Talk:Tomb of Tutankhamun

Theban Mapping Project Website

This website seems to be no longer functional, is there an archived version of this that can replace the current references? Alternately should the links to the said website be removed? This website has been extensively used in a large number of articles but is now dead.

Criticism

Untitled

I think it's irresponsible to not make mention of the questionable colonialist British practice of ransacking Egypt's historical burial sites in general, not to mention the multiple controversies that surround this tomb's excavation specifically. To quote Dr. Christian Loeben, an Egyptologist at the August Kestner museum in Hanover, Germany, "All objects from the tomb should be in Egypt, and if they're not in Egypt, they didn't get out legally". Howard Carter was an eager participant in this Western grave-robbing fad, and this page should accurately report that he violated even what little law was in place to protect these sites. "A little-known document written by a member of Carter's team, Alfred Lucas, in 1947 claimed that Carter knocked a hole into the doorway linking the antechamber to the actual burial chamber, and illegally entered it without waiting for Egyptian officials".

In addition, Carter was caught on a number of occasions stealing or attempting to steal artifacts from the various sites for his own personal possession and use. Carter and his compatriot, the Earl of Carnarvon, "gave a clasp that showed the pharaoh on a war chariot as a present to Egyptian King Fouad I, for example. American oil baron Edward Harkness received a gold ring". There is evidence that the looting and historical damage goes beyond what history has recorded: "Doubts about Carter's methods are not new but the debate keeps resurfacing with the discovery of Tutankhamen artefacts in museum collections around the world. This, Egyptologists claim, suggests that they were secretly brought out of Egypt by Carter or members of his team". In addition to the multiple incidents of material losses, it is a real tragedy that "experts claim that his actions did lasting damage to research into ancient Egypt, because it will never be reliably known what the tomb looked like when he found it", which is a disservice both to academia and to the cultural heritage of Egypt.

I'm also posting this in the Howard Carter talk section.SymWebb (talk) 08:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

References

Rename Discussion

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. "King Tut's tomb" is probably the most common descriptive name for this, but no one seems to support using that as the title here. "Tomb of Tutankhamun" is also usually used as a descriptive title rather than as a proper-noun title - it is generally capitalized in book titles but not elsewhere. "KV62" should not be ordained as the title due to officiality (we don't do official names). However, because there are several spellings for the king's name, because of consistency within the category, and because other KVs have been called Tutankhamun's tomb, this seems to be an appropriate place for the article to remain. Dekimasuよ! 00:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) says: "Convention: Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things....When choosing a name for a page ask yourself: What word would the average user of the Wikipedia put into the search engine?

Wikipedia is not a place to advocate a title change in order to reflect recent scholarship. The articles themselves reflect recent scholarship but the titles should represent common usage."

As such the name of this article should be Tomb of Tutankhamun. KV62 can still be used on maps and diagrams for brevity, and then used as a redirect here.

The section in the main Tutankhamun article that discuss the Tomb is called Discovery of Tutankhamun's tomb rather than "Discovery of KV62".

There are thousands of examples across Wiki of common names being used - Gray Wolf rather than Canis lupus, Blue Tit rather than Cyanistes caeruleus, etc. I am proposing a move to Tomb of Tutankhamun. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 21:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• To me, KV62 sounds like a car's registration plate or a make of rifle. Most people have heard of Tutankhamun's tomb. Anthony Appleyard 21:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The tomb is official designated KV62, the redirects are the right way around. Markh 09:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The tomb-naming convention dates back to the early 19th Century, the numbering system deliberately chosen since it was (and is) not always clear who a tomb was originally intended for. The discoverer of this tomb himself, Howard Carter, referred to the tomb in the scholarly literature as KV62. No offense, but ignorance of a widely-known naming convention does not constitute reason for making the switch (that is arguably one of the reasons for Wikipedia existing in the first place). And while you are right in thinking that many articles link to common names, the reverse is often true as well (one example I can think of off the top of my head: Chrysaora achlyos for the Black sea nettle (jellyfish)). If you actually go to visit the Valley of the Kings you will find the numbering system used there as well for tourists (see: http://www.flickr.com/photos/lenkapeac/406075051/ and http://www.flickr.com/photos/lenkapeac/406075054/) so it is in common usage. You won't get my vote for making the switch. Captmondo 11:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I have been to to the Valley of the Kings, and I have visited the tomb. That the tomb is called KV62 is not in dispute. It is also called the Tomb of Tutankhamun - and I suspect you wouldn't dispute that. So what we have is a tomb that has two names - and we have a dispute as to which name to use. In cases like this we look to Wikipedia guidelines, though we may take information from elsewhere to help us inform our guidelines, it is our guidelines that inform what we should do. The guideline is fairly explicit: "What word would the average user of the Wikipedia put into the search engine?" Tomb of Tutankhamun would be favourite - as shown by a crude Google search "Tomb of Tutankhamun" (55,700 ghits) and KV62 (10,200 ghits). And if you look for scholarly essays and books on the subject, you'll again find that Tomb of Tutankhamun is favourite: 227 for "Tomb of Tutankhamun" - 23 for KV62. Added to which, Amazon shows 41 results for "Tomb of Tutankhamun" but 0 results for KV62. Essentially, it appears that when people are writing about the Tomb of Tutankhamun, that is the name they use because that is the name they know that most people will understand. Peak XV, Chomolungma, Sagarmatha, "Head of the Sky", etc, are all names for a certain mountain. But we have it on Wiki as Mount Everest as that is the word "the average user of the Wikipedia" would "put into the search engine". I don't think the average Wiki user would be offended that the name they understand is used instead of a name they don't understand - people come to Wiki to find out more information, and they will then discover that there is a naming system in place which gives the Tomb of Tutankhamun the designation KV62 - something that, like knowing that Mount Everest is Peak XV, is interesting, but will not change people's communication habits. People will still refer to it as the Tomb of Tutankhamun as that is the language most people understand. I hope I am making sense. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 10:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't have 2 names, it has one. I don't see any problem with the way that the article is titled, there are redirects from Tomb of Tutankhamun. In fact, have a look at what articles link to Tomb of Tutankhamun, there are 5. There are a whole lot more that use [[KV62]. Other language wikipedias, 2 link to Tomb of ..., 6 link to KV62 (or close enough). I also don't see what the point of moving it would be when if you enter Tomb of Tutankhamun, you get the right page? What would the overall benefit to the move be?: Markh 12:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Like Markh, I agree that with the redirects there is really no problem here. While "Tomb of Tutankhamun" is an accepted popular name, there are other reasons why this is not the best name to pin the article to. First, there are variant spellings of the name Tutankhamun, such as "Tutankhamon", "Tutankhamen" and "Tutankhaten" or even "Tut".

Secondly, there's the suggestion that a Google search alone ought to be the basis for the name that is most in common usage. But in fact, a search on "King Tut's tomb" [1] yields 134,000 hits, so if this is simply a popularity contest, then we ought to go with what is this wholly non-encyclopedic choice of name for the article. There's a fair argument that an average user would likely pick the most generic/popular spelling possible, so this choice of name is arguably more valid, though at the same time ridiculous.

Another issue is that there are at least two sites for what could be called "Tut's tomb". There's KV54, which is now thought to be an embalming cache for Tutankhaum's funeral but at the time its discover labeled it (and published an account) as the "Tomb of Touatankhamanou" (using yet another variant spelling of the name).

