Talk:Inca road system
Page contents not supported in other languages.
Argentina Mid‑importance | |||||||
|
Peru Mid‑importance | ||||||||||||
|
I suggest creating a separate article about the often-traveled tourist route to Macchu Picchu. If the idea is supported, I'll write it and research it and make sure it doesn't clash with the Macchu Picchu article.
Creationlaw 23:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, forget it, I just made a redirect and we're golden.
Creationlaw 23:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Splitter or Lumper? Note the the first section of that section? has zero references. I don't think that this article is too long by any measure, and the "Classic Trail" IS part of the broader Incan Road system, and probably the best known. When others put as much effort into creating article sections about other sections of the Incan Road system, and the article becomes unmanageable, it would justify a spilt. Steve Pastor (talk) 04:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding a recent editUses of the Colon
[2] This same url has a link to use of dashes. Listed uses do not include "introducing" a list.Steve Pastor (talk) 15:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is here because I fact checked one web source, which states that all of these zones are along the trail. I believe this book is more authoritative than that site.
I just slapped an unreferenced tag on that article. Is that name quecha? (I'll check that spelling) There is little of note there that is referenced. I would not like to see unreferenced material added to this article (Inca Trail). On the other hand there may be some worthwhile info in the other article. Maybe a small paragraph worth? Its going to take some research to see what's salvagable. Then, it could be removed maybe with a redirect.Steve Pastor (talk) 22:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on fixing the "Main Routes" section into 3 parts: a general part describing the system, then two subsections, one for the Qapac Nan, and the other for the other main route, which I don't know if it had a name, if it did what it was/is. Any assistance on this is appreciated. In the meantime, I'm reading as much as I can about this... Hires an editor (talk) 18:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's not a word in the article about either construction or materials for the bulk of the road itself. It does talk about bridges and special circumstances but not surfaces or subsurfaces for the main road bed. This is important information when talking about any kind of road. Can anyone supply the missing section from other sources?
This information is from About.com: "Since wheeled vehicles were unknown to the Inca, the surfaces of the Inca Road were intended for foot traffic, accompanied by llamas as pack animals. Some of the roadways were paved with stone cobbles, but many others were natural dirt pathways between 1-4 meters in width." Other sources, including offline ones, are listed there. http://archaeology.about.com/od/iterms/qt/inca_road.htm
Halfelven (talk) 20:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Inca road system. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been mostly re-writen trying, nevertheless, to keep the original text when relevant.Some errors were fixed many new sections with proper references were added, some pictures also.I hope I have answered most of the requests expressed here above.Aga 15:44, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
The large rewrite that was just done has changed "Inca" to "Inka" is most cases, citing the current official preference of the region.
This is confusing to readers since the article title is "Inca". Either the change should be undone or the title should be changed.
Please discuss it here before taking action, however. Spelling issues like this seem minor but can be very difficult and contentious - see "Cusco" vs. "Cuzco" vs. "Qusqu" / "Qosqo". - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:50, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed them back to Inca. all the other Inca articles in wikipedia use that spelling; consistency is important. There is no set spelling, no official spelling in English, so there's no reason to confuse readers by having different spellings of the same word in different articles. (See Cusco vs. Cusko for similar debate.) - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:07, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Inca road system#Bridges Can some expert describe the exact function and construction of those so called baskets? Peter Horn User talk 01:13, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]