Talk:Khentkaus III

Name

Is is not better to move the article to Khentkaus ‎III? Khentkaus ‎is the spelling for the same name in all the other article. -- Udimu (talk) 18:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Don't know. Sources seem to be using Khentakawess mainly. It could be that the other two articles should be moved. Formerip (talk) 18:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Khentakawess is what I've seen mostly. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 18:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

it is kind of strange, having the same name in two different spellings here in Wiki. In the very moment we only have the press reports. It seems that somebody from the excavation team or from the Egyptian officials published that name with this spelling and everybody is copying it. However, especially the double s at the end of the name is not supported by the hieroglyphic writing and make no sense. -- Udimu (talk) 18:31, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

If we can establish that the name is actually wrong then, obviously we should move the article. But, since it seems to be the name used by the excavation team, I think we would need to be very sure. Do you feel certain it makes "no sense", or might it just reflect a particular convention of transliteration? Formerip (talk) 18:48, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

the second s is definitely wrong. You see it in the name box in the article, even if you do not read hieroglyphs. There is in the transliteration only one s. The rest of the name is arguable. There is no standard in Egyptology how to transcribe an ancient Egyptian name into a modern language, so that varies heavily. I just find it odd to have two versions of the same name in one Encyclopedia (I am sure there are many more examples here...). -- Udimu (talk) 19:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC) PS.: Some news read Khentkaus: ‎IIIhttp://www.messagetoeagle.com/unknownqueenabusir.php#.VKrg1NKsXE0

I agree with Udimu. The second "s" simply doesn't exist; furthermore, I don't see any point to do the reverse thing, i.e. moving the other two (actually three plus the dab) articles, since the use of "Khentkaus" is well consolidated in Egyptology, just google both the names. I hope that Bárta will soon publish preliminary results of his excavations in order to check both the name used and the explanation for its use. Khruner (talk) 19:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't know very much about hieroglyphs. However, I am not sure sure it is obvious that one symbol for an "s" sound has to transliterate to one s in English. A double-s does not stand for two s sounds. The difference is that gives s-for-snake unambiguously, whereas a single s at the end of a word usually gives a z-for-zebra sound. So, from that perspective, a double-s might be the best choice. I am not saying I know this, just thinking out loud.

I agree that the inconsistency between articles is not good, but I would like there to be consideration of which, if either, is better first. There's no deadline.

Incidentally, doing a Google Scholar search for the past 10 years, "khentkawes" (one s) seems to be the most common, although the other two are both in use. Formerip (talk) 19:48, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

"Khentkawes" is hieroglyphically ineccepible and, as far as I know, also "Khentakawes" is, as well as a bunch of other little variations mainly in the vocals. Anyway, we probably can't change the established name until some academic will not say othervise. Khruner (talk) 20:35, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to moving all the articles to Khentkawes [numeral], but I'm not sure that policy would allow this, because no sources use that for K III. I've started a dicsussion here. Formerip (talk) 00:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm all for consistency. Right now, we're explicity referring to "Khentkaus" here as the "same name". That's messed up. Either move this one, or the other two. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

BTW. The Czechs use Khentkaus (http://egyptologie.ff.cuni.cz/pdf/ABUSIR%20III_mensi.pdf) I would not give too much weight on Press reports, where nobody is really well informed on the material. -- Udimu (talk) 09:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

So what do the academic sources use? Are they marching in lock step with the media, or are they more mixed? Do the academic sources disagree with the media sources? Blueboar (talk) 20:12, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I seems to be about two-thirds "Khentkawes" to one-third "Khentkaus" in the main, with other variations, including "Kentakawess" used occasionally. But, at present, none of those academic sources relate to this queen. Formerip (talk) 21:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I think this could be relevant. The Charles University, the one which made the excavations, inequivocally calls the queen "Khentkaus III". Khruner (talk) 23:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd be fine with that. I wasn't actually aware of the Khentkaus spelling during the article's creation and as far as I know, the standard transliteration of hieroglyphs uses minimum vowels, so Ḫnt kȝw=s may be closer to the original Egyptian pronunciation. Brandmeister^talk 09:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I have to revive this discussion, having just found by chance the "long-sought" academic work which calls this queen with her proper name. I cite: "The third tomb (AC 30) in the row belonged, according to the revealed builders' inscriptions, to Khentkaus who bore the titles "King's wife" and "King's mother". (...) Considering the broader historical context of the find, the queen, Khentkaus III, was very probably the spouse of Raneferef (i.e. Neferefre) and the daughter of Neferirkare (i.e. Neferirkare Kakai) and Khentkaus II". [Miroslav Verner, Sons of the Sun. Rise and decline of the Fifth Dynasty, Charles University in Prague, Prague 2014, p. 58]. So I'd like to push again for the article name revert. Khruner (talk) 18:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I think we should move the article to Khentkaus III. The spelling Khentakawess was something turning up in press reports; now that is something of the past. In the future, the queen will most likely appear as Khentkaus (as the other queens with the same name) in the publications of the excavators. best wishes -- Udimu (talk) 11:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I think the same, Udimu. Better to summon the other contributors to this discussion and see if we can reach a consensus. Hello FormerIP, Blueboar, Brandmeister and InedibleHulk, hoping not to bother. Khruner (talk) 14:27, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

As before, per my comment above, I wouldn't oppose the name change. If that happens, perhaps Khentakawess can be mentioned as an alternative transliteration in the lead. Brandmeister^talk 17:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

have ask for deletion of Khentkaus III (for moving the article there), but nothing happens, perhaps can somebody check, whether I made a mistake. -- Udimu (talk) 15:44, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm still down for "Khentkaus", like the rest. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:35, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok, and FormerIP seems inactive since May so it looks like we agree. Of course the name Khentakawess must be mentioned in the lead since press extensively used it. Udimu no need to delete anything, it's just a move to Khentakawess to Khentkaus III. Khruner (talk) 20:26, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

i am affraid it is still not right. In English there is no dot after the numerals in rulers names. It should be Khentkaus III and not Khentkaus III. I can not move because the Redirecting Khentkaus III must be deleted. bw -- Udimu (talk) 08:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes I asked for the move "Khentakawess" -> "Khentkaus III" but your move "Khentakawess" -> "Khentkaus III." prevented it. So I will ask again a "Khentkaus III." -> "Khentkaus III" but please don't move it again or put it in deletion! Khruner (talk) 08:36, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Khentkaus III. 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/20150105023704/http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/entertainment/2015/01/04/tomb-find-reveals-existence-new-egyptian-queen/ to http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/entertainment/2015/01/04/tomb-find-reveals-existence-new-egyptian-queen/

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 20:52, 9 December 2017 (UTC)