Talk:History of the Aztecs

message: That is really well written.  I'm not sure if it's any shorter than what was there before but it is absolutely a lot more to the point.  It really gets across how important he was.  Thanks!
--Richard 03:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad you liked it.  I'm not sure it's any shorter, either.  : )  Madman 04:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Great section on Tlacaelel

message: I expanded the section describing the geographical expansion of the aztec empire and made map based on Ross Hassigs Aztec Warfare. I also edited some parts downplaying Tlacaelel a wee bit (the reign of Tlacaelel for example (he wasnt a ruler)). And emphasizing the actual exploits of the different Tlàtoanis. Maunus 12:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Expanding the expansion section

message: There needs to be information here on the population of Mexico throughout its various time periods. Rissa, Guild of Copy Editors  (talk) 03:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population figures missing 

message: This article appears to duplicate material appearing in other articles.  I think it should be merged with either Aztec or Aztec Empire, but would like to hear other comments from Wikipedians. Amuseclio (talk) 18:49, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, done that. Johnbod (talk) 19:02, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no aztec ethnicity, and there never was. And the Nahua and Mexica articles do not cover the Aztecs, and should not do so since they are distinct topics.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:15, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

text: I certainly agree that checking what readers seem to search for is an important factor. Nb that History of the Aztecs is (surely wrongly) given a "main" link at the history section of Aztec yet still gets these low views. I've noticed that "History of..." titles generally get low views. Johnbod (talk) 00:13, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

text: If we are going to maintain a "History of  " article it should be the best and most and comprehensive article on that topic rather than, as at present, the 3rd best, with better coverage of the history at A and AE. This could be achieved by large transfers between them and "History".  Johnbod (talk) 16:10, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

text: No it should not. Because "Aztec" or "Aztecs" is a major topic with a gigantic body of literature about it. And that literature is what the article on Aztecs covers. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:50, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

text: It sounds exactly like your providing the reasons why a disambiguation page would be useful.  Lots of material, variety of topics, etc. --Bejnar (talk) 15:26, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It sounds like you have no clue what you are talking about.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:35, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

text: We have a disam page already, but we need Aztec(s) as a primary topic article. Johnbod (talk) 16:10, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

text: A large number of people put in the simplest search term, and try to find what they want from there. --Bejnar (talk) 19:28, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge article with [[Aztec]] or [[Aztec Empire]]? 

message: I wonder, why are the conquistadors in this article called "Spaniards" and not "Spanish". Would it not be better to call them "Spanish" to signify their allegiance to the Spain (state), rather than their ethnicity?
45.94.119.61 (talk) 09:24, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spaniards vs Spanish 

message: What is the meaning of the vision the Aztecs saw 2803:1500:1200:CF8C:2DFE:47C6:F098:F209 (talk) 23:59, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aztecs