![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
G'day all,
as some will no doubt have seen, wikipedia and the WP:MESO project specifically have been mentioned on a recent discussion thread on the AZTLAN mailing list (post archives should be up on the FAMSI site). Mostly positive comments. This may (hopefully!) generate some further Mesoamerican edits, so pls be mindful and on the lookout for opportunities to assist and make welcome any newcomers and/or ip's making edits, particularly if there's someone 'feeling their way' with the formatting and other conventions (such as WP:V). Cheers, -- cjllw ʘ TALK 03:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I would like to reopen the discussion on the orthography of the two Moctezumas. Fact is that from a nahuatl viewpoint both Montezuma and Moctezuma are corrupted spellings that does not reflect the actual nahuatl name very faithfully. Neither of the spelling variant are used in specialist publications about Nahua/Aztec topics. The prefferred spelling in scholarly articles is Motecuhzoma if using Richard J. Andrews Lockhart/Karttunens orthography which is becoming the most accepted in aztec studies. Another transliteration that is accpetable is Moteuczoma or Moteczoma but these is not as commonly used. This is because unlike the two other forms moctezuma and montezuma it reflects his actual name in Nahuatl. It is composed of the three parts "mo" the reflexvive pronoun , "tecuh/teuc" "lord" and "zōma" "frown" - the other forms introduce spurious letters like "n" or turn "tecu" into "cte" for no good reason. The notion that Moctezuma is a good compromise between the English popular version Montezuma and the more correct Motecuhzoma is flawed - how can one mistaken spelling be a compromise between a correct and another mistaken one?
·Maunus·
·ƛ·
09:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Survey:
*Gillespie (1989) Motecuhzoma *M.E. Smith (1996) Motecuhzoma *Hassig (1988) Moteuczomah *Restall (2003) Moctezuma
Feel free to add ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 14:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Because the spelling of Tenochtitlan's chief speaker was left to the phonic interpretation of the listener. The different chroniclers had different spellings. (see below)
>> Montezuma - as spelled by
Bernal Diaz
>> Moteczoma - as spelled by
Diego Duran
>> Moteuczoma - as spelled by
Motolinia
>> Motecuhzoma - as spelled by
Leon-Portilla,
Ángel María Garibay K
>> Moctezuma - as spelled by Muriel Porter Weaver;
ISBN
0012639990
Grae Bear (
talk)
05:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I finally got around to subscribing WP:MESO to the service provided by User:AlexNewArtBot. This is an automated bot with a (usually) daily run, that trawls through all the newly created articles on the lookout for those which, based on a criteria ruleset supplied by a WikiProject, may be about (or at least contain content about) some topic within that project's scope. The bot spits out a daily log of all those found which met at least one of the specified criteria (for WP Mesoamerica, that daily log may be reached via the shortcut WP:MESO/NEWLOG), calculating a 'score' for each reflecting the keywords matched according to the weighting given each entry in the ruleset. Any found which pass the predefined threshhold -that is, are most likely to be in-scope new articles- are also accumulated on a separate SearchResult page (for WP Meso that result page is at WP:MESO/NEWHITS).
So, by monitoring these pages we should be able to spot with relative ease any new articles concerning or involving Mesoamerican topics, that someone may happen to create, whether they're a project participant or not. We can then check to see if the scope's appropriate, tag those suitable with the project banner, sanity-check for accuracy or redundancy, etc etc. We should also start seeing those which may not be centrally concerned with a Mesoamerican subject, but include some sort of related info, which can also be double-checked to see they are not misrepresenting the material too badly. There'll also be a few 'false positives' ie have nothing really to do with a Mesoamerican topic, which by tweaking the ruleset we can keep to a minimum.
The procedure's not perfect, depends on the ruleset and its scoring rationale to a large degree, also I'm not sure it quite picks up every new article created since it last ran. Also I don't think it will pick up if a redirect is turned into a self-sufficient article, for example.
