| Author |
Mexican provinces |
SolarMegalith
Joined:
21-06-2008
Messages: 167
from Bielsko-Biała/University of Durham
 OFF-Line
|  Posted 10-10-2010 at 15:20
Mainly thanks to davidmorgan we already have a quite good map of Pre-Columbian sites in Mexico. However, there are no states (provinces) for Mexico added while submitting new sites - how about adding it ?
Here's the list of Mexican states:
Aguascalientes
Baja California
Baja California Sur
Campeche
Chiapas
Chihuahua
Coahuila de Zaragoza
Colima
Distrito Federal
Durango
Guanajuato
Guerrero
Hidalgo
Jalisco
Mexico
Michoacan de Ocampo
Morelos
Nayarit
Nuevo Leon
Oaxaca
Puebla
Queretaro de Arteaga
Quintana Roo
San Luis Potosi
Sinaloa
Sonora
Tabasco
Tamaulipas
Tlaxcala
Veracruz-Llave
Yucatan
Zacatecas
If you decide to add it I will make a list joining each site which we have on our portal with a proper state.
Best regards 
 Profile
 Reply
|
Andy B
Joined:
13-02-2001
Messages: 7000
from Surrey, UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 10-10-2010 at 15:57
Thanks, that's an awfully long list! Are there antiquities in most of these states or could we simplify it a bit? Or are there any larger 'groupings' that we could sensibly use.
Profile
 Email
Reply
|
SolarMegalith
Joined:
21-06-2008
Messages: 167
from Bielsko-Biała/University of Durham
OFF-Line
| Posted 10-10-2010 at 17:20
OK, here's my choice of states with largest number of important Pre-Columbian monuments, or where some particulary interesting sites are:
Campeche
Morelos
Oaxaca
Tabasco
Chiapas
Veracruz
Yucatan
Quintana Roo
Zacatecas
Puebla
Tamaulipas
Hidalgo
Estado de Mexico
Tlaxcala
Guerrero
Michoacan
[ This message was edited by: SolarMegalith on 2010-10-10 17:36 ]
[ This message was edited by: SolarMegalith on 2010-10-10 17:38 ]
Profile
Reply
|
SolarMegalith
Joined:
21-06-2008
Messages: 167
from Bielsko-Biała/University of Durham
OFF-Line
| Posted 10-10-2010 at 17:42
by the way, I see that many sites have already got a name of state at the beginning of the article - should I make just the list of those which do not, or a general list would be more helpful ?
Profile
Reply
|
davidmorgan
Joined:
23-11-2006
Messages: 1603
from The New Forest
OFF-Line
| Posted 10-10-2010 at 17:50
At one time I thought the Turkish sites could do with this but there are 80 provinces there and I don't think it's really necessary.
Why do you think that Mexico needs them? Is it to make it easier to find the sites?
Profile
Reply
|
Andy B
Joined:
13-02-2001
Messages: 7000
from Surrey, UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 10-10-2010 at 18:00
OK that's done, I'll get back to you shortly as to how to edit them
Profile
Email
Reply
|
SolarMegalith
Joined:
21-06-2008
Messages: 167
from Bielsko-Biała/University of Durham
OFF-Line
| Posted 10-10-2010 at 18:12
Thank you Andy
Quote:
|
On 2010-10-10 17:50, davidmorgan wrote:
Why do you think that Mexico needs them? Is it to make it easier to find the sites?
|
|
To some extent it does, as you can click on name of the state and that selects the sites from this state.
[ This message was edited by: SolarMegalith on 2010-10-10 18:12 ]
Profile
Reply
|
Andy B
Joined:
13-02-2001
Messages: 7000
from Surrey, UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 10-10-2010 at 19:47
I think we should aim to subdivide all countries eventually but I think too many subdivisions makes it more confusing not less.
Profile
Email
Reply
|
bat400
Joined:
10-04-2006
Messages: 1332
from South Central Indiana, US
OFF-Line
| Posted 11-10-2010 at 04:15
When I've entered sites in the US and Mexico, I've attempted to enter the "state" in the first line of text. In the US, I've generally listed the state and county, since many historical records in the US are grouped by county organizations.
In general, I agree with Andy - that until there are many site listings, to group by state or province is possibly overkill, but if the choices are there, I'll certainly use them.
Profile
Reply
|
Main News