 2018, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1100 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. Thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me?  11:29, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Nice! Thanks for letting me know, I will check the blurb once it has been written, but usually you guys do a brilliant job at writing it, so I don't expect to have any modifications to do.Iry-Hor (talk) 12:25, 22 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for this tabloid material, provided "with a 4500 years delay": an "Egyptian pharaoh of the Fifth Dynasty of Egypt in the 25th century BC. Neferirkare's reign lasted around a decade and he left his pyramid unfinished. Neferirkare is unusual as one of the very few pharaohs explicitely depicted as a benevolent ruler by his contemporaries. Read the article to see what he did to save his courtier from facing immediate death and how he reacted when his vizier had a stroke!"! - Today, we are in a similar region, but not even 3000 years ago, with Psalm 84, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:28, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

WikiCup 2018 May newsletter
The second round of the 2018 WikiCup has now finished. Most contestants who advanced to the next round scored upwards of 100 points, but two with just 10 points managed to scrape through into round 3. Our top scorers in the last round were:


 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 Cas Liber, our winner in 2016, with three featured articles
 * Iazyges, with nine good articles and lots of bonus points
 * 🇮🇳 Yashthepunisher, a first time contestant, with two featured lists
 * SounderBruce, a finalist last year, with seventeen good topic articles
 * 🇺🇸 Usernameunique, a first time contestant, with fourteen DYKs
 * Muboshgu, a seasoned competitor, with three ITNs and
 * Courcelles, another first time contestant, with twenty-seven GARs

So far contestants have achieved twelve featured articles between them and a splendid 124 good articles. Commendably, 326 GARs have been completed during the course of the 2018 WikiCup, so the backlog of articles awaiting GA review has been reduced as a result of contestants' activities. As we enter the third round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met; most of the GARs are fine, but a few have been a bit skimpy.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Champollion revisited
Hi iry-Hor, would you be interested in resuming the collaboration on Champollion to take it to FAC ?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:49, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes good idea! Iry-Hor (talk) 08:11, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Excellent. If you have time to take an initial look at it an maybe make an overview of things to fix before the nomination, that would be an excellent beginning - then we can divide the tasks subsequently.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:16, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, I will make a first read through and edit whatever typo / badly phrased sentence I can find. I am worried about having more sources though.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:37, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The article is pretty good overall but we have a serious problem with the legacy section. Rather than presenting a colleciton of trivia (which we can retain), we must focus on the impact that Champollion had and continues to have on Egyptology, its true "legacy". We need sources appraising his (seminal) importance on the field.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:03, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I can see that issue. The biographies will surely have something we can use, but how much I am unsure of. I will order the biographies again. Maybe introductions to egyptology will have something about his legacy within that field?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:08, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Certainly. General books on Ancient Egypt all have one page or two on Champollion, which is sufficient to support a sentence like "He is widely acknowledge as a founding father of modern Egyptology" (to establish consensus on this, ideally we should have 4 different sources). We could then quote one chosen author saying something to the same effect.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:10, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The Russian article is quite extraordinary. The Legacy section is very well written there and could inspire us !Iry-Hor (talk) 15:27, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately my fluency level in Russian is at "slim to none" leaning heavily towards none. But I will see what I can glean from it though google translate.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:46, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, that certainly is an impressive article. Very inspirational, also many good images that we have not used here yet.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:51, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Same for me, it's google translate or nothing. At least we can see the topics that they discuss and get materials from this.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:53, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * So I have been looking around a bit and there is a lot of online material of high quality from several French museums and institutions providing details absent from the article. For exemple, Champollion's stint as a curator in the Louvre museum was barely mentionned yet is seen as a watershed event in the history of the museum, which Champollion effectively transformed from a fine-arts collection and into an institution interested in the history of civilisations. His and his brother's work on the museology of the place had important consequence on how museums were thought of and organised throughout England, France and Italy in the subsequent 19th century. This all says that the article, while seemingly complete, is actually still patchy and needs lots of work. I will do so slowly but effectively as I usually do with pharaohs.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:01, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Excellent, I was also surprised that neither of the biographies gave any real detail to his period at the Louvre - or to his period as a university teacher. I will keep on the sideline this far - I get the Robinson biography next week, and then I will be able to assist with adding detail or sourcing where you might want it. I also have access to the Hartleben biographies if some of the periods are better described in that one.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You having access to Robinson is very good, indeed one thing I seriously dislike in FA articles is not having the page numbers provided in references. But most of Robinson references lack such a number. Iry-Hor (talk) 11:23, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Robinson has a chapter on his period at the Louvre that will be useful. You can mark any passages that need page numbers or additional citations with cn-tags, then I will go ahead and add citations for them.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:26, 13 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I may be able to pitch in some as well. I've been researching the decipherment of hieroglyphs and have several sources on it now in addition to Robinson. A. Parrot (talk) 01:06, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This is great, I might be a bit busy in the coming days but we need to get this important article up to speed. Maunus, you can check the references at the end of the article and you will see a couple of Robinson ones lacking pages.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:11, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I started doing this yesterday, and also am adding additional Robinson references as I go. I will also be working slowly over the next few weeks, as I only work while procrastinating from other more pressing tasks. :) ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:01, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I am beginning to have a lot of time over the next weeks. Should we get back to work on this to maybe have it nominated by early June?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:37, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * These days I have literally no time available for wikipedia, I will try to do something but it is really difficult because of real-life commitments. I will come back to the article first thing when I have wiki time (as you can see if you check my contributions I have just stopped wikipedia for the moment). It is often like that and at some point I will have more free time again.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand entirely, my wikipedia acitivity is also conditioned on the schedule of real life commitments. Good luck with whatever undertakings you are engaged with.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:47, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Rameses VI scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the Rameses VI article has been scheduled as today's featured article for July 20, 2018. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Today's featured article/July 20, 2018, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1100 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me?  07:18, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Nice piece of news! Although I have no Wikipedia time these days, I will try to be available if the need arises in relation with this TFA. In particular I will look at the blurb to make sure there is no glaring problems.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'd guess that the article itself is so recent that there shouldn't be any problems, and I suggest that you wait to see what does with the blurb first before you do anything there, cheers Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  10:25, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

