Talk:Nazca lines

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation–supported course assignment, between 10 January 2022 and 11 March 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Obergj (article contribs). Peer reviewers: K8Carleton.

Does the alien nonsense warrant an entire section?

There is already a section in the article denoted for speculations regarding its purpose, not that any of the unabashedly racist works of von Däniken should be anywhere near the actual informed speculations of archaeologists anyways. He should be a footnote of that section.

Other pages that cover sites or artifacts with fringe extraterrestrial theories surrounding them do not typically have sections devoted to von Däniken, and giving him an entire section of a Wikipedia article would look unfortunately legitimizing to an otherwise uninformed browser. CarpinchoCamayuc (talk) 07:37, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

No, and seeing no one objected, I will likely remove the section in a day or so unless someone objects. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 01:19, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

AI helps uncover hundreds of unknown ancient symbols hidden in Peru’s Nazca Desert

Doug Weller talk 11:20, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Nazca lines or Nazca Lines?

Should the "l" in lines be capitalised? There is a lower case "l" in the article title, but usage is mixed throughout the body of the article. Consistent usage would be better: should this be with an "l" or with an "L"? - BobKilcoyne (talk) 06:58, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Rope-making hypothesis

Disclosure: I am the author of the 2015 book From the Buttonhole to Unravel the Nazca Mystery and the researcher associated with the rope-making hypothesis discussed below. I therefore have a conflict of interest concerning this topic. I am not requesting to add the material myself; I am asking independent Wikipedia editors to assess whether the published sources justify a brief, neutral mention in the article. ~2026-49492-97 (talk) 16:02, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Possible brief mention of the rope-making hypothesis

I would like to ask whether the following topic could be considered for a brief, neutral mention in the article.

Czech researcher Jiří Sonnek proposed that some Nazca geoglyphs may have originated as cleared work areas associated with the production of ropes and nets. His interpretation has been discussed in English-language academic publications.

Two published sources appear particularly relevant:

• Klokočník, J.; Sonnek, J.; Hanzalová, K.; Pavelka, K. (2016). “Hypotheses about geoglyphs at Nasca, Peru: New discoveries.” Geoinformatics FCE CTU, 15(1), 85–97. DOI: 10.14311/gi.15.1.7.
• Pavelka, K.; Šedina, J.; Matoušková, E. (2018). “High Resolution Drone Surveying of the Pista Geoglyph in Palpa, Peru.” Geosciences, 8(12), 479. DOI: 10.3390/geosciences8120479.

The 2016 paper discusses Sonnek’s rope-making hypothesis and reports experimental, archaeological and ethnographical considerations. The 2018 paper discusses Sonnek’s interpretation of trapezoidal geoglyphs as possible technical work areas for rope production and cites his 2015 book.

I am not suggesting that the hypothesis should be presented as established or generally accepted. A possible neutral wording would be:

Some researchers have proposed technical explanations for at least some Nazca geoglyphs. Czech researcher Jiří Sonnek proposed that certain trapezoidal and other geoglyphs may have functioned as work areas associated with the production of ropes and nets. His interpretation has been discussed in English-language academic publications and tested experimentally, but it remains one of several proposed interpretations of the Nazca geoglyphs.

I would appreciate the opinion of other editors on whether these sources provide sufficient basis for a brief mention, and if so, what wording would be appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-49492-97 (talk) 16:03, 13 September 2026 (UTC)