Talk:Khufu/Archives/2022/April

Dates
Hi, This has Djedefre before Khufu. Is that right? --Kylemew 15:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The dates in the text and on the table differ. I'm happy to change this but which is right? --Kylemew 15:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

khufu
How did khufu die??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.134.5.117 (talk) 21:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * hard to tell, the end of his reign is as mysterious as his sons reign after.--Jakezing (talk) 19:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Length of reign
This article is very unclear. It gives the length in the infobox as 23 years, per the Turin Kings List, but then gives evidence that there are documented insciptions of his 13th and 17th counts. Considering that the cenususes in Egypt were biannual, don't both of these contradict the dates on the Kings List? The list has been wrong quite a few times before so it's possible this article needs to be updated. 90.192.223.127 (talk) 15:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The article shouldn't really say that The Turin Canon gives his length as 23 years. The name is completely missing from entry III, 10.  Egyptologists merely go by their knowledge that Khufu succeeded Snefru to fill in his missing name, but the statement "...23 years, which is the number ascribed to him by the Turin King List" is technically incorrect -- it's the number ascribed by the Canon to what is believed to be him.  216.138.230.98 (talk) 02:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Article name
I was a bit surprised to see this article at Khufu rather than Cheops, and more surprised to see that there was no discussion of the name here.

I'm sure there are reasons for this name selection, and I seem to dimly recall being involved in a discussion years ago. But perhaps that is deja vu.

Has there been previous discussion? Regardless, why is Khufu preferred to Cheops? Is it that people think it's the more common name, or are there other reasons?

I'm not proposing a move. I just think that the reasons for this particular name should be on the talk page. Andrewa (talk) 02:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not an expert on the naming rules of Egyptian pharaohs, but I note that the Wikipedia articles on the early pharaohs consistently use the original Egyptian names rather than the Greek or Roman version of those names. As I understand it, the name Cheops comes from the Greek.  Thus the redirect from Cheops to the Egyptian name for this pharaoh.  --Chaleyer61 (talk) 02:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, thanks for the reply. Naming conventions (people) doesn't mention this, nor does Naming conventions (names and titles). And while it's not in the scope of Naming conventions (ancient Romans), I note that the convention there reads in part The "most common" rule always trumps, so for instance we use Livy instead of Titus Livius, and Germanicus instead of Germanicus Julius Caesar.


 * So are there any naming rules of Egyptian pharaohs, and if not, why don't we follow WP:NC and use the common name, as we do for the ancient roman emperors? Andrewa (talk) 08:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggest you take this up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ancient Egypt - I'm not happy with the suggestion and think it needs wider discussion. Doug Weller (talk) 09:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Discussion is exactly what I'm after. Obviously someone thought or thinks that the current article name of Khufu has merit, and both you and Chaleyer61 sort of imply that you like it. But neither of you have said why.


 * I'm inclined to leave it at that. IMO it's not likely a move would succeed, and not terribly important so long as everyone is happy with the existing practice.


 * Feel free to raise it at the Wikiproject if you think that would be of benefit. Andrewa (talk) 16:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Khufu was the native ancient Egyptian name of this king whereas Cheops was a foreign 2,000 years old later Greek name for this king. We must follow the native spelling for his name. Even the BBC calls him by the name Khufu and it is a WP:RS Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * No, there's nothing forcing us to follow the native spelling for his name. However the BBC reference is a good one. Andrewa (talk) 02:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I should note that Khufu means 'Protected by Khnum' as Peter Clayton's 2006 paperback book Chronicle of the Pharaohs records. Hence, the convention of naming a pharaoh's WP article by his native Egyptian name, not a foreign Greek name, makes sense and should be followed. The name Khufu has a meaning whereas Cheops is just a later foreign (Greek) translation of this king's name. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Understood, but is this convention documented anywhere? Has it been adopted, either formally as a Wikipedia naming convention, or less formally simply by consensus on a discussion page? Andrewa (talk) 02:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I should clarify: I'm asking has this convention been documented anywhere in Wikipedia. There's no question that other authorities adopt it. Andrewa (talk) 20:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Brittanica also uses the term 'Khufu' here: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/317046/Khufu#tab=active~checked%2Citems~checked&title=Khufu%20--%20Britannica%20Online%20Encyclopedia If possible. it is always preferable to call an Egyptian king or person by his/her proper native name. Up to the late 1980's, Egyptologists (like Grimal) occasionally used the Greek term Sethos to name Seti I but today virtually all the major Encyclopedic publications have shifted to this person's Egyptian name. I cannot cite the particular WP 'rule' here but this convention respects a person's native name. --Leoboudv (talk) 07:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * it is always preferable to call an Egyptian king or person by his/her proper native name... That is a widely help opinion among those involved with this article, obviously, from the above discussion, and it also seems to be current practice. But as Wikipedia policy and guidelines currently stand, it seems to me they conflict with this opinion and practice. Assuming there's consensus that this practice should continue, it would be good to document that consensus. Which is what we're doing. Andrewa (talk) 19:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Summarizing:

