Talk:Faiyum

message: I removed the redirect to talk:Faiyum Governorate and put a see also link in THIS article to Faiyum Governorate as this needs to have its own talk page, not redirected to another. - Jeeny Talk 06:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirected?

message: This article makes a broad assumption about Greek settlers which can be misleading without representing other settlements and inhabitants. I will get back to this when I have more time to elaborate. - Jeeny Talk 06:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Al Fayyum

message: Why are there links to map templates in the first lines of the "languages" portlet?
I've seen it on other pages, too. Is it generated by a buggy tool?
Why can't I find those lines in the history? If I view the last version in the history, it just looks fine. Strange. --Stupid girl (talk) 23:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map templates in languages portlet? 

message: I stumbled upon the Faiyum article by chance; while reading I noticed and corrected an  issue that someone with a more vested interest in this article could do something really great with.
I removed this line from the text
 "Undisputed remains of early anthropoids date from the late Eocene and early Oligocene, about 34 million years ago, in the Fayyum area, southwest of Cairo, Egypt. One of the earliest fossil primates at Fayum is Catopithecus, dating to around 35 million years ago." 
The sentence had no citation attesting to remains being found, let alone that the remains are "Undisputed remains of early anthropoids date from the late Eocene and early Oligocene. The information does appear correct and there are rederect links to wikipedia pages discussing the finds in more detail, but wikipedia itself is not considered a reliable source according to Wiki guidelines.  There were a few Grammar and spelling mistakes, including Faiyum being spelled two different ways, each one different from the articles title spelling. The actual thing that jumped out at me was that the sentence inexplicably appears in the section on the Faiyum mummy portraits.
I see that there are several articles (Faiyum, Faiyum Oasis and Crocodilopolis), The Faiyum Oasis article seems like the preferred location for this information since it already briefly mentions both the history of the area and its archaeology, whereas this article focuses on the city.  
I recommend a modification to the last sentences in the introduction.  The old wording was...
"The town occupies part of the ancient site of Crocodilopolis. Founded in around 4000 BC, it is the oldest city in Egypt and one of the oldest cities in Africa."
The sentence makes a distinction between Crocodilopolis and Faiyum, but with the phrasing of the next sentence it then becomes ambiguous as to what was founded in 4000BC.  I was left wondering, was Faiyum was founded around 4000BC atop the ruins of Crocodilopolis, or whether Crocodilopolis was founded around 4000BC, or if a direct relationship exists between the modern city of Faiyum and Crocodilopolis and as such Faiyum as a city was founded around 4000BC and was once known as Crocodiloplis and it merely rests upon the foundations of its ancient incarnations.  The article does a good job of clearing all of this up later in the article both through the text and links but we shouldn't be left wondering these things after reading the introduction.  I'm not making any modifications to the introduction myself because I am just passing through and simply not knowledgeable enough to make any edits of the quality others who have contributed to this article could. Noexit2002 (talk) 05:36, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced Material 

message: I suspect that the author means the latter rather than the former. Kortoso (talk) 18:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: In the case of Egyptian tourism, both work unless someone's describing a specific view. That happens in East Asia but not so much elsewhere. — LlywelynII 19:32, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Famous sites" or "Famous sights"? 

message: Per Google Ngram, we've gone out of our way to use the very least common form of the name in English.
The discussion above seems to show the previous decision wasn't based on very careful analysis, just what one user had in some of their books and what another somehow thought the local pronunciation "sounded like" despite Fayum, Fayyum, Faiyum, Fayoum all having the exact same English reading pronunciation: long-A fay followed by a gooey roomy yoom. (Alternatively, the first 3 are the same with a schwa instead, while the last one still has the oo vowel.)
The actual city itself uses Fayoum (http://www.fayoum.gov.eg/tou/about). Per Ngram, Fayum's more generally common and is already where the Wiktionary article is parked. Any other important factors? or just move to Fayum and redirect from the others? — LlywelynII 19:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Move: Fayum, not Faiyum