Jump to content

Talk:Xelha

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fair use rationale for Image:05 Snuba baja3.gif

[edit]

Image:05 Snuba baja3.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just the Mayans?

[edit]

This article is about the park and location; it is about the history, the ruins and the water park. --Bejnar 18:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, there is no good reason that the article has to accommodate both the archaeological site, and the contemporary commercial theme park that takes its name from the site- the two have nothing really to do with one another, and are separate entities. If anything, there should be distinct articles on the two, which I will look to set up.
Incidentally, the description of the water park here gives the misleading impression that it is some sort of national or official ecological park, when in fact it is as far as I can ascertain a commercial theme park, run by a private company, Promotora Xel-Ha. It is not part of the national parks and biosphere reserve scheme of Mexico. The map also mislabels it as "Xel Ha Lagoon National Park", and I think this needs to be changed as well.--cjllw ʘ TALK 05:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
addendum: ok, I've now split out the info on the contemporary commercial theme park into its separate article, Xel-Há Water Park. There are some more corrections to be made to this arch. site article, such as the inaccurate description as being a port of Coba. Will look to update in the next little while.--cjllw ʘ TALK 06:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the split was beneficial. How about a description of the ruins and not just history? --Bejnar 23:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a site layout description is warranted, and I'll look to update it in the next couple of days once I've secured appropriate reliable references. Re whether or not the water park is a National Park of Mexico- I can't see that it's listed as such at CONANP[[1] or other Mexican Federal or State govt websites like CONABIO, so I remain doubtful that it is actually a NP or protected area in any formal/national sense. Not absolutely 100% certain, but on the face of it it seems that way.--cjllw ʘ TALK 08:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

National Park ?

[edit]

Chapter 4 Ecotourism: Reality or Rhetoric Ecotourism Development in the state of Quintana Roo, Mexico by Natasha Kate Ward March 1997 See section 4.4.3. Xel-Há "One of natures most perfect creations." Xel-Há ['Where water is born' in Mayan] is a national park, marketed as "The worlds largest Aquarium" by Mundo Maya. --Bejnar 23:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, but I'm not convinced this source is a reliable one for this purpose. It appears to be a graduate paper, and the sources quoted in it for that section are apparently promotional brochures. If it really is a formal parque nacionale of Mexico, or even some other kind of protected area, it would come under the purview of the federal CONANP commission, and as mentioned the CONANP site does not list it as a national park or indeed any other type of protected natural area, and its decree is not in the SIG database. I believe that the CONANP site/lists are fully comprehensive. I also can't find it at the SEMARNAT (Secretariat for the Environment and Natural Resources, formerly SEMARNAP) site, and it is not mentioned in the local ordenamiento ecologico[2] (dated 2005) put in place between SEMARNAT, the Quintana Roo state govt, and the municipio of Solidaridad where Xelha is located. I think it's more likely Ms Ward's paper mistakenly calls it a NP, based on loose terminology apparent in her sources. A Mexican federal govt. reference would determine it; possibly the area is listed under a different name, but I wasn't able to see many alternatives in my search. Thx for looking into it anyway. --cjllw ʘ TALK 14:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it was establshed nationally it may be under the Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia. It was not originally a water park at all. Certainly the Xel Há "zona arqueológica" is a protected area [3]. More later, when I get more time. --Bejnar 18:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(after some delay, afraid I got caught up in a few things) Thanks, interesting, and most useful. I suppose it would be expected that the site has been gazetted as a Zona Arqueológica, and comes under the (federal) auspices of INAH. The ruins and INAH's management of it are quite separate from the park, something noted by INAH's site[4].
At first I was puzzled that the zona arqueológica decree you located described the site as being within the bounds of the municipio of Cozumel. But on looking up the Enciclopedia de los Municipios de México][5], I see that Xelha is one of two enclaves on the continental coast under the administration of Cozumel municipio, and is not part of the surrounding Solidaridad municipio as I had assumed.
The EMM and a couple of other sources that have turned up (eg: [6] describe the park as a Parque Ecológico, while other reasonable sources describe it as a 'state park' (parque estatal). However, I've yet to track down a clear-cut reference which describes whether Parque Ecológico has any particular or formal definition, or whether it's some generic term.
My conclusions thus far:
  • It is not a National Park, or any other type of Protected Natural Area (ANP) under national/federal jurisdiction, formally defined under the current LGEEPA legislation
  • It also doesn't seem to be acknowledged as one of the types of ANP that can be declared at the State or federative entity level; everything I could find about Quintana Roo's ANPs indicates that there are 6-7 of these only, and it isn't mentioned when these are listed. There is also a map of the ANPs in QRoo at the state govt's SEDUMA site that shows Federal and State ANPs. The beach just to the north of Xelha is a State ANP (Xcacel-Xcacelito), but I think that's quite different. I also have found nothing to suggest that it is a detached area of Sian Ka'an.
  • I suppose the area might be subject to some other sort of state-level environmental designation/protection, outside of the SINANP system, but it's not clear. The area is included in the "Corridor Cancun-Tulum", which is defined under a POET environment and development order, but that's something addressing land use restrictions in general.
  • Possibly it used to be something formally defined, but so far have not been able to identify anything definitive.
I suggest, removing its description as a National Park from the map, and hedging the wording a little in the article, until something more definitive turns up. Will look to do some more expansion and revision over the next week or so.
Unfortunately, Hurricane Dean has just swiped through the region, the eye crossing to the south of Caleta Xelha. Haven't yet seen any damage reports specific to the locality; a lot of the QRoo got sites seem to be down. --cjllw ʘ TALK 07:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced link to non-existent article

[edit]

I have not found a link to the Katie McGreger burning boats. I just linked to an existing article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.71.53.3 (talk) 17:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Xelha. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 16:33, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Xelha. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 20:27, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Xelha&oldid=1211004561"