Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mesoamerica/Archives/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



AZTLAN mailing list mention

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)


Renaming the Moctezumas

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)

In the Andrews orthography it would be Motēuczōma, actually. Andrews hates the cuh spelling (in his view, a "misspelling"), saying that "Its continued use is a measure of ignorance" (Introduction to Classical Nahuatl, Revised Edition, p. 599) and "The acceptance of cuh in a modern text is a clear indication that its writer does not know Nahuatl phonology and morphology" (p. 656). On the other hand, James Lockhart says that "The cuh variant is the most logical" (Nahuatl as Written, p. 106). So whatever. (In the orthography usually used in Lockhart's publications it would be Moteucçoma, with a cedilla.)
In any case, we should go with what's correct in English, not what's correct in Nahuatl, per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). I'm in favor of keeping them at the Moctezuma spelling. --Ptcamn (talk) 10:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I looked at the naming conventions too - but according to those it should be Montezuma. I'm pretty sure that the reason moctezuma has nmore google hits than montezuma is because we use it here. I personally prefer the Launey spelling which to my surprise is the same as Andrews - I apparently have confused Karttunen/Lockharts cuh spelling with Andrews. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 10:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd greatly prefer Moctezuma over Montezuma. It's my impression (without doing a survey) that modern history works avoid 'Montezuma', and so if that's the case then I think we should follow suit. I would be happy to entertain a third alternative with a greater fidelity to nahuatl, if one could be found that is also seen in works of a historical orientation, and not purely linguistic. Question is, which of those alternatives mentioned above have a currency in general history scholarship, and to what extent? Perhaps we could do a poll among a cross-section of modern historical treatments and see what is making headway...? --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:10, 26 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)

New article bot

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)

Mesoamerican Calendars

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)


Hi. I haven't had time to look at your animated 'aztec calendar' in detail, but if it involves your own synthesis of how these were supposed to work together then by WP:NOR and WP:RS we wouldn't be using it, and it should prob not be linked to in the article. BTW, the repetitious posting of this message could be seen as WP:SPAM or at least WP:COI, need to be careful. --cjllw ʘ TALK 03:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


