Talk:Pyramid of Sahure

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pyramid of Sahure/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: LT910001 (talk · contribs) 11:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Good day, if there are no objections I'll take this review. I haven't had any part in creating or editing this article. I welcome the contributions of other editors or interested parties during this review. LT90001 (talk) 11:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I will be posting my assessment tomorrow along with any proposed changes to meet the GA criteria. LT90001 (talk) 11:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Prose is at times clunky and hard to read
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Numerous uncited paragraphs
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.	Unsourced areas make this hard to verify.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Yes to some extent (see below)
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Cannot check presently.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images are excellent
	7. Overall assessment.	Has outstanding issues (see below).

Overall this is a very interesting article but due to some issues with prose, layout and readability I think it may need some editing before it can get to GA status. I'll provide some specific commentary below. Lastly, I regret that this article wasn't picked up for review for so many months and hope that the nominator is still interested in elevation to GA status. LT90001 (talk) 22:00, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Specific commentary

I'll wait for feedback from the nominator before I provide more specific feedback, but some general points:

• I found this article focuses very heavily on the architectural description of the pyramid and layout. No problem there, but it occasionally impacts on readability and if there was a greater emphasis on the historiography at the beginning of each section it would be much easier to read. This impacts on the readability criteria.

Do you mean adding a small paragraph at the beginning of each section describing in general terms what a causeway or a valley temple is ? Iry-Hor (talk) 08:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello! To be more clear, without a bit of context about the notability, use or significance of each section of the pyramid, it is a little confusing to read. I hope this advice makes sense. LT90001 (talk) 09:18, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• I found the layout quite strange. I personally think it would be logical to arrange it historically, ie main pyramid -> pyramid complex -> discovery so that there is a nice flow to the article. This relates to the readability criteria.

The layout of the article reflects the layout of the pyramid complex itself. Indeed the main pyramid is localted inside of the pyramid complex and to access the pyramid, one would have to arrive at the valley temple, then go up the causeway, enter the mortuary temple, traverse it and finally you would be at the foot of the main pyramid. Also, the layout, with the "excavations" section at the beginning is standard in wikipedia articles on pyramid. See for example, Pyramid of Neferefre, Pyramid of Userkaf, Buried Pyramid, Pyramid of Khendjer, it is also the same layout on the German wiki. This is why I followed the layout here as well. Iry-Hor (talk) 08:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

OK. With some edits pertaining to use, notability and context as I have mentioned above, I think this will be less confusing. LT90001 (talk) 09:18, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• A section on "influences" or "context" integrated into the "main pyramid" section would be very helpful, and relates to the 'broad' criteria. This could help orientate the reader in terms of the pharoh, his consort, the capital, architectural influences and preceding pyramids, and so forth.

Ok I will add a paragraph on the pyramid historical context. Iry-Hor (talk) 08:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Great, I await your edits. LT90001 (talk) 09:18, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• Several paragraphs are uncited.

Ok I will add the references. Most of the facts are from Lehner's book or the original excavation report. The reason I did not put these everywhere was to avoid cluttering the article. But I will add the citations tonight to make sure the reliability criteria is met. Iry-Hor (talk) 08:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Kind regards, LT90001 (talk) 09:18, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Conclusion

Have contacted the nominator (User_talk:Iry-Hor#Your_GA_nomination_of_Pyramid_of_Sahure) and it doesn't look like changes will be made in the foreseeable future. I wish Iry-Hor all the best in their future wikitravels and thank them for the nomination and their edits to the Ancient Egypt content on Wiki. I encourage nomination in the future when the concerns raised in this review have been addressed. LT910001 (talk) 22:49, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Why capping Pyramid in mid sentence?

