Talk:Machu Picchu/Archive 1

GPS

Anyone know the GPS coordinates of Machu Picchu? That could be added to the article. --Toric 10:41, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Google Map link: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=-13.156388889,-72.539444444&spn=0.076218,0.125313&t=k&hl=en

But if you type in "Machu Picchu" in the same page, it shifts the page slightly. That URL corresponds to 13deg9min South, 72deg32min West, which is what is now given in the page text and the map image. The Japanese page which is the source of the map image clearly says 13deg7min and 72deg35min - how did this change in the conversion from Japanese to English?

The differing coordinates reflect the current inhabited place Machupicchu, near the ruins of Machu Picchu. On one geographic names database, it lists the ruins as 13 09 00 S / 72 31 00 W, and the settlement as 13 07 00 S / 72 31 00 W. The people who run the gift shops gotta live somewhere. Meateatingvegan 21:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Area

How much area does this place take up? It's hard to tell from the pictures. 64.216.217.244 03:37, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

The "city" area itself is not more than 2 or 3 acres. It is really not that large, but still an unbelievable experience to be there.Galen13

Resectioning?

Just thinking that once the translation is finished the article would probably benefit from some resectioning. -- Rune Welsh ταλκ 16:09, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

• I concur, but as you suggest, let's translate first. At the very least there is redundant information in the preface from the original English article. --Jacob 16:37, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

So the original English part of the article will be completely removed once the Spanish translation is done? --Dynamax 17:29, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

In addition to redundancies, the English article definitely does contain information which the Spanish does not, e.g. the fact that the locals that led Bingham to the site were Quechuans. So resectioning should include re-integrating this information. Desultor 20:26, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. --Jacob 22:15, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Images

I'm not sure on the procedure. (Do we upload them to the commons then delete from es?) But, should we move all the images to wikicommons and use them in both the es and en pages? --Jacob 16:45, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Can we get a non Japanese map like this? http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%94%BB%E5%83%8F:LocMap_of_WH_Machu_Picchu.png

I could probably edit the Japanase one. I'll get around it tomorrow once I get back to my own computer. -- Rune Welsh ταλκ 23:34, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Done -- Rune Welsh ταλκ 22:21, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Apart from the GPS coords changing from the Japanese, why has most (but not quite all) of the water changed colour? And the dot for Cusco removed?

The German wiki de:Machu_Picchu provides similar (albeit quoting different "seconds") accuracy in the coordinates (which are not exclusively "GPS" but properly just geographic coordinates, which were around much earlier than GPS). Reliability of Google Earth's coordinates is still being debated ([1] specially at high zoom, which is where I suspect the Japanese image got its coordinates from, and so I'd rather not use them. If you convert the decimal grades these kids at MIT obtained using GPS during a class project you'll realise they're closer to what I quote in the map.

Removing the dot for Cuzco was an oversight on my part, given that I don't read Japanese and didn't have a clue of the city's location back then (I had a pretty good idea of where Lima is). Changing the color of the water was not, and in fact I like more that way. As far as I could see all the water had been changed to the new color. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 23:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

You're right, they're not GPS coordinates :) But I'd noticed that UNESCO give slightly different coords (http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/274 says S13 7 W72 35) and thought there must have been a reason to change them from the Japanese source. or at least state the new source. I also thought that as the page mentioned Cusco/Cuzco it would be good to see it on the map too. About the colour of the water, there are just some parts of Lake Titicaca by the Bolivian border which escaped the change.

--80.100.166.63 19:52, 25 September 2005 (UTC) I changed the picture Machu-Picchu.jpg for a high res one taken with better light conditions (early morning)from a better position and there are no people on this picture. more suitable!

Very useful, Maybe how it is defended perhaps?

--69.148.235.225 16:42, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

external links

I have removed a number of the external links, most of which were links to collections of photos taken by visitors. The Web is awash in M-P photos, and there were so many links that it made it hard to spot the useful ones that added new information. I've also done some trims and edits, such as removing the paragraph about Wayna Pichu, which said nothing ... the translation from Spanish still needs work. - DavidWBrooks 23:16, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

The NYT article, although interesting, requires registration to read it. Is this external link OK to include? 193.134.254.145 11:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

small fixes

I've made a couple of minor fixes to the article. Namely, the distance from Cusco to Machu Picchu was correct in the intro, but not in the location section, as was the altitude. I fixed both. The location section is largely redundant information, and should be removed if anyone feels so inclined. The inca road system section is rather confusing, and probably needs someone who knows the facts to redo it, but I linked it to the main article, and added a link to the inca trail as well.

--User:The Ostrich 18:39, 5th January 2006 (Peru Time)

I was just in Peru, and did the Inca Trail to Machu Picchu. I can assure you that the train does NOT get there from Cusco, but from Ollantaytambo. You have to take a bus from Cusco to O. then you take a train to Aguas Callentes, then you take a bus to the MP site.

The train does go from Cusco to Machu Picchu. The train stops in Poroy, Ollantaytambo and Aguas Calientes. Then the bus to MP.

Points of Interest

I was hoping that somebody could add a section giving more detail about the various archeological points of interest. The article mentions a few, including the Temple of the Sun and the Room of the Three Windows but does not go into any detail about each. I could do some research and try to add it myself, but I just wanted to check if anyone out there already had the knowledge. Thanks. --Sarfa 20:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

It takes an archaeologist

I wanted to get everyone's persmission before changing a couple things in this article. I am an archaeology major (note that "archaeology" has an a in it, and although the alternate spelling omits the a, we prefer to spell it this way) specializing in Andean archaeology who actually visited Machu Picchu this summer. I need to point out that the part that says that this was the "Zapa Inca's resting place" is rather redundant. "Sapa Inca" (not Zapa Inca) means the "head Inca" or in this case, the Inca Emperor, not a specific name of one of the Inca Emperors. In a section above where this is written, someone had said that Machu Picchu was built by Pachacuti, which is true, but it should be stressed that Pachacuti built it for his own use. Pachacuti was known for his expansion of the Inca Empire and by his numerous building projects. The fact that Machu Picchu is not a fortress, nor fortified at all besides being high up and hard to get to, needs to be added. For examples of Inca fortresses, see Sacsahuaman in Cuzco. That is how Inca fortifications look. Not like Machu Picchu. In my classes, I was told that Pachacuti used Machu Picchu as a sort of resort, or hunting lodge, for his own pleasure (it is located in lush surroundings, unlike most of the Inca Empire, so it would have been a nice retreat for Pachacuti, where he could have grown foods on the terraces and hunted in the surrounding areas). Reread the History section and the Sanctuary Section, and you will see the conflicts. I agree with the History section, and have many problems with the Sanctuary Section.

