Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Ancient Egyptian)

Tomb Naming
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? --Keer lls 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'.
 * To follow up my comments on the original discussion elsewhere, then to have the tombs named for the owner would be confusing. The suggestion above is that these tombs have a 'common name', which they don't, they have an official designation, but are sometimes referred to by the tomb's occupants. There are tombs in the Valley of the Kings, like KV13 that have multiple owners and burials, other tombs elsewhere (notably TT96 is the tomb of Sennefer, but his burial goods were also found in KV42. Anything else than the 'official' designation would be confusing and faintly ridiculous. I  also feel that any exceptions (ie. Tomb of Tutankhamun rather than KV62) would just add to the confusion. Google ranking is important, but so is internal consistency, and naming convention based on the owner of the tomb just makes no sense. The official designations are used for Valley of the Kings, Valley of the Queens, List of Theban Tombs and Tombs of the Nobles (Amarna). In fact this last one is a great example. Ay has a tomb in Thebes and a tomb at Amarna, so what should these be named ? Theban tomb of Ay, Amarna tomb of Ay? Markh (talk) 23:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Support (again) I think that people will want to be sent a direct page to 'King Tutankhamun's Tomb', so I believe that we should rename it 'King Tutankhamun's Tomb' or something similar to that. To see my full argument, go here. Abluescarab (talk) 10:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The argument above The suggestion above is that these tombs have a 'common name', which they don't,... (my emphasis) seems to be simply a misunderstanding of what the terminology means. Naming conventions reads in part Generally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. That's what is meant by a common name. Why should tombs be any different? That's the question here. We can have an exception for them if there are good reasons.


 * But I wish you luck, there's no justification that I can see. The previous appeal to proper nouns (see Talk:KV62) has no basis in current linguistics, it's just a red herring IMO.


 * The appeal to internal consistency above: any exceptions (ie. Tomb of Tutankhamun rather than KV62) would just add to the confusion... is I think the heart of this discussion, in that I think it's what is really motivating those who want the keep the article currently at KV62 where it is. It's relevant certainly, but policy to date has been to use the common name where one exists, and have all official and systematic names as redirects. This is I think felt to be less confusing overall, as people with detailed subject knowledge know the official names, and aren't confused by the common names, while those without this specialised knowledge know only the common names.


 * That's for example why the article on 2-methylbutane is called isopentane. Andrewa (talk) 19:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I still fail to see the need to rename these articles. This would mean renaming the 62 tombs in the Valley of the Kings, the 26 tombs in Amarna and the nearly 400 tombs in and around Thebes. The would mean creating DAB pages for Tomb of Hatshepsut (she has perhaps 3), Tomb of Ay (one for Amarna and one for Thebes), Horemheb (one for his Memphite Tomb and one for his royal tomb in Thebes). This is seems faintly ridiculous. If the object of the exercise is to make Wikipedia easy to get to from Google, then that is great, but if it is to have Wikipedia as an encyclopedia then its totally the wrong way to go. It wont make Wikipedia 'better', it would make it easier to get to from search engines. I would disagree with the way that someone would get to KV62. I would imagine that the would search for King Tut or Tutankhamun and then get to KV62 from there. Should be rename Tutankhamun to King Tut, Hatshepsut to Queen Hatshepsut, This is where the common name argument ultimately leads in my view. Anyway, enough of me ranting! Markh (talk) 23:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No, at most we would only rename those with widely known names, such as the tomb of Tutankhamun. There may be others, or there may not be. But there has been absolutely no call to rename all of the tombs, unless you are making one here as a straw man argument.


 * Yes, this does in a sense reduce our consistency in this narrow subject area. If Wikipedia were only about tombs, or only about organic chemicals, we might go another way. But we're not, we're a general encyclopedia, with a wide audience, and we use the names that best serve that audience.


 * If you wish to change this policy, again, lots of luck. But you have obvious gifts of logic and rhetoric, and you're free to have a go. Andrewa (talk) 01:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Having read the [WP:NC page, the top of it says ...


