![]() | 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 2 | Archive 3 |
There are two versions of this arms. One made by TEP and the other by myself. Cookieman1.1.1 created later. Many things are wrong with TEP's version:
I would love if this is looked over and we reach a consensus.
-- Cookieman1.1.1 ( talk) 02:57, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
@
Cookieman1.1.1: I agree with # 3. I did use a png for the arms and traced it and even though it looks good to me, you seem to think it's a problem. So because I do not intend on redoing it (because I'd have to make too many changes) to fix either issue #3 and issue #1 about the mural crown being a mess and sloppy, I am pinging @
Mercy11:, @
Yarfpr:. If you two care to let CM know any changes you'd like to see on his version of Aguada. I just think the arms look too muscular and the tincture on the right looks a little too red. --
The Eloquent Peasant (
talk)
02:24, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Also based on the blazon, The tower doors / windows openings should be blue - : El escudo de Aguada consistirá de dos cuarteles, plateado el superior y azul el inferior. En el primero figurará la insignia de la Orden de San Francisco, a saber; el brazo de Nuestro Señor superpuesto al brazo de San Francisco, vestido con el habito de la orden, y ambos salientes de nubes y puestos en forma de aspa sobre el pie de una cruz de madera, al natural. En el segundo cuartel figuran cinco galeones españoles del siglo XVII, de oro, sus velas de plata recogidas, puestos tres arriba y dos abajo. Sobre el escudo descansara una corona mural de oro de cuatro torres, con puertas y ventanas *rojas*.-- The Eloquent Peasant ( talk) 02:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Note: The dressed arm is dressed witth order of Franciscan habit (sleeve) so sleeve should be loose near wrist as seen here:
--
The Eloquent Peasant (
talk)
03:05, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
So to enumerate:
The Eloquent Peasant ( talk) 03:21, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
@ The Eloquent Peasant: But that would be design and not following blazon which can lead to issues, other then the towers (which is a simple fix) its correct with the blazon. All the tinctures are correct, you say towers should be gold but then wouldn't that make your towers also incorrect? The Or is fine. When it comes to the sleeve or arms it is not blazon specific so it is merely the artists interpretation.
Edit: I just seen the crown was changed on your part, however I would still like to point out my crown has nothing wrong.
-- Cookieman1.1.1 ( talk) 04:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
(copied comments from project page comments column) "Escudo de San Germán.svg || same as above. See
Heráldico I reverted new user:Cookieman1.1.1 .svg off Wikipedia articles because lion should be purple (w/ red claws)
9/22 - Fixed lions claws and colour. --
Cookieman1.1.1 (
talk)
20:16, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
9/22 - Thank you. We'll review shortly.--
The Eloquent Peasant (
talk)
03:19, 23 September 2020 (UTC)"
(copied comments from project page comments column) "Flag of San Germán, Puerto Rico.svg || I reverted new user:Cookieman1.1.1 .svg off Wikipedia articles because lion should be purple (w/ red claws)
9/22 - Fixed lions claws and colour. --
Cookieman1.1.1 (
talk)
20:16, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
9/22 - Thank you. We'll review shortly.--
The Eloquent Peasant (
talk)
03:19, 23 September 2020 (UTC)"
(Copied comments from main project page comments column) "Coat of arms of San Lorenzo.svg || 9/22 -
I reverted Cookieman1.1.1 because of reasons stated on talk page
9/22 Coat of arms is appears correct but if needed colours can be changed by myself --
Cookieman1.1.1 (
talk)
20:03, 22 September 2020 (UTC)"
There are two versions. One I created, one Cookieman1.1.1 created later. I opened up a discussion on Cookieman's version because I see 3 things wrong with it: 1) the tower 2) the crown 3) the belt - is not what I've seen in templates. I do like Cookieman's dimensions of the coat of arms.
-- TEP ( talk) 19:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
1. Not blazon specific, both are correct. It is also recommended we dont copy off templates as doing so could lead to copyright issues as some renditions are not free. --
Cookieman1.1.1 (
talk)
19:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
9/22-
I reverted the Catano.svg uploaded by new user: Niko3818 and added Category:Disputed coats of arms to image (TEP)
9/22 Shield and branches seem alright, the mural crown is incorrect and some of the coloring is also incorrect and needs work. --
Cookieman1.1.1 (
talk)
20:06, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Ill be working on this arms over the weekend so please bare with me :) -- Cookieman1.1.1 ( talk) 14:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
It seems that this page has been overtaken by -what I can only call- a Marian sect of some sort. The cult per see seems to have existed for well over a century (early 20th Century, if the dates are accurate) but I’m unfamiliar with it. Perhaps one of you knows if it is notable enough to be spinned into an article by itself, or if we should create a page for unorthodox religious groups in Puerto Rico (of which there are several). In either case, since the Catholic Church has yet to recognize them, the content needs to be removed from this page. Old School WWC Fan ( talk) 02:46, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
(Copied comments from project page comments column) "Flag: Flag of Toa Baja, Puerto Rico.svg || (Flag of Toa Baja.svg) || 10/4 I would like this SVG to be removed as it is incorret. Check this pages talk. --
Cookieman1.1.1 (
talk)
23:04, 4 October 2020 (UTC)"
(Copied comments from project page) "Flag of Trujillo Alto.svg by Carlos, TrujilloAltoFlag.jpg, File:Flag of Trujillo Alto, Puerto Rico by Cookie | 9/22 Need a better .svg, too much land on the image. Should be more mountain, less land (see usual sources)
I fixed the flag in my version, check it out and please give feed back --
Cookieman1.1.1 (
talk) 02:34, 5 October 2020 (UTC)" --
The Eloquent Peasant (
talk)
11:35, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
I've made the coat of arms of Vega Baja. It isn't finished as it doesn't have its motto complete yet. Thoughts on it so far?
--
Cookieman1.1.1 (
talk)
18:16, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
It should be noted that the term "territory" should not be included in an infobox related to Puerto Rico, because the true fact in regard to the political status of the island is that it is considered to be a permanently inhabited, "unincorporated territory" by the United States. The pure and simple fact is that Puerto Rico is a nation, it is a country, although not an independent one. Puerto Rico has all of the requirements which define a nation such as it's own citizenship, culture, traditions and customs. Tony the Marine ( talk) 15:16, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
@ ElKevbo:@ The Eloquent Peasant: Let's not lose focus of why we are here: to standardize the location of universities in Puerto Rico as universities being located or not being located in the United States. If Puerto Rico isn't in the United States then those articles are wrong in including US as its location. Since the the SCOTUS has already made a determination on this subject, it really doesn't matter what I think or what you think; we need to go by reliable sources and, in this case, that would be the SCOTUS, and they ruled that Puerto Rico is not in the United States. If PR is not in the United States then, by simple reasoning, those universities cannot be in the US either, and the location cannot say US. If we really wanted to do hard work, we could also go to
NationsOnline, [1] PuertoRico.org, [2] NationsFacts, [3] The World Bank, [4] even the US's own CIA's World Fact Book, [5] and a million other places, to see listings of Puerto Rico among the countries of the world. However, we don't have to because the SCOTUS has already stated that it's not part of the US, which is what matters in this university infobox location issue.
ElKevbo, I know it may appear " mutually exclusive" that if PR isn't in the US then, it's logical to ask why the main article for the island says that it's an "unincorporated territory of the United States." A few things are happening here that I suggest you look out for: (1) That quote is entirely correct regarding what PR is: it's not in the US, but it is of the US. (2) The lead says the words you quoted because that's the job of a WP:LEAD, to describe what something is. Leads about countries (you can check a few) also state where they are located and, in the case of PR, nowhere does it says that Puerto Rico is located in the US. (3) The lead also says what PR's relationship to the US is: "a commonwealth"; that is, it describes the political relationship between the two countries. Leads of countries commonly describe geography, politics, economics, etc. about a country, and Puerto Rico's lead is no different: it describes those aspects of this country. (4) We shouldn't rely entirely on what an Wikipedia article says, and should do our own research; please remember that citing WP (i.e., citing the WP Puerto Rico article) is like citing an unreliable source. (5) I would encourage you not to take the "country" parameter in the university infobox too literally. When first created, was the university infobox conceived to enter only sovereign countries into the "country" parameter? Of course not, the country parameter was to enter countries and nowhere in the university infobox documentation it says the country parameter is for entering sovereign countries only.
