Talk:Amenemhat III

message: The pharaoh infobox is messing with the other one, the notable people one. And the transliteration doesn't appear correctly on my computer (is it the font?)... Perhaps a standardised system of transliteration should be used, not the pseudo-pronounciation one used on most the pharaoh pages.--Cliau 04:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting 

message: The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question.
*The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs.  Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.
*The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.See footnote
*Consider removing links that add little to the article or that have been repeated in close proximity to other links to the same article, as per WP:MOS-L and WP:CONTEXT.
*Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
*If this article is about a person, please add  along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
*Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.See footnote
*Per WP:MOSNUM, please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.See footnote
*When writing standard abbreviations, the abbreviations should not have a 's' to demark plurality (change kms to km and lbs to lb).
*Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:BTW, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006, but do not link January 2006.See footnote
*Please alphabetize the interlanguage links.See footnote
*This article is a bit too short, and therefore may not be as comprehensive as WP:WIAFA critera 2(b) is looking for. Please see if anything can be expanded upon. 
*Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a. See footnote
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Markh 12:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automatic peer review 

message: I deleted the following parts from the main text. that might go into an article of Sehetepibre or on an article on the stela. -- Udimu (talk) 14:11, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted Section 

message: I want to solve the thing about BLP as it is completely-off topic since Amenemhat III has been dead for almost 5000 years now. But I think we need more references because we should make this article B-class, since Most other middle kingdom kings are all at least B (sobekneferu is even GA class) I think from now on we need to rather focus on citing sources than more info. Thanks! Jishiboka1 (talk) 05:30, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Be mindful of the accusations you are throwing. You made a bold edit, I reverted it per lede. This is not edit-warring. As I notified you on my talk page when you inquired about my revert: the material that you put a citation to in the lede is already cited to Grimal, Callender, and Clayton in the body. Ergo, a citation in the lede is not required. The lede here is consistent in omitting citations [the footnote excepted for other reasons]. I mentioned BLP as that is one of the only reasons why a citation in the lede might be a must.  Since you've raised it, I brought Sobekneferu up to GA class, while Iry-Hor brought Amenemhat IV to GA class. As far as I am aware, these are the only two Twelfth Dynasty pharaohs that have attained that status, the rest are all Start or C-class. Indeed, I can't identify a single pharaoh of the Middle Kingdom that is B-class, as the Eleventh Dynasty ones are either Start or C-class as well, and two are even classed as Stubs. Presently, this article contains over 130 citations to dozens of high-quality reputable publications. It's not B-class because it hasn't been submitted for assessment, not because it lacks citations.  Feel free to point out any claims in the body that are not verifiable against the cited source, or any claims in the lede that are not adequately covered in the article body. A citation may not appear in each sentence, so check that the claim is not cited by the end of the paragraph.  Oh, and a piece of advice, you must come to accept that not all of your edits will stand. In my nearly 15,000 edits, I have had hundreds of them reverted, many to most in good faith. In this case, as I am aware that you are a new editor, I was cautious to use a manual revert so you didn't need to worry about the damn ping that pops up. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:59, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: A note here regarding the recent new addition to the lede which I've removed. You added two sentences stating that a reign of up to 48 years has been attributed to Amemenhat III and that such an attribution is unlikely. The first is true but it's poorly phrased and redundant. Phrases like 'some say' or 'scholars believe' are weaselly and should be attributed. The guideline suggests you can use that sort of phraseology in the lede if its properly attributed in the body (which was not done), but it's frowned upon and will be pointed out at GAN or FAC. Moreover, a reign of up to 48 years is mentioned in the opening sentence of the third paragraph, so the first addition is just isolating and repeating already provided information. The second sentence regarding such a reign length being unlikely needs attribution, else you're presenting your opinion. Editor's views do not belong in Wikipedia articles. Before you add anything to the lede, make sure it's stated in the appropriate section of the body and properly cited there too. Then you can modify the lede if it's necessary (most changes to the body do not require or even recommend changes to the lede). Mr rnddude (talk) 14:34, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent reverts, and edit-warring 

message: I understand that it sometimes becomes Amenemhat and sometimes Amenemhet, but which should we use? The Art of Ancient Egypt by Gay Robins uses Senwosret and Amenemhet, while others use Amenemhat and Senusret. Jishiboka1 (talk) 04:11, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: This question might be better suited to the Wikiproject's talk page as it isn't about this article alone, but affects many articles in the MK and SIP periods - and in a broader context most articles in this topic area. The Amenemhat/Amenemhet distinction appears because of 'ꜣ' in 'hꜣt'. Typically, the letter 'e' is used as a stand in vowel between consonants. The 'ꜣ' represents a liquid consonant (for English speakers this would be 'r' or 'l', but others exist). 'ꜥ' and 'ꜣ' are replaced with either 'a' or 'e'. There isn't a rule - far as I know - about this and we could use either. It only really matters that it's consistent across the articles. Senusret/Senwosret exist for a similar reason because the 'w' in 'wsr' is often replaced with 'u'. It may also be noted that the Greek Sesostris receives occasional use too. The question you're asking concerns manner of transliteration which has variability, and isn't limited to this particular case. For a few examples: rꜥ (Ra/Re) ; ỉmn (Amun/Amen/Imen - which, yes, does mean you could technically transliterate Amenemhat as Imenemhet, albeit it is rare) ; wnjs (Unas/Wenis). Mr rnddude (talk) 04:40, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amenemhat vs Amenemhet