Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconVital articles B‑class(Level 4)
WikiProject iconCusco has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Geography. If you can improve it, please do.
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nengzhu.

Above undated message substituted from assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:52, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Opening comments[edit]

"Cusco" is also a name of a music group. How should the information be added in such a way as to preserve the reference to the city? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ezhiki (talkcontribs) 21:10, 3 March 2004 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you want to create a page for the music group, you should name it Cusco (band) or something similar, and then add a line on the Cusco page saying This page is about the city in Peru. For the band, see Cusco (band). --Tuomas hello 19:26, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

A Winner of the August 2004 West Dakota Prize

This entry has won the West Dakota Prize for successfully employing the expression "legend states" in a complete sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wetman (talkcontribs) 00:21, 18 August 2004 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cusco is the right name of the city. just remember that Latin American Spanish does not prononce letter "Z" as in Spain. Anyway, it beacomes from quechuan "Qusqu". South American languages dos not use letter "Z" — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:09, 10 December 2004 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not true. Guaraní uses z /θ/. — Gulliver 14:19, 12 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is off-topic but Guaraní doesn't seem to have neither the /θ/ sound nor the letter z: Guarani language, Guarani alphabet, es:Idioma guaraní#Sibilante-- (talk) 02:49, 26 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cusco vs Cuzco[edit]

I have reverted this page due to a copy/paste move by User: I know both Cusco and Cuzco are used, "Cusco" is probably the proper spelling in Spanish and I don't disagree if others think the page should be moved. BUT, if the page is to be moved it should be done using the "move" tab in the toolbar, not by copy/paste. Gsd97jks 16:29, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think we generally replace sc in Spanish with zc when we anglicize a word. For example, Nazca vs. the Spanish Nasca. I'm used to seeing Cusco in Spanish, so Cuzco looks a little weird to me, but I think that's what all the American and English maps use. Zenyu 18:34, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
Curious about this, I went looking around for discussion elsewhere, and found this note. In Spanish, the current common spelling is 's', but historically, and in other languages, English included, it's a 'z'. Many of the articles here alternate between the two spellings within the same article. Serapio 01:38, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)
To complicate things, there is also the department of Cusco, which surrounds the city of Cuzco/Cusco. I'm inclined to say the department name hasn't been anglicized, and so it should keep its Spanish spelling. Serapio 02:06, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)
According to the Getty Thesaurus of Geographical Names, both spellings are CURRENTLY used to denote the city, but only the z spelling is used to denote the department, which is named for the city. Meateatingvegan 20:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In Cusco "Cusco" is used nearly all of the time. All of the people that I know from Cusco use the spelling with an S. Sometimes "Qosqo" is used to make the name look especially quechua.
It is totally irrelavant to the English Language Wikipedia how Cuzco is spelled in Peru, since Peru is not an English speaking country. Zenyu 02:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am too much of a Clueless Newbie to dare to try to edit the Cusco page, but here are a few comments...