There seem to be two arguments in favour of the current practice so far:


 * Several people have expressed a personal opinion that the Egyptian names should be used.


 * Other encyclopedias, and the BBC, use the Egyptian names.

Both of these seem to me to be inconclusive. We're not Brittanica, and one of the ways we specifically differ is in generally using WP:common names for articles. The BBC is likely to follow these other encyclopedias. Are there any other arguments I've missed?

In particular, is there any evidence that Khufu is in common use? Cheops certainly is; The Great Pyramid is almost universally attributed to Cheops. Andrewa (talk) 19:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Bill Manley--who also edited Egypt's 70 Great mysteries, wrote another book titled 'the Penguin Historical Atlas of Ancient Egypt' in 1996 and again mentions Khufu, Khafra and Menkaura in his list of Egyptian kings. (p.132) My point is Khufu, Khafre/Khafra and Menkaure/Menkaura are the main academic references that Egyptologists call these kings today, not Herodotus' Cheops, Chepren and Mycerinus. Is it proper if someone calls you 'Iandruva' 2,000 years from now instead of your proper User name 'Andrewa.' Of course not. That is the point here. --Leoboudv (talk) 20:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The Egyptologist Jaromir Malek in his chapter (ch 4) on the Old Kingdom in the well respected 'The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt' as edited by Ian Shaw (2000) consistently refers to 'Khufu (Herodotus' Cheops)', 'the long reign of Huni, Sneferu and Khufu', 'Khufu's son Hardjedef' and explicitly notes that Khufu's full name was "Khnum-khufu, meaning 'the god Khnum protects me.'" (pp.94-95) He also talks about the intact treasure of Khufu's mother Hetepheres I and this ruler's pyramid before moving on to Khafra and Menkaura. (pp.94-97) He also notes that the names Khafra and Menkaura were derived by Herodotus who lived more than 2,000 years after these kings died. (p.97) Personally I accept the ancient Egyptian's names rather than Herodotus.


 * You seem to be appealing to the same two arguments already given by others: Personal opinion, and scholarly use.


 * I have no objection whatsoever to the French calling me André or the Australian aboriginals calling me Anterunya, which they do. It's prefectly proper for them to do so. If anyone calls me Iandruva in 2,000 years, I'm delighted that they call me anything at all. Where did this version come from? I'm curious. Andrewa (talk) 20:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know how to measure popular use. Ghits can't be used for something like that. One of the most popular tourist sites, touregypt, uses Khufu (mentioning the name Cheops as well), but that doesn't make it the most popular use. Doug Weller (talk) 20:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * That's a good start... URL? Andrewa (talk) 20:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

There are three options for going further:


 * We don't need to go further at all! As I've said from the start, I'm not proposing a page rename. I'm just trying to clarify what is going on.
 * We could propose a new naming convention, saying I guess something like that this and similar article names should follow ancient Egyptian usage.
 * We could justify this current name in terms of existing conventions, and in particular, that this is already popular usage.