WikiCup 2018 July newsletter
The third round of the 2018 WikiCup has now come to an end. The 16 users who made it to the fourth round had at least 227 points. Our top scorers in round 3 were:


 * Courcelles, a first time contestant, with 1756 points, a tally built largely on 27 GAs related to the Olympics
 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 Cas Liber, our winner in 2016, with two featured articles and three GAs on natural history and astronomy topics
 * SounderBruce, a finalist last year, with a variety of submissions related to transport in the state of Washington

Contestants managed 7 featured articles, 4 featured lists, 120 good articles, 1 good topic, 124 DYK entries, 15 ITN entries, and 132 good article reviews. Over the course of the competition, contestants have completed 458 GA reviews, in comparison to 244 good articles submitted for review and promoted. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process; several submissions, particularly in abstruse or technical areas, have needed additional work to make them completely verifiable.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk), Vanamonde (talk) 04:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Your Interview in the Signpost
I working on republishing your blog post about the two editors who work on Egyptian topics for the July edition of the Signpost. It is long (for the Signpost) and I am working on editing it for brevity. I won't be changing your quotations. As I do so, feel free to jump right in to replace what I removed or to clarify what I have made more muddy. Thanks for what you do! You can see the draft here, Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) (talk) 12:54, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Wow this is amazing, thank you for work! Unfortunately I have very few wikipedia time these days but I will do my best to read the draft in time and send you my thoughts if any. Don't hesitate to tell me if you need help with anything.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:18, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:57, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for today's Ramesses VI, one of the last kings of the New Kingdom period. Ramesses faced strife and unrests early in his reign and Egypt definitively lost the last remnants of its former empire in Canaan in the meantime. Egypt's economy was seriously declining if not collapsing at the time, the high-priest of Amun essentially established a second center of power in Upper-Egypt controlling the country's finances, and Ramesses dedicated most of his efforts to usurping his predecessor's monuments. As a ruler he said that he "covered all the land with great monuments in his name" yet is now seen by Egyptologists as "a king who wished to pose as a great pharaoh in an age of unrest and decline". Ramesses' tomb (which he had usurped form his nephew!) was pillaged less than 20 years later when chaos had finally engulfed the country, his mummy heavily damaged in the process"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:32, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you
I just wanted to give you a message of general thanks for your work on ancient Egypt. I knew from your userpage that you're a physicist, but after reading your interview recently I'm even more impressed. You explained some of your thinking in the interview, but I still don't know why a French-speaking 1851 research fellow spends so much time on the English Wikipedia writing about ancient Egypt—but I'm very grateful that you do. Your work on individual pharaohs is really impressive, and Isis passed FAC recently thanks in part to your help. I look forward to working with you again when you have the time, whenever that may be. A. Parrot (talk) 19:52, 22 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your kind words, writing wikipedia and in particular the English one is such a pleasure owing to the vibrant community of selfless wikipedians like you, honestly pursuing and disseminating knowledge, the debates, the progresses and the rewards (thousands upon thousands of readers!). Wikipedia is not perfect, but on specialised subjects such as Ancient Egypt, it is setting a high moral bar that not even the scientific community meets (most likely because selflessness and career-minding do not go well together). So it is a pleasure for me to participate as much as I can ! Congratulation on the impressive Isis article ! Will you put it up as a Today's Featured Article ? Iry-Hor (talk) 08:32, 26 July 2018 (UTC)


