![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
How can it possibly be "world class"? Edwardx ( talk) 20:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
The current coordinates are wrong, the museum is on Las Americas Avenue. Mercy11 ( talk) 01:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
I have reverted these edits HERE as they constitute basically (1) a moving around of sections that were otherwise just fine, (2) making an issue of the renaming of the street where the museum is at (but this article is not about the street but about the museum; in addition, the change would introduce an inconsistency as the Museum's own website continues to report its address as Av. Las Americas), (3)Likewise for the city where the museum is located, where an issue is also made of that, but this article is about the museum, not about the city of Ponce and, in any event, that's what wikilinks are for (ex: use "[[Ponce, Puerto Rico]]" rather than describing the relative location of the city or where it stands in population relative to other cities in Puerto Rico), and (4)adding an "Introduction" section - unnecessary as the info there can go in the lead (where it was) for this article is not so long as to require a separate Introduction section and, in any event, that's the purpose of the lead section, namely to introduce the article.
While the museum did reopen and that part of the article did need an update, reworking the whole article was not the way to accomplish that, for, though primarily those above, the changes are extensive. It is best, when dealing with articles that have enjoyed relative stability, like this one, to first bring to discussion the intention to rewrite the article if the changes are numerous and significant, as was the case with these edits. My name is Mercy11 ( talk) 23:56, 1 November 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message.
Is there some reason why we don't want the second accredited museum to be here? Andrevan @ 02:23, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
How about listing the other museum in the "See Also" section? Andrevan @ 00:46, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
What fundamentally happened here is that an anonymous editor corrected an error in the article [2] and added useful context on the fact that another museum has been accredited in Puerto Rico, and for his troubles he had his information removed [3] with a blatant misapplication of policy. Some of the admins on ANI attacked me for sending a bad message to users that I revert warred with Mercy, but I would like to ask what kind of message it sends possible contributors who are anonymous editors correcting errors when they are reverted with no logical application of policy - basically word salad. Jmondo, you say that I "removed the year" - while I did not qualify the statement that there is another accredited museum with the information that this had not been the case until this year, Mercy removed the reason, which is worse, and as you can see from the latter diff I amended it according to your comment that the year was important - which indeed qualifies the accreditation. Andrevan @ 04:03, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
How can it possibly be "world class"? Edwardx ( talk) 20:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
The current coordinates are wrong, the museum is on Las Americas Avenue. Mercy11 ( talk) 01:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
I have reverted these edits HERE as they constitute basically (1) a moving around of sections that were otherwise just fine, (2) making an issue of the renaming of the street where the museum is at (but this article is not about the street but about the museum; in addition, the change would introduce an inconsistency as the Museum's own website continues to report its address as Av. Las Americas), (3)Likewise for the city where the museum is located, where an issue is also made of that, but this article is about the museum, not about the city of Ponce and, in any event, that's what wikilinks are for (ex: use "[[Ponce, Puerto Rico]]" rather than describing the relative location of the city or where it stands in population relative to other cities in Puerto Rico), and (4)adding an "Introduction" section - unnecessary as the info there can go in the lead (where it was) for this article is not so long as to require a separate Introduction section and, in any event, that's the purpose of the lead section, namely to introduce the article.
While the museum did reopen and that part of the article did need an update, reworking the whole article was not the way to accomplish that, for, though primarily those above, the changes are extensive. It is best, when dealing with articles that have enjoyed relative stability, like this one, to first bring to discussion the intention to rewrite the article if the changes are numerous and significant, as was the case with these edits. My name is Mercy11 ( talk) 23:56, 1 November 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message.
Is there some reason why we don't want the second accredited museum to be here? Andrevan @ 02:23, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
How about listing the other museum in the "See Also" section? Andrevan @ 00:46, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
What fundamentally happened here is that an anonymous editor corrected an error in the article [2] and added useful context on the fact that another museum has been accredited in Puerto Rico, and for his troubles he had his information removed [3] with a blatant misapplication of policy. Some of the admins on ANI attacked me for sending a bad message to users that I revert warred with Mercy, but I would like to ask what kind of message it sends possible contributors who are anonymous editors correcting errors when they are reverted with no logical application of policy - basically word salad. Jmondo, you say that I "removed the year" - while I did not qualify the statement that there is another accredited museum with the information that this had not been the case until this year, Mercy removed the reason, which is worse, and as you can see from the latter diff I amended it according to your comment that the year was important - which indeed qualifies the accreditation. Andrevan @ 04:03, 8 November 2013 (UTC)