Jump to content

Talk:Cancún

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

Native name

[edit]

An IP added "Ni'su'uk" as a native name in the infobox, and I reverted. I missed that a footnote links this paper, which gives "Ni'su'uk" as one of several spellings of the presumed Mayan name for the island. I gather that the name had disappeared from usage in the region, and has been recovered from examination of Spanish documents. My question is, should "Ni'su'uk", or one of the other spellings given, be used as a native name for the modern city in the infobox? - Donald Albury 15:17, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the name isn't commonly used or even known about in modern times, I would probably only put it in the infobox with an explanatory note stating that the name is unused, if even that. However, if the usage of the name has been significant in sources beyond that one paper, then it should be included in the infobox. It definitely belongs in the etymology or near the beginning of the history section, if it isn't already there, though. INDT (talk) 15:39, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In retrospect this reply seems overly vague and unhelpful. To put my thoughts more directly, if a native of the area with some knowledge of it's history is unlikely to recognise the name, then it should not be in the infobox. No idea how that would be determined, though. INDT (talk) 15:44, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The name, in the form "Nizuc", is mentioned at the top of the History section. But that mention indicates it was the Mayan name of Cancun, while the cited paper indicates it was the Mayan name of the island, not quite the same thing. I will edit that part to conform with the source. - Donald Albury 16:42, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No. "Ni'su'uk" is the name of a Maya settlement that was located on the island at one time, and abandoned long before the 1970s. The city of Cancún includes the island, but is centered in a different place on the mainland. The template documentation says that native name is "Name in the official local language, if different from name, and if not English. This will display under the name/official name." The name in the official local language is Cancún, not Ni'su'uk. It differs from the English only in that it has an accent over the 'u'. GA-RT-22 (talk) 15:42, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the question is what to Mayans today use as the name of Cancun in their own language. Kaan Kun, or Ni' su'uk? --24.69.133.124 (talk) 20:31, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The source cited for Nizuc/Ni'su'uk is based on colonial Spanish documents, so tells us nothing about current usage. That name also apparently applied only to the island, and not to the mainland area where the center of the modern city is. Another sourced statement in the History section says that the area was largely depopulated at one time, which suggests that whatever Mayan population is currently living in the Cancun area may not be descended from the population at the time of Spanish contact. We cannot use speculation about what the current Mayan population calls the island. We would need a reliable source. In any case, as has been pointed out above, the description of "native-name" in Template:Infobox settlement#Name and transliteration is "Name in the official local language, ..." While the Mexican government officially recognizes Yucatec Mayan, I don't think that it qualifies as the "official local language". - Donald Albury 21:58, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology contradiction

[edit]

We've got both "Cancún is derived from the Mayan name kàan kun" and "The meaning of Cancún is unknown, and it is also unknown whether the name is of Maya origin." Which is it? I have not checked the cited sources. Also the first and last paragraphs of the Etymology section should be combined when we figure this out. GA-RT-22 (talk) 21:37, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 26 December 2021

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No Consensus - NOT MOVED See the Zürich rationale Mike Cline (talk) 13:47, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cancún → Cancun – WP:USEENGLISH and WP:COMMONAME. Most English sources use the unaccented name, including the Official Tourism Agency of the city (CC) Tbhotch™ 03:14, 26 December 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. BD2412 T 07:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Mexico has been notified of this discussion. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:13, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Cities has been notified of this discussion. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:13, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's six paragraphs, and I don't see the contradiction. And I don't see what the etymology has to do with anything. GA-RT-22 (talk) 22:36, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Six paragraphs that start with the following rationale: "The use of modified letters (such as accents or other diacritics) in article titles is neither encouraged nor discouraged; when deciding between versions of a word that differ in the use or non-use of modified letters, follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language". In other words all these oppose comments come from users that didn't even care to read the guide beyond "[they are] neither encouraged nor discouraged". "Diacritics" is not a reason to oppose anything. And the etymology is relevant as 125.167.59.84 used a false analogy. All these opposes and comments (i.e. "enough with the diacritics") tell me that there have been similar RMs where users merely vote without argumenting and they get closed due to the lack of discussion. (CC) Tbhotch™ 22:43, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
These comments only makes me wonder which argument you would say if I attempted to move Mexico to México. (CC) Tbhotch™ 23:07, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose and early close per WP:SNOW the only article stripped of diacritics on en.wp is Ana Ivanovic because of page-ownership issues by (if anyone wants to try and get her treated as other Serbians good luck to you!). This attempt to go back to 1990s tabloid fonts straight after the failure to reeingnite the diacritics wars of 15 years ago with those Polish cities and Zurich is spectacularly badly timed. WP:ESMOS. Merry Christmas. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:43, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:ESMOS, the page that says the following: "This redirect leads to workspace modelled on WP:FRMOS, but which unlike WP:FRMOS has only been discussed on WP Spain, not finished, nor proposed, nor adopted." Or in simple terms, a non-adopted proposal? A Spanish-based non-adopted proposal on a Mayan-based concept? It doesn't matter how many times people cite Zürich (or even Polish cities). Every article is independent from each other and unlike German-based names that follow German grammar rules, or Polish-based names that follow Polish grammar rules, Mayan-based names don't necessarily follow Spanish grammar rules. (CC) Tbhotch™ 23:15, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per failure at Zürich. Also, the official tourism agency page of Cancún does use diacritics. It alternates between both versions, and I don't think we should give that page any importance given that. Super Ψ Dro 14:20, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Stephens

[edit]

I'm reading Stephens and just came across his account of Cancun. He devotes less than a paragraph to it, on page 410. Spells it "Kancune", says there were a few fishermen there, and he saw a pile of turtle skeletons and two dilapidated buildings. There were so many sand flies they left right away for Isla Mujeres. GA-RT-22 (talk) 23:57, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Crime part of History?

[edit]

I came here looking for a history of the development of Cancun. I was hoping for more about how it was planned, where it developed first, etc., and how various hotels expanded its significance. A comparison might be Las Vegas.

I also think all of the discussion on drug trafficking and homicides should be treated as with crime in any other city, not part of the history of the city. Perhaps it gets moved to a subsection of the article? Jeremy (talk) 17:55, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Electrojerm: Ah, welcome to Wikipedia! The editors of Wikipedia are all volunteers (except those who are paid by companies and people tryting to promote themselves, usually unsuccessfully, on Wikipedia). I keep an eye on this article, but I generally only respond to vandalism, promotionalism or other edits in this article that are against our policies. The organization of sections in the article, is more of a style issue, and while the emphasis on crime may be disproportionate to the size of the article, it is not against policy. It appears that no editor has been bothered enough to do something about it. I haven't worked on those issues, as my real editing interests lie elsewhere. I am sorry if you are disappointed in the state of the article, but Wikipedia is a work in progress, and probably will be as long as it exists. - Donald Albury 18:25, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cancún&oldid=1211979364"