  1. The nickname "Sacred Valley" refers to the valley of the Urubamba / Vilcanota River. The Huatanay, which runs through Cusco, is a small tributary of that river, and is not part of that deeper valley, i.e., the Huatanay is not called the Sacred Valley.
  2. The ruins of Saqsaywaman are just on the outskirts of Cusco, not 2 km away.
  3. The surrounding area of Cusco and the Huatanay are much too high in elevation for cultivation of coffee and tea. The confusion must be due to mixing up the "region" in the sense of "area" with "region" in the political sense. The lowland parts of the "region" (formerly department) of Cusco do have areas where coffee and tea and other tropical crops are grown and where gold is mined, but these are far from the highland city. However, it is correct that maize, potatoes, and quinoa are grown near Cusco City, as well as many other Andean crops such as oca.
  4. I agree with the last comment above about spelling of Cusco / Qosqo. Notice that Cusco is used by the Municipality of Cusco in their website linked to on the Wikipedia Cusco page. 7 July 2005 05:22 (UTC)
According to the article on Cusco/Cuzco in the Spanish-language Wikipedia [1], Cusco (a Spanish spelling of the Quechua name Qusqu) was used on maps from the 16th century onwards, though from the early 19th century the spelling Cuzco came to replace it. For at least the last 30 years official maps in Peru have returned to the Cusco spelling, although other countries (including other Spanish-speaking countries, says the article) mostly continue to use Cuzco.
Is it worth adding this background information to the English-language article, do you think? --Picapica 17:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There could be a section on the background/history of the name of the city. It doesn't belong in the introduction, the way it is currently presented is appropriate and in line with most articles that deal with subjects with multiple names/spellings. I see no problem with a brief section addressing the history of name and why/how people refer to it throughout the world. Keep it short and sweet though. It is definitely ancillary. Peyna 17:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The fact that this is the english language wikipedia means we should use the english spelling. It's just like saying soo instead of zoo. Also the first word is clearly Cuzco. so it shoul be dumped in Cuzco. Qlorplox 08:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You have all the right in the world to call things wrong. ;-) I'm not Peruvian, but the ones I've met even take offense if the name is spelled with a z. If Mumbai is not being called Bombay anymore, if Kolkata is not Calcutta anymore, I guess it is time to correct the name... Demf 18:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Someone, please, give a uniform name to the article (title, text, epigraphes), whether it is Cuzco or Cusco. Nazroon 00:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I changed the first reference to S spelling - both to agree with the article title, and with official English-language sources, e.g. the CIA factbook ( I've changed other spellings, too; hope I didn't miss any. - DavidWBrooks 19:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't know if you missed some, but made one too much. I changed Cusco back to Cuzco in WHS infobox because this box always lists the official name as used on the WHS list maintained by Unesco. On this list "City of Cuzco" is used. -- AgainErick 19:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hoo boy, so it does. Looks ridiculous in the article, though, having two different spellings. I may put the fact of the WHS spelling in the article talk about spelling. - DavidWBrooks 20:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, stating that the form "Cuzco" is a misspelling in Spanish may lead to confusion. There is a good linguistic reason for this (the way how the s was pronounced in old Spanish and a sibilant Quechua sound represented by <z> at the time). By the same token, you could say that the form Q'osq'o o Qosqo are misspellings since there is no /o/ vowel in Quechua, although many people would not change their way of writing the name. It would be better to specify that by misspelling you simply mean that there is an official way of writing the word and cite the source (but I do not know of any, official cartography as far as I know varies in the way how Cuzco/Cusco is spelled). There is an article by distinguished Peruvian linguist and Quechua authority Rodolfo Cerron-Palomino about the spelling of Cuzco and its meaning (which many erroneously believe to be 'bellybutton' as a metaphor of 'the bellybutton of the world'). Unfortunately it is in Spanish and I have not found it on digital format, but here it is anyway if someone is interested: Cerron-Palomino, Rodolfo. "Cuzco y no Cusco ni menos Qosqo", in Historica, Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru, vol. 21 pp. 166-170. Here is a link with a short summary of the article's ideas (scroll down and click on the 'Spelling of the city name Cuzco' link): Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:42, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Authoritative English-language sources have Cuzco. Authoritative Spanish sources have Cusco.

"Correcting" it to Cusco *in English* is original research and therefore not admissible. Until English dictionaries decide to change, until the WHS decides to change, and so on, Cuzco continues as the correct spelling *in English*. TooManyFingers (talk) 18:38, 23 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're responding to a 14-year-old conversation. More recent discussion is below. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 20:05, 23 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I would like someone to explain to me redirecting again..i cannot understand it...if i delete something,,i might get a warning..i wanna redirect cusco (band) in my articles Naeem Qasai —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yahoo (talkcontribs) 02:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

hold on...I'm fixing it.pschemp | talk 03:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Machu Picchu?[edit]

Should an image of Machu Picchu really be included in the article? It's 70 km away, after all, and I think including it would exacerbate the tendency of most to equate the two. Brutannica 02:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's a close call, but it's way down low, and the caption notes the distance. Still, if it bugs you, remove it and see if anybody objects. - DavidWBrooks 02:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

People of Cusco[edit]

A photo, if anyone feels like including it in the article. Zaian 20:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Woman in Cusco selling souvenirs to tourists.

Sun Worship or Earth Worship?[edit]

I just came to this article from the article on the Inca empire which states - "There were many local forms of worship, but the Inca leadership encouraged the worship of the Pachamama, or Mother Earth. Because the sun was very important in Inca mythology, there is a common misbelief that the foremost god was the Inti or sun god." while this article states - "The historic capital of the sun-worshipping Inca empire..." So what's the real deal does anyone know? Becuase both of these articles can't be right. Arch NME 20:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Infobox screwed up[edit]

The horizontal photo just placed atop the article is good, but needs to be moved down - but the infobox is screwed up somehow (it's too wide) which makes it hard. There might be too many big photos in this article as it is. - DavidWBrooks 12:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

12angles stone[edit]

Hi, I wonder if we should place this here.--Andersmusician VOTE 03:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Altitude error in conversion[edit]

The altitude for Cusco is listed as 3310 meters, 10261 feet. These numbers don't convert, but I am not sure which (or both) should be corrected. One guidebook I saw listed 3399 meters. Someone with better knowledge or data, please correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Soccer Team[edit]

The section about the soccer team seems a little unneccassary and unverified. Unless someone thinks that it should stay in this article, or be researched and expanded, I plan on deleting it.