"Inside the citadel existed a sector assigned as the jail, where the prisoners were punished inside rock niches." - Who wrote this? And what evidence did you have? I have no idea what you are talking about.

In the section on Inca stoneworking, I would like to add a bit about the Inca's use of rounded stone walls due to the fact that one of the only two instances that the Inca ever used curved stone masonry is here at the Torreon (the other instance is the Coricancha in Cuzco). The Torreon is above what the article currently calls the "Royal Mausoleum". Quote: "The Monumental Mausoleum is a stone block with a vaulted interior and carved walls. It was used for rites or sacrifices." This name was given to the area under the Torreon by Hiram Bingham because he found Inca mummies in it. So yes, it is possible that is was a burying place, but the "sacrifices" mentioned in the article are completely erroneous. I have pictures of this, if anyone wants to include them.

Finally, would it be helpful to include a paragraph about how to go about visiting Machu Picchu? How to get train tickets, when to go, how much everything costs, etc?

Thanks, let me know. —This unsigned comment was added by 168.122.202.244 (talk • contribs) .

You don't have to ask permission. Just be bold and change it. Unfortunately, you are way more qualified than most of the people who edit Wikipedia. The last bit about visiting Mach Picchu might encroach upon Wikitravel's territory, but a simple paragraph seems fine. Thanks, and welcome! —Keenan Pepper 12:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed - your contributions sound excellent. I would not go into detail about how to visit MP - even though the Inca road system article includes far too much about the four-day hike - as it's not really suitable here.

Why not create an account before you do your edits? You can stay completely anonymous, but it helps people keep track of who has done what - so that if some no-nothing comes along and argues with you, folks can see who they are disputing with. - DavidWBrooks 12:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your support!! I'll go ahead and change a bit then, hopefully soon, (busy with school and such). LinaInverse 19:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Yale Dispute

I corrected this entry as it had several misconceptions:

1.- The problem is between the peruvian government and Yale University, Hiram Bingham's motives have never been questioned.

2.- There is no re-assesing going on within the government, simply a change of administration which will naturally delay proceedings.

3.- Yale University (through Bingham) borrowed the artifacts from the peruvian government, and signed documentation states that they would be returned at the peruvian government's request, which Yale has failed to do; there is no document that passes ownership to Yale.

Hdezela

GA

It is as well done as the others in GA before it. Well done. Zoli Elo 02:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

pronunciation

How do you pronounce Machu Picchu?

http://www.onelook.com/?loc=bm3&w=Machu%20Picchu --Espoo 13:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Economic impact

An article in the latest copy of Minerva states the tourism industry around this archeological site is the second largest industry in the country -- after mining. Any ideas how much income this would be? Any ideas about how to introduce this fact into the article -- after all, for many countries archeological tourism represents a fairly sizeable (& a non-polluting) source of income & should be mentioned whenever the facts can be provided & verified. -- llywrch 04:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Consistent nomenclature

The Incas distinguished between coastal roads and mountain roads, the former was called Camino de los llanos (road of the levels) and the latter was called Cápac Ñam.

What is the Incan name for "Camino de los llanos?" Seems poor form to mix languages in this context. El Mariachi 01:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Adding a photographic tour with info

Hi, I was asked to come here to ask about including my photo tour of Machu Picchu with quite a bit of info and orientation on that site. The pages are much-used, and many have written that it's useful to them. Please have a look at www.andrys.com/peru25.html and subsequent pages on the site to see if it might not be worth adding. What could be confusing on a quick look is that it's part of a trip to highlands of Peru, but I'm not linking to the rest of it. Thanks.

I vote no: The Web is full of photo trips of M-P and the Sacred Valley. If we start linking to them all, this page would quickly become a link farm. Nothing against your site and your photos. - DavidWBrooks 21:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind if it IS personal if you actually took the time to go look at it to see if it might be worth adding and then decided it isn't. It's not a personal type of trip diary and does have material that others have used as a guide while there, they've written (even while on their trips). I do understand your decision not to link to them "all" or even most of them but would appreciate your evaluating the pages. Looking at current ones of this category, it seems a reasonable request. Then if you decide against it, I do fully understand and will say no more. (I just learned how to use the 4 tildes.) Thanks.Atraveler 09:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Your photos are nice, you writeup fine, and the layout is very well done. But in the end, it's a travelogue, and the Web is full of them. After all, 500 people a day use the Inca trail alone, not counting the scads of bus visitors, and from what I've seen every one takes photos the whole way - and with tripjournal.com and other sites, lots of those end up on the Web. If we link to trip journals, we're in trouble! - DavidWBrooks 11:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks for taking the time, David. - Atraveler 10:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

David, I've a question on the ability to Edit in your section on "Photography" or 'Guides, Descriptions, Photography' in which you have included photo galleries.

I added a link to the non-travelogue version of my photos of and guide to Hiram Bingham's "sectors" at Machu Picchu, at http://www.pbase.com/andrys/machu .

These are just photographs uploaded as a gallery in 2004, showing where the more known and less known areas of Machu Picchu are, with regard to Bingham's assigned sectors.

The photos include areas that aren't the usual pics on the Net. I'm puzzled because any google search for "machu picchu photos" will show that the "travelogue" you didn't want is rated extremely high in interest for people looking for photographs with information. But I did understand your reasoning for not including any kind of travelogue even if impersonal and focused on the site.

However, the photo gallery I added this week is just photos with lots of information, while your 4th gallery "Machu Picchu Photos" is just a few photos with LOTS of ads. I honestly don't get it. I'm beginning to think you decide on a personal basis.

If you just decided to not include any more photo galleries whatsoever, you should just close the area and not offer it for editing. While I see the Diff-page with my addition, I didn't see any reason given for just removing it. I care because I did put a lot of work into making it useful and have found that most Peru sites have linked to it and said it was very useful -- without telling me or asking me. So it puzzles me you seem to find it even less useful than a gallery with 5 photos with Tons of ads.

I've understood your not wanting any kind of photodiary, even if an impersonal one. I just don't understand your removing, from "photography" the purely pbase-located photo guide to the scenes as they relate to "sectors" and showing what the visitor can expect to see all around the sites instead of just the usual stock shots). Atraveler 13:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

You're right that a group run by a bunch of volunteers doesn't always do a good job of being consistent, and that the gallery you point is pathetic and should be removed - in fact, I just removed two of them. Don't take it personally, though; that way lies madness. - DavidWBrooks 18:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you'd kept them while taking time to remove mine, alone, I -would- have had a reason to take it personally. Thanks for being more a bit more consistent. I think you ought to just call that area "Guides, Descriptions" and eliminate "Photography" so you don't get more trouble with the likes of some of us  :-) Atraveler 11:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Excellent thought. - DavidWBrooks 21:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Could somebody review the statement about a gas chamber? It appears to be totally insane. Thanks.