While there are other tombs fully attributed to one person or another, many are anonymous or contentious. Indeed if anyone labeled KV55 the "Tomb of Akhenaten" or the "Tomb of Smenkhkare" or possibly even the "Tomb of Nefertiti", there would be edit wars over conflicting points of view as to who was actually buried there.

While there is little doubt that the person in Tutankhamun's tomb is Tutankhamun, my point is that the "KV" labeling system works, it is internally consistent within the overall naming schemes, and the redirects work as designed. Given the alternate spellings of "Tut's" name, more than one burial location, and that the sole argument for seems to tied to a "popularity", I remain unconvinced that the proposed name change constitutes an improvement. Captmondo 14:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I am personally uncomfortable with official or scientific names being used over more clearly and widely understood names. As part of an article the information should be that **** is officially known as @@@@, as that informs rather than distracts. However, I can see the sense in the argument that there are a number of variant spellings of Tut's name, and that redirects are in place, and that the current name fits in with an existing internal naming system that works. I'm also aware that there is little support for my view. I would close this now as no move, but there's another day to go, and I've seen discussions sometimes dramatically turn in 24 hours. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 08:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I support the move. Think for example of Howard Carter's book, titled The Discovery of the Tomb of Tutankhamen. Though he has the variant spelling, the excavator referred to it by the more common, popular name. It's not just a popularity contest, there are good reasons for putting an article at the more commonly known title. I would say only use the KV system when it is needed, such as for tombs of unclear ownership. There can be no doubt that "Tomb of Tutankhamun" is the most common name, is unambiguous in this case, and we need not rigorously impose the KV system to article titles, even if the system is imposed elsewhere on wikipedia. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 02:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, from the naming conventions: "We want to maximize the likelihood of being listed in external search engines" and searching for Tomb of Tutankhamun on google does not return the currently named KV62 article even in the top 100 hits, when I stopped looking. Renaming the page will make it rank higher on search engine results for the term more commonly used by the public. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 02:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't help but find that a specious argument. If one types in "KV62" in Google, guess which entry comes up at the very top of the list in Google. My argument is that nothing is really broken with the current naming convention being used, and that changing the name leads to significant issues with consistency (both for the naming of this article given variant spelling of Tut's royal name, and how do we go about renaming the other KV tombs). Ultimately I will abide by whatever decision is reached, and will seek to correct the problems I foresee if this goes through. Captmondo 13:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

KV62 is not the most common name though. That's the whole issue, people are most likely to type in Tomb of Tutankhamun in a search engine. I don't see a compelling reason to have all the article titles consistent; the idea is to name the article to make it easy for people to find, and nothing more. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 16:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I think ultimately you see this as a one-off, and I see this as the thin edge of the wedge, and sets a poor precedent. I see problems when somebody comes along and asks for links to the "Tomb of Ay", the "Amarna Tomb of Akhenaten‎", the "Theban tomb of Akhenaten‎", "Tomb of the sons of Ramesses II" etc, when the alternative KV designation is simpler, less contentious, and as has been acknowledged, in common use.

The name variations is a real issue, and you can see this when it comes to how this has (not) worked out on the Commons. On the Commons there is [2](Category:KV62), which works well as a repository for pics relating to things associated with the tomb. The equivalent category for Tutankhamun lists three different European spellings for the name (plus one Asian), and a casual search on those names turns up images which have not been included with the main English spelling used for the category listing (such as [3] and [4] or even [5]). This just illustrates my point that this is ultimately a bad idea, and that the renaming demonstrably introduces new problems for something that arguably does not need fixing. Captmondo 18:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Could someone please summarize the above discussion, in particular the opposition? For me, it seems obvious that it should be renamed per WP:NAMING#Prefer spelled-out phrases to abbreviations, and browsing through the discussion did not change my mind. If there ever is any voting on this, please count this as a support vote. — Sebastian 17:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)    (I am open to changing or amending this vote or statement. If you feel facts changed sufficiently after I posted this, please let me know, as I may not be watching this page.)

• Oppose. If you look at the names, they all follow the same format in that they are named for the valley of kings and the order they were found in. Since this is a well established and common name for the tombs, there is no reason shown to change one entry. There is a redirect in place which should show up in any search engine. Vegaswikian 06:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support the move to Tomb of Tutankhamun. King Tut's tomb is not just another tomb, it's a very famous tomb, possibly the most famous of all. It's inappropriate to give the article an esoteric name few people would recognise when there's a common name available, which is also what WP:NC says. Official names are considered, certainly, but common English is preferred. On the subject of whether it has two names or one, it has two and possibly more... like most things. So we need to decide which of these is the best one for the article. Andrewa 13:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support Mount Everest rather than Peak XV, Tomb of Tutankhamun rather than KV62. I don't see why the fact that it was the 62nd tomb to be discovered is more important than it's inhabitant.--Keerllston 14:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. None of the people who have actually editted the page (I am one of them) support the move. This whole exercise seems to me to be counter-productive as look at how much has been written here as opposed to the article. Markh 16:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. My reasons are spelled out above in detail, but in summary:

1. KV62 while not the most popular name, it is a valid secondary name, and in use longer than the "Tomb of Tutankhamun".
2. There are variant spellings of the royal name Tutankhamun/Tutankhamen/Tutankhamon/etc, which may lead to confusion (and has demonstrably continues to do so on Wikimedia Commons).
3. The suggestion that "Tomb of Tutankhamun" will result in better Google rankings. Fact is, type in "KV62" in Google and this entry is #1; most popular variant is actually "King Tut's tomb" with well over a quarter million hits; by the Google popularity argument we should properly call this article "King Tut's tomb", which is clearly non-encyclopedic.
4. Historically, this is not the only tomb that has been called the Tomb of Tutankhamun. See KV54.
5. While this may seem an innocuous one-off of a name change, actual contributors to these articles (such as myself and Markh) see this as a bad precedent to set. While there is little doubt as to who the owner of this tomb was given its almost untouched nature prior to its discovery, it is hard to say that of many of the other KV tombs, as many are anonymous or contentious. Indeed if anyone labeled KV55 the "Tomb of Akhenaten" or the "Tomb of Smenkhkare" or possibly even the "Tomb of Nefertiti", there would be endless (and needless) POV warring.
6. The redirects work. Why fix something that isn't broken?