They all have their pros and cons. But what I'd caution strongly against is arguing that Khufu is the name people don't yet use but should. This is advocacy, and likely to be rejected by the wider community as contrary to Wikipedia's basic principles. Andrewa (talk) 20:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Andrewa. I already gave proper academic reasons why this article is titled Khufu and not Cheops. I cited the BBC, Jaromir Malek, Bill Manley. E. Brittanica was used as a guide for how traditional encyclopaedia's refer to this king. What else do you want? I clarified the issue and also mentioned what Khufu's full name, Khnum Khufu, translates in Egyptian. I've justified the existing convention for calling Khufu by his proper Egyptian name. Personally, I prefer your third solution. Thank You. --Leoboudv (talk) 22:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I prefer that solution, too. But where ever did you get the idea that quoting proper academic reasons would achieve that? I've already answered the appeal to traditional encyclopaedia's (sic). Where do our naming conventions mention these? What more do I want? Simply that we address the issues. Andrewa (talk) 23:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I know Google has been mentioned disparagingly above, but I get 189,000 ghits for Khufu pyramid and only 54,600 for Cheops pyramid. This to me supports the contention that Khufu is in popular usage. Yes, you need to be careful of Google, but I think this statistic would need to be answered in order to justify any move. (Your results will depend on many factors and may differ to mine, that's why from bitter experience I don't give the URLs for these searches.) Andrewa (talk) 23:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion
There seems to be a de facto naming convention that Wikipedia articles on the early pharaohs use the original Egyptian names rather than the Greek or Roman version of those names. Andrewa (talk) 16:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, that might be premature. Discussion above is continuing. There seems a strong consensus that the existing name should be retained, but most of the reasons given seem to ignore Wikipedia policy. Andrewa (talk) 02:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * At the risk of arguing from silence, the probability that anyone will come up with any justification for the current practice in terms of current policy (excepting of course WP:IAR) and guidelines seems to be rapidly vanishing. That doesn't mean that the practice should change. Policies and guidelines document communal consensus rather than creating it. Andrewa (talk) 19:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * This is not an argument in silence. Egyptologists such as Jaromir Malek call this king Khufu, and note that his Greek name was Cheops. Are we going to rename Menkaure's article next as Mycerinus when most people don't even know this 4th dynasty king's name next? Names are very important--you either follow a native Egyptian's name or you don't. Since their Egyptian names are known, we must use them. In most case, a king's Egyptian name actually conveys a meaning. That is why we should always abide by them. --Leoboudv (talk) 19:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The National Geographic style manual says "Khufu, the Arabic spelling, is preferred to Greek spelling Cheops for the pharaoh who built the Great Pyramid.". Doug Weller (talk) 20:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Another good scholarly source. But should we follow these? That's the question. And if so, why? Andrewa (talk) 20:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The reference to argument from silence was in connection to my own argument, nobody else's. I'm wondering why nobody is giving any evidence of popular usage of the name Khufu. To go from this lack of evidence to a conclusion that there is no evidence is an obvious but risky step that I'm tempted but reluctant to make, that's all I'm saying. Andrewa (talk) 20:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Andrewa you seem to be advocating that we hoist a foreign, ie: Greek Herodotus based name to refer to an Egyptian king who has a proper identifiable Egyptian name. If a person didn't have a proper native name (that we could locate), then certainly we would use the Greek version. In the case of the 4th dynasty, we know Khufu's full name Khufu Khnum which means "the god Khnum protects me" and I even gave a proper academic source. The name has meaning in its context. And still you reject it and want to call him Cheops even though WP's article on Khufu gives Cheops as the Greek form of his name. This tells me you don't accept the judgment of Egyptologist's and would rather advocate your own POV here. One point: the name Cheops was in more popular use in the past (on TV programs) because Khufu's name was either lost until Ancient Egyptian was translated or more emphasis was placed on their Greek derived names. But nowadays, most programs' and web sites would say Khufu or Cheops' pyramid, etc and give primacy to his native Egyptian name. They say Khufu, then Cheops' pyramud/reign/family, etc as TourEgypt does here:
 * No, I'm not advocating that at all. I'm not advocating that we hoist anything on anyone, just the opposite. But you're right, I don't accept the judgment of Egyptologist's (sic) on this matter, not because it's my POV, but because it's Wikipedia policy. If you're correct and can make a case... as I think you are doing... that Khufu is the more normal current usage, then there's no problem with this article. There may be on others, if (as I suspect) the naming has been based on the judgment of Egyptologist's (sic) rather than on WP:NC. Andrewa (talk) 23:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * May I note one exception: the Greek priest Manetho writes that a certain Salitis was the first Hyksos king to conquer Egypt by force. Whether this is true or propaganda (I think it was more of a peaceful takeover of Lower Egypt by the local Semitic population in Lower Egypt...just as the local Libyan population of Lower Egypt later ruled the 22nd dynasty) is immaterial. The point is...since no one knows what Salitis' Egyptian name was, it is right to acknowledge that a certain king named Salitis was the first Hyksos ruler as TourEgypt notes and as WP does here This is an instance where the use of a foreign name is justified. But certainly not in the case of Khufu, Khafra/Khafre and Menkaura/Menkaure who are all attested in contemporary old Kingdom documents by their proper Egyptian names. Please kindly stop making a mountain out of a mole-hill. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Please comment on content, not on the contributor. It's frustrating for me, too. All I asked was that the naming be explained, as the name appeared to me to violate the naming conventions. The explanations initially offered confirmed that the conventions were being ignored, and some of the latest still indicate this. This is something that needs to be fixed eventually. And it doesn't mean that the name is wrong; It may be a case of the right name having been picked for the wrong reasons. I'm still hopeful that's the case, and it's why I have not pushed for a renaming, just an explanation. Andrewa (talk) 23:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Andrewa, I acknowledge that there are more google hits for Cheops pyramid here: at 31,000 than Khufu's pyramid here:  at 9730 but that isn't really grounds for renaming an article from Cheops to Khufu. We can't rely on google hits here if WP is a serious encyclopedia. Why would we rename a pharaoh with a name created by Herodotus 2,000 years after this ruler's death rather than this king's proper name? When people type the name Cheops on WP, they get redirected to Khufu...and they can see that it is the same person. Remember, if we rename Khufu to his Greek name, we would have to rename the 4 Amenhotep kings as 'Amenophis' and the 2 Seti kings as Sethos...which would not be historically accurate. Then we lose consistency here. Its preferable to follow the practise of the academics. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * We would rename it if Cheops was shown to be significantly more easily recognizable by English speakers (WP:NC), unless there were strong reasons for departing from this. The only reason generally accepted as valid for departures from this basic criterion has been ambiguity, for example in the case of articles about European monarchs. The opinions of scholars and the practices of other encyclopedias have in general not been accepted as good enough reasons. So while you might think its preferable to follow the practise of the academics, this hasn't been the general consensus of the community up until now. Consistency does have some following, but again doesn't in general override the basic criterion. And consensus can change. But I don't think the probability of an exception being supported in this case is very great, I could be wrong. Andrewa (talk) 06:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I have seen a number of arguments (and good ones, at that) stating that the academic term Khufu should be used. So far I have only seen a single reference (within Wikipedia no less) stating why it should be Cheops. A single reference for "Cheops" does not make for a well-argued case of it being the most "popular" name for this pharaoh, especially since that same reference mentions "Khufu" as well.