Obvious vandalism. I've removed it. - DavidWBrooks 22:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Machu Picchu?

The Spanish version of this article doesn't mention anything about this battle, nor did I ever hear of this in 12 years of attending school in Peru... can someone kindly point out the source for this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cuaya (talk • contribs) 15:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

I have removed it, after failing to find any reference in EB or elsewhere. It's embarrassing it remained here that long; I've certainly accepted it mindlessly. - DavidWBrooks 00:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Machu Picchu in fiction

Machu Picchu is a well known site and is likely to appear in many of places. That doesn't mean the appearance is significant or important. There are no citations in this section and "appears" and "is referenced" doesn't seem to be a good reason to list it here. I am going to remove the whole list. If there is something noteworthy to include, discuss it here and provide a source before including it. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 23:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion for Machu Picchu pages

I believe that Machu Picchu information can be much improved. Some material is good, however much is inaccurate with poor descriptions or just wrong. Some Information is referenced from little known and doubtful sources.

Machu Picchu deserves better. Knowledge about the Inca and Machu Picchu has increased immensely thanks to efforts of a number of dedicated researchers. In particular, the work of NGS explorer, Johan Reinhard, Burger and Salazar at Yale, Ken and Ruth Wright (Inca engineering and water studies) and the contribution of Peruvian archaeologists working continuously at the site. All pretty much agree on the major points of interpretation of Machu Picchu based upon accumulated archaeological evidence. A summary and details of the site should come from these credible published sources. For general interest, the pages should include travel, spiritual, mythological and other topics but in separate sections, not mixed with the scientific presentation.

When time permits, I would like to work on updating the Wikepidia information along with contributions from others. My own Machu Picchu/ Inca web page can be viewed at: www.adventurespecialists.org/machupicchu.html. Comments are welcome…Gary Ziegler

Sounds great - get to work! (Note: new comments go on the bottom of talk pages) - DavidWBrooks 16:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I have just now uploaded a new introduction statement for Machu Picchu. More to follow as time permits... Cheers, Gary Ziegler

If you're the anonymous IP who rewrote the introduction, I'm afraid it was much inferior, with less content and more chattiness, and in neither wiki nor encyclopedia style. I've reverted it. Maybe you'd like to put your proposed rewrite on this Talk page for discussion first. - DavidWBrooks 14:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Roads

From the article: The Incas distinguished between coastal roads and mountain roads, the former was called Camino de los llanos (road of the levels) and the latter was called Cápac Ñam. Well the mountain road name seems to be Quechua, Camino de los llanos is definately Spanish. The Incans did not speak Spanish. This needs to be changed, it implies either that Cápac Ñam is Spanish or that Camino de los llanos is Quechua. Does anybody know the Quechua name for the coastal roads? omnijohn 05:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I spotted that one as well! I have removed the last sentence of the first paragraph altogether. It was inaccurate, unreferenced, and didn't add anything to the article anyway. --194.176.105.40 12:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Roads Part II

The Inca had roads, but no wheel. This is a famous issue. Can anyone shed light on the usefulness of roads without wheels? I guess you could run messengers on foot, but there seems to be something else going on. Gautam ^Discuss 16:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Walking, running, carrying loads on lama-back - they're all much easier on a flat, graded, maintained surface designed along the contours of a hall, compared to scrambling along paths. They're still useful even without wheels - and without wheeled vehicles, they could be steeper, and even have stairs. - DavidWBrooks 17:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

By analogy, Roman roads were primarily for use by marching troops, not by wheeled traffic. A road is useful for rapid transit even if the traffic is not wheeled. A smooth even surface facilitates all kinds of movement, not just wheeled traffic. --APRCooper (talk) 10:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

70,000 People a Day

There is no way that number is right. I just got back from peak season and there were not 70,000 people on that peak.

Good point. Especially if the annual total is 400,000 (probably more now - that was 2000) then 70,000 a day is silly. Each bus carries, what, 50 people? Even with walkers and people staying at the hotel, that would be 1,400 roundtrips a day - not likely. I can't find the number referenced in the

footnotes, so I'm removing it. - DavidWBrooks 16:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

question

In the past several years I have read somewhere [possibly New Scientist] that parts of the site are subsiding or sliding down the slope of the mountain several centimeters a year and eventually a part of it will be lost. I haven't read any comment on this possible catastrophe and wonder if an archaeologist can comment on it and what measures are or can be taken to fix the problem. 209.86.73.243 02:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)John Nernoff III, M. D.

Scientist would have said somwething if they thought it was sliding. that place is like a world heritage site!!!!

Mudslides happen in the area: http://www.spiegel.de/reise/aktuell/0,1518,294954,00.html (german language) and tourism takes its toll https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,487232,00.html (there was even some speculation about the pressure being exerted by all those masses of people, sinking the ruins a bit) but there is no mention of them sliding anywhere.

Geology and Subsidence

The National Institute of Culture (INC) in cooperation with international organizations is conducting an on-going study. The main ridge based groups and features seem to be in no immediate danger. The Inca did a remarkable job of engineering foundations and drainage.( see Wright and Valencia). Intense seasonal rainfall does create unstable areas on the steep side slopes. Unless the Inca drainage systems are reconstructed and maintained, damage will continue to occur. Many of the lower and outlying groups have long been reduced to ruble and are just now being reconstructed by the INC.. For a more detailed discussion see my paper at: http://www.adventurespecialists.org/mpgeology.html

Gary Ziegler archaeologist

map to be included

I found this 2 maps in the spanish wiki, wonder if these could be placed here although text is in spanish --Andersmusician $ 02:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• 
• 

What kind the question is that? NOPE! you can use these maps because there are writing in Spanish. John Manuel-19:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

all right, what does everybody else think, are location well arraged so be could translate these into spanish?--Andersmusician VOTE 20:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The first one looks very good and should be easy to translate, it would make a great addition to the article. I'm not so sure about the second, it contains some interpretations about how the site was organized with no references to support them. For instance Hanan/Hurin and Urban zone/Rural zone. BTW, why are there two location maps in the article? Its redundant. One of them should be removed. I like the first one better as it is more detailed. What does everybody else think? --Victor12 21:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that both maps complement each other well. and balance the layout with that panoramic picture. Now, Hanan/Hurin what do you mean? Also I invite you to translate these maps. You can do it, it is a good idea. There are not military secrets per se. John Manuel-23:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

