Talk:Grand Egyptian Museum

Cost

According to the narration of the PBS program "Egypt's Treasure Guardians" broadcast 28 December 2016, the cost of GEM will be over 1 billion US dollars.

Since this differs significantly from what is stated in the Infobox by at least a quarter of a million dollars, I think some research needs to be done to verify this and other figures/numbers. 2600:8800:50B:6700:C23F:D5FF:FEC5:89B6 (talk) 04:19, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Grand Egyptian Museum. 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) 03:56, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Grand Egyptian Museum. 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) 09:49, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Grand Egyptian Museum is one of the most famous museums in the world.

After I edited the introduction because it was bad and it took me about two and a half hours, user Doug Weller deleted a sentence from my edit which was (one of the world's most famous). Doug Weller also claimed on the edit page that I said the Grand Egyptian Museum is (most famous), which is incorrect. This happened after he mocked my work and asked for a source as proof that the Grand Egyptian Museum is one of the most famous museums in the world. Of course, there is no such thing. There is no source that can be used to claim that a museum is the most famous or among the most famous in the world because the subject is relative. The truth is that the fame of a museum depends on the number and quality of articles written about the museum. If we search, we will find that all international newspapers wrote about the Grand Egyptian Museum not once, but several times. Newspapers such as the New York Times, Time, and the Guardian, etc. There are dozens of articles from 2012 to 2025! The Grand Egyptian Museum is the largest museum in the world dedicated to Egyptian civilization and houses the most important Egyptian artifacts, such as the complete Tutankhamun collection. Anyone interested in Egyptology, Egypt, and museums will know how interested people around the world are in the Grand Egyptian Museum and that there are thousands, even millions of people around the world eagerly awaiting its official opening: tourists, Egyptologists, and even Egyptians themselves, who number 120 million! There are even tourists who postpone their trips to Egypt just to come after the opening to visit the museum. Isn't all of this sufficient evidence that the Grand Egyptian Museum is one of the most famous museums in the world? I want to restore my edit that was deleted without reason by user @Doug Weller:, @Bishonen: @Hypnôs: @RegentsPark: Please share your opinion.

Egyptiankeng (talk) 22:38, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Words like famous fall under WP:PUFFERY and should usually be avoided.
Also, conclusion that no reliable source explicitly states shouldn't be included per WP:OR and WP:SYNTH.
Not everything that's true or likely to be true is suitable for Wikipedia, see WP:NOT. Hypnôs (talk) 23:04, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But Wikipedia Louvre Museum uses this sentence why is it allowed there but not here? and What do you think of this as a source? [1] Egyptiankeng (talk) 23:15, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to advocate for the removal of the sentence on the Louvre page, if you think it warranted, but it's not a valid point, see WP:2WRONGS.
The source is dubious to OK-ish in my opinion. One should consider that Ahram is controlled by the government. Hypnôs (talk) 23:45, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

"Despite these significant developments, Full opening on November 1, 2025[45]"

Sorry, started this last night, didn't finish it. I've rewritten the sentence - since I started this edit last night, I mean. Doug Weller talk 16:17, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lead needs a rewrite

To meet WP:LEAD. I would love to be able to visit this museum. But of course I can’t. Doug Weller talk 17:36, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since several months, the main exhibition halls and the museum can easily be visited (soft opening, opening hours 9 am–6 pm/9 pm), and almost all is working including the stores and restaurants. The entrance fee is about EGP 1,200. Only the Tutankhamun halls are not yet opened (but mainly filled). The main Tutankhamun artifacts can be visited up to now at the "old" museum at the Tahrir square. On November 1, 2025 the museum will be officially opened in complete. --RolandUnger (talk) 15:58, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ruining the layout of the page!

