Talk:Macana

Merge?
I have suggested a merger with Macuahuitl. These articles seem to have very much overlapping subject matters, almost the same; in fact they both use the same illustration on the left side, like they are both referring to the same thing. This article claims to be also about other weapons shaped similarly to the macuahuitl(with or without obsidian blades) used in Mesoamerica and the Carribean, but couldn't there just be a small section in a unified article about that? It seems to me like both articles are mainly about the weapon in the context of their use by the Aztecs. What do you all think?

Hno3 20:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, the two articles are really about the same thing. Even if all the text of both were put in a single article it would still only be average length.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree. Macuahuitl should me merged into Macana, as it is a type of macana, and set to redirect, until such a time as both can stand alone. - BalthCat 03:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with the previous statements.-iAragon —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iaragon1 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree since they are two very different weapons. I don't see the advantages to this. Madman 21:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Our reasoning is based off of the content of these two articles. As I see it, this is similar to having an article for a rapier and for a sword, but in this case sword is nearly empty.  (As an example.)  In this case, we would describe the rapier in detail in the sword article, rather than its own, with sword being a stub.  This is based on the information in macana that says a macuahuitl is a type of macana.  If that is incorrect it would be helpful if you could add a bit more to the macana article, or perhaps mention it to some one if you know they have an interest in the topic.  Thanks, BalthCat 05:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree with merging the two articles. The weapons may not differ significantly in use, but they differ significantly in composition. One has an edge composed of inlaid obsidian, the other of sharpened wood. It is difficult to justify merging macana with macuahuitl without simply merging them both into the larger sword article. In terms of use and general design, the macana and the macuahuitl are both types of swords, but a macana is not a type of macuahuitl and vice-versa. You could make an argument that they should both be combined with broadsword, since they're functionally the same type of weapon and that was what the Spaniards called them, but simply because they have the same use and the same general design doesn't mean you can justify ignoring the difference in composition. The difference in blade between wood and obsidian is at least as significant as the difference between metal and obsidian. They should both be mentioned and linked to in the sword article, but kept distinct from one another because although both are subsets under the category of sword neither is a subset of the other and both have unique compositions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.65.47.237 (talk) 15:08, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

no reason to merge needs to reference at least 10 meanings for the word
since the word macana is not really properly defined here. the most important spanish dictionary gives almost ten meanings for the word.

only one is discussed in the article as it is now.

http://buscon.rae.es/draeI/SrvltConsulta?TIPO_BUS=3&LEMA=macana

bolivia, colombia, ecuador:

Kind of scarf or shawl, fine cotton, typical of the chola dress.

from the american

and the 'from the carribean' lists another nine definitions.

for example in the river plate region, where i com from macana is defined as (again the defintion is from the real academia espanola:

Event or situation that causes discomfort or annoyance.

or 'joke' in honduras

considering the definition of the word is incomplete here there is no need to merge this article with one from the nahuatl, but in fact what should be done is disambiguate and expand it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.158.153 (talk) 07:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)