How do those maps complement each other? They seem redundat to me. Furthermore, they create a big blank space at resolutions higher than 800x600 --Victor12 00:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, Manan Cancho! different resolutions will affect everything, however, I made efforts to test it in four different monitors, and three different OSes and browsers (check yours, I use Firefox the most, [different engines]) at the following resolutions: 1600 by 1200px, 1280 by 1024px, 1280 by 768ps, 800 by 600px, they look just as fine, I use even higher resolutions and I have a set of Flats and CRTs, you probable should check your CRT or your graphic card or both. Now, to the question of complementing, it is obvious, one is location in terms of scale which is important for a sense of distance/time/size..., the other is the geographical coordinates, indispensable for GPS, navigational and orientation purposes. I put the first pic. one as well, it is from the CIA as you already might know. Notwithstanding, this lead me to the other true issue in this page, please read below. Johhn Manuel-11:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

There's no need for a second location map just for coordinates. They can be added to the first map or to the top of the article as is done in other UNESCO World Heritage Sites such as Stonehenge. As a matter of fact, the article already has the coordinates at the top so no need for redundancies. --Victor12 12:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes that is what they did in Stonehenge as a bad example I accepted. The coordinates on the top are used by a bot from Google earth, Now, I wonder how fast is your computer, but in any way it will take some time for loading Google earth even to a P2 3Ghz. Map Coordinates are the most reliable system for navigational and other purposes and the scale gives a clear idea for those who plan to travel or make an expedition. That has been the case very recently with one German Archaeologist that suggested me its inclusion, incredible as it sounds some reputable scientists are relying more and more on Wikipedia for somethings. Now, Visit the German version and you will find the map there too. Now, about overlapping it, the map will become so clouded and will look as ugly as the labels over that infamous Blue-map. (Visit the Peru's talk page article, I have posted my proposition about it). This issue has brought, the following to my old mind: It happens that an archaeologist in Peru, found many huacos, in within these were two identical ones, beautiful, "asa-puentes" with brilliant multicolors, as you might Remember: "Nazca: la de los mejores colores". A curator came for the house of Mujíca Gallo, and somehow in those times bought or acquired these set of huacos included the twins. Well, do you know what? they are not together any more, one is exhibiting somewhere in a museum in Peru and the other who knows where. We, who knew this were in dismay of such curatorial reasoning, what all this time took to create and was buried together with such care, talent and originality, was separated by the ineptitude of one greedy fellow curator. Of course the most probable cause was that with one Huaco, he thought it was enough to show the art and skill of the ancients, the other to sell and make money for other countries to enjoy. No regards for the intrinsic value of having two identical hand-made items made hundreds of years before him. Returning to the point having two things, in here maps, together: You perhaps could see this, sometimes it is not redundancy, it is talent converted in information, my dear weaponry aficionado. Talent that made Machu Picchu and hard work! Think then edit. Regards. John Manuel -13:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Please stick to the matter at hand, long posts are harder to follow. As for the coordinates you can even put them in the caption of the map or in the infobox. No need for a second location map just for coordinates. Maybe we should ask for a RfC on this one? --Victor12 13:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Please, I respect your way of communicating, stop to impose demands, I am not agree with you, I empathize with you, yes but by the same token, we are not here to take freedoms from anybody. Be nice and if you can't do this please do what you can for accepting differences. THINK THEN EDIT. Lets remember you of the following WP:Civility and WP:PA, Please made an effort to follow me. Or continue pretending that you can't. It is an idea not an imposition. We not need to appear insolent or provocative. My purpose is to improve this page. Restrict to this point or any comment that is positive or constructive. Regards. John Manuel-13:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

PD do not forget to clarify the HANA/HURIN comment, what do you really mean?

As the builders of Machu Picchu had long abandoned it when Bingham got there and there are no written records about how it functioned; we don't know how they organized the site. Divisions such as Hanan/Hurin and Urban/Rural as shown in the map are a matter of speculation. As such they should be sourced for verification purposes. --Victor12 12:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with you 100% on this one. Lets find those maps of the XVI century or documents over Machu Picchu at the time, for example, it seems that it was a tribunal about lands concerning the area in which this city is located and curiously the Incas won the decision of its favor and keep the lands. Do you know about this document (it is in Cusco). Besides, I know a diplomat that collects such things and document or know its where abouts, let me see, what else we can do about improving the veracity of these map translation, that I see you can and want to do it. Any idea? John Manuel -13:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

RFC

I'm here from the RFC. The second map is pointless and redundant. It provides no new information, and is less informative than other map. I deleted it per WP:BOLD, but an editor immediately reverted on the supposed grounds that I "didn't discuss on the talk page", though the reasons for the edit were explicitly stated in the edit summary, and are repeated here. THF 21:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Fine, but for the next time made your comment, a let the users involved to make the changes, in this case Victor12, of course that is the ideal way to do it in Wikipedia. Remember actions talk. thanks John Manuel-15:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Photo gallery

I removed what struck me as an overly large and repetitive photo gallery added by John Manuel, who apparently disagrees with my assessment, since he's returned it. So it's discussion time!

My point of view: at it now stands, the article has seven large photos and a map, plus three panoramas, which is a lot but justified by the imporance of MP (although too many panoramas, I think). Compare Angkor Wat, which has a similar amount of illustration.

The problem is the 27 - 27! - shots in the gallery, including a duplicate of the map and of the Inca wall, and three repetitive photos of the lama(s). Wikipedia is not a photo gallery; there are bazillions of photos of MP on the Web already, we don't need to duplicate them. The selection of large photos - including the 1911 photo added by John Manuel, which is fascinating - give readers a good sense of the appearance and functionality of the site. The gallery is overkill. - DavidWBrooks 16:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• First of all, I feel the spirit of cordiality and collaboration from you so. Congratulations and thanks for your explanations DavidWBrooks which I might not share but dearly respect, this is an example set on stone, for others. Here below is my position and my rationale for you and others. With respect.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by JohnManuel (talk • contribs) 12:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The Mole

Didn't the mole destroy this? AwkwardSporks 10:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

