Talk:Unlucky Mummy

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London 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.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ancient Egypt 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

Low

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

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.

British Museum Low‑importance

	This article relates to the British Museum. Please copy assessments of the article from the most major WikiProject template to this one, as needed.British MuseumWikipedia:GLAM/British MuseumTemplate:WikiProject British MuseumBritish Museum-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

EA vs. AE

The numbers of the items in the B.M. are introduced by EA for Egyptian Antiquities and not AE. 90.187.173.36 (talk) 17:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually both forms can be correct depending on when the number was being used (the term Ancient Egypt has also been part of the department name). Numbering in the BM is a bit confusing, see BMREF for an essay covering the recommended practice for how to use the various identification numbers on Wikipedia. The "Big Number" is itself unique, so there should be no confusion either way. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 17:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Unlucky Mummy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100420005256/http://www.daylife.com:80/photo/08v7ce12lIgQY to http://www.daylife.com/photo/08v7ce12lIgQY

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:43, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pearson's cover

File:Pearson's Magazine 1909 with Unlucky Mummy.jpg was removed from this article by User:Springsgrace and its description on Commons changed to say that the image was merely an Imagined fan fiction Pearson's Magazine cover, the evidence presented for that being that an archived copy of Pearson's August 1909 edition at https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=njp.32101064078676&seq=1 has a completely different cover design and contents, and includes nothing about a mummy.

Looking into this, the Pearson's Magazine article says that the British publication was published in the US from 1899 and eventually diverged into more US-oriented authors and separate editorial oversight. From the content at the archive copy above (which leads with a story about prohibition), it looks like that divergence happened before our 1903 issue.

The Unlucky Mummy cover is in the style of the British magazine around that time (see [1], [2]), it did run a short story by Sax Rohmer called The Mysterious Mummy in 1903 ([3]), and the cover as presented here is a correct depiction of the "Unlucky Mummy" board ([4]). (It's not immediately obvious whether Rohmer was writing about this board specifically in his story, or if it was just selected as an illustration for it.)

I've tried to source the original UK cover for that month, but have as yet been unable to. Are there stronger reasons to doubt the image that I'm not seeing? Belbury (talk) 09:10, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]