# Talk:Valley of the Kings

The validity of the following paragraph is questionable:

Almost all of the tombs have been ransacked except for Tutankhamun’s. King Tutankhamun was a minor king and other kings would have had 10 times the treasures.
When ransacking the robbers often torched the tombs in order to sift through everything faster, picking out the gold and other treasures. If you were caught you were torched and impaled.
It was added by an Anon who contributed only twice, both times to this article. Possible invalidity roots in:

the extreme precise and specific quantity "would have had 10 times the treasures": Doesn't the whole number, 10, seem a bit inconvenient?
The tombs have no windows, and it was before lightbulbs, so torches had to be used. It was probably the only way. And it was mainly for lighting, not necessarily for doing "everything faster, picking out the gold and other treasures".
"If you were caught you were torched and impaled". I assume the writer meant by the falling stones in the tomb. But this sentence is ambiguous in that it could also mean the robbers would've been "torched and impaled" by the authority.
I have removed parts and modified others. Improve them if you will. --Menchi 06:50 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I agree with your changes. I have further changed the statement that "Almost all of the tombs have been ransacked except for Tutankhamun’s", since it is false. Howard Carter himself clearly documents the ample evidence he found of robbers having entered the tomb. What was different here was that the robbers were either disturbed, or apprehended. Either way, the tomb was re-sealed, but the contents were in total disarray.
Fab 21:39, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I don't really know Arabic, but isn't "wadi" the term for a dried-out river bed turned into a sort of canyon? Is that really what the Valley of the Kings is? I've found the name Biban el Muluk (not sure about the spelling) in the article on the subject in Nationalencyklopedin's internet edition.
Which one is correct? - karmosin 16:18, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Wadi el-Muluk would be a direct cognate of the English "Valley of the Kings", but I have no idea whether that's just a back translation or is authentically used by the locals alongside  Biban el-Maluk (which they certainly do use, and where Biban means 'gates'). So, the answer is "I don't know", but maybe this'll bring the article up on the watchlist of someone more knowledgeable. Albeit three months after you asked. –Hajor 02:32, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi - I had a go at tidying up this page - there were numerous bits of repeated data. I also hid one of the pictures, as it didn't seem to add much. I also added a links to a page about exploration of the valley - to be written later. Anyone got any feelings? Markh 12:37, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
I think we can merge some of the descriptions of the pit and unfinished tombs, perhaps dividing the list up into Royal Tombs, Non-Royal Tombs and then Unfinished Tombs / Pits. It would save a bit of space and seem a bit less like a Homeric list of ships! Markh 13:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I have tagged the three VofK articles as merging with this to create an uber-page! Basically there is a lot of repeated information, and it needs to all be in one place, so as to be consistent. Have created a page Valley of the Kings/temp (not sure whether this is the correct place though) that has the possible merge of the articles. This is partially for the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team so the One Article can be added as a possible FAC. Any objects / suggestions ? Markh 16:10, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I think we're past the point of no return. I'll be moving the /temp article in over this one shortly. –Hajor 04:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Done. 04:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
The merge and update is 'complete' anyone what to add anything ? Some more references might be good. Markh 11:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

We could do with a map! Markh 22:42, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

We certainly could. Any ideas? Preferably, one of the valley, and another of the entire necropolis. –Hajor 04:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
How about Theban Necropolis - I drew this a while ago, but it is not used anywhere ? Markh 09:44, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

On commons:Category:Valley of the Kings, we've got two pics:

Image:Luxor, Tal der Könige, Grab von Ramesses III. (1, 1995, 800x570).jpg, which claims to be the tomb of Tuthmosis III (KV34)
Image:Grabmalereien.jpg, claims to be from Ramesses II's tomb (KV7).
Can anyone confirm those? I don't know about the first second one: KV7's never been open when I've been there, but I didn't know it was stylistically so similar to KV2. As for the first one, it just doesn't look like KV34. –Hajor 05:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