I agree with your concern. This is merely a way to visually depict known realities.
What we know about Native Time-management:
1) a 260 (13 x 20) day count cycle progressed unabated for 5,125 years
2) a year count was (20 x 18) + 5 = 365 days (but what made the nemontemi "nameless")
3) the two calendars worked together to distinguish days and years
4) the year designators were spaced 5 days apart (i.e.: reed, knife, house, rabbit)
5) a bundle of years was (52 x 365) + 13 = 18993 days
The rules were clear and after some tinkering, the final results met existing criteria.
The Aztec calendar animation is a visual tool that illustrates the dynamics of what we attempt to describe in words. Some folks may disagree, but I personally feel a picture is still worth a thousand words.Grae Bear (talk) 22:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Grae Bear, I received your email, however rather than reply to it thought it better to continue the discussion on-wiki, so that other interested parties may contribute.
WRT the 5 points you list above,
1) This seems to improperly conflate the Mesoamerican 260-day calendar (tonalpohualli to the Aztec), with the Long Count (LC) calendar, in which 13 cycles of 144,000-day periods (ie 13 x b'ak'tun periods to use the Maya terminology) does come out to be approx equal to 5125 (and a quarter) tropical years, or 1,872,000 total days. The LC does not derive from the 260-day calendar and vice versa, and there's also no evidence that the Aztec kept track or knew of the Long Count. Also, neither the LC nor the 260-day nor any other Mesoamerican calendar "continued unabated" for 5125 years- they were not actually in use way back then, but as far as we know were developed considerably later.
Reply: First off, in Wiki it states: "Tzolkin is part of Maya Long Count Calendar." Its base 20, that is what matters. The greatest value of the 260 count was to act as a stable reference scale to keep the civil rhythm in sync with precession slippage. Keep in mind, at the time that the "Aztec" but more specifically the Mexica (aka: Mechica) dominated most of the land from ocean to ocean, the "Maya" had experienced a recent hurricane (aka: huakan) that flattened the place. The first arriving Spaniards who observed the Yucatan peninsula, noted that the tops of the trees were so flat, it look as if it had been mown. The word "maya" or "mayan" has a Nahautl meaning. It means hungry and is the root of the Nahua word for slave: mayeque. Tenochtitlan got a Toltec tlatlani in the inaugaration of Acampichitl in 1375. He brought with him the Toltec Calendar.
2) fine for a description of the vague year; as for why they are called "nameless", in partial explanation we have from the Florentine Codex (vol II) "estos cinco dias, a ningun dios, estan dedicados: y por esso los llaman 'nemontemi'". Nēmontēmi is supposed to derive from nēn "in vain, useless" coupled with the verb tēmi "to become full, replenish".
Reply: "...verb tēmi "to become full, replenish". << ..after being empty. Babies couldn't be named on these days. On these days, all hearth fires were extinguished. It was a time for prayer, reflection and renewal, leading to the New Fire.
3) 260- & 365-day calendars did combine into the "Calendar Round", but not sure what's meant here by "distinguish days and years".
Reply: To give a day a distinct name (i.e.: day & year; over a 52 year period). The Duran illustration of the Native "Calendar Round" (aka: xiuhmolpolli) depicts the conceptual geometry of the 52 year naming scheme. Each year could be distinguished from the next within the "Round." The Calendar had just started its 16th cycle when Cortez appeared.
4) The Aztec yearbearers were named after the named day in the tonalpohualli which coincided with the 360th day in the xiuhpohualli, and yes it works out that only four out of the twenty (or 1 in 5, if you prefer) named signs in the tonalpohualli could be yearbearers. The particular set of 4 yearbearers was not the same in each culture or in each period, however.
Reply: The reason it is 1 in 5 is because of the xiuhpohualli count is interrupted by the 5 day nēmontēmi. (20/5 = 4)
5) The "year bundle" (xiuhmolpilli) marking the completion of a Calendar Round as the same combination begins to repeat is just the lowest common multiple of 260 and 365, ie 18980 days, or 52 x 365. What's the justification for adding on another 13 days?
Reply: Considering the reason that the buildings were built or placed a certain way was to pin down a constant reference point of a recurring event. The exact day of an equinox or solstice works, also planets, stars, constellations, etc. (the temple of Chichen-Itza is a good example). Once you peg the event, you start counting. Its kind of hard to miss the fact that some years are 366 days long. The Mexica of Tenochtitlan coincided the start of their new year with the vernal equinox, as did most other towns. The Mexica new year is still being celebrated today by some Native die hards.
In your email to me you mentioned a couple of other claims (which I see are reproduced on one of your(?) webpages associated with your book), such as the calendar being known as "Two that Is One",
Reply: >> This was a term Dr. Jimenez used when he first described the concept behind Native duality. "It is two calendars that act as one."
that the calendar is associated with precession,
Reply: >> they could pinpoint an equinox and they could count
that they were "aware that our Sun was a star and the stars were other suns".
Reply: >> the Mexica depicted stars (ixtelot) as an eye with lid. The snout of the Fire Serpent is adorned with seven stars of the Plieades. Tonatiuh has been represented as an ixtelot in the art.
I don't think that any of these is supported by mainstream Mesoamericanist scholarship, which as an encyclopaedia we are bound to follow when describing what is known about these calendar systems. See also WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:UNDUE.
Reply: >> If you are using Wiki as your example of that, it seems a bit vague. Look at Calendar Round for example: "One Calendar Round cycle thus includes 18980 distinct dates and lasts approximately 52 years." Well, that sure nails it down alright.
I have some other concerns about the animated Aztec calendar you've linked to, and now that I've looked at it a bit more I think it will be problematic to use it as a basis for info here on wiki. I will document these concerns over at the relevant Talk:Aztec calendar page, where others can look at it and see whether or not they agree with the assessment. You'd be welcome of course to argue the case for inclusion over at the talkpage. Regards, --cjllw ʘ TALK 05:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Reply: >> Consider that when a person looks at the Diego Duran illustration of the xiuhmolpolli in the Book of Gods and Rites, what one sees is a logical concept that has been converted into a two dimensional drawing. The counting scheme was so obscure, that even the studied friar needed someone to draw him a picture to be able fully understand the logical progression. That is all that I have tried to do. With proper editing, I am sure the animated material can be brought within Wiki guidelines and be useful in helping people fully understand the logical progression taken to the next level. Grae Bear (talk) 07:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Rather than carry on this discussion into two places, I suggest that we discuss any further points continuing at Talk:Aztec calendar. It shld be more visible there. I have responded to your (Grae Bear's) latest comments there. Regards, --cjllw ʘ TALK 07:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

2012 vandalism

  • NASA predicts that the Sun will reverse its own magnetic poles during 2012 as result of reaching the end of the current 11-year sunspot cycle, this is partly to do with Strappy being gay.