On The Common Use of Galleries in Our Articles

1. This is a page that it has been vandalized and also you might not be aware of that is highly disputed. Therefore we want to be careful with this article since we want to stop vandalisms and show that there are different ways to edit or contribute in here. Anyway we are doing this so lets continue.
2. An encyclopedia is many things for many people. But for the most part it serves as a point of fast and direct knowledge about things, places, animals, and of course people. Illustration is one of the most important parts of an Encyclopedia, soon we are going to include audio and videos and 3D spacial environments reenacting how these places might look like in their days (We are excited about too); all of what is not only feasible, it is necessary for our readers: Those readers that are at very early age and those who will never be able to travel or wish to have to travel to Machu Picchu. Well, it is my view as it is shared by many experts and all kind of folks that are interested in information delivery and education. I won't talk about mine or your background lets concentrate in the issue at hand: What is too much and who is able or ought to determine it you? me? everybody? anybody?
3. Visit the following sites, before you contemplate, hope with fresher eyes, this issue, Another version of the same subject same project different language ◙ evenly one more. Different subject now, but related to how to illustrate knowledge: Rembrandt and Vermeer, there are more... in this version of this encyclopedia. I thank those who made the galleries on these articles because, they have provided me tools and resources whereby I have better ways to related to these artists and their work and improve mine. Machu Picchu is experienced through its pictures. Can you see? could you see with the eyes of a 11 years old or with/through the eyes of a 80 year-old retired who is paraplegic and can not move but thinks and want to know and learn and enjoy and his/her only enjoyment is through his/her sight or hearing. I have a family member exactly like that, you should see him, that excitement! in his special and unique expression.
4. The holistic view. As Diderot and Voltaire understood the universalism of knowledge, lets remember the ultimate goal of Wikipedia: Embrace all human Knowledge. Remember: There are many sites on the Web but its encyclopedia is Wikipedia. Well I have coined the phrase and there are a lot of people who like it.

Conclussion: The gallery should state we could fix it, in terms of repetition and later we will expand it with multimedia resources. The primary goal is that by December 2008, Machu Pichu article will be one of the best articles in Wikipedia, with innovative experimental archaeological resources with the aim not only to inform, illustrate, captivate and attract but more importantly to educate its readers of different ages and academic backgrounds. John Manuel-"-Todos Llegan de Noche, todos se van de día" 17:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC) ◙ John Manuel-19:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

With an incredible 38 images (!) and only 11 citations, bringing this article up to WP:FA status is going to take a lot of work. --Kralizec! (talk) 22:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree woth DavidWBrooks and Kralizec!. Wikipedeia is neither a travel guide nor a coffee table book. Large galleries of images are inappropriate. IPSOS (talk) 23:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

IPSOS, your could be nicer this is a suggestion I am not documenting anything, remember WP:CV, I still didn't find any consensus in any page over the NSW issues; can you point to a real consensus, please? just put the link in this page, wouldn't you, Thanks. John Manuel-"-Todos Llegan de Noche, todos se van de día" 01:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

What does WP:CV have to do with there being too many images in the article's gallery? --Kralizec! (talk) 12:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I apologize, for not being clear, there are many ways to state your POVs, you can be rude without knowing it. I heard there are children in here an also elders. There are many cultures, and in these times of pride and war. We could, just if we want, to be a little nicer, we are all volunteers, the sense is collaboration. That is my take and I am writing to you. Now, who determines what is too much you? de jure or de facto, let me know? for now lets work on the content. Any good ideas? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JohnManuel (talk • contribs) 17:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I respect your take but can you do the same with the other users' views? So Many users from all over the world disagree with you, would you go and change the French and the Portuguese versions as well? Just try it, go get proof yourself right, show me or in this version, with the articles like Rembrandt or Veermer? There is nothing worst than the blind that doesn't want to see. What do you think? Incidentally, Wikipedia is not propelled by few POVs. Respect other people, the evidence is in the the galleries used in other articles in other pages: Remember illustration. Wait and see, nobody can brake the Wikipedia, certainly none these galleries have been done this for years. in regards to the citations, you will be amazed by the horrendous controversy and incredible amount of research that we have at hand, just be patient, Wikipedia was not made in one day or in seven months. You always can help by adding content, don't you? Curiously I haven't see that lately. Remember, by December 2007 and even if we won't get the FA status, we would get the A and that is an advance in the right direction, I am asking you to hold your horses for a while now. In addition the pictures are the best documentation. Appreciate what other versions and Wikipedia cultures are doing and have done well. Learning is a good idea, especially for those who are in training. John Manuel-01:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Just adding lots of pictures is not necessarily improving an article - it just makes it harder for people with slow Internet connections to read it. I don't see anything in any of the gallery shots that increases the understanding of MP for readers, to any great extent. - DavidWBrooks 12:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Exacty you and perhaps others too. I invite you to do the same request or better edit the Rembrandt article, lets us watch, or let me know when you take their galleries out of their articles. Look lets work in another areas for now, citations for example, its connection with Vilcabamba, and "victoria's secret", the last hideout of the incas. How Manco Inca and Tupac Amaru I were killed. Now that is important, David, just wait and see. I use 56k dial-up and I am fine with it. John Manuel-22:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

John, please rethink your attitude towards other editors. IPSOS (talk) 02:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Since DavidWBrooks, Agunther, and IPSOS were all reverted, this is starting to look like an WP:OWN issue to me. --Kralizec! (talk) 06:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to agree, John Manuel - when you start labeling disagreement as "irrational", as you did in your comments on the last time you returned the gallery, it sounds like you're taking this personally. There's nothing personal in editing wikipedia; it's people's opinions about the articles, not the other editors. There are three editors who think the gallery is excessive and not useful and only one who likes it - that's a pretty good consensus to remove it. - DavidWBrooks 11:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Yup, Wikipedia operates on consensus and the consensus appears to be that the gallery is excessive. Therefore, I've removed it again. IPSOS (talk) 13:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

OK Kralizec! (talk · contribs) make changes, correct? those well drastic changes, I think the layout looked worst than it was, but I didn't reverted, Also, I think that s/he did a fair good job with the gallery by modifying it a bit. I don't think that S/he opposes to the gallery that is why s/he modified in the first place. If you David called pretty good consensus to two or three guys be it, but still as I stated is your POV. If I have labeled it irrational was because the way in which IPSOS described his reversion: "better to link to open travel than put a huge gallery in the article" what this means? better advertising than have a good article? Explain me what kind of rationality is this and in here? If it is huge then as I have suggested and Kralizec! did it well, lets start to work together on it but not revert everything that has been done. That train of thought in MHO is not effective, but there are more from IPSOS but this is no the place to ventilate it. Remember no using reason is irrational, it just hard to accept it but very often decisions are made with partial understanding creating great damage to the self and others. Now, can we read together Consensus to understand what does really mean? and act upon this common understanding? There has been from the time of the gallery inclusion to the time of IPSOS reversion, more than five different users, none of which minded the gallery included Kralizec. But to show you my respect in the value of democracy I will leave this topic, stating that I strongly believe in collaborative efforts and giving the benefit of the doubt and ignoring what other people are doing in the interwiki, I will leave this subject alone, for some time, it does not mean that I will not fix content size or lay outs, by subject means the use of the gallery. About Agunther we are investigating. You know justice takes its time but it comes. Greetings, and continue enjoying the Wikipedia. However bear in mine that we have not reach consensus because you have ignore other participants and the interwiki contributions beside I strongly disagree for the reasons above mentioned, the gallery should state, what excessive means? No gallery, one picture, two pictures, three pictures, we can always fix it. Time will do anyway, you will see it. John Manuel-18:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The correct article to read about consensus on Wikipedia is Wikipedia:Consensus. IPSOS (talk) 18:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