Hello, I appreciate your work in proofreading the page's text and removing mistakes, but you are removing important sections such as the date of postponing the museum's opening, and you are also removing images and changing their location, which distorts the appearance of the page on the mobile version. Stop making unimportant edits that may lead to an editing war that no one needs. Thank you. @Craigmac41: Egyptiankeng (talk) 05:38, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

. You said in one of your edits, "It is important to keep the dates of the museum's opening postponement because the museum's opening has been postponed repeatedly in an exceptional manner that everyone has noticed."
If "every has noticed," it does not need to be on article page.
Timewise, the diatribe about the opening postponements that you want to retain are no longer relevant.
You reference to an editing war that no one needs is self-centred and arrogant. As is your "Thank you." Craigmac41 (talk) 05:45, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @Craigmac41 you are overreacting and I don't know why I am trying to be good with my language with you, explaining my words because it seems that they are not clear to you, what I meant is that everyone noticed that the museum should have opened at least ten years ago but it did not open, people know that the opening was postponed and they do not know why so this section is important, regarding my notification to you about the edit ear I did this because you have already deleted the section about the history of the postponement of the opening of the museum twice and if you do it a third time this will officially turn into a edit war and you may be punished for it, I rewrote the entire article and by referring to the April 2025 version you will find that the article was almost empty so it is not a section or a picture that will cause a edit war to ignite we must be mature, thank you for your understanding Egyptiankeng (talk) 05:54, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What are the problems?

Regardless of the fact that you deleted half the article, we will talk about that later. What were the problems that made you put those alerts? @Athanelar Egyptiankeng (talk) 09:12, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As it says in the tags I've added, the article contains content which is promotional in tone, content which appears to be AI-generated and (overlapping with the promotional content) content which is poorly-sourced (i.e., from primary sources or sources that are not independent of the GEM)
All of the content which I removed was in the interest of WP:NPOV, WP:NOTABILITY and being WP:TERSE. Extensive lists of the activities available in a childrens' museum are not encyclopedic content and should not be on a Wiki article. Athanelar (talk) 09:22, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments are still general, where are the problems? Point them out. You keep repeating the AI ​​claim even though I explained that I use AI to search for sources and nothing more. I don't use it in writing. As for sources, there are no weak ones. National Geographic, CNN, BBC, and Youm7 are not weak sources. Egyptiankeng (talk) 09:28, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments are still general, where are the problems? Point them out.

If you want to see some specific issues I already identified and changed, you can check the diff for my cleanup pass of the museum collections section
Just to explain a few of them to you:
  • 'huge open space,' 'colossal statue', 'stunning panorama' etc are unencyclopedic language, see WP:PUFFERY
  • 'ideal for interactive presentations and lectures,' 'advanced sound and lighting systems' etc are WP:PROMOTIONAL language.
I have no desire nor obligation to individually explain to you every issue I think is present in the article. You should have enough familiarity with WP:NPOV, WP:NOTABILITY etc to identify them yourself.

As for sources, there are no weak ones.

Much of the 'museum collection' section is sourced from websites like 'Experience Egypt' (a tourism website promoting the museum,) Hill International (a design company that built the museum} and 'visit-gem.com' (literally the website for the GEM itself). These sources are not WP:INDEPENDENT of the article subject, and therefore both introduce NPOV issues as well as being unsuitable for demonstrating notability. I could have reasonably removed far more of the section than I did because of this issue, but I chose not to to demonstrate good faith and to try to work collaboratively with your version of the article. Athanelar (talk) 09:43, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's good, I didn't really know those were considered promotional words, my only issue is with downplaying my effort at first you said the article needs TNT you could have simply explained the problems, I don't consider the article my personal property, but I feel bad after wasting 7 hours editing a bad article and then getting attacked as if the article was good and I ruined it Egyptiankeng (talk) 09:53, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As a general tip, try not to invest your feelings in anything you edit on Wikipedia. Even experienced editors can make mistakes, bad calls, not properly understand certain guidelines or policies etc.
Frankly, you should have made sure you were very familiar with things like NPOV (including puffery and promotional language) before you spent 7 hours editing an article; because otherwise this is the result. People are criticising the article and you're immediately jumping to defend it because of the effort you put in, rather than taking a step back and examining objectively whether the people editing your work might actually have a point.
I would suggest you focus on smaller edits until you're more familiar with Wikipedia's policies, guidelines and manual of style before you jump into doing total article rewrites like you did. A full rewrite is essentially the same as writing a new article, and should be treated with the same precaution. While everybody on Wikipedia appreciates people who put in the effort to contribute, ultimately nobody is under any obligation to respect your edits because of the effort you put in to them if the end result isn't up to standard.
We all want to collaborate with you to make a better article. We're not trying to undermine your efforts, we're trying to improve the article. Athanelar (talk) 10:13, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

'Location and Visiting' section

@Egyptiankeng In the interest of not starting an edit war by re-removing this information, I want to discuss it with you first.