Book sources mostly don't cap pyramid when writing of the pyramid of Sahure. So we should fix this embarrassing departure from our normal style in a featured artcle. Dicklyon (talk) 15:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Fixed. Dicklyon (talk) 00:12, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Agree with fix per evidence. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:54, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Embarassing departure from our normal style? It is "our normal style" when literally every other pyramid article including the other featured articles on this topic use it in the opening sentence of the lede: Pyramid of Djoser, Pyramid of Unas, Pyramid of Khafre, Pyramid of Amenemhet I, etc. I didn't invent a new style whilst writing this article – in fact, I'm pretty sure the phrase was capitalized when I started working on it – it's been accepted practice since before I was an editor. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:49, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Dicklyon - Fixing ping. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:50, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

See: Pyramid of Djoser, Pyramid of Unas, Pyramid of Khafre, of Amenemhet I. Getting thing consistently wrong doesn't make it right. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:04, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, we should fix these all forthwith. Dicklyon (talk) 04:26, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

What exactly are your links meant to prove, Cinderella? The ngrams quite consistently show that both styles are used (including in this article's case). "Pyramid of Djoser" (fixed link) and "Pyramid of Khafre" are both more common than "pyramid of Djoser" and "pyramid of Khafre" from your own links. I don't care which is used, so long as it is consistent – which it was. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:38, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Per MOS:CAPS: only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia - a substantial majority of cases, not just more often. Further though, ngrams don't distinguish uses in caption, headings and like where title case is being used, so they tend to over-report capitalisation compared with use in prose. WP:CONSISTENT is a consideration in determining article titles. It has nothing to do with capitalisation in prose. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:30, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

It is a substantial majority. It's more than twice as common to use 'Pyramid of Djoser'. That's a 2:3 majority. Please stop, you're being disingenuous. You didn't bother to check before you posted. That's on you. I have all of the sources for this article and a dozen others. I've written extensively on this topic. You are not going to gaslight me. I can accept that 'pyramid of X' is preferred to 'Pyramid of X', because most sources I've read use 'X's pyramid' in text and 'Pyramid of X' only in the title, with special exceptions for pyramids like the 'Red Pyramid', 'Bent Pyramid', 'Step Pyramid', etc which are all proper nouns. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:34, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Here's an updated n-gram link for the Pyramid of Djoser. Clearly not close to even a majorit capped in most years, with likelky influence from MP in most recent years. Dicklyon (talk) 02:32, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

In my experience, the wording of MOS:CAPS sets a particularly high threshold. I did check. I don't disagree with your observation of a 60:40 split in the ngram but practically (because of title-case uses) this tends toward 50:50 (ie somewhere in between). The construction "the X of Y" is quite specific but not intrinsically a proper name (see the sword of Damocles). Something like the Bent Pyramid or the Pacific Ocean meet the high threshold set by MOS:CAPS (even thought in the latter, this has not always been the case).

The construction 'X of Y' is common on Wikipedia in the opening sentence: Palace of Queluz, Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception (Moscow), Old Church of St Nidan, Llanidan among FAs ; Bank of America Tower (Manhattan), Baths of Zeuxippus, Cathedral of Ani (a dozen or more such articles follow the same convention), Great Mosque of Gaza (similar to 'Great Pyramid of Giza' and more obviously a proper noun), Temple of Garni, Tomb of Safdar Jang (Safdarjang's Tomb is improper capitalization) among GAs.

I picked out a few significant sources that I had available and which were used in this article. Two that favour Dicklyon's revisions are Encyclopedia of the Architecture of Ancient Egypt (2001) and Dieter Arnold's Ancient Egyptian Architecture (2003). The former source only capitalizes 'Step Pyramid of Djoser' and 'Great Pyramid (of Khufu)', the latter doesn't acknowledge those names preferring 'step mastaba' (Dieter is in the minority to refer to the Step Pyramid as a mastaba) and 'pyramid of Khufu'. Mark Lehner's The Complete Pyramids (2008) uses the 'X of Y' construction only in section titles and seemingly only for the Fifth and Sixth Dynasties. Contrastingly, Iorwerth Eiddon Stephen Edwards The Pyramids of Egypt (1999) uses the 'X of Y' construction in text with capitalization. I can only conclude that both conventions are used and neither is inherently 'wrong'.