Jacda1313 02:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi, there's some kind of a bug here whereby the "edit" links for the first three sections are clustered at the top of the third, with the section line going through them. Ark2120 (talk) 16:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article needs more info on colonial era history[edit]

Shouldn't the article say something about the bigtime events of the Spanish era history of Cuzco? Such as the siege of Cuzco in the 1530's by the Inca Manco II, in which 80 Spaniards and a couple-three hundred of their Indian auxiliaries successfully defended the city against an Inca army of 50,000? Or about the revolt of Tupac Amaru II in 1781, in which Cuzco was again vainly besieged by Indian rebels? Tom129.93.17.213 (talk) 02:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, they should. You sound quite knowledgeable about it - can you start? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 03:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let's ditch the UNESCO infobox[edit]

Two infoboxes are too many - they make a long, hard-to-read gutter and swamp the article. I think the UNESCO infobox is unnecessary - it adds very little that isn't in the text - and would like to kill it. Any objections? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 20:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nobody objected, so now that the requested move debate is over, I've removed it,m to judge the reaction. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 23:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was No consensus No apparent consensus on the talk page, RSs don't seem to favor one spelling over the other by a large enough margin to warrant moving the page. Parsecboy (talk) 02:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When performing a Google search for the frequency of alternative spellings Cuzco/Cusco in Spanish, the following results are achieved: Cuzco 2,000,000 / Cusco 1,740,000. There seems to be that the word is not strictly stated in Spanish.
Nevertheless, this is the WP in English, so by doing the same procedure in English, the results are: Cuzco 4,570,000 / Cusco 3,830,000. Additionally, The Encyclopaedia Britannica chooses the former, though both British and American variants accept either Z or S (see text of the article, and above in this talk).
I would accordingly suggest the retitling of this article: Cuzco instead of Cusco.
Any arguments for maintaining the current title spelling?
Kind regards,--Zack Holly Venturi (talk) 12:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Google counts are a crummy way to determine anything. I think the article does an excellent job of discussing the spelling issue and shows that there is no correct way to spell it. We could move the article back and forth between Z and S for the next decade, making reasonable arguments each time. The other spelling directs to this one automatically, so it's not like anybody can't find the article. In other words, I think it's unnecessary. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Both popular and academic uses in either English or Spanish are in favor of the Z-spelling.
• English is a popular language. The English language is carried on by the people at large. From its very beginning, «the English language developed into a "borrowing" language of great flexibility, resulting in a enormously varied and large vocabulary» [2]. The tremendous evolution from Anglo-Saxon to Modern English has only been possible because the people have always been real masters of the language. Words are good as far as people use them, and less good if people use them less often. Nowadays, computers can process enormous amounts of data, and the Internet conveniently delivers them to our offices and homes. And here come the Web search engines, today mainly the Google Search, "to determine the most common way of expressing ideas in the English language (and other languages). This is generally done by doing a 'count' of different variants, thereby establishing which expression is more common. While this approach requires careful judgment, it does improve the ability... to use more... correct English expressions". Of course, the more we mistrust this procedure, the more we must propose alternative ways to find out what words are being used by people.
• But English is also an academic language. We don’t have an Academy, an institution of higher learning that decides which words are “good” and which are “bad”, as it happens with other important languages. But we do have plenty of prestigious scholarly material available, chiefly dictionaries and encyclopedias. In the Internet the Encarta [3] could be a good source. But perhaps the Encyclopædia Britannica enjoys the highest reputation. In other words, “The best is better than the good”. Anyway, again, if these compendia are not acceptable, which else?
