This page is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Egyptological subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Anthroponymy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anthroponymy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
I guess Ramses is the right spelling to use for these guys, although most Egyptologists now seem to be using "Ramesses", with some using "Rameses". However, according to Google, for pages in English we have:
Ramesses - 22,600
Ramses - 75,000
Rameses - 22,100 Raamses - 1 Sigh... Noel 21:52, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I made a similar check myself sometime ago, for similar reasons. I'm more familiar with the spelling Ramesses too. The British Museum uses Ramesses. The Louvre use Ramsès (note the accent). The Metropolitan Museum of Art use Ramesses. The google results seems odd. Mintguy 22:24, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
OK, just so everybody knows the facts of the case... The spelling Ramesses is that used most widely (and for a long period of time, i.e. not a recent scholarly change) by Egyptologists, museums and semi-popular publications in English alike. This, of course, is a convention and a compromise based on the Greek Manethonian writing, given that a). it is difficult to transliterate Egyptian names from the glyphs into the Latin script, and b). we are not entirely sure how the name was pronounced at all times.... The spelling Ramses derives directly from the French transliteration Ramsès - nothing wrong with that, also a compromise as outlined above, but it is the French convention, not the English one (which is what we work for in Wikipedia.....). The very simple reason that the pseudo-French spelling Ramses appears so often in Google searches is the baleful influence of the inexplicably popular Ramses series of ancient historical novels penned by the French writer Christian Jacq, widely available in English translation and that sell like hotcakes..... So there's the explanation - I think it's fairly obvious from this that we should be using Ramesses as the primary English spelling, noting the variants, and remaining fairly cautious when using Google searches to make decisions. Pjamescowie 09:38, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Is that what popularsed it, Christian Jacq's books? Oh dear. A quick glance at my bookcase reveals "Ramses" predominating in the travel guides (LP, Rough Guide), etc. with "Ramesses" in the more serious publications. Looks like we have some renaming to do... (Not that it has much, or indeed anything, to do with what we should use here, but isn't the Arabic closer to the French? I'm thinking of mahattat ramses, but that could just be my lousy ear for Arabic vowels, to say nothing of the lousy Arabic vowels themselves.) –Hajor 20:54, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Hey, like I said above, I'd have preferred to use Ramesses anyway originally, so it's no skin off my nose. (I personally am not really crazy about the Wikipedia naming policy I quoted, and still have scars on my back from its application to the Medici pages, but that's the way it goes.) I'll cheerfully help with renaming the pages into consistency. Noel 14:35, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Before anyone decides to take the time & effort to rename all of the relevant articles, I'd like to mention that a consensus was reached by some of us at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Egypt to standardize the spelling of Egyptian personages on the example of Ian Shaw's The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt (published 2000), which transliterates this name as Rameses -- if the opinion of 3 people mean anything. Personally, I like Ramesses best, but in the hope of bringing of some hope of standardization to the names & dates of this subject, I'm willing to submit to the decisions of this authority -- unless someone can present a better one. -- llywrch 03:32, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Hunh. I thought I'd already done them all (after the disambig page was moved). Guess not.
If Shaw really is an out-lier in the field in this particular case (and I expect it's too much to hope for that he explains why he went with "s" and not "ss"), maybe we need to tweak the "always use Shaw" rule.
But what I most wish is that we pick something, and stick with it! We started at "Ramses", moved to "Ramesses", and now are apparently contemplating a move to "Rameses". Pfui. Noel(talk) 18:34, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Request for comments: Ramses/Rameses/Ramesses
I think you'll find that, given the general ambiguities and amorphous nature of 'people' in regard to the Akhenaten image of indefinite gender, that these spelling *reflect* both male and female spellings as with French which is a derivative of the Coptic language.
I read somewhere that one of the earliest deciphered egyptian texts read "Hello Ramses. How are you? I am fine". Is there anything on that on Wikipedia, or am I just terribly mistaken? Amit@Talk 07:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: No consensus to make the moves requestedMike Cline (talk) 17:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
– Ramesses II was recently moved to Ramses II. In that discussion, it was suggested by some users that we should be consistent in the spelling of the article names of all of the Ramesses/Ramses rulers of Egypt. Per the closer's comment, this nomination should occur now. If there is no consensus to move these, it is likely that Ramses II will be moved back to Ramesses II. Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Support. I remember the earlier proposal for moving to Ramses II, though I was too late. Google books shows "Rameses" to be the most common, and yes consistency is good. Rennell435 (talk) 05:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
If "Rameses" is the most common, why support "Ramses", with only one e? JCScaliger (talk) 20:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. Rameses was the most common over time; Ramesses, the existing title, has taken a spurt into the lead. I would weakly support a move to Rameses; this seems pointless. JCScaliger (talk) 20:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Not yet!  Ramses has speeded up in the last stretch and is now up by a nose. And what's this? old Rameses has found a new sprint and is hot on his tail! Oh no, Ramesses is losing pace, lagging, falling back to third. He probably exerted himself too soon. This is exciting, ladies and gentlemen! (P.S. I'd support a move to Rameses. I'm a little suspicious that Ramses is using auxiliary devices like, um, tanks.) Walrasiad (talk) 10:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Addendum: While I don't think googlebooks hits should be conclusive, here's a quick race between the three. I'm limiting the search to English-language books only, and only recent ones (post-1980). I've also "deghosted" the results (so we don't get imaginary ghosthits) and filtered out Wikipedia mirrors. Results:
"Monarch's first name should be the most common form used in current English works of general reference. Where this cannot be determined, use the conventional anglicized form of the name, as Henry above."
