Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mesoamerica/Guidelines

message: ----
This looks good to me. Good work. -- Infrogmation 21:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

message: Probably could do with a guideline on how to name articles for sites where the site's name is ambiguous. Two options spring to mind:
#Sitename, Region - eg. Jaina, Campeche
#Sitename (culturename site) - eg. San Bartolo (Maya site)
Each have their advantages, format #1 tells us where it is located (but is not distinguishable from contemporary settlements), while format #2 more readily identifies it as an archaeological site of one of the Mesoamerican cultures (but unclear what to do if there is no clear identification of a particular culture with the site- eg for archaic or paleo-indian sites; maybe in such instances use Sitename (Mesoamerican site)?).
Any thoughts, or other options which could be considered?--cjllw | TALK 02:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm. I suggest we adopt one of those options as our usual way, and keep the other as a "plan B" in case of unusual disambiguation cases where the first option may be problematic. Might we run into problems with Mesoamerican sites of the same name at different locations? -- Infrogmation 15:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Site name disambigs 

message: I would like to suggest that the use of CE and BCE be substituted for AD and BC when discussing pre-Columbian subjects as it has become standard academic practice and is widely understood; if anyone feels that confusion will arise as a result we could consider linking the CE and BCE designations to Common Era on major pages (i.e. Tikal) that attract a larger non-academic audience. --DuendeThumb 07:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know this is an old comment, but just thought I'd add my 2c anyways. Yes personally I prefer BCE/CE system, makes particular sense when talking about archaeology/history of this nature and is something very commonly observed in the literature. However, wikipedia's overall  policy/guideline is that either BCE-CE / BC/AD is acceptable, as long as consistent within an article, and that articles shld not be flipped back n forth from one system to another. So, if an article had already started out using BC/AD then it cld be seen as tendentious to change it to the (IMO more appropriate) BCE/CE. But for new articles, or where it is first introduced to an article, suggest the preference shld be Common Era dates. It would be good to have an amendment made to the overall guideline, but not sure there's that much chance of success. --cjllw ʘ TALK 00:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, CJLL.  Somehow the use of a Christian-based calendrical system seems inappropriate for Mesoamerica.  Madman (talk) 03:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Calendrical Designations

message: The M02 guidelines recommends American over British / Commonwealth spelling. However, the only anglophone country with strong national ties to nearly any Mayan article is, of course, Belize. That is,
* M02 seems at odds with MOS:TIES,
* British / Commonwealth spelling is not precluded by MOS:RETAIN, since strong national ties is an exception to this guideline,
* No Mayan articles have strong national ties to an anglophone country using American English.
In which case, why M02?
Asdfjrjjj (talk) 21:25, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propriety of M02