Kind regards,--Zack Holly Venturi (talk) 10:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Weak oppose This is a hard one. Both "Cusco" and "Cuzco" are widely used in English. Therefore, perhaps we should stick to the official Peruvian cartography which maintains "Cusco" (even though I personally prefer "Cuzco"). Húsönd 17:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support See WP:NCGN for the sorts of evidence we prefer in situations like this. The Britannica is one of these; official spellings in Spanish are not. We do not in general use WP:Official names, and Spanish spellings are of interest to the Spanish WP. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The CIA and other U.S. government sources use "S" [4][5] - more "official" than a private encyclopedia, for what that's worth. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 22:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A useful caveat. "Private" encyclopedias are more likely to reflect the English language; the State Department is more likely to reflect the preferences of the Peruvian government. Which is a better guide to serving our readers? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The frequencies of usage are equally enough split that whichever title the article is at, roughly the same number of people are redirected/surprised. There's no real benefit overall to the population of readers. Knepflerle (talk) 14:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support rename to Cuzco, Peru. Cuzco seems to be the earliest spelling used in the various renames and moves that I was able to find and first use in a dispute should decide without some compelling reason to do otherwise. I will admit that this history is confusing and I could be wrong. Since there are also articles on the Cusco Region and Cusco Province disambiguation of the title makes sense. I will add that if we change the spelling here, then we need to consider the spelling of those other articles. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • All these moves to titles with extra disambiguation would achieve what, exactly? Knepflerle (talk) 21:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Well there are at least three places that share the name. Can you prove that no articles simply link to Cuzco or Cusco when they mean the region or the province? If not then disambiguation is an aid. Looking at what links here does not work in proving that there are no errors, that only shows that cleanups may have occurred. Also many editors believe that including the countries directly helps a reader to better understand the contents of an article. Link cleanup is much easier at a redirect or a dab page. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • It is far from obvious that changing the titles in this way will prevent errors. Adding Peru doesn't even disambiguate, as the region and province are both in Peru too. I have seen no evidence that "many editors believe that including the countries directly helps a reader" - neither on talk pages nor in practice. Valencia, Spain, Bremen, Germany and São Paulo, Brazil were all redirects to cities who lend their names to surrounding regions last time I checked. In fact, outside article US towns it's very hard to think of an example where many editors have found this disambiguation would help the reader. Knepflerle (talk) 09:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Concur with Knepflerle that adding "Peru" wouldn't disambiguate. Dekimasuよ! 04:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • While I don't agree, I would not oppose this rename to get a consensus. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Z is pretty clearly the most used in English. No need for disam in main title. Johnbod (talk) 12:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What about Cusco Region and Cusco Province and Kingdom of Cusco? (This is why I don't support the move - it's not wrong, but it's not particularly right either because of the near-split in spelling, and it will require a lot of shifting around without accomplishing anything useful.) - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is no need to change them also. Johnbod (talk) 14:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That I *would* object to - it would be ridiculous to have the city with one spelling and other references with another spelling. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not at all, if the others don't have common English spellings. There are many similar situations, from S.S.C. Napoli on. Johnbod (talk) 16:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Cusco vs. Cuzco[edit]

