Note:Discussion arose at Talk:KV62
Should articles on tombs be titled by their catalogue number (TT111 or KV11) or should they be named as their common names? Should famous tombs be an exception to the former? Should tombs whose occupants are unknown or debated be an exception if the latter? -- Keerlls ton 22:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Just to summarise the sections below, Supporting non-official naming means 'Tomb of Tutankhamun', rather than 'KV62'. Opposing non-official naming means sticking to the official designatins, i.e. 'KV62' rather than 'Tomb of Tutankhamun'.
This page is considered a naming convention on Wikipedia. It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on this page's talk page. |
Supporting non-catalogue rename for tombs where an non-debated name exists. Where proper name is debated, catalogue number suffices. Is it the planet pluto or space object 134340? Exceptions are important!-- Keerlls ton 18:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Just a little question about this discussion page: is it alright if we put just two sections; a support and an oppose section, and people just add onto those? Abluescarab ( talk) 10:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Suggest a naming convention for tombs: Use "Tomb of N" for:
Use "KV--" "QV--" "TT--" for:
This proposal should be fleshed out some more; feel free to add. In lists, we could still use a consistent KV scheme, such as the one in use in the List of burials in the Valley of the Kings. Jeff Dahl ( Talk • contribs) 01:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Oppose: Dear Andrewa and Wikipedia Admins, A big problem with applying WP:NC to the Valley of the King's many tombs is that SEVERAL of the more influential people found buried here (not necessarily kings) have names that can be spelled in many different ways. If you use the hammer of WP:NC, you will create a series of unnecessary confusion. The best example is KV46, the tomb of Tomb Yuya and Tjuyu, the father and mother-in-law of pharaoh Amenhotep III. Does anyone know that Yuya and Tjuyu is just ONE of the names for them. Another name for them is Iouiya and Touiyou as in Theodore M. Davies book, The Tomb of of Iouiya and Touiyou. WORSE STILL, Yuya's name can be spelled in 12 different ways: namely Yuya, Iouiya, Yaa, Ya, Yiya, Yayi, Yu, Yuyu, Yaya, Yiay, Yia and Yuy! I'm not kidding here! What are we going to do now: open a pandora's box and call his tomb the Tomb of X (with 12 different names) and Tjuya?
That is why it is far simpler to just call his tomb KV46. The problem is resolved straight away without the need for 12! redirects which led ultimately to the same article. That is the problem with applying WP:NC to a catalogue system. I say if you are smart, you wouldn't touch it in the first place. Leoboudv ( talk) 07:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Dear Andrewa or Andrew? The heart of the matter is that if you name/rename one Valley of the king's tomb as The Tomb of Siptah, Amenhotep III or Tutankhamun, we will lose consistency in the name description for the KV tombs. Soon, many people will be demanding that a VOK tomb be named Tomb X (individual) and they may even wish to alter the original name of the tomb owner (ie: the article) which we have redirected searches too. That is why I say it is far better to simply keep the catalogue system as KV ## to avoid revert wars. Can you imagine the kind of battles we may have on KV19, the tomb of prince Mentuherkhepshef? The name Mentuherkhepshef can be spelled Menthuhirkhepsef or Menthuhirkhopsef or Monthu/Mentuher/hirkhopsof. (ie: 6 different names for the same person.) Theoretically, the name Mentuherkhepshef itself is slightly problematic since it affiliated with the god Menthu and could be spelled as Montu also...but I am not a quibbler here--unlike other contributors. My point is it is better to keep the status quo sometimes to stop revert wars on Wikipedia where people change the name of a person or king since they think their version is the SUPERIOR one...which is all really subjective. All I say is that once you tinker with the simple catalogue system, we lose all consistency in our tomb description system. I've been on Wikipedia long enough to see that many people have personal agendas to insert POV on certain people's articles. Do you know the volumnious nonsense people want to place in the Great Pyramids of Giza article or on Akhenaten himself. (ie: UFO's created the pyramids or Akhenaten was Moses among other unmentionable stuff) Just look at the article history for the Giza pyramids and see the number of vandalism/reversions that it has suffered: [1] We could well face a similar problem on the Valley of the Kings tombs which is completely avoidable with the traditional catalogue system. Leoboudv ( talk) 21:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Dear Andrew, I would just say this: If you want to rename say KV7 as the Tomb of Ramesses II, you should title it as the Tomb of Ramesses II(KV7). The same goes for Tutankhamun: the Tomb of Tutankhamun(KV62). That is the best compromise I can think of since it preserves both the original catalogue number for the tomb--which Egyptologists use--as well as the name of the tomb's owner. But for the tombs of nobles whose names have many differing spellings--like Yuya--you should keep the current catalogue system KV46 lest people start to give 12 different versions for his tomb which is very confusing. Also, the recently discovered KV63 tomb--as named by the Egyptian authorities ought NOT be changed to say (The 2006 Valley of the Kings Tomb), etc which is much too confusing when KV63 is short and simple.