First (white one) looks like a Ramesses III - (Ramesse-hekaiunu) cartouche, so that would make it from KV11. Markh 09:47, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I got into a muddle there with first & second. You mean the the white one, not the yellow one, yeah? –Hajor 13:20, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Well spotted. Final answer? (Oh -- and I put your necropolis map on Thebes, Egypt. Nice work!) –Hajor 14:44, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
1st one IS KV11 (probably). I don't think the yellow / second image can be from Ramesses II's tomb KV7, as I thought that it is mainly destroyed and certainly not a great deal of paint has survived (worst luck) See [1] for a nice picture of the state of the tomb. Markh 15:54, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
The cartouche and the colour scheme point pretty conclusively to the white one being KV11. As for the other one, I see the description uses the word Vermutlich ("probably") w/r/t Ramesses II. I didn't know KV7 was in such poor repait. My money's on its being KV2 (Ram. IV). –Hajor 16:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Bingo. 10525.jpg @ TMP. QED: yellow = KV2. –Hajor 16:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

See: Peer review comments
I have put this article into peer-review. The main comment is that the list is too long! It might be better to reduce the list in this article to be the 'principle' burials – just the open and important ones, and the list part of this article be split off (again) into a seperate article. Any thoughts? Markh 18:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I am removing KV63 from the list of Important Burials because it's significance is unknown, it might not be an important burial at all. Martin Hinks 16:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Can you add it List of burials in the Valley of the Kings? Cheers Markh 16:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Done (and I reformatted your post to use colons instead of asterisks :P)Martin Hinks 18:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
While it may turn out to be only a minor mummy cache, surely it's unquestionably significant since the discovery was only announced this week? And it'll remain important for quite a while as the first tomb discovered in the Valley in 80+ years. I'm hesitant to get into one of Wikipedia's famous 'edit wars', but there's no doubt in my mind it should be put back -- the experts can assess its intrinsic importance in due course, but as things stand today, 10 Feb '06, breaking news round the globe, it is at least as important as any other tomb in the Valley. Nectanebo 20:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
It is a significant discovery, but our section is currently called Significant Burials... maybe rename to Significant Discoveries and then it can go back in whereas we do not yet know if it is a significant burial. Due to the controversial nature of my change I made this discussion so as to avoid any edit wars, of which I also am not fond :) I would be in favour of changing the section name to Significant Discoveries and re-adding KV63, but without that change I am not in favour of re-adding. Martin Hinks 10:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I think that the burial should be on this page, people will look for Valley of the Kings, and expect to see this tomb there, rather than List of burials in the Valley of the Kings, which they would only find from this page. Its significance is that it is in the news, when its true significance is known, it maybe that it should be dropped. Markh 17:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the concept that it should be on this page. I will change the title of the section to Significant Tombs and add KV63. If anyone disagrees feel free to revert, but place a note here so we can discuss and avoid edit wars :) Martin Hinks 20:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.
The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.
Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
Per WP:MOS, avoid using words/phrases that indicate time periods relative to the current day. For example, last year might be terms that should be replaced with specific dates/times.
Please alphabetize the interlanguage links.
Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.
Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant -  “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space inbetween. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]
Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Markh 12:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The hieroglyphic name featured here is not accurate.

In what way? Also please sign your name. Markh 11:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I wanna contribute here with the Valley of the Kings tomb map, I could create it as a svg file. --Walter Humala 
|wanna Talk? 01:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a map on the List of burials in the Valley of the Kings article, but it is a little rough (I did it, so dont worry), feel free to remake it. It might be good to removve the colours. Markh 08:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I'll have it ready for December 2nd. --Walter Humala
|wanna Talk? 06:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

This would be great to include in the article. We are on a mission to clean it up as you can see. Markh 17:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I came over from the GA page and noticed that the photo KV 2 appears on top of text -- at least on my computer (mozilla/mac).  Also, do you mean to be on the GA and FA candidate pages simultaneously?  Katsam 01:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

When I view it, KV2 appears ok, what resolution are you using ? Markh 11:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed this article was still posted at GAC, and I think it meets the criteria for that so I passed it. Good luck at the FAC.  DVD+ R/W 17:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Valley of the Kings/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.
This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed. 
I have found the article very interesting, and I think it contains a lot of good information. I did some minor copyediting (comma splices were a problem). The biggest issue is with sourcing. There are a few places where references should be added. I marked them with "citation needed" tags. These should be addressed in order to retain Good Article status.
Other problems include:

