![]() | Tikal has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![]() | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
October 1, 2009. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the ancient city of
Tikal (pictured) in
Guatemala was one of the most powerful kingdoms of the ancient
Maya civilization? |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The first picture is IMHO ugly (no offense to the one who took it) !!! would you mind if i change the picture for some better one like found here : http://www.chmouel.com/geeklog/gallery/gallery_individual.php/centralam/4.html
Thanks User:Infrogmation to have fixed the description of the picture, i could not remember which temple was it. -- Chmouel Boudjnah 20:19, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Looks good! -- Infrogmation
I moved my old pic here to talk for the time being. Do you Chmouel or anyone else have a better picture with a similar view? The temple pic now at the article is certainly a better photo, but this one gives some idea of the size of the central portion of the site and that much of it is still overgrown. -- Infrogmation 19:19, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
The image for the Tikal Emblem Glyph is upside down. I'm trying to fix it but am new to editing... Lauldtho ( talk)lauldtho —Preceding undated comment added 23:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
The infobox could be more informative to the site (and less cryptic about the UNESCO designation). As a Maya archaeologist, I honestly don't "get" much of the infobox. It should focus upon the site itself, and the city's history - not governmental designations. The Unesco info should be a footnote, or a lower paragraph. Remember, this is an Encyclopedia - it should cover the base knowledge first, and the details last. The infobox, therefore, should reflect the most salient features of the site (not political designations). Chunchucmil 15:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
potential infobox/starting point - something like this? I would like to put a bolded title on top, but i can't quite get the code correct at the moment. --
Oaxaca dan
03:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Insert Image Tikal | |
Country: | Guatemala |
---|---|
State: | Peten |
Municipality: | Flores? |
Culture: | Maya |
Mesoamerican sub-region | Southern Maya lowlands |
Peak of Occupation: | Classic Period |
Chronological Range of Occupation: | Middle Preclassic - Terminal Classic? |
Estimated Size: | 60 km2 |
Estimated Peak Population: | 100,000 - 200,000 |
I started reogranizing the page. Mainly moving stuff around, making it more concise, what-have-you. Opinions? Concerns? Please let me know. Peace -- Oaxaca dan 04:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
A map showing where Tikal is located wouold be helpful. Thanks. -- 201.19.77.39 22:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
According to the current version of the article:
[quote] By far the most important and most complete urban developments occurred in the lowlands in the "central region" of southern Guatemala [emphasis mine]. This region is a drainage basin about sixty miles long and twenty miles wide and is covered by tropical rain forest; the Mayas, in fact, are only one of two peoples to develop an urban culture in a tropical rainforest. The principal city in this region was Tikal ... [end quote]
Surely the region in which Tikal is located should be described as northern, not southern Guatemala? This description needs to be clarified. Chris k ( talk) 23:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Reviewer: Reywas92 Talk 03:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
I am very glad to see this important article at GAN! Here are some comments from my first read-through:
This is a fantastic article and I hope to pass it soon! Reywas92 Talk 03:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments - I'll work through this list in the next day or two. Best regards, Simon Burchell ( talk) 11:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
I think I've dealt with most of the points you've raised, and added some more pictures. Best regards, Simon Burchell ( talk) 15:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Further comments:
Well that's good enough for GA and better! I hope to see you at WP:FAC! I put this under Archaeology on WP:GA; you can change it if you think it's better elsewhere. By the way Rulers of Tikal could potentially make a great FL. Reywas92 Talk 21:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Maybe it is, because my english is not so good but in Chapter Stelae it is mentioned on first Place in the List "Stela 1 dates to the 5th century and depicts the king Siyaj Chan K'awiil II in a standing position" - close to this is a Photo from a Stela with the comment: "Stela 31, with the sculpted image of Siyah Chan K'awil II" - Are Siyaj Chan and Siyah Chan two different Persons? Because they are on two different Stelae (1 and 31) -- Hartmann Schedel cheers 11:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Looking at the glyphs of Maya script, it is hard to detect any hieroglyphs. Time to stop the misuse ? 89.160.124.74 ( talk) 12:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps a section mentioning that one of the temples was 'irreperably damaged' by the end of the world parties held at the site? Preferably with before and after pictures. I don't know anything about it, but it seems that some of you probably would.
