Talk:List of Maya sites
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Mesoamerica, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to pre-Columbian Mesoamerica, its civilizations, history, accomplishments and other topics. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page. |
|
Resources and guidelines for editing Mesoamerica-related articles:
|
|
| NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritising and managing its workload. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. |
| High | This article has been rated as high-importance on the Project's importance scale. |
|
WikiProject Mesoamerica priority open tasks: (click "show" to expand)
|
|
We need to adopt policies of site naming and disambiguation. See preliminary discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mesoamerica/Guidelines. Also, a useful link: List of sites with known hieroglyphic inscriptions from famsi.org. -- Infrogmation 15:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Thoughts on List of Maya sites
I've been working through this list, adding articles when I can, however there are some sites without any information available on the web. Many of these sites are small, physically inaccessible, or recently discovered, and there is very little information out there unless you have access to a university library. Many of these sites will remain red links for the foreseeable future. Akubra 22:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
- And a fine job you've been doing of it too, Akubra! Although there would be many hundreds more of Maya region sites which have had at least some minimal mention in academic literature, but are not yet on this list, it would remain useful to add these (even as redlinks) to the list as we come across them, to serve as placeholders for future expansion if more material comes to light.
- At least, if we could get all of those mentioned in the CMHI volumes onto the list, we'd be covering most of the archaeologically-documented and significant ones.--cjllw | TALK 00:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Organization
Since an alphabetical list is largely redundant to a category, perhaps the less notable sites should be grouped by location or some other criterion to make the list more manageable. Eluchil404 07:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- You have a point, although alpha-lists have a couple of other uses/advantages over categories - "placeholder" redlinks can be added for sites yet to gain an article, and some more useful information could also be added against each entry (presently not done here, though I've had some thoughts about doing this).
- Other useful ways of organising or grouping would be to do so by period - Formative, Classic, Postclassic etc, and by (sub)-region/locality - E/W/central highlands sites, peten basin sites, mirador basin sites, Puuc sites, etc etc.