Someone should remove the comment after the 11-year sunspot cycle 150.192.250.109 (talk) 19:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, that was just some infantile vandalism which is now reverted. --cjllw ʘ TALK 06:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Aztec terminology revisited: a proposal

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:

Aztec - to be used when referring to common expressions of precolumbian Nahua culture - i.e. when referring to precolumbian nahua culture as a whole. This would mean that only things that were common for all nahua speaking groups before the spanish conquest could be called "Aztec", it would also mean that both Mexica, Tlaxcaltecs, Tlatelolca, Acolhua can be called Aztecs but only when stressing their unity with other Nahuatl speaking ethnic groups. The precedents for this usage comes from James Lockhart who uses Aztec about the precolumbian Nahua, the usage has also been adopted by Aztec specialists such as M.E. Smith.
Nahua - to be prototypically used about the colonial and modern Nahua, but also about the precolumbian culture when referring to them in capacity of speakers of the Nahuatl language.
Mexica - to refer to the inhabitants of Mexico: the island. That is the combined group of Tenochca and Tlatelolca. Also to refer to the specific group of migrating chichimeca that eventually settled in Mexico.
Tenochca - to be used when referring only to the inhabitants of Tenochtitlan, but excluding those of Tlatelolco.
Tlatelolca, Tlaxcaltec, Texcoca, Chalca, Xochimilca, Huexotzinca, Chololtec etc. To be used whenever stating something about a specific ethnic group.
(Aztec) Triple Alliance to be used instead of the "Aztec empire" when referring to the expansionist political hegemony centered in the valley of Mexico.

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)

Thanks Maunus this is a helpful start going some way towards coming to some clear understanding and an aide to consistent writing.
So by the above for example, precolumbian Pipil & Nicarao wld be happily termed "Nahuas" by dint of linguistic affiliation? And you propose jettisoning "Empire" altogether - could 'Aztec state' be used interchangeably for the alliance? --cjllw ʘ TALK 09:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Two good points. Actually thinking about it probably Aztec empire is more prcise than Aztec state, since if we call all precolumbian Nahua "Aztecs" there has been many Aztec states - but only one empire. Maybe we could keep the empire terminology - since most research do indicate that the Triple Alliance did indeed constitute an imperial political entity. As for precolumbian Nahua(-t/-l/-tl) speakers outside of central Mexico it is a question whether to call them aztecs or Nahuas. I would prefer Nahua although that maybe blurs the lines a bit. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 09:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I think usage of 'empire' is well-enough entrenched that we can retain it. Also, referring only to the "triple alliance" as a definitive political entity may have some issues, considering there are those like Gillespie and Gibson who have argued that the notion of a triple alliance may have more to do with postconquest rationalisation and re-invention, than something that had a clear reality on the ground at the time.
For the precolumbian Pipiles etc I think that "nahuas" would be the best fit, I can't recall seeing any sources that put them under the umbrella of an Aztec label. Probably 'Aztec' is inseparable from the political institutions emanating from the Basin of Mexico.
So- would the focus of the main Aztec article be the ethnohistory of (all) the precolumbian nahua speakers in the Basin of Mexico and immediate surrounds? Trying to envisage how one would write in the same sentence about groups eg tlaxcaltecs when they were dissident/independent, and the central hegemony. --cjllw ʘ TALK 08:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the "Aztec" article which shouldn't necessarily be the main article on aztec culture should be a "verbose disambiguation page" like we have previously decided. I think it should mostly define the terminology, explain the reader why some of their preconceptions are flawed, and direct them to the pages that have the information they want. In doing so it should also give a brief overview of aztec ethnohistory and culture - mostly by having sections directing towards the main articles. I think we should make separate pages about "The Aztec empire", "Aztec society", "Aztec culture/civilization", "Nahua peoples", "Aztec religion/mythology" etc. All of which (except the "Empire" one) should take care to take a pan-aztec perspective: that is describe things that were common to all aztecs/nahuas as such, and things that were particular to specific altepetl groups as such.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 09:55, 15 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 civilization/Aztec culture(?) – a collective term for various peoples and political entities in general that occupied the Basin of Mexico and the surrounding areas in the Postclassic period of pre-Columbian Mesoamerica, who shared commonalities of linguistic (ie, nahuatl) affiliation, belief systems and societal traditions (cf. Aztec society, Aztec mythology, Aztec religion, etc)
  • Aztec Empire – the political hegemony which arose in central Mexico during the Late Postclassic, centred on the Valley of Mexico but extending (with various degrees of influence) across much of the central-northern portion of Mesoamerica
  • Aztec Triple Alliance – the particular political arrangement beginning in the mid-15thC (as retrospectively portrayed by later histories) between the city-states of Texcoco, Tlacopan and Tenochtitlan, with the latter becoming the dominant partner
  • Mexica/Culhua-Mexica – the specific nahuatl-speaking group who migrated into the Valley of Mexico and founded the city-state of Tenochtitlan, from whence they became a dominant force in the Postclassic central Mexican arena
  • Tenochca – the inhabitants of Tenochtitlan itself
  • Nahua peoples – collective designation for all groups speaking nahuan languages, including in pre-Columbian times but more specifically and usually referring to such groups in the colonial and modern periods
  • Classical Nahuatl – the variants of Nahuatl language spoken in the Valley of Mexico and used more widely as a lingua franca sometime around the early 16thC, that may (in a non-standard usage) occasionally be called "Aztec (language)"