That whole section is unencyclopedic and doesn't need to be here. You already mentioned its proximity to the pyramids elsewhere in the article. The specific details of which road or metro stop to get there belong in a tourist guidebook, not a Wikipedia article. Just under WP:NOTDIRECTORY is WP:NOTGUIDE which states "Wikipedia is not the place to recreate content more suited to entries in hotel or culinary guides, travelogues, and the like."

See also WP:NOTEVERYTHING, "Information should not be included solely because it is true or useful."

There is no encyclopedic benefit to including directions to reach the GEM, nor including the attractions that the visit covers.

I notice that you specifically focused on removing the things covered by the NOTDIRECTORY page that I linked, but you evidently didn't read the rest of that page on 'What Wikipedia is not.' Please do so and try to keep it in mind when adding content to any article. Athanelar (talk) 15:30, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the Louvre Museum article use this description if it is prohibited? Egyptiankeng (talk) 16:15, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why does it use which description? Athanelar (talk) 16:17, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see what you mean now. Just as another editor responded to you in a diacussion about the use of the verbiage 'one of the most famous museums,' two wrongs don't make a right. The fact something is included in another Wikipedia article is not necessarily an argument that it should be included here. Also, the navigation information to get to the Louvre is sourced from 2008, meaning it's been on that article for a long time. Wikipedia's standards and practices have changed a lot in that time, and I imagine it's simply that nobody has bothered to challenge it there; but that doesn't mean it should be included here. Athanelar (talk) 16:26, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The location and visit section makes the article more organized. What needs to be changed to comply with the rules? I read what you sent and I understand that details like opening hours and ticket prices need to be removed. and i removed it Egyptiankeng (talk) 16:35, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How does it make the article 'more organised?'
Remember that the point of a Wikipedia article is to summarise existing coverage of a topic. I.e., we report on what reliable, independent secondary sources are saying about the subject of the article. We don't include information just because it's true or useful.
The information you added which I removed consisted of noting the distance of the museum from the pyramids (already stated in the lead,) instructions on how to reach the museum by road and metro (Wikipedia is not a travel guide) and a list of attractions at the museum (Wikipedia is not a travel guide and the attractions at the museum are already covered in a more in-depth manner under the other sections of the article.)
The problem is that you're writing the article backwards. You're including information you think should be in the article, and then trying to find sources to verify that information; but you need to do the opposite. Find reliable, independent sources with information relevant to the notability of the subject and add information contained within them. Athanelar (talk) 16:59, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Museums Authority

@Egyptiankeng You need to add the info about the museum authority to the article, not just remove my 'who' tag and explain in the edit summary. The point of that tag is that for someone reading the article, the term 'museum authority' is never explained and doesn't link anywhere else, so a reader has no idea who you're talking about. Athanelar (talk) 06:47, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The museum's Established date differs from the trial opening date, which differs from the full opening date.

The idea for the museum was conceived between 1990 and 1992, while in 2002 the project site was chosen, and former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak laid the foundation stone. A competition was launched to select the museum's design, and actual construction began in 2005. A trial opening was in 2024, the full opening was yesterday 2025. establishment date was 2002, not 2024. Hypnôs Panamitsu PharaohCrab Egyptiankeng (talk) 17:20, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Usage of the "Established" parameter varies from article to article and depends on the circumstances.
When readers see an establishment date for a museum, I think most would take it as the date it started to operate as a museum, not when construction of the building started. Hypnôs (talk) 19:36, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about it and I still don't know what is correct. Can we write the date of Established in this format: Established: 2002, opened 2025. ? Egyptiankeng (talk) 20:06, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How about:
Groundbreaking: 2002
Construction: 2005–2023
Inauguration: 2025 Hypnôs (talk) 20:27, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I added this format; it's good, but I didn't add the sources. The sources are within the article. Egyptiankeng (talk) 20:35, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open the article in a private window on your PC. You'll find the image placement is poor, and next to it is a table of delayed museum opening dates, so I don't feel it serves any purpose here. Isn't this a reason to exclude it from MOS:SANDWICH Egyptiankeng (talk) 20:52, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think having it in table format is unnecessary and the reason for the formatting issues. I replaced it with bullet points. I think the section is currently too and could be summarized more succinctly. Hypnôs (talk) 21:00, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