I still have no opinion on which is better, but I maintain my opinion that the pyramid articles should use one convention consistently. This is not an argument from WP:CONSISTENT as you suggested above. I had not seen that policy prior to that moment. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:02, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the construction "X of Y" is very common as an article title but article titles use sentence case so that the first word is capitalised as the start of a sentence regardless of whether it might be lowercased if it were to appear in the midst of a sentence. How something is capitalised in the midst of a sentence is determined per MOS:CAPS on a case by case basis using a broad sample of sources. While both may be "common" in a particular case, we would only capitalise in a particular case if it were clearly the "substantial majority". Cinderella157 (talk) 22:58, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Not a single example I provided is about the title. Every single one of those articles capitalizes in the opening sentence. I also do not believe your claims about the application of MOS:CAPS as none of those articles (all of which have gone through a form of peer review) shows a substantial majority favouring capitalization over non-capitalization on Ngrams. It does not appear that MOS:CAPS is much of a consideration at all. I also do not appreciate that you couldn't put in the minimal effort to reach the end of the opening sentence of my response as had you done so, you'd know full well that I am not talking about article titles. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:10, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I did read to the end of your opening sentence. I know full well that you are not talking about article titles but the matter is that article titles are "reproduced" in the first sentence of the lead. Whether there is a conscious decision to consider the appropriate capitalisation is the broad issue. As DL states (per WP:NOWDEADLINE): Sometimes over-capping lasts a long time, like pyramids. We eventually get around to finding and fixing. Per WP:CONLEVEL, MOS:CAPS represents the broad community consensus on the matter of capitalisation even if you do not believe [it]. To your statement: none of those articles ... shows a substantial majority favouring capitalization over non-capitalization on Ngrams. This does not appear to be an accurate statement per these ngrams: Great Mosque of Gaza, Bank of America Tower and Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception. As I stated before, Getting things consistently wrong doesn't make it right. Cinderella157 (talk) 14:31, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

You are correct regarding some of the Ngrams. I had checked several but not all, such that I should not have claimed all. this one is split both ways ; this one favours lowercase, same here. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:24, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

The one that you say "is split both ways" strongly favors lowercase in WP style, since sources are nowhere near our threshold of "consistently capped". Dicklyon (talk) 00:03, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Sometimes over-capping lasts a long time, like pyramids. We eventually get around to finding and fixing. Dicklyon (talk) 04:37, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't care whether the word pyramid is capitalized or not, but when I said 'literally every', I meant 'literally every'. It's all of them. Use the navbox and go through each one and "fix" it, if you're so inclined. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:38, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

I've undone one of your changes to Pyramid of Djoser as 'Step Pyramid' (ngrams won't really help you here as a step pyramid is a type of pyramid, but Step Pyramid of Djoser is adequately representative) is a proper noun, akin to 'Great Pyramid of Giza' or 'World Trade Centre' or 'Buckingham Palace'. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:08, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't disagree that the name "Step Pyramid of Djoser" should be capped per your ngram evidence but it does not resolve whether "Step Pyramid" should be capped in this context unless it is part of the fuller phrase ""Step Pyramid of Djoser" per this and this. See my edit accordingly. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:05, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

I cannot use Ngrams for the phrase 'Step Pyramid' because those words have two contexts: the Step Pyramid is a step pyramid. The words 'Step Pyramid', when referring to Djoser's Step Pyramid, are capitalized. They are not capitalized when referring to step pyramids generally. It would take you not more than thirty seconds to actually pick up a source and check. Example: The Step Pyramid complex is such a basic template of Egyptian art and architecture that it is easy to take it for granted - Mark Lehner The Complete Pyramids p. 84. Alternatively: Few monuments hold a place in human history as significant as that of the Step Pyramid in Saqqara - Miroslav Verner The Pyramids (2001), p.108. Both of these sources are easily accessible to any editor via archive.org. How about: What is seen in the Step Pyramid complex of Djoser is a transformation of the Early Dynastic tombs into the first monument in the world made entirely of stone—on a truly huge scale. - Kathryn Bard Oxford History of Ancient Egypt (2004), p.81. That's a general AE source. I should not need to do basic research for you. The change itself from 'Step Pyramid' to 'Step Pyramid of Djoser' is, however, fine. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:10, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