Looking at this map, the spelling of Cusco is different. Given that this map is from the Mercator-Hondius Atlas I do think it is significant to include an acknowledgment of this form of spelling as well: —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That appears to be written in Latin, so it's not relevant in an article about how it's spelled in English. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cuzco. I am a half century old. There is only one spelling in English. That spelling is Cuzco. If it's spelled "Cusco" in some other language, that is irrelevant here. It is pronounced with a zed and spelled with a zed.
Varlaam (talk) 04:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For what it's worth Cuzco is the more accepted spelling in English: e.g. Historic cities of the Americas: an illustrated encyclopedia, Volume 1‎ , ([ Cusco is listed as an alternate spelling). The use of "Cusco" in English is more a scholarly thing (i.e. scholars trying to push for an alternative in contrast to the norm. --Mcorazao (talk) 19:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The UNESCO box listed this as being in Nepal, so I changed it to Peru. If this was for whatever reason wrong, please revert me. (talk) 01:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cuzco vs. Cusco (again)[edit]

If we are going to use the spelling Cuzco as the primary one (listed first in the article, used most often) then we really should have the page at that spelling and use that spelling at the top of the infobox. --Khajidha (talk) 14:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Infobox follows a wikipedia-wide standard in which it follows the spelling used by ... somebody, I forget who. UNESCO, I think. So that's why it is with an "s". The introductory sentence keeps getting switched around to the point where it's hardly worth fiddling with, but it certainly should follow the article name. The article is a z/s muddle, isn't it? At least the paragraph about the spelling of the name is nice and clean and coherent, explaining that despite many contentions, there is no OFFICIAL spelling accepted everywhere. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, I am more familiar with the "z" spelling but if there is no standard so be it. Your changes increase the consistency of the article, which clarifies the article. --Khajidha (talk) 00:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This has been an on-going freaking ridiculous argument for ages.
No one in the bloody English-speaking world calls this place Cusco with an 's'.
It's Cuzco, which is why we say it with a zed. Varlaam (talk) 04:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I guess the CIA doesn't speak English, by your definition - check the spelling on their official map in The World Factbook: . Lonely Planet's map uses a Z (; this travel place uses an S ( ; this charity uses a Z ( ; this travel place uses an S ( ; this education stie uses a Z ( ; this travel/education site uses a very nice map with an S ( ... and so on and so forth. It's totally arbitrary. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Spelling aside, no sane person would pronounce it with a /z/ sound. The IPA pronunciation guide as it currently stands, with a /z/ sound, is absurd. (talk) 16:00, 9 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are, then, lots of insane people in the world, including many in Cusco. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To add my two cents to this discussion, I have never heard of any Spanish dialect that uses the /z/ sound for any letter, be it z, s or c. The only possible way those are pronounced are "/s/" (most of Latin America) "/θ/" (most of Spain) and "/h/" (Parts of Central America) or even "/[no sound]/" (dito). I have never heard it pronounced "/z/" and I have spoken to quite a few Spanish speakers. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:29, 17 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

European COA removed as City emblem[edit]

Colonial arms removed in 1986 SEE Official Web of the Cusco City Council (Image) & Text (in Spanish) --Heralder (talk) 12:48, 31 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Latin American pronunciation[edit]

The current IPA for "Spanish" is a bit misleading as it is only pronounced like that in Spain, but not in Latin America. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:31, 17 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Cusco. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 18:50, 3 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Cusco. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 18:54, 15 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moving the article[edit]

As per discussions in the Talk section, and the fact that in the Oxford and Merriam Webster dictionaries as well as the WHC the city is called Cuzco in English, thus I'm moving this page to Cuzco to represent how it's spelled in the english language. (talk) 21:41, 5 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I assume you're joking, but just in case - don't move it without requesting a move and having a discussion. Here's my vote: Don't. -DavidWBrooks (talk) 11:01, 6 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There have already been several votes. Move won. Cuzco is the name in English. Same idea as Munich being listed under Munich and not München, Vienna and not Wien, or Florence in the place of Firenze. But that's irrelevant. Vote has happened, change won. (talk) 20:34, 6 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again, assuming you're not joking, Cuzco is not the name in English - both Cusco and Cuzco are used in legitimate English-language sources and have been for years. This is all covered in past votes/discussions. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 00:40, 7 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cuzco spelling and etymology[edit]

This article cites Rodolfo Cerron Palomino, but he has updated his research on the spelling and etymoJeanette Sherbondy (talk) 14:34, 7 February 2019 (UTC)logy of <Cuzco> in his book published in 2013 titled Las lenguas de los incas:el puquina, el aimara y el quechua--Jeanette Sherbondy (talk) 14:32, 7 February 2019 (UTC), Frankfort, PL Academic Research.Reply[reply]

Spanish spelling[edit]

Since the Spanish spelling(s) are the same as the English spelling(s), I have removed them from the introductory sentence. Phonetics and language alternatives make sentences very hard to read and should be kept to a minimum. I left the Quechua spellings and pronounciation guide since they're different. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:29, 25 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Carbon 14 dating of Sacsayhuaman.[edit]

There is no reference for this and it is impossible to date rock by C14. This is a fiction. There have been ruins found near the site that may be that old. This is almost just lying to pretend a date of construction is known.

Industry section[edit]

Hi there,

It seems that the section on industry in Cusco is severely underdeveloped (it merely links to a single brewery). Is there a reason for this section existing in its present form?

Sbisno (talk) 18:31, 2 September 2020 (UTC)SbisnoReply[reply]

Nobody has updated it - go ahead! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:37, 2 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Qosqo spelling[edit]

What exactly is Qosqo? The article makes it sound as if it was the official spelling (where it's mentioned), but if you go to the official city website, it's Cusco. Esszet (talk) 22:48, 10 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's the name of Qosqo in Quechua, a native language. It was Cusco's original name. Erinius (talk) 09:29, 19 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, the article says that - but Esszet is correct that we have no source saying it's the "official" spelling. Official by who, when, where? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:14, 19 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have updated the information with a source. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:20, 19 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you! Erinius (talk) 00:02, 20 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]