 * My understanding of the name derivation is that the name Cheops was commonly used by the ancient Greeks for naming the person who built the pyramids. This is also the name that crept into early Egyptological works by Victorian-era Brits, French and Germans who produced early histories. In many cases they used the Greek naming conventions, and these are the names that ended up being used by non-academics.


 * Around the time of the opening of the tomb of pharaoh Tutankhamun the naming convention used by academics switched over to a phonetic pronunciation of the pharaoh's name as written in Egyptian hieroglyph, which is where Khufu comes from. Over time this name has been adopted more and more widely, and I would argue is at least as "popular" as Cheops these days. Never mind academic journals, as most newspaper references I have seen tend to refer to the acknowledged Egyptian pronunciation as opposed to the old Greek naming convention, which in English at any rate sounds archaic (i.e. the old, Victorian-era name that was used). So let's see a good argument as to why Cheops ought to be used other than just "because it should".


 * Some newspaper articles that reference "Khufu's pyramid" (or similar phrasing) as opposed to "Cheops":
 * http://www.mg.co.za/article/2008-08-12-egypts-ancient-pyramids-get-modern-makeover
 * http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/01/science/01pyramid.html
 * http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20050312.CAIROPARK12/TPStory/specialTravel
 * http://articles.latimes.com/1997/nov/23/news/mn-56977


 * Further, while I've seen the WP:NC argument bandied about, there has been considerable discussion on this type of point by the online Wikipedia community interested in Egyptology, which has provided a consensus that the Ancient Greek naming conventions should not be used, see: Naming conventions (Ancient Egyptian). This came out of a similar discussion surrounding KV62, arguing over the merit of that name versus "Tomb of Tutanhkamun".


