Talk:Tikal

Images

The first picture is IMHO ugly (no offense to the one who took it) !!! would you mind if i change the picture for some better one like found here : http://www.chmouel.com/geeklog/gallery/gallery_individual.php/centralam/4.html

I took the photo, and I'm not at all offended. That's something I took with a cheap instamatic years ago that I put here only for the lack of something better. Something better is very welcome, thanks for sharing your fine photos. Best wishes, -- Infrogmation 10:54, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I have uploaded a new picture let me know what do you tink ? Let me know what do you think. Cheers. --Chmouel Boudjnah 19:59, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thanks User:Infrogmation to have fixed the description of the picture, i could not remember which temple was it. --Chmouel Boudjnah 20:19, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Looks good! -- Infrogmation

Tikal: View from Temple Pyramid 1 looking towards Temple Pyramid 2, with 3 (left) and 4 in background

I moved my old pic here to talk for the time being. Do you Chmouel or anyone else have a better picture with a similar view? The temple pic now at the article is certainly a better photo, but this one gives some idea of the size of the central portion of the site and that much of it is still overgrown. -- Infrogmation 19:19, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Humm i can't recognize on my pictures (i was really sick the day i went to tikal chicken bus killed me) maybe you can look on my website and tell me if there is one that may be good for your article ? --Chmouel Boudjnah 20:14, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Infobox

The infobox could be more informative to the site (and less cryptic about the UNESCO designation). As a Maya archaeologist, I honestly don't "get" much of the infobox. It should focus upon the site itself, and the city's history - not governmental designations. The Unesco info should be a footnote, or a lower paragraph. Remember, this is an Encyclopedia - it should cover the base knowledge first, and the details last. The infobox, therefore, should reflect the most salient features of the site (not political designations).Chunchucmil 15:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. However, it appears that the current infobox was carried over from, I guess, a standard template applied to other World Heritage Sites (e.g., see Delphi, Persepolis, and Memphis, for example. The WHS infobox is not consistently applied among all of its sites, however (see Statue of Liberty). I personally would rather see an archaeology-based infobox for Tikal and other sites, much like we discussed over on WikiProject Mesoamerica, but I guess the question comes down to what has priority (UNESCO, or Basic information?) -- Oaxaca dan 15:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm probably biased, but I would say that an infobox containing the relevant basic information as a (Mesoamerican) archaeological site ought to take precedence here over this much more specific aspect. That said, there's no reason why the article can't contain both infoboxes, say with the Heritage Site infobox moved a bit lower down to a section which discusses that context.

I know I've been promising for some time to develop a Mesoamerican site infobox, and as soon as I can string together enough time to develop one I'll see what I can do.--cjllw | TALK 01:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think we all might be a bit biased here. :) Anyway, we could use the one Chun and I have worked on over on the Chunchucmil site as a springboard/working template. The information contained therein is simple, relatively easy to obtain, and so on. The list of potential information suggest on the WikiProject Mesoamerica talk page is great to look into when we have time, but some of it is somewhat more complex and difficult to obtain (# of structures, emblem glyphs, etc.). All of that material, though, would be excellant to have in a nice standard infobox. -- Oaxaca dan 03:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

potential infobox/starting point - something like this? I would like to put a bolded title on top, but i can't quite get the code correct at the moment. -- Oaxaca dan 03:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Insert Image Tikal
Country:	Guatemala
State:	Peten
Municipality:	Flores?
Culture:	Maya
Mesoamerican sub-region	Southern Maya lowlands
Peak of Occupation:	Classic Period
Chronological Range of Occupation:	Middle Preclassic - Terminal Classic?
Estimated Size:	60 km2
Estimated Peak Population:	100,000 - 200,000

Reorganization

I started reogranizing the page. Mainly moving stuff around, making it more concise, what-have-you. Opinions? Concerns? Please let me know. Peace -- Oaxaca dan 04:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

can someone verify the "First Prophecy" reference in the Etymology section? It sounds awfully suspicious to me. -- Oaxaca dan 04:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Map, please

A map showing where Tikal is located wouold be helpful. Thanks. -- 201.19.77.39 22:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Tikal geography

According to the current version of the article:

