Talk:Calakmul

Untitled

On Tikal vs. Calakmul, it says a hurricane "recently" uncovered two stairs. Recently seems like a rather vague word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.139.104.114 (talk) 11:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Requested move from Calakmul to Calakmul, Mexico

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved.

• Administrative; match existing standards

Discussion

• Oppose. See Teotihuacan, Chichen Itza, Cacaxtla. Altun Ha, etc. Perhaps it's Caracol, Belize, that's in the wrong place? –Hajor 13:49, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose; I accept your reasoning. So, do you want to move Caracol? :) JEREMY 08:45, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Great; I will do so in a minute. Do you have any photos of Calakmul? I have some somewhere, but from the pre-digital age, which means firing up the scanner. –Hajor 13:40, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Excellent. Looks like you need to do the same with El Perú, Guatemala, Louisville, Belize, Piedras Negras, Guatemala, Kabah, Yucatán and Mani, Yucatán. (Are you doing redirects after the moves, btw? I hate the fact that those diacritics are necessary, and that the spelling is inherently inconsistent; I've already redirected Kalakmul, for example.) The categories need rationalisation, too: Maya sites, Archaeological sites, sites in specific countries, &c. Lots of redundancy and cross-over. Lots of work to untangle, too, sadly. Re. photos, I've written to a photographer who's got a lot of material online and offers it for re-use. If he's amenable, I'll grab something from there. JEREMY 06:03, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK, bit by bit ... Louisville, Belize, Piedras Negras, Guatemala, Kabah, Yucatán, and Mani, Yucatán, are all there at disambiguated article locations because of, respectively, Louisville (disambiguation), Piedras Negras, Kabah (!), and Mani. I'm not sure about El Perú, Guatemala -- I assumed El Perú would be a redirect to Peru, but it's not (Perú is). Sounds like a candidate ripe for moving, or some other form of rationalisation.

Redirects? Yup, someone moving a page is under a burden of trust to fix at least the double redirects (which don't work). Single-level redirects do work, however, and they can be safely left where they are.

How does one locate double redirects?

The "what links here" page lists every page that links to an article, including 2nd-level nesting for things that link by means of a redirect. That's where you can detect double redirs.

Categorisation. Yes. The whole category system is a mess. And moving stuff around various categories is such a drawn-out process that, a lot of the time, inertia wins. And because categorising something like "archaeological sites" is such a mammoth task, a lot of the time someone will embark on it only to lose heart halfway through. The category system is not one of Wikipedia's strong points.

Uhuh. Probably best left until someone can build a script.

Scripts = bots? Not something I know too much about.

Photos. I hope your photographer contact comes through. I succeeded in unearthing mine but, frankly, there was nothing there worth scanning. Cheers, –Hajor 23:03, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. Will upload whatever I can come up with.

How do we close off this "move page" thread of Talk? JEREMY 08:02, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

One of us stops answering the other. Or starts a new section header and we continue thereunder. –Hajor 13:12, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Main Picture

I added a picture of Calakmul because i thought it might need one. I'll be adding more tomorrow.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dragon Lost In Mexico (talk • contribs) 2 May 2007.

Thanks, DLIM. Looks fine.--cjllw ʘ TALK 00:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Calakmul/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Amadscientist (talk) 15:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC) I will begin review shortly.--Amadscientist (talk) 15:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

In order to pass a GA nomination the article must meet the following standards:

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

1. B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

1. B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

1. C. No original research:

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

1. B. Focused:

2. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

2. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

2. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales

1. B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

2. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Reviewer notes: The lede contains inline citations and according toMoS:...Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. Contentious material about living persons must be cited every time, regardless of the level of generality.

I see very little information in the lede that could be disputed or controversial, yet see 7 inline citations which in my opinion is 7 too many. However I will not fail MoS conformity over a few if you feel strongly about some information which may be disputed. I also see at least one misspelled word...but I generally don't see spelling as GA disqualification, just wanting you to take a look at "maneuverings"? =) However...what would fail is the fact that the lede apears to be part of the body of the article. A lede should simply be a summary of the overall article and not be the first section or contain facts not found in the article itself.