General reference, not specialist works, is going to be key. Walrasiad (talk) 11:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Fortunately, there is already a discussion on that; see #Spelling above; most of the use of Ramses is the result of a historical novelist. JCScaliger (talk) 18:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Support. For the sake of consistency. --Lecen (talk) 12:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
We will be consistent whichever way this comes out. We are choosing what to be consistent on. JCScaliger (talk) 18:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Weak oppose. I never feel very strongly about naming disputes, and I'm not convinced that the prominence of the short spelling is mainly because of Christian Jacq (Barbara Mertz, for instance, was writing the name without an extra "e", in both fiction and nonfiction, long before Jacq). But I really object to the idea, expressed by User:RJFF in the previous discussion, that "No one expects the article under 'Ramesses'". Ramesses is probably the most common spelling among Egyptologists, and that's not just in stuffy journals that no laymen read. For example, the books on ancient Egypt published by Thames & Hudson, which manage to be both scholarly and accessible for general readers, seem to universally use Ramesses, except one book that uses Rameses. I actually think Ramses is the rarest form among English-language Egyptologists. No, they shouldn't be seen as the sole arbiters in Egyptian naming disputes, but it irks me to see their general preference completely disregarded. (And, of course, if this move fails, Ramses II should be moved back where it was.) A. Parrot (talk) 20:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. I'm more concerned that this matter is going to end up becoming one of those long-raging edit wars; it was decided to spell his name one way 6 years ago, & the matter was raised & decided. The discussion to change the spelling on Talk:Rameses II is unsatisfactory: one person proposed the change, one opposed it with his argument, one person expressed a concern which no one addressed, & 4 votes for the change basically said "Me too". We should leave this name as "Ramesses" (i.e., two e's & 3 s's) until someone explains (1) how any proposed transliteration of this name relates to how it was spelled originally -- in other words, does his name appear as "r-m-s-s" on the inscriptions or "r-m-s"? should we understand if there is proof of three syllables or two in his name? what do the Greek & Hittite sources say? -- (2) what common sources use which versions of his name -- for example, Joyce Tyldesley in her popular account of the pharaoh calls him "Ramesses", which is the same form T.G.H. James uses, but the common brand of condoms are "Ramses" -- (3) as stated above, we need to be consistent over all the articles, & lastly (4) we need to explain the reason for the differences in transliterating his name -- that is, how it appears in the sources, list the most important variants based on how common & who advocated each form & why, & the arguments for & against each variant. Do this, & we will all come to a proper consensus instead of creating Yet Another Entry for WP:LAME. -- llywrch (talk) 17:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
P.S., I've noticed that a number of related articles (e.g. List of children of Ramesses II) have been renamed to the "Ramses" form. I think we all can agree that all further moves to this name be suspended until the end of this RfC. -- llywrch (talk) 17:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Keep in mind specialized Egyptologists should not be the arbitrers here, but general reference and common name. Also, AFAIK, this is not an RfC at present, just an RM. Since this is of wide-ranging change, I would indeed like to propose that an RfC be submitted, inviting a larger audience to comment on the matter. Walrasiad (talk) 20:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
And your point is? The two authors I mentioned were the first two I could find & used for illustrative purposes. Further, they are experts writing for a non-expeert audience, not experts writing for other experts; I would hope the matter of audience does matter. (Some other examples of usage can be found here where this issue was previously discussed; I didn't realize I had participated in that discussion until I found that thread.) My request for information about the transliteration of the pharaoh's name was intended as a desideratum, not as a requirement to determine a consensus on this matter. -- llywrch (talk) 18:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Oppose and revert the move of Ramses II. In hindsight and considering the obvious scope of the implications, there was far too little discussion of this move to justify accepting the level of consensus. And there is even more here than meets the eye. This is part of the sometimes subtle drift of Wikipedia away from use of common English towards that promoted by authorities. This is a far more radical move than you might think. Andrewa (talk) 19:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Since I am not a member of this group of scholars, I can only suggest that for Encyclopedic reasons, that all possible spellings of the name should be caught via a web search! One cannot expect the young person or not well educated person making a Wiki search should have to type the exact word, that some "expert" considers as "Most Correct!" And, if Velikovsky is in any way correct, perhaps even Lameses, Lamesses, etc. could be considsered? Regards, 18.104.22.168 (talk)Ronald L. Hughes