The ngram evidence presented (Step Pyramid of Djoser) does not resolve the question of "Step Pyramid" as a "proper name" in the context of this discussion nor does presenting a couple of examples where the corpus to be drawn on is much larger. However, this search strongly suggests that "Step Pyramid" is not a proper name in this context.

You have now twice implied that I am lying about the content of sources that I have spent countless ours studying. This is not civil conduct, which you presumed to lecture me on at my talk page. I presented substantial evidence to support basic claims. You are not welcome to sit here with no subject matter competence, having read zero sources, having contributed zero bytes to this article or any other in this field, and claim otherwise. Both 'Step Pyramid of Djoser' and 'Step Pyramid' are proper nouns in this context.

The authors I cite above – and in the actual article you are commenting on – use both forms in their works, both with capitals, and they are representative of the Egyptological body of work. I am not obligated to satisfy you by presenting a thousand sources. A handful of high-quality RS is sufficient. You are not an Egyptologist. Mark Lehner, Miroslav Verner, and Kathryn Bard all are and they are respected in their field. Your views have no weight against theirs. It is particularly bold to try and undermine the credibility of the Oxford History of Ancient Egypt which was contributed to by more than a dozen experts in the field.

Oh, and your "evidence", only demonstrates that 'Step Pyramid of Djoser' is a proper noun. It says nothing about 'Step Pyramid' in this context. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:57, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

The above comment has been edited1 since my reply. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:57, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

As I indicated by the underline Cinderella157 (talk) 05:26, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

I've been contemplating this for a couple hours. Cinderella, you've stooped here to the level of refusing to accept multiple published reliable sources by subject matter experts as evidence. Your counter evidence is a link to Google books that establishes nothing about 'Step Pyramid' as a proper noun at all. I cannot think of an instance in a dispute I've been involved in where an editor point blank rejects sources. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:56, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

The evidence presented that supported capitalisation of "Step Pyramid of Djose" was the ngram presented by you. The quotes above do not evidence this issue. It follows that the evidence I referred to in supporting capitalisation of "Step Pyramid of Djoser" was the ngram evidence. I cannot see how my post (there or elsewhere in this section) can be reasonably construed to imply that you lied? Perhaps there has been a misunderstanding? I clarified my post (per underlines as added when I did so) in case there was. Per: [your evidence] says nothing about 'Step Pyramid' in this context. The google book search uses search terms that capture "Step Pyramid" in the context of "Djose", even when not followed directly by "of Djose". The search does indeed capture such text as well as many examples of "Step Pyramid of Djose". The search result strongly suggests that "Step Pyramid" as a stand-alone phrase is not a proper name in this context. But one has to wade through a lot of hits to find many hits for "Step Pyramid/step pyramid" v "Step Pyramid of Djose". I believe that the search does capture a corpus numbering in the thousands. As to: having contributed zero bytes to this article or any other in this field. Even if my contribution to Pyramid of Djoser has been very small, your statement is inaccurate. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:44, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

I explained twice with reasoning why I cannot present ngrams for 'Step Pyramid', it would be false representation to do so because the term can also refer generically to 'step pyramid's. The point of the ngram for 'Step Pyramid of Djoser' is that it is similarly representative of just 'Step Pyramid'. Sources that capitalize the former, capitalize the latter. You rejected this without evidence or reason. I then presented three high quality sources to support that claim. You reject those sources without evidence or reason.