[quote] By far the most important and most complete urban developments occurred in the lowlands in the "central region" of southern Guatemala [emphasis mine]. This region is a drainage basin about sixty miles long and twenty miles wide and is covered by tropical rain forest; the Mayas, in fact, are only one of two peoples to develop an urban culture in a tropical rainforest. The principal city in this region was Tikal ... [end quote]

Surely the region in which Tikal is located should be described as northern, not southern Guatemala? This description needs to be clarified. Chris k (talk) 23:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Possibly it is meant to say "southern Peten" instead of Guatemala (as in the Peten Basin, not the Department). That would make sense (though not sure about validity of the claim "only one of two peoples to develop an urban culture in a tropical rainforest"). --cjllw ʘ TALK 05:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Reywas92^Talk 03:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I am very glad to see this important article at GAN! Here are some comments from my first read-through:

• Since Tikal National Park redirects to the article, I believe it would be appropriate to bold that in the lead. As this is also the main article for the park, there should be more information about the National Park, including at least its founding date, that it was Guatemala's first NP, and a link to List of national parks of Guatemala.

Tikal National Park deserves its own article, bu of course some briefer mention here too. Perhaps even an initial stub could be fashioned out of that redirect.--cjllw ʘ TALK 13:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I've added some basic info about the National Park at the end of the Location section. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I'd prefer if you don't separate that. It would only be redundant to the great information about the region here.

• "Regarding the fauna, agouti...can be seen there regularly" > "Animals that inhabit Tikal include..." The link to White-nosed coati should be White-nosed Coati (though the piped text can remain lowercase), and link to Ocellated Turkey rather than oscillated curkey.

Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 11:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• "Average annual rainfall" > "The average annual rainfall"

Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 11:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• You could merge the Late and Middle Preclassic sections.

Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 11:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• No hyphen in Filmmaker

Sorted. Simon Burchell (talk) 11:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• The link to Starwars.com does not mention Tikal.

The link is for the production date of the film, the reference to Tikal being used to film Star Wars is in David Webster's Fall of the Ancient Maya (note 80 as currently numbered). Simon Burchell (talk) 11:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• Tikal Temple I is a stub, and much of its information is redundant. It should and can easily be merged into this article.

Although the article is a stub, as with many buildings, groups and even individual sculptures it is probably worthy of an article itself, and to leave in the link may encourage someone (who knows, maybe even me) to expand it into a full article. Simon Burchell (talk) 11:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Simon, it does no harm to have this in its own article, & there's ample material and sources to expand it in its own direction.--cjllw ʘ TALK 13:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Not only is there conflicting information (height), all of it is redundant except for the size of the base and Kukulcan, which I think should be included here. Perhaps an alternative would a Structures of Tikal subarticle that would include this and more detailed info on the other structures as well. Are there others that you left out like the stelae that could be included?

The reference to Kukulkan appears out-of-place, and I doubt its accuracy - Kukulkan was the Postclassic feathered serpent in Yucatán. Whatever is depicted in Temple I, it isn't Kukulkan - it's probably the Vision Serpent, a forerunner of Kukulkan. There are an enormous amount of structures at Tikal, even a "Structures at Tikal" article could only be a general summary of the most important, and each of the main temples deserves its own article. If anything I'll rewrite the stub at some point. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• "related to the "Venus" and "star" symbols" > "related to the Venus and star symbols" Unnecessary

But perhaps relevant for someone interested particularly in the interaction between the Maya and Teotihuacan. Simon Burchell (talk) 11:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd read Reywas's comment as saying the double-quote marks were unnecessary, not the info itself. They could be dispensed with, but having them emphasises they are labels, provisionally assigned, not literal or definitive descriptions. I think that's a valid purpose in context here.--cjllw ʘ TALK 13:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Quotation marks are never used for emphasis. It stills makes perfect sense without them.

I've removed the quotes. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• You have a nice photo, but what exactly is a stela? And what happened to the missing numbers?

First instance of "stela" is now linked. Only the most important stelae are listed, in other words those that are covered in more general works on the Maya. I could have gone on and on with this article, the city being so important to Classic Maya civilization, and I didn't even look at the many archaeological reports I have available. I'll expand the list prior to submitting for FA, if I should get around to that. Simon Burchell (talk) 11:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Well a reader still wouldn't know what they are. I suggest linking it again in the Stelae section and include a summary of their purpose, what they actually are, and what you just told me.

