Talk:Río Bec

Article split

IMO we are in need of at least two articles here- one for the actual site of Rio Bec itself (although the present article contains hardly anything about it), and one on the architectural style. There could also be scope for a third, that of the surrounding archaeological region which is also termed Rio Bec, which is almost but not quite synonymous with the arch. style. Am undecided on the best course for naming these, however - Rio Bec (Maya site), Rio Bec (Maya architecture), Rio Bec (Maya region)...? Any other suggestions?--cjllw | TALK 02:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree with appropriateness of a split (though at present we are unfortunately lacking in a good description of the site). "Rio Bec (Maya site)" seems in line with what we've been doing recently. I guess other possibilities for "Rio Bec (Maya architecture)" might include something like "Rio Bec style" (short-- is there anything else this might be confused with?) or "Rio Bec (architectural style)". I hadn't thought we needed an article for the region as well, but perhaps that would be useful. If so, a maybe a seperate article for the Puuc region in addition to the architectural style as well? Pondering, -- Infrogmation 02:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

In general, I think it would be (eventually) useful to have articles dedicated to various Mesoamerican cultural/geographical subregions. For the Maya regions for example, we could separately describe at least the differences between the northern lowlands/Yucatan penn., central or (southern) lowlands/Peten, and Maya highlands subregions, which all have their own distinctive characteristics and histories. There'd be scope also for a more granular division, such as Rio Bec, Puuc, Chenes, Chiapas highlands, Usamacinta and Pasion valleys, etc which also have their distinctive aspects. But I've not really thought about it much more than that, and am undecided on how these should be named and what is the best way to identify what they should be, and it's probably not a priority at the moment.

For this case I think that we at least need separate articles on the Rio Bec site and the arch. style. Maybe we could leave the coverage of the arch. style at plain ol' Rio Bec, and have the site at Rio Bec (Maya site)? Would have to think a little more on what or whether to have article on the region.

For Puuc, I think we could have Puuc as the style and something like Puuc hills or Puuc (region) or whatever, since Puuc style or influence may be found not only at sites in that region itself. Thoughts?--cjllw | TALK 04:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Río Bec. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040822231216/http://www.mexicoweb.com/travel/zcamruni.html to http://www.mexicoweb.com/travel/zcamruni.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:53, 20 December 2017 (UTC)