![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
Eloquent, in this edit you removed a perfectly valid cite and replaced it with one that does not contain the information given in the article, and you ended this with the edit summary, "added ref: DTOP Transit Data; other link was not working". There are several problems with this change:
Perhaps you aren't aware, but here's how you should handle such situations in the future:
Hope this helps, Thanks, Mercy11 ( talk) 04:17, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
I have withdrawn my afd. Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 15:17, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your recent edits to this article. For years there had been a lot of nonsense stuff added to the article that didn't do justice to the Puerto Rican heritage. Your edits were welcomed additions. Mercy11 ( talk) 23:15, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi, do u know about the "NRHP infobox generator"? It provides a copy=paste-ready filled-out draft infobox/article with some more stuff than u can find easily. e.g. this for Hacienda de Carlos Vassallo includes pretty good draft NRHP reference including link to photos. [1]
References
Actually the NRHP site fails for me temporarily so I can't fully check it, should be okay later, I assume it will link properly to text doc and to photos. It still needs further customizing to add author, date of prep, and perhaps to make corrections, but it is a help. See wp:NRHPHELP for more. Either way, thanks for your recent nrhp contribution(s)! -- Doncram ( talk) 15:31, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
References
Hi, i notice you've created more good articles, and you mention in edit summaries that you are using "the tool" or whatever, but then your article does not include the reference supplied by the tool. Maybe you don't quite see all that the tool does yet? E.g., for new article Villa Julita, the tool supplies the following (after the infobox, and after some warning-type text that has to be deleted):
Optional reference text: <ref name="nrhpdoc">{{cite web|url={{NRHP url|id=86003491}}|title=National Register of Historic Places Inventory/Nomination: Villa Julita |publisher=[[National Park Service]]|author= |date= |accessdate=July 6, 2019}} With {{NRHP url|id=86003491|photos=y|title=accompanying pictures}}</ref>
Which would produce reference as follows: [1]
References
Which is, in my humble opinion, better than the version of reference the article now includes: [1]
References
I don't know how difficult or easy it is for you to construct that, but perhaps it is harder than copy-pasting the tool's reference. And the tool version includes the link to accompanying photos, and it is set up to be further improved by adding author name and date of preparation (both to be obtained from the NRHP document's Section 11, and used to fill out the "author=" field and the "date=" field). Author and date and photos which are part of the submission are very important, IMHO! -- Doncram ( talk) 03:54, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Also, in the infobox, you apparently stripped out the reference to the NRIS database, which is in fact the source of the all the infobox data including reference number and NRHP listing date, and you substitute instead a bare-url link to the NRHP document. [1] It's a poor version of your "NRHP_Nomination_Form" reference, linking to exactly the same NRHP nomination document, so why construct that instead of using the other one? And, the NRHP nomination document usually cannot serve as a source for the NRHP listing date, because nomination is before listing, and it usually does not provide the reference number which is assigned at the listing date. Sometimes/rarely the date and reference number are stamped upon the form, but not for Villa Julita. So I think it would be better to keep the NRIS database reference. [2]
References
These are perhaps quibbles that aren't all-important; it is most important that you are producing good articles. But it looks to me like you are engaging in unnecessary work to produce references that are not as good as served up by the tool. Any way you want to work is okay by me though. Cheers, -- Doncram ( talk) 04:05, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
I got someone I know (who never uses/edits Wikipedia so just like most regular readers/users), to let me use their computer to see what horrible message appears:
Your connection is not private Attackers might be trying to steal your information from nrhp.focus.nps.gov (for example, passwords, messages, or credit cards). Learn more NET::ERR_CERT_COMMON_NAME_INVALID
and then there is option to
Help improve Safe Browsing by sending some system information and page content to Google. Privacy policy
and then there are two buttons, "Advanced" and "Back to safety". While that error message is up, the URL showing is "https" in red with a strikethrough, followed by ":nrhp.focus.nps.gov/natreg/docs/All_Data.html". Hmm, does one get the same bad result when clicking upon variations variation with http: included (c-2) and variation with https: included (c-3) ?
Are my friend's results for a-1, a-2, b-1, b-2, b-3, b-4, c-1 exactly the same as what you get, i.e. there is only issue with the last one? (And probably the same bad result for c-2 and c-3?) If so, this might be easily fixed within template:NRISref or it may require fixing by the National Park Service staff. But first, are these results exactly what you get? (Again sorry if this is too much, i could move this all to somewhere else if you are not liking this.) -- Doncram ( talk) 20:57, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
![]() |
You are invited to join invite to join the WikiProject Latin music, a WikiProject dedicated to improving articles related to music performed in Spanish, Portuguese and languages of Ibero-America. Simply click here to accept! Or, if you're interested in reading more on Latin music, you may want to check out the Latin music portal. |
Erick ( talk) 12:34, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Hey, hope everything is going well, and thanks again for your great, extensive, dedicated, and meticulous PR edits. This one here, however, I would disagree with. The reason is that, following that argument ("word order in English") then we would have to say, for example, Ponce de Leon Avenida, instead of the current Ponce de Leon Avenue. There are dozens (I would dare say 100s) of other examples, both related and not related to barrios and streets/avenues (as well as 100s of examples related to many other non-PR, Spanish, articles in Englich WP as well), but I won't list them here because I am sure you know of many of them already anyway. And, while my example is about article titles, the fact is that by extension the same can be said of prose within articles. IAE, I am not making war over it, just pointing out my opinion in hopes that I can better understand --your-- overall rationale in this sort of cases. Again, it's a minor case, but it could open the proverbial "can of worms". BTW, I have seen your edits and you are very methodical and structured in your work. I am that way too (most of the time anyway) and I know a lot of folks don't appreciate the value of such MO (sometimes shouting "perfectionist" at me) but, like you, I feel is the best way to deliver quality work. Regards, Mercy11 ( talk) 02:28, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi Eloquent. Please take a look at the discussion here. Thanks, Mercy11 ( talk) 02:34, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi, i am happy to notice your recent contributions to Guanica, Puerto Rico and to Sabana Grande, Puerto Rico, and perhaps there are more, where you have been adding coverage of landmarks, including about some NRHP-listed places. As well as, I see, developing about some kind of "special communities" that I don't happen to know about, but that seems good too.
