# Talk:Tomb of Tutankhamun

This website seems to be no longer functional, is there an archived version of this that can replace the current references?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.


### 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)


### Requested move
### 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)

"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) 

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 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)

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 16:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

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) 

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. Zerotalk 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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)
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
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
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
Well-focused and useful. No obvious gaps
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 
Balanced
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 
stable, no edit warring
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
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)

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)

There currently isn’t a page there but I searched it looking for this page and I think others could have too. I think the page should be created as a redirect to here. Sir_Macaw 20:01, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

There is already a redirect: King Tut's Tomb. A. Parrot (talk) 21:03, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
Never mind then. Sir_Macaw 13:38, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

The redirect Kha'y has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 September 25 § Kha'y until a consensus is reached.   Jay 💬 13:27, 25 September 2025 (UTC)