It's fine if the country description is "one that would [not] be widely accepted by the Wikipedia community." It's a matter of education and these guys (and gals) here in the PR Wikiproject are experts at educating others about PR's unique and somewhat complicated status and its implications on Puerto Rican citizenship, nationality and, now, location. It's a known fact most editors are young American males; it's also a known fact that half of them don't know Puerto Ricans are US citizens. [6]
I think we need to keep focus of our purpose here and, rather than going off into tangent discussions --though at times helpful and necessary to quickly clarify a point or two-- I think we should keep focus of why we are here: to discuss what country name belongs in the location parameter of the university infobox. Of course this would also apply by extension to the location parameters of other PR-related infoboxes such as museums in PR, rivers in PR, mountains in PR, buildings in PR, hospitals, tourist attractions, etc, etc. I haven't yet seen anything that would indicate that the location parameter in the infobox for Universidad del Sagrado Corazón and the others should say it's located in the United States any more than the Instituto de Cultura Puertorriqueña should say it is located in San Juan, Puerto Rico, United States. These are educational articles and, imo, shouldn't be muddied with politics. Mercy11 ( talk) 03:20, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
References
According to well referenced articles, an American (United States) Military Base, camp (Example: the former Camp Garcia in Vieques) or post may be referred to as an installation. Said installations are under the jurisdiction of the Department of Defense, including leased space, that is controlled by, or primarily supports DoD's activities. An installation may consist of one or more sites" (geographically-separated real estate parcels). Military bases within the United States are considered federal property and are subject to federal law. Civilians (such as family members of military officers) living on military bases are generally subject to the civil and criminal laws of the states where the bases are located. [1] Military bases can range from small outposts to military cities containing up to 100,000 people. Military bases may belong to a different nation or state than the territory surrounding it.
A good example as to the proper title of an article about a US Military Base in Puerto Rico is Fort Buchanan, Puerto Rico. The main infobox title is United States Army Garrison Fort Buchanan, Puerto Rico which I believe to be the correct way of putting things. Tony the Marine ( talk) 01:30, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
References
@ Marine 69-71: Hey Tony, wandering if you can shed some light here... In preparing to standardize US military installations, I found it more practical to standardize both US and PR military installations located in the Island. Now, in standardizing the way how locations (such as "Salinas, Puerto Rico" for Campamento Santiago) look, what we really standardize is the type of information that is populated next to the parameter (example: the "|Location =" parameter) or parameters (example: the "|City = " and "|Country =" parameters) of an infobox. Well, it turns out that in Puerto Rico there appears to be 2 types of articles about "military installations": those that, like Fort Buchanan, Puerto Rico use the "military installation" infobox (this is the most of the articles), and those that, like Coast Guard Air Station Borinquen, use the "military unit" infobox. This wouldn't be a problem if both infoboxes had the same types of parameters for displaying location, but they don't: I cannot find a "|location=" or "|city=" parameter for the "military unit" infobox. Is this an error, and should the Coast Guard Air Station Borinquen be using the "military installation" infobox? If not an error, will the integrity of the infobox information for Coast Guard Air Station Borinquen be violated if we removed the US from the country parameter? BTW, if not an error and the "US" must be kept, is this the only military unit operating/based in Puerto Rico (whether US military of PR national guard military)? Thanks, Mercy11 ( talk) 02:47, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello @ Marine 69-71: wondering if you wouldn't mind taking a look at " Coast Guard Station San Juan" as it's using neither of the 2 infoboxes above but the {{Infobox Military Structure}} So, I am wondering which way we should go with this one. Seems to me this is just another "base" of sorts. Can you give me your thoughts on this one, Military Unit, Military Structure, or Military installation? Thanks, Mercy11 ( talk) 02:48, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, @ The Eloquent Peasant: for fixing (well, someone did) the wikidata on Arecibo Observatory. I had noticed a problem there about a month ago and tried addressing it but it took me into a lesson of Wikidata and its databases for which I didn't a the moment have the time.
On another matter, I see you started modifying articles (such as rivers of Puerto Rico) per the Standards. Cool! I was going to wait until we had dressed up the Standards page a bit more but, no problem, they both had to be done! The modifications are looking good. Plus you set a standard for the "edit summary" that I plan to be using as well. Let me see if I can work on the museums in the Standards as well as museums in Puerto Rico articles and, hopefully, with that addition have a neatly formatted Standards page before we start making additional "article types" addition to the Standards page (so we are "caught up"). Mercy11 ( talk) 14:13, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
@ Mercy11: Let's just not work too hard. I wanted to test the 4 dashes to consider separating my messages with lines for easier readability. It's always been difficult when conversations get long.... Anyways and the wiki community was discussing ways to better the "talk" experience but I don't know if they came up with implementable solutions.... The Eloquent Peasant ( talk) 18:19, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
@ Mercy11: I'm afraid we'll have to become experts on wikidata. I believe there's a project to transclude text from wikidata to infoboxes (in effect we wouldn't update the infobox). The problem, it seems, is that wikidata editors who want to fit things neatly into databases are hell-bent into making things fit neatly into databases. When I asked about it and linked to a discussion from English Wiki, (which was probably dumb on my part), about why their project is feeding incorrectly into infoboxes I was told not to bring English Wiki discussions into wikidata.
They speak about how relational databases work. So, currently there's no way to fix the Arecibo Observatory in English wiki because it's 1) transcluding data from wikidata and we're waiting for the coder to fix it and 2) When I, at least, try to update the wikidata item, to at minimum show Puerto Rico in the infobox (as an administrative division), another editor reverts my Wikidata change and states that adding Puerto Rico is "redundant". So they basically don't want Arecibo Observatory showing that it is in the "located in the administrative territorial entity" of Puerto Rico, only United States, because United States is the country that everything in Puerto Rico is in. I guess "of" the US means "in" the US to them.
So it'll have to stay incorrectly showing "Arecibo, US" on English wikipedia, because one expert coded how the infobox should show (BTW, he correctly shows "Arecibo, Puerto Rico" on Arecibo Observatory commons (images) category page seen here and he seems very nice, but is busy. So we'll have to wait for that person to have time to address the question/ issue/ correction I have requested. Until then it will say "Arecibo, US" on the English wikipedia infobox.