I have worked on this and many of the other KV-related articles, and I think the willy-nilly application of WP:NC in this instance demonstrably creates more problems than it solves. As someone who would have to work on those problems, I oppose the move. Captmondo 17:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose — It is better organized this way, to have it after numbers and letters. It's a chronological order. — Aššur-bāni-apli (talk · contribs) 18:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. The convention says, "Use the most common name." "Tomb of Tutankhamun" is not the most common name for KV62, it is the most common misnomer. We use redirects all the time when people are going to come searching under a frequent misnomer. Use one here. Thanatosimii 18:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, all tomb articles use the official designation (see the category) and it should be consistent. Tomb of Tutankhamen/amon/amun can be a redirect so everyone will find it anyway. – Alensha ^talk 18:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• While I see the point in the proposed move, I believe that there is a more important reason for not moving this article from its current name: it is consistent with how the other tombs in the Valley of the Kings are referred to. That is the reason why articles about species of living things are usually appear by their scientific name than the common name. The redirect helps people find this article by its more common (if incorrect) name. -- llywrch 19:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support Dog, Cat, Mouse, Squirrel all appear by common names; many others do, many others don't, and there is no real consistency, and I'm OK with that. Search engines don't follow redirects. "Tomb of Tutankhamun" is not a misnomer; even Howard Carter titles his book this way and refers to the tomb by both names. We take comments from everyone, not just those who worked on the article itself. Article titles should make it easy for people to locate the article and nothing more. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 21:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference between a common name and a misnomer given out of ignorance. Dog is a common name of a species. Even though the species is also called Canis Lupus Familiaris, dog is also formally a name. It does not work the same way with this tomb. "Tomb of Tutankhamun" is not formally a name. It is a misnomer or a descriptive title given by people that do not know the real name. And we already have redirects for them anyway. It does not change the fact that there is only one name for this tomb, KV62. Thanatosimii 23:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Strong oppose per Markh and Captmondo and others. The tomb is KV62, it just happens to also belong to King Tutankhamun (or Tutankhamen, Tutankhamon, Tut, etc. etc.). This is an encyclopedia; you might notice that Sean Combs' article is at Sean Combs, not at Puff Daddy or P. Diddy or Diddy despite those being the names he has used and uses in his career. The tomb is KV62, not Tut's Tomb or Carter's Discovery or Tomb Wherein The Body and Treasures of King Tut Were Found. In Egyptology we tend to refer to tombs by their number designation; the fact that Howard Carter titled his book something other than "KV62" has absolutely nothing to do with what this article should be named. This is an encyclopedia, we are here to provide accurate information and not "truthiness", no matter how much you may think the tomb should be officially renamed to "King Tut's". This is also Wikipedia, and we have automatic redirects for a reason; renaming this article and making it incongruous with all other KV## tomb articles is unnecessary. -- Editor at Large • talk 21:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Renaming of KV62

Support I believe that this page should be renamed 'King Tutankhamun's Tomb'. Everybody knows 'Tut: The Boy King', but I think that keeping it's name (KV62) on the page would let everyone know that it's name is, in fact, KV62. Maybe in the main description of the tomb, that is where we could put KV62. All in all, I think it should be renamed 'King Tutankhamun's Tomb', but we should keep KV62 on the page somewhere. The reasons I have are these:

• When someone types 'King Tut's (or Tutankhamun's) Tomb' into Google, they would most likely be looking for something in WikiPedia.
• If we keep the name as KV62, some people may be confused as to why they type 'King Tutankhamun's Tomb' and get a special search. They would have to pick the article out of most likely hundreds of pages, causing confusion and frustration.
• As I said above, everyone knows of 'King Tut's Tomb', but compared to the number of people who know and use 'King Tut's Tomb', people who use 'KV62' seems to me like a much smaller number.
• Some people find all the scientific technical terms to be a bunch of gobbledegook, like myself, for instance. It would be much less complicated to people, maybe even some Egyptologists, to just look for 'King Tutankhamun's Tomb'.

Abluescarab 05:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

So Tutankhamun should also be renamed "Tut:The Boy King"? and we should find a way to rename it not only King Tutankhamun's tomb but also King Tut's Tomb so that google is a better search tool?--Keerllston 00:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I was just using those as examples. I think it is better to rename it 'King Tutankhamun's Tomb'.

Abluescarab (talk) 04:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Strong Oppose KV62 is, and always has been, the designated catalogue/reference number of Tutankhamun's Valley of the King's tomb since 1922 when the tomb was discovered by Howard Carter. There are at least 61 other tombs in the Valley of the Kings which belong to less well known but equally powerful pharaohs and relatives of the pharaohs. Are we going to rename them all too? I think we should follow the simple catalogue system and use KV62 for reasons of consistency. Most people who search for Tutankhamun's tomb in books and on the Net will quickly find out that it has been given tomb number KV62. So why should Wikipedia suddenly change this after more than 80 years of established practise? In 2006, another tomb was found in the Valley of the Kings and Egypt's Supreme Council of Antiquities designated it as KV63. Are we going to ignore the official Egyptian's government decision here and give this tomb another name next? Where do we draw the line? I firmly believe we must use the long established catalogue system for reasons of consistency and simplicity. If Egyptologists and the Egyptian authorities can live with KV62 as the catalogue number for Tut's tomb, so should Wikipedia. Thank You Leoboudv 06:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Egyptologists and Egyptian authorities - bookstores use ISBN numbers, perhaps we should use those instead of titles. ISBN numbers are preffered by everyone as there is only one ISBN number per book. I don't believe it makes for a very accessible encyclopedia.--Keerllston 00:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

But, as I have said several times , it is 100% accessable because of the redirect, and quite simply, Anything besides KV62 is not a name, whatsoever. It isn't a common name, or the simpler name as opposed to a technical name; KV62 is the only name, and all other suggestions thus far have not been actual names at all! It would be like renaming the Washington Monument, "That pointy obelisk in the capitol." It's just not a name. Thanatosimii (talk) 02:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Strong Oppose There is a redirect for people who will not find the structure under this name. What more do they need? Nothing. As long as they get here, the argument "People don't know that name" is invalid. They ought to learn it, as it is the only name. "Tomb of Tutankhamun," "King Tutankhamun's Tomb," etc., are not names whatsoever, they are descriptions for people who do not know the only name. Thanatosimii 15:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

There would also be a redirect for people who wanted KV62 - they are the same thing after all, they would get to the page either way. It is not the only name, it's also called "Genghis Kandes not so good after all nothingbut" but that name is not accepted or recognized as the name by anybody I know.--Keerllston 00:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

It is the only name until you can find another proper noun. The legitimate title of this page cannot be anything but a proper noun. Thanatosimii (talk) 21:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Discussion and Dialogue and Consensus vs. Voting and Democracy and Autocracy:Let's try to steer away from voting and stick to arguments, let's try to move toward consensus.--Keerllston 00:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

No offense, but that sounds a bit disingenuous when the opposed vote has a clear majority by this point, and I have yet to see someone on the support side talk to my arguments re: relevancy/responsibilities of the WP:NC policy below.

Am all for achieving consensus, but I have yet to see the support side come up with good arguments as to why WP:NC should apply given the good arguments presented against it in this case. Policy statements should be responsible for their outcomes, and simply pointing to WP:NC and saying "we have to do it this way because it says so" doesn't actually make for a convincing case. Captmondo (talk) 14:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Arguments Synopsis

This is the area for noting clearly and succinctly the arguments for and against.--Keerllston 00:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• Against
  • Official name: used by Egyptian Government and Egyptologists
  • Historical name: goes back furthest, to discovery in 1922
  • Draw the line: informality is not encyclopedic.
  • The alternatives presented are not names, thus the naming conventions do not merit their use. KV62 is the most common name. (added by Thanatosimii)
  • There are multiple spellings of the royal name Tutankhamun/Tutankhamon/Tutankhamen (added by Captmondo (talk) 14:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC))
  • Google Search: Search for "KV62" and this page is the #1 Google hit. Most popular phrase according to Google is "King Tut's Tomb" (which is clearly non-encyclopedic) (added by Captmondo (talk) 14:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC))
• supporting
  • Google Search: Tomb of Tutankhamun search should lead directly to Wikipedia page
  • Usage: most people do not know it as KV62

Naming Policies

In a nutshell: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.

"Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists."

"Prefer spelled-out phrases to abbreviations"

From Biology Article Titles"In cases where there is a formal common name (e.g. birds), or when common names are well-known and reasonably unique, they should be used for article titles, except for plant articles. Scientific names should be used otherwise."