174.116.71.90 ( talk) 23:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
The article is inconsistent in describing Tikal's earthworks. In some places it assumes the earlier estimates done by Puleston, but then refers to the more recent survey work that implies the much larger size of the earthworks. Further, there's a line in there about there 'probably' being similar earthworks on the southern boundary,which is what Puleston suspected, but the survey work from the mid-2000's revealed no earthworks on the southern border of Tikal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eltroubadour ( talk • contribs) 09:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
The text gives no hint as to why the references should be believed. That the site, with its decorative structures, was a city is doubtful since there are no actual buildings with rooms in evidence. Of the history of the prehistoric people, I don't believe a word of it, since there is no way of finding those things out. The site might have been for zeppelins in the early 1900s. It may have been some sort of World's Fair grounds in the 1850s. Who knows? The idea that ancient Mexican Indians were barbarians is clearly Pennsylvania bias. 67.101.80.211 ( talk) 09:35, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Question: Who ruled between 562 and 593? -- Lacambalam ( talk) 04:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
See: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Questionable_sources.
No "promotional in nature" on Wikipedia. Senor Cuete ( talk) 01:14, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Tikal. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Tikal. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:45, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
The "Site description" section of the article uses many headings in bold, for example, the names of causeways, structures, lintels, etc. According to the Wikipedia Manual of Style ( MOS:BOLD and MOS:NOBOLD), we should "Avoid using boldface for emphasis in article text."
Unless someone objects, I will modify the text, changing the boldface to numbered lists. To give everybody time to respond, I will not begin for at least two weeks. -- RoyGoldsmith ( talk) 20:09, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree that the boldface here is used for clarity, not emphasis. But there are other ways. The causeways would look like this with a numbered list (without the inline citations):
Or we could use bullet points, if you think that the numbers imply ordering:
I think that either way is clearer than what we have now. And a major problem with the boldface is that some people would think, as per Wikipedia standards, that boldface stands for a self-referencing link.
What say you? -- RoyGoldsmith ( talk) 16:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
I made this addition to the article stating how Tikal was used by Eon productions for the setting of the James Bond film Moonraker. ( N0n3up ( talk) 09:51, 2 May 2018 (UTC))
This site could use one or more photos of what Tikal looked like when it first came to the world's attention. Macchu Picchu has one such photo, and it's fascinating to see it in pre-cleared state. I have no idea where to find such a photo in a free-to-use state, but perhaps somebody else would. - DavidWBrooks ( talk) 15:49, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Tikal apparently had quite an advanced water filtration system:
![]() | Tikal has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![]() | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
October 1, 2009. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the ancient city of
Tikal (pictured) in
Guatemala was one of the most powerful kingdoms of the ancient
Maya civilization? |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The first picture is IMHO ugly (no offense to the one who took it) !!! would you mind if i change the picture for some better one like found here : http://www.chmouel.com/geeklog/gallery/gallery_individual.php/centralam/4.html
Thanks User:Infrogmation to have fixed the description of the picture, i could not remember which temple was it. -- Chmouel Boudjnah 20:19, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Looks good! -- Infrogmation
I moved my old pic here to talk for the time being. Do you Chmouel or anyone else have a better picture with a similar view? The temple pic now at the article is certainly a better photo, but this one gives some idea of the size of the central portion of the site and that much of it is still overgrown. -- Infrogmation 19:19, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
The image for the Tikal Emblem Glyph is upside down. I'm trying to fix it but am new to editing... Lauldtho ( talk)lauldtho —Preceding undated comment added 23:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
The infobox could be more informative to the site (and less cryptic about the UNESCO designation). As a Maya archaeologist, I honestly don't "get" much of the infobox. It should focus upon the site itself, and the city's history - not governmental designations. The Unesco info should be a footnote, or a lower paragraph. Remember, this is an Encyclopedia - it should cover the base knowledge first, and the details last. The infobox, therefore, should reflect the most salient features of the site (not political designations). Chunchucmil 15:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
potential infobox/starting point - something like this? I would like to put a bolded title on top, but i can't quite get the code correct at the moment. --
Oaxaca dan
03:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Insert Image Tikal | |
Country: | Guatemala |
---|---|
State: | Peten |
Municipality: | Flores? |
Culture: | Maya |
Mesoamerican sub-region | Southern Maya lowlands |
Peak of Occupation: | Classic Period |
Chronological Range of Occupation: | Middle Preclassic - Terminal Classic? |
Estimated Size: | 60 km2 |
Estimated Peak Population: | 100,000 - 200,000 |
I started reogranizing the page. Mainly moving stuff around, making it more concise, what-have-you. Opinions? Concerns? Please let me know. Peace -- Oaxaca dan 04:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