I know what you are saying with WP:NC and I agree partly with your attempts: for instance, no one gives a catalogue name for the massive pyramid tomb of Khafra which is simply titled Khafra's pyramid or the tomb of Unas, the last king of the Vth dynasty which is also simply titled The Pyramid of Unas: [2] However, the Valley of the Kings is different because there are so many tombs found there that Egyptologists have to assign catalogue numbers just to keep track. So, if you rewrite Tut's famous tomb as the Tomb of Tutankhamun(KV62), you at least let people know its formal catalogue number and remind the audience that there are at least 61 other tombs in the famous Valley of the Kings. This is a reasonable compromise if you PRESCRIBE THIS RULE. However, I wonder if anyone can put down this rule on an open forum like Wikipedia? Leoboudv ( talk) 10:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
[reset indent]
Are we ready to move forward here? What is the next step/plan or should we let this issue rest? Jeff Dahl ( Talk • contribs) 23:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
As an Aside, I did briefly experiment with the aforementioned solution for Tut's tomb here: [4] under my 24.87.136.31 Anonymous IP edit (which I quickly reverted) in the Burial row of his Infobox and there was no change in the size of the article. One should keep in mind that Tutankhamun actually has one of the longer New Kingdom pharaoh's names at 11 letters. What do you think? Leoboudv ( talk) 03:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
See User talk:Andrewa/systematic names. Andrewa ( talk) 17:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
One point I should probably have made before... this doesn't become a guideline or naming convention until it's accepted as one. Its status right now is probably better described as proposal rather than guideline. See
and we might need to change the banner pending more discussion. Andrewa ( talk) 10:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Ancient Egyptian). Andrewa ( talk) 14:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Although I agree with the convention now that I've edited it, I have downgraded to {{ proposed}}. Let's see some evidence of consensus that this is what we want to say; and let's see some support for having this be a separate page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I propose a convention for the notation / naming of ancient Egyptian dynasties.
While the articles follow the format First dynasty of Egypt / Thirty-fist dynasty of Egypt, this is plainly inconvenient for in-line text.
The alternatives seem to me to be (taking the Ninth dynasty of Egypt as an example):
All are well evidenced in scholarly / academic circles.
I consider a capitalised form of option 1 (e.g. the Ninth Dynasty or (worse) the Ninth dynasty) to be inappropriate.
Options 3 and 4 are a more scientific approach.
My personal preference is for option 4 (Dynasty IX), which, while scientific, remains pleasing to the eye. gergis ( talk) 13:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
There are pretty wild inconsistencies between all the paragraphs that introduce articles about figures from Ancient Egypt history. Specifically, there are several pieces of information relevant to some, most, or all of these people:
From the Meritaten article: "Meritaten, also spelled Merytaten or Meryetaten (Ancient Egyptian: mrii.t-itn)[1] (14th century BC), was an ancient Egyptian royal woman of the Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt. Her name means . . ."
The Meketaten article: "Meketaten ("Behold the Aten" or "Protected by Aten") was the second daughter of six born to the Egyptian Pharaoh Akhenaten and his Great Royal Wife Nefertiti."