 * I am all for common sense and the occasional exception, which would be changing of names to non-catalog names for Tombs. I think this is consistent with the arguments on the page! Markh (talk) 18:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * However, if I am the only person to argue against this, then could you write the convention and I will abide by it. I look forward to everyone contributing to the article(s) after they have been renamed. Markh (talk) 19:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you might have been looking at the wrong page. Most naming convention pages do have the notice you quote, but the notice on WP:NC reads instead This page documents an official policy on the English Wikipedia. It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. There's also a copy-edit notice that is the subject of some unfavourable comments on the relevant talk page and which is about to be removed I think, possibly by me. Andrewa (talk) 19:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

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!--Keer lls ton 18:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Page structure
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)
 * I have split the arguments, but obviously the titles might be POV! Markh (talk) 12:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think this goes against the idea of going towards consensus, besides - this is no longer whether to rename KV62 about which there is a support or object, but about the question "What Policies should exist about Tomb Naming?". Therefore the move to this page.--Keer lls ton 18:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree. Andrewa (talk) 19:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for tomb naming
Suggest a naming convention for tombs: Use "Tomb of N" for: Use "KV--" "QV--" "TT--" for:
 * Pharaoh tombs with unambiguous identity; applies to the orignal burial of the person and not burial caches.
 * Tomb of Tutankhamun
 * Tomb of Ramesses II
 * Tomb of Seti I
 * Tombs of queens, nobles, etc. when the tomb has unambiguous owners, and when the owner names are unique
 * Tomb of Nefertari
 * Tomb of Yuya and Thuya
 * Non-tombs
 * Unidentified or ambiguous tombs
 * KV5
 * KV55

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)


 * In the interest of trying to move forward and achieving a livable compromise, this proposal to my mind has merit. I still think that we should not change the KVnn listing, but one of my chief issues from the start has had to do with setting precedent in a bad way. If it is agreed that for contentious tombs or those with no clear owner, we keep the KVnn, QVnn or TTnn numbering, that would keep a lid on any POV-article namings for those tombs.


 * I would also suggest a preference for the numbering scheme on occasions where the article title would be ridiculously long, such as Tomb of the Sons of Ramesses II (KV5), and The Embalming Cache of Tutankhamun (KV54), or for very informal names, such as the Gold Tomb (KV56), or the Chariot Tomb (KV58).


 * Finally, the template for the EgyptianRoyalTombDetail infobox ought to be altered to retain some consistency, with the KVnn/QVnn/TTnn numbering in one area and the "common name" in another.


 * Am not particularly happy about this, and I think the sledgehammer that is WP:NC ought to be amended and strive towards more encyclopedic namings and cataloging systems, then using redirects to get people where they want to go. My vote is still oppose, but if we have to compromise this could be made to work. Captmondo (talk) 03:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree the pharaoh infoboxes, tomb infoboxes etc. should still link using the KV system as you suggest. I hope that we can work out the details/exceptions to make the system as agreeable to everyone as possible, keeping both usability and encyclopedicity. Good documenation of the final consensus will help keep article titles stable over time. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 03:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Support (the proposal, draft, general idea, direction) -Nice work Jeff!--Keer lls ton 03:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree. Andrewa (talk) 10:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose Frankly, naming Egyptian tombs as the tomb of Siptah, Tutankhamun, etc and moving away from the established catalogue system simply because some people want to use the more WP:NC system is like sawtting a fly with a brick wall. Egyptologists have no problem mentioning KV62 as the Tomb of Tutankhamun, neither does the Egyptian authorities. Are we going to tell them hat the Wikip[edia community knows better? Now that the Egyptian government has designated the next tomb found after Tutankhamun as KV63, are we going to deny the Egyptian's decision here and give this tomb a different name too? In my opinion, you either accept the right of the native Egyptians to assign basic catalogue/reference numbers to its tombs or you don't. Its that black and white and I am firmly with the former position!  I fully concur with Captmondo's note that renaming KV5 as Tomb of the Sons of Ramesses II is patently ridiculous. Are we going to rename tomb KV19 as the "Burial tomb of Mentuherkhepshef" next? Do we need overly long names for certain Egyptian tombs next? This discussion to rename the royal Egyptian tombs because some people--who are not professional Egyptologists--dislike the catalogue system strikes me as overly simplistic and does little to enhance Wikipedia's credibility among official governments, let along the academic community. Frankly, the catalogue system of KV numbers has been in use for at least 100 years and the Egyptian government has not indicated any desire to abandon it.  Until the Egyptians themselves state their intention to do so, I think a radical renaming of the 63 tombs in the Valley of the Kings is both unnecessary and highly unwarranted. Leoboudv (talk) 11:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, nobody has proposed renaming (for example) KV5. The intention of the proposed naming convention is to continue to use these codes for the names of the articles of the vast majority of the tombs.