For NRHPs in the 50 U.S. states, which are organized mostly in lists by county, e.g. National Register of Historic Places listings in San Miguel County, New Mexico (whose articles I have been developing recently), someone or several people went through all the corresponding county articles, e.g. San Miguel County, New Mexico, to add a "see also" type link to the NRHP list. And for many county and town articles there are lists of landmarks included, including links to all the NRHPs in the given town. In PR with no counties, the NRHP lists are organized by municipality (i.e. one table per municipality, although multiple muni tables may be included in one page like National Register of Historic Places listings in western Puerto Rico). But my impression is that the PR municipality articles have not been edited that way, i.e. they mostly do not include lists of landmarks yet. A smaller point is that certainly there should be a link to the corresponding table, for each one. So, for Guánica, Puerto Rico, could you add a "See also" link to National Register of Historic Places listings in Guánica, Puerto Rico (which should link to its table in the western Puerto Rico NRHP page)?
Also, when you do refer to a NRHP-listed place, I notice you haven't always linked to its intended article location. Maybe you have only been linking to existing articles, and have preferred not to link to redlinks? I myself would prefer for redlinks to be included as links, wherever the landmark is in fact showing as a redlink in an NRHP list. Because we can assume that documents are available, and that an article can/will be created in future, and I think it is good to show readers/editors the redlink and encourage them to go ahead and create it. Like, in the Guanica article, you could include a link to James Garfield Graded School (currently a redlink). That is my preference; I know others think and do differently. Again I am overall mostly just glad to see you developing stuff, any way you see fit. :)
About one specific item, in the Sabana Grand article, you added substantial content about: "Masonic Cemetery, Cementerio Masónico de Ia Resp. Logia Igualdad Num. 23 de Sabana Grande, is of countrywide significance under Criterion A in the area of Social History as the property is associated with a very important pattern of social and political events that took place during the nineteenth century in Puerto Rico. The construction of the cemetery came out as a result of the struggles among the Spanish political establishment and its ideological partner, the Roman Catholic Church, against the presence of the philosophical brotherhood commonly known as the Freemasons." [1]
References
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)CS1 maint: archived copy as title (
link)
Hmm, that is intelligent/substantial content, and it looks to me that the place must be NRHP-listed, although I think there is not yet a separate article for it, so i would think it should be wikilinked and show as a redlink. But
National Register of Historic Places listings in western Puerto Rico#Sabana_Grande does not include mention of such a place. Actually there is article at
Sabana Grande Masonic Cemetery, with redirect also from
Cementerio Masónico de la Resp. Logia Igualdad Núm. 23 de Sabana Grande. So I think your mention in the Sabana Grand article should wikilink to that. And further, your content goes beyond what is in the separate article, so it should be added there too. Again, thank you for your work, and again any way you like to proceed is fine and helps. My suggestion is just about building in more connections sooner, if you like. :) --
Doncram (
talk)
17:10, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Also, since we're talking. I realized yesterday that I made a mistake. The Lares "callejones site" .pdf is here is not what I photographed. I'll be removing the
off the NRHP page and update the image description. I apologize for that. The article doesn't yet exist but there's enough info here to make an article.--
The Eloquent Peasant (
talk)
00:45, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for creating Ernesto Memorial Chapel.
User:Blythwood while reveiwing this page as a part of our page curation process had the following comments:
I've linked to a pre-existing Wikimedia Commons category on the building created in 2015, and linked to the Craftsman style article. Unfortunately, the NRHP records for this building have not been digitised, so citation 3 doesn't work for now. I've put citation 2 in relevant places to cover this. Hope that makes sense!
To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Blythwood}}
. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~
.
Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
Blythwood ( talk) 12:12, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi nice to see you again ~ ~ well ~~ you know ....it is a territory ~~ WP:LOL ~mitch~ ( talk) 14:54, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
wow what an idiot
WP:LOL I wrote him and the senators from Arizona and Maryland and told them they should make it a state {last year}.
