User talk:Simon Burchell/Archive 18

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Simon Burchell. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

The article Spanish conquest of Honduras you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Spanish conquest of Honduras for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Auntieruth55 -- Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	Thanks for copyediting Disappearance of Federico Tobares! Not sure if you have this barnstar already, but it is definitely well deserved. If you can, spread the WikiLove to someone else you think deserves it! Happy editing, ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 22:35, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 07:53, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

On 12 May 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Pedro de Portocarrero (conquistador), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that conquistador Pedro de Portocarrero founded the first Spanish colonial town within the territory of the modern Mexican state of Chiapas? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Pedro de Portocarrero (conquistador). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Pedro de Portocarrero (conquistador)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Mifter (talk) 04:23, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

On 18 May 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Guaytán, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that fragments of ancient Maya books have been recovered from the ruins of Guaytán in Guatemala? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Guaytán. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Guaytán), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:05, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

On 30 May 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Spanish conquest of Honduras, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that infighting among the conquistadors hindered the Spanish conquest of Honduras? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Spanish conquest of Honduras. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Spanish conquest of Honduras), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Mifter (talk) 00:01, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

On 14 June 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Spanish conquest of El Salvador, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that during the Spanish conquest of El Salvador, the Spanish town of San Salvador was destroyed by natives within a year of being founded by Gonzalo de Alvarado? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Spanish conquest of El Salvador. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Spanish conquest of El Salvador), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Mifter (talk) 00:43, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 22, April-May 2017

• New and expanded research accounts
• Global branches update
• Spotlight: OCLC Partnership
• Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you voted on (2 RfCs, actually, one less than six months ago and another a year ago). The new RfC is at:

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Allow private schools to be characterized as non-affiliated as well as religious, in infobox?

Specifically, it asks that "religion = none" be allowed in the infobox.

The first RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:

• 15 June 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

The result of that RfC was "unambiguously in favour of omitting the parameter altogether for 'none' " and despite the RfC title, additionally found that "There's no obvious reason why this would not apply to historical or fictional characters, institutions etc.", and that nonreligions listed in the religion entry should be removed when found "in any article".

The second RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:

• 31 December 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion in infoboxes.

The result of that RfC was that the "in all Wikipedia articles, without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the Religion= parameter of the infobox.".

Note: I am informing everyone who commented on the above RfCs, whether they supported or opposed the final consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:22, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Spanish conquest of El Salvador you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Auntieruth55 -- Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:42, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

The article Spanish conquest of El Salvador you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Spanish conquest of El Salvador for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Auntieruth55 -- Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:02, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Simon, I do not agree with the archaeologists of INAH (I am sure, neither would David Stuart, Richard Hansen, Bill Saturno, Ian Graham, et al.) but I totally agree with you in undoing my revision.

Still, there persists a problem:

In the second paragraph, the last sentence ("Toniná possesses...") seems to contradict the first few lines of same paragraph (could a part be taller than the whole?).

May I suggest

• (A) fixing the 71m/74m controversy to 75m
• (B) replacing the last sentence with a new paragraph, ...

• either (B1) Toniná possesses one of the tallest structures (multiple temples and staircases built on the slope of a hill) in Mexico; at 75 metres (246 ft) in height, it is taller than the Pyramid of the Sun at Teotihuacan.^[1][2][3]
• or (B2) Archaeologists from INAH ^[4] have defined a large group of terraces, staircases, monuments and temple pyramids as "La Gran Pirámide" of Toniná.^[5] According to this criteria, this would make it one of the largest pyramids in Mexico; at 75 metres (246 ft) in height, it is taller than the Pyramid of the Sun at Teotihuacan.^[6][7]

Note: I prefer option (B2).