 * you either accept the right of the Egyptians to assign basic catalogue/reference numbers to its tombs or you don't... Oh, but we do. We even like to include the official names in the articles, whenever we can. But we don't automatically use these or any other official names as Wikipedia article names. If you disagree with WP:NC, then by all means propose changes to it, but it's the current policy... and incidentally, one I heartily agree with, for many reasons. Andrewa (talk) 12:25, 24 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)


 * Let's deal with the easiest of these problems first... the matter of the 12! redirects which led ultimately to the same article. We actually need all of these whatever the article is named. And redirects are cheap. And by the way, they don't ultimately lead to the same article, they must lead immediately to it, as multiple redirects don't work.


 * So yes, if what you say is true then we should have redirects from all 12 spellings, and no, it isn't a Pandora's box, our procedures deal with this quite well thank you, and anyway what's your point, we need all of these redirects whether or not this particular article is renamed.


 * But more important, is there any reason not to call this particular tomb KV46? This seems to be another straw man. Nobody is proposing to rename all of the tombs, and WP:NC wouldn't support them if they did.


 * Perhaps I should also clarify the role of adminstrators. You are quite right, I'm one of them. We do have some extra powers, but no extra authority. We have the ability to do a few things which are sometimes necessary, but which we don't trust new and/or anonymous editors to do, for obvious reasons I think. These include deleting and undeleting pages and imposing and revoking blocks and page protection. We also have the responsibility to make ourselves available to use these powers for the housekeeping purposes for which they are needed, and to use them only as provided by Wikipedia policy. As part of this, we're expected to make a particular effort to know and respect Wikipedia policy, but of course none of us are perfect and we all make mistakes. It's not a big deal. Andrewa (talk) 10:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose. I'm not going to repeat my arguments above, just support what Leoboudv says above. There are tomb on which the ownership is unclear KV55, and those for which there is not (as yet) convention for the spelling of the Tomb owner (as well has Yuya and Tjuyu - this isn't a straw man, as both these ARE very well known tombs, and falls into the 'notable' section above, Ay can also be spelt different ways, not to mention his other tomb). However, I would rather actually be updating articles than arguing about this, so IF we decided to rename them, then we need to follow the guidelines proposed by Captmondo, however, I'd be still quite unhappy Markh (talk) 12:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm actually trying to save us all time in the long run. Agree that developing articles is far more rewarding than these discussions. We can all help to keep them short by carefully reading what has already been written - as I think we are all trying to do, but again, nobody is perfect, and sometimes a good faith reply will fail to address the issues raised, or cover old ground.


 * ISTM that the proposed guideline doesn't imply renaming KV55, but that it's still far too broad in the renaming it does suggest, and probably a bit more complicated than is needed. Andrewa (talk) 19:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Others have already said everything I could say on this matter so I can't add much... But it's so nice to have consistent article names, also, there are many different spellings of Tutankhamun's name (Google even has hits for the very archaic Touatânkhamanou.) (Same for the others: Seti/Sethi/Sety; Ramesses/Ramses, Nefertari/Nefretiry...)
 * BTW it is true that if we google "Tutankhamun's Tomb", the KV62 article isn't among the top ten hits, but the main Tutankhamun article is, and one has to be really stupid not to find the link to the tomb's article in Tut's article :) – Alensha   talk  13:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that's the heart of the problem... it is indeed nice to have consistent article names, and there's no reason that an exception to WP:NC can't be proposed to make this possible. It is a rather radical shift of policy, and my feeling is that it's likely to be rejected, but there's only one way to find out. IMO simply ignoring WP:NC is not a good way forward, it just postpones the day of judgement when either WP:NC will be changed or the decisions made here will be reversed, which seems a colossal waste of everyone's time.


