Merge back into Ancient Egyptians template[edit]

We should merge the data back. The consorts are over there, the Pharaohs over here. Where would we put non-ruling royal children? It's a nightmare. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 21:32, 16 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Add link to Bull in the protodynastic list[edit]

He has a wikipedia article, Bull (Pharaoh). 74.90.120.94 (talk) 74.90.120.94 (talk) 18:34, 16 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nat-Hor an error for Hat-Hor?[edit]

There is an English Wikipedia article for Hat Hor; I think the name in the template is incorrect (probably a typo). Looking at the articles for this person in the German and Spanish Wikipedias (which have articles about him), the German WP uses Hat-Hor; the Spanish uses Horus Hat. I think it should be fixed, but wanted to ask first before making a significant change to the template. --FeanorStar7 (talk) 01:33, 10 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

current template, under Protodynastic, Lower Egypt: Wazner [;] Nat-Hor [de; es] [;] Mekh

suggested change to template: Wazner [;] Hat-Hor [;] Mekh

Canide and Animal?[edit]

Who are Canide and Animal? The only references to these rulers appears to be in this template and related ones, but they are otherwise completely absent from all other relevant articles from Wikipedia and outside of Wikipedia. If there was a way to expand on their existence on other articles, then that would be very helpful, but I am currently skeptical as to their place in this template if I can't find any references to them (that don't source this template I may add). AnyGuy (talk) 23:31, 28 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

this bothers me too, im tryna list all pharaohs so this isn’t helpful for me, at least canide kinda has an article it just leads to the pharaoh list where he isn’t even mentioned Emmanuelbruh (talk) 19:40, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I edited the template I removed animal which doesn’t even have an article and canide idk if they thought there was a dog pharaoh or something and they misspelled canid idk but I deleted them Emmanuelbruh (talk) 18:43, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removed unnamed pharaohs.[edit]

Is it just me or do I remember a ton of name losts in the first intermediate period, specifically dynasties IX and X. Emmanuelbruh (talk) 02:50, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2023[edit]

108.18.131.189 (talk) 16:14, 19 December 2023 (UTC)i made thisReply[reply]
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Deltaspace42 (talkcontribs) 16:34, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Roman Pharaohs[edit]

Is that really necessary/appropriate for this template? I note that the Romans were added about eight months ago by a new editor currently indefinitely blocked as a sock. I recognise that by a loose-ish definition the Emperors were Pharaohs, but not to the point that adding them all in (and then adding the template to their pages) is useful, and i suggest that i will remove, unless there is strong objection. Happy days, ~ LindsayHello 20:04, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As the one who just added the templates to the pages, if the consensus is to remove them from the template, and subsequently from the pages, I have no objection to it. 98.228.137.44 (talk) 21:18, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm just going to provide a brief literature overview, from the sources I have on hand, for consideration.
Grimal, 1992: full chronology up to the Macedonian dynasty, a brief note for the Ptolemaic and Roman periods
Hornung, Krauss, & Warburton (eds), 2006: full chronology up to Alexander the Great
Dodson & Hilton, 2004: full chronology to the Ptolemaic period, and a brief note for later periods
Bard (ed), 2001: full chronology up to the Ptolemaic period
Clayton, 1994: no list, but detailed discussion to the Ptolemaic period, and a one page summary of the Roman period
Shaw (ed), 2004: full chronology through the Roman period
OEAE, 2001: full chronology until the Arab Conquest
I suspect any cut-off point can be justified with reference to HQRS from the Saite period to the Byzantines. Ending with the Ptolemies is the most common. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:21, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Diocletian was the last Roman emperor to be regarded as pharaoh by the surviving temple priesthoods. They continued to count the years of his reign even after his death, which is why the last hieroglyphic text is dated to "Year 110". Garry Shaw, in The Pharaoh: Life at Court and on Campaign (2012), makes the case that he was the last pharaoh. I definitely wouldn't include any emperors later than Diocletian—the other non-Christian tetrarchs don't seem to have made enough of an impact to be regarded as pharaohs. But if other editors want to remove all emperors from the template, I won't object. A. Parrot (talk) 23:02, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Whether or not the emperors should be included in the template, it seems inappropriate to add the template to their articles and to categorise them with Category:Roman pharaohs, as they have been since June 2021. It was at most a provincial title, the way that one conquered people or priesthood reconciled Roman rule, not a defining characteristic of the Roman emperors per WP:DEFCAT ("one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to in describing the topic, such as the nationality of a person or the geographic location of a place"). Also, it's strange to have a template including Roman pharaohs at the foot of our Pharaohs article, as it opens with "until the annexation of Egypt by the Roman Empire in 30 BCE." NebY (talk) 00:19, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think Roman emperors shouldn't be included. It was a sort of courtesy title. T8612 (talk) 08:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mythical section.[edit]

Why is there a new section named ‘mythical period’. What does this add exactly? It only lists one pharaoh which doesn’t exist (yes I see the name). If there was a ‘mythical’ section that would be a bit better, it would’ve been in the beginning which the gods and demigods would be listed in. Emmanuelbruh (talk) 01:32, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In my opinion* Emmanuelbruh (talk) 01:32, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree. There are many pharaohs whose existence is uncertain, and there is at least one, Nitocris, who blurs the boundary between "may have been a real ruler, with ambiguous support from Egyptian sources" and "product of Greek legend". Note that Nitocris is not included in the template. Plato's Thamus is, as far as I can tell, Greek legend at best, and may have been entirely Plato's fictional construct, not even based in preexisting legend. Creating a section for Thamus opens the template up to include other fictitious pharaohs, with unclear inclusion criteria. I don't see the point in opening that can of worms.
Ping @Johnkatz1972:, who added this section to the template. A. Parrot (talk) 18:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think any addition of information should be positive, as long as it is not misleading. Johnkatz1972 (talk) 08:39, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Elevating Thamus to the level of "mythical" as opposed to "used once by Plato to make a point and quite possibly invented by him, as mysteriously otherwise unattested even in Greek mythology, let alone Egyptian", and treating him as worthy of note alongside the pharaohs on whom we actually have articles and/or who feature in articles on dynasties, is misleading. NebY (talk) 20:11, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with removing it. static shakedown ʕ •ᴥ•ʔ 20:57, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We should either remove it OR we could add all the ‘god pharaohs’ which, although not by plato, still were quite mythical. Whichever one you pick, we should remind ourselves that this is for a wikipedia template which would be factual or as much as possible anyways. Emmanuelbruh (talk) 21:45, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
SHOULD* Emmanuelbruh (talk) 22:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]