This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects:

Archaeology This template is within the scope ofWikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofArchaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology Mesoamerica (inactive) This template is within the scope ofWikiProject Mesoamerica, a project which is currently considered to beinactive.MesoamericaWikipedia:WikiProject MesoamericaTemplate:WikiProject MesoamericaMesoamerica Indigenous peoples of North America This template is within the scope ofWikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofNative Americans,Indigenous peoples in Canada, and relatedindigenous peoples of North America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.Indigenous peoples of North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaIndigenous peoples of North America

Check out thePre-Columbian article and thePre-Columbian template. I'm not sure how broad your interest is but this is the "umbrella" that I was describing in my previous message. I'm thinking that the next step is to change the templates to say "This is part of the series on Pre-Columbian civilizations". What I'm not sure of is whether each template should claim to be part of the series on Pre-Columbian civilizations. The alternative is to have theAztec template claim to be part of the series on Aztec civilization and so with theMaya template and theInca template.--Richard07:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Richard, the idea is very good, but I think the template in that form is too long to be put on the side. What you sometimes see is a big template at the bottom of the page, for exampleWorld War I. A big advantage is that you can also add that to small pages (a long side template stretches a short article, sometimes creating large white spaces). My proposition would be to relayout the Pre-Columbian template, formatted for full page width so it can give a nice and complete overview, and keep smaller templates for the individual civilations, that can be put on the side at or near the top of the article for easy navigating. I would keep the smaller templates because they're more convenient at the top, especially for long articles. For smaller articles only the large template would be needed. What do you think?Piet08:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree that the Pre-Columbian template is too long to put on the side. We could do something like the WWI template although our template would be a lot smaller. If you want to give it a try, call it something likeTemplate:Pre-Columbian/Test. Otherwise, I'll give it a whirl later in the week. Good night.

--Richard09:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've created an alternative template atTemplate:Pre-Columbian/Test. It doesn't contain all links, it turned out to be difficult to get everything in, so we might use the other templates to add a bit more information. My idea is still to put a civilization-specific side template at the top of the page and this one at the bottom. The template shows a few pages that are still missing and a few that have to be renamed (or made consistent across the different civilizations). The people sections and "related topics" need to be expanded.Piet16:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like it! It still needs some work but this is definitely a step in the right direction. Please capitalize the words in the left-hand column. Also, we should include theSpanish conquest of Mexico article in the "History" row. I know there's an issue because there is a separateHistory of the Aztecs article but I think there's a certain value to maintaining the symmetric consistency among the three "Spanish conquest of..." articles.

Also, we may wish to have the conquistadors in the "Main civilizations" area. I'm not sure, we should give it some further thought.

--Richard18:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking pretty good. "Maya" at the top is still linking to disambiguation at writing. --Infrogmation21:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've made most of the requested changes. I've also made separate sections for "History" (Pre-Columbian, "History of the Aztecs") and "Conquest" (Colonization period). This makes more sense since the name of the template is "Pre-Columbian". Shall we move the template from /test to here to avoid people fixing the current template, which will go out anyway? The one page that includes the template will have to be changed a bit then.Piet22:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Something else, now that we put the civilizations next to each other the different choices of page names become a bit annoying, I propose we rationalize this.

• The most obvious example: the main pages are calledAztec,Maya civilization andInca Empire. We'd better use the same wording every time, either empire or civilization.
• Further, could Inca religion become Inca mythology? For Aztec both mythology and religion exist, should we do this for the other ones too?
• I think we need pages forAztec society,Mayan society andInca society. It probably only involves moving some information around.

Piet22:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Maya and Inca main articles are pretty long, I'll move some information to separate articles like we did for the Aztecs.Piet22:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please checkTemplate:Pre-Columbian/Test. I've added society and architecture articles for Maya and Inca, also cleaning up the mainMaya andInca pages a bit. Does anyone have important comments about the new template? I would like to move it here now.Piet12:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I noticed the "holes" in the template and was going to do it sooner or later but you obviously got to it first. Great!