I hope their project is not hoping to feed all infobox data from wikidata as it is now because the issues aren't always being addressed, or discussed in English. People are arguing about the problems but they're being discussed in Relational database terms, that most people don't understand. Not everything fits neatly into a database unless you design the database with good feedback from people who know how it all fits together and if you have the understanding of how things work outside of databases then you create the database to address all issues. Put simply, I will now try to explain to wikidata editors that "in English" the word "of" doesn't mean "in", without being rude.. but I'm not sure how else to say it. Like everywhere else: some editors get it, some don't and some don't want to get it. And if I don't care, it'll just stay wrong. -- The Eloquent Peasant ( talk) 15:02, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
@ The Eloquent Peasant: Fortunately, I've had some experience here with jerks like him before. Even after significant improvements were made to the article, he still pressed on, and even after I extended him an olive branch (he knows what I am talking about) he still pushed on. The article even more than double in size but, like the USC complainer, he just kept doing 0% work and 100% whining. He must have swallowed hard when the Keeps started rolling in, yet he continued to be relentless on his focus for a "judicial" approach. Then the entire situation became one of WP:SNOW. Only a fool would had continued at that point rather than doing some soul-searching, a reality check and retreating but he, stubbornly, stayed the course. In the end, when he saw an opportunity to save face, he tended me a trap: in what appeared like a gesture of goodwill, he wanted to compromise. But it was too little too late, because I had lost all trust in the guy's fairness, and could see it was a trap to get the article deleted (his primary goal) in exchange for my writing a new article about tourism in Ponce. What the h*ll does he care about tourism in Ponce? - haha. Nice try, but not with me. Perhaps you noticed (the closing admin sure did), but this guy even put effort trying to get the attention of the closing admin after I cast my 'Keep' vote, complaining "Note that Mercy11 is the creator of the article...", as if there was a rule that the creator cannot vote. Excuse me? He had every opportunity not to get himself in the hole he got in: Before I voted, I made a series of 6 comments and sat back to wait for his response so I could see if he had a reasonable defense and I could decide if I would join him in deleting the article, but he didn't respond so, yes, I went ahead and cast my vote. Then only after I cast my vote did he try to explain his arguments further (introducing, btw, a new attack of WP:V). Still, more Keep votes kept rolling in and, as if to stop the avalanche, he tagged the article with a never-before-used "reads like an ad" tag. He wanted to deal me another unfair card but, no problem, I went off to address that concern too. And, while I was making the additional "ad" improvements, the closing admin closed the nomination... I can tell you this: some ignorantes aqui try to make your life miserable at any cost when they have set their eyes on you. In the end, his own pride took care of him: Although this guy had been editing years longer than I, for the good of WP, I hope he did learn a lesson this time: it's not all about how good of a lawyer you are at presenting your case, you can't lose focus of the community and that teamwork matters more important than who wins the delete nomination. In the end, he was left alone, hanging off a cliff by a single skinny rope that was ultimately cut off by a much more level-minded closing admin. I would bet that if the nomination hadn't been closed, this moron would had still come back after the ad tone was removed and would had still thought of another "deficiency" in the article to continue his "revenge." Like Clint Eastwood said: he wants "revenge for being born." How sad! In the best of cases, it was jealousy: he was jealous that there was an article on nightlife in my town but not once on his town. Mercy11 ( talk) 04:50, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
I think I figured out what happened. On Wikidata: From June 12, 2013 here To June , 2013 here An identified user went through thousands of locations and
added Created claim: located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) and filled it in with a country: The editor received some comments on his talk page here re: incorrect addition on some wikidata items, which other editors had to tediously remove.
And On June 13, added the same claim to Puerto Rico here and to the other US territories here
While some of his additions / errors were questioned and corrected by some editors, Puerto Rico slipped through the cracks. No one noticed or questioned the edit.
The unregistered user responded on his talk page with how he made these edits and I quote him "I created a bot that traverse the entity recursively via the contains administrative territorial entity (P150) property. The assumption is if A subdivides to any entity B or C, then B is in administrative unit located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) of A, and C is in administrative unit located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) of A. This will ensure reciprocity but it seems to be not true all the time, the contains administrative territorial entity (P150) means both subdivides into administrative division and subdivides into other things. I am using this tool to make sure all subdivisions have other property like country (P17) is set to the same country as the root node. And also to be able to view the hierarchy of subdivision for a country. --112.203.160.147 16:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC)"
So that is why since mid-2013, it came to be that on English Wikipedia and other Wikipedias, based on this incorrect addition to the Wikidata item, Puerto Rico was made to be located "in" the administrative territorial entity (131) of the United States.
This is incorrect as the only territories in the United States are the 50 states.-- The Eloquent Peasant ( talk) 20:21, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
@ ElKevbo: @ The Eloquent Peasant: As an update, most (of the 10) Puerto Rico article types involving locations now have their infoboxes standardized. I see that Eloquent completed some, which was very helpful. Thank you. A few observations:
ElKevbo, it's perhaps now time to re-assess: How do you see this work so far addressing the totality of your concerns? Eloquent Peasant: do you have any ideas on how the 902 barrio articles could be approached? Is there, perhaps, a tool that could be used to update them all, considering --in particular-- that there are 78 municipalities? Mercy11 ( talk) 01:33, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
A de facto consensus of Wikipedia editors is not a true consensus nor is it a legal binding consensus. As a matter of fact Wikipedia in itself is considered to be an unreliable encyclopedia and source because anyone without the proper knowledge of things can edit and provide false information. We here have to stick to actual and legal facts and not a so-called consensus which may be the opinion of editors who have little or no knowledge of Puerto Rico, its legal standing nor its relation to the United States. Puerto Rican citizenship was recognized by the United States Congress in Article 7 of the Foraker Act in the early twentieth century and continues unchanged after the creation of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. [1] [2] [3] Section VII recognized a Puerto Rican nationality separate from that of the United States. The United States government continues to recognize a Puerto Rican nationality. [4] Tony the Marine ( talk) 04:19, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
@ The Eloquent Peasant: I would be opposed to standardizing by using Puerto Rico for country in some PR articles but using US for country in other PR articles: that isn't a standard. Also, a standard has to have an unshakable rationale: cherry picking articles is not standardizing. No one will argue that the US is a country because it is also a sovereign state. The confusion comes when we need to categorize territorial entities that, like Puerto Rico, aren't also sovereign states. We try to apply the same definition of country (i.e., the sovereign state definition) and everything, of course, becomes obscure. Why do you think it is OK to have PR display as a country in Cruce a Nado Internacional, but it's not in other articles?
@ ElKevbo: I am not sure why you are so focused in the "unincorporated territory" (UT) phrase; I don't see anything about that first statement that I would frown upon. The Puerto Rico article makes it clear, in the very first sentence --even prior to the UT phrase -- that PR is a commonwealth: the "Commonwealth of Puerto Rico" it says. It's a commonwealth, this is why The Eloquent Peasant modified the barrio and municipality articles types (ATs) -- to reflect that relationship. Following your (very valid) rationale, the Commonwealth is listed there first probably because it was more significant that of unorganized territory, and it was hashed out in that specific way by numerous editors over extensive discussion and compromise.
It would be beneficial if you could explain why you appear adamant to "Commonwealth" rendering in infoboxes, and seem to be favoring instead the Unincorporated Territory rendering. I think you need to state what you want more clearly, taking some additional time to give some thought to your vision, and articulate it once only, in its entirety, and without ambivalence, ambiguity or shifts. Your comments appear unrealistic on 2 fronts:
Seems to me we are needlessly chasing after too many loose goats here. Let's not lose sight of what we came here for: to decide whether or not "US" should display in the University infobox after "Puerto Rico" in " Universidad del Sagrado Corazón" (USC). Let's all get on the same foot and all agree to the facts in the USC case:
Is it still your position that the "US" should display in the PR infoboxes here? Please also note there is no "jumping of the gun" here: WP:BURDEN is on the editor entering the information; that would be you. I undid your edit because (1) PR isn't a state, and (2) PR isn't in the US, as your edit implied. This last one is obvious from USC's own website: it says it's located in Puerto Rico, not in the US.
However, your focus now appears to be shifting in favor of Unincorporated Territory (UT). A much different argument than the one from your original objection at USC, you are now appear to be arguing, not that PR isn't a state or that there is no standardization, but that PR isn't a country and that Unincorporated Territory better than country. I have pointed out the difference between a country and a sovereign state, and produced for your perusal 5 sources, including official US government sources, where PR is listed as a country. Tony has provided you some 5 sources as well related to this topic. It is true that "country" generally refers to a sovereign state ( https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/country) and I commend you for taking the high road and showing a preference for that "generally refers to" definition. I would had done the same thing, except that in the case of Puerto Rico the "generally" doesn't apply because the SCOTUS, the Feds, and others have already determined that Puerto Rico, while not a sovereign state, is indeed a country. We could go one with this discuss forever. Fortunately, it really doesn't matter how you prefer to characterize Puerto Rico, country or not, because the rendering of the country parameter displays as "Location", not as "Country" anyway. And, since the bulk of infoboxes render into a Location, not a Country (university being one), we would be wasting time if we went on discussing how to characterize Puerto Rico. It doesn't matter in the vast majority of infoboxes.