It's been running for WP:MESO a couple of days now, and has picked up a couple of good matches. The ruleset for Mesoamerica is at WP:MESO/NEWRULE, I listed and ranked a few of the most common keywords which you might expect to find on a Mesoamerican article, if anyone can think of other keywords that could be used then pls go ahead and add them. The rules use regex syntax for matching, and the points scale I've selected generally reflects the principle that the more unique and central a keyword is to Mesoamerican subjects, the easier it is to make the threshhold, while those that could be in a Mesoamerican article but also in a number of other subject areas (eg country names like 'Mexico') are worth fewer points and would need a few more other terms to be present in order to cross the threshhold. Happy to explain it, also the bot's user page provides some helpful instructions on constructing matching rules. -- cjllw ʘ TALK 05:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I've begun the expansion of the previous stub article Mesoamerican calendars which is top importance and was in a dreadful state. I've basically laid out a structure for what should be included in the article and filled out some of the sections piecemeal with sections from other articles. It does still need a lot of work if its state is to reflect the top importance of the topic. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 14:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Greetings Enthusiast,
There is an External link off the
Aztec calendar main page leading to an animated Aztec calendar that removes all confusion about how it worked. It depicts clearly the exact mechanics of the Native time-keeping system. I think this finally resolves the riddle of how two calendars worked as one. Also, the "Year Bearer" progression-mechanics is fully accounted for. This looks like a breakthrough.
Grae Bear (
talk)
04:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Someone should remove the comment after the 11-year sunspot cycle 150.192.250.109 ( talk) 19:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
In order to improve the quality of coverage of Aztec related topics a major issue to resolve is the ethnic nomenclature. I hereby intend to start a discussion in order to achieve consensus about the usage of aztec related ethnonyms - this I will do by puttingforth a proposal, which can serve as a starting point for discussion. The major questions to be resolved are: choose the defininition of "Aztec" that we want to use. Construct guidelines for the usage of "Aztec", "Nahua", "Mexica" and other specific ethnonyms. My proposal is as follows:
This usage would mean that we could say that the organisation of Altepetl into Calpultin, and the venerance of Tezcatlipoca where typical of the Aztecs. That the situation became difficult for the Nahua with the decree of the royal cedula of 1770. That the Mexica were the dominant group in the triple alliance. That the Tenochca were dependent on the market of the Tlatelolca. And that the Tlaxcaltecs were at war with the triple alliance, and that the Chololtecs paid tribute to it. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 15:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry Maunus for the delay in responding with further comments, had been meaning to get around to this sooner. I generally agree.
So, under Aztec we could have something like:
"Aztec is a term [..insert some words to describe how/why it was coined, and about how the term has been employed by various sources to mean different things in diverse contexts]. As such, it may refer to:
Aztec may also mean:
{{disambig}} " |
The descriptions prob. need a little fine-tuning, if not correcting.
An additional option may be, to also create a page Aztec terminology (or Aztec (terminology)), which could be used to go into greater detail about the niceties (and debates) of the term's usage (since stylistically and practically a concise diambig pg is easier to maintain and use to resolve the scads of incoming links to 'Aztec' that are already out there; by keeping it short'n'sweet on the dab pg itself we may hopefully avoid too many adjustments being made to the pg, and be able to reference the usages on the terminology pg.) The 'terminology' pg could also list various other terms associated with aztec/nahua concepts — eg, altepetl, pochteca, — and give a brief desc. of them to aid an unfamiliar reader. This would function like a set index page of sorts, allowing greater freedom than the standard dab-pg format. Something similar was done with the term "Native Americans", see Native American name controversy.
What do y'all think, any suggestions re the choices of options?-- cjllw ʘ TALK 04:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi all - as a member of the stub-sorting WikiProject I have just proposed a split of the archaeology stubsm using the standard method of splitting such stubs, i.e., by continent. This would lead to the possible creation of (among others) a {{ NorthAm-archaeology-stub}} and a {{ CentralAm-archaeology-stub}}, for use on stub articles relating to the archaeology of North and Central America respectively. Understandably, there would be considerable overlap with some stub types currently in use by - among others - editors involved in your WikiProject, and it is possible that some re-scoping of these templates might be needed as a result - in particular, there would be significant similarity in scope between Mesoamerica-stub and a CentralAm-archaeology-stub. It would be appreciated if there was some input from your project on this matter at WP:WSS/P. Grutness... wha? 14:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi all- looks like Nahuatl has been scheduled to appear on the Main Page on May 13 - see here. Other than keeping watch on the day itself, of course, maybe just a run through beforehand to check all's ok with it and the major articles which link from it- particularly those that will be linked in the Main Page para. -- cjllw ʘ TALK 05:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Folks, I decided to send this article thru the Good Article nomination process, to see how easy/difficult it is. Comments encouraged. Thanks, Madman ( talk) 03:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I have uploaded some new photos from Malinalco, Tenayuca and Sta Cecilia Acatitlan that can be used in articles if anyones interested. They can be seen Here. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 12:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.
Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot ( Disable) 20:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Currently, 1231 articles are assigned to this project, of which 249, or 20.2%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place a template on your project page.
If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page; I'm not watching this page. -- B. Wolterding ( talk) 17:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was Moved Inca to Inca civilization. -- SatyrTN ( talk / contribs) 01:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC) In order to unify and make more transparent the Maya civilization, Inca and Aztec articles and all related topics it has been suggested to move Inca to Inca civilization and Aztec to Aztec civilization. A further step would be disambigutaion pages on Inca and Aztec for more transparency as for example Roman and Maya.
This is an example of potential future Inca page:
Inca or Incas may refer to:
You can read this discussion about this topic, which in essence reached a small consensus (to move it), but was not accomplished. Your opinions are welcome. Thanks -- LYKANTROP ✉ 14:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually we have taken a decision wy back to turn the "Aztec" article into a disambiguation page linking to the other specific Azterc articles such as "Aztec Empire", "Aztec culture" "Aztec religion" etc. I think this is still the best way to go and simply not operate with a concept of "Aztec civilization". What I meant by "not separate from" was that the Aztecs were a part of a general Mesoamerican civilization - not that all the other cultures of Mesoamerica should also be considered separate civilizations. As I said I would prefer "Maya civilization" to be renamed to something other than "Maya civilization" and to let Inca and Aztec become disambiguation pages and to create to new articles about "Mesoamerican civilizations" and "Andean Civilizations". Also I think that the need to standardize article names is misunderstood. Article names should reflect reality as best as possible, and naming all three as "civilizations" assumes that the Inca, Maya and Aztec cases were somehow basically the same. This assumption is unfounded - for example the Maya in my view are much closer to being a "separate" civilization because they consisted of a largely shared culture over many centuries and in many political entities. Whereas Aztec and Inca cultures only spanned a few centuries and one large state. ·Maunus·ƛ· 06:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi all. Am crossposting the below suggestion from Hoopes, from another talkpage in wp:meso project space. I think the idea is an excellent one, and it would be fantastic to have this coordinated assistance and input from his class. Suggest we all look out for them once they've registered to see whatever encouragement and assistance in wiki styling and conventions we can offer.-- cjllw ʘ TALK 04:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello my name is Garrett Welch and I am a student from Prof. Hoopes' ANTH 507 class and was wondering if there were any articles in particular about the Maya civilization that needed adjusting or more information added to them. Any suggestions are greatly appreciated. Gwelch98 —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Here is a (growing) list of articles recently created or edited by my students that are currently online. Hoopes ( talk) 03:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Hoopes. A worthy addition. How do I get into the grad program there?? : ) Madman ( talk) 03:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Another editwar has broken out about the location of Mesoamerica being on north or central America on. Could everybody please chip in on the Talk:Mesoamerica page so that we can get a consensus decision and stick to it. My compromise proposal is simply stating that it is an area within the Americas, since we have had editwarrers trying to pull Mesoamerica either way. ·Maunus·ƛ· 05:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
User:Jcmenal keeps removing Mesoamerica from template:History of the Americas because there is no specific article called History of Mesoamerica (even though the article Mesoamerica is mostly about history). This has the absurd consequence that the template has entries for the caribbean, latin america and south america but not for mesoamerica - which is arguably the most historically significant part of the americas. How do we remedy this? ·Maunus·ƛ· 16:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Both the Olmec and Teotihuacan articles reference the Feathered Serpent. That title redirects into Quetzalcoatl. Quetzalcoatl does mention the history of the Feathered Serpent in Mesoamerica, although of course it focuses on the Aztec deity. There is also a not-so-great article Feathered Serpent (deity), which attempts to be broader in scope.
So, I'm thinking that the broaded scoped material from the Quetzalcoatl should probably be moved into the Feathered Serpent (deity), which could provide linkage for Olmec and Teotihuacan. Interesting, however, Miller and Taube's The Gods and Symbols of Ancient Mexico and the Maya only have an entry for Quetzalcoatl, not a separate one for Feathered Serpent.
Thoughts? Madman ( talk) 04:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
This article seems to be misnamed since "mythology" really refers to myths (&/or folklore or legends) and we don't know any Olmec myths. Would Olmec religion be better, or would that also be misleading?? How about Olmec deities or even Olmec supernaturals since that article presently focuses on the deities? By the way, in my recent readings, "supernatural" seems to be the preferred academic description of the proposed, um, deities.