I opened up the very first book in the Google Books search you just presented. It is The New Cultural Atlas of Egypt edited by Leon Gray. I have never seen the source before, nor do I know of the editor. Here's the first paragraph:

The Step Pyramid of Djoser was built some time after 2650 BCE. It was the first pyramid in Egyptian history, and the earliest stone structure of its size in the world. The design of the Step Pyramid was credited to Imuthes (Imhotep). During an excavation of the entrance complex of the Step Pyramid in 1925-1926, the name of Imhotep was found inscribed on the pedestal of a statue of Djoser, providing evidence for the correctness of Manetho's statement.

You claim one has to wade through a lot of hits to find many hits for "Step Pyramid/step pyramid". Really? I just opened the book at the top of the page and it's there in the opening paragraph of the Google preview. Changing 'Step Pyramid' to 'Step Pyramid of Djoser' in the lede is fine, but just 'Step Pyramid' should – and in the sources is – also capitalized. A book might start with 'Bosnia and Herzegovina' before switching to 'Bosnia' from there on. It would not open with 'Bosnia and Herzegovina' and switch to 'bosnia'.

I really don't know what interpretation to take from your comments. They only make sense to me if I consider that you are treating anything I claim at all with suspicion. It's really bold to claim that 'Step Pyramid' is not capitalized when talking about the 'Step Pyramid of Djoser' in the face of all available evidence.

That all said, I will not engage you here further on this – because I cannot grasp the reason for your insistence of rejecting all evidence. I've made three attempts at demonstrating the fact that both 'Step Pyramid of Djoser' and 'Step Pyramid' are capitalized in sources. As I said, I am not obligated to satisfy you. Believe as you please. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:59, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

It's hard to follow this argument, but I certainly don't see Cinderella ignoring sources or calling Mr rnddude a liar. I agree with both: the use of "Step Pyramid" in referring to this particular pyramid is capitalized more often than not; and it's not hard to find cases where it's lowercase (here are a few books I found: [1], [2], [3], [4]). The criterion in MOS:CAPS is "consistently", not "more often than not", so how consistent is this? Dicklyon (talk) 17:13, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

I've taken a look at all four sources. The first source is in the small minority that refuses to capitalize any of the pyramid names, even those demonstrated by Ngrams to be consistently capped. Search for 'bent pyramid' and 'great pyramid'. The second only uses lowercase for the 'step pyramid', but otherwise capitalizes 'Bent Pyramid' and 'Red Pyramid'. The third is inconsistent occasionally capitalizing 'Step' but not 'pyramid'. The fourth is like the second.

I'll answer your question this way. I've gone through page 1 and 2 of Google Books.

On page 1 there are ten works, seven of which are previewable, four of which contain the phrase as a proper noun. The sources that don't contain the phrase 'Step Pyramid' at all or as a proper noun are: A History of Ancient Egypt (contains 'step pyramid of Djoser' as established by Ngrams is a minority) ; History of Art: The Western Tradition (2004) (one instance of 'Step Pyramid of Djoser' and one instance of 'step pyramid' referring to the building type, not the name). Sources that capitalize: The New Cultural Atlas (2010) ; Architecture, Astronomy and Sacred Landscape in Ancient Egypt (2013) ; Sticks, Stones, and Shadows: Building the Egyptian Pyramids (2001) ; Egyptology at the Dawn of the Twenty-first Century: ... (only contains 'Step Pyramid of Djoser' Striking because it does contain an instance of 'Step Pyramid' on p. 50). Sources that are inconsistent or lowercase only: Athletics and Mathematics in Archaic Corinth: The Origins of the Greek Stadion (uppercase in image caption, lowercase in text in two places). The first page indicates 3:1 4:1 in favour of capitalizing. That's a supermajority.

On page 2 it's 6:1 out of 8 previewable (1 source ignored as it contains no reference to the pyramid). The only source that didn't capitalize 'Step Pyramid' as a proper noun was Reference Guide to Famous Engineering Landmarks of the World (2015). All the others do: Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt (2014) ; The Pyramids (2014) ; Akhenaten and the Origins of Monotheism (2015) (this sources uses 'step pyramid' as a generic term as well, so be mindful when checking) ; Ancient Complex Societies (2017) (same here) ; The Pharaohs (2019) ; The Rise and Fall of Ancient Egypt (2013).