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)

I really like the idea of a separate article that would go into greater detail. I cringe when I see the large section at the start of the Aztec article discussing all this terminology. A separate article would allow us greater latitude and more space to discuss the matter without unduely burdening articles. Thanks, Madman (talk) 13:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Re the mechanics of turning Aztec into a dab page, once we settle on the breakout of alternative meanings as outlined above and have refined the words, next step will be earmarking which passages in the current article go to what subarticle. I suppose that the political and history sections will largely end up in Aztec Empire, cultural etc topics in the Aztec civilization one, and a smattering of passages spread across the others. May have to proceed transferring piece by piece before switching to the dab format, as the passages will need some massaging to fit into their new contexts.
Any refinements or changes in direction to be suggested at this stage, before setting off down that road? (NB, not planning any immediate total overhaul, what with RL commitments &c. I suspect it will take some time to work through...) --cjllw ʘ TALK 12:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I think it all sounds fine. I had planned an immediate total overhaul but real life intervened and I probably won't get around to do anything else about it the next two months since I will be at some distance from a reliable internet provider.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 13:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Stub types

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)

I am confused why you would want to do this? "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".
I am also puzzled by the contention that Central America is a separate continent from North America. I will respond WP:WSS/P. Madman (talk) 02:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the stubsorting is only looking to rationalise the main archaeology-stub cat. Personally I don't see there'd be much of an overlap btw mesoamerican and central american ones, since IMO "central american archaeology" is usually understood to be that of the so-called Intermediate Area, ie lower-central america south of mesoamerica down to Panama & Colombia. I've suggested as such to WP:WSS (ie that if called for, meso and cent.Am archaeology stubs/cats can happily coexist without any great overlap or angst). Prob all a bit of a moot point, since AFAIK this is the only wikiproject active organised across precolumbian archaeology/history lines. --cjllw ʘ TALK 08:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Nahuatl scheduled for Main Page appearance this month

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)

Western Mexico shaft tomb tradition now Good Article nomination

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)

Great work Madman, and clear exposition as always. Will look out for it. One quick suggestion- a locational map would be helpful, but perhaps you already have the matter in hand. Otherwise will try to go thru it in more detail soon and see if there's anything else. I think it has every chance of clearing the GA hurdle, but a lot depends on who picks it up at GAC. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 06:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for kind comments, CJLL. Regarding the map, I have long considered a map and finally decided to put one together. My maps, however, have never shown modern-day locales, only the ancient sites and "cultural areas". However, any map for this article would have to show modern Mexico states at least. But you're right - it needs a map.
By the way, I was going to put Mesoamerican ballgame thru the GA process, but I found a number of unattributed quotes in that article. Sad to say, I fear it's easier to write up a new article than to clean up an old one. Madman (talk) 13:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes indeed- putting in copious cites and refs from the get-go makes for much less work and redundancy of effort later on. As for the map, just the modern state names & boundaries wld help placing in general geog context; & maybe just pinpoint a couple of the specific sites mentioned. Dunno if you have sources which wld allow some sort of bounded region to be drawn, within which the tombs are typically found. Major topographical features -rivers, ranges- wld be cool, but a "flat" basic map would suffice. --cjllw ʘ TALK 00:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I put together a map, including the modern state names & boundaries, a few of the specific sites mentioned and well as several dozen unnamed sites which, taken together, show a general distribution. I also included rivers. Thanks for the suggestion, Madman (talk) 03:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
¡muy excelente! Hats off to you once again, sir! --cjllw ʘ TALK 08:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Photos

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)

Hey Maunus. Thanks! Someone started up a Santa Cecilia Acatitlan article only a week or two ago. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 00:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok, now I've made a stub for Tenayuca.--cjllw ʘ TALK 07:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

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.