Unsuccessful. Z1720 (talk) 15:40, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Grand Egyptian Museum/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Egyptiankeng (talk · contribs) 10:03, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Z1720 (talk · contribs) 15:40, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]


I am sorry, but I am going to quick fail this article. There are numerous uncited statements, including "The opening" section, that need citations. "presidency.eg." and "Ahram Online" are identified by Wikipedia as being AI-generated slop and probably need to be replaced. "madainproject.com" is identified as a unreliable source on English Wikipedia and needs to be replaced. When the above concerns are resolved, this article can be renominated to GAN. Z1720 (talk) 15:40, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Removing an entire paragraph is not a cleanup

@Athanelar removed the paragraph (The Sun Alignment on the Face of Ramesses II in (Atrium) ?

I read about the phenomenon of the sun aligning with the face of the statue of Ramesses II located in the Grand Hall, which tourists see the moment they enter the museum. The museum studied this phenomenon in 2019 and began implementing it in 2020. To create this phenomenon, the museum created a special opening for the sun in the facade, so this is not just an important phenomenon but also an integral part of the museum. Removing something as important as this without opening a discussion with the editors who contributed most to the article is not a good thing but I do not assume bad faith, and I hope next time you will open a discussion here. What do you think Hypnôs Should this paragraph be kept? Egyptiankeng (talk) 07:46, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just think the fact is MOS:TRIVIA which doesn't provide much of encyclopedic value to an article about the museum. It certainly doesn't need its own subheading, and if the fact is to be included then it can probably be better summarised as a single line when talking about the museum's design in general; something to the effect of the museum is designed to cause sunlight to shine on the face of the Ramses II statue, replicating the same phenomenon at the Abu Simbel temple.
As it stands your editing philosophy seems to be to just indiscriminately include any and all information you find about the museum into the article, which isn't sensible.
And yes, removing content is cleanup. Athanelar (talk) 10:32, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I can't see more than a sentence or so talking about this as appropriate to the article. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 11:37, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you re-added this content, which you know is disputed, before establishing consensus for its inclusion. I remind you again that as per WP:ONUS you have to seek consensus for the disputed content before re-adding it to the article. I'm going to restore the article back to my version with the content removed, as a result. Athanelar (talk) 10:36, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You removed all the content I added in the visitors' section. When deleting disputed content, don't delete new content that took an hour to add. Understood? Egyptiankeng (talk) 12:45, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know who you think you are to talk to me like that. You don't own the article, and whatever amount of time it took you to add content is irrelevant if that content is not appropriate for the article. Athanelar (talk) 12:48, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, now it's clear. It seems there's some grudge and you're taking it personally. I only restored my edit to the Visitors section, not the section in GRAND HALL. You removed the Visitors section without explanation. Did I break some rule? Everything was going well until you started creating problems out of thin air. I don't know what your problem is. Egyptiankeng (talk) 12:52, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, you're lying on the edits history page, and I won't revert my edit to avoid an edit war. But you're lying; the Visitors section isn't a disputed section at all, and I added it this morning. Egyptiankeng (talk) 12:55, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's disputed because I removed it. That's what makes it disputed. I removed it because there's no need for the article to contain visitor numbers from a particular date, an average daily visitor count is already included. There's also no need to separately specify how many visitors were Egyptian.
I'm escalating this to ANI, again, and we'll see what the outcome is from there. I'll ping you once the discussion is up. Athanelar (talk) 12:57, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but you removed the visitor count of 19,000 and restored the old count of 18,000. I won't repeat this nonsense again. The discussion will be here, not in ANI. Act like a grown-up for once. Egyptiankeng (talk) 13:01, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because I reverted the edits all at once rather than trying to go in and preserve the couple of things which were worth keeping. I have no qualms with the updated daily visitor count, so make that edit if you want to; I was focused on removing the other content (the visitor numbers for a particular day and the sun phenomenon section).
