Talk:Tlacaelel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]
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.
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.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the Project's importance scale.
This article is also supported by the WikiProject Aztec sub-project.

[edit] Need a way to number Mexica/Aztec rulers

Fellow editors: is there some sort of consensus numbering scheme for these Hueyi Tlaloani?

This Tlacaelel article, grabbed somewhat from the Reference, lists Itzcoatl and Moctezuma I as the first and second emperor but our template list has them at Hueyi Tlaloani #5 & #6. And then I saw a article on the web that has them at 4 & 5 (it doesn't count Tenoch).

I like to refer to them at times by number because I believe it helps us non-Nahua to wrap our minds around some of these long and unfamiliar names and understand the flow of history better. Madman 03:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is correct DOB & DOD??

i found this at delong.typepad.com, by Brad DeLong who quotes the book "The Theology of Human Misery" by Charles Mann (2005), 1491 (New York: Knopf: 140004006X), p. 188: "...[the Aztec Empire's] presiding genius was Tlacaelel (1398-1480)...". someone should check into the dates for tlacaelel. but most of the other sites i found have the ones listed in wiki's own article. the reason i looked it up is cuz that's a question posted in the 02-04 talk: archives, and hasn't been crossed out. should i cross it out, to show its been answered? or leave it alone, since the current talk: page says to leave the archives alone? 4.230.168.250 23:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, Mr 250, there is a degree of uncertainty in all Aztec dates except perhaps the specific dates around the Spanish conquest. I'll check what sources I have. Why don't you go check a few other places and we'll meet back here and compare notes?? Madman 02:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)