 * So, I'd like to see some evidence that "Cheops" is more popular and in wider usage in English than "Khufu", preferably referencing outside contemporary sources of comparable weight, and why the considered opinions of the Egyptological community at Wikipedia should be disregarded in this case. I really want to see a stronger "pro-Cheops" argument at this point, as I don't think it has been convincingly made. Captmondo (talk) 12:01, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, thank you! Yes, now it now comes back to me!


 * Please see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Ancient Egyptian). While this convention was proposed more than a year ago, there's been little progress towards formally adopting it. It's slipped throught the cracks.


 * Of course the considered opinions of the Egyptological community at Wikipedia should not be disregarded. But neither should the wider policy.


 * Wikipedia is a work in progress. Time for a bit more. Andrewa (talk) 12:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I am unaware of the formal adoption process you speak of. If there is one, I'd like to know about it. Then perhaps further progress can be made. In the meantime, it is certainly a valid guideline that has been proposed (if not "formally adopted") by the Egyptology community here, and should not merely be brushed aside.


 * Is the fundamental argument pro-Cheops still forthcoming? The absence of a backed-up argument (rather simply the assertion) in the face of everything provided for the pro-Khufu side is not likely to sway an impartial voter against the renaming of this article as-is. Captmondo (talk) 13:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * See below regarding the process, or Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Ancient Egyptian).


 * There has never been a proposal to rename this article. That's one of the misapprehensions that has prolonged and heated this discussion unnecessarily. And even if the (proposed?) naming convention were to be rejected, I think that, as you suggest, there's now been enough evidence that Khufu is current usage that a move request would fail even without the guideline. Andrewa (talk) 19:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * My apologies for misconstruing your intent. Have followed the links you have made, and am I right in thinking that the "discussion" to formalize the current proposed naming schemes is at Naming conventions (Ancient Egyptian)? I only ask because there doesn't seem to be much of a discussion there (as yet), and don't want to miss out. Captmondo (talk) 22:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Ancient Egyptian) is certainly appropriate. But in that this seems to have stalled a year ago, I've raised it at Village pump (proposals). Discussion of any new proposed guideline should be raised there eventually, and this one doesn't seem to have undergone such scrutiny yet. There are several other forums that could be relevant, the most important IMO is Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions. Andrewa (talk) 08:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * While the current English usage has shifted towards Khufu within last couple of decades, older usage was nearly exclusively Cheops. Thus, while the correct name is indeed Khufu, I'll put Cheops as the second non-parenthesised word in the article (it's currently not mentioned until well into the article's body, the float excluded). KiloByte (talk) 15:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi. Just discover now this strange naming decision on the English version of WP. Cheops is still strongly used by non English native speakers in English documents, because Cheops (with its orthography variants) is still the name used in most countries/languages. WP is not really coherent with this English Khufu: Deutch WP: Cheops, French WP: Khéops, Portuguese WP: Quéops, Spanish WP: Keops, Italian: Cheope, etc. . Aktrasys 08:26, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Naming convention
See Village pump (proposals). Andrewa (talk) 14:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

You'd expect this great Pharaoh
To have more statues and information about him, considering the Great Pyramid and Sphinx were supposedly built for him. 174.16.108.193 (talk) 17:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Naming Convention

 * Naming should be used to give readers the RIGHT information::::: — Preceding unsigned comment added by WordsBok (talk • contribs) 18:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Need to break up references for GA
THanks to the editor(s) who worked so hard on this important article. It's looking very good. One issue that a GA reviewer will raise (I was considering reviewing but noticed this) is the clustering of references at the end of paragraphs. The references need to follow the information they support, and when they are books, the specific page number(s) need to be indicated for that piece of information. Clustering them together doesn't allow the reader to verify the content or learn more about a particular piece of information by returning to the source, since they don't know which reference will address the information provided. Clustering references together should only be done when more than one reference covers the same material, and only when multiple sources are needed to make that point, such as when the information is contentious or when making a "numerous studies say..." type statement. More than one reference can be used within a single sentence, typically following punctuation: blablabla,[1] blablablabla.[2] 41.186.11.210 (talk) 04:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanx for your critics, I will take care of it as soon as possible. --Nephiliskos (talk) 08:32, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

