This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Historic sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of historic sites on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Historic sitesWikipedia:WikiProject Historic sitesTemplate:WikiProject Historic sitesHistoric sites
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mesoamerica, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.MesoamericaWikipedia:WikiProject MesoamericaTemplate:WikiProject MesoamericaMesoamerica
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mexico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MexicoWikipedia:WikiProject MexicoTemplate:WikiProject MexicoMexico
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cemeteries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cemeteries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CemeteriesWikipedia:WikiProject CemeteriesTemplate:WikiProject CemeteriesCemeteries
No, I don't think so. These were intentionally made distinct- this one is about the city /archaeological site, whereas the other (altepetl) is about the state or polity we know by the same name. This latter is not equivalent to and is wider than just the city. You can think of it a bit like the distinction between the city of ancient Rome, and the republic, later empire, of ancient Rome.--cjllwʘTALK01:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But the archaeological site article only talks about the archaeological site, and the altepetl article talks about the city and the state (which are coterminous anyway, right?) I am comparing this to say, Pompeii - there's just one article, not one for the archaeological site and one for the city itself. --AW (talk) 15:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing Tlatelolco with Pompeii may be misleading, since the latter did not have a significant independent political entity or statehood associated with it, while the former did. Just to be clear, we have one article about the physical settlement (which is today an archaeological site), and another article about the political state (altepetl) that carried the same name and had the city as its central base. This state/altepetl had—for a time at least—an independent existence, with its own rulers and administrators, conducted its own foreign policy, engaged in wars, conquests, expansions (ie controlled territory beyond the city's boundaries) and alliances. In short, we have both a state called Tlatelolco, and a location/city called Tlatelolco, and an article for each of these two distinct concepts, even if one emanated from the other. Consider Venice, the location/city, and Republic of Venice, the state emanating from the city.--cjllwʘTALK00:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article discusses the "2009 discovery of mass grave", but this is misleading. While the discovery was announced in February of 2009, it was actually made late 2008. Stefan Kruithof (talk) 11:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