I thought I would work on this article, adding the academic thinking about the deities/supernaturals, which are still quite speculative (in my opinion). Thoughts about a title?? Madman ( talk) 04:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.
We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.
A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.
We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.
We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.
A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.
We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello,
I don't know if it's the right place to inform you that this icon has been created this summer for the FR: wikiproject about pre-Columbian civilizations. I thought it might be useful for you, too. You can, of course, improve it.
Cheers!
El Comandante ( talk) 13:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
I just rewrote and expanded this article. According to its talk page, it is listed as high-importance. In case that is true I would really like someone to take a look at it, esp. the section on human habitation in the valley. Im no expert. Thelmadatter ( talk) 15:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
After a few days of absence, the INAH website is now up and running again. However, please note that the pages pertaining to archaeological sites have been moved from here to here, so any links will have been broken. Simon Burchell ( talk) 15:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I've been thinking: given that wikipedia's coverage and content on precolumbian culture areas adjoining "traditional" Mesoamerican areas is rather dire and the few articles we do have are pretty much unloved and unwatched by any other group, that we cld possibly extend WP:MESO's scope and watchlists to include these too.
That is, in addition to 'Mesoamerica proper' we'd also look out for / look after precolumbian topics from the whole region that could be defined as " Middle America". This would be something like the scope covered by the classic Handbook of Middle American Indians, which included all of Mexico right down to Panama & Colombia. At the very least we could extend coverage into Lower Central America ( Intermediate Area/ Isthmo-Colombian) where these days the boundaries between Mesoamerican/non-Mesoamerican cultural characteristics are becoming increasingly blurred and there's greater recognition of bidirectional influences and exchanges. Same could be said to an extent for the north, ie aridoamerica, oasisamerica.
I realise that we've a full plate as it is with 1300+ articles and rising, so maybe it's streching already-thin resources. Perhaps we could earmark just a few of the major ones first, and see how it goes. They could be sorted out into their own subproject or taskforce, kinda like aztec ones can be now.
Any thoughts or comments? -- cjllw ʘ TALK 01:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
G'day all,
as some will no doubt have seen, wikipedia and the WP:MESO project specifically have been mentioned on a recent discussion thread on the AZTLAN mailing list (post archives should be up on the FAMSI site). Mostly positive comments. This may (hopefully!) generate some further Mesoamerican edits, so pls be mindful and on the lookout for opportunities to assist and make welcome any newcomers and/or ip's making edits, particularly if there's someone 'feeling their way' with the formatting and other conventions (such as WP:V). Cheers, -- cjllw ʘ TALK 03:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I would like to reopen the discussion on the orthography of the two Moctezumas. Fact is that from a nahuatl viewpoint both Montezuma and Moctezuma are corrupted spellings that does not reflect the actual nahuatl name very faithfully. Neither of the spelling variant are used in specialist publications about Nahua/Aztec topics. The prefferred spelling in scholarly articles is Motecuhzoma if using Richard J. Andrews Lockhart/Karttunens orthography which is becoming the most accepted in aztec studies. Another transliteration that is accpetable is Moteuczoma or Moteczoma but these is not as commonly used. This is because unlike the two other forms moctezuma and montezuma it reflects his actual name in Nahuatl. It is composed of the three parts "mo" the reflexvive pronoun , "tecuh/teuc" "lord" and "zōma" "frown" - the other forms introduce spurious letters like "n" or turn "tecu" into "cte" for no good reason. The notion that Moctezuma is a good compromise between the English popular version Montezuma and the more correct Motecuhzoma is flawed - how can one mistaken spelling be a compromise between a correct and another mistaken one?