  • The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
  • The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
  • A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

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)

Hmm. OK, guess this cld be useful, the former B-class did rather cover an extreme range of quality. I would suggest that this project adopts this new division, though happy to hear of any differing views.
I suppose the currently-assessed "B-class" cat needs to be gone thru and see what needs to drop down to C-class. Dunno when will get around to this. Maybe next wk or two. The project banner code also needs to be amended. --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I am glad to see this new category since, as you note CJLL, B-Class articles widely varied in quality. I can help go thru some of these in the next week or two (although I'm afraid I will get sucked in to editing this and that B-Class article and never finish!). Madman (talk) 16:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I have updated the code in {{WP Mesoamerica}} so that it accepts "C" as a valid value for parameter |class=.
I think that at the moment we have about 170 B-Class articles, so not too many to go thru. Tho I spose that there may be some Start-Class that cld be bumped up to C-Class, and there's probably a few whose ratings are out-of-date anyway.
As far as what these class ratings shld mean for current and future ratings, it seems the Version 1.0 crowd have identified about 6 criteria for B's, see these and others at their {{Grading scheme}} template.
For quick rule-of-thumb, I would suppose that A-class articles are those that with some more spit'n'polish would be viable FA candidates; B-class includes those that via some modest efforts could become viable GA candidates (ie have refs and inline cites, reasonable content, decent coverage and readable prose, structured); C-class the 'average' effort deficient in one or more of the criteria along the way to GA/FA, may mention some refs without inline cites; Start-class contain at least some useful highlevel content, rudimentary sourcing, but large slabs may be missing or have other serious flaws; Stub-class are well, minimally informative at best, ie stubs. --cjllw ʘ TALK 02:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup

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)

Thanks. I had a look at some of the output generated for other projects, and this facility might well be of interest and use here. I have added the subscription template, so I guess in a couple of days we'll see the results for this project, which should be generated at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mesoamerica/Cleanup_listing. --cjllw ʘ TALK 02:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Ok, looks like it has worked. Should be easier to identify at least the most flagrantly deficient articles, and which of the top- and high-importance ones need some attention to bring up to a consistent standard.--cjllw ʘ TALK 23:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Requested move of Aztec and Inca

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. 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 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)