Wider issues of the name change proposal

I think this raises issues that go far beyond this article. Two observations:

One: I have a principle that if we can't get consensus, it doesn't matter which way we go. Consensus is best of course, in that we get the best Wikipedia article when we can find common ground. But if there is no consensus, what this means is that it's not clear which way we will get the better article. We have two (or sometimes more) not-so-good options, and we may as well flip a coin. See user:andrewa/creed for more on this.

Two: IMO most (if not all) of the oppose arguments so far ignore some aspect of WP:NC or other. Now there's a lot in WP:NC, and I don't want to be specific, or at least not yet. My point for now is just that Wikipedia is changing. Specifically, there's a lot more emphasis on the use of official names now than there was say two years ago. Perhaps WP:NC needs to be updated to reflect this.

Of course it's also possible that the oppose case can be made in terms of the existing guidelines. All I'm saying is, it hasn't been done yet.

In any case, it won't be easy to get consensus here, but it still should be a goal. The underlying goal is only only to build the best Wikipedia we can. And sometimes this is tricky. Andrewa (talk) 22:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed on number one. Without consensus there's no point to further voting (I heavily support decision by consensus) under the current policies.

Number two - wikipedia is changing? how can you tell? could you elaborate on other recent changes?--Keerllston 23:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

It's just an observation. Surely it would be strange if, as Wikipedia grows and matures, there were to be no changes? And I think I can see some trends. One is that in WP:RM there's an increasing tendency for people to assume that official names take precedence over common names. The policy is actually the opposite; Common names take precedence. The other main trend I see is towards more footnoting and greater emphasis on citing sources. This was always a policy, but we're getting a lot more concerned about it.

And, if our standards change, then so should our documentation. The policies and guidelines are there to reflect the community consensus. Andrewa (talk) 12:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

"It's just an observation" - I find the comment interesting and I wanted to know more. Obsevations are good! I think that observation in particular is insightful - I especially liked the citing sources part... I don't think necessarily that it's naming policy that should change, even if it will.--Keerllston 04:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree. I think the naming convention should stay as it is. To prefer the official name over the common name has an enormous number of drawbacks. Just to cite two: Firstly official names sometimes change in capricious fashions, and not just in third world countries, see Halifax; Secondly prescriptive linguistics is widely regarded as discredited, and it's far better for Wikipedia to go with the modern, descriptive approach, which means preferring what people do say rather than what some (again perhaps capricious) authority says they should say.

And if that's what the naming convention says, then we should take notice. Andrewa (talk) 19:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I found it very strange that the google search was one of the most quoted arguments for moving it. It should really be google that should change that, not wikipedia. How Google uses wikipedia is unimportant. The fact that KV62 is used less than tomb of tut both in common usage and in scholarly usage is significant however.--Keerllston 23:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Google is not God. The ghit count is extremely useful data for deciding what directions to follow in other research, but it is not often good evidence of anything when it comes to a final decision. Andrewa (talk) 12:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to comment on the statement above saying that "oppose arguments so far ignore some aspect of WP:NC". Problem is, it is such a blanket statement that admits little opposition, even when the arguments are sensible ones. Despite the best of intentions, I think WP:NC probably should not apply to all circumstances, specifically when it comes to KV62, and more generally when it comes to the "KV" tombs. WP:NC is a sledgehammer where a pair of tweezer is what's called for. It sets direction but ignores the consequences when that policy is misapplied.

Agree that the sledgehammer is inappropriate. Disagree that appeals to WP:NC are sledgehammer approach and admit little opposition. But I do think that the onus of proof is on those who think that WP:NC should not apply here - otherwise, why have standards or conventions at all?

But the tweezer approach is not good either. Conventions are good, provided they reflect what we do, and vice versa. It's a bit ironical that those who want to go with an official name on this occasion, thus conforming to a standard, are happy to violate Wikipedia's standards in the process. But it's a common irony... often, those keenest on enforcing rules on others are worst at following the rules themselves. Andrewa (talk) 19:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

On the whole, I think the policy behind WP:NC is sound, and the reader-centric focus is a good one. And yet there are occasions (such as this one, I would argue) where it introduces chaos unwittingly. As I have mentioned before, do a search on any of the name variants on "Tutankhamun" on Wikimedia Commons. Given the variations of the name "Tutankhamun" (an issue that doesn't seems to be addressed in WP:NC from what I can find) there will always be a problem as to which of the names to use, introducing a level of inaccuracy. At the moment, "Tutankhamun", is the most popular spelling of his name (excepting "Tut"), but spelling variations abound. And I agree that the reliance on Google hits can be a poor measure to judge things by. As mentioned previously, type in KV62 in Google and this article is #1, and "King Tut's Tomb", while clearly un-encyclopedic, far and away gets the most hits on Google. And I agree with the previous comment that Google will adapt to what is used on Wikipedia, rather than the other way around, so Google hits is not the be all and end all that some people suggest. Changing the name of this article is also a poor precedent, since a) this is not the only tomb ascribed to Tutankhamun, and b) there are a number of tombs whose "owner" is contentious.

Having said all of that, I am unsure where to go next. Perhaps suggest Egyptian naming conventions in a similar manner to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ancient Romans)? Trying to establish a primacy of which convention to use under which circumstance (i.e. KV tomb namings over the name of the pharaoh, if known)? Pointing out some of the more problematic guidelines (such as Google hits) on WP:NC? On the whole though, I am in favour of taking this to the discussion forum on WP:NC, since I think that's the only place we are likely to get a conclusive resolution to the issue. Captmondo (talk) 16:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a Naming conventions page already, but it isn't in anyway comprehensive. Perhaps we could expand the page and when similar requests happen again, we can point people here for further references. Markh (talk) 21:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I think when there is some resolution to this discussion that the result (whatever it turns out to be) ought to go there. I like the format of the existing Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ancient Romans) (though I don't think it is comprehensive either). I think explicitly laying out why we use the nomen rather than the prenomen ought to be there too, though the reasons would be obvious to both of us (or anyone with more than a glancing interest in the subject). Let's see how this turn out first though... Captmondo (talk) 14:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. WP:NC is a top-level page, and deals in generalisations. If there are specific reasons for departing from these on occasions, these should be documented in pages such as Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Ancient Egyptian) - which is in the process of writing right now. Andrewa (talk) 19:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

KV62 as compared to other "technical" definitions.

We all want simplicity. We obviously want Dog, not Canis Lupus. We want Soviet Union, not Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. However, we do not believe that those are legitimate parallels to this case, because in both cases, both names are actually names. However, in the case of Tutankhamun's tomb, Tutankhamun's tomb is not a name, it's a descriptive phrase. Consider. I can rearrange "tomb of Tutankhamun" to make "Tutankhamun's tomb," and no one can tell me which one is more proper. Can we do that with other names? The name of the large statue in New York City is the Statue of Liberty. Notice, both words are upper case. If I called it the liberty statue, that would obviously not be its name. King George VI had the title "King of Great Britain, Ireland, and the British Dominions Beyond the Seas; Emperor of India." Now, we can shorten that to George, King of England, or even, King George VI, and we still have a valid title. However, if I were to write, George, England's king, I would have to make the word "king" lowercase, because it has ceased to be a proper title, but merely a description which people would use if they either did not know or care to use his title at all.