GA?
hello,

I don't think this is near GA-status. First why is this infobox used instead of the standard Template:Infobox pharaoh? The bulleted lists in the first section are distracting and they need to be removed for flow; suggest use prose to describe his relatives, or if that is not possible consider adding a link to his tree. Also see the German article which has no such bulleted lists. Regards.-- GoP T C N 11:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Ummmmm... if you had taken a look to other articles of pharaos, you would have noticed that the orange infoboxes will replace the older ones. This was decided due a long lasting discussion within the portal members. This has three reasons: The older boxes were not made for displaying the hieroglyphs in which the royal names are written, with the new boxes we can display and translate the names completely and the place of origin can be named; for second, the informations within the older box can be better presented and explained in the articles themself, from this sight the older boxes were redundent. And, for third, the new boxes can show short infos about the throne sequence and length of reigns.


 * About the family list. I don´t get it. I´m not sure if it does matter if the list looks like that or if it´s pressed into text blocks. Name list remains name list.


 * Now, that is really interesting: You praise the way in which the German article is created, but on the other side you don´t want a German infobox in the english version? Get your way, will ya... --Nephiliskos (talk) 12:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "Now, that is really interesting: You praise the way in which the German article is created, but on the other side you don´t want a German infobox in the english version?" - I do not praise that article at all. There is no specific infoboxes for pharaos in the German wikipedia.
 * "About the family list. I don´t get it. I´m not sure if it does matter if the list looks like that or if it´s pressed into text blocks. Name list remains name list. " - Well, I am pretty sure most of the users will prefer prose over lists. It does not look professionally at all and is distracting. Regards.-- GoP T C N 13:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * To the first point: That is not quite correct. ;-) German Wikipedia has three sorts of boxes: the simple box for personal and place names, the pharaoh´s box for kings and queens and the box-of-the-gods. But in english Wikipedia there´s no technical possibility yet to use all kinds.


 * To the second point: Ok, ok... I will try to compress the list into blocks. But if it looks to shitty I will dissolve it again, ok? --Nephiliskos (talk) 13:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello guys, I have to say that I agree with Nephiliskos when it comes to the pharaoh infobox: in particular Khufu, who reigned before Djedefra did not have a son of Ra name, when the pharaoh infobox necessarily put s3 r' before the nomen, something terribly wrong here. Thus the current infobox is rigorously better. As for the list, we can organize a vote, because I personnally prefer a list (or even better a familly tree if possible), over prose.... Iry-Hor (talk) 13:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Wut about THIS: I can create a family tree by graphic software based on excellent sources. This family tree can be presented in an extra article under the lemma "Family tree of Khufu". Your thoughts, peoples? --Nephiliskos (talk) 14:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Sounds awesome to me! I think the article deserves to be GA rated, especially in regard to other GA articles. Iry-Hor (talk) 14:57, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I like this format. A family tree would be nice, but this is not required.-- GoP T C N 16:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Often not very idiomatic English
It reads in many places as if written by someone whose first language was not English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.21.54.229 (talk) 15:48, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Clever boy... ;D --Nephiliskos (talk) 10:37, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, not the most helpful observation! Hchc2009 (talk) 11:02, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Besides: I see often nuff in other articles what kinda "english" is written there. ;-P --Nephiliskos (talk) 12:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Ancient Greek sources
Nitpicking maybe, but I just wanted to add the ancient greek sources if anyone needs them:


 * Χέοπα (Cheopa?) - Herodotus, "Histories" 2.124 and 2.127
 * Χέμμις (Chemmis) - Diodorus Siculus, "Bibliotheca Historica" 1.63.2
 * Χνοῦβος (Chnubus) - Eratosthenes via Syncellus in "Ecloga Chronographai"

Both Africanus and Eusebius names him Σoῦφις (Souphis)

As I understand it, Χέοψ (Cheops) is the rendition in modern Greek, not the actually written by the respective authors.

Peter Lundström 22:25, 27 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PLstrom (talk • contribs)


 * Hi. Very interesting, indeed. We in Germany render the names as:


 * Χέοπα = Chéopai → Herodot
 * Χέμμις = Chémmis → Diodor
 * Χνοῦβος = Chnúbos → Eratosthenes
 * Σoῦφις = Súphis I. → Africanus & Eusebius
 * It would indeed be enrichment to put in these names, but I may admonish you to give credible sources for every addition. Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 22:58, 20 November 2013 (UTC)