One quick note... Please propose any name changes on the Talk pages first and build a consensus before renaming any changes. I gather that a lot of work has been put into the Inca and Maya pages by other editors and we should respect their views before making bold changes to the names of the articles. (Even though I agree with you that the naming of the Aztec, Maya and Inca articles is currently inconsistent and should be regularized.)

--Richard12:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For a challenge, figure out where to putPre-Columbian art into this template.--Richard08:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an idea

1. Pre-Columbian cultures
2. Main civilizations
3. See alsoPre-Columbian art –Indigenous peoples of the Americas –Population history of American indigenous peoples

And maybe some more topics. Concerning the Pre-Columbian art, does it really make sense to cover the art of this whole area together? Wouldn't it better be split up in Aztec art, Inca art, Maya art?Piet20:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above proposal for structuring the template seems OK. I will leave this to your discretion and tell you afterwards if I hate what you did.  ;^)

Seriously, this template will probably evolve as we learn more about the subject domain. Just be bold and try something out. We can always change it later.

Now, I agree that it would be nice if Pre-Columbian art could be split up into Aztec art, Inca art, Maya art but I think you would still need an umbrella article called Pre-Columbian art because that's what everybody calls it. The current article is so short that it would be hard to split up. Moreover, according to the article, no distinction is made between Aztec art and Maya art. It's just "Mesoamerican art". But, that's why I said above that this was a challenge. If it could have been split up into three articles cleanly, I woulda done it already.

--Richard23:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the see also section. I'm not entirely happy about the template, but I suppose it will evolve.Piet18:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I am pretty happy about it, but the See also section looks a bit awkward.Piet18:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another challenge. Where would we put the articleInca road system. I would suggest changing the row title from Architecture toInfrastructure and then putting Inca road system underInca architecture.

I'm not sure, infrastructure seems less descriptive as a title than architecture. Could we just add "Inca road system" under architecture?Piet18:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not thrilled with putting "Inca road system" under architecture but we can put it there until a better idea comes along.

--Richard19:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, it's your language, I'll go along with you.Piet20:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think maybe the template should not be at the bottom of a page, but just above the references section. Because that's where many people stop reading; if the template is even lower many people will miss it.Piet18:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved it on theAztec page.Piet20:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could we please get a small-option for this HUGE template? In some of the smaller articles it takes as much space as the rest of the article combined. It would be very useful to have either a smaller template or one of those neat templates that open up hen you click on them.·Maunus··ƛ·14:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Nahua had writing, it was inherited from the La Venta culture as with the Mayans. Also an extensive body of philosophy as discussed in1491. Course the Spanish tried to burn it all, but that's another story.

Of course, there are a host of problems with the template, not least of which that the Mayans were Mesoamerican while the Tairona, Mississipian, and Pueblo civilizations (among others were largely seperate), that it is Eurocentric to divide into three "main" civilizations which just happened to be the major ones at the time of the conquest. Still, things like this involve fighting with some idiot who learned that the Mayan civilization was enlightened while the Aztecs were barbaric. They couldn't possibly be different parts of the same group of civilizations. And the moundbuilers and Anazazi collapsed, the Tairona (and other Chibchan groups) were tiny, and civilizations elsewhere (Amazon) were abortive or in the early stages (northeast US). Eh, not worth fighting over.

Did want to point out the bit that was factually wrong though. --71.192.116.1303:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about Incan writting? I was wondering if theQuipu is considering as a writting system. Because on one hand we know it was a record device, but on the other we still don't know exactly what information is in it. --20:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)200.31.126.98

I belive we need some info on this culture!Enlil Ninlil09:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone else feel that the original cultures of the Carribean should be included in this template? I think it makes perfect sense. --71.58.151.14418:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are they the "main" ones? Perhaps "largest civilizations at time of European contact," but certainly not the "main" ones. Does that label need to be there at all? I'll take it off and see how it looks.Fishal 02:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)INCA PEOPLE RULE!!!!!!—Precedingunsigned comment added by71.174.3.23 (talk)18:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This template is getting to big to be useful. I think it should have collapsible sections to adress this problem.Sietecolores (talk)16:10, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Template-Class Archaeology pages
• NA-importance Archaeology pages
• NA-Class Indigenous peoples of North America pages
• NA-importance Indigenous peoples of North America pages
• WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America articles