·Maunus·
·ƛ·
09:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Survey:
*Gillespie (1989) Motecuhzoma *M.E. Smith (1996) Motecuhzoma *Hassig (1988) Moteuczomah *Restall (2003) Moctezuma
Feel free to add ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 14:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Because the spelling of Tenochtitlan's chief speaker was left to the phonic interpretation of the listener. The different chroniclers had different spellings. (see below)
>> Montezuma - as spelled by
Bernal Diaz
>> Moteczoma - as spelled by
Diego Duran
>> Moteuczoma - as spelled by
Motolinia
>> Motecuhzoma - as spelled by
Leon-Portilla,
Ángel María Garibay K
>> Moctezuma - as spelled by Muriel Porter Weaver;
ISBN
0012639990
Grae Bear (
talk)
05:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I finally got around to subscribing WP:MESO to the service provided by User:AlexNewArtBot. This is an automated bot with a (usually) daily run, that trawls through all the newly created articles on the lookout for those which, based on a criteria ruleset supplied by a WikiProject, may be about (or at least contain content about) some topic within that project's scope. The bot spits out a daily log of all those found which met at least one of the specified criteria (for WP Mesoamerica, that daily log may be reached via the shortcut WP:MESO/NEWLOG), calculating a 'score' for each reflecting the keywords matched according to the weighting given each entry in the ruleset. Any found which pass the predefined threshhold -that is, are most likely to be in-scope new articles- are also accumulated on a separate SearchResult page (for WP Meso that result page is at WP:MESO/NEWHITS).
So, by monitoring these pages we should be able to spot with relative ease any new articles concerning or involving Mesoamerican topics, that someone may happen to create, whether they're a project participant or not. We can then check to see if the scope's appropriate, tag those suitable with the project banner, sanity-check for accuracy or redundancy, etc etc. We should also start seeing those which may not be centrally concerned with a Mesoamerican subject, but include some sort of related info, which can also be double-checked to see they are not misrepresenting the material too badly. There'll also be a few 'false positives' ie have nothing really to do with a Mesoamerican topic, which by tweaking the ruleset we can keep to a minimum.
The procedure's not perfect, depends on the ruleset and its scoring rationale to a large degree, also I'm not sure it quite picks up every new article created since it last ran. Also I don't think it will pick up if a redirect is turned into a self-sufficient article, for example.
It's been running for WP:MESO a couple of days now, and has picked up a couple of good matches. The ruleset for Mesoamerica is at WP:MESO/NEWRULE, I listed and ranked a few of the most common keywords which you might expect to find on a Mesoamerican article, if anyone can think of other keywords that could be used then pls go ahead and add them. The rules use regex syntax for matching, and the points scale I've selected generally reflects the principle that the more unique and central a keyword is to Mesoamerican subjects, the easier it is to make the threshhold, while those that could be in a Mesoamerican article but also in a number of other subject areas (eg country names like 'Mexico') are worth fewer points and would need a few more other terms to be present in order to cross the threshhold. Happy to explain it, also the bot's user page provides some helpful instructions on constructing matching rules. -- cjllw ʘ TALK 05:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I've begun the expansion of the previous stub article Mesoamerican calendars which is top importance and was in a dreadful state. I've basically laid out a structure for what should be included in the article and filled out some of the sections piecemeal with sections from other articles. It does still need a lot of work if its state is to reflect the top importance of the topic. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 14:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Greetings Enthusiast,
There is an External link off the
Aztec calendar main page leading to an animated Aztec calendar that removes all confusion about how it worked. It depicts clearly the exact mechanics of the Native time-keeping system. I think this finally resolves the riddle of how two calendars worked as one. Also, the "Year Bearer" progression-mechanics is fully accounted for. This looks like a breakthrough.
Grae Bear (
talk)
04:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Someone should remove the comment after the 11-year sunspot cycle 150.192.250.109 ( talk) 19:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
In order to improve the quality of coverage of Aztec related topics a major issue to resolve is the ethnic nomenclature. I hereby intend to start a discussion in order to achieve consensus about the usage of aztec related ethnonyms - this I will do by puttingforth a proposal, which can serve as a starting point for discussion. The major questions to be resolved are: choose the defininition of "Aztec" that we want to use. Construct guidelines for the usage of "Aztec", "Nahua", "Mexica" and other specific ethnonyms. My proposal is as follows:
This usage would mean that we could say that the organisation of Altepetl into Calpultin, and the venerance of Tezcatlipoca where typical of the Aztecs. That the situation became difficult for the Nahua with the decree of the royal cedula of 1770. That the Mexica were the dominant group in the triple alliance. That the Tenochca were dependent on the market of the Tlatelolca. And that the Tlaxcaltecs were at war with the triple alliance, and that the Chololtecs paid tribute to it. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 15:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry Maunus for the delay in responding with further comments, had been meaning to get around to this sooner. I generally agree.
So, under Aztec we could have something like:
"Aztec is a term [..insert some words to describe how/why it was coined, and about how the term has been employed by various sources to mean different things in diverse contexts]. As such, it may refer to:
Aztec may also mean:
{{disambig}} " |
The descriptions prob. need a little fine-tuning, if not correcting.
