Disputatio:Pyramides Gizenses

Page contents not supported in other languages.
E Vicipaedia

What this is doing here[fontem recensere]

The 1000 Pages list has the "Giza Pyramids," which seems sensible enough, but there has been some debate going on about whether "Giza Necropolis" is the same thing or not. Many WP versions, including English, only have one article, but Wikidata has two items. Until last 30 June, our Necropolis Gizensis was attached to the WD entry named on the 1000-page list, but then someone (an anonymous IP, no less), presumably trying to be helpful, moved it -- not for the first time. I don't think we need two pages unless someone's going to add a lot of detail here, but I'm not interested in playing Edit War in WD. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 20:37, 5 Iulii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The list at Meta has gone back to our Necropolis Gizensis rather than this item, so anyone considering writing about pyramids should try that one rather than this one. Sigh. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 18:55, 9 Iulii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's interesting about the anonymous move on 30 June. But, anyway, if the aim was to affect our rating compared with someone else's, it would only ever work temporarily.
I must say I agreed with your judgment that we really don't need -- no encyclopedia needs -- two general pages on this subject. One on each pyramid, quite possibly. One on all the pyramid-shaped monuments, and another on all the monuments of whatever shape, is dubious (I think). Forking of this kind is a typical event on Wikipedias, and will evidently sometimes be difficult for Wikidata to handle. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:30, 9 Iulii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]