John and David: I am not against picture galleries. I am a photographer and as such I do believe that a picture can say more then a thousand words. I am even considering making some of my personal photographic work available here (I have some very nice panoramas that could convey the sense of the place very well). I didn't want to get into a fight in any way and I don't see why I am "under investigation" and why "justice will come" to me. I do think that things are starting to get a bit personal, but I have learned not to take offense online as easily and often I need to swallow some dirt thrown at me. Such is the price of visibility. I have discussed it with John on my own talk page , arguing why I was called a vandal and why a topical link got removed and called spam. That doesn't mean I can't see John's point of wanting to keep the page clean. My stand on this is: I do like the Gallery and I have never said anything against having a Gallery. I have strongly objected the removal of the link (see paragraph below), but I have put this up for discussion rather than going into any edit wars. I do not know why this would call for justice to come to me or why this would be considered vandalism (I put the discussion up before making the edit and I never tried to undo any edits). So John, please do not try to drag me into this vendetta or whatever this is, and everyone else, I do like Johns idea of the pictures. John, if your offer still stands, I would much rather have you show me how to upload a few pictures to the Wikipedia gallery and I would like to see it back on the page. The linked article is more of a travel guide in itself and not a picture gallery and I see absolutely no reason why it shouldn't be linked either (but I leave that to the consensus and to the justice that will come to me).--Agunther 19:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Just for everybody's edification, the correct way to add quantities of photos to an article is to add them to Wikimedia Commons, then add a {{commons}} tag in the external links section. That way they are not in the article to slow down people with a slow connection, and they are easily accessible with a single mouse click. IPSOS (talk) 19:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't know that. Can you show me how? --Agunther 20:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

(de-indent) For reference, Kakadu National Park is -IMHO- an excellent example of an article that has many good pictures. Additionally, since the photos are all well integrated with the article's text, no gallery is needed. --Kralizec! (talk) 20:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I can see what you mean. Having seen the example I do believe it looks much better.--Agunther 20:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• Aghunther, I will respond in to your user talk page ASAP. For briefing in here, yes as I have explained to you, load them to commons with the object and sole purpose to use those pictures on the many pages of the many "InterWikied" projects of Wikimedia. If not the photos will go into an oblivious of zillions of bits saved on distant repository servers out there. Please, Click in the Another version of the same subject same project different language ◙ evenly one more to see how this photos of Commons are properly used, by experienced Wikipedians. Some users are just learning the ropes and are concentrating in rules that they seem to not understand very well. See this in this version Vermeer, Rembrandt, Raphael, Durer, Leonardo, Michaelangelo, in this version, this is the way to share your work with the rest of the world not with a little icon that few people really care for clicking and they so often neglect, people want for the most part instantaneous gratification. Time will tell you, also becareful, is not easy you need to understand very well the licenses of course clicking and selecting with the mouse is easy but to conceptualizing what are you giving away for free it is more, too far more important and in Commons there are various ways of releasing your work, but it also can be deleted without any compassion as you have been seen in here, if it were not properly documented or any other, issue. Other aspect even more, there are a lat of categories, Commons' sysops don't like orphans, believe me and remember your credits, well, also and again can go to the null in oblivion. Of course, it is reading time. Regards. John Manuel 21:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Consensus Last call

Lets put the gallery, see what is done in the French and in the Portuguese version, (links above) and in those artists versions, with the past of time you and I, will understand this much better. Stubbornness is not good idea. Lets give it a try. I would ask Krizilec! to put the gallery back as the way s/he fixed it before. Then we will select the best 20 to 15 pictures, we all vote once, for the photos that we would like, the official version would be the Krizilec! version for now, at most by the next week we will have Agunther pictures available to vote within the others and improve our gallery. Come on we can do it! Lets compromise on this, it is showing our Wikilove for real consensus as Wikipedians. I know we are able of kindness, what about if you do it only to show that you can overcome this deadlock kind of thing. I promise, we could work together and have it on our altogether special way and be proud of this mutual and communal action. Just do it Krizilec! you won't regret it neither any of us, certainly no the children let alone the enormous amount of readers. What are you losing by trying this gallery for a few weeks eh? You easyly could revert it anytime, as it has been done already many times. However, if we manage to get along and over this issue, we will have a positive and constructive action in which all of us had the honor of exposed their views but also had the decency and civility of observing the greatest good for Wikipedia by trying something that might not be of your taste but cannot hurt you either. Think in inclusion and normalization of the "InterWikipedias", sooner rather than later, this will come. I strongly belief that all of us in here can do it, and I have the feeling that at the end of the day, working together will be our best reward. It is rewarding already, friction is part of the equation in managing change and we certainly are. Then we should work and focused in the content of this article, well that was always my primary intention, until I thought wait a minute: illustration. OK Any ideas? Lets march forth. John Manuel--21:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose gallery. IPSOS (talk) 22:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• I am undecided. A link to the commons page as proposed by IPSOS makes sense when I think about it (one more thing I learned) but I liked how the gallery looked. Whatever consensus is fine with me. BTW, the link to the artist of the third panoramic leads to a parked domain full of ads. --Agunther 22:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Large galleries should be dedicated to Wikimedia Commons only, we should basically add images related to the context.--Andersmusician VOTE 19:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Another way to Spell It

What do you think? Britannica states as well as other sources, that Machu Picchu also can be spelled: Machupijchu. Let me know? John Manuel-01:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

why?

Why did the pictorial guide get removed? It took me a long time to compile that information and it has added to the MP a long time ago and stayed here for well over a year. Because of recent attention the page collected a lot of spam, but that shouldn't mean that everybody else should get removed too? I am talking about this link: A pictorial guide to Machu Picchu It's hardly a collection of pictures or spam. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Agunther (talk • contribs) 18:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

MP Height Above Sea Level

I think there is some confusion in expressing height. Most probably the height above sea level which is stated in meters should be the feet and vice versa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.106.222 (talk) 01:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Not unless it has changed since you wrote that; it says 2,430 meters (7,970 ft) - DavidWBrooks (talk) 02:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

To upload

http://www.flickr.com/photos/willposh/136699506/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.165.251.114 (talk) 17:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.87.201.242 (talk) 20:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

New Seven Wonders?