Fixed the spelling. Will deal with the whole intro later. Simon Burchell (talk) 10:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• OK, any info that wasn't in the article body has now been included, and all cites have been removed from the intro. Simon Burchell (talk) 11:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I also wonder why you have the history section below the "location", "Population" and "rulers" section. Personal choice perhaps? Not a must but in this particular article...you do seem to be putting the cart before the horse as those sections do fall back on history. I would think "Rulers" would be at the end as the table interrupt the flow of the article.....also you should probably title the section as "simply "Rulers" as we can assume the subject per MoS.

The last image has a source description problem. While it is linked to Flickr it is incorrectly titled to the name of the image and not the source location. This must be fixed in order to pass review.

• Well, I've removed the title from the hyperlink on Commons, but I'm not sure it was right to do so - the image was imported from flickr using an import tool on Commons itself, which captions the hyperlink automatically with the name of the picture - this is pretty standard with flickr images on Commons. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons can and will sometimes contact uploaders to inform them of the error, however use of these images on Wikipedia in a GA article require all "Ts crossed and Is dotted especialy when uploading another persons work from flickr.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Working up from that image the next one is missing the date and must be fixed or not used to pass.

• Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The next few images moving up from there are fine until the Tikal Giaguaro jpg image which has no summary information at all. It must contain a description, author, source, date.etc. Perhaps it is best to simply forgo the use of that one.

• OK, I've switched for an alternative image. Simon Burchell (talk) 10:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I feel the article lacks archeology information. While it is touched on, this type of article really does almost require it. It would seem impossible to pass scope without it. Its late for me and I scanned though the article without realising what the atual problem was. Its a header description problem. "Modern History" is in reality "Archeology", while it doesn't have to be that title, perhaps it would be clearer to do so since you are not following the example of the other articles you mentioned which are archeology articles in themselves and describe the sites in their ledes as an "archaeological site".

• In the articles I write, I put the excavation history, site discovery etc. into "Modern history", while the actual archaeological details, such as structures, finds etc are put into other sections, mostly within subsections under "Site description". I have rewritten the 1st para to make mention of the fact it is an archaeological site. Simon Burchell (talk) 09:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Most of this sounds OK, except section order is what are used generally in Maya city articles, including a number of GAs and FAs (see, for example, Quiriguá, Takalik Abaj, Zaculeu, Tikal and others) - I think putting the location and population sections before history set up the general context of the site before getting into the nitty gritty of historical detail. The rulers section I can drop as a subsection into History.

What do you mean by archaeological information? Excavation history? Major structures, sculpture etc. are already summarised.

I'll try to take a look at this later, if I have time. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 17:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

It need not follow other articles, but I may also be thinking in terms of structures not entire cities. I would not fail over that, just a thought that I can easily dismiss and accept your explanation.--Amadscientist (talk) 17:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I am putting the article on hold as I feel the article requires a small amount of work to bring to GA status. This gives editors up to 7 days to make the changes. I don't think it will take that long but gives editors the option of taking more time.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Kaan State

The Kaan state had several capital cities thru history, Calakmul being one of them. I Think that Kaan (maya state) should not redirect to Calakmul, but to have a page on it's own. Soparamens (talk) 21:29, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Calakmul. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110914133722/http://www.asociaciontikal.com/pdf/87_-_Reents_et_al.pdf to http://www.asociaciontikal.com/pdf/87_-_Reents_et_al.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141102134600/http://exploration.vanderbilt.edu/print/pdfs/news/news_dospilas_feature.pdf to http://exploration.vanderbilt.edu/print/pdfs/news/news_dospilas_feature.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070609231337/http://www.conanp.gob.mx/dcei/didact/CALAKMUL%20PA%20PDF.pdf to http://www.conanp.gob.mx/dcei/didact/CALAKMUL%20PA%20PDF.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:23, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Calakmul. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110904132332/http://www.asociaciontikal.com/pdf/11.95_-_Rosario.pdf to http://www.asociaciontikal.com/pdf/11.95_-_Rosario.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:47, 31 December 2017 (UTC)