Likewise, "tomb of Tutankhamun" has not entered common parlance as a proper noun. It isn't a name, it's a phrase people use who do not know the name. It isn't the common name of what is technically named KV62, it's a description of what is only named KV62. And until the phrase becomes set as a proper noun, until schoolteachers can draw red marks over reports of their students, changing "Tutankhamun's tomb is in the valley of the kings" to "Tutanhamun's Tomb is in the Valley of the Kings," (note, the second proper noun, Valley of the Kings, is technically named Bibal al Maluk, however we can use the simpler name because it has become a name and it is flat out wrong to spell it lower case), then any of these "common" names fail to be names at all. Naming conventions do not say that we should get rid of obscure names and replace them with descriptions which are not names. Thanatosimii (talk) 04:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm fascinated as to where you get all this theory of what constitutes a name. It seems greatly at variance to my understanding, which is grounded on a degree in formal logic and an unfinished graduate diploma in linguistics.

"Name" and "proper noun" are not synonyms... all proper nouns are names, but not all names are proper nouns. "Dog" is not a proper noun, but it's a name for canis lupus. Things can and do have many names.

It isn't a name, it's a phrase people use who do not know the name is IMO just plain false. Or at least, it's only true if you're using the term name in a rather unnusual way. It isn't the common name of what is technically named KV62 is also false, as is it's a description of what is only named KV62; KV62 has several names, and "Tutankhamun's tomb" is one of them. As for until schoolteachers can draw red marks over reports of their students, well, there are good schoolteachers and others. Some know that both education and linguistics have moved on since the 19th century, and sadly, others don't. So?

Naming conventions do not say that we should get rid of obscure names and replace them with descriptions which are not names. No, but they do say we should make obscure names into redirects, and instead use the common English name as the article title.

In all I don't think your discussion of proper nouns above has any bearing on the best name for this article, and neither as far as I can see do the Wikipedia:naming conventions support your view that it does have this bearing. Andrewa (talk) 11:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Dog is not a proper noun because it refers to a vague kind. This is a specific thing. All names of specific things are proper nouns. Proper nouns (also called proper names) are nouns representing unique entities (such as London, Universe or John), as distinguished from common nouns which describe a class of entities (such as city, well or person). From Proper noun. Thanatosimii (talk) 21:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

But "dog" is a perfectly good article name, see dog, although it is not a proper noun. This business of proper nouns is completely irrelevant. Andrewa (talk) 06:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

But "dog" is a generic subject, exactly as I said. A specific tomb is not. Names of specific persons, places, and things, are always proper nouns, and anything which is not a proper noun is not a name of a specific person, place, or thing. Thanatosimii (talk) 06:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Mount Everest rather than Peak XV is I think the clearest example against categorization by number and for descriptive terms.

Economic History of China rather than Country (Economy) because phrases are very acceptable.--Keerllston 04:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose: KV62 is the widely accepted catalogue number for Tutankhamun's intact tomb. What gives us the right to discard this reference number--because some people prefer to call it as Tutankhamun's tomb instead? Its basically the same thing. The catalogue number for Tutankhamun is important because it establishes there are at least 62 tombs in the Valley of the Kings. Now there are 63 tombs with the find of KV63. I don't think any of us would like to tell the Egyptians how to catalogue their tombs. It would certainly be presumptuous of us to do so. Since the Egyptians are actively using the established catalogue reference number KV for tombs in the Valley of the Kings, we must too. If not, we could soon be engaged in an unproductive exercise trying to decide which paharaoh's KVXX tomb should be named Seti I's or Amenhotep II's tomb. We would be reduced to a laughing stock among Egyptologists who long ago followed this catalogue system for their books and who are finding more and more tombs and inscriptions each year throughout Egypt--not just in the Valley of the Kings. So, to keep up with their finds, they are forced to give a catalogue number for tomb X or rock inscription Y--with the official approval of the Egyptian government, of course. Artene50 (talk) 09:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• ISBN is the most widely accepted catalogue number for books.
• Basically the same thing, true. Just like Mount Everest is basically the same thing as Peak XV.
• "establishes that there are at least 62 tombs" -??? rather than establishing whose tomb it is which Is more relevant and helpful you want it categorized according to the order of their discovery. It's clearly a less helpful a title in letting people know what it is about.
• "presumtuous of us to tell the Egyptians how to catalogue their tombs" As a catalogue system I think KVXX system is great, just like the ISBN system is great.
• "unproductive exercise trying to decide which paharaoh's KVXX tomb should be named [...]" I understood there was no doubt on who was the inhabitant of KV62. That in this case, the decision has been made already by the egyptologist community, and has been understood world over that it is tutahnkhamun's tomb, categorized as KV62.
• "to keep up with their finds, they are forced to give a catalogue number" and as a catalogue system it is still valuable, and if someone looks for KV62 they would be redirected to Tomb of Tutankhamun.
• "official approval of the Egyptian government" As a catalogue system it is great. Just like Peak XX, ISBN... K2 is still called K2 despite there being various other names. But it is not the same as "Washington Monument" and more simililar to "Obelisk 37" -more like "Ob37"...

--Keerllston 17:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Why the most common name should apply in this case

KV62 is not a name recognized by the average reader typing into a search engine, plain and simple. Searching is how most people arrive at wikipedia articles, so we are trying to facilitate this. Google is not the ultimate source by which we name articles, but neither can we simply sweep away these concerns as unimportant. A rebuttal to the arguments against moving:

• "KV62 is the official name" - we don't do official names, this is never a justification to abandon the most common name
• "KV62 is the historical name" - same rebuttal as above; "Tomb of Tutankhamun" is in use just as long as KV62
• "Draw the line at informality" - This is why we don't use the slang "King Tut's tomb" and instead choose "Tomb of Tutankhamun", a name used by the public and Reliable Sources (eg Carter's book and the tomb itself)
• "Multiple spellings confusing" - We have used the -amun spelling as a convention. Better to update outdated spellings than to duck the issue at the searcher/reader's expense.
• "Google search KV62 is #1" - This highlights the reason why the article should be "Tomb of Tutankhamun", because most readers have no clue what KV62 even is! If the article is renamed it will eventually work its way up to number one under the more popular search term.

Is it really so important to have all the KV tombs named as KV-- or as "Tomb of N", using the same system for every single tomb? Here's a quick reality check for the folks wanting to stick to the KV system: do you have all the tomb numbers memorized? If not, what would you type into a search engine to find a specific pharaoh's tomb? We can use common sense and still maintain integrity, accuracy, encyclopedic professionalism, and readability. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 21:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, yours is the first reply I have seen from the support side that neatly captures the merits of that side of the argument. I respect the points made, and yet I still believe the KV62 naming convention should be retained, along and the precedent set for keeping all King's Valley tombs in Wikipedia to the "KV" naming convention.

I for one can accept that "Tutankhamun" is the most common English spelling for the pharaoh, and that the "drawing the line at informality" argument rules out "King Tut's tomb". I do have a problem with where that line is drawn though, and for me (and for others) "Tomb of Tutankhamun" is also below that threshold. Yes, it is arguably the common name, but it is not a sufficiently encyclopedic name for the article. From what I can find, the Encyclopedia Brittanica and Encarta does not use this name for the tomb (and that is supposed to be a consideration within WP:NC. Whereas I can find references to individual tomb numbers within common books (i.e. non-academic) on the subject. Most typically, it exists as a sub-reference, such as "Tutankhamun, Tomb of" or "Tutankhamun, Tomb of (see KV62)" along with such things as "Tutankhamun, Gold Mask of" or "Tutankhamun, mummy". So "Tomb of" is properly a sub-reference rather than a direct reference to the tomb commonly identified as KV62. Similarly, I would consider naming Tutankhamun's other tomb, (KV54) as the Embalming cache of Tutankhamun, or KV56 as the Gold Tomb to be similarly unencyclopedic. In short, we really cannot look at renaming this article in isolation without looking at the unfortunate precedent it would set.