Cordially,

Saludos desde Coyoacán CdMx, Wkboonec (talk) 07:43, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Wkboonec:, there was a bunch of recent news reports about this. When it was first inserted into the page, my first instinct was to revert the claim of largest pyramid, but a bit of poking around backed this up - even though I think the news releases coming out of the Toniná archaeological project over the past few years have been over-hyped. A nice illustration can be found at news.com.au - and it wouldn't be the first Mesoamerican pyramid to have been mistaken for a natural hill. When I visited the site years ago, it certainly looked like a terraced hill, but the recent excavations seem to be turning this on its head - and it may well actually be a large pyramid with a whole bunch of stuff built on top, which has its own precedents in the Maya area, in the form of the triadic pyramid complexes of the preclassic. Putting an exact height on it seems problematic at the moment, given the varying estimates, perhaps it would be best to say "over 70m tall". There is no rush, and it might be safest to leave as is for the time being, until archaeological reports start being properly published, rather than relying on press reports, which may well be geared towards promoting the site for tourism and securing further funding for the archaeological project. All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 15:02, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Simon: Toniná is quite an extraordinay and impressive site, even without what I believe to be "extraordinary claims" (so far, still without the required evidence). I can't begin to imagine that the topmost temple-pyramid of Toniná is sitting under anything other than the hillside, aside from some cosmetics. I like to think that the INAH people didn't mean what came out on the press; and that afterwards, they prefered to remain silent and not try to clarify their statements. Hopefully, the hype will be of benefit for the region (you must be well aware of the EZLN uprising in 1994) and this matter will clear itself away, vanishing harmlessly.

P.S. By the way, if you haven't seen it already, you may want to see Richard Hansen's talk at the Library of Congress (2014): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kE8BNer2H3k

Saludos, Wkboonec (talk) 03:12, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi again. I climbed aboard Google Earth and flew over and around the temple of the "Espejo Humeante del Cielo" in "Zona Arqueológica de Toniná". No way there's a man-made 50-meter whatever under it. I don't think that Wikipedia should be stating those claims as fact - Wikipedia should, in any case, state that "according to INAH archaeologists, ...". Cheers,Wkboonec (talk) 00:47, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Wkboonec. A few points here - we don't need to say "according to INAH archaeologists", because this is already cited to INAH as a source, and is redundant. We must refer back to published reliable sources, and INAH is a reliable source, whether we agree with it or not - they have produced plenty of solid research - until we can find a more recent rebuttal of the claim in an equally reliable source. We certainly can't rely on a Google Earth flyby to source the article - which strays perilously close to original research (the dangers of that are painfully evident over at K'àak' Chi'). I think we should let it stand for now, in due course the archaeological reports will hopefully become available, and become subject to analysis and review. All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 15:24, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

On 22 July 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Spanish conquest of Nicaragua, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that within 100 years of the Spanish conquest of Nicaragua, the native population had been all but eliminated by a combination of newly-introduced disease, the slave trade, warfare, and mistreatment? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Spanish conquest of Nicaragua. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Spanish conquest of Nicaragua), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih^Talk 12:28, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

On 8 August 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Nicarao people, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the extinct Nicarao people of pre-Columbian Nicaragua shared many cultural traits with the Aztecs of Mexico, including their calendar, screenfold books, and human sacrifice? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Nicarao people. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Nicarao people), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:03, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 23, June-July 2017

• Library card
• User Group update
• Global branches update
• Spotlight: Combating misinformation, fake news, and censorship
• Bytes in brief

Chinese, Arabic and Yoruba versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:03, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi there! I saw you listed under Wikipedia:Mentoring for FAC#Mentors, and hoped that I could ask you about three articles that have just passed GA. The real question is whether they have a shot at becoming FAs? They are all relatively short articles on minor subjects, yet cover all the literature on each.