The Ankhesenamun article: "Ankhesenamun (ˁnḫ-s-n-imn, "Her Life Is of Amun"; c. 1348 – after 1322 BC) was a queen who lived during the 18th Dynasty of Egypt as the pharaoh Akhenaten's daughter and subsequently became the Great Royal Wife of pharaoh Tutankhamun. Born Ankhesenpaaten (ˁnḫ.s-n-pꜣ-itn, "she lives for the Aten"),[1] she was the 3rd of 6 known daughters of the Egyptian Pharaoh Akhenaten and his Great Royal Wife Nefertiti. "
The Neferneferure article: "Neferneferure (Ancient Egyptian: nfr-nfr.w-rꜥ "beautiful are the beauties of Re")[1] (14th century BCE) was an ancient Egyptian princess of the 18th Dynasty. She was the fifth of six known daughters of Pharaoh Akhenaten and his Great Royal Wife Nefertiti."
The Akhenaten article: "Akhenaten (pronounced /ˌækəˈnɑːtən/),[8] also spelled Echnaton,[9] Akhenaton,[3] Ikhnaton,[2] and Khuenaten[10][11] (Ancient Egyptian: ꜣḫ-n-jtn, meaning "Effective for the Aten"), was an ancient Egyptian pharaoh reigning c. 1353–1336[3] or 1351–1334 BC,[4] the tenth ruler of the Eighteenth Dynasty. Before the fifth year of his reign, he was known as Amenhotep IV (Ancient Egyptian: jmn-ḥtp, meaning "Amun is satisfied", Hellenized as Amenophis IV)."
So, as we can see there's lots of things going on in the introductory paragraphs for these articles. Consistency would be beneficial for readers and cohesively across the wiki. I would like to propose that article introductions be reformatted to match in the following way:
(Romanized name used consistently in the article) ((English pronunciation; Ancient Egyptian: ———, meaning "()"; alternatively romanized as (insert variants); years / dynasty active)) was a ____________________.
The meaning of the name would go in a later sentence as either part of the introduction or in the about/life sections.
Some examples from the above articles as to how this would appear:
I believe this proposal would be in line with all relevant Wikipedia rules on naming conventions.
ForWhomTheSunShines ( talk) 16:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
This is a courtesy notice that I've proposed renaming KV62 to "Tomb of Tutankhamun". You can participate in the discussion at Talk:KV62#Requested move 22 April 2021. Cheers. Rublov ( talk) 01:10, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Note:Discussion arose at Talk:KV62
Should articles on tombs be titled by their catalogue number (TT111 or KV11) or should they be named as their common names? Should famous tombs be an exception to the former? Should tombs whose occupants are unknown or debated be an exception if the latter? -- Keerlls ton 22:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Just to summarise the sections below, Supporting non-official naming means 'Tomb of Tutankhamun', rather than 'KV62'. Opposing non-official naming means sticking to the official designatins, i.e. 'KV62' rather than 'Tomb of Tutankhamun'.
This page is considered a naming convention on Wikipedia. It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on this page's talk page. |
Supporting non-catalogue rename for tombs where an non-debated name exists. Where proper name is debated, catalogue number suffices. Is it the planet pluto or space object 134340? Exceptions are important!-- Keerlls ton 18:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Just a little question about this discussion page: is it alright if we put just two sections; a support and an oppose section, and people just add onto those? Abluescarab ( talk) 10:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Suggest a naming convention for tombs: Use "Tomb of N" for:
Use "KV--" "QV--" "TT--" for:
This proposal should be fleshed out some more; feel free to add. In lists, we could still use a consistent KV scheme, such as the one in use in the List of burials in the Valley of the Kings. Jeff Dahl ( Talk • contribs) 01:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Oppose: Dear Andrewa and Wikipedia Admins, A big problem with applying WP:NC to the Valley of the King's many tombs is that SEVERAL of the more influential people found buried here (not necessarily kings) have names that can be spelled in many different ways. If you use the hammer of WP:NC, you will create a series of unnecessary confusion. The best example is KV46, the tomb of Tomb Yuya and Tjuyu, the father and mother-in-law of pharaoh Amenhotep III. Does anyone know that Yuya and Tjuyu is just ONE of the names for them. Another name for them is Iouiya and Touiyou as in Theodore M. Davies book, The Tomb of of Iouiya and Touiyou. WORSE STILL, Yuya's name can be spelled in 12 different ways: namely Yuya, Iouiya, Yaa, Ya, Yiya, Yayi, Yu, Yuyu, Yaya, Yiay, Yia and Yuy! I'm not kidding here! What are we going to do now: open a pandora's box and call his tomb the Tomb of X (with 12 different names) and Tjuya?