And this has been one of my chief arguments from the beginning; the name change sets a bad precedent by ascribing ownership to a particular tomb in the article name. Most of the KV tombs are anonymously-owned, and there are a few which are contentious, such as KV55. If "Tomb of Tutankhamun" goes through it is only a matter of time before there's a POV-war as to who "owns" this tomb.

Finally, an encyclopedia to my mind is supposed to be a medium for learning. "Tomb of Tutankhamun" links to the KV62 article, where people find that this is the name commonly used by experts in the field for the simple reason that it leads to less confusion. A good and relevant example can be found on Wikimedia Commons, where things are placed willy-nilly when it comes to using the name of the pharaoh according to the language being used, but the category for KV62 is universally understood. Similarly a quick glance through some of the pyramid articles shows confusion over the naming of such things as "Djoser's pyramid" (for the Step pyramid), or the fact that Great Pyramid of Giza is favoured over "Khufu's Pyramid".

And for the record, because I am interested in that area of Egyptology, I do think in terms of the KV numbering rather than "Tomb of (individual)" because when talking to others on the subject we are working on common ground. "Tomb of (individual)" is not encyclopedic, whereas KVnn is. Captmondo (talk) 15:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Very nice response, thankyou Captmondo. It is reasonable dialogue rather than debate, thankyou.

note: people are saying this creates a precedent, but in italian wikipedia where this article is a Featured Article it is Tomb of Tutankhamun, not as KV62.--Keerllston 18:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Move name discussion

Hi, can we move this discussion to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Ancient Egyptian), as it no longer applies only to this article. Cheers. Markh (talk) 21:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... Agreed.--Keerllston 21:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The place for the discussion is Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Ancient Egyptian). I think that's what you meant. Agree we should move there. Andrewa (talk) 10:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, shall I archive this discussion and then link from the above page? Markh (talk) 12:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good.--Keerllston 18:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, an excellent idea. We're making good progress, and I hope we may be back to WP:RM before too long... this time for sure. Andrewa (talk) 01:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Elaboration needed

"underneath the remains of workmen's huts built during the Ramesside Period; this explains why it was spared from the worst of the tomb depredations of that time"

How does it explain why the tomb had not been re-discovered sooner? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.53.124.87 (talk) 19:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Officially opened

I've removed the term "officially opened" and replaced it with "opened". Carter's diary is used as a source for "officially", but it says "Opened sealed doorway before officials Etc"[6], which, according to me, is not quite the same thing as an 'official opening'. Feel free to revert if I'm hopelessly wrong. Yintan  14:21, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Shrine diagram

Shrine diagram is incorrectly interpretated in the 'Contents' section. Number 2 (the blue outline) is not the second shrine, but a wooden framework between 1st and 2nd shrines, on top of which pall linen was thrown. Second and third shrines are 3 and 4, and innermost shrine is the unnumbered black outline. --Mikoyan21 (talk) 19:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on KV62. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121127193846/http://www.euronews.com:80/2012/11/19/tutankhamon-tomb-recreation to http://www.euronews.com/2012/11/19/tutankhamon-tomb-recreation/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Updated radar scans

There may not be additional chambers after all: http://www.livescience.com/54708-nefertiti-missing-no-chambers-in-king-tut-tomb.html?cmpid=NL_LS_weekly_2016-5-11 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.68.104.232 (talk) 11:13, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Rename proposal (again)

I've read the above opposition and I'm afraid I'm not convinced. 'KV62' is an incredibly indescriptive and ineffective title, regardless of its designation. I vote instead for 'Tomb of Tutankhamun'. Per the naming convention guidelines:

A good Wikipedia article title has the five following characteristics:

• Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize.
• Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English.
• Precision – The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects. (See § Precision and disambiguation, below.)
• Conciseness – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects.
• Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) as topic-specific naming conventions on article titles, in the box above.

---

According to Google Trends, "KV62" is by far the least recognizable term used in searching for this article. The unnaturalness and imprecision of the term is demonstrated in the apologetic opening line of the article: "KV62 is the standard Egyptological designation for the tomb of the young pharaoh Tutankhamun in the Valley of the King". Is the article about the designation or the tomb? Because the tomb's been around for a good 3300 years, and in that time it's always been the Tomb of Tutankhamun, but the designation 'KV62' has only been around for about a century.

I'll grant that it's concise, though the KV designation doesn't wholly distinguish it from the Köchel-Verzeichnis catalogue of Mozart music or the KV designation of the Kliment Voroshilov tank series, but the discussion of consistency is a little more interesting. Granted, the title of this article is consistent with the other articles related to the Valley of the Kings tombs, it's the naming conventions used in the Valley of the Kings which are the issue. The brevity is clearly designed to benefit the context of someone working within the narrow range of excavating that valley, not the encyclopedia reader. The conventions used are inconsistent with UNESCO World Heritage naming conventions and nearly every other archaeological site in the world, including other Egyptological sites. Even when the sites are serially named (Stonehenge 1-3, Troy I-IV), they are descriptive enough to allow the reader to identify them. Is the unfortunate naming convention of the Valley of Kings the cross of the reader to bear? Is this an encyclopedia for Egyptologists? It is and has been the Tomb of Tutankhamun since he was laid to rest there over 3 millennia ago. KV62 is just an arbitrary name assigned much later for the convenience of one select group. It's not only less convenient, it's less accurate. Scoundr3l (talk) 21:27, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Just noticed this discussion on passing through. I can't believe such an obvious violation of WP:COMMONNAMES has stood for so long. This title doesn't even suggest that the subject of the article is a tomb, or that it is an archaeological site, or anything with the least meaning to someone who isn't already conversant with the subject. Even very Egypt-specific sources provide more useful titles, like "KV 62 (Tutankhamen)" at the Theban Mapping Project. Zero^talk 05:56, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia naming conventions mandate that articles be given the name a general reader would search for, rather than the name a specialist would think of--that could not be more clear. But pages tend to be controlled by specialists, and so they overrule the spirit of the project as a whole in favor of their parochial viewpoint. This is why "Heart attack" redirects to "Myocardial infarction". Nareek (talk) 11:31, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on KV62. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150925122711/http://www.nicholasreeves.com/item.aspx?category=Events&id=261 to http://www.nicholasreeves.com/item.aspx?category=Events&id=261
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070630024020/http://griffith.ashmus.ox.ac.uk/gri/4sea1not.html to http://griffith.ashmus.ox.ac.uk/gri/4sea1not.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070630024102/http://griffith.ashmus.ox.ac.uk/gri/4macedia.html to http://griffith.ashmus.ox.ac.uk/gri/4macedia.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070630024655/http://griffith.ashmus.ox.ac.uk/gri/4sea9not.html to http://griffith.ashmus.ox.ac.uk/gri/4sea9not.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://griffith.ashmus.ox.ac.uk/gri/tut-files/TAA_i_3_10_2.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:39, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Veracity of water boy story