Why do we even mention the "New Seven Wonders". That is not even an official list. I think we should remove the mention in the introduction text. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.101.14.158 (talk) 13:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree entirely. It seems to be a promotion for some crazy gimmick poll, and is not a fact and does not mesh with other "Seven Wonders" sites that already exist. How could it be a New Seven Wonders when it is hundreds of years old? It is not a seven wonder, and if I were a registered user I would remove the reference.07:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's intro material certainly. I have removed it as no one has commented here to the contrary. Mfield (talk) 07:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

POV on Bingham Information

A lot of important information has been conveniently ignored:

1. During the first expedition in 1912, Peru's Civil Code of 1852, in effect at the time, permitted the finders of such artifacts to keep them. So those artifacts belong to Yale. A presidential decree authorizing Bingham’s excavation (but not superseding the authority of the civil code) contained a provision allowing him to bring the material to Yale for scientific study, and gave Peru the right to request him to return certain “unique” or “duplicate” objects, which it did not exercise in the ensuing period.

2. During the second expedition, in 1914-1915, Peru’s policies regarding archaeological discoveries had changed. As a result, the materials Bingham excavated during that expedition were loaned to Yale’s Peabody Museum of Natural History for a period of time and these items were eventually all returned to Peru after a delay due to World War I.

The text as it stands was obviously written from a Peruvian point of view and should be corrected. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.22.207 (talk) 23:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Real Name

I visited Machu Picchu last week and the guide said that Machu Picchu is probably not the real Inca Name of the city. The real name would be lost. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.41.176.58 (talk) 09:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

size of colossal stones

I've heard that Machu Pichu has used colossal stones that may be close to if not over 50 tons. One source was the history channel but I didn't note which show. Can anyone cite more specifics and a source?

thanks Zacherystaylor (talk) 04:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I went to Machu Picchu about a month ago and when i was talking to the guide he told me the total oppisite. He told me that the name has been the same ever since it was invented in 1911. So pretty much what i'm trying to say is your guide was full of it and i don't no if i can belive you about you going to Machu Picchu.

Go back and read it again, he said "real Inca name". i am unaware of any incas around in 1911.

Top image

• 
  old
• new
  new

I just swapped it from the old to the new as above. I think the new one has higher enc. value, showing more of the site, is a lot more pleasing to the eye due to better composition and not having the sky completely blown out. Additionally it has higher resolution and detail. Mfield (talk) 00:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer the old one - the blown-out sky focuses attention on the site. But everybody has their own view; both are fine photos. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 00:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The second photo hides text of that paragraph, which is

therefore not possible to read. Either the text needs to wrap around the image, or at least there should be a "Show / Hide" option for the images. That is a common problem that I have noticed in several Wikipedia articles.

I don't have that problem in my browser. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 02:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Restrictive Linking Policy

I don't agree with the extremely restrictive linking policy. Articles on Wikipedia tend to attract a lot of spam links, but that is no reason to wipe out good resources just because they have a banner on their site instead of a huge donate $6 Million button like Wikipedia has right now. Publicly calling to "integrate" (translate: steal) that content is just plain wrong in my understanding of openness and fairness. The difference between ad spam and websites providing content supporting their costs with ads is not understood by the community (and probably never will). I have not seen many scientific authors who only refer back to themselves without losing credibility. Pull a paper from any publication (IEEE for example) and check the extensive reference list. --Agunther (talk) 00:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm only going to comment on that particular link that was recently removed. I think that site is very informative, has good information on visiting the locale, and has some nice photos. The LAST thing I saw when visiting that page was the place you could buy maps. I think the link is fine. Aar☢n Bruce^Talk/_Contribs 06:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem here, and at any article about a famous place, is that there are umpty-bazillion (by last count) sites full of good information and photos about the site. It's so easy to create them - scarf up information from the Web, write a few tidbits from your own visit, upload a few of your photos (all of us tourists have a zillion photos) and voila, it's done. Scads of people do it; 10 minutes on Google could find at least 25 good sites about M-P. IMHO, they just aren't valuable enough to clutter up the external links sections of wikipedia, because we'd get swamped. External links on this article, I think, should only point to a few official sources or places with extremely unusual data, like archaeological studies, not to every place that does a nice job of compiling information about visiting the site (whether or not they have ads). - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, external links either need to be directly associated with the subject, need to have been mentioned in the text in some way or they need to be reference material. The former constitute only the subject's official website and/or other official sites affiliated with the subject in some way. If the sites are reference material then they have to meet the standard of reliable sources, which means they cannot be self published sites. The site or its author needs to be a recognized authority in the subject, else who is to say that anything they have written is actually correct, as 99 times out of 100 the self published site will not provide its references. Mfield (talk) 17:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Bruce: I am not aware of that site and this post wasn't about this particular site.

David: I agree with you. There is a lot of stuff out there, so pick a couple of sites. I don't advocate putting every site that mentions MP into the article, but I think the way it is now the external link section is very sparse. Secondly I am afraid that the spam sites will come back (they always do), while a lot of legitimate sites got wiped out that will never come back. Its sad. I used to use Wikipedia to find good and trusted resources, but now I can "only" read here. Not that the information is bad, but quite honestly Wiki Articles often read just like an Encyclopedia (translate: if you are still with us after the first paragraph you have the concentration of an Elephant). Its good for reference but longer articles are a pain. Having External links actually adds to the value of the article, despite common belief of many here. I appreciate the excellent work you have done, but I reserve my right to disagree with some things.

This link (to my property) was in the article a long time ago:

http://www.aguntherphotography.com/machupicchu_222mp.html

I don't remember if I put it there myself or not, but it got wiped out in one of the "external cleansing" sessions for no apparent reason (except the usual blunt statement of spam removal which is very insulting to me).

I don't think you can argue that it is not unique or that someone could slap it together from online resources either.

Mfield: That is a very good point and agrees with my proposal of scientific methodology. However I found that Wikipedia gravitates towards "trustet" sites like NYTimes and the like while dismissing information from smaller websites who may very well have been the originators of a certain theory copied by NYTimes (and others) writers. I believe that Wiki is in danger of becoming a website that takes only but never gives.

If we continue down this road, we endanger the very foundation of the internet. We give too much power to too few and we open the doors for manipulation.

I also very strongly oppose the notion that any website with banners on them must be bad unless its NYTimes and other "trusted" newspapers of course who are often just plastered with ads. Content is either financed via donations (wiki model) pay per view (subscriptions, tv) or advertisement (tv, other websites). I think it is presumptuous to call people who chose the ads model spammers.

Thanks to you guys for taking time responding to my post !