References
Hey Peasant ~ WP:LOL ~ I edited on Valereee's page ~ would you check the edit please ~ thanks ~mitch~ ( talk) 01:19, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
This reminds me of your 'new' first sentence on your user page ~ Thanks ~mitch~ ( talk) 23:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello Eloquent Peasant. I am confused: What criteria are you using for assigning "American" or "Puerto Rican" in the short descriptions? For example here you added short description = "American politician" for Sila Calderon, who was born in PR and is best known for what she did while in PR. On the other hand, here you added short description = "Puerto Rican politician" for Roberto Sanchez Vilella, who was also born in PR and is best known for what he did while in PR. Mercy11
There are other instances of such edits that also illustrates this --seeming-- ambivalence. What criteria are you following for determining whether the person is American or Puerto Rican? I am not coming to you with the eternal "Well, Puerto Ricans are US citizens" argument; I am not interested in that, nor in knowing your political inclinations. I am interested in consistence. I am missing something or a number of such edits are inconsistent with the rationale used in other similar edits. Mercy11
Also, here, and in a number of other cases, you changed the national identity (or whatever, you might call it...I don't wanna offend anyone...) of Juan R. Torruella from one to the other (in this case from American to Puerto Rican). Again, it's not clear why. Mercy11
Here's an interesting case ( Jose Campeche), in that you described him as an "American artist" but Marine 69-71 then corrected it to "Spanish artist". I say "interesting" because this, then, brings up various challenging issues: for example, if a person was born under Spanish flag but dies (unlike Campeche) under American flag, how should he be described (especially in cases where the contributions the person is known for were made under both Spanish and American flags)? Mercy11
Thanks for clarifying all this. Mercy11 ( talk) 01:25, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Another thing that must be taken into consideration is that the "American Citizenship" which was "granted" to the native Puerto Ricans is a limited citizenship which can be revoked at anytime. This is due to the fact that in order for that "citizenship" to be permanent an amendment to the U.S. Constitution has to be made. That means that every native born Puerto Rican does not have a true and complete American citizenship, but does have a Puerto Rican Citizenship, therefore the answer to the question in regard to the nationality of a person born in Puerto Rico, if he or she is an American or a Puerto Rican, should be in my opinion "Puerto Rican". Tony the Marine ( talk) 04:31, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi Eloquent Peasant. I came across this and thought it might be of interest to you if you hadn't seen it already. Mercy11 ( talk) 01:17, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi. I wasn't the one who wrote that section, I only organized the different dean offices into subsections because it's previous format was confusing. Jay Starz ( talk) 12:10, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
![]() |
Thanks |
~ Nice footage ~ thanks ~ (sorry about the death) ); ~mitch~ ( talk) 01:53, 4 September 2019 (UTC) |
Thank you! These hurricanes are maddening! -- The Eloquent Peasant ( talk) 01:54, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi Eloquent Peasant ~ on my edit here "The other station I could care less about" does not include your work ~ ~mitch~ ( talk) 20:24, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
![]() |
Thanks for editing Tennis at the 2010 Central American and Caribbean Games! Poydoo ( talk) 12:21, 19 September 2019 (UTC) |
@ Poydoo:You're very welcome. I appreciate your taking the time to leave me the barnstar.-- The Eloquent Peasant ( talk) 22:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Greetings!
After a successful first iteration of the “Months of African Cinema” last year, we are happy to announce that it will be happening again this year, starting from October 1! In the 2018 edition of the contest, about 600 Wikipedia articles were created in at least 8 languages. There were also contributions to Wikidata and Wikimedia commons, which brought the total number of wikimedia pages created during the contest to over 1,000.
The AfroCine Project welcomes you to October, the first out of the two months which have been dedicated to creating and improving content that centre around the cinema of Africa, the Caribbean, and the diaspora. Join us in this global edit-a-thon, by helping to create or expand articles which are connected to this scope. Also remember to list your name under the participants section.
On English Wikipedia, we would be recognizing participants in the following manner:
For further information about the contest, the recognition categories and how to participate, please visit the contest page here. For further inquiries, please leave comments on the contest talkpage or on the main project talkpage. See you around :).-- Jamie Tubers ( talk) 00:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Look my Favorite Jibarita, I have been noticing the excellent work that you have been doing with the short descriptions, especially on the 650+ articles that I have written about Puerto Rico and it's people. I couldn't be more pleased with your work and I trust your judgement to the point that I do not even check your edits. You keep on doing your excellent work here, you may not realize this but, you are helping to put our people and island en "ALTO" with what you do and for that I thank you. We truly need more Boricuas like you here. Tony the Marine ( talk) 17:01, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Please add Portal:Puerto Rico/Did you know-Puerto Rico? to your "watchlist". I have it on mine, but I would like to be joined by you in keeping it from being vandalized. Thank you, Tony the Marine ( talk) 04:11, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Why someone edited joaquin phoenix is Puerto Rican?
He is American. His parents are American. He grew up mainly in the United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woww34 ( talk • contribs) 13:03, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Eddie Ojeda, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New York ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 07:29, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello Eloquent. In reference to this (and other similar instances), it might not be a good idea to add dates (years) to most Ponce mayors as historians do not all agree on the dates for all of these mayors. In addition, some reliable sources report they were mayors in additional years (due to just filling in for a mayor that was overseas for months or mayors who abandoned their post, or interim only, or sworn in but never ratified, etc.) in addition to those years when they were fully-fledged, bona fide, mayors. So, I'll leave it up to you how you want to proceed, just making you aware of the way how historians currently look of many of those mayoral terms. tc Mercy11 ( talk) 01:04, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi Eloquent. In reference to this (and other similar instances), what criteria are you using to decide if an article should be a Stub as opposed to Start? In other words, what is "enough" prose to you ("not enough prose to be a start", per your edit summary at Flavius Dede)? To me, if an article is longer that 1,500 characters, it's no longer a Stub, it becomes Start. According to this page on Flavius Dede, the article was already 4,148 characters long when you "downgraded" it. BTW, it was also longer than the 10 sentences many editors use the differentiate a Stub from a Start article.