The veracity of the story of a water boy, said to be Hussein Abdel-Rassoul, finding the tomb has been questioned. It doesn't appear in any of Carter's diaries, but first appears in Hoving's book 'Tutankhamun: The Untold Story'. A great summary and further information can be found on Christina Riggs' blog, in the post Water boys and wishful thinking. I know a blog post isn't an ideal source, even if it is by a respected Egyptologist/historian. In light of this, I feel we should either delete the mention of the water boy, or expand it to acknowledge the factual murkiness/prevalence in popular thought. Let me know what you think! Merytat3n (talk) 09:04, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 22 April 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Consensus to move. Opposers make an argument from consistency, but consistency is only one criterion of the article titles criteria and others, such as recognizability ("The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize.") and naturalness ("The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles.") can take precedence. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 03:22, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

---

KV62 → Tomb of Tutankhamun – The present title is a clear violation of WP:COMMONNAME, which states that an article title is a natural-language word or expression that indicates the subject of the article. It additionally fails the WP:CRITERIA of Recognizability and Naturalness for article titles, and arguably Consistency as well since the construction "Tomb of X" is widespread on Wikipedia (though see paragraph below for discussion of consistency with other Egyptian tomb articles). WP:TITLE states that [g]enerally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources, and according to Google Ngram, "Tomb of Tutankhamun" is considerably more common than "KV62". Google Scholar results also support this: 2,760 for "Tomb of Tutankhamun", but only 1,540 for "KV62". Note that several of the results on the first page use "KV62" only as a parenthetical and treat some variation of "Tomb of Tutankhamun" as the primary name. These results are also biased towards "KV62" since it can refer to things besides the tomb (some of the results on the first page of Google Scholar have nothing to do with Egypt) and because variations in the spelling of "Tutankhamun" mean that the query "Tomb of Tutankhamun" does not capture all relevant uses. The present title of the article also forces the first sentence to be the awkward KV62 is the standard Egyptological designation for the tomb of young pharaoh Tutankhamun rather than, e.g., the more natural The tomb of Tutankhamun, designated as KV62 in Egyptology, is....

I am specifically not proposing the renaming of any of the other articles about tombs in the Valley of the Kings, which all use the same "KV" format. While this is inconsistent, it is justified in this case because the tomb of Tutankhamun is vastly better known than any of the other tombs in the Valley of the Kings, which are plausibly more widely known by their official designations.

This renaming was previously proposed in 2007, with the result of "No consensus". You can read a summary of the arguments at Talk:KV62#Arguments_Synopsis. There was a second try at renaming in 2016, which received no objections but didn't go anywhere. Rublov (talk) 01:04, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support per well-written nom. Common name. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:07, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support. UpdateNerd (talk) 05:13, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose in the interest of encyclopedic consistency. Interops (talk) 23:01, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
  • In fact the proposed move is wholly consistent according to WP:COMMONNAME, because the "KV" designations are the common names for the other tombs. Here are Google Ngram results for KV11/Tomb of Ramesses III and KV1/Tomb of Ramesses VII demonstrating such. Granted, my reservations about Ngrams in the initial proposal still apply, but the difference from KV62/Tomb of Tutankhamun, where "Tomb of Tutankhamun" is vastly more common, is striking and justifies the alleged inconsistency. And as I noted before, the use of the official designation is itself inconsistent with comparable articles on Wikipedia. Rublov (talk) 15:30, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

• Weak oppose, and comment on a related issue. Consistency is one of the principles recommended at WP:Article titles, and I think in some cases WP:COMMONNAME ends up overriding consistency in places where it shouldn't. The worst instance I know of is Wilhelm II, where the effects of the inconsistency spill over into the article on his grandfather (note the infobox). I don't mean to suggest this move would be as bad as that, and I'm not greatly invested either way, but such inconsistencies within a closely related set of articles make me uncomfortable.

The timing of this move request is good, though. I'm working on a rewrite of this article and a subarticle about its discovery, in preparation for the discovery's centennial in November 2022, and whichever way it goes, I'd like to have the question of the article title settled well in advance. While I'm I've been thinking it should be titled "discovery and clearance of [tomb name]", because the article has to cover the nearly decade-long process of conserving and removing the tomb's contents, but "discovery and clearance of the tomb of Tutankhamun" feels very lengthy. Should it simply be "discovery of [tomb name]"? A. Parrot (talk) 04:55, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

re: the title of the subarticle, I agree that "Discovery and clearance of [tomb name]" is excessively lengthy, and I think "Discovery of [tomb name]" is sufficient. re: consistency, I do acknowledge that that is a concern, but it seems to me that the argument for "KV62" is strictly weaker since "Tomb of Tutankhamun" has both WP:COMMONNAME and the WP:CRITERIA of Recognizability and Naturalness in its corner. I also think the supposed consistency is a bit of a false equivalence since Tutankhamun's tomb is singular in every way, e.g. 24,243 page views for KV62 versus 1,187 for KV11. Most, if not all, of the other tombs are known primarily to specialists so it makes sense that their article titles use an academic designation, but Tutankhamun's tomb is widely known so the title of its article should reflect that. Rublov (talk) 01:10, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

• Weak support. I would rather it stay as KV62 for consistency but I do recognize that "the tomb of Tutankhamun" is more widely known to the general public. Granted, I think most of this stems from Carter's publications as 'Tomb of X' seems to have been the style at the time (at least for Davis) eg: Tomb of Iouiya and Touiyou, Tomb of Hatshopsitu, Tomb of Harmhabi. Of course, this discovery was far more sensational, and scholarly literature has continued this convention with the "Tut'ankhamun's Tomb" series of publications. It does occur more recently for other tombs such as "Das Grab des Haremhab im Tal der Könige" and "The Tomb of Pharaoh Seti I" but the sheer amount of literature produced about Tutankhamun's tomb sets it apart. Merytat3n (talk) 21:44, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hussein Abd el-Rassul

@UpdateNerd: I've tracked down the origin of the story that el-Rassul discovered the step, thanks to another book by Christina Riggs, Treasured: How Tutankhamun Shaped a Century (2021). It says, "More recently, and in conjunction with new tours of Tutankhamun objects that Zahi Hawass has facilitated, Sheikh Hassan's story of being photographed by Burton has been conflated with a story told by Thomas Hoving in his bestselling 1978 account of the Tutankhamun discovery. Hoving dug out a second-hand account in the Metropolitan Museum of Art archives, whose author claimed Howard Carter had told him that the actual discovery of the tomb's first step was made by an Egyptian boy who carried water to the workmen." (pp. 296–297) She goes on to describe a variant of this story, reported by the Boston Globe in 1924, that attributes the discovery to another boy named Mohamed Gorgar. Then Riggs says, "Neither Mohamed Gorgar nor the mysterious water boy of Hoving's version featured in any of Howard Carter's many accounts of the find, though Carter certainly didn't mind embroidering stories himself. In the hands of Zahi Hawass (or his ghostwriters), the water boy and the boy wearing Tutankhamun's gold jewels in Burton's photograph have both become Hussein Abd el-Rassul—and this uncorroborated story has been presented as firm fact in exhibitions, catalogues, and television documentaries. Some version of the story, or the earlier tale of Mohamed Gorgar, may be true... Hawass, who worked at Luxor in the early 1970s, claims to have had the water boy and necklace-wearing story from Sheikh Hassan in person." (pp. 297–298)

This is the only source in my possession that brings up el-Rassul in connection with the step, and it seems to be the most detailed discussion of the question of who discovered that first step. All the other sources I have (most significantly the meticulously researched Howard Carter: The Path to Tutankhamun (2000) by T. G. H. James, Howard Carter and the Discovery of the Tomb of Tutankhamun (2006) by H. V. F. Winstone, Tutankhamen: The Search for an Egyptian King (2012) by Joyce Tyldesley, and The Complete Tutankhamun (1990) by Nicholas Reeves) either treat the tomb entrance as a discovery by the workmen, without giving further details, or mention an unidentified water boy, citing the version of the story that Hoving unearthed in 1978.