 * In fact, I just nominated it to become one: Today's featured article/requests/Isis. A. Parrot (talk) 10:58, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Userkaf, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Biennial ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Userkaf check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Userkaf?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

WikiCup 2018 September newsletter
The fourth round of the 2018 WikiCup has now come to an end. The eight users who made it to the final round had to score a minimum of 422 points to qualify, with the top score in the round being 4869 points. The leaders in round 4 were:


 * Courcelles scored a magnificent 4869 points, with 92 good articles on Olympics-related themes. Courcelles' bonus points alone exceeded the total score of any of the other contestants!
 * Kees08 was second with 1155 points, including a high-scoring featured article for Neil Armstrong, two good topics and some Olympics-related good articles.
 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 Cas Liber, with 1066 points, was in third place this round, with two featured articles and a good article, all on natural history topics.
 * Other contestants who qualified for the final round were 🇲🇭 Nova Crystallis, Iazyges,  SounderBruce,  🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿 Kosack and 🇺🇸 Ceranthor.

During round four, 6 featured articles and 164 good articles were promoted by WikiCup contestants, 13 articles were included in good topics and 143 good article reviews were performed. There were also 10 "in the news" contributions on the main page and 53 "did you knows". Congratulations to all who participated! It was a generally high-scoring and productive round and I think we can expect a highly competitive finish to the competition.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck, and let the best editor win! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:31, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Seventh Dynasty
Regarding your edit summary "I noticed that the page "Seventh and eighth dynasties" exists and is a redirect to 8th Dynasty. We need to clean this up, or at least mention that both dynasties are merged in some Egyptological research)". (1 Oct 2018)
 * This is an artefact of my unmerging the pages in July 2017. I think a merge would introduce much more confusion than it would solve. It's probably best to mention on both pages that in some research they are considered together, but to keep them separate. Nicolas Perrault (talk) 03:15, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I totally agree with you, I only raised the issue to see everyone's opinion. It is much better to have separate pages for both dynasties including discussion of the current standing of the question in Egyptology (I will see what I can find). We probably also need to clean up a number of links on pharaoh pages, because I do remember using the wikilink to "Seventh and eighth dynasties" when only this article existed.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:46, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Great to hear that. Yes I agree with the cleanup. I had cleaned up much of it last year, but many articles still required this. It should be all done now, see: Special:WhatLinksHere/Seventh_and_Eighth_Dynasties_of_Egypt and Special:WhatLinksHere/Seventh_and_eighth_dynasties_of_Egypt Nicolas Perrault (talk) 14:41, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Dear, thank you for your edits on the 7th and 8th Dynasty. I hope I did not interrupt your editing with my poor itervention which might have come accross as a bit agressive. I am glad you found the Papazian article, I hope you will forgive my rude manners and continue your edits on wikipedia.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:46, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your kind words, may we meet again. Nicolas Perrault (talk) 17:08, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * in case your are interested I can actually send you the full Papazian article, which I just received from the author. I will integrate all relevant information(s) to wikipedia.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:25, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes I'd love to read it. Do you want my email? Nicolas Perrault (talk) 18:08, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes I don't see how I can send you an attached pdf file with the "Email this User" function on wikipedia. The article is quite an eye opener for me, Papazian is all for a real Seventh Dynasty!Iry-Hor (talk) 05:42, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Interesting, I'm very much looking forward to reading it, thanks for sharing. My email is nicolas.m.perrault@gmail.com. Nicolas Perrault (talk) 14:30, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Request for Feedback
Hello