 * My immediate suggestion is, rather than just opposing this particular attempt at a naming guideline for articles on ancient Egyptian tombs, come up with an alternative. It doesn't need to be consistent with the current WP:NC for the moment, but be aware that if it isn't, then there will be some work to do persuading the wider Wikipedia community that this is a good idea. And this is not to be taken lightly.


 * Having said that, I think it would be good if this were to be discussed more widely, and that there is a chance WP:NC might change. There is a noticeable trend at WP:RM lately to appeal more often to official or systematic names rather than common ones. Andrewa (talk) 19:08, 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: 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)


 * I'm happy with either name; I prefer andrewa in Wikipedia and most Internet contexts as in some discussions the trailing "a" helps to disambiguate, but it doesn't seem necessary here. Whatever you're most comfortable using.


 * 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. Yes, obviously. Why is this consistency so important? Make a case for that, document it as a naming convention and get it approved, and the problem is solved.


 * 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... I think this is speculation. I hear what you're saying, but I can't see that these fears of yours are a good enough reason to disregard Wikipedia's key article naming convention, which is to use the common name where one exists.


 * Just look at the article history for the Giza pyramids and see the number of vandalism/reversions that it has suffered... yes, exactly. And that's why I'd prefer to keep the rules simple and follow them. And the simple, existing rule is, use the common name where one exists. There are exceptions, and we can make another. But the more exceptions we make, the more cumbersome the administration of Wikipedia as a whole becomes, and the less resources we have for dealing with honest mistakes and deliberate vandalism (which are both inevitable) and for creating and improving articles (which is the bottom line).


 * And at the risk of speculating myself, the more exceptions we make, the more exceptions other people will ask for in their own pet areas. So make a good case for it. We know you like it. But how does it help Wikipedia achieve its goals?


 * But having said all that, personally, I'd quite like this to succeed. I notice that an increasing amount of time at requested moves is spent explaining to people that common names are preferred over official names. I think that, in the case that there's an authoritative naming system that is systematic, stable and citeable, we should have a system for adopting those official names as the article titles. But this would be a major policy change, and require quite a lot of extra administration. It may well be that the time is right for it, and this could just be a good test case for it.


 * Or it could fail after a lot of work has gone into it. See perennial proposals. Andrewa (talk) 06:06, 26 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:  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)


 * I wonder how many times I have to say that nobody is proposing to rename all of the tombs? Just those with unambiguous, common names.


 * The compromise suggested is a good suggestion, but unfortunately it's contrary to the naming policy, which uses brackets as disambiguators. I don't think it's a goer. Andrewa (talk) 17:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * How about KV62 - Tomb of Tutankhamun or Tomb of Tutankhamun - KV62? (or with a ':' or even just KV62 Tomb of Tutankhamun)? This would fit with Naming conventions (ships) and Naming conventions (aircraft) as examples. This would allow the standard designation and the common name to be as easy to find in an external search (I think)? Markh (talk) 21:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This would have an advantage in that no-one would have to make decision as to whether a tomb is better known by owner or designation (i.e. it could be universally applied with no real thought or dispute. We would just need to mandate the spelling of people's names - easier said than done! Markh (talk) 21:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Another good idea, and this one has a much better chance than the parentheses. A similar proposal was made regarding the choice between German and Italian based names in South Tyrol, and seems to have been adopted for some article names at least. But you should also be aware that there was a great deal of opposition to the double names, and that the issue keeps coming back to haunt and occupy (some would say waste) the time of those trying to build these particular articles. There have been similar proposals for multilingual regions in the former Yugoslavia, I don't know offhand whether they've been adopted consistently. Andrewa (talk) 23:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Andrew, Can't KV62:Tomb of Tutankhamun be permitted with all KV62 and Tomb of Tutannkhamun inquiries being redirected to this article? Or would the presence of the colon negate this compromise? I believe that Wikipedia should honour the catalogue system if at all possible. The Valley of the Kings is not like the Giza plateau where there are only 6 pyramids in total with 3 kings and 3 minor queens. There are at least 63 tombs here and there are rumours that a 64th or KV64 tomb has been located by radar but not yet opened by archaeologists. (see here: )


