Talk:KV33

Ancient Egypt: Egyptian religion Low‑importance

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

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by Egyptian religion work group (assessed as Low-importance).

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.

KV33?

This appears to be a discription of TT33, rather than KV33, which is a small tomb in the Valley of the Kings. Markh (talk) 20:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the material you have removed is clearly about TT33, but shouldn't that material be moved to a (seemingly new) page for that tomb rather than just removing it from here? (Are there in fact any articles on the Theban Tombs (TT) specifically?) I only mention it because what was added seemed to be good and well-sourced info, and it would be a shame to chuck it completely. Captmondo (talk) 16:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to my own early question, there are info on selected Theban Tombs, see: Category:Theban Tombs. There's also a page for this tomb, though it uses a naming convention not found for the other Theban Tombs, which is why I couldn't easily find it. Since there is an article for it, non-duplicate material of the deleted text from this article ought to go there. Captmondo (talk) 17:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I moved much the content from here to the TT33 article - which was named as there is another TT33 article. I have just moved Tomb TT33 to TT33 (Tomb), to make it a little easier to find. Markh (talk) 08:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your assistance Mark et al, for transferring the article material to its correct heading. I was surprized and somewhat piqued to see that I'd done a quick write-up pulled from another article without actually researching its true tomb designator. That's what happens when you have wannabe writers working outside of their comfort zones.... ;-) --HarryZilber (talk) 21:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Would-be editors are a dime a dozen here (maybe cheaper) but actual contributors of good, well-sourced, content are less so. Which is why I didn't want this material to be summarily deleted.

Besides, everybody's got to start *somewhere*. Cheers! Captmondo (talk) 12:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's motto (or at least one of them) is "Be bold", so no harm done, it expanded the actual TT33 article, so nothing was wasted Markh (talk) 21:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]