There is then, imo, nothing else to discuss here other than the few cases of infoboxes that do render the Country display. But, if all the existing infoboxes are flexible enough to render location without a direct reference that the country, then like Eloquent, I believe that we don't need to ask "for parameters to be added to infoboxes of museums, libraries or universities [and others]", because what is already available will accommodate all rendering needs. Secondly, by implementing Standards we can ensure all PR articles render the right way. An interesting fact is that out of over 40 universities in Puerto Rico, less than 7% of them had "United States" displaying in the infobox. Obviously there was a standard already being followed by 93% of them. It wasn't in writing, but there was one. What has changed now is that there is a Written Standard, with its own page in the Puerto Rico WikiProject, to aid future editors if they need guidance.
You mentioned "sensitive of this topic". You should be aware that there are 2 political groups in Puerto Rico: statehooders and non statehooders. It goes without saying that both groups are welcome to edit PR articles. However, Puerto Rico is not a state, and statehooders often place "state=PR" and "country=US" in infoboxes, to give the impression to the world that Puerto Rico is part of the US (statehooders goal is for PR to be a state) and to advertise, broadcast, boost, or otherwise promulgate their own political agenda. Such spreaders of misinformation for their own personal political goals aren't, imo, welcome to edit Puerto Rico. Please address the questions above if your time permits. Thanks, Mercy11 ( talk) 00:09, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
References
@ Marine 69-71:@ The Eloquent Peasant: I think we can remove the bottom half of the Infobox standards, in the Standards page, for each of the 10 entries there so far. By "bottom half" I mean the part that starts with "Do not use representations such as...". The idea is to just state what to use, rather than state to readers what not to use. What do you think? The Rational section and any Notes would stay. Mercy11 ( talk) 01:41, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
I think we should start adding pronunciation to the articles that require it, i.e Pueblo Viejo- but I've never worked with the pronunciation aspect of an article name before.-- The Eloquent Peasant ( talk) 23:16, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
External audio | |
---|---|
![]() |
@ The Eloquent Peasant:. Hi. In reference to your edit here I totally agree with you that Puerto Rico should be listed as a country, but not just for the case of Cruce a Nado Internacional but for every article that uses the "Infobox sports league", "Infobox Olympic games", "JCC infobox" and all the other sports-oriented infoboxes that include Puerto Rico in it. The reason for that is that, when it comes to sports, Puerto Rico always competes as a separate country from the US. You can see that in the infobox sports league here for Cruce a Nado Internacional (PR is listed under "Countries"), the Infobox Olympic games here for Olympic Games (expand the IOC in the section "Number of athletes by National Olympic Committee"; PR is listed under "Country"), and the JCC infobox here for the Central American and Caribbean Games (Puerto Rico is listed under the "Nation" column). There are scores, maybe even 100s, other WP sports articles where Puerto Rico is listed under country or nation. The reason for categorizing Puerto Rico as a country is simple: it's not only a fact that it competes against other countries, but also a fact that it would be silly to make a separate listing for "non-countries" competing against countries.
By the way, the same is true of all (the 100s of) WP beauty pageant articles ( Miss Universe, Miss World, etc.) such as shown here. The beautiful ladies from the beautiful country of Puerto Rico have won more titles that the women from the country of the United States.
Let me add that there are dozens of WP articles I constantly come across that list Puerto Rico as a country. This goes to show that even (some) Wikipedians know the difference between a country and a sovereign state. An example is here. Not that I am poking around all day long looking for such article: I always knew Puerto Rico was a country, just not a sovereign state. I always knew it was a dependent entity, but still a country. It's just common sense that Puerto Rico is a country but, unfortunately, many people equate country with sovereign state (and others deduce it can't be a country if it's a dependent entity). I suppose they think that way out of ignorance, or perhaps bc they weren't taught differently in school, or maybe bc being citizens of a country which was also a sovereign state it became natural for them to think of both as being the same thing - but they are not. I am, of course, thinking of Americans, bc they make up -by far- the largest group of editors here. However, this is true of most editors, because 97% of the people in the world are citizens of countries that are also sovereign states. And yet it should be common sense that countries and sovereign states aren't the same thing: for example, wasn't Australia a country before 1986, the year it became fully independent? Of course it was a country! So independence had nothing to do with becoming a country, but everything to do with becoming a sovereign state. Australia was a country before 1986 even though it was still largely controlled by England. There was also no magic wand waved in 1950 which converted the Philippines from a non-country to a country. The Philippines was always a country, just not a sovereign state until that year.
I am discussing all this because I plan to continue helping in the Standards page and the standardization of the PR articles infoboxes. So I plan to add, with justification, those types of Sports infoboxes to the Standards page and with the "Country=Puerto Rico" in them and I am opening this for discussion here so we arrive at a consensus together, hopefully, with Marine 69-71. I think with a Standards page in place, we will be able to help other future PR article editors have guidance as to how to code the infoboxes of PR articles. Plus, of course, we can all be on the same page too. For example, I myself just discovered that Teatro La Perla (when compared with, for example, Teatro Tapia) may not be using the correct infobox. So I plan to work on that as my time permits. Let me know if this makes sense. Thanks, Mercy11 ( talk) 23:22, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi @ The Eloquent Peasant:. I was recently at the El Tuque article, and noticed that the routine you ran a few days back to render all Municipality articles to read "Commonwealth of Puerto Rico" and <municipality name> (e.g., the routine that effected THIS change), doesn't seem to have affected El Tuque which, like Ponce and all the other municipalities, uses the Infobox settlement. No sweat: I did it manually (side note: you may want to double check it - I hope I didn't miss anything!). But now I am thinking (1) "Why wasn't this one changed automatically by your routine", and (2) "could there be others (beaches, etc. -- bc settlement is used in more than plain settlements) that also didn't get updated?" Any ideas? Thanks, Mercy11 ( talk) 01:23, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Anyone has any ideas how to deal with the Office and Country parameters in the "Infobox union"? For example, Puerto Rico Teachers Association. There's no Location parameter in the infobox that I see available. There's an entire category "Category:Trade unions in Puerto Rico". Interestingly, while Teachers has country=PR, UTIER has country=US. Any ideas? Mercy11 ( talk) 02:25, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Notice how with time the use of commonwealth versus territory changed. Books on Google books, searched for both terms shows that Commonwealth was used a lot more from 1940s to 1960s when suddenly its use in books started decreasing, but Commonwealth is still used more in books on Google books than territory.-- The Eloquent Peasant ( talk) 17:56, 25 November 2019 (UTC) <iframe name="ngram_chart" src=" https://books.google.com/ngrams/interactive_chart?content=commonwealth%2Cterritory&case_insensitive=on&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=21&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t4%3B%2Ccommonwealth%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3BCommonwealth%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Bcommonwealth%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BCOMMONWEALTH%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2Cterritory%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bterritory%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BTerritory%3B%2Cc0" width=900 height=500 marginwidth=0 marginheight=0 hspace=0 vspace=0 frameborder=0 scrolling=no></iframe>
It will take me some time to go thru all the PR articles using this infobox. Part of the problem is that it's associated category is a huge (upside-down) tree containing some 6 or more levels of sub-container members. This is crazy! To me, companies, political parties, churches, etc. aren't organizations that belong in the "Organizations based in PR" category. To me, organizations"" are basically those that are NGOs, say, like non-profits, and nothing else. Hospitals, schools, political parties, churches that are already categorized as such under other PR Category branches don't need to appear also using the "organization" infobox. If a PR article is using the organization infobox but can be categorized under some other branch of the PR tree (churches, parties, fishing clubs, hospitals, etc), then it shouldn't be using the organization infobox to begin with (nor should it be categorized anywhere under the Category:Organizations based in Puerto Rico structure!). Oh, well, when I got the time I will try working on them...but may not be until 2020.... Mercy11 ( talk) 03:22, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
As always bringing up good points, the scope is something we should definitely discuss. The scope means if it's in the project, we tag its Talk Page with WikiProject Puerto Rico and expect to update and watch it.
