Talk:Nazca lines

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2022 and 11 March 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Obergj (article contribs). Peer reviewers: K8Carleton.

These Nazca Lines already becoming absurd

In UFO forum someone explains how to make such lines with 3 sticks, long rope and almost zero math. He also explains what these triangular shapes are for and why this particular triangular shape was chosen. WTF, already the UFO lunatics mock the so-called archaeologists and offer more logical explanations than them?! 79.100.135.35 (talk) 10:32, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

https://www.alienbabble.com/threads/nazca-geoglyphs-primitive-technique-of-their-making.557/

The technique described in this forum works on 100%. I was able to translate a small figure from about 2х3 meters to figure with size 20х30 meters without any problem for a short time. You don't even have to see what you're doing, the proportions of the figure keep to themselves, just as this man described. Why someone not describe this technique in the main article? 82.137.117.5 (talk) 11:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Nazca lines

I want to learn more about them Dannydavila93 (talk) 03:21, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Names for individual geoglyphs

The "Images" section presents images of a subset of the Nazca Lines — it's unclear why this subset is chosen, but I presume it's just all of the lines that have high-quality freely licenced images on the Commons.

Each of these images has a caption that appears to be the name of the depicted Nazca Line, but does not currently cite any sources for these names. Most of them use the definite article to indicate they are the only such Nazca Line representing that particular subject, and they are capitalized as proper nouns, not merely descriptions. (Elsewhere in the article, such as the "Rediscovery" section, they are referred to in sentence case, but still with the definite article.) These captions leave the impression on the reader that they are in fact the official names of the geoglyphs, or at the very least their common names. It's quite possible that individual Nazca Lines don't really have names at all, in which case the image captions should be adjusted to reflect that.

The Commons categories use Spanish names, which seem more likely to be official names for them given they are located in Spanish-speaking countries. Although the Commons categories don't cite any sources for these names either (not that you would expect them to).

In particular, this image is captioned "The Giant", but the file description page indicates it is called "Owlman" and "Astronaut". Without a reliable source to establish one of these three names, I'm not sure which this article should use. SnorlaxMonster 11:38, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Scales needed for "Images" section

For a common reader, it would be helpful if there were a short scale (e.g. metres/feet) drawn near corner of each image. Of course, the text gives a general idea of their magnitude but they vary. Wherever the pictures are taken, someone with knowledge of individual figures might have a scale added. 217.140.200.221 (talk) 21:02, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

How were the lines made so straight?

It it possible that long stretched ropes were used in order to help ensure that the lines were drawn perfectly straight? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 03:14, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Does the alien nonsense warrant an entire section?

There is already a section in the article denoted for speculations regarding its purpose, not that any of the unabashedly racist works of von Däniken should be anywhere near the actual informed speculations of archaeologists anyways. He should be a footnote of that section.

Other pages that cover sites or artifacts with fringe extraterrestrial theories surrounding them do not typically have sections devoted to von Däniken, and giving him an entire section of a Wikipedia article would look unfortunately legitimizing to an otherwise uninformed browser. CarpinchoCamayuc (talk) 07:37, 27 February 2023 (UTC)