Talk:KV62

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Ancient Egypt
Ancient Egypt Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Ancient Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Egyptological subjects. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments
Architecture Portal
This article covers subjects of relevance to Architecture. To participate, visit the WikiProject Architecture for more information. The current monthly improvement drive is Johannes Itten.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified KV62 as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Hungarian language Wikipedia.

Contents

[edit] Rename Discussion

[edit] 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 not watching this page, but 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.)

  • 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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."

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)