Of all the sources on those pages I am eminently familiar with Verner, Wilkinson, and Hawass. The evidence there is that it's a 'substantial majority' (both 3:1 4:1 and 6:1 are supermajority) that do capitalize 'Step Pyramid'. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:46, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

I should also add, that the full criterion of MOS:CAPS is consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources (emphasis in original). The sources need to capitalize consistently, be independent, and be reliable. By the time you get to page 4 of the google books search, you are running into more and more sources that aren't RS at all or that aren't RS for the topic. Examples: Joseph Davidovits (is a material scientist, but not RS for this topic) ; Ivan Jilda (an author, no accreditation that I can identify) ; and Kristine Carlson Asselin (an author, primarily of children's books and YA fiction, fine for kids not for Wikipedia). Those I could tell weren't RS at a glance. Admittedly, only Davidovitz capitalizes among those sources, and ironically he's the closest to an RS. His views and theories on the construction of the pyramids just aren't mainstream in the field. Hence why I only did pages 1 and 2 as the preponderance of the sources there are reliable or marginally reliable. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:42, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

In the off-chance that anybody asks about page 3: 8 previewable + 1 I own ; 5+1 that capitalize ; 1 that only contains 'Step Pyramid of Djoser' on a single previewable page ; 2 that contain 'step pyramid of Djoser' all in lower case. I don't know how you want to calculate that but let's say 6:2 or 3:1 and it's still a supermajority. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:55, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

I have from the first, understood that ngrams are limited as a tool to resolve the issue of capping "step pyramid" as a stand-alone phrasre in this context. That is why I looked to a search of google books to draw on a large corpus. However, the last post by Mr rnddude appears to clarify their rationale: that a shortened form of a capitalised term should retain the capitalisation used in the fuller term. However, their example of "Bosnia" is not a suitable analogy since "Bosnia" is a true proper noun that is universally capitalised. "Step pyramid" describes a category. It can be made specific by context and the definite article ("the") and is not a true proper noun|name. We might capitalise "the Committe" in reference to the House Un-American Activities Committee or "the General" in reference to Douglas MacArthur but these are editorial choices for emphasis or significance and not because these are proper nouns. Major style guides do not support such capitalisation and MOS:CAPS specifically deprecates it (MOS:SIGNIFCAPS). Having said that, because of usage in sources, such a term might still rise to the level that it might be capitalised as being "necessary" under the general guidance at MOS:CAPS. My initial assessment of the google books search (that the search results strongly suggests that "Step Pyramid" is not a proper name in this context) was based on the search summaries. I too have looked in closer detail at the search hits. I have looked for "Step Pyramid" as a stand-alone phrase (or even as an attributive phrase eg "Step Pyramid complex") but not as part of "Step Pyramid of Djoser". I don't know if the search results vary by region but I do know that viewability is reported to vary. I was also conscious of the distinction between a general reference and a specific reference tho Djoser's pyramid. In the first three pages, I found 10 that were for UC and 7 that were for LC (including 1 mixed), with 6 that did not report the term, 5 that could not be viewed, 1 that appeared mixed but was not counted and, 1 that used "Djoser's Step Pyramid" several times [similar to "Step Pyramid of Djoser"] but in no other way that would resolve it as a stand-alone phrase) - giving 58% UC. Adding page 4 this it is 52% UC and adding page 5, it is 54% UC. I could give a detailed statement of this assessment. There are a significant number of sources that use "Step Pyramid of Djoser" but do not use "Step Pyramid" at all in a way that might be capitalised (6 in 30 or 20%). Not all of the sources that cap "Step Pyramid of Djoser" cap "Step Pyramid" as a stand alone but those that lowercase "Step Pyramid of Djoser" do (to my recollection). The ngram evidence for Step Pyramid of Djoser is about 77% in the capped form (without allowing for headings and captions) and 80% (ie proportioning for the "6 in 30" above) of this is 62 (and lower with consideration for headers and like). This cross-check is consistent with the 58% from the first three pages of google books. While we agree that "Step Pyramid of Djoser" meets the threshold set by MOS:CAPS, I'm not seeing that "Step Pyramid" as a stand-alone term meets the same threshold. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:15, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