Is this the proper place for this discussion? Inca related articles are not under the scope of this wikiproject. --Victor12 (talk) 15:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I know, but this discussion is more about Aztec... Read the first three words of Inca article.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 15:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
So the move of Inca to Inca civilization is already decided? --Victor12 (talk) 16:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, several people agreed here and the article is already written as it was "Inca civilization". It is obvious that it can be moved. I also left this message on the talk. Do you have some ideas about the move of Aztec? The lead needs a small rewrite. That is all.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 18:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually I think the Inca move should be decided separately on the Inca page.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  • comment the problem of moving Aztec to Aztec civilization lies in deciding whether it is correct to define Aztec culture as a civilization separate to other civilizations of Mesoamerica. I would argue that it is not, and I think that this view would be shared by many scholars working with the Aztecs. It would make more sense to call Aztec culture a part of post-classic central mexican civilization. This is why I am inclined to oppose the move proposal.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
    • I would say that Aztec culture can definitely be described as Aztec civilization, because Aztec did create a civilisations. They were one of the biggest pre-Columbian American civilisations among Maya civilisation and Inca civilisation. Of course there were many other tribes of indigenous peoples, but they did not create a complex civilisations, what Aztecs, Incas and Mayas did. But I do not exactly understand what you mean by "to define Aztec culture as a civilization separate to other civilizations of Mesoamerica". What exactly do you mean by definig it "separate to other civilizations of Mesoamerica." How separate and which other civilizations of Mesoamerica do you mean?--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 21:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
That is wrong. Aztec evolved out of the previous mesoamerican civilizations like the Olmec, Teotihuacan, Maya, Zapotec, Mixtec, Otomi, Totonac, Toltec and Huastec cultures that were all equally complex as the Aztec one. Nothing of what the Aztecs did was new but had been practiced in Mesoamerica for thousands (yes thousands) of years before the Aztecs arrived on the scene, they just made their own variant of a general Mesoamerican culture. What is more the aztec culture never existed in isolation from the other cultures of Mesoamerica but interacted with them throughout the formation of the Aztec empire. Actually I think that Maya should also not be named Maya civilization but rather Maya culture and that there should be an article about Mesoamerican civilization and one about Andean civilization because the Incas probably weren't so special to the andean region that they should be granted status as "fathers of civilizations" - the Incan culture was built on roots of earlier cultures such as Mochica, Nazca, Wari, Tiwanaku, Chavín and Chimú.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Allright, I understand you well. You are saying that we can't say that Aztecs were a civilisation if the others not. I do not insist on the word "civilisation". My problem is that I find this-related articles a bit chaotic compared to for example to Roman or Ancient Greece, although the articles themselves are good. It is mainly just about the names of the articles. If I see the word "Aztec", then I ask Aztec what? Peoples? Civilisation? Culture? (which you used in the comment from 21:31) That is because "Aztec" is an adjective. It is like Roman or Greek, which are disambigutation pages.
You said that you don't like the "civilisation". What are other possibilities? "Culture", "peoples" (do you have better suggestions?). I prefer the "civilisation" because that is what the specific article (Aztec) really is about. It is the highest hypernym. But to answer what you said about "separate to other civilizations of Mesoamerica". I would not separate them either. If they created a civilisation, they should be called a civilisation as well (as you said "other civilizations of Mesoamerica"). Every culture that created a civilisation should be called civilisation. I am taking one of your examples Zapotec or Huastec - this is an exemplar. For those, who did not create so huge states with a unified reign could be used some other word instead of "civilisation". I would prefer "peoples(s)" as in Huastec. What do you think?--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 22:32, 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)

Allright. Lets not talk only about those three (Maya, Aztec, Inca), but about all of them. We agree about turning the terms like "Aztec" into a disambigutation pages linking to the other specific Aztec articles such as "Aztec Empire", "Aztec culture" "Aztec religion" etc. This will make it absolutely transparent - THIS is the standardization I wanted to reach, not a same name for the main articles. I absolutely agree with your statement "Article names should reflect reality as best as possible" and I would add that the article names should reflect exactly what the article is about.
If we have pages like "Aztec" (and all the other names of the other cultures) as a disambig pages linking to Aztec (and other)-related articles, then we must have a title for the "main article", which is now for example "Aztec". We must choose some term, or some terms, which will be used for the main articles. They can not be all the same. It must fit the specific article, the exact culture/civilisation/Empire/people or whatever they are.
It is also very interesting (and helpful) to see how did some of these articles already develop: In the article Mesoamerica there is a teble with heading "Summary of the Chronology and Cultures of Mesoamerica" and the list of those terms we are talking about has a heading Important cultures, cities. On the other hand the Template:Pre-Columbian uses Pre-Columbian Civilizations and Cultures. But the word "culture" can not be used for the heading of the current Aztec article, because it does not cover the whole article. For example in Byzantine Empire, the term "culture" is a heading for one section next to "history" etc.
Allright. What we agree about is that the basic term like Aztec or Maya will always be a disambigutation page. And then I think the best way would be to decide the names of the specific articles for every single culture/civilisation/Emire/people separately, because every one of them is something different. Is this supposition allright?--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 10:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
It is quite alright with me yes. And as I noted it has previously been agreed upon here to turn Aztec in to a "verbose disambiguation page" linking to the specific articles. We just never got around to doing it.·Maunus·ƛ· 11:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok. So we just need to choose new the names of the "main articles" such as Aztec. I have no other ideas than naming it Aztec civilization. If you have a look on the first sentence of Inca, you can see that the article is already about the "Inca civilisation" (and it also seems allright in the disambig page above). And the Maya page seems very complex to me as well. Maybe you have better ideas.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 13:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
My idea is to rewrite the current aztec article completely and split it into articles on Aztec culture (with subpages on literature, sculpture and iconography), empire, religion, society, history and archaeology. The proposal has already been discussed above in:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mesoamerica#Aztec_terminology_revisited:_a_proposal ·Maunus·ƛ· 13:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Allright, that sounds very good for Aztec. I recommend to have a look on the set-up of articles such as Ancient Greece, and Roman. I won't have any access to the internet for several days, so I wish you good luck!--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 14:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Course-generated contribs on ancient Maya proposal