 * I think the use of the colon in KV62:Tomb of Tutankhamun could cause problems... A colon is used to delimit a namespace indicator, so it will at least be confusing for people and may also confuse the MediaWiki software. Andrewa (talk) 12:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I still oppose the renaming, because if we start using common names then we might as well rename Tutankhamen himself to "King Tut" or GWB to "Dubya", but if we really have to do it, it could be KV62 (Tomb of Tutankhamun). Parentheses are used in disambs, which is almost the same thing as using them for providing additional info. – Alensha   talk  00:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think this is a deliberate straw man and intended to be funny; Surely you're not really proposing that King Tut or Dubya are candidates for article names in terms of WP:NC. Yes, parentheses are used in disambiguation, and that's exactly why IMO they won't be acceptable for anything else, even if it's almost the same thing. Andrewa (talk) 10:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation
[reset indent]
 * Actually, as they are really DABs, should they not be Tomb of Ay (Thebes) and Tomb of Ay (Amarna) (as well as Tomb of Horemheb (Thebes) and Tomb of Horemheb (Memphis)). It would be consistent, but in my view still nasty. I had forgotten about the ':' problem, so that's a non-starter. I am deliberately ignoring KV62, to see how it can work generally. What would be done about KV5 ? It's 'commonly-referred-name' is something like the "Tomb of the Sons of Ramesses II"? Markh (talk) 14:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * In my proposal at the top of this section, I've listed KV5 as being named under that name, because the alternative "Tomb of the sons..." would be ambiguous and because I think KV5 really is better known under its catalog number, though I didn't do any google searches to confirm. The same is true for KV55. If everyone could look over the specifics of that proposal and point out any specific problems that would be great, and we can list more examples under each heading. For example, we can list KV63 under the "non-tomb" heading. It would keep that name because it is better known under its number than anything else. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 16:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree that there may in theory be cases where disambiguation along the lines of Tomb of Ay (Thebes) and Tomb of Ay (Amarna) is appropriate. But I'm not convinced that this is one, or that there will be any in practice. It would only occur when there were two tombs both with the same common name, and that's most unlikely to occur IMO. English just doesn't work that way! This seems to be a case in which neither tomb has a non-systematic common name, which is one of the more likely scenarios. The other likely scenario is that one of the tombs gets the common name, and the other is (in common English) referred to by its systematic name.


 * IMO it's not good to clutter up the standards with hypothetical possibilities. A good standard will deal with most of these thought exercises without making special provision for them, yes, but it's a different thing to make special provision for scenarios that are never likely to occur. Andrewa 18:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

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)


 * Let's create Naming conventions (Ancient Egyptian tombs) and put a on it!--Keer lls ton 13:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Do we have any kind of agreement as to what to put in it ? Markh (talk) 14:08, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Infobox
As an Aside, I did briefly experiment with the aforementioned solution for Tut's tomb here: 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)
 * I don't see any reason not to use a strict KV system in infoboxes and the pharaoh namebox. It is more compact, and here there is no need to say "Tomb of N" because the infobox already says "Burial: ...". The same is true of lists as I mentioned at the start of this section. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 18:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * My suggestion would be that, regardless of the name of the burial article, the infobox should display the systematic tomb name. If this isn't the article name, then the link can either be to the article name directly, or can simply go there via the redirect that should exist from the systematic name... I favour the latter, but either is perfectly acceptable IMO. Andrewa (talk) 19:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Wider issue of systematic names
See User talk:Andrewa/systematic names. Andrewa (talk) 17:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposal or guideline
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


