Talk:Oxyrhynchus

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Oxyrhynchus article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Oxyrhynchus is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 25, 2004.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 8, 2003	Featured article candidate	Promoted
May 9, 2005	Featured article review	Kept
May 28, 2007	Featured article review	Demoted

Current status: Former featured article

Africa High‑importance

	Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa 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.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ancient Egypt High‑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 articles

High

This article has been rated as High-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.

Classical Greece and Rome Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Greece: Byzantine High‑importance

	Greece portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greek history 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.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Byzantine world task force.

Egypt Mid‑importance

	Egypt portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Egypt 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.EgyptWikipedia:WikiProject EgyptTemplate:WikiProject EgyptEgypt articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cities

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements 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.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles

Islam Low‑importance

	Islam portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles 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.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ambiguity?

The article states: "The name derived from a species of fish common in the river, which was worshipped by the Egyptians." Was it the species of fish or the river (or both) that was worshipped?

New Classics

Let me know when the Newly discovered Classics are available to the reading public, whether in Ancient Greek or in translation. Alexander 007 09:11, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

They would probably hold the rights to the translation, but if someone here could translate the original greek (if they release it), that would be nice. They're supposed to publish all the new stuff they've found next month. --brian0918 09:52, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- As has been mentioned on arstechnica, this story seems a little odd (or over enthusistic). Has anyone actually found out what the 'breakthrough' does that will suddenly make all these lost books available?. Some more fragments perhaps but apart from that...? Wombat 02:40, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

It appears to be a scanning technique that detects traces of ink in papyri where the ink is not longer visible to the naked eye, thus making the text legible. Adam 03:49, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But that is not new technology is it? (multi-spectral imaging). I remember reading about it a while ago, as they were using it for the Herculaneum papyri. And as the post on Arstechnica points out it seems very odd that they are going to publish within a month. Things seem to usually move at a snails pace in archeology... Wombat 04:47, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe that part of the report. Oxford University and the Egyptian Exploration Society retain control of the manuscripts and will determine what gets published and when. The editing and publishing process typically takes several years. Adam 05:11, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There's an audio interview with the guy behind the story - professor Dirk Obbink from Oxford University - on the NPR web site. It's not all that helpful, he's basically repeating everything we know about Oxyrhynchus papiri. From his talk I got the impression that either they've just started using multispectral imaging and it's giving great results ( because large part of the collection is illegible by conventional means ), or they've accidentally stumbled upon some works of classical authors - he goes on for half a minute describing the poem of Archilochus they've just discovered. --Itinerant1 07:44, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is a more useful post here from Dr. Obbink to the PAPY list (courtesy RobotWisdom). The article seems to be half-right. -- Wombat 02:58, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

When the next volume is published next month (as it says in Wombat's link), I wonder if portions will be available on the net. I don't think Oxford should even hold copyrights over the ancient Greek material (if they do). Translations though are another matter. Alexander 007 06:30, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

FARC

This page is listed on Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates. One glaring omission is the absence of references, which is now a requirement for featured articles. Please would contributors consider whether there are any references that they could add. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:21, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I wrote the original version, based on this website, encyclopaedias and my general knowledge. Adam 12:41, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Featured article review of November 2005

This review resulted in the passing of a new version of the article, which is now designated a featured article of concern due to lack of adequate referencing.

Promoted March 4, 2004. Appears to have been more or less completely rewritten. Changes appear to have been entirely positive, though this was apparently promoted before an explicit references section was considered required. I'd like to request a references section before supporting this review. Tuf-Kat 00:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto the above. Here's the original version of the article. PacknCanes | say something! 04:25, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think the refernces will be jumbled in the external link section - but I agree that the references should be made explicit.--nixie 04:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

References?

Has anyone taken a look at the references section recently? Of note, the first and sixth links don't seem to be working and they don't use Template:Cite web to document them. Axem Titanium 00:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excavations completed

I seem to remember reading that the dumps have been completely excavated. Is that correct? Haiduc 20:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deadlinks

The BBC links at the bottom were dead, I zapped them instead of looking harder for them. 24.62.5.179 17:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FAR

I have listed this article for FA review. Chubbles 09:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible rename?

This article really doesn't deal with Oxyrhynchus. I think it may make sense to rename this article Oxyrhynchus Papyri, seeing as that article is just a lead and a redundant list and deals exclusively with NT papyri (when the vast majority of P. Oxy.s are not NT texts). What do others think about the title of this article? Does the content fit the title?-Andrew c 04:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gospel of Thomas fragments

The article currently states "Reports of fragments of the Gospel of Thomas, also known as the Sayings of Jesus, appearing on P1654 are spurious." There are two fragments now recognised as from GoT; the claim entered by User:70.246.19.207 03:37, 3 January 2006, that P1654 is spurious (from which the given source http://www.csad.ox.ac.uk/POxy/papyri/tocframe.htm has been deleted) might not belong in the article, where no such claim is noticed. I'm deleting this. --Wetman (talk) 14:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Link Submission

Link : ancientlives.org

on-line transcription and measuring of papyri from Oxyrhynchus "Ancient Lives is a collaboration between a diverse collection of Oxford Papyrologists and Researchers, The Imaging Papyri Project, The Oxyrhynchus Papyri Project, the Egypt Exploration Society and the following institutions..."from project's about page

Alienus99 (talk) 10:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

el-Bahnasa issue

The link el-Bahnasa links to Oxyrhynchus on English wikipedia but the Arabic Wikipedia page البهتسا cannot link to it because Wikidata have given it a special code item Q581142. While Oxyrhynchus item code is Q622640, They need to be merged together.--Ashashyou (talk) 08:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Oxyrhynchus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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} 23:00, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Oxyrhynchus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:02, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]