Given these complexities, I think it's best to avoid identifying the water boy in the text of this article. Right now I'm working on a subarticle, discovery of the tomb of Tutankhamun, which I hope to upload within the next month or so; the complexity of this question can be better dealt with there, where there's more space to focus on the sequence of events as opposed to the tomb itself. A. Parrot (talk) 16:17, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

@A. Parrot: Good points and thanks for laying that out clearly.

IMO, the tomb discovery article is one of Wikipedia's greatest current omissions!! I look forward to seeing your work. UpdateNerd (talk) 09:12, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Draft of rewrite

I mentioned a while ago that I was planning to rewrite this article, as well as create a separate article about the tomb's discovery. I hope to bring this article up to GA status. Unfortunately, my writing process, where I compose nearly everything myself in an offline text file, is more unilateral than many Wikipedians prefer. In the case of this article, which is far from terrible (unlike some others I've rewritten), it may not seem necessary to redo all the text, but I'm afraid that's just how my brain prefers to work. Therefore, now that I'm nearing completion on my draft of this article, I've put it in my sandbox so others can see it: User:A. Parrot/sandbox.

I've retained all the information that I think is important to this article, but I've put much more focus on the burial goods, which are, after all, the main reason this tomb is significant. I have also deemphasized subjects that I think receive disproportionate attention in the current revision. Details about the first moments of the tomb's discovery can be covered in the upcoming subarticle on that topic, and the recent claims about undiscovered chambers can be summarized in less detail than in the current revision. I have a link to the article on the meteoritic iron dagger, but I don't see why it should merit its own subsection, as the current revision has it.

Some parts of the article still need to have their references filled in or text added (%percent signs% are my way of noting to myself that something is still incomplete), but my general plan for the rewrite is clearly visible in the sandbox. If any editors have suggestions or criticisms, this section will be a good place to note them. A. Parrot (talk) 01:42, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

@A. Parrot: This is awesome, thank you for your hard work!!! Some small corrections of things that stood out to me. First sentence of the last paragraph of the intro - Tutankhamun's mummy has been displayed in temp controlled case since 2007 and is no longer housed inside the outermost coffin in the sarcophagus (citation from the Tutankhamun page here). In the 'Burial chamber and treasury' section, the sarcophagus is said to be calcite - it is made of yellow quartzite, supported on at each corner by a block of calcite. The lid is red granite painted yellow (Reeves 1990: p.105) Merytat3n (talk) 05:29, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Man, why did I write calcite? Thanks for these corrections. A. Parrot (talk) 05:40, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I've uploaded the rewritten version. A. Parrot (talk) 06:28, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tomb of Tutankhamun/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Merytat3n (talk · contribs) 10:33, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I will review this over the next few days :) Merytat3n (talk) 10:33, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Very well written and formatted

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Well-referenced with appropriate sources. Checked some citations of sources I have to hand - pages are correct etc. Earwig yields maximum of 13.8% which is totally fine - only so many ways to word things. Googling random phrases just returns this wiki page

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Well-focused and useful. No obvious gaps

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Balanced

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   stable, no edit warring

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Illustrated. Many images are appropriate given the contents are what the tomb is famous for

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Very well done!!! Thank you for all your hard work, it shows

Thank you for the opportunity to review this article! Merytat3n (talk) 10:01, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

My thoughts about off-line writing

I was pinged on user:Ceoil's talk page.

Here are my two cents. Writing an article offline and adding it to mainspace all at once is not something I'm entirely comfortable with. In part, this is because many editors of Wikipedia who might be interested in the topic, the anonymous, for example, are not given the chance to read the article, and in good time serve as informal peer reviewers. But, in equal part, I'm uncomfortable also because a previously existing text, the work of many other editors, has been replaced in an opaque manner by another. By opaque, I mean: we are not given the chance to observe gradually, in bits and pieces, how the sentences were improved, and learn. Many new editors learn by observing how articles change.

Consider the two sentences in the lead, "The tomb is smaller than other Egyptian royal tombs of its time, consisting of four chambers and an entrance staircase and corridor, and less extensively decorated. It probably originated as a tomb for a non-royal individual that was adapted for Tutankhamun's use after his premature death."

In the first sentence, the participial phrase, "consisting of four chambers and an entrance staircase ..." is the main information, as the common reader has no idea how big or small a standard tomb is, or at least at this stage of reading, particularly care about this comparison. So we can't really make "The tomb is smaller ..." the main clause. (I mean we can, but it is the kind of thing that will make a reader fleetingly pause in their reading.) In the normal course of evolution, another editor might notice this and turn it around by subordinating the less accessible information, i.e.: "Smaller than many other Egyptian royal tombs, Tutankhamen's tomb consisted of four chambers and an entrance staircase and corridor." Yet another might feel that the two "tomb"s, now almost back to back, sound repetitive, and change the second instance to "mausoleum," or somesuch ... and so it would evolve ... or not evolve, for obviously, I can't divine the future.

Or consider, "it probably originated ..." Well, "originate" has the meaning of coming into existence, springing, ... Tombs, on the other hand, are more purposefully made by humans. You could say "the tsunami originated in a minor earthquake six miles below ..." You could say the tomb's plan originated in the idea that ...

When you don't give the IPs a chance, the burden falls on the peer-reviewers and GA/FA reviewers, and they are depleted already in more senses than one. (I don't mean to overplay this hand either: in the end, you do need the peer-reviewers, but the article does settle with time, its tangles untangled a little.) So, without belaboring the point, how you proceed is for you to decide, but I would urge you to think about the sound moral principle here.

In terms of practical advice, next time, if writing off-line is what you prefer: add a section at a time, give it a week, then add another section, ... It is probably also a good idea to wait for a few months, as Ceoil says, before nominating this article as a FAC. Pinging some others. @Bishonen, Vanamonde93, Drmies, Valereee, RegentsPark, Abecedare, and Doug Weller: Not trying to be intimidating, only requesting a more experienced body of opinion so you might be better served. PS I note with sadness the absence of @Slimvirgin: who in the past had contributed richly to such discussions. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:42, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I haven’t looked at the changes but your analysis is impressive! But User:A. Parrot is IMHO one of our best editors on Ancient Egypt so I doubt that there is much to worry about and he did discuss how he did this above. Doug Weller talk 14:12, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Doug, and have no concerns; obv A. Parrot is already highly regarded and trusted in this area. Thanks once again Fowler for your look over and thoughts. To reiterate the pointers I picked up over the years- all of which mr/ms Parrot was anyway following [7]. Ceoil (talk) 15:44, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you all for your input. I will consider how to make my writing process more transparent in the future. But my original plan was to bring this article to GA status, which it now has, and to take Discovery of the tomb of Tutankhamun, which is a new creation, to FAC. My thinking was that keeping this article at FA standard would require keeping up with the tomb's current condition, and I'm not good at editing based on news updates and the like. But this rewritten version turned out to be more thorough than it expected to be, while the article about the tomb's discovery has more potential to be politically touchy. I would like to take at least one of them to FAC, but now I'm unsure which it should be. A. Parrot (talk) 03:45, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

The tomb, rather than the discovery, is the more substantial and of wider interest. Best of luck anyhow with either or both :) Ceoil (talk) 04:18, 19 June 2022 (UTC)