In any event, let me share with you my own rule of thumb between Stub and Start. And I emphasize "my own" because I would never use it as an argument for or against in any discussion about Stub vs. Start. My Rule of Thumb is this: that Stubs are placeholder articles; essentially they are allowed to exist because they pass WP:N but have been created and saved waiting some real content in the future. (An example is Angeles River, but there are hundred more like it, just in PR wikiproject articles). Once additional prose is added, then it's no longer a placeholder (and no longer a Stub) and becomes a Start article. I, personally, rarely add just 1 or 2 sentences to a Stub article. When I decide to work on a Stub article is because I am adding some 10+ sentences anyway. This, again, is my own personal guide and ROT (rule of thumb). For WP's guide, please check here. Hope this helps. Thanks, Mercy11 ( talk) 01:50, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:1891 in Puerto Rico requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 16:50, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi. Remember not to put argumentation in WP: Edit summaries. Just summarize the changes you've made. Thanks. BeenAroundAWhile ( talk) 15:51, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
What are you talking about, Marc Anthony's biography details in the section below and said that he is the son of Puerto Rican parents did not know that he is a Nuyorican and also who invented that word since in that sense it did not exist. 152.0.133.255 ( talk) 23:14, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ángel García (basketball), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Primera Hora ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 07:21, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi The Eloquent Peasant, I see that you just added a ref to a set of newspaper articles from Australia to the article. I could not, at a quick scan, see the relevance of any of them. What am I missing? Regards, Acad Ronin ( talk) 15:01, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello Eloquent,
the example used at "Biographies on people born in Puerto Rico - 'Place of Birth' parameter", that is, "José Hernández (baseball)", uses the "baseball biography" infobox. The more general infobox is the Template:Infobox person. Since there are different bio infoboxes for mayors, artists, pageant titleholder, military people, even criminals, besides the one for baseball, I don't know if the rendering is always the same.
However, the entry in the Standards page is just a plain "Biographies on people born in Puerto Rico - 'Place of Birth' parameter" which, strictly speaking, could be a problem if the parameters don't match those given in that section: That is, if they differ from these parameters in the other bio infoboxes:
| birth_date={{Birth date and age|1969|07|14}}
| birth_place=[[Río Piedras, Puerto Rico]]
If, btw, we look at a list such as THIS and then open the article for one person from each group (Actors, Historians, Politicians, etc) and check the infobox used, that should tell us if they match what's given above.
Just thought I 'd mention it. Thanks, Mercy11 ( talk) 01:06, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Shearonink ( talk) 18:38, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Dear The Eloquent Peasant,
I wanted to reach out to you because I see that you are a master editor of wikipedia articles and are actively involved on many articles relating to Puerto Rico. What I wanted as you is that, given your position and abilities, if you would be able to denote wherever Puerto Rico is mistakenly noted as "country" and include "US" or "United States" next to Puerto Rico. This seems to be a very widespread problem, as the vast majority of Americans don't realize that this island is a part of the United States. And not just some island, certainly one of the most treasured places in the entire country. PR is one of the standout gems of the US and I would like that more Americans realize this for a multitude of different reasons ranging from increased greater respect for different cultures to stronger appreciation to the diversity of people and landscapes that we are able to find throughout the US. I appreciate your time in reading this message and hope to be in contact with you.
With Respect — Preceding unsigned comment added by Astudentofmedicine ( talk • contribs)
Dear The Eloquent Peasant,
I have read through your message and sincerely appreciate you taking the time to write back to me. I believe we may be looking at this matter from two different sides, as be it a commonwealth, the political, military, economic, infrastructural, educational, regulatory and other facets of PR's everyday functioning are grossly tied to the rest of the nation and, therefore, cannot be defined as a country. You're absolutely right that in saying, for example "San Juan, United States," is difficult for people to understand, essentially what I am aiming at is that Puerto Rico should not be called a country as it denotes incorrect information and that there should be a clear designation right where PR is noted as a commonwealth in all wikipedia articles that it is a commonwealth of the US.
Unquestionably I am in agreement with you on the fact that PR is a commonwealth and not a state. The reason I wanted to reach out to you is that for too long PR has been misunderstood and not given the true respect it deserves in its designation. Just as the US Virgin Islands are designated "Virgin Islands (US)," and as a result is accorded with the recognition of its nationality, it must be the case that Puerto Rico, which is also an unincorporated and organized territory of the US just as the USVI, be noted as such. For too long it has been incorrectly known and referred to as a country and if nothing else, it should at least be referred to what it actually is, which is a proud territory and commonwealth of the US. I hope to hear from you again soon, and I certainly enjoy reading many articles on PR that you have been a part of creating and maintaining.