What I did: 1) I took it on a case by case basis but mostly yes (I added the WikiProject Puerto Rico template to them). 2) if born in PR yes, if born in NY to Puerto Rican parents yes, if the person has some Puerto Rican ancestry I went with no for example 4) no 5) I took it on a case by case basis and mostly yes. Rationale: It could have been a general in the Spanish-American war who made a comment such as "we will take Puerto Rico" or something to that effect. If there were big repercussions on how that person was related to Puerto Rico, then I did go ahead and add the Wikiproject Puerto Rico to the talk page. (BTW, only once did another editor remove the addition of the Wikiproject Puerto Rico. It was on one of the many West Side Story articles. They said that the Wikiproject Puerto Rico had not contributed to the article.) Examples: On Oscar Lewis, yes, obviously, because the effects of his book were huge and those who worked with him on the book, were also tagged (for the same reason). On List of potentially habitable exoplanets, I added it but maybe should not have. Yet I did not add it to the Arecibo message.
Your comments on scope are very much appreciated.-- The Eloquent Peasant ( talk) 12:44, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
I think we should strive to move articles from Stub to Start. See here.-- The Eloquent Peasant ( talk) 15:28, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello Puerto Rico WikiProject members: Please see the question posted here and share your thoughts. I am re-posting it on this page for Project visibility:
--Posted by Mercy11 ( talk) 23:30, 10 December 2019 (UTC) on behalf of Yarfpr.
==External links==
----------vs---------- |
{{Portal}}
creates a list of one or more portal links within an accessible navigation region. It is hidden in printer and mobile view. This is useful, for example, in an article's "See also" section.{{Portal-inline}}
creates one portal link with no accessibility context. It is visible in printer and mobile view. This is useful, for example, if making a mid-sentence link on a talk page, or if there is an alternative list structure in a "See also" section. {{stack|{{portal|Puerto Rico|U.S. Roads}}}}
code, which allows you to adjust its location in the "See also" section (you can see as an example the
Puerto Rico Highway 1 article). In relation to external links associated with Commons, if what appears in that section is that link, the inline format should be used, while if that list includes other links, the box could be used, depending on the size of the space or the quantity of links that exist (that could be left to the discretion of the editor or author of the article).
Yarfpr (
talk)
21:38, 11 December 2019 (UTC)@ Mercy11: You're right. I just solved the problem. Yarfpr ( talk) 00:53, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
@
Mercy11: I just corrected the design of several articles to prevent the portal box from entering more to the left than desired and simplifying the standard we want to set. Basically I decided that the box should always be kept to the right and below the infobox road, regardless of the fact that sometimes it moves away from the "See also" section to create a balance between the left and right parts of an article. The first thing I did was to delete the {{stack|(PORTALS)}}
code, moving images between the different sections and changing their sizes. In some cases I used the {{-}}
code, which generates a blank space between the most important sections and those at the bottom (See also, References, External links, etc.). As an example, you can see the following articles:
Puerto Rico Highway 133,
Puerto Rico Highway 163,
Puerto Rico Highway 500,
Puerto Rico Highway 503,
Puerto Rico Highway 511 and
Puerto Rico Highway 577.
Yarfpr (
talk)
02:00, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
@ Yarfpr: Posted here. I made some minor changes to the wording which I don't think will be a problem: since all PR articles (not just PR roads) should be using the PR portal image link, the changes were to make the Standard more generic. Check it out and let me know what you think.
Also, I updated Proposed points 3 & 4 in the Sandbox to eliminate the rational and list just the Standard, which I think is leaner and goes straight to the point (making it potentially less confusing). If you want to include the rationale (whether that one there or the one to be developed, if any, based on the outcome of the pending decision) just let me know and we can add a rationale, perhaps in a format similar to the one used in the Standards for the "Use of "U.S". in the infobox". See the Update to the Proposal (3&4) here. Mercy11 ( talk) 19:54, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
The Eloquent Peasant & Mercy11: Wow, that's a great find! I love that format! I would like to place it in some articles to know if that alternative is better than all the previous ones. In fact, that could be a standard for the entire WikiProject, not just on road articles. Even, it's likely that the bar can also use the stack code without any problem. Yarfpr ( talk) 00:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
{{Portal bar|Puerto Rico|U.S. Roads}}
is shown as {{stack|{{Portal bar|Puerto Rico|U.S. Roads}}}}
is shown as{{Portal bar|Puerto Rico|U.S. Roads|border=n}}
is shown as{{stack|{{Portal bar|Puerto Rico|U.S. Roads|border=n}}}}
is shown as@ Yarfpr: My heart aches for those affected in PR. But the Puerto Rican people have been around over 500 years and will continued moving forward. I am convinced the islanders will rise stronger than ever. Best of wishes to you and yours. Mercy11 ( talk) 21:15, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Ok, so late to this party, but apparently there's a local standard being used that isn't following a general standard. This is related to
Puerto Rico Highway 723. First, per
MOS:LAYOUT, the see also section should not contain links that are already in use in the article. That means
List of highways in Puerto Rico (bottom of the infobox) and
Ruta Panorámica (in the junction list) should not be repeated there. There also shouldn't be links there that aren't useful to the reader, so that means
List of highways numbered 723 should be dropped. That leaves just the portals, and the general standard is not to use a portal box if there are no other links, switching to the inline template.
That last point is why you should use the inline version of the Commons template if there are not other items in the bulleted list in the external links section. If there are items, put Commons back in its box and list it first before any KML box to give priority to a sister project over links to other non-affiliated websites. 22:28, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Yarfpr and Imzadi1979, I agree that photos currently above the infobox in PR-487 and the others are best moved elsewhere. My reason is their position there almost makes it seem as if the photo was part of the infobox and, unlike maps or company logos, which aren't dependent on the viewer's perspective, a photo does not reflect everything about a road and there could be millions of photos about the same one road.
As for the so-called "local standard" being followed in PR-723 that doesn't follow the so-called "general standard" as it regards the portal "box", I don't see a problem leaving it in the boxed format so long as it's applied consistently to all the road articles in the same series, in this case, the "series" being all the road articles in the Puerto Rico roads series. It's currently well done and very neat. Plus there is consistency as a reader moves from article to article in that series. Consistency helps readers find the information faster as they become accustomed to expecting certain layout because in other articles of the same series the same layout is consistently used. Consistency is preferred over a "general standard" which, to begin with, it's neither applied everywhere nor documented anywhere I am aware of. My reasoning is dual in that this was also already extensively discussed (and, discussed recently, as opposed to eons ago) and discussed over a fairly lengthy period of time (3-4 months, see above). At that time, every conceivable scenario was examined at length (top vs. bottom, left vs. right, short article vs. long aticle, bulleted portal list vs. non-bulleted, etc, etc). In fact, scenarios that are popping up now again, such as huge chunks of blank space, were all explored by various editors. In the end, the format and the section were ultimately decided upon to be the standard for all such articles: boxed and under the See also section. We also should note that many PR road articles are stubs, However, as they grow in content (road history, fully-populated infoboxes, route descriptions, tables of major intersections, photos of the road, etc etc,) the additional content will do away with concerns such as having chunks of blank spaces in the article. As articles get filled in with more content, concerns such as portal links that don't visually "fall" into the see also section will also disappear.
As for the view that List of highways numbered 723 should be dropped, I don't agree. MOS:SEEALSO states "whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense." Here, in PR-723, we have what appears to be a precendent: road articles with wikilinks to other seemingly unrelated road articles (highways numbered 723). I beg to differ from the "aren't useful to the reader" categorization in that I choose not to be too presumptuous to believe that such links wouldn't be useful. I think they can be and will be. I can visualize, for example, how such links may be useful to someone performing serious research about roads throughout the world numbered, say, "4". Articles about "List of highways numbered XYZ" are not disambiguation pages, but list articles on their own right. I also note that this is not the first road article series using those types of "List of highways numbered XYZ" links in their "See also" sections; see, for example, K-1 (Kansas highway) and Utah State Route 4 (there are many others). So the timing may be about right to start adding such links to perhaps all road article in all roads series. For these reasons I think the " List of highways numbered 723", and similar links, should be kept.
Lastly, I also agree that the "See also" section should **not** contain links already linked in the article (or even already included in but not yet linked in the article). This is expected per MOS:ALSO.
Regards, Mercy11 ( talk) 02:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi! On bios, I've seen the blurb re: "Spanish naming customs" sometimes in the article lead and sometimes footnoted / in notes.
It goes something like this "This article uses Spanish naming customs: the first or paternal family name is Torres and the second or maternal family name is Nadal." An example of blurb in lead is here and an example of blurb in a note is here.
According to the MOS it should be in the lead, (I think) but it does seem to clutter the top of the article lead. Where do you prefer the blurb on Spanish name customs to be? -- The Eloquent Peasant ( talk) 01:52, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
This is a tough one: seems there is no consensus. I may be wrong so please check the 4 preferences above and let me know if I am mistaken:
Depending one how we read this above (because Yarfpr had a change of mind [***] and later said both options seemed good), we seem to have a 2-2 tie, and no one to break it. Options: (a) we could ping other project members to see if anyone else answers and if there is a consensus or (b) we could leave it as it is and let each editor code according to his preference above, or (c) we could read Yarfpr's vote as 1/2 each way, so the final count becomes 1-1/2 votes for the hatnote vs. 2-1/2 votes for the footnote, so the winner is As a Footnote, and use that as a consensus. Any other ideas? Mercy11 ( talk) 21:42, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Present the issue involved in the consensus with the pros and contras of both options (No personal opinions). Then go to the Wikipedia Puerto Rican community and ask them to vote on the issue. Tony the Marine ( talk) 23:00, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Related to this discussion - just wanted to mention that it seems after long contentious discussions by the Wikipedia community, it's been decided to eliminate many of the names templates and merge them.. Even the Spanish name template will eventually be merged into the family name template... I don't think the community cared to discuss *the location of the template* / whether its done as a hatnote at the beginning of the article or as a Group note that shows more like a reference. The bot is just changing the template itself. 1) See here and 2) here for an example of the changes being made to the thousands of articles with the Spanish name template. -- The Eloquent Peasant ( talk) 18:58, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
@ The Eloquent Peasant: In reference to Catholic Dioceses in Puerto Rico, I am not sure why we would change from Country=US to Country=<blank> (in, for example Arecibo, [1]). My view is that since ecclesiastical hierarchies aren't established by political entities (but by ecclesiastical bodies) ecclesiastical articles need to follow the nomenclature established by religious bodies - in this case the Holy See or the US Conference of Catholic Bishops. For example, the Episcopal Conference of Puerto Rico is separate from the Episcopal Conference of the USA, see List of Catholic dioceses (structured view). Furthermore, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops does not include Puerto Rico -- Puerto Rico has its own episcopal conference, separate from the US conference (see United States Conference of Catholic Bishops). I think the Country parameter for dioceses in Puerto Rico should be "Country=Puerto Rico" because, imo, this analogous to the reasoning for ; those follow regional geology and dioceses follow ecclesiastical, not political, directives (i.e., the SCOTUS has no authority here). Can you review your rationale and share your thoughts. Thanks, Mercy11 ( talk) 04:11, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi all! Just an idea. I noticed that the 78 barrio-pueblo articles example here.. Corozal barrio-pueblo are almost a start. If you have anything that you can add to a barrio-pueblo article please do so and then update the talk page class from "stub" to "start". -- The Eloquent Peasant ( talk) 11:44, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
The push for .svg comes with the danger that anyone can upload an .svg file which does not represent the municipality. Once the .svg is uploaded, it may even 'cause the deletion of a previous (more correct) .jpg file. Currently there are many people creating .svg files of flags and coats of arms. Tony the Marine created many of the flag and coat of arms files that are currently being used on hundreds of Puerto Rico articles but they are not in .svg and I'm concerned are in danger of being replaced by poor representations (as long as they have an .svg extension no one seems to really be watching).
I'm concerned that incorrect representations of municipality flags and coat of arms will continue to be uploaded to Commons. See Yauco, Puerto Rico for an instance of this problem. See Trujillo Alto, Puerto Rico for another example. In the history of the articles you'll see I reverted the addition of images which are not correct. How do you suggest we handle this without one of us suddenly having to become the .svg expert.
A second issue I find with this topic is that finding the "real" images of flags and coat of arms is not that easy. The pr.gov website has them but you can barely see the symbol and there's no way one could create a good .svg based on their tiny representations of the images. boricuaonline.com has images on their website but how do we know they're accurate? I have lots of questions and no answers. Have a good day guys! --
The Eloquent Peasant (
talk)
17:30, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Yarfpr: (my #'s here don't correspond to your numbers but #ing is nice)
I would like to create a "mass deletion request" of flag and coat of arms of municipios de Puerto Rico found on Wikipedia Commons.
The Puerto Rico gov't website - directory of municipios, has the municipio's flag and coat of arms graphics on a page bearing "pr.gov © 2020 , Todos los derechos reservados" at the bottom of each municipio page. The flag / COA images are small.
Also each of the 78 municipality description pages on the lexjuris site, which hosts the laws of Puerto Rico, hosts a very blurry, low resolution of the flag and coat of arms ( at the top of the pages).
Why do those two important websites have tiny, or blurry images of the symbols? Is it so a person trying to make the flag can "guess" what it looks like?
I believe it has been done that way on both websites to protect the copyrighted materials! If they weren't trying to protect the symbols, they would display clear, high resolution images so that anyone could use the image. That is not the case: the pr.gov website and the lexjuris are protecting the copyright (modeling the behavior) we should be following here on en-Wikipedia.
On pr.gov, the copyright info is on the last page of this .pdf document and states: "Este Portal contiene información protegida por los derechos de propiedad intelectual y derechos morales de autor. El ELA, sus agencias y corporaciones públicas tienen derechos propietarios sobre todo el conteni do que aparece en este Portal. El ELA, las agencias y/o las corporaciones se reservan todos los derechos que existen o puedan existir sobre este contenido. La publicación de información en este portal no constituye una cesión de los derechos o una licencia para utilizar la información sin obtener el consentimiento previo del ELA."
Please find discussion here on Commons related to this.
From such blurry examples on official government sites, how are we able to make good .svg or .png files? It becomes untenable to ensure that wrong symbols are not added to articles when 1) most editors don't care to get it perfectly correct, 2) there is no clear image to go by.
Which one is right? How do we know? Do we want people uploading incorrect symbols, as they've been doing?
Are we then to plead and chase after uploaders to correct the flag and coat of arms? This situation is the most ridiculous thing I've run into in my time here and as my friend from Jersey used to say To his mother, “what WTF ma?!“
A small, non-free image should be created or left on each municipio of Puerto Rico's main article.
What are your thoughts on this? -- The Eloquent Peasant ( talk) 01:10, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
And I've asked a governor of Puerto Rico via email about the copyright status of municipio symbols. The Eloquent Peasant ( talk) 17:00, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Someone from the governor's office responded with
"En general, le puedo orientar sobre el uso de imágenes en Internet. Lo ideal es buscar en banco e imágenes de uso libre como Pixabay. También, al hacer una búsqueda de imágenes en Google, va a la sección de Images, luego seleccione Herramientas (Tools) y finalmente vaya a la sección de derechos de uso. Una alternativa es seleccionar las de libre uso o creative commons.
Son imágenes ya con uso libre permitido.Recomendamos que si utiliza una imagen de alguna plataforma de gobierno, incluya la referencia y enlace de donde fue obtenida la misma.
Le incluyo la Ley pars usos oficiales de Escudo, bandera y sellos en Puero Rico.
http://www.lexjuris.com/LEXLEX/Leyes2006/lexl2006070.htm " ... --
The Eloquent Peasant (
talk)
17:34, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
The email from Biblioteca Centro para Puerto Rico
Fundación Sila M. Calderón
787-765-4500
biblioteca@centroparapuertorico.org
1012 calle González Urb. Santa Rita, San Juan, PR 00925
Which basically states go ahead and search around the internet for files, work them up and create your versions of the Puerto Rico symbols just ensure you link to where you got the file / idea from for your version of it.-- The Eloquent Peasant ( talk) 20:58, 21 September 2020 (UTC) Updated: -- The Eloquent Peasant ( talk) 20:58, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
This is
the definition by the US Census which Puerto Rico is a part of every 10 years:
"Barrio
Along with Barrio-Pueblo, the primary legal subdivision of municipios in Puerto Rico. Similar to the minor civil divisions (MCDs) used for reporting census data in 29 states of the United States."