An additional option may be, to also create a page Aztec terminology (or Aztec (terminology)), which could be used to go into greater detail about the niceties (and debates) of the term's usage (since stylistically and practically a concise diambig pg is easier to maintain and use to resolve the scads of incoming links to 'Aztec' that are already out there; by keeping it short'n'sweet on the dab pg itself we may hopefully avoid too many adjustments being made to the pg, and be able to reference the usages on the terminology pg.) The 'terminology' pg could also list various other terms associated with aztec/nahua concepts — eg, altepetl, pochteca, — and give a brief desc. of them to aid an unfamiliar reader. This would function like a set index page of sorts, allowing greater freedom than the standard dab-pg format. Something similar was done with the term "Native Americans", see Native American name controversy.
What do y'all think, any suggestions re the choices of options?-- cjllw ʘ TALK 04:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi all - as a member of the stub-sorting WikiProject I have just proposed a split of the archaeology stubsm using the standard method of splitting such stubs, i.e., by continent. This would lead to the possible creation of (among others) a {{ NorthAm-archaeology-stub}} and a {{ CentralAm-archaeology-stub}}, for use on stub articles relating to the archaeology of North and Central America respectively. Understandably, there would be considerable overlap with some stub types currently in use by - among others - editors involved in your WikiProject, and it is possible that some re-scoping of these templates might be needed as a result - in particular, there would be significant similarity in scope between Mesoamerica-stub and a CentralAm-archaeology-stub. It would be appreciated if there was some input from your project on this matter at WP:WSS/P. Grutness... wha? 14:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi all- looks like Nahuatl has been scheduled to appear on the Main Page on May 13 - see here. Other than keeping watch on the day itself, of course, maybe just a run through beforehand to check all's ok with it and the major articles which link from it- particularly those that will be linked in the Main Page para. -- cjllw ʘ TALK 05:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Folks, I decided to send this article thru the Good Article nomination process, to see how easy/difficult it is. Comments encouraged. Thanks, Madman ( talk) 03:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I have uploaded some new photos from Malinalco, Tenayuca and Sta Cecilia Acatitlan that can be used in articles if anyones interested. They can be seen Here. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 12:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.
Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot ( Disable) 20:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Currently, 1231 articles are assigned to this project, of which 249, or 20.2%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place a template on your project page.
If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page; I'm not watching this page. -- B. Wolterding ( talk) 17:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was Moved Inca to Inca civilization. -- SatyrTN ( talk / contribs) 01:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC) In order to unify and make more transparent the Maya civilization, Inca and Aztec articles and all related topics it has been suggested to move Inca to Inca civilization and Aztec to Aztec civilization. A further step would be disambigutaion pages on Inca and Aztec for more transparency as for example Roman and Maya.
This is an example of potential future Inca page:
Inca or Incas may refer to:
You can read this discussion about this topic, which in essence reached a small consensus (to move it), but was not accomplished. Your opinions are welcome. Thanks -- LYKANTROP ✉ 14:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually we have taken a decision wy back to turn the "Aztec" article into a disambiguation page linking to the other specific Azterc articles such as "Aztec Empire", "Aztec culture" "Aztec religion" etc. I think this is still the best way to go and simply not operate with a concept of "Aztec civilization". What I meant by "not separate from" was that the Aztecs were a part of a general Mesoamerican civilization - not that all the other cultures of Mesoamerica should also be considered separate civilizations. As I said I would prefer "Maya civilization" to be renamed to something other than "Maya civilization" and to let Inca and Aztec become disambiguation pages and to create to new articles about "Mesoamerican civilizations" and "Andean Civilizations". Also I think that the need to standardize article names is misunderstood. Article names should reflect reality as best as possible, and naming all three as "civilizations" assumes that the Inca, Maya and Aztec cases were somehow basically the same. This assumption is unfounded - for example the Maya in my view are much closer to being a "separate" civilization because they consisted of a largely shared culture over many centuries and in many political entities. Whereas Aztec and Inca cultures only spanned a few centuries and one large state. ·Maunus·ƛ· 06:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi all. Am crossposting the below suggestion from Hoopes, from another talkpage in wp:meso project space. I think the idea is an excellent one, and it would be fantastic to have this coordinated assistance and input from his class. Suggest we all look out for them once they've registered to see whatever encouragement and assistance in wiki styling and conventions we can offer.