--Agunther (talk) 18:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I did not realize you might be talking about links to a site of your own. If you have added such links to a site of your own to Wikipedia without discussion, that will definitely be labelled as spamming. The correct way to go about adding or suggesting links to sites that you have an interest in is to submit them first for discussion on the talk page and let a third party add them if they are deemed noteworthy and/or appropriate. Relevant to this is WP:COI. Mfield (talk) 18:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I said I didn't remember who added it. It may very well have been myself but that was just one example of things being removed and called spam. I used an example of my own site so I would not need to post something else. That does not invalidate my previous comments since it was not about any site in particular. I wasn't referring to any particular edit or any particular website. --Agunther (talk) 18:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't accusing you as bad faith, I was adding it to the discussion for the record. The key thing really is reliability, third party sites may have useful content but if we can't establish a measure of reliability on the authors and editors of those sites then we may be leading people to inaccurate information. If we have (albeit aspired) high standards of reliability for WP sourcing, then we must apply that to external links to a degree, and self published sites with no editorial oversight and no referencing are going to fail that sort of test. If those sites have been referenced by another body then they may be notable however, but the site or author has to be a recognized authority in their field. That's my problem more than a site being advertising supported per se. The fact remains that the majority of reliable information sites such as .edu and .gov resources are not advertising supported. We have to be careful in not labelling the problem being one of the ad-supportedness as much as a problem of verifiability. Mfield (talk) 18:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree as long as we don't get lazy to label .edu .gov as trustworthy and others as not trustworthy without taking time to verify their information which may eventually be better.

Gallileo Gallilei did not arrive at his groundbreaking ideas by automatically trusting establishment.--Agunther (talk) 19:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Who has taken over this article?

My name is Dr. Steve Leigh and I am a professor of the Anthropology department at the University of Illinois in Chicago, US. My students have been using your virtual tour of Machu Picchu for the last two semesters and as of recent it has been removed. Why is this? It was the only virtual tour of the citadel that was full screen so we could use it on the overhead projector for study, and now it is gone. Please explain why you have removed this very useful educational tool as well as other useful information. I can see that you are obviously trying to streamline the article which I can certainly appreciate, however the removal of important tools such as this does not make any sense and only robs others, (who may not have the opportunity to experience Machu Picchu for themselves), of an opportunity to get as close as they possibly can to an actual visit. Thank you for your consideration. Best regards, Dr. Steven Leigh, U.I.C.A.D. —Precedingunsigned comment added by 75.84.212.111 (talk) 16:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know for sure but it may have just been a link to another site that you used if that is the case you can find it by looking at the history of this page. Click on the history tab at the top of the page go back to a date where you know it was there. If I'm right you can find the link and book mark it. You can also restore the link if no one objects. For more information see the About Wikipedia page.

Zacherystaylor (talk) 05:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

It was removed as spam as part of ongoing external links clean ups per WP:EL - as it had been added by the site owner. Wikipedia is not a travel guide or a repository of links and it was not notable in its own right or referenced in any way in the article. Mfield (talk) 05:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing you're referring to this site. It's not wikipedia content, and as described above it was linked by someone promoting their own site. I suggest you bookmark the actual site, not wikipedia, and maybe ask someone in your Comp Sci faculty to explain how wikipedia and links work. regards TrulyBlue (talk) 10:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Dear Editors, I did not fully understand the policy of wikipedia. Thank you for explaining this to me. I do think however that this tour is a very unusual one and perhaps should be considered for the external link section of the article. It is definitely the only full screen virtual tour, and is quite useful to examine construction formations and relations of structures within the compound. I believe it should be shared not just with my students but with others who may want to experience Machu Picchu but may not be able to travel to it. In addition, recent concerns have been raised over the amount of tourist traffic through the site as I am sure you are aware. I feel that an online experience such as this allows people to experience the citadel as closely as they can without an actual visit, and perhaps in some small way this could be alleviaiting some of this burden of tourism on this very valuable world heritage site. I do understand that YOU may not like the virtual tour, but I remind you that this article is not designed to cater to you but to the world. There are many people everywhere, whether they are sick, old, or just financially incapable of a visit to Machu Picchu, and this strikes me as a great way to share this rare site with all. I ask you to reconsider, and perhaps we could add it to the external links. Your thoughts? Sincerely, Dr. Steven Leigh, U.I.C.A.D. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.84.212.111 (talk) 16:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Like the rest of the interent-using world, you're quite at liberty to use that site, provide links to it for your students, or publicize it in any way. It may be very useful. However, Wikipedia is not intended to be a repository of links to all resources concerning a subject: we have google for that. There is also a policy not to link to flash or java sites. Personally I don't buy the argument that a link on wikipedia will discourage people from going to Machu Picchu - it's more likely to attract people, if anything. By the way, I would strongly recommend that you make sure that your students are aware of the limitations of wikipedia - anyone, including you, can edit it, so that the content comes with no guarantees of completeness, accuracy or fairness (though actually it does do pretty well). Yes, wikipedia rules can seem arcane and illogical, but it seems to work. And in response to your question, no-one has "taken over" the article: it has always been an article by the people, for the people. Regards TrulyBlue (talk) 09:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

GA reassessment

After reading through this article, and after checking through the history, I'm going to have to delist this for the following reasons:

• The POV section tagged as such needs to be addressed.
• Any current citation needed tags need to be addressed.
• The Architecture and Location sections are completely uncited.
• The references cannot be bare links; use the citation templates.

Because of the volume of work, it's too great for me to bother putting on hold. If all this can be fixed, then I hope it'll be renominated at GAN upon completion. Wizardman 21:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The two pans

The two pans in this article are misplaced and poorly captioned. They are both clearly panoramas, and the former is clearly of higher resolution, however, the captions don't need to point this out. And why are they in the Controversy with Yale University section? Does anyone else think they should have their own section? Does anyone think that neither picture adds much and both should be removed? Daniel J Simanek (talk) 01:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I normally dislike redundant photos, but for some reason these two pans don't bother me. As for location so far down the article, I imagine that's partly because they're so big that they might make people think they're the end of the article. But they could be moved up. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 01:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not that they are redundant; it's that they are in a bad spot and they don't really add much. The one is two small (resolution wise) to be put in {{Panorama simple}} and the other has weird stitching artifacts that show up when you make it any larger than its current, in article thumbnail. If they are kept I propose they are moved to an "Images" section toward then end of the article. Otherwise, I would say just ditch the first one, and then put the other in {{Panorama simple}} and move it up to the end of a different section. In either case, the captions should be changed. I don't know enough about the site to change them to anything meaningful, but if someone does, please do so. Daniel J Simanek (talk) 02:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)