I've linked "stela" again and given a brief description. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• With so many temples and structures, it would be really nice to have a map of the site.

I've knocked up a quick map of the site core. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• The popular culture needs references, or it can just be removed as WP:TRIVIA.

Believe me, I don't need many excuses to remove pop culture sections...it's gone! Simon Burchell (talk) 11:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• Gill, Richardson B.; Harrison, Peter D.; and Kerr, Justin are not used as notes so they are not needed in the references.

Those sources were consulted and used at some point, not only for certain facts (covered also by other sources) but also in cross-checking and validating other sources. They contain info highly relevant to this article. IMO it's good and honest practice to maintain a biblio of sources consulted / sources influencing editing decisions, even if there's no direct citation pointing to them right now.--cjllw ʘ TALK 13:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• The redlinks of authors in the references should be removed.

IMO having a couple of redlinks is not problematic (for GA, or in general), and their purpose of highlighting needed articles outweighs any visual concerns. The ones that are there are deserving of their own articles at some hopefully not-too-distant point.--cjllw ʘ TALK 13:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a fantastic article and I hope to pass it soon! Reywas92^Talk 03:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments - I'll work through this list in the next day or two. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 11:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Interspersed a couple of additional comments/responses in the above.--cjllw ʘ TALK 13:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll give it another read-through, but it looks great. Also, you may want to stagger some pictures left/right, and with so many beutiful photos of Tikal, you can add some more since there is room. Reywas92^Talk 23:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I think I've dealt with most of the points you've raised, and added some more pictures. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 15:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Further comments:

• If Dos Pilas was founded in 690, how could they have been at war in the Early Classic period?

Looks like a few bits got mixed there during expansion...thanks for spotting that.Simon Burchell (talk) 20:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• Many sections such as Terminal Classic have few links, making them a little harder to read. You may want to add some more, and it's okay to re-link if it's that much later in the article.
• Need ref for "Recently, a project exploring the defensive earthworks..."

Done Simon Burchell (talk) 21:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• Some places have meters (feet), but others have feet (meters). Be consistent.

Should have metric first in all cases now. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• Do you like File:Tikal From Temple IV.jpg or File:Tikal Giaguaro.jpg? There's still more room for more puctures for such a huge site. Reywas92^Talk 18:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Well that's good enough for GA and better! I hope to see you at WP:FAC! I put this under Archaeology on WP:GA; you can change it if you think it's better elsewhere. By the way Rulers of Tikal could potentially make a great FL. Reywas92^Talk 21:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Reywas92! All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 21:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Stelae-Problem

Maybe it is, because my english is not so good but in Chapter Stelae it is mentioned on first Place in the List "Stela 1 dates to the 5th century and depicts the king Siyaj Chan K'awiil II in a standing position" - close to this is a Photo from a Stela with the comment: "Stela 31, with the sculpted image of Siyah Chan K'awil II" - Are Siyaj Chan and Siyah Chan two different Persons? Because they are on two different Stelae (1 and 31) -- Hartmann Schedel ^cheers 11:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Siyaj Chan K'awil II and Siyah Chan K'awil II are variant spellings of the same person - the spelling often depends on the language of the source, and also whichever system is being used to represent the Maya sounds - I'll fix this. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 12:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

ok, wonderfull, thank you Simon. But still this Person is on Stelae 1 and also on Stelae 31? -- Hartmann Schedel ^cheers 12:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Maya kings often raised a number of stelae bearing their own image, often at important intervals of time according to the Maya calendar, for instance to mark the ending of a k'atun (20-year period), to celebrate the dedication of a building or after an important military victory. See, for example, Quiriguá where K'ak' Tiliw Chan Yopaat raised a number of impressive stelae, or Copán where Uaxaclajuun Ub'aah K'awiil also erected a series of important monuments. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 13:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

thank you again Simon. I guess my problem is, that Stelae has a lot of Dates ON it but rarely dated by themselves (when are they worked). However, thank you Simon. -- Hartmann Schedel ^cheers 15:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)