(Copied conversation from my talk page to this section for reference and discussion)
They are barrios. The way Egypt has " governorates" and the Governorates of Egypt article lead states "governorates" not "wards". Each country has their own way of referring to their subdivisions.-- The Eloquent Peasant ( talk) 15:18, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
References
-- The Eloquent Peasant ( talk) 16:38, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't want to create a big giant table. I think a list is nice... we can add comments under or next to each file. See here for the Symbols Project Page as I'm not sure how it'll take form or how you'all want it. -- The Eloquent Peasant ( talk) 17:18, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
This recently came to my attention, as I first started editing on Wikipedia. Articles about other US Territories (like Guam and the USVI) indicate that their country or sovereign state is the 'U.S,' while also listing their respective territories. The same is true for French and Dutch territories. However, PR seems to be an exception. Most Puerto Rico articles seem to be vague on PR's relationship with the U.S. In my opinion, this can be misleading as it can give people the impression that PR is an independent country, if the 'US' isn't indicate anywhere (Remember half of Americans didn't know that Puerto Ricans were US citizens). Also, nobody can really say that PR is or isn't part of the U.S. as 'part' is NOT a political term. Under U.S. law, the 'United States,' when used in a geographical sense, refers to all areas under it's sovereignty (the 50 States, D.C. territories and possessions). This shows me that using the US as the sovereign state/country in PR articles is absolutely fine, as long at it's not related to the Olympics, Miss Universe, or other articles which PR should be talked about alone. Addresses come under 'geographical terms,' which means that it is fine to use the format 'Puerto Rico, United States' if anyone wishes. I tried to find a SCOTUS statement that said that PR and U.S. territories 'belong to, but are not part of the United States.' The closest thing I could find was that they 'belong to the United States, but is not part of the United States within the revenue clauses of the Constitution.' 'Revenue clauses' refers to trade and commerce. It seems like many people only read the first bit because it does NOT simply say that PR 'belongs to, but is not part of the United States' on it's own. The SCOTUS even said that the term 'United States' can also include the territories. Particularly in international law, and in an international and diplomatic sense, PR and the territories are part of the US. When federal politicians say that they want to do/enact '_____ in the United States,' 99% of the time they also mean the territories, including PR. It's also worth noting that the majority of US laws and regulations apply in PR and, in my opinion, it would be silly, and absurd to simply state that PR 'is not in/part of the U.S.' In the CIA World Factbook, French territories (which are considered 'integral parts of France' ), Dutch territories, and other territories/regions have fact pages. This does not mean however that they are simply 'part of/not part of (sovereign state).' I know that British Overseas Territories are very autonomous entities and have their own laws and regulations, and UK law explicitly states that they are not 'part of' the United Kingdom. U.S. territories have about the same amount of autonomy as U.S. States (except in some tax codes). There are federal agencies within the territories, just like there are in States. I do, however, also acknowledge that PR and other territories can be considered 'nations' for cultural purposes. If we continue to say that 'Puerto Rico is not in/a part of the US' then we create lots of confusion when we really don't need to (as I said whether PR is 'part of' the U.S. or not is unresolved and not explicitly stated, and we should just go by the logical definition). In general terms, I think that it is acceptable to say that the U.S. territories are part of the U.S. as they is follows most of its laws, and fit the generally accepted definition of the word 'part.' Hurricane Maria should be a lesson to all of us, and we should not be ignorant and simply say that it's not in the US, it just causes confusion (and ultimately leads to ignorance). I would like to hear others' opinions on the matter as it is indeed a very confusing topic. Thanks:-) Anonymous MK2006 ( talk) 17:31, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
To add to that, U.S. citizens in PR and the other territories can't vote for the POTUS, and have no proper voting representation. This, I believe, should be changed to respect the democratic values that the U.S. was founded on. Puerto Ricans should also decide what the want for their homeland, be that statehood, the free association, or independence. Anonymous MK2006 ( talk) 17:34, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
So just to clarify in the info box said That the Arecibo observatory location was equal to Arecibo, US And that was and would be incorrect. So that is my major concern. We need to be clear that things in Puerto Rico should not say location=US because that would be incorrect. The Eloquent Peasant ( talk) 20:17, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Here is some background info [ [2]] -- The Eloquent Peasant ( talk) 23:45, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
mainly read here - it's a Wikidata project with limitations and poorly defined properties that, according to Jura1, I should now handle through another Wikidata property "disputed claim" when in fact it's a poorly defined P131 property, per discussion 9 months ago Q11703 Q16645 Property:P131 Arecibo Observatory#Where_is_the_Observatory_located? diff=1281113354 User_talk:Jura1=1281115973#Located_in_the_administrative_territorial_entity -- The Eloquent Peasant ( talk) 10:27, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
@ The Eloquent Peasant: Yes, the U.S. has more than 50 states. Whatever you think about the territories, the District of Columbia is most certainly in the U.S. Regarding U.S. territories, it is useless to debate over whether the US Territories are legally 'in the U.S.,' as we just do not have a proper answer. The fact that some websites simply state that PR is 'associated with the U.S.' doesn't mean you actually have to call it that; after all, all the people that make those websites are HUMAN BEINGS. As I said, the terms 'in' and 'part' are not strictly speaking political terms, and it's up to us to interpret these things in the LOGICAL way. If I was in PR, it would be odd to say that I wasn't in the U.S., even if I am literally within the jurisdiction of all the feds, and can be prosecuted under U.S. law in U.S. federal courts. Also, the US govt says that I can say that Puerto Rico is in the US in a 'geographical sense.' This includes, yes, addresses, infoboxes, etc. I have seen a few websites (even U.S. govt websites) that say 'PR, US/USA.' If this was incorrect, they would never write it like that. Even during the coronavirus pandemic, the figures for PR ARE included for figures of the U.S. 90-99% of the time U.S. federal legislation treats PR as a state, even if it's not (even if in federal funding programs, PR and the territories receive less funding than the 50 states). We should understand that we need to look at the bigger picture, rather than a few statements, that we could debate for years and never get an answer. In conclusion, it should be acceptable to add the US to PR infoboxes in the same way we do to other US Territories and States. Yes, we don't have to always mention U.S. in every single Puerto Rico article, but it should at least be in the geographical ones somewhere in the article. Regards. Anonymous MK2006 ( talk) 16:12, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
@ The Eloquent Peasant: Anonymous MK2006 ( talk) 16:14, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
@ The Eloquent Peasant: Anonymous MK2006 ( talk) 16:14, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
@ The Eloquent Peasant: Anonymous MK2006 ( talk) 16:16, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
United States (38) The term “United States”, except as otherwise specifically herein provided, when used in a geographical sense, means the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands of the United States, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Source 8 USC § 1101(a)(38)
Scoping language As used in this chapter United States (38) The term “United States”, except as otherwise specifically herein provided, when used in a geographical sense, means the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands of the United States, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Source 8 USC § 1101(a)(38) @ The Eloquent Peasant: Anonymous MK2006 ( talk) 16:27, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
It's also worth noting that, more recently, American Samoa was added to the definition of the 'United States' in a geographical sense. Anonymous MK2006 ( talk) 16:32, 28 September 2020 (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 2 | Archive 3 |
There are two versions of this arms. One made by TEP and the other by myself. Cookieman1.1.1 created later. Many things are wrong with TEP's version:
I would love if this is looked over and we reach a consensus.
