User talk:CJLL Wright/Archive XXVII



=JAN '09 — FEB '09=

Proposal to rename Template:Spanish colonization of the Americas
Someone has made a good faith proposal to rename this template to Template:Spanish conquest of the Americas. I have objected to the proposal. Please review the proposal at Template talk:Spanish colonization of the Americas. thanx.

--Richard (talk) 18:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Richard, have reviewed and added my 2c. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 13:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:MuseoChilenoPrecolombino logo.gif)
You've uploaded File:MuseoChilenoPrecolombino logo.gif, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 12:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Now replaced by File:MuseoChilenoPrecolombino logo.png PNG version, the gif no longer needed so I'll delete it myself. --cjllw ʘ TALK 22:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Museu barbier-mueller barcelona logo.gif)
You've uploaded File:Museu barbier-mueller barcelona logo.gif, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 12:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Now replaced by File:MuseoChilenoPrecolombino logo.png PNG version, the gif no longer needed so I'll delete it myself.--cjllw ʘ TALK 22:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not confined to history of the western world
Please discuss this reversion on the article's talk page. The edit appeared to have been made in good faith, and my first thought is that it is accurate. Science was not a pursuit limited to western Europe, by the way. In fact, even the Italian botanists of the era of their first botanical gardens there thought the Aztec knowledge of plants was worthwhile: Libellus de Medicinalibus Indorum Herbis. If you intend the article to be solely about European botanical gardens and their history, the name should probably be changed. Feel free to introduce that discussion on the talk page also. --KP Botany (talk) 07:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi. Since probably over 95% of my editing time here on wikipedia is spent maintaining and expanding articles on non-Western/non-European topics, I think you misjudge my motives behind that reversion. It's certainly nothing to do with ignorance of or unwillingness to admit to learned achievements by non-western cultures, past or present.


 * Instead, I reverted that edit simply because I regard its statement (to the effect that Tenochtitlan's were the first modern botanical gardens) as inaccurate on several levels. I see no reason to doubt the anon's edit was made in good faith, but it was inaccurate regardless. For example, those gardens of Tenochtitlan (specifically, at Itzapalapa) famously noted by Cortes are not the earliest such known, even within the Aztec realm.


 * Will discuss the reasons further on the talk page in the next day or so, per your invite, when I'm next online.--cjllw ʘ TALK 14:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll see you there, then. Because if there are even earlier Aztec ones, that the opposite of supporting your reversion.  --KP Botany (talk) 19:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't really see how it's the 'opposite'- there are earlier examples elsewhere of the type of garden reported for Tenochtitlan, however this type and those gardens also do not really qualify as "modern botanical gardens". In any case, have now responded in more detail at the talkpg. Regards, --cjllw ʘ TALK 05:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

HELP
beacuse too many cooks spoil the broth, the Culture article has been a disaster. And there were lots of valid criticisms on the talk page, and many sometimes ill-informed suggestions. I just did a major overhaul and would appreciate your checking it out. I hope you will not find cause to revert my changes. I hope you will see ways to improve them. My one request: just do not add missing information without thinking of the overall organization of the thing (otherwise, it will soon turn chaotic again) ... that is, if you think I did a poor job of reorganizing it, I hope we can discuss it and work out a better organization. Thanks, Slrubenstein  |  Talk 22:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Slrubenstein. Yeah, looks to have been a bit of a mess. Had a quick look over your changes, they seem reasonable, more to do of course. Can't promise being able to get around to any constructive work on that pg right now, maybe in a week I can; we'll see. ATM I'd favour the proposals there to split off the primary but distinct meanings of the terms into their own articles, and leave behind a sort of verbose disambig page- no real telling which of the many intended contexts other articles use to link back to the culture article. Splitting it all out would be a lengthy exercise, tho. Regards, --cjllw ʘ TALK 07:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I sure would appreciate your returning to it when you have time. My view is that "culture" certainly does touch on topics that merit their own article.  My approach would be to work on one article, Culture, until it got too big.  At that time, articles could be spun off, but sections with summaries of those articles should remain in the culture article (this is what happened with the Jesus article).  Clearly, even if there are separate or spun-off articles, the culture article needs sections or subsections summarizing them.  Best, Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Creation myths
I have nominated for renaming. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Outsider80(talk) 09:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I hope you will find time to participate in this discussion. Cgingold (talk) 19:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thx for the notification Outsider, & thx for the template fix & notice, Cgingold. I've added my 2c to the CfD discussion. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 22:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Cortés, family of Pizarro
You recently reverted an edit to the Hernando Cortés article made by me, which stated that Cortés was related to Pizarro. This is mentioned in the Francisco Pizarro article, and I haven't found an explanation for the revert. Could you explain? Knight of Truth (talk) 09:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi there. I reverted your edit only because the info you had added was redundant. The fact that Francisco Pizarro was his second cousin was already mentioned, in the 'Early life' section. I had intended to merely undo your edit so I could add an explanation in the edit summary, but I accidentally hit the rollback button instead. (reply also posted at ur talkpg). Regards, --cjllw ʘ TALK 22:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Takalik Abaj
Hi CJ. I've pretty much finished working on Takalik Abaj and hopefully any further changes will be relatively minor. Would you mind taking a quick look at it? I've been staring at the thing for so long now that I wouldn't spot a glaring error if it jumped out at me...any suggestions welcome. Thanks, Simon Burchell (talk) 15:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Simon. Quick review looks good, naturally. I'm going to be offline soon for abt a week or thereabouts, so if I don't get time for more detailed read before I go, will be once I am back. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 01:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

History of Latin America
Hi,

Haven't talked in a while. Hope you are doing well. I invite you to look at History of Latin America which is a very weak article at the moment. In particular, I think you could help with the "Pre-Columbian" and "Colonialism" sections which are extremely thin. The History of Latin America article should be written in a summary style with links to main articles. Of the various Wikipedians that I know, you are the one that has the most breadth of knowledge to take on this task.

--Richard (talk) 16:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Gidday Richard, hope that you are well also. Yeah, articles with broad-brush scopes like this one tend to fare pretty poorly on wikipedia. There are probably a dozen or more "History of.." articles involving central/south american regions that are equally deficient when it comes to putting together a decent overview that blends precolumbian, colonial & modern histories in appropriate proportions.


 * For this one in particular, I feel that the bulk of the article should focus on outlining the development of social/political influences and identities associated with the "Latinising" of this region. However the precolumbian and indigenous histories and influences need also to be addressed in this article, for context at a minimum. And clearly the complex interplay between indigenous and Latin cultures should also be summarised here in some way. Agree that the article treats these aspects in a cursory way, which needs to be improved.


 * I'll be offline for a week or thereabouts, so will only be once I get back. Can't promise to be prompt even then since there's stacks of other projects and cleanups on the backboiler; but will see if I can do something. Presumably the es.wiki article equivalents are much more developed, maybe as an interim measure these could be raided and the best bits translated over here, as a foundation for further improvements. Regards, --cjllw ʘ TALK 23:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Reversion at San Bartolo (Maya site)
END OF TALK ARCHIVE PAGE