The discussion is now at ANI. Athanelar (talk) 13:17, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So now you're trying to justify deleting the visitor count instead of admitting your mistake? You haven't even fixed what you did. As we speak, people are reading the article and viewing 18,000 instead of 19,000 because you don't want to correct your mistake, and you're accusing me of needing to change my behavior? Stop being emotional. There's already an open discussion here, so I'll talk here. Egyptiankeng (talk) 13:23, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying I didn't 'delete the visitor count' as a deliberate action. I reverted all of your edits at once to remove the disputed content you re-added, and in the process the visitor count was removed accidentally. You're portraying it as a deliberate act of malice on my part. In the interest of good faith, I've gone ahead and updated the visitor count with your new figure and reference. Athanelar (talk) 13:29, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and now you're posting a broken source link. I'm not going to fix your mistakes; you fix them. Egyptiankeng (talk) 13:32, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I literally copy-pasted the source from your edit. If it's broken, it's because you added it broken.
I'm not going to fix your mistakes; you fix them This is WP:POINTy. Athanelar (talk) 13:38, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Complete nonsense. Go to the latest version of the article before messing with it. I posted the link the first time and it didn't work, then I fixed the problem and checked it and it worked. You can verify this by see the edit history page. Fix your mistake. Egyptiankeng (talk) 13:42, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
POINTiness, again. I've fixed the link. Athanelar (talk) 13:50, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The editor, Athanelar, removed both the section on the phenomenon of the sun's alignment with the face of Ramses and the visitor section. He also removed my update of the daily visitor count 19,000, The old number, 18,000, was restored and is not updated. We want your opinion to know what the majority thinks about these actions. Hypnôs Egyptiankeng (talk) 12:59, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Blue Sonnet , if you could share your opinion here it would be great; I'd like to hear different perspectives. Egyptiankeng (talk) 13:17, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. One minor architectural detail does not warrant its own section. Athanelar suggested to include a sentence that summarized the solar alignment, which you could have included, or replied with an alternative suggestion.
As for the other reverts, it's often challenging to revert only specific edits when multiples were made in a row. Hence it's common practice to restore the status quo, if a large portion of the changes are disputed.
I strongly suggest you stop talking down to people. Your last block just ended and you are headed to a much longer one taking this uncongenial tone. I know it can be aggravating to be reverted, but instead of letting the heat of the moment get the better of you, take a step back and address any issues only once you can do so in a calm manner, there's no rush. Hypnôs (talk) 13:34, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He's the one who escalated the matter to ANI and didn't even initiate a discussion to suggest placing the paragraph in the design section, He simply removed it and called it a cleanup. The reason I placed the paragraph in the Grand Hall is that it relates to the statue of Ramses II in that hall. Egyptiankeng (talk) 13:39, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:ONUS. Hypnôs (talk) 13:43, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your advice and I'm waiting for more opinions. If the majority opinion is to put the paragraph in the design section, then there's no problem. Editor Athanelar just needs to come and discuss this here and stop going to ANI every time someone talks to him. Egyptiankeng (talk) 13:47, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Egyptiankeng, I'm afraid that my area of expertise is more focused on advice re. block appeals and de-escalation.
I'm wondering if it might be worth bringing this to Wikipedia:DRN if a consensus can't be reached? You can also look for project noticeboards & post there to ask for input from editors who are more familiar with this topic.
I'd suggest the latter first, since I'm sure there's at least one history-based group board floating around? I'm on mobile so it's a bit of a pain to search, but if I find any I'll add it here. Blue Sonnet (talk) 14:48, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:WikiProject History might be a good place to ask for input. Remember that you're just asking for their opinion so a simple link & single sentence asking for more voices should be sufficient. You could also go through the member list to look for active editors, then pop a short message on their Talk inviting them to join the discussion? Blue Sonnet (talk) 14:54, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Egyptiankeng (talk) 15:33, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:51, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:51, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Grand_Egyptian_Museum