I am Mostafa Abdelraouf. I came across your work on Ancient Egypt while working on my project to visualize the history of ancient Egypt, I have a private prototype that I would like to share with you and get your feedback on. Unfortunately, I cannot put a link to it here as it will be picked up by Search engines and the project is far from ready. I am not sure how/where to share this link with you but I can be reached at mostafa@alfehrest.org. Looking forward to hearing from you. --Dr drsh (talk) 04:19, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You can put it up in your sandbox and it won't be picked up by research bots. Plus I will be able to see it directly on wiki.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:26, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It is an external visualization project, not a Wikipedia article, I put on the sandbox anyway. Dr drsh (talk) 14:27, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Impressive! This looks very good and is quite fluid to navigate, I love it ! I like the links to wikipedia, you would only need to put more stuff in there, e.g. there seems to be too few cities at the moment. One thing that would also add to it would be to draw borders of the stat eof Egypt at various point in time. We could see the New Kingdom empire, the fragmentation of the state during the intermediate periods etc. I don't know how much work this would take though.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:28, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you! It is far from ready in terms of content. The app certainly supports having the borders there. The one thing that I am struggling with is the data and the disagreement between Egyptologists. Data on reigns can vary wildly (particularity for earlier dynasties) and I think the best thing is to follow one Egyptologist all the way instead of having a mosaic of reign beginnings and ends. What do you think? Who do you recommend I follow? Also, For the borders, Do we have maps with that kind of data for ancient Egypt? Thank you for helping Dr drsh (talk) 12:51, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * There is a strategy which you could follow regarding dates and conflict between Egyptologists: pick one reference book by one well known author and follow the dates that this author has chosen in order to gain a coherent view of Egyptian history. You could use von Beckerath's Handbusch, Grimal's History of Egypt or the Oxford History of Egypt. If you need these references I have them as pdf which I could send to you. Then, I would advise you to pay close attention to periods of troubles : the First and Second Intermediate Periods in particular, since these are the periods where Egyptologists tend to disagree over the course of the events. You would need to either follow your source or make up your own mind on the course of events (after all what you do is not Wikipedia so you can input your own opinions). Alternatively, you could, for such periods, present seeral alternative depending on the authors. You can certainly find maps of Egyptian-controlled territories as a function of time on Wiki-commons. Once again the intermediate periods when Egypt is fragmented are the most interesting and uncertain so you might need to follow chosen sources.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:22, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Hey
How are you doing Iry-Hor? I noticed you've been doing some work on Userkaf recently. Is it going to be up for GA sometime soon? I've been working on Unas' pyramid. You once said that the article was about as ruined as the pyramid itself. I don't think that's entirely fair to the pyramid, I mean, the pyramid was completed at some stage. The article was more akin to a box of legos that had just be half emptied onto the floor and artistically entitled "ruins". I was wondering though, if you had time, if you'd take a quick glance at it. I've covered just about everything I could think to, but I'm just wondering if there's something I might have missed ignore the lede, I'm fully aware that the article doesn't have a lede. I'll write that when I'm just about done with the article. Thanks in advance, Mr rnddude (talk) 05:42, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello, I had quite a laugh reading your comment above. I think the lego box metaphor is quite on spot! I will take a look at Unas' pyramid as soon as possible. As for Userkaf I project to finish the lede and put it directly to FAC to save time as I have little free time these days.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Let me know when you nominate it to FAC, so that I can take a look and help with the review. No rush for the Unas pyramid, whenever you get around to it is fine. I've been busy as well. This is the first bit of proper work I've done here in many months. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:53, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Regarding this - Events on Wenis' causeway include ... and representations ... of starving desert peoples, which perhaps constitutes evidence of the kind of famine conditions that were to affect the whole country four centuries later from Grimal 1992, p. 123. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:20, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That makes no sense : what date does Grimal use for Unas ? Assuming he lived c. 2350 BC, the famine is believed to have struck c. 2150 BC, see the wikipedia page on the 4.2kiloyear event.Iry-Hor (talk) 16:22, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Heck adding two more centuries lands us in the early 12th Dynasty, quite a prosperous time!Iry-Hor (talk) 16:23, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Could be an accidental error. I'll take a look through to see if he says something different elsewhere. Was there perhaps a second famine at some other later time? nvm, the edit conflict answered my question. