Talk:Minor tombs in the Valley of the Kings

Merging stubs on minor tombs into one article
this seems like as good a place as elsewhere to suggest this, so...

atm each and everyone of the KV tombs has its own article, usually these are nothing more than a stub and i many cases it seems unlikely that much more info can be added to improve the article rating. might it therefore not be a good idea to create an article on minor tombs in the VofK in which the info from all those stubs is collected? tombs that might be included in such an article: KV3, 12, 13, 19, 21, 26-33, 37, 40, 41, 44, 49 51-53, 59, 61, WV24, WV25, KVB till T and WVA... all of which are non-royal tombs (with the exception of WV25, but then again, little more can be said about it)

any thoughts on this? (btw, i compiled the list above rather quickly, so i might have left out some possible candidates or included some that shouldn't be included... maybe someone should double check it) --!linus (talk) 15:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think this would really work. How would someone search for KV44 for example? We would have to have a redirect for eah tomb to allow the search. Also, just because they are a stub, doesn't mean that they will stay a stub. Markh (talk) 15:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

further comment: isn't that what redirects are for?

as for moving beyond the stub phase: true, many of the KV articles can and should be expanded, i recently unstubbed KV20, doing the same now with KV4 and (while it wasn't a stub before) i expanded the KV55 article (it still needs more work, especially in the reconstruction section), but for the tombs i listed above... well, there is precious little that can be said beyond what is already in the stubs (either because they yielded little information or because that information went unrecorded by their explorers/discoverers), some were never used, some aren't even tombs but rather tomb commencements... these tombs are in themselves not notable (atm that is, see below), what makes them notable (as a group) is that they are all tombs in the VofK. i would rather see one article treating them together instead of having a whole series of stub article that contain little more than tomb in the VofK, discovered by X in year Y, original owner (possibly) Z or unknown and little else known about it.

and while some of these tombs have received very little attention and are virtually unexplored (and in some cases even their exact location is not known) which might mean there is another KV5 amongst them... that doesn't affect their current minor relevance. if ever any one of these tombs will turn out to be of greater importance than is perceived atm they can then be moved into their own article. (having said this i would argue that KV64-65 should be included in the above list as well)

also: note that this has nothing to do with a distinction between royal-nonroyal tombs: there are several non-royal VofK tombs (like KV56 or KV36, to name just two) that deserve better coverage than they have at present. WV25 on the other hand, while royal in its dimensions/layout (as far as it goes) and while being the possible commencement of akhenaten's theban tomb, it is little more than an entrance staircase and a partially excavated first corridor in which belzoni found intrusive burials and that's about all that can be said about it... in other words, the article is a stub atm and will remain a stub --!linus (talk) 13:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

right, i started an article anyways, don't worry i haven't done any re-directing yet. will add more later on. i hope his will show the benefit of arranging this material this way. --!linus (talk) 23:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems like you and I maybe the only people interested enough to contribute! In my opinion, if WV25 contains all the information about the tomb the is available, then it isn't a stub, in fact it should be GA! Markh (talk) 18:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

actually, after reading the wv25 article i must say that more can be said there... but then you might have noticed i arranged things slightly different from what i first suggested in that respect (i.e. noting wv25, and some other tombs, but linking them to their own articles because they are notable tombs one way or another) but other than that you are quite right... most of the stubs for the tombs listed here are actually GA. i almost made that same argument earlier on because actually it is another reason to group these tombs in one article. and if you like another good reason for a merge, one that is purely wiki related: of the 27 tombs i group here only four are linked from more than two pages (i left links from the infobox, links from lists-articles, links from talk pages and links from the VofK article out of the count), four are linked from no other pages, eight have one link and 11 have two links... in most cases at least one of those links is an orphaned article... so the majority of these tombs have virtually orphaned articles (actually doing the count made me realise i forgot to add KV13, which is the only article with five links (the highest number)). so not only are the articles involved very short, they are also pretty much loose ends in the wiki structure. --!linus (talk) 01:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)