10:7 + 14:4 = 24:11 or 2:1. A supermajority in favour of capitalization. Even taking your latter assessment into consideration there is a <5% difference between 'Step Pyramid of Djoser' and 'Step Pyramid' in terms of uppercase. Our combined assessment retains a 'substantial majority'.

I've now looked at pages 4 and 5 and only considered reliable sources (i.e. omitted sources like the ones I mentioned in the previous comment): Jean-Philippe Lauer is the man most responsible for excavating the Step Pyramid and the single most reliable source for this topic1 and he capitalizes Step Pyramid consistently. Ian Shaw2 is an Egyptologist and he capitalizes Step Pyramid consistently. Zahi Hawass3 (go up a page from the link) is a well-known Egyptologist and he uses uppercase consistently. Fabio Barry4 is an art historian that does not capitalize 'Step Pyramid of Djoser' or 'Step Pyramid'. Various authors of the Middle East and Africa International Dictionary of Historic Places 5 capitalize 'Step Pyramid' consistently, but the single instance of 'step pyramid of Djoser' is in lowercase. That's another 5 sources and they go 4:1 in favour of capitalizing. That brings my own search to 18:5 or 3:1 in favour of capitalizing and 28:12 combined for 2.33:1 in favour of capitalizing. That's still a supermajority.

I've omitted works by authors that are not reliable. However, as further evidence, I've considered those that were found on page 5. These are: Ivan Jilda an author with no apparent accreditation (uses lowercase), Nezar AlSayyad an urban planner (uses lowercase), Ellen Grady an author with no apparent accreditation (uses uppercase), Philip Campbell an author with no apparent accreditation (uses uppercase), and Mario Baghos a theologian (uses uppercase). This is 3:2. Noticeably, non-RS are more diverse in their approach, whereas RS are more consistent in favour of capitalization.

I've now consulted more than 30 sources in total with a 'substantial majority' favouring capitalization at not less than 2:1. That majority is substantially higher (3:1 at least) when considering only high-quality reliable sources.

If Cinderella disagrees, they may explore further avenues of dispute resolution. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:09, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

I will add one more comment. I have presented some of the highest-quality reliable sources in this discussion. Jean-Philippe Lauer is credited as the most important figure in the Step Pyramid's excavation. Miroslav Verner is an Egyptologist who is the foremost expert on the Abusir pyramids and whose The Pyramids (2001 and 2014) is one of the standard sources on the pyramids generally. Mark Lehner is another Egyptologist whose The Complete Pyramids is another of the standard sources on the pyramids. Iorwerth Eiddon Stephen Edwards is the third Egyptologist whose The Pyramids is an older (1993), but still widely used source on the pyramids. Zahi Hawass is the Former Minister of State for Antiquities Affairs of Egypt and perhaps one of the best known Egyptologists in the world. These are the best sources from which to make a claim regarding any pyramid. They all capitalize 'Step Pyramid'.

The other Egyptologists, archeologists, and architects that I am eminently familiar with, that I have presented, are Kathryn Bard, Ian Shaw, and Dieter Arnold. The only one of these authors that does not capitalize 'Step Pyramid' is Dieter Arnold, and that's because Dieter Arnold refers to it as a 'step mastaba'. The sources that I've consulted from the Google Books link includes most of these authors, others that appear reliable, and quite a few that I would not consult even if they may be marginal. Sources such as Athletics and Mathematics in Archaic Corinth: The Origins of the Greek Stadion may be reliable for their subject matter, but they are not remotely comparable to the ones I just listed.