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:24, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It's a really nice article, reads well and has plenty of info. I seem to remember that Unas' pyramid is the smallest of all Fifth Dynasty pyramids (based on planned dimensions), see Grimal's book where he has a table comparing dimensions. If this is so, it would be nice to mention it at the end of the paragraph detailing the dimensions of the pyramid of Unas. EDIT : my bad you do say it, I had forgotten, I spotted it while re-reading. Nice!Iry-Hor (talk) 16:33, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Grimal puts the Fifth Dynasty as lasting from c. 2510–2460 BC (p. 390). That's a very short Dynasty, and it ends way too early. He does put the famine at the F.I.P: [t]he end of the third millenium BC was characterized by the onset of a Sahelian climate, particularly in Eastern Africa. The resultant shortage of food in Egypt was exacerbated by the decline in the central administration... yada yada yada (p. 139). That would be four centuries using his dates. I think using replacing "4 centuries" with F.I.P is the best solution here. Edit conflicted, so I'm just now seeing your other comment. Yes, Unas' pyramid is the smallest one of the Fifth Dynasty. I thought I'd forgotten to mention it for a moment. I modeled the section on the Pyramid Texts according to how you did it in the Unas article. That part was the hardest for me to do. Religions are always convoluted, never a simple answer. I'll start writing up a lede for the article over the next day or two then, and doing a final sweep of the article for prose tweaks. Thanks for taking a look at it. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:44, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * What ? WHAT ? He says 2510–2460 BC for the whole shebang or just for the start ? Because I can't see how you could fit Userkaf, Sahure, Neferirkare Kakai, Neferefre, Shepseskare, Nyuserre Ini, Menkauhor Kaiu, Djedkare Isesi and Unas in 50 years. That is beyond crazy, there is consensus that both Nyuserre and Djedkare reigned at least 30 years each!Iry-Hor (talk) 16:49, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The dates are for the whole dynasty; start to finish. My first thought was that he pushed back the end of the Fifth Dynasty because of the C14 dating of Djedkare's body (which gave a long period of possible time extending back to 2886 BC) but no, he gives fifty years for the whole shebang. You wouldn't notice it in the prose of his writing because he doesn't give summaries of dynasties, and usually doesn't give reign periods. He discusses what's happening at each stage without giving dates. He gives Neuserre a reign of 25 years, and Isesi 28 years which alone accounts for more than the whole dynasty. That means that the other seven rulers lasted for... about a week each. I'm surprised because he gives the Sixth Dynasty a whole 260 years. That's a lot more than you'd expect. The Fifth and Sixth Dynasties encompass around 320 years together, and about 160 years each. Very strange, and I never would have noticed. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:02, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * What the hell is going on ? Grimal has a good reputation, though he is more of a New Kingdom specialist. I do not understand his dating here, unless there is a mistake of sorts in the book as compared to what he thinks. Virtually every other Egyptologist gives c. 150 years for the Fifth Dynasty. Looking at modern consensus on individual reigns it seems about right.Iry-Hor (talk) 18:05, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I could posit one hypothesis. I didn't think about it in the moment, but Grimal is French. I'm reading his work in English, and it's been translated. The chronology wasn't compiled by Grimal, but by Shaw. It's a feature of the English version of Grimal's work. So I'm not sure that the blame lies with Grimal. I looked at the chronology for the Old Kingdom, and it's generally reasonable. The only stand outs are the Fifth and Sixth Dynasties. It's possible that Shaw simply made an error. It's not the first error I've come across. In the second volume of the Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient History, Altenmüller attributed a reign from c. 2436–2304 BC to Djedkare Isesi. That's a reign of 132 years. In that case it's clearly just a "typo" that went to print. Honestly I don't know what happened here. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:13, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thinking about it, it is possible that there was indeed an error in the meaning attached to the date range. Perhaps what was meant was really the start of the Fifth Dynasty, for which 2510–2460 BC is a reasonable answer. QUESTION: regarding Unas' sarcophagus, the article on Unas states that his sarcophagus was made of basalt, as stated in Lehner if I remember that well. But you say in the article on the pyramid that it is made of greywacke ? Which is it then ? We need to correct one of these two statements.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:34, 3 November 2018 (UTC)Iry-Hor (talk) 11:19, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * In Verner 2001d, p. 334; Verner leaves a note stating that a petrographic analysis of the sarcophagus discovered that the sarcophagus in Unas' tomb, as well as a few Sixth Dynasty ones, was made from greywacke, not basalt as had originally been assumed. Lehner does state that the sarcophagus is made from basalt. On a side note, yes there's only one Teti. I keep thinking there's two, for some reason. Might be because Pepi I and II and Merenre I and II. Thanks for correcting the image caption. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:47, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Wow thanks for pointing this out, I am correcting Unas' article accordingly. I think this is highly important, I am glad this info will now be correct on wikipedia!Iry-Hor (talk) 11:52, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 4
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pyramid of Unas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Merenre ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Pyramid_of_Unas check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Pyramid_of_Unas?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:35, 4 November 2018 (UTC)