That is why it is far simpler to just call his tomb KV46. The problem is resolved straight away without the need for 12! redirects which led ultimately to the same article. That is the problem with applying WP:NC to a catalogue system. I say if you are smart, you wouldn't touch it in the first place. Leoboudv ( talk) 07:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Dear Andrewa or Andrew? The heart of the matter is that if you name/rename one Valley of the king's tomb as The Tomb of Siptah, Amenhotep III or Tutankhamun, we will lose consistency in the name description for the KV tombs. Soon, many people will be demanding that a VOK tomb be named Tomb X (individual) and they may even wish to alter the original name of the tomb owner (ie: the article) which we have redirected searches too. That is why I say it is far better to simply keep the catalogue system as KV ## to avoid revert wars. Can you imagine the kind of battles we may have on KV19, the tomb of prince Mentuherkhepshef? The name Mentuherkhepshef can be spelled Menthuhirkhepsef or Menthuhirkhopsef or Monthu/Mentuher/hirkhopsof. (ie: 6 different names for the same person.) Theoretically, the name Mentuherkhepshef itself is slightly problematic since it affiliated with the god Menthu and could be spelled as Montu also...but I am not a quibbler here--unlike other contributors. My point is it is better to keep the status quo sometimes to stop revert wars on Wikipedia where people change the name of a person or king since they think their version is the SUPERIOR one...which is all really subjective. All I say is that once you tinker with the simple catalogue system, we lose all consistency in our tomb description system. I've been on Wikipedia long enough to see that many people have personal agendas to insert POV on certain people's articles. Do you know the volumnious nonsense people want to place in the Great Pyramids of Giza article or on Akhenaten himself. (ie: UFO's created the pyramids or Akhenaten was Moses among other unmentionable stuff) Just look at the article history for the Giza pyramids and see the number of vandalism/reversions that it has suffered: [1] We could well face a similar problem on the Valley of the Kings tombs which is completely avoidable with the traditional catalogue system. Leoboudv ( talk) 21:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Dear Andrew, I would just say this: If you want to rename say KV7 as the Tomb of Ramesses II, you should title it as the Tomb of Ramesses II(KV7). The same goes for Tutankhamun: the Tomb of Tutankhamun(KV62). That is the best compromise I can think of since it preserves both the original catalogue number for the tomb--which Egyptologists use--as well as the name of the tomb's owner. But for the tombs of nobles whose names have many differing spellings--like Yuya--you should keep the current catalogue system KV46 lest people start to give 12 different versions for his tomb which is very confusing. Also, the recently discovered KV63 tomb--as named by the Egyptian authorities ought NOT be changed to say (The 2006 Valley of the Kings Tomb), etc which is much too confusing when KV63 is short and simple.
I know what you are saying with WP:NC and I agree partly with your attempts: for instance, no one gives a catalogue name for the massive pyramid tomb of Khafra which is simply titled Khafra's pyramid or the tomb of Unas, the last king of the Vth dynasty which is also simply titled The Pyramid of Unas: [2] However, the Valley of the Kings is different because there are so many tombs found there that Egyptologists have to assign catalogue numbers just to keep track. So, if you rewrite Tut's famous tomb as the Tomb of Tutankhamun(KV62), you at least let people know its formal catalogue number and remind the audience that there are at least 61 other tombs in the famous Valley of the Kings. This is a reasonable compromise if you PRESCRIBE THIS RULE. However, I wonder if anyone can put down this rule on an open forum like Wikipedia? Leoboudv ( talk) 10:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
[reset indent]
Are we ready to move forward here? What is the next step/plan or should we let this issue rest? Jeff Dahl ( Talk • contribs) 23:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
As an Aside, I did briefly experiment with the aforementioned solution for Tut's tomb here: [4] under my 24.87.136.31 Anonymous IP edit (which I quickly reverted) in the Burial row of his Infobox and there was no change in the size of the article. One should keep in mind that Tutankhamun actually has one of the longer New Kingdom pharaoh's names at 11 letters. What do you think? Leoboudv ( talk) 03:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
See User talk:Andrewa/systematic names. Andrewa ( talk) 17:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
One point I should probably have made before... this doesn't become a guideline or naming convention until it's accepted as one. Its status right now is probably better described as proposal rather than guideline. See
and we might need to change the banner pending more discussion. Andrewa ( talk) 10:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Ancient Egyptian). Andrewa ( talk) 14:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Although I agree with the convention now that I've edited it, I have downgraded to {{ proposed}}. Let's see some evidence of consensus that this is what we want to say; and let's see some support for having this be a separate page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I propose a convention for the notation / naming of ancient Egyptian dynasties.