1. Guilden Morden boar
2. Tjele helmet fragment
3. Gevninge helmet fragment

Thanks for any feedback! --Usernameunique (talk) 18:04, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Usernameunique, I will see if I have time to look at these later today. All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 10:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

@Usernameunique: Sorry, I haven't had much time, I had a quick look through the boar article, I think it could use a paragraph upon the role of boars in Anglo-Saxon culture, but otherwise it looks very good. I see it is already up at FAC, unfortunately I won't have time to go through it in detail for at least a couple of weeks - but given the pace of review, it is likely to still be around and I will see what I can do to review it. Simon Burchell (talk) 10:35, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

With the Tjele helmet fragment, again some context would be good, a little bit about the culture that produced it, and the warrior class that used helmets. At the moment it seems to almost exist in a vacuum. The Gevninge helmet article is a little better in this respect, but still, a summary of who would be expected to own or use helmets in their culture would be good, and how common they were. The Gevninge helmet article indicates that it was a prestige item, so probably not that common. They are all fine articles, and the Gevninge helmet in particular could potentially pass FA with a bit of work. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 10:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thankyou for your participation in the challenge series or/and contests. In November The Women in Red World Contest is being held to try to produce new articles for as many countries worldwide and occupations as possible. There will be over $4000 in prizes to win, including Amazon vouchers and paid subscriptions. If this would appeal to you and you think you'd be interested in contributing new articles on women during this month for your region or wherever please sign up in the participants section. The articles done may also count towards the ongoing challenge. If you're not interested in prize money yourself but are willing to participate and raise money to buy books about women for others to use, this is also fine. Help would also be appreciated in drawing up the lists of missing articles. If you think of any missing articles please add them to the sub lists by continent at Missing articles. Thankyou, and if taking part, good luck!♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:49, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I put the comment in about American English because under WP:ENGVAR the article should use in the dialect in which it is originally written - in this case, American English. This can help when British English chauvinists come by and start to rewrite it as British English. Although this rarely happens, putting the comment in can help avoid this.

I know that many mayanists use the proleptic Gregorian calendar. Since this as an astronomy article, I hope editors will use astronomical dating. Use of the the proleptic Gregorian calendar and the Thompson correlation is a real nightmare for people trying to study the Maya calendar and Maya astronomy. The astronomical system of dating and the GMT correlation reflect mainstream scholarship on these subjects.

Also this is a rough partly-finished draft article so be patient. I'll get back to adding the rest soon. Senor Cuete (talk) 15:30, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I think I jumped the gun on that, and undid my edit. You're doing good work on it, and I'll hold off (and I'm not in the habit of changing established English varieties). I doubt I will get around to doing much work on the article anyway - I've long had half an eye on it, but there are plenty of other articles clamouring for my attention! All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 15:33, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I have all of the references about his and have programmed my computer to do the astronomical calculations based on Meeus, although I use a commercial program to study this. I've checked it and it does the calculations right. Checking the calendar conversions and dates of astronomical events in books about the Maya is a horrible experience. They're almost all wrong - a casualty of the proleptic Gregorian calendar and bogus correlation constants. I'll try to write a complete and accurate article. At some point I'll name the references, etc. Senor Cuete (talk) 15:58, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 24, August-September 2017

• User Group update
• Global branches update
  • Star Coordinator Award - last quarter's star coordinator: User:Csisc
• Wikimania Birds of a Feather session roundup
• Spotlight: Wiki Loves Archives
• Bytes in brief

Arabic, Kiswahili and Yoruba versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your collaborative efforts. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:MX submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

Simon Burchell's work speaks for itself! 155 DYKs, 7 FAs, 22 GAs, and much more! He works extremely hard and is a team-player. He specializes in Mesoamerican articles (mostly for Guatemala and Mexico). He also creates maps and uploads free images to improve this encyclopedia. I've followed his work for years, but I first came in contact with him when he reviewed an article I promoted to DYK. Most editors will review an article without thorougly going thru it and copyediting along the way, but Simon Burchell made several fixes. And for that I appreciate him too! He's a pleasure to work with and I'm happy to have Wikipedia celebrate him for a week!

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}

Project Mesoamerica

Simon Burchell

Editor of the Week for the week beginning December 3, 2017

A hard working team-player. Focuses on Mesoamerican (Guatemala and Mexico). Creates maps and uploads free images. Reviews DYK articles, copyediting and fixing along the way.

