![]() | WP:MESO Guidelines, standards and conventions – Discussion page
This is a talkpage associated with WikiProject Mesoamerica. This talkpage is for discussion relating to editing guidelines, standards and conventions of relevance to Mesoamerican articles. Other WP:MESO project talk pages: |
This looks good to me. Good work. -- Infrogmation 21:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
There was some discussion a while back on Talk:Chichen Itza about following the Corpus of Maya Inscriptions to use Mayan language rules of accenting for Mayan language site names and Spanish language rules for Spanish language names, hence "Chichen Itza" rather than "Chichén Itzá". This seems a reasonable way to set the guideline to me. At present, our names for Maya sites are inconsistant. Thoughts? -- Infrogmation 15:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
On a seperate related issue relevent to the same header, as a number of Pre-Colombian names have been rediscovered with recent epigraphic work, how should we handle this when the name is different from the one (eg, Uaxactun)? -- Infrogmation 15:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Probably could do with a guideline on how to name articles for sites where the site's name is ambiguous. Two options spring to mind:
Each have their advantages, format #1 tells us where it is located (but is not distinguishable from contemporary settlements), while format #2 more readily identifies it as an archaeological site of one of the Mesoamerican cultures (but unclear what to do if there is no clear identification of a particular culture with the site- eg for archaic or paleo-indian sites; maybe in such instances use Sitename (Mesoamerican site)?).
Any thoughts, or other options which could be considered?-- cjllw | TALK 02:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I'd think that there would likely be a couple of Mesoamerican sites with the same name or usual referrent, but are in different subregions.
How about the following hierarchy of dab convention choices:
It may not be overall a significant-enough point, but I prefer the (X site) form of dab over the (X, Regionname) one so as to avoid possible confusion with contemporary place names of the same name (eg 'Tulum' could be the arch. site as well as the nearby village, tho' both are covered within the present article). A number of sites take their common name from nearby communities, and vice versa.-- cjllw | TALK 03:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
While not a noticeable problem now, if we start to grow the number of articles on individual Mesoamerican buildings, structures, inscriptions, etc we will need to determine a common method for disambiguating these. Many structures and monumental inscriptions are given rather prosaic names (eg Stela 12, Structure E-VII-sub, "Great Temple") which barely distinguish them from others in the same location, let alone across a number of sites. Presumably the dab part of the title would be the site name, but which order would be best:
Option #2 has the apparent advantage that structures/objects from the same site would be alphasorted together if they are placed in the same category, but this may not be a strong enough reason to prefer it. Any other suggestions?-- cjllw | TALK 02:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
As an additional comment, perhaps we also need a guideline about whether or when to create articles on individual structures in the first place- something like, make sure the building is covered in the main site's article first, and only break off into a separate article when there's sufficient material to do so, or when the site's article is becoming rather crowded. Possible exceptions to this might be for structures we might expect to be reasonably well-known (eg Temple of the Foliated Cross). Any ideas?-- cjllw | TALK 03:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
that's my proposal. -- Homunq 21:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I would like to suggest that the use of CE and BCE be substituted for AD and BC when discussing pre-Columbian subjects as it has become standard academic practice and is widely understood; if anyone feels that confusion will arise as a result we could consider linking the CE and BCE designations to Common Era on major pages (i.e. Tikal) that attract a larger non-academic audience. -- DuendeThumb 07:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
The M02 guidelines recommends American over British / Commonwealth spelling. However, the only anglophone country with strong national ties to nearly any Mayan article is, of course, Belize. That is,
In which case, why M02?
Asdfjrjjj (
talk) 21:25, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
![]() | WP:MESO Guidelines, standards and conventions – Discussion page
This is a talkpage associated with WikiProject Mesoamerica. This talkpage is for discussion relating to editing guidelines, standards and conventions of relevance to Mesoamerican articles. Other WP:MESO project talk pages: |
This looks good to me. Good work. -- Infrogmation 21:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
There was some discussion a while back on Talk:Chichen Itza about following the Corpus of Maya Inscriptions to use Mayan language rules of accenting for Mayan language site names and Spanish language rules for Spanish language names, hence "Chichen Itza" rather than "Chichén Itzá". This seems a reasonable way to set the guideline to me. At present, our names for Maya sites are inconsistant. Thoughts? -- Infrogmation 15:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
On a seperate related issue relevent to the same header, as a number of Pre-Colombian names have been rediscovered with recent epigraphic work, how should we handle this when the name is different from the one (eg, Uaxactun)? -- Infrogmation 15:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Probably could do with a guideline on how to name articles for sites where the site's name is ambiguous. Two options spring to mind:
Each have their advantages, format #1 tells us where it is located (but is not distinguishable from contemporary settlements), while format #2 more readily identifies it as an archaeological site of one of the Mesoamerican cultures (but unclear what to do if there is no clear identification of a particular culture with the site- eg for archaic or paleo-indian sites; maybe in such instances use Sitename (Mesoamerican site)?).
Any thoughts, or other options which could be considered?-- cjllw | TALK 02:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I'd think that there would likely be a couple of Mesoamerican sites with the same name or usual referrent, but are in different subregions.
How about the following hierarchy of dab convention choices:
It may not be overall a significant-enough point, but I prefer the (X site) form of dab over the (X, Regionname) one so as to avoid possible confusion with contemporary place names of the same name (eg 'Tulum' could be the arch. site as well as the nearby village, tho' both are covered within the present article). A number of sites take their common name from nearby communities, and vice versa.-- cjllw | TALK 03:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
While not a noticeable problem now, if we start to grow the number of articles on individual Mesoamerican buildings, structures, inscriptions, etc we will need to determine a common method for disambiguating these. Many structures and monumental inscriptions are given rather prosaic names (eg Stela 12, Structure E-VII-sub, "Great Temple") which barely distinguish them from others in the same location, let alone across a number of sites. Presumably the dab part of the title would be the site name, but which order would be best:
Option #2 has the apparent advantage that structures/objects from the same site would be alphasorted together if they are placed in the same category, but this may not be a strong enough reason to prefer it. Any other suggestions?-- cjllw | TALK 02:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
As an additional comment, perhaps we also need a guideline about whether or when to create articles on individual structures in the first place- something like, make sure the building is covered in the main site's article first, and only break off into a separate article when there's sufficient material to do so, or when the site's article is becoming rather crowded. Possible exceptions to this might be for structures we might expect to be reasonably well-known (eg Temple of the Foliated Cross). Any ideas?-- cjllw | TALK 03:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
that's my proposal. -- Homunq 21:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I would like to suggest that the use of CE and BCE be substituted for AD and BC when discussing pre-Columbian subjects as it has become standard academic practice and is widely understood; if anyone feels that confusion will arise as a result we could consider linking the CE and BCE designations to Common Era on major pages (i.e. Tikal) that attract a larger non-academic audience. -- DuendeThumb 07:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
The M02 guidelines recommends American over British / Commonwealth spelling. However, the only anglophone country with strong national ties to nearly any Mayan article is, of course, Belize. That is,
In which case, why M02?
Asdfjrjjj (
talk) 21:25, 28 April 2022 (UTC)