While the articles follow the format First dynasty of Egypt / Thirty-fist dynasty of Egypt, this is plainly inconvenient for in-line text.
The alternatives seem to me to be (taking the Ninth dynasty of Egypt as an example):
All are well evidenced in scholarly / academic circles.
I consider a capitalised form of option 1 (e.g. the Ninth Dynasty or (worse) the Ninth dynasty) to be inappropriate.
Options 3 and 4 are a more scientific approach.
My personal preference is for option 4 (Dynasty IX), which, while scientific, remains pleasing to the eye. gergis ( talk) 13:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
There are pretty wild inconsistencies between all the paragraphs that introduce articles about figures from Ancient Egypt history. Specifically, there are several pieces of information relevant to some, most, or all of these people:
From the Meritaten article: "Meritaten, also spelled Merytaten or Meryetaten (Ancient Egyptian: mrii.t-itn)[1] (14th century BC), was an ancient Egyptian royal woman of the Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt. Her name means . . ."
The Meketaten article: "Meketaten ("Behold the Aten" or "Protected by Aten") was the second daughter of six born to the Egyptian Pharaoh Akhenaten and his Great Royal Wife Nefertiti."
The Ankhesenamun article: "Ankhesenamun (ˁnḫ-s-n-imn, "Her Life Is of Amun"; c. 1348 – after 1322 BC) was a queen who lived during the 18th Dynasty of Egypt as the pharaoh Akhenaten's daughter and subsequently became the Great Royal Wife of pharaoh Tutankhamun. Born Ankhesenpaaten (ˁnḫ.s-n-pꜣ-itn, "she lives for the Aten"),[1] she was the 3rd of 6 known daughters of the Egyptian Pharaoh Akhenaten and his Great Royal Wife Nefertiti. "
The Neferneferure article: "Neferneferure (Ancient Egyptian: nfr-nfr.w-rꜥ "beautiful are the beauties of Re")[1] (14th century BCE) was an ancient Egyptian princess of the 18th Dynasty. She was the fifth of six known daughters of Pharaoh Akhenaten and his Great Royal Wife Nefertiti."
The Akhenaten article: "Akhenaten (pronounced /ˌækəˈnɑːtən/),[8] also spelled Echnaton,[9] Akhenaton,[3] Ikhnaton,[2] and Khuenaten[10][11] (Ancient Egyptian: ꜣḫ-n-jtn, meaning "Effective for the Aten"), was an ancient Egyptian pharaoh reigning c. 1353–1336[3] or 1351–1334 BC,[4] the tenth ruler of the Eighteenth Dynasty. Before the fifth year of his reign, he was known as Amenhotep IV (Ancient Egyptian: jmn-ḥtp, meaning "Amun is satisfied", Hellenized as Amenophis IV)."
So, as we can see there's lots of things going on in the introductory paragraphs for these articles. Consistency would be beneficial for readers and cohesively across the wiki. I would like to propose that article introductions be reformatted to match in the following way:
(Romanized name used consistently in the article) ((English pronunciation; Ancient Egyptian: ———, meaning "()"; alternatively romanized as (insert variants); years / dynasty active)) was a ____________________.
The meaning of the name would go in a later sentence as either part of the introduction or in the about/life sections.
Some examples from the above articles as to how this would appear:
I believe this proposal would be in line with all relevant Wikipedia rules on naming conventions.
ForWhomTheSunShines ( talk) 16:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
This is a courtesy notice that I've proposed renaming KV62 to "Tomb of Tutankhamun". You can participate in the discussion at Talk:KV62#Requested move 22 April 2021. Cheers. Rublov ( talk) 01:10, 22 April 2021 (UTC)