 * Category:Wikipedia proposals particularly the text
 * Policies and guidelines which is an official policy and describes procedures for making policies and guidelines official

and we might need to change the banner pending more discussion. Andrewa (talk) 10:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Even better it's a proposal for a proposal for a guideline - (so far).--Keer lls ton 15:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * So, should I change the banner to  ? Andrewa (talk) 19:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The current Naming conventions (Ancient Egyptian) are not proposals, are naming policy guidelines, I assume that the thing to do is to create a new page named Naming Conventions (Ancient Egyptian Tombs) and put on that one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwarf Kirlston (talk • contribs)


 * That's one way forward if this convention was properly discussed and approved... but was it? Where and when? Why, if this was done, don't other naming convention pages link to it?


 * The only relevant page that does is WikiProject Ancient Egypt, which links to the project page rather than this talk page, but lists it as a discussion forum.


 * If there had been previous discussion, for example at Village pump (proposals), Village pump (policy) or Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions, then I'd expect the archives of those pages to appear among the pages that link to this project page. But they don't.


 * It seems to be at the proposal stage to me. I could be wrong. Andrewa (talk) 19:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Historically I created this page, so that people would stop renaming Ramesses II articles (hence the guidance on spelling this name). It was originally on the WikiProject Ancient Egypt page, so I copied it over. Basically I guess it should have a   tag as well? Should be split this off, or just try and agree the whole thing. I'm much happier to work towards proposals and guidelines that have to decided straightaway here. Markh (talk) 20:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, I'd forgotten the Ramesses II fiasco. Good move. I recommend you read the two links I posted above, they should show the way to go. First thing IMO is to get a well copy-edited, stable baseline version (probably without the tomb naming convention for now, but without blank sections) that gets a strong consensus of support on the Wikiproject page. Then raise it at the pump. That process is more important than what the banners say IMO. Hopefully, there will be strong support at the Wikiproject, and the pump will support this if it doesn't cut across existing policy too badly... which is why I say, leave the tomb naming off for the first cut.


 * Once that's done (and with experience gained) I'd suggest we create a tomb naming convention, separately at first so it can go through the process without throwing away the existing standard, but intending to merge them once both are official. Just modifying the existing standard would be quicker in the short term but might get messy in the long run. Andrewa (talk) 06:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Just for the record, I can see several possible areas that ought to be addressed by some sort of standard naming convention:


 * Names of pharaohs, queens, other royals and non-royals of high-status
 * Naming convention for tombs (not just for those in the Valley of the Kings but also the Valley of the Queens, those on the Giza plateau, etc.)
 * Names given to reference pyramids and related structures ("Bent Pyramid", "Sneferu's Pyramid" or "The Southern Shining Pyramid"?)
 * Names given to the myriad gods and goddesses of Ancient Egypt (is it "Re" or "Ra"?)
 * Names for prominent towns and cities (Armana? or Akhetaten?)


 * Am sure there is more, but this is what I can think of off the top of my head. I suspect WP:NC will come in handy with several of these, though I suspect a few will prove contentious, and those ought to be documented and formalized. In any event, all worth tackling at some point. Captmondo (talk) 03:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Then the question should be asked... is this page ready to be considered as a naming convention? Or would it be better to label it as a proposal rather than a convention and start some serious development of it?


