Jump to content

Talk:El Castillo, Chichen Itza

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CJLL Wright (talk | contribs) at 14:16, 15 June 2007 (Article Needed?: commenting). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconMesoamerica (inactive)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Mesoamerica, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.

notice that the temple has 91 stair steps on each of the 4 sides and with the top step adds to 365 .. mayans were very good in maths and astronomy.. it is suppoused that the temple was actualy a calendar..

Name

As "El Castillo" is a rather common nickname for large structures, perhaps this should be moved to "El Castillo, Chichen Itza" or something similar? -- Infrogmation 16:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, think we need a dab title here (there's also a highlands site in the Cotzumalhuapa region called El Castillo, for eg). There'd be the same problem for its alternative familiar name, Temple of K'uk'ulkan. I think your suggestion, El Castillo, Chichen Itza, should be fine, its formal designation as Chichen Itza Structure 5B18 is perhaps too obscure.--cjllw | TALK 01:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, hv moved it to new title per your suggestion.--cjllw | TALK 03:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Article Needed?

Do we need this article? The same information is found in the Chichen Itza entry. Can't visitors to Wikipedia searching for El Castillo be directed to the Chichen Itza page instead of maintaining the same information in two places?CoyoteMan31 12:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)CoyoteMan31[reply]

IMO there's sufficient expansion scope for this notable structure to sustain its own article- although yes, in practice at the moment there is considerable overlap with the main Chichen Itza article. Both articles could readily be extended, there's a lot of info on both not yet covered. Ideally, the Chichen article would give the overview on the main features and structures associated with the site, while the subarticles carry the details & specifics. I don't think it does any harm to have this one here, even if only as a sketch awaiting further work. --cjllw ʘ TALK 14:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]