With Respect A student of medicine
Dear @ Astudentofmedicine: Oh the Virgin Islands may show (US) because there is a British Virgin Islands too, so to distinguish it. Is there a particular page re: Puerto Rico that you don't like? I'd be happy to take a look at it. Sorry I took so long to respond. I was attending a Coptic priest ordination ceremony. My nephew, and we're so proud! We need this kind of blessing in our family. The Eloquent Peasant ( talk) 16:23, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
Eloquent, in this edit you removed a perfectly valid cite and replaced it with one that does not contain the information given in the article, and you ended this with the edit summary, "added ref: DTOP Transit Data; other link was not working". There are several problems with this change:
Perhaps you aren't aware, but here's how you should handle such situations in the future:
Hope this helps, Thanks, Mercy11 ( talk) 04:17, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
I have withdrawn my afd. Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 15:17, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your recent edits to this article. For years there had been a lot of nonsense stuff added to the article that didn't do justice to the Puerto Rican heritage. Your edits were welcomed additions. Mercy11 ( talk) 23:15, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi, do u know about the "NRHP infobox generator"? It provides a copy=paste-ready filled-out draft infobox/article with some more stuff than u can find easily. e.g. this for Hacienda de Carlos Vassallo includes pretty good draft NRHP reference including link to photos. [1]
References
Actually the NRHP site fails for me temporarily so I can't fully check it, should be okay later, I assume it will link properly to text doc and to photos. It still needs further customizing to add author, date of prep, and perhaps to make corrections, but it is a help. See wp:NRHPHELP for more. Either way, thanks for your recent nrhp contribution(s)! -- Doncram ( talk) 15:31, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
References
Hi, i notice you've created more good articles, and you mention in edit summaries that you are using "the tool" or whatever, but then your article does not include the reference supplied by the tool. Maybe you don't quite see all that the tool does yet? E.g., for new article Villa Julita, the tool supplies the following (after the infobox, and after some warning-type text that has to be deleted):
Optional reference text: <ref name="nrhpdoc">{{cite web|url={{NRHP url|id=86003491}}|title=National Register of Historic Places Inventory/Nomination: Villa Julita |publisher=[[National Park Service]]|author= |date= |accessdate=July 6, 2019}} With {{NRHP url|id=86003491|photos=y|title=accompanying pictures}}</ref>
Which would produce reference as follows: [1]
References
Which is, in my humble opinion, better than the version of reference the article now includes: [1]
References
I don't know how difficult or easy it is for you to construct that, but perhaps it is harder than copy-pasting the tool's reference. And the tool version includes the link to accompanying photos, and it is set up to be further improved by adding author name and date of preparation (both to be obtained from the NRHP document's Section 11, and used to fill out the "author=" field and the "date=" field). Author and date and photos which are part of the submission are very important, IMHO! -- Doncram ( talk) 03:54, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Also, in the infobox, you apparently stripped out the reference to the NRIS database, which is in fact the source of the all the infobox data including reference number and NRHP listing date, and you substitute instead a bare-url link to the NRHP document. [1] It's a poor version of your "NRHP_Nomination_Form" reference, linking to exactly the same NRHP nomination document, so why construct that instead of using the other one? And, the NRHP nomination document usually cannot serve as a source for the NRHP listing date, because nomination is before listing, and it usually does not provide the reference number which is assigned at the listing date. Sometimes/rarely the date and reference number are stamped upon the form, but not for Villa Julita. So I think it would be better to keep the NRIS database reference. [2]
References
These are perhaps quibbles that aren't all-important; it is most important that you are producing good articles. But it looks to me like you are engaging in unnecessary work to produce references that are not as good as served up by the tool. Any way you want to work is okay by me though. Cheers, -- Doncram ( talk) 04:05, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
I got someone I know (who never uses/edits Wikipedia so just like most regular readers/users), to let me use their computer to see what horrible message appears:
Your connection is not private Attackers might be trying to steal your information from nrhp.focus.nps.gov (for example, passwords, messages, or credit cards). Learn more NET::ERR_CERT_COMMON_NAME_INVALID
and then there is option to
Help improve Safe Browsing by sending some system information and page content to Google. Privacy policy
and then there are two buttons, "Advanced" and "Back to safety". While that error message is up, the URL showing is "https" in red with a strikethrough, followed by ":nrhp.focus.nps.gov/natreg/docs/All_Data.html". Hmm, does one get the same bad result when clicking upon variations variation with http: included (c-2) and variation with https: included (c-3) ?
Are my friend's results for a-1, a-2, b-1, b-2, b-3, b-4, c-1 exactly the same as what you get, i.e. there is only issue with the last one? (And probably the same bad result for c-2 and c-3?) If so, this might be easily fixed within template:NRISref or it may require fixing by the National Park Service staff. But first, are these results exactly what you get? (Again sorry if this is too much, i could move this all to somewhere else if you are not liking this.) -- Doncram ( talk) 20:57, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
![]() |
You are invited to join invite to join the WikiProject Latin music, a WikiProject dedicated to improving articles related to music performed in Spanish, Portuguese and languages of Ibero-America. Simply click here to accept! Or, if you're interested in reading more on Latin music, you may want to check out the Latin music portal. |
Erick ( talk) 12:34, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Hey, hope everything is going well, and thanks again for your great, extensive, dedicated, and meticulous PR edits. This one here, however, I would disagree with. The reason is that, following that argument ("word order in English") then we would have to say, for example, Ponce de Leon Avenida, instead of the current Ponce de Leon Avenue. There are dozens (I would dare say 100s) of other examples, both related and not related to barrios and streets/avenues (as well as 100s of examples related to many other non-PR, Spanish, articles in Englich WP as well), but I won't list them here because I am sure you know of many of them already anyway. And, while my example is about article titles, the fact is that by extension the same can be said of prose within articles. IAE, I am not making war over it, just pointing out my opinion in hopes that I can better understand --your-- overall rationale in this sort of cases. Again, it's a minor case, but it could open the proverbial "can of worms". BTW, I have seen your edits and you are very methodical and structured in your work. I am that way too (most of the time anyway) and I know a lot of folks don't appreciate the value of such MO (sometimes shouting "perfectionist" at me) but, like you, I feel is the best way to deliver quality work. Regards, Mercy11 ( talk) 02:28, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi Eloquent. Please take a look at the discussion here. Thanks, Mercy11 ( talk) 02:34, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi, i am happy to notice your recent contributions to Guanica, Puerto Rico and to Sabana Grande, Puerto Rico, and perhaps there are more, where you have been adding coverage of landmarks, including about some NRHP-listed places. As well as, I see, developing about some kind of "special communities" that I don't happen to know about, but that seems good too.