I can offer yet one more source, the Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt with 66 instances of step pyramid and consistent capitalization in every entry when referring to Djoser's Step Pyramid. Considering only 'Step Pyramid' alone, authors who included it are Christian Hölzl ; Margaret S. Drower ; Peter Der Manuelian ; Kathryn A. Bard who is also the works editor ; Stephen E. Thompson ; John D. Ray ; and Jean-Philippe Lauer, coincidentally the entry is Saqqara, pyramids of the 3rd Dynasty, his specialty.

If after all that you still disagree. Ask at the Wikiproject for the opinions of the other editors, some of whom have spent significantly more time researching ancient Egypt than I have. Because if that doesn't convince you, nothing at all ever will. There really is nothing further to discuss. I've consulted more sources just to prove that 'Step Pyramid' is the standard, than I normally would to write a featured article. Let that sink in. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:30, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Based on all that, which terms do you conclude are proper names? Dicklyon (talk) 03:06, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

If you mean just regarding this particular pyramid, both 'Step Pyramid of Djoser' and 'Step Pyramid'. If you mean across all pyramids, see my comment below timestamp 01:59, 22 May 2019. Those are the ones that come to mind as being treated as proper nouns in a supermajority or 'substantial majority' of sources. There may be others, I don't know all the pyramids or their names. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:14, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

The lower case does not strike me as an improvement. Pyramid names are all proper nouns. Furius (talk) 08:53, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

I have scoured Wikipedia and failed to find a single instance of the name of a building being treated as a noun in the lede. I've linked more than a dozen articles and looked at more than 100. MOS:CAPS does not provide specific guidance with regards to the names of buildings. I've scoured my sources and they are split in their treatment. The most common form is, as I'd anticipated, 'X's pyramid'. It does not appear to me that Dicklyon's and Cinderella's claims conform with actual Wikipedia practice. Consequently, per WP:STATUSQUO, I have returned the articles to the former state in-line with all other articles that I've found on Wikipedia. If a consensus to convert the capitalized form to a non-capitalized form emerges, I have no qualms with the articles being changed to reflect that consensus. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:14, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

This seems to me to be the right move. If Dicklyon and Cinderella157 or others wish to challenge it, I think it would be best to have an RfC. Furius (talk) 23:07, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

The right move would be to take MOS:CAPS as representing the longstanding broad consensus to not cap things that are not consistently capped in sources. But if a bunch of editors fight that, an RFC may indeed be needed. "The siege of X" was similarly overcapped as "The Siege of X" until I fixed them; got no pushback on that. Dicklyon (talk) 00:03, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

By all means. It would probably be best to invite broader involvement. In the event of an RfC, is there a higher visibility location that could host it – this page usually receives substantially less than 100 views a day – given that it impacts a large set of articles. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:57, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Checking more articles, I find that in many cases "pyramid" is uniformly lowercase in sources, and even uniformly lowercase in the article with the exception of the bolded title, as in Pyramid of Khentkaus II that I just fixed, or nearly uniformly as in Pyramid of Pepi II. I'm going to go ahead and fix more such "obvious" cases, and then we'll see where we stand. Dicklyon (talk) 06:27, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

I fixed a few more. Let me know if you see any of these where you think think there's a reason to prefer capitalized Pyramid. Dicklyon (talk) 06:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

The pyramids needing capitalization that come to mind are: Step Pyramid of Djoser, Great Pyramid of Giza, Meidum, Bent Pyramid, Red Pyramid, Black Pyramid and White Pyramid. The last two aren't borne out by Ngrams. The last three have rather generic names, which may explain that disparity, and the Red Pyramid is among the more famous and its depth of literature much greater than for the White Pyramid. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:59, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Also some pyramids in Mesoamerica and other places. No problem with those. Dicklyon (talk) 03:17, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Hidden rooms found in Egyptian pyramid may contain pharaoh’s riches, archaeologists say

No peer review yet of course. ['https://phys.org/news/2023-09-rooms-sahura-pyramid.html][5] Doug Weller talk 10:49, 22 October 2023 (UTC)