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)

I'm currently teaching a course at the University of Kansas called "The Ancient Maya" (ANTH 507). As a first assignment, I've asked students in the class to create or edit Wikipedia entries on topics pertaining to Maya studies. The first step of this assignment is for them to identify missing or deficient entries that would benefit from the contribution of a minimum of 1000 words, accompanied by appropriate footnotes and references. Having identified topics, they must add at least 1000 original words (with appropriate citations) to new or existing (but deficient) entries. Topics must receive prior approval from me and contributions will be reviewed by me on the basis of style, accuracy, and utility before they go online. I have directed students to consult the WikiProject Mesoamerica pages for entries that need work, but I'm sure that they would appreciate input and recommendations concerning appropriate strategies. There are 25 students in the class. The final assignments are due on September 22, 2008 and contents should be online by the end of that month. Hoopes (talk) 21:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi there Hoopes. That sounds like an excellent scheme, and I'm sure all at WP:MESO would be only too happy to watch out for and help them find their wiki sea-legs. There are rather too many deficient and missing mesoam articles, and input from your class would be a supurb help towards getting at least the major ones up to a reasonable standard.
If you don't mind, I'll crosspost this at the WT:MESO discussion board, as that one is probably better monitored than this pg. Maybe, we could set up a separate project space for this if it would help coordinating. I know there have been similar coordinated student projects around on wiki, will find & review those & see if there are synergies with this proposal. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
As a first suggestion, once they've obtained their usernames would be an idea to list them somewhere (say on WP:MESO/P) so that others of us active on the WP:MESO can look out for them and try to make their experience here a welcome and supportive one.--cjllw ʘ TALK 04:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Have remembered now what the project page is in wiki for guidelines and suggestions on coordinating contribs as part of a school or uni class - it is WP:SUP, school and university projects page. Haven't read thru it in detail yet, but it would have some optional suggestions that might be useful in coordinating the scheme. --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Excellent idea. I'll be on the look-out. Madman (talk) 04:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Great idea. happy to help in anyway possible.·Maunus·ƛ· 05:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
John's idea is a good one -- so long as he doesn't run into the problems another professor did, who basically had students write essays using Wikipedia to more or less store them - see [1]. I agree with CJLL Wright, we should try and help them. Doug Weller (talk) 08:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Of course the students should be introduced to wikipedias objectves and formats to avoid having un-wikified termpapers that we then have to spend a lot of time to clean up. However since Hoopes is himself a wikipedia contributor I don't believe this should be a great problem. I've seen bigger problems with the contributions of the students of User:Thelmadatter who sometimes have very only a basic grasp of English and none of how wikipedia works. ·Maunus·ƛ· 08:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree. I've shown him the discussion and I will help him however I can. Doug Weller (talk) 12:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate the warm reception to this project and your willingness to help my students as they learn the medium. The idea of creating a list of usernames so that people can spot them and know the context is a good one. I'll mention it in class today. The main thing I've emphasized so far is exploring Wikipedia and learning something about its structure. One of my main concerns is redundancy--I don't want to see a proliferation of entries that already exist, perhaps under a different name. I've also asked them to be mindful of hyperlinks, both from and to their contributions. Of course, I've also emphasized the importance of good citations and references. There will be a lot of variation in how comfortable individual students are with coding and formatting entries. However, I'm pleased with the topics that have been identified so far, sevaral of which have come from WikiProject Mesoamerica wish lists.24.124.90.41 (talk) 14:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
No worries, and welcome to all your students. For a complete list of all Mesoamerica-related articles we currently have (1250+), see this page, which can be checked to see if there's already an article. Don't have the breakdown for Maya-only articles, but navigating through Category:Maya civilization should (in theory, anyway) capture them all.--cjllw ʘ TALK 07:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Article suggestions for KU anthro

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)