For NRHPs in the 50 U.S. states, which are organized mostly in lists by county, e.g. National Register of Historic Places listings in San Miguel County, New Mexico (whose articles I have been developing recently), someone or several people went through all the corresponding county articles, e.g. San Miguel County, New Mexico, to add a "see also" type link to the NRHP list. And for many county and town articles there are lists of landmarks included, including links to all the NRHPs in the given town. In PR with no counties, the NRHP lists are organized by municipality (i.e. one table per municipality, although multiple muni tables may be included in one page like National Register of Historic Places listings in western Puerto Rico). But my impression is that the PR municipality articles have not been edited that way, i.e. they mostly do not include lists of landmarks yet. A smaller point is that certainly there should be a link to the corresponding table, for each one. So, for Guánica, Puerto Rico, could you add a "See also" link to National Register of Historic Places listings in Guánica, Puerto Rico (which should link to its table in the western Puerto Rico NRHP page)?
Also, when you do refer to a NRHP-listed place, I notice you haven't always linked to its intended article location. Maybe you have only been linking to existing articles, and have preferred not to link to redlinks? I myself would prefer for redlinks to be included as links, wherever the landmark is in fact showing as a redlink in an NRHP list. Because we can assume that documents are available, and that an article can/will be created in future, and I think it is good to show readers/editors the redlink and encourage them to go ahead and create it. Like, in the Guanica article, you could include a link to James Garfield Graded School (currently a redlink). That is my preference; I know others think and do differently. Again I am overall mostly just glad to see you developing stuff, any way you see fit. :)
About one specific item, in the Sabana Grand article, you added substantial content about: "Masonic Cemetery, Cementerio Masónico de Ia Resp. Logia Igualdad Num. 23 de Sabana Grande, is of countrywide significance under Criterion A in the area of Social History as the property is associated with a very important pattern of social and political events that took place during the nineteenth century in Puerto Rico. The construction of the cemetery came out as a result of the struggles among the Spanish political establishment and its ideological partner, the Roman Catholic Church, against the presence of the philosophical brotherhood commonly known as the Freemasons." [1]
References
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)CS1 maint: archived copy as title (
link)
Hmm, that is intelligent/substantial content, and it looks to me that the place must be NRHP-listed, although I think there is not yet a separate article for it, so i would think it should be wikilinked and show as a redlink. But
National Register of Historic Places listings in western Puerto Rico#Sabana_Grande does not include mention of such a place. Actually there is article at
Sabana Grande Masonic Cemetery, with redirect also from
Cementerio Masónico de la Resp. Logia Igualdad Núm. 23 de Sabana Grande. So I think your mention in the Sabana Grand article should wikilink to that. And further, your content goes beyond what is in the separate article, so it should be added there too. Again, thank you for your work, and again any way you like to proceed is fine and helps. My suggestion is just about building in more connections sooner, if you like. :) --
Doncram (
talk)
17:10, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Also, since we're talking. I realized yesterday that I made a mistake. The Lares "callejones site" .pdf is here is not what I photographed. I'll be removing the
off the NRHP page and update the image description. I apologize for that. The article doesn't yet exist but there's enough info here to make an article.--
The Eloquent Peasant (
talk)
00:45, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for creating Ernesto Memorial Chapel.
User:Blythwood while reveiwing this page as a part of our page curation process had the following comments:
I've linked to a pre-existing Wikimedia Commons category on the building created in 2015, and linked to the Craftsman style article. Unfortunately, the NRHP records for this building have not been digitised, so citation 3 doesn't work for now. I've put citation 2 in relevant places to cover this. Hope that makes sense!
To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Blythwood}}
. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~
.
Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
Blythwood ( talk) 12:12, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi nice to see you again ~ ~ well ~~ you know ....it is a territory ~~ WP:LOL ~mitch~ ( talk) 14:54, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
wow what an idiot
WP:LOL I wrote him and the senators from Arizona and Maryland and told them they should make it a state {last year}.
References
Hey Peasant ~ WP:LOL ~ I edited on Valereee's page ~ would you check the edit please ~ thanks ~mitch~ ( talk) 01:19, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
This reminds me of your 'new' first sentence on your user page ~ Thanks ~mitch~ ( talk) 23:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello Eloquent Peasant. I am confused: What criteria are you using for assigning "American" or "Puerto Rican" in the short descriptions? For example here you added short description = "American politician" for Sila Calderon, who was born in PR and is best known for what she did while in PR. On the other hand, here you added short description = "Puerto Rican politician" for Roberto Sanchez Vilella, who was also born in PR and is best known for what he did while in PR. Mercy11
There are other instances of such edits that also illustrates this --seeming-- ambivalence. What criteria are you following for determining whether the person is American or Puerto Rican? I am not coming to you with the eternal "Well, Puerto Ricans are US citizens" argument; I am not interested in that, nor in knowing your political inclinations. I am interested in consistence. I am missing something or a number of such edits are inconsistent with the rationale used in other similar edits. Mercy11
Also, here, and in a number of other cases, you changed the national identity (or whatever, you might call it...I don't wanna offend anyone...) of Juan R. Torruella from one to the other (in this case from American to Puerto Rican). Again, it's not clear why. Mercy11
Here's an interesting case ( Jose Campeche), in that you described him as an "American artist" but Marine 69-71 then corrected it to "Spanish artist". I say "interesting" because this, then, brings up various challenging issues: for example, if a person was born under Spanish flag but dies (unlike Campeche) under American flag, how should he be described (especially in cases where the contributions the person is known for were made under both Spanish and American flags)? Mercy11
Thanks for clarifying all this. Mercy11 ( talk) 01:25, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Another thing that must be taken into consideration is that the "American Citizenship" which was "granted" to the native Puerto Ricans is a limited citizenship which can be revoked at anytime. This is due to the fact that in order for that "citizenship" to be permanent an amendment to the U.S. Constitution has to be made. That means that every native born Puerto Rican does not have a true and complete American citizenship, but does have a Puerto Rican Citizenship, therefore the answer to the question in regard to the nationality of a person born in Puerto Rico, if he or she is an American or a Puerto Rican, should be in my opinion "Puerto Rican". Tony the Marine ( talk) 04:31, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi Eloquent Peasant. I came across this and thought it might be of interest to you if you hadn't seen it already. Mercy11 ( talk) 01:17, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi. I wasn't the one who wrote that section, I only organized the different dean offices into subsections because it's previous format was confusing. Jay Starz ( talk) 12:10, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
![]() |
Thanks |
~ Nice footage ~ thanks ~ (sorry about the death) ); ~mitch~ ( talk) 01:53, 4 September 2019 (UTC) |
Thank you! These hurricanes are maddening! -- The Eloquent Peasant ( talk) 01:54, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi Eloquent Peasant ~ on my edit here "The other station I could care less about" does not include your work ~ ~mitch~ ( talk) 20:24, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
![]() |
Thanks for editing Tennis at the 2010 Central American and Caribbean Games! Poydoo ( talk) 12:21, 19 September 2019 (UTC) |
@ Poydoo:You're very welcome. I appreciate your taking the time to leave me the barnstar.-- The Eloquent Peasant ( talk) 22:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Greetings!
After a successful first iteration of the “Months of African Cinema” last year, we are happy to announce that it will be happening again this year, starting from October 1! In the 2018 edition of the contest, about 600 Wikipedia articles were created in at least 8 languages. There were also contributions to Wikidata and Wikimedia commons, which brought the total number of wikimedia pages created during the contest to over 1,000.
The AfroCine Project welcomes you to October, the first out of the two months which have been dedicated to creating and improving content that centre around the cinema of Africa, the Caribbean, and the diaspora. Join us in this global edit-a-thon, by helping to create or expand articles which are connected to this scope. Also remember to list your name under the participants section.
On English Wikipedia, we would be recognizing participants in the following manner:
For further information about the contest, the recognition categories and how to participate, please visit the contest page here. For further inquiries, please leave comments on the contest talkpage or on the main project talkpage. See you around :).-- Jamie Tubers ( talk) 00:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Look my Favorite Jibarita, I have been noticing the excellent work that you have been doing with the short descriptions, especially on the 650+ articles that I have written about Puerto Rico and it's people. I couldn't be more pleased with your work and I trust your judgement to the point that I do not even check your edits. You keep on doing your excellent work here, you may not realize this but, you are helping to put our people and island en "ALTO" with what you do and for that I thank you. We truly need more Boricuas like you here. Tony the Marine ( talk) 17:01, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Please add Portal:Puerto Rico/Did you know-Puerto Rico? to your "watchlist". I have it on mine, but I would like to be joined by you in keeping it from being vandalized. Thank you, Tony the Marine ( talk) 04:11, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Why someone edited joaquin phoenix is Puerto Rican?
He is American. His parents are American. He grew up mainly in the United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woww34 ( talk • contribs) 13:03, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Eddie Ojeda, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New York ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 07:29, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello Eloquent. In reference to this (and other similar instances), it might not be a good idea to add dates (years) to most Ponce mayors as historians do not all agree on the dates for all of these mayors. In addition, some reliable sources report they were mayors in additional years (due to just filling in for a mayor that was overseas for months or mayors who abandoned their post, or interim only, or sworn in but never ratified, etc.) in addition to those years when they were fully-fledged, bona fide, mayors. So, I'll leave it up to you how you want to proceed, just making you aware of the way how historians currently look of many of those mayoral terms. tc Mercy11 ( talk) 01:04, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi Eloquent. In reference to this (and other similar instances), what criteria are you using to decide if an article should be a Stub as opposed to Start? In other words, what is "enough" prose to you ("not enough prose to be a start", per your edit summary at Flavius Dede)? To me, if an article is longer that 1,500 characters, it's no longer a Stub, it becomes Start. According to this page on Flavius Dede, the article was already 4,148 characters long when you "downgraded" it. BTW, it was also longer than the 10 sentences many editors use the differentiate a Stub from a Start article.
