Talk:Great Pyramid of Giza

Sources for measurements

Can someone provide actual sources for the measurements? Petrie (1883) may be outdated and Levy's "The Great Pyramid of Giza: Measuring Length, Area, Volume, and Angles" (2005) is an actual children's math book: https://books.google.ch/books?hl=de&lr=&id=SPicjirCzpcC&oi=fnd&pg=PA4&ots=jWVjJsJIwa&sig=HkHVXZX5WDPSRWQMVlDeYhh_AyM#v=onepage&q&f=false --Usernameforuser (talk) 22:59, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@Usernameforuser: I've cited the measurements to Giza and the Pyramids: The Definitive History by Mark Lehner and Zahi Hawass (2017), changing the numbers where needed. They don't supply measurements in cubits, and they don't state the estimated mass of the pyramid, so I left those out. It may be possible to find those details in better sources if people decide we really need them. A. Parrot (talk) 02:38, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! --Usernameforuser (talk) 07:10, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

There is no need to worry about Petrie's measurements being "outdated" - the pyramid hasn't changed sizes since his day. Petrie did a thorough job, and even corrected for the effects of temperature on his instruments, so he is still a reliable source for the most part.Wdford (talk) 09:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 February 2020

In section "King's Chamber" there is the literal text "5.852 metres (19 feet 2 inch)". All other measures in fractions of feet are expressed as decimal fractions, and this should follow suit for consistency, especially given the accuracy of the metric measure. I suggest {{convert|5.852|m|ft|2}} as a replacement - yielding 19.20 ft. (An accuracy of 5 decimal places yields 19.19948 ft.) 94.21.238.148 (talk) 20:36, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for the suggestion. A. Parrot (talk) 20:57, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 February 2020

Please make the use of AD dates consistent by changing "AD 820" to "820 AD" (twice) and "AD 1303" to "1303 AD" (once). "1311 AD" is thus written twice. These are the only instances of "AD" in the article.

MOS:ERA does allow "AD" to appear either before or after the number, but I doubt its intention is to trump MOS:DATERET immediately above it. Versions from 2005 use "1300 AD", "1301 AD" and "1303 AD" (and no other), so by DATERET the placement of AD after the number should be preferred. 94.21.238.148 (talk) 21:05, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:13, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Number of blocks and construction time.

The article states that construction was completed over a 20 year time period. Given that there are 2.3 million blocks in the structure, this equates to 1 block being raised and placed every 5 minutes, continuously, around the clock for 20 years. I don't feel that any article which adheres to the 20-year time frame and fails to address this glaring inconsistency is complete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.254.191.131 (talk) 05:59, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

It also cites a study saying it could have been done in 10 years. Read the construction theories section and the main article. There was more than one person working on it. If it had 40,000 workers at one point, where's the inconsistency? Doug Weller talk 09:05, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

"29.9792458°E" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 29.9792458°E. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hog Farm (talk) 17:49, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Weasel words in the article summary

The introduction paragraph says: "SOME Egyptologists believe that the pyramid was thus built as a tomb over a 10- to 20-year period concluding around 2560 BC. " (emphasis mine)

This creates the impression that there is significant doubt and disagreement about the age and purpose of the Pyramid, which is simply false. I cannot speak for the intentions of the person who wrote that sentence, but it is very misleading.

Imagine if the sentence read "SOME scientists believe that the Moon is a natural satellite". It's not "wrong" in the absolute sense, but in general it is ungainly, sneaky and dishonest to write articles that way. I won't edit the article myself because I don't want to start an edit war, but someone should take care of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2400:2410:84A2:ED00:2D12:9AE5:9BC:7E93 (talk) 14:34, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Height

The box at the right gives the original height (481 feet = 146.7 m). However, in the first para under History and description the height is given as 146.5 m ... both are incorrect, because 481 feet = 146.6088 m (146.6 to one decimal place, or 146.61 to two dec places). The box at the right gives the current height (455 feet = 138.8 m) ... but 455 feet = 138.68 m — and in the first para under History and description the current height is given as 449.5 feet (137 m).
What's right? And when the correct figure is known, can it be used consistently? The difference between the current and original heights is 9.7 m ... did the white limestone casing stones add nearly 30 feet to the height?
[The side of base is given as 756 feet = 230.34 m. (Why one decimal place for height but two for base?)]
Prisoner of Zenda (talk) 11:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 29 April 2020

• Great Pyramid of Giza → Great Pyramid
• Great Pyramid → Great Pyramid (disambiguation)

– The title here is more concise and this is clearly the primary topic for the article. Interstellarity (talk) 19:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose the second since, if the first is moved, a hatnote can serve per WP:ONEOTHER, and Great Pyramid (disambiguation) would be eligible for deletion under WP:G14 as a redirect not targeting a DAB page. 94.21.253.28 (talk) 12:05, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

So support the first? Khestwol (talk) 12:14, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Not sure about that. Same ed, new IP 62.165.227.49 (talk) 17:41, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support per WP:CONCISE. Khestwol (talk) 12:14, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Overly vague, as there are other "Great Pyramids". Fails WP:PRECISE._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:03, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Not the only Great Pyramid. Dimadick (talk) 18:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

The Great Pyramid of Cholula is the only other one, but that one is lesser known. Khestwol (talk) 20:47, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and WP:CONCISE. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose but support a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT of the base name Great Pyramid to this article. Sources consistency call it the Great Pyramid of Giza. cookie monster (2020) 755 06:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Instead PRIMARYREDIRECT Great Pyramid to target Great Pyramid of Giza, with hatnote to Great Pyramid of Cholula, and delete the disambiguation page, per cookie monster. buidhe 06:48, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose although we prefer concise titles we don't remove half of the name but we could have a primary redirect [[1]]. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm not really convinced removing the qualifier is even the WP:COMMONNAME, and I'm having trouble finding a reliable way to measure whether it is or isn't. At least page views provides a metric to substantiate the WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT mentioned above. -2pou (talk) 20:29, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - The current name is precise. Changing it is not an improvement. Jusdafax (talk) 21:10, 1 May 2020 (UTC)