A map showing where Tikal is located wouold be helpful. Thanks. -- 201.19.77.39 22:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
According to the current version of the article:
[quote] By far the most important and most complete urban developments occurred in the lowlands in the "central region" of southern Guatemala [emphasis mine]. This region is a drainage basin about sixty miles long and twenty miles wide and is covered by tropical rain forest; the Mayas, in fact, are only one of two peoples to develop an urban culture in a tropical rainforest. The principal city in this region was Tikal ... [end quote]
Surely the region in which Tikal is located should be described as northern, not southern Guatemala? This description needs to be clarified. Chris k ( talk) 23:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Reviewer: Reywas92 Talk 03:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
I am very glad to see this important article at GAN! Here are some comments from my first read-through:
This is a fantastic article and I hope to pass it soon! Reywas92 Talk 03:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments - I'll work through this list in the next day or two. Best regards, Simon Burchell ( talk) 11:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
I think I've dealt with most of the points you've raised, and added some more pictures. Best regards, Simon Burchell ( talk) 15:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Further comments:
Well that's good enough for GA and better! I hope to see you at WP:FAC! I put this under Archaeology on WP:GA; you can change it if you think it's better elsewhere. By the way Rulers of Tikal could potentially make a great FL. Reywas92 Talk 21:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Maybe it is, because my english is not so good but in Chapter Stelae it is mentioned on first Place in the List "Stela 1 dates to the 5th century and depicts the king Siyaj Chan K'awiil II in a standing position" - close to this is a Photo from a Stela with the comment: "Stela 31, with the sculpted image of Siyah Chan K'awil II" - Are Siyaj Chan and Siyah Chan two different Persons? Because they are on two different Stelae (1 and 31) -- Hartmann Schedel cheers 11:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Looking at the glyphs of Maya script, it is hard to detect any hieroglyphs. Time to stop the misuse ? 89.160.124.74 ( talk) 12:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps a section mentioning that one of the temples was 'irreperably damaged' by the end of the world parties held at the site? Preferably with before and after pictures. I don't know anything about it, but it seems that some of you probably would.
174.116.71.90 ( talk) 23:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
The article is inconsistent in describing Tikal's earthworks. In some places it assumes the earlier estimates done by Puleston, but then refers to the more recent survey work that implies the much larger size of the earthworks. Further, there's a line in there about there 'probably' being similar earthworks on the southern boundary,which is what Puleston suspected, but the survey work from the mid-2000's revealed no earthworks on the southern border of Tikal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eltroubadour ( talk • contribs) 09:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
The text gives no hint as to why the references should be believed. That the site, with its decorative structures, was a city is doubtful since there are no actual buildings with rooms in evidence. Of the history of the prehistoric people, I don't believe a word of it, since there is no way of finding those things out. The site might have been for zeppelins in the early 1900s. It may have been some sort of World's Fair grounds in the 1850s. Who knows? The idea that ancient Mexican Indians were barbarians is clearly Pennsylvania bias. 67.101.80.211 ( talk) 09:35, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Question: Who ruled between 562 and 593? -- Lacambalam ( talk) 04:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
See: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Questionable_sources.
No "promotional in nature" on Wikipedia. Senor Cuete ( talk) 01:14, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Tikal. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Tikal. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:45, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
The "Site description" section of the article uses many headings in bold, for example, the names of causeways, structures, lintels, etc. According to the Wikipedia Manual of Style ( MOS:BOLD and MOS:NOBOLD), we should "Avoid using boldface for emphasis in article text."
Unless someone objects, I will modify the text, changing the boldface to numbered lists. To give everybody time to respond, I will not begin for at least two weeks. -- RoyGoldsmith ( talk) 20:09, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree that the boldface here is used for clarity, not emphasis. But there are other ways. The causeways would look like this with a numbered list (without the inline citations):
Or we could use bullet points, if you think that the numbers imply ordering:
I think that either way is clearer than what we have now. And a major problem with the boldface is that some people would think, as per Wikipedia standards, that boldface stands for a self-referencing link.
What say you? -- RoyGoldsmith ( talk) 16:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
I made this addition to the article stating how Tikal was used by Eon productions for the setting of the James Bond film Moonraker. ( N0n3up ( talk) 09:51, 2 May 2018 (UTC))
This site could use one or more photos of what Tikal looked like when it first came to the world's attention. Macchu Picchu has one such photo, and it's fascinating to see it in pre-cleared state. I have no idea where to find such a photo in a free-to-use state, but perhaps somebody else would. - DavidWBrooks ( talk) 15:49, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Tikal apparently had quite an advanced water filtration system: