Talk:Caddoan village bundle

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Native Americans, Indigenous peoples in Canada, and related indigenous peoples of North America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Indigenous peoples of North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaIndigenous peoples of North America articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

I did some wikifying on this article, but I'm a little unhappy with one aspect of it. The "Caddoan" link went to Caddoan, which redirected to Caddo. I rerouted to avoid the doube redirect, but Caddo is just one member of the Caddoan family ([1]). We don't have an article on Caddoan per se (though we do on Caddoan languages). Should we remove the redirect so that we can start an article on Caddoan? I'm not sure how to do this myself. Advice appreciated.rodii 03:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To reidrect Caddoan all you have to do is edit and delete the following line; #REDIRECT [[Article name]], and add your text like you would at any other article. Let me know if you need any further asistance. -JCarriker 06:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Question about the use of the word "literal"[edit]

At least in this ["12:36, 15 December 2014‎"] version of the article, the last sentence in the article says: [quote]

While in ideological terms the bundles may maintain the universe, in literal terms, they were very powerful symbols that helped maintain the chief and ensure the loyalty of his people.

I suspect that the word "ideological" there might have some room for improvement, but that question (even if not misguided) is outside the scope of this memo.

My question here (in this section) is about the use of the word "literal" there. (This might even fit right in, with a current trending fad to question -- or to argue about -- the use and meaning of the word "literally". Whatever.)

In my opinion, the original intent might have been something closer to "in literary terms", instead of [what it says now, which is] "in literal terms".

Any comments? --Mike Schwartz (talk) 00:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]