In any event, let me share with you my own rule of thumb between Stub and Start. And I emphasize "my own" because I would never use it as an argument for or against in any discussion about Stub vs. Start. My Rule of Thumb is this: that Stubs are placeholder articles; essentially they are allowed to exist because they pass WP:N but have been created and saved waiting some real content in the future. (An example is Angeles River, but there are hundred more like it, just in PR wikiproject articles). Once additional prose is added, then it's no longer a placeholder (and no longer a Stub) and becomes a Start article. I, personally, rarely add just 1 or 2 sentences to a Stub article. When I decide to work on a Stub article is because I am adding some 10+ sentences anyway. This, again, is my own personal guide and ROT (rule of thumb). For WP's guide, please check here. Hope this helps. Thanks, Mercy11 ( talk) 01:50, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:1891 in Puerto Rico requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 16:50, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi. Remember not to put argumentation in WP: Edit summaries. Just summarize the changes you've made. Thanks. BeenAroundAWhile ( talk) 15:51, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
What are you talking about, Marc Anthony's biography details in the section below and said that he is the son of Puerto Rican parents did not know that he is a Nuyorican and also who invented that word since in that sense it did not exist. 152.0.133.255 ( talk) 23:14, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ángel García (basketball), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Primera Hora ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 07:21, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi The Eloquent Peasant, I see that you just added a ref to a set of newspaper articles from Australia to the article. I could not, at a quick scan, see the relevance of any of them. What am I missing? Regards, Acad Ronin ( talk) 15:01, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello Eloquent,
the example used at "Biographies on people born in Puerto Rico - 'Place of Birth' parameter", that is, "José Hernández (baseball)", uses the "baseball biography" infobox. The more general infobox is the Template:Infobox person. Since there are different bio infoboxes for mayors, artists, pageant titleholder, military people, even criminals, besides the one for baseball, I don't know if the rendering is always the same.
However, the entry in the Standards page is just a plain "Biographies on people born in Puerto Rico - 'Place of Birth' parameter" which, strictly speaking, could be a problem if the parameters don't match those given in that section: That is, if they differ from these parameters in the other bio infoboxes:
| birth_date={{Birth date and age|1969|07|14}}
| birth_place=[[Río Piedras, Puerto Rico]]
If, btw, we look at a list such as THIS and then open the article for one person from each group (Actors, Historians, Politicians, etc) and check the infobox used, that should tell us if they match what's given above.
Just thought I 'd mention it. Thanks, Mercy11 ( talk) 01:06, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Shearonink ( talk) 18:38, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Dear The Eloquent Peasant,
I wanted to reach out to you because I see that you are a master editor of wikipedia articles and are actively involved on many articles relating to Puerto Rico. What I wanted as you is that, given your position and abilities, if you would be able to denote wherever Puerto Rico is mistakenly noted as "country" and include "US" or "United States" next to Puerto Rico. This seems to be a very widespread problem, as the vast majority of Americans don't realize that this island is a part of the United States. And not just some island, certainly one of the most treasured places in the entire country. PR is one of the standout gems of the US and I would like that more Americans realize this for a multitude of different reasons ranging from increased greater respect for different cultures to stronger appreciation to the diversity of people and landscapes that we are able to find throughout the US. I appreciate your time in reading this message and hope to be in contact with you.
With Respect — Preceding unsigned comment added by Astudentofmedicine ( talk • contribs)
Dear The Eloquent Peasant,
I have read through your message and sincerely appreciate you taking the time to write back to me. I believe we may be looking at this matter from two different sides, as be it a commonwealth, the political, military, economic, infrastructural, educational, regulatory and other facets of PR's everyday functioning are grossly tied to the rest of the nation and, therefore, cannot be defined as a country. You're absolutely right that in saying, for example "San Juan, United States," is difficult for people to understand, essentially what I am aiming at is that Puerto Rico should not be called a country as it denotes incorrect information and that there should be a clear designation right where PR is noted as a commonwealth in all wikipedia articles that it is a commonwealth of the US.
Unquestionably I am in agreement with you on the fact that PR is a commonwealth and not a state. The reason I wanted to reach out to you is that for too long PR has been misunderstood and not given the true respect it deserves in its designation. Just as the US Virgin Islands are designated "Virgin Islands (US)," and as a result is accorded with the recognition of its nationality, it must be the case that Puerto Rico, which is also an unincorporated and organized territory of the US just as the USVI, be noted as such. For too long it has been incorrectly known and referred to as a country and if nothing else, it should at least be referred to what it actually is, which is a proud territory and commonwealth of the US. I hope to hear from you again soon, and I certainly enjoy reading many articles on PR that you have been a part of creating and maintaining.
With Respect A student of medicine
Dear @ Astudentofmedicine: Oh the Virgin Islands may show (US) because there is a British Virgin Islands too, so to distinguish it. Is there a particular page re: Puerto Rico that you don't like? I'd be happy to take a look at it. Sorry I took so long to respond. I was attending a Coptic priest ordination ceremony. My nephew, and we're so proud! We need this kind of blessing in our family. The Eloquent Peasant ( talk) 16:23, 25 November 2019 (UTC)