Talk:Macana
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Merge?
I have suggested a merger with Macuahuitl. These articles seem to have very much overlapping subject matters, almost the same; in fact they both use the same illustration on the left side, like they are both referring to the same thing. This article claims to be also about other weapons shaped similarly to the macuahuitl(with or without obsidian blades) used in Mesoamerica and the Carribean, but couldn't there just be a small section in a unified article about that? It seems to me like both articles are mainly about the weapon in the context of their use by the Aztecs. What do you all think?
Hno3 20:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
- I agree, the two articles are really about the same thing. Even if all the text of both were put in a single article it would still only be average length.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- Agree. Macuahuitl should me merged into Macana, as it is a type of macana, and set to redirect, until such a time as both can stand alone. - BalthCat 03:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I also agree with the previous statements.-iAragon —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iaragon1 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree since they are two very different weapons. I don't see the advantages to this. Madman 21:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Our reasoning is based off of the content of these two articles. As I see it, this is similar to having an article for a rapier and for a sword, but in this case sword is nearly empty. (As an example.) In this case, we would describe the rapier in detail in the sword article, rather than its own, with sword being a stub. This is based on the information in macana that says a macuahuitl is a type of macana. If that is incorrect it would be helpful if you could add a bit more to the macana article, or perhaps mention it to some one if you know they have an interest in the topic. Thanks, BalthCat 05:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