Recognized for

155 DYKs, 7 FAs, 22 GAs

Submit a nomination

Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7 ☎ 15:01, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Congratulations, Simon, this is definitely well deserved! Vanamonde (talk) 16:04, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Wow, thanks! Simon Burchell (talk) 17:34, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Simon Burchell. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Simon, thanks for your help with the hills of West Sussex. I've restored the two parent peaks, however, in line with the sources. A parent isn't necessarily a nearby summit; it could be the other side of the country. So, for example, the parent of Scafell Pike is Snowdon. Mark Jackson, among others, has produced detailed lists of peaks in Britain and their parents. Cheers. --Bermicourt (talk) 19:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Bermicourt. Perhaps the the parent peak concept being used should be added as a note to the article, and certainly linked there. I would assume that the parent is the neighbouring higher hill of which it is an offshoot. It is not at all obvious why a parent of a peak in West Sussex should be in Somerset, or the other side of the Weald... All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 17:30, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 25, October – November 2017

• OAWiki & #1Lib1Ref
• User Group update
• Global branches update
• Spotlight: Research libraries and Wikimedia
• Bytes in brief

Arabic, Korean and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Simon,
would you please explain why you undid my correction of the caption under the chacmool image? The Maya did not know it before the Toltec invasion. The issue has been discussed largely in books on Mesoamerican archaeology, e.g. by Michael Coe. The very iconography of this idol is not Mayan by origin, if you compare it with Mayan statues, pictures and stone carving.
I know that Mexican tourist authorities are currently promoting the archaeological ancestry of Yucatan / Quintana Roo as "Mayan", having in mind engagement of the local Yucatec Mayan population in the tourist business. However, why should the Mexican policy influence Wikipedia?
Regards, Dmitri Lytov (talk) 22:19, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi - the nature of the relationship between Toltec Tula and Maya Chichen Itza is unclear, and the subject of much discussion. There is certainly no clear evidence of a Toltec invasion or occupation. If you read the dating and origin section, there are no clear central Mexican antecedents for the chacmool figure, however there is an argument that it developed out of Maya iconography. There were parallel rapid developments in both cities, and recent dating evidence undermines the idea that the Toltec invaded Chichen Itza. The arguments will no doubt continue for decades; in the meantime Chichen Itza is without a doubt a Maya site (albeit with strong central Mexican influence in some architectural groups), the sculpture produced at Chichen Itza was produced in a Maya context, it is therefore more accurate to describe the sculpture as Maya, rather than attributing it to a hypothetical and contested Toltec occupation. Note I am not influenced by Mexican policy, but rather by research on the subject. The very idea of a Toltec empire has crumbled in recent decades, and the concept of Toltec was misinterpreted in early research. Simon Burchell (talk) 23:24, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of San Clemente, El Petén at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:09, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

On 2 January 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Pascual Abaj, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Pascual Abaj (pictured), near Chichicastenango in Guatemala, is a sculpted stone idol that survived the Spanish conquest but was badly damaged in the 1950s by religious activists? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Pascual Abaj. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Pascual Abaj), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello. I just finished reading the Pascual Abaj article you created and I just wanted to thank you for writing an interesting article on a fascinating topic :) and congrats for the DYK! Happy new year! ♠TomasBat 01:22, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you - Happy New Year! Simon Burchell (talk) 07:55, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I second that message. Glad to see it got the lead hook. — Maile (talk) 13:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Simon Burchell (talk) 13:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

On 13 January 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article San Clemente, El Petén, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the ancient Maya ruins of San Clemente, El Petén, in Guatemala include a two-storey palace structure and two Mesoamerican ballcourts? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/San Clemente, El Petén. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, San Clemente, El Petén), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 26, December – January 2018

• #1Lib1Ref
• User Group update
• Global branches update
• Spotlight: What can we glean from OCLC’s experience with library staff learning Wikipedia?
• Bytes in brief

Arabic and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Precious

Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:33, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Simon Burchell. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.