-- cjllw ʘ TALK 04:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello my name is Garrett Welch and I am a student from Prof. Hoopes' ANTH 507 class and was wondering if there were any articles in particular about the Maya civilization that needed adjusting or more information added to them. Any suggestions are greatly appreciated. Gwelch98 —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Here is a (growing) list of articles recently created or edited by my students that are currently online. Hoopes ( talk) 03:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Hoopes. A worthy addition. How do I get into the grad program there?? : ) Madman ( talk) 03:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Another editwar has broken out about the location of Mesoamerica being on north or central America on. Could everybody please chip in on the Talk:Mesoamerica page so that we can get a consensus decision and stick to it. My compromise proposal is simply stating that it is an area within the Americas, since we have had editwarrers trying to pull Mesoamerica either way. ·Maunus·ƛ· 05:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
User:Jcmenal keeps removing Mesoamerica from template:History of the Americas because there is no specific article called History of Mesoamerica (even though the article Mesoamerica is mostly about history). This has the absurd consequence that the template has entries for the caribbean, latin america and south america but not for mesoamerica - which is arguably the most historically significant part of the americas. How do we remedy this? ·Maunus·ƛ· 16:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Both the Olmec and Teotihuacan articles reference the Feathered Serpent. That title redirects into Quetzalcoatl. Quetzalcoatl does mention the history of the Feathered Serpent in Mesoamerica, although of course it focuses on the Aztec deity. There is also a not-so-great article Feathered Serpent (deity), which attempts to be broader in scope.
So, I'm thinking that the broaded scoped material from the Quetzalcoatl should probably be moved into the Feathered Serpent (deity), which could provide linkage for Olmec and Teotihuacan. Interesting, however, Miller and Taube's The Gods and Symbols of Ancient Mexico and the Maya only have an entry for Quetzalcoatl, not a separate one for Feathered Serpent.
Thoughts? Madman ( talk) 04:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
This article seems to be misnamed since "mythology" really refers to myths (&/or folklore or legends) and we don't know any Olmec myths. Would Olmec religion be better, or would that also be misleading?? How about Olmec deities or even Olmec supernaturals since that article presently focuses on the deities? By the way, in my recent readings, "supernatural" seems to be the preferred academic description of the proposed, um, deities.
I thought I would work on this article, adding the academic thinking about the deities/supernaturals, which are still quite speculative (in my opinion). Thoughts about a title?? Madman ( talk) 04:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.
We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.
A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.
We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.
We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.
A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.
We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello,
I don't know if it's the right place to inform you that this icon has been created this summer for the FR: wikiproject about pre-Columbian civilizations. I thought it might be useful for you, too. You can, of course, improve it.
Cheers!
El Comandante ( talk) 13:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
I just rewrote and expanded this article. According to its talk page, it is listed as high-importance. In case that is true I would really like someone to take a look at it, esp. the section on human habitation in the valley. Im no expert. Thelmadatter ( talk) 15:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
After a few days of absence, the INAH website is now up and running again. However, please note that the pages pertaining to archaeological sites have been moved from here to here, so any links will have been broken. Simon Burchell ( talk) 15:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I've been thinking: given that wikipedia's coverage and content on precolumbian culture areas adjoining "traditional" Mesoamerican areas is rather dire and the few articles we do have are pretty much unloved and unwatched by any other group, that we cld possibly extend WP:MESO's scope and watchlists to include these too.
That is, in addition to 'Mesoamerica proper' we'd also look out for / look after precolumbian topics from the whole region that could be defined as " Middle America". This would be something like the scope covered by the classic Handbook of Middle American Indians, which included all of Mexico right down to Panama & Colombia. At the very least we could extend coverage into Lower Central America ( Intermediate Area/ Isthmo-Colombian) where these days the boundaries between Mesoamerican/non-Mesoamerican cultural characteristics are becoming increasingly blurred and there's greater recognition of bidirectional influences and exchanges. Same could be said to an extent for the north, ie aridoamerica, oasisamerica.
I realise that we've a full plate as it is with 1300+ articles and rising, so maybe it's streching already-thin resources. Perhaps we could earmark just a few of the major ones first, and see how it goes. They could be sorted out into their own subproject or taskforce, kinda like aztec ones can be now.
Any thoughts or comments? -- cjllw ʘ TALK 01:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)