How about an article about Postclassic Maya civilization (particularly Lowland, as we have an article about K'iche' Kingdom of Q'umarkaj). Or a complete rewrite of the article on Maya religion? (You could use as a model the article on Aztec religion although that is also still incomplete)·Maunus·ƛ· 18:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Good suggestions, Maunus. In terms of existing ones in dire need of some overhaul and improvement, Garrett & fellow students could take a look through the articles in this category of Mesoamerica-related articles needing attention for some of the ones in most need of TLC. Should not be too hard to pick out those that are Maya specific. Some, like Maya ceramics aren't too bad, but their coverage doesn't match the high significance of the topic and a lot of stuff is missing. Others, like Trade in Maya civilization, Gender in Maya society, Sacrifice in Maya culture and the aforementioned Maya religion & Maya mythology are important topics that are either poorly treated/written/sourced, inaccurate, incomplete, or all of the above.--cjllw ʘ TALK 07:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
In particular, I would like to see an article on the "Schellhas gods", or an article on any of these gods, God A thru God P. Madman (talk) 03:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Articles by KU Students

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, I've added in a couple more that seem to have gone 'live' in mainspace; plus one from a new contrib not listed as a KU participant, but given the timing and the subject possibly is...? --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
New articles
Existing articles, expanded
Works-in-progress (yet to be added to mainspace)

Very cool

Thanks, Hoopes. A worthy addition. How do I get into the grad program there??  : ) Madman (talk) 03:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! For information about KU with relevant links, where better to begin than University of Kansas? Contact the Anthropology Department for requirements and deadlines. Taking the Graduate Record Examination is a good start, as is doing well in anthropology courses (of course). Email me directly if you have any specific questions. Hoopes (talk) 22:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Consensus for Mesoamerican location

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)

Oh good grief, again! Ok. Hard really to see what motivates either of these parties. Maybe we could find and exact quote from Kirchhoff or someone, and dispense with original formulations.--cjllw ʘ TALK 05:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

History of Mesoamerica

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)

Blimey, sounds rather silly and WP:POINT. ATM Mesoamerican chronology is prob the nearest we have to a 'history of' style article, maybe linking to that? --cjllw ʘ TALK 23:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
OK, have put it back in the template as a link to the chrono article, as it is now essentially the same as a "history of" one. Perhaps one day we cld break out into separate 'chronology style' and 'history of' style articles, the former a date-ordered listing of cultures & events, the latter a textual description and overview of Mesoamerica's historical span. But for now, that at least shld do. --cjllw ʘ TALK 01:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Need insight into structuring "gods" articles

Quetzalcoatl and the Feathered Serpent

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)

I have copyedited Feathered Serpent (deity) and now Feathered Serpent redirects to that rather than Quetzalcoatl.

Olmec mythology

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)

I think it should probably be "Olmec religion" since thats what the other articles about that topic are called. The article isn't just about gods/supernaturals so those titles seem too limited in scope.·Maunus·ƛ· 04:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Right now, Olmec mythology just discusses 3 purported Olmec gods and doesn't say anything about the religion (or should I say "religious practice") of the Olmec. I seem to be running out of steam and probably won't be tackling this anytime soon. Madman (talk) 21:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Mesoamerica

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 articles have been selected for Aztec

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)

New icon created on Commons by FR: graphists

Hello,

Icon for pre-Columbian templates

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)

Hi El Comandante, sure this wld be the right place. Thanks for the notice, and a reminder that we cld check more often what's developing in the fr.wiki project/portal; one of the more active ones around in other lang wikis. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 00:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Valley of Mexico

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)

Hey, many thanks Thelmadatter. Looks like very nice work, will go over it sometime in the next week or two, doubt there'll be too many issues. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 03:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

INAH Archaeological Site pages have moved

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)

Hmm, looks like the original inah.gob.mx site is back up and running again, while they've retained gobiernodigital.inah.gob.mx also. Seems that they've moved a number of pages across to that new site, still accessible from the old one. --cjllw ʘ TALK 00:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Notional extension of project coverage

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)

Certainly the coverage of these areas is "dire". I do have a few of these articles on my watchlist, largely as a result of my adding photos of museum artifacts. However, I seem to have little time for Wikipedia lately so I really can't help much. Sorry, Madman (talk) 04:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
it's ok, I have no real expectation of there being much in the way of significant expansion of these in the near or mid term. Rsheptak pointed me towards some handy refs on Intermediate Area & Salvadoran sites about a year ago, and I'm still to get around to applying them. I'd thought, by at least including some of 'em in the meso article watchlists we cld at least try to keep them from getting any worse.--cjllw ʘ TALK 13:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mesoamerica/Archives/Archive_5&oldid=1136049965"