A couple of references missing page numbers (these have been marked with "page number needed" tags).
A few statements contain peacock terms (these have been marked with "neutrality disputed" tags).
A couple of statements contain out-of-date information (these have been marked with "dated info" tags).
A few sentences were difficult to understand (these have been marked with "clarify" tags).
Do the hieroglyphics at the beginning of the "Royal Necropolis" section mean anything? If so, this should be clarified.
A couple of the subsections ("Deir el-Medina" and "Mortuary Temples") are short and should be expanded or added to other sections.
Perhaps the headers could be removed and these could just be incorporated into the "Reoyal Necropolis" section. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Done. Markh (talk) 22:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
The "Decoration" subsection contains a hidden note stating that it should be expanded. I agree that more information would be useful.
Just a thought...since there are so many tombs and this section would become too long if a lot of detail was added, would it make sense to add a note at the top that says something like, "For information about decoration in specific tombs, see the articles on the individual tombs"? That seems like it would be sufficient. Or do you believe that it's good as it is? GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Note: This point has been addressed through dialogue on talk pages. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
The lead section should summarize the whole article. For an article of this length, it should be three to four paragraphs long.
Some of the internet references are missing important information. At minumim, they should contain the title, publisher, url and accessdate. If a publication date or author is available, this information should also be included.
Consistency is needed in the book references. Some have p.1 (with no space), some have p. 1 (with a space), and some have p 1 (with no period). Most have the period and the space, so this is probably the best one to go with.
Consistency with "work" vs. "publisher" is needed in the internet references.
A few of the reference links need to be updated, as the URLs have changed (Introduction to the Deir el-Medina Database, Amarna Royal Tombs Project, Another new tomb in the Valley of the Kings: ‘KV64’, and VOKF Foundation).
Image:Horemheb tomb entrance.png should be replaced with the identical image from Wikimedia Commons.
I was going to do this myself, but both images have exactly the same name, so I have no idea if this is even possible. It's not really a problem, though, so I wouldn't hold up the review because of this. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
More descriptive captions should be used for the images that just have the tomb number (eg. KV6).
The first paragraph in the "Tourism" section is an exact copy of http://egypt.drakosha.com.ru/luxor.php, although I can't tell which site wrote it and which site copied it.
At least part of the http://egypt.drakosha.com.ru/luxor.php link is lifted from this article's tourist section, as I wrote some of it. Markh (talk) 22:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. I sourced the paragraph, so we can consider this point resolved. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
If these concerns are not addressed, the article will be delisted. I realize that this is a lot of work, so I am willing to extend the one-week hold if progress is being made. If anyone has questions about the concerns I have addressed, please bring them up here (or contact me on my talk page). Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I have started to work on the above, starting with the citations and peacock terms. Markh (talk) 08:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. Like I said, this review can stay open as long as some work is being done. I'll try to help out where I can. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for sorting out the publisher bit, I will have a look at the other bits now. Markh (talk) 22:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Wow! I'm really impressed with all the extra work Markh put in to add more footnotes. I passed this article for GA in the first place, knowing that Markh had talent, and now feel very reassured. I came very close to reverting all of GaryColemanFan's fact tagging, a practice which I hope [s]he doesn't continue as it was totally excessive. Although there are a plethora (read: too many) of inline comment tags such as {{fact}} and {{huh}} etc. extensive and detailed commentary on specific passages goes better on the talk page or on the reassessment page imo. But I'm glad Markh responded and added so many. Well done! Regards, dvdrw 02:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Markh has indeed done a great job, and I'm impressed as well. As for the reassessment, I have participated in several GARs and FARs, and I understand that some people get upset when concerns are brought up. I haven't seen a reassessment yet that didn't annoy somebody. I decided to place the fact, dated info, clarify, and page number needed tags to show the specific places that needed work. One of the big criticisms that often comes up in reassessments is a lack of specific feedback in these areas. For example, an editor will say, "There are many unreferenced paragraphs." The contributors to the article almost always get upset at such a vague comment and generally request that the reviewer place fact tags. I decided to go straight to the fact tags, both because of these experiences and because I think it helps editors see what the end goal is (ie. when the tags are addressed, the concern is resolved vs. adding more and more references and hoping that it will eventually satisfy the reviewer)...and no, I don't intend to add more tags. I'm not sure if the concern is simply that there were a lot of tags or if it's that you don't believe all of that information needed to be cited. As far as I can tell, very little of it is common knowledge, so I believe requesting citations was appropriate. I appreciate the fact that you chose not to remove the tags without addressing the concerns they represented, as I am hoping to work with the editors rather than against them. I requested that anyone who had questions or concerns bring them up here, as I'm quite willing to be flexible on some issues. The goal of the GA sweeps, as with any project on Wikipedia, is to improve articles, and I hope I've made it clear that this is my intent. I have no problem with helping fix any article as long as at least one other editor is working on it as well, and I will never delist an article if work is being done. As it stood, the article may have met the criteria when it was promoted two years ago, but it did not meet the current criteria. I have no doubt that some editors would have delisted it immediately because of the reference concerns, so I hope you can see that I have the best of intentions in this reassessment. I recognize that there is always room for growth, however, so please feel free to get in touch with any feedback (positive and/or negative). Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
As a note, this article has previously been through GAC (twice) and FAC, an no-one has responded with the detailed points above, so it has been a constructive process. I think there is more that can be added still, but this is a good place to start. If I could nail down the intro, that would be even better! Markh (talk) 09:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I am satisfied that all of these points have been addressed and that substantial improvements have been made to the article, so I am closing this reassessment and keeping the article listed as a GA. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.[?]
The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.[?]
You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. [?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 105 metres, use 105 metres, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 105&nbsp;metres.[?]
This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, then an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.[?]
Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: favorite (A) (British: favourite), meter (A) (British: metre), metre (B) (American: meter), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization).
Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant -  “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
Avoid misplaced formality: “in order to/for” (-> to/for), “thereupon”, “notwithstanding”, etc.
Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Markh (talk) 18:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