 * The question of systematic naming of articles is one to which I've given some thought over the years... see User:andrewa/systematic names and of course Official names for some of this. See also Talk:Erasmus University for the most recent. I think the issues are important, despite the occasional disparaging comment I've received. Andrewa (talk) 13:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Resuming...
See Village pump (proposals). Andrewa (talk) 14:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The only difference between this page and the general naming convention is that this page says never to use the Hellenized form of the name of Pharaohs, even if it is the most common form. This is a handful of names; Amenophis is no longer normal English usage. But since we do actually use Hellenizations for some Pharaohs, it could use rephrasing; Menes, Ramesses II and Apries are Hellenizations. Making the exception narrow (unless the Hellenization is predominant in English ?) may avoid argument. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... Yes, agree with all those observations. But they raise the possibilities that firstly, this convention may not be needed at all (let's avoid instruction creep if we can), and secondly, that it needs some work before it can be a useful naming convention despite the current banner proclaiming it to be one. Andrewa (talk) 06:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've tweaked as I suggested. It may be worth explicitly including Cheops, whether we want it to be used or avoided; we should discuss here which. Most other names before the arrival of the Greeks should be given in Egyptian form because the Greek name is no longer fashionable; most of the exceptions are Hellenized now. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed
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)


 * There is now some discussion at Village pump (proposals). Hopefully it will produce a consensus as to either adoption or rejection of this guideline in some form. Andrewa (talk) 12:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Dynasty names
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):
 * the ninth dynasty;
 * the 9th dynasty;
 * Dynasty 9; or
 * Dynasty IX.

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)


 * I think if you start taking a look at the various pharaoh articles, such as Ahmose I, Ramesses II, Khufu etc they take the usual form of "Xth Dynasty". So I think the second list item matches this most closely, instead of having the cardinal numbers spelled out.


 * I would bet that there are already redirect pages for the numeric versions of these pages, and you'll have to make sure the spelled-out versions redirect to the new ones. Cheers! Captmondo (talk) 17:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Noted problem
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:
 * 1) Name used in article
 * 2) Other spellings using the Latin alphabet
 * 3) Pronunciation in Egyptian
 * 4) Meaning in Egyptian
 * 5) Pronunciation in English (rarely)

A few examples
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 . . ."
 * order: her name, a comma, Arabic letter spelling, ancient Egyptian pronunciation, and in the next sentence the Egyptian meaning.

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."
 * order: article name and meaning without other information.

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. "
 * article name, Egyptian pronounciation, meaning. No other spellings listen (To the best of my knowledge, there isn't another known spelling).

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."
 * name, Ancient Egyptian pronunciation, meaning.

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)."
 * name, pronunciation in modern English, other spellings, Ancient Egyptian pronunciation, meaning.

Proposal
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:
 * Akhenaten ((/ˌækəˈnɑːtən/; Ancient Egyptian: ꜣḫ-n-jtn, meaning "Effective for the Aten"; alternatively romanized as Echnaton, Akhenaton, Ikhnaton, and Khuenaten; 18th Dynasty Egypt) or Amunhotep IV (/ˌæmɛnˈhoʊtɛp/; Ancient Egyptian: jmn-ḥtp; meaning "Amun is satisfied"; alternatively romanized as Amenophis) was an ancient Egyptian pharaoh reigning c. 1353–1336[3] or 1351–1334 BC, the tenth ruler of the Eighteenth Dynasty.


 * Meketaten (meaning "Behold/Protected by the Aten "; 18th Dynasty)) was the second-born daughter of the Pharaoh Akhenaten and his Great Royal Wife Nefertiti.


 * Ankhesenamun (Ancient Egyptian:ˁnḫ-s-n-imn, meaning "Her Life Is of Amun"; c. 1348 - after 1322)) or Ankhesenpaaten (Ancient Egyptian: ˁnḫ.s-n-pꜣ-itn; meaning "she lives for the Aten") was a queen during the.


 * Neferneferure (Ancient Egyptian: nfr-nfr.w-rꜥ, meaning "Beautiful are the Beauties of Re"; 18th Dynasty)) was an ancient Egyptian princess of the 18th Dynasty.

I believe this proposal would be in line with all relevant Wikipedia rules on naming conventions.

ForWhomTheSunShines (talk) 16:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Renaming of KV62
This is a courtesy notice that I've proposed renaming KV62 to "Tomb of Tutankhamun". You can participate in the discussion at Talk:KV62. Cheers. Rublov (talk) 01:10, 22 April 2021 (UTC)