Template talk:History of the Americas

Scope/purpose
I think this is a generally sound concept for a high-level navbox. I realise it's probably still 'in work', but would just like to clarify what articles it is reasonable to have listed on this template. For eg, I was bold and removed Solutrean hypothesis, as that is but one specific example of a competing "how the New World was peopled" idea that's been put forward. As it is yet to find substantive and general support, intriguing though the idea may be, it seemed to be giving it undue prominence by listing it here (particularly in the absence of a listing of the much more 'standard' Bering Strait migration model). IMO it's prob not necessary to have the individual theories' articles listed here, only the one or two which give the overview of them all (or most of 'em, anyways).

Also, not sure about listing a selection of the (more 'famous') pre-Columbian cultures, such as Maya, Inca, etc. I suppose it depends on how this navbox template was envisaged, but my presumption is that it would only be necessary to have only the topmost pan-continental and major regional articles (and/or their "history of.." article equivalents, if they have them) mentioned. Thoughts?--cjllw ʘ  TALK 03:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm looking for a wide, interdisciplinary scope at the top-level, but allowing for narrow views at the secondary level - accessible from the template. Please modify it at your convenience. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 12:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

History of Mesoamerica
I put Mesoamerica back in to the history segment. I think the objection raised was more than a little spurious, but in an attempt to address anyway have amended the link so that it ends up at Mesoamerican chronology, which ATM serves just the same purpose as any other "History of.." style article. Maybe one day we could rework things so there is both a chronology and history of article for mesoamerica, instead of one covering both presentation styles. But for now it will have to do, omitting Mesoamerica from this template would be a complete mistake given its significance and recognition. --cjllw ʘ  TALK 01:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)