i moved the discussion here. --!linus (talk) 23:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't have time right now, but people might be interested in this report: [2], Dougweller (talk) 10:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The image showing the Nile Valley and the Valley of the Kings seems to be at a scale not conducive to showing the latter. It is unclear what the red arrows are pointing at, and looks like it might be a feature to small to see clearly at this scale. Perhaps the addition of an inset, or an image at a more zoomed-in scale would be a better indicator? I like that it shows the relative position of the Nile Valley, but I think you can zoom in a bit and still show part of the Nile, while showing more detail on the VotK. 12.11.127.253 (talk) 16:04, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

The mountain at the head of the valley is the same shape as the pyramids. Had the pyramids not existed, then the shape of the mountain would have no relevance. The mountain is relevant because it appears to have a similar shape to the pyramids. Unless you can find a source that suggest that the pyramid builders saw this particular mountain, and said "Golly that's pretty,let's build our tombs the same shape as this mountain", then the mountain is a metaphor for the pyramids, and therefore the mountain echoes the pyramids. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 13:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

You're right. Ericoides (talk) 14:00, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I can't check the source, but with ]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Valley_of_the_Kings&diff=prev&oldid=160444042] this edit " It has a pyramid shaped appearance, and it is considered to have been the reason why the kings of Egypt started to be buried beneath it, echoing the pyramids of the [[Old Kingdom of Egypt|Old Kingdom]], more than a thousand years prior to the first royal burials carved out in the Valley of the Kings.<ref>Dodson (1991), pp. 5-7</ref><ref>Reeves and Wilkinson (1996), p. 17</ref>" was changed to  It has a pyramid shaped appearance, and it is probable that this echoed the pyramids of the [[Old Kingdom of Egypt|Old Kingdom]], more than a thousand years prior to the first royal burials carved here.<ref>Dodson (1991), pp. 5-7</ref><ref>Reeves and Wilkinson (1996), p. 17</ref> - according to the edit summary to eliminate weasel words.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 13:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC) 
(EC) See [3] - The Egypytian Supreme Council for Antiquities, Last sentence of second paragraph which reads Archaeologists believe that this natural feature influenced the choice of this site for the royal tombs. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 14:00, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Just a general heads-up that in the last year or so there have been more quality photos uploaded to Wiki Commons for several of the tombs, thanks to the Egyptian authorities now allowing photography inside the tombs (with certain restrictions). I've uploaded some myself, among others. I've switched some photos of tombs in the article for higher-quality photos of the same tombs, but editors who know the article better can have a look around for more. From what I've seen, there are decent or high-quality photos for KV9, KV14, KV11, and KV17 in particular, and a few more for KV2 and KV6. Cheers, R Prazeres (talk) 20:15, 9 April 2022 (UTC)