-- Cookieman1.1.1 ( talk) 02:57, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
@
Cookieman1.1.1: I agree with # 3. I did use a png for the arms and traced it and even though it looks good to me, you seem to think it's a problem. So because I do not intend on redoing it (because I'd have to make too many changes) to fix either issue #3 and issue #1 about the mural crown being a mess and sloppy, I am pinging @
Mercy11:, @
Yarfpr:. If you two care to let CM know any changes you'd like to see on his version of Aguada. I just think the arms look too muscular and the tincture on the right looks a little too red. --
The Eloquent Peasant (
talk)
02:24, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Also based on the blazon, The tower doors / windows openings should be blue - : El escudo de Aguada consistirá de dos cuarteles, plateado el superior y azul el inferior. En el primero figurará la insignia de la Orden de San Francisco, a saber; el brazo de Nuestro Señor superpuesto al brazo de San Francisco, vestido con el habito de la orden, y ambos salientes de nubes y puestos en forma de aspa sobre el pie de una cruz de madera, al natural. En el segundo cuartel figuran cinco galeones españoles del siglo XVII, de oro, sus velas de plata recogidas, puestos tres arriba y dos abajo. Sobre el escudo descansara una corona mural de oro de cuatro torres, con puertas y ventanas *rojas*.-- The Eloquent Peasant ( talk) 02:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Note: The dressed arm is dressed witth order of Franciscan habit (sleeve) so sleeve should be loose near wrist as seen here:
--
The Eloquent Peasant (
talk)
03:05, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
So to enumerate:
The Eloquent Peasant ( talk) 03:21, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
@ The Eloquent Peasant: But that would be design and not following blazon which can lead to issues, other then the towers (which is a simple fix) its correct with the blazon. All the tinctures are correct, you say towers should be gold but then wouldn't that make your towers also incorrect? The Or is fine. When it comes to the sleeve or arms it is not blazon specific so it is merely the artists interpretation.
Edit: I just seen the crown was changed on your part, however I would still like to point out my crown has nothing wrong.
-- Cookieman1.1.1 ( talk) 04:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
(copied comments from project page comments column) "Escudo de San Germán.svg || same as above. See
Heráldico I reverted new user:Cookieman1.1.1 .svg off Wikipedia articles because lion should be purple (w/ red claws)
9/22 - Fixed lions claws and colour. --
Cookieman1.1.1 (
talk)
20:16, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
9/22 - Thank you. We'll review shortly.--
The Eloquent Peasant (
talk)
03:19, 23 September 2020 (UTC)"
(copied comments from project page comments column) "Flag of San Germán, Puerto Rico.svg || I reverted new user:Cookieman1.1.1 .svg off Wikipedia articles because lion should be purple (w/ red claws)
9/22 - Fixed lions claws and colour. --
Cookieman1.1.1 (
talk)
20:16, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
9/22 - Thank you. We'll review shortly.--
The Eloquent Peasant (
talk)
03:19, 23 September 2020 (UTC)"
(Copied comments from main project page comments column) "Coat of arms of San Lorenzo.svg || 9/22 -
I reverted Cookieman1.1.1 because of reasons stated on talk page
9/22 Coat of arms is appears correct but if needed colours can be changed by myself --
Cookieman1.1.1 (
talk)
20:03, 22 September 2020 (UTC)"
There are two versions. One I created, one Cookieman1.1.1 created later. I opened up a discussion on Cookieman's version because I see 3 things wrong with it: 1) the tower 2) the crown 3) the belt - is not what I've seen in templates. I do like Cookieman's dimensions of the coat of arms.
-- TEP ( talk) 19:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
1. Not blazon specific, both are correct. It is also recommended we dont copy off templates as doing so could lead to copyright issues as some renditions are not free. --
Cookieman1.1.1 (
talk)
19:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
9/22-
I reverted the Catano.svg uploaded by new user: Niko3818 and added Category:Disputed coats of arms to image (TEP)
9/22 Shield and branches seem alright, the mural crown is incorrect and some of the coloring is also incorrect and needs work. --
Cookieman1.1.1 (
talk)
20:06, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Ill be working on this arms over the weekend so please bare with me :) -- Cookieman1.1.1 ( talk) 14:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
It seems that this page has been overtaken by -what I can only call- a Marian sect of some sort. The cult per see seems to have existed for well over a century (early 20th Century, if the dates are accurate) but I’m unfamiliar with it. Perhaps one of you knows if it is notable enough to be spinned into an article by itself, or if we should create a page for unorthodox religious groups in Puerto Rico (of which there are several). In either case, since the Catholic Church has yet to recognize them, the content needs to be removed from this page. Old School WWC Fan ( talk) 02:46, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
(Copied comments from project page comments column) "Flag: Flag of Toa Baja, Puerto Rico.svg || (Flag of Toa Baja.svg) || 10/4 I would like this SVG to be removed as it is incorret. Check this pages talk. --
Cookieman1.1.1 (
talk)
23:04, 4 October 2020 (UTC)"
(Copied comments from project page) "Flag of Trujillo Alto.svg by Carlos, TrujilloAltoFlag.jpg, File:Flag of Trujillo Alto, Puerto Rico by Cookie | 9/22 Need a better .svg, too much land on the image. Should be more mountain, less land (see usual sources)
I fixed the flag in my version, check it out and please give feed back --
Cookieman1.1.1 (
talk) 02:34, 5 October 2020 (UTC)" --
The Eloquent Peasant (
talk)
11:35, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
I've made the coat of arms of Vega Baja. It isn't finished as it doesn't have its motto complete yet. Thoughts on it so far?
--
Cookieman1.1.1 (
talk)
18:16, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
It should be noted that the term "territory" should not be included in an infobox related to Puerto Rico, because the true fact in regard to the political status of the island is that it is considered to be a permanently inhabited, "unincorporated territory" by the United States. The pure and simple fact is that Puerto Rico is a nation, it is a country, although not an independent one. Puerto Rico has all of the requirements which define a nation such as it's own citizenship, culture, traditions and customs. Tony the Marine ( talk) 15:16, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
@ ElKevbo:@ The Eloquent Peasant: Let's not lose focus of why we are here: to standardize the location of universities in Puerto Rico as universities being located or not being located in the United States. If Puerto Rico isn't in the United States then those articles are wrong in including US as its location. Since the the SCOTUS has already made a determination on this subject, it really doesn't matter what I think or what you think; we need to go by reliable sources and, in this case, that would be the SCOTUS, and they ruled that Puerto Rico is not in the United States. If PR is not in the United States then, by simple reasoning, those universities cannot be in the US either, and the location cannot say US. If we really wanted to do hard work, we could also go to
NationsOnline, [1] PuertoRico.org, [2] NationsFacts, [3] The World Bank, [4] even the US's own CIA's World Fact Book, [5] and a million other places, to see listings of Puerto Rico among the countries of the world. However, we don't have to because the SCOTUS has already stated that it's not part of the US, which is what matters in this university infobox location issue.
ElKevbo, I know it may appear " mutually exclusive" that if PR isn't in the US then, it's logical to ask why the main article for the island says that it's an "unincorporated territory of the United States." A few things are happening here that I suggest you look out for: (1) That quote is entirely correct regarding what PR is: it's not in the US, but it is of the US. (2) The lead says the words you quoted because that's the job of a WP:LEAD, to describe what something is. Leads about countries (you can check a few) also state where they are located and, in the case of PR, nowhere does it says that Puerto Rico is located in the US. (3) The lead also says what PR's relationship to the US is: "a commonwealth"; that is, it describes the political relationship between the two countries. Leads of countries commonly describe geography, politics, economics, etc. about a country, and Puerto Rico's lead is no different: it describes those aspects of this country. (4) We shouldn't rely entirely on what an Wikipedia article says, and should do our own research; please remember that citing WP (i.e., citing the WP Puerto Rico article) is like citing an unreliable source. (5) I would encourage you not to take the "country" parameter in the university infobox too literally. When first created, was the university infobox conceived to enter only sovereign countries into the "country" parameter? Of course not, the country parameter was to enter countries and nowhere in the university infobox documentation it says the country parameter is for entering sovereign countries only.
It's fine if the country description is "one that would [not] be widely accepted by the Wikipedia community." It's a matter of education and these guys (and gals) here in the PR Wikiproject are experts at educating others about PR's unique and somewhat complicated status and its implications on Puerto Rican citizenship, nationality and, now, location. It's a known fact most editors are young American males; it's also a known fact that half of them don't know Puerto Ricans are US citizens. [6]
I think we need to keep focus of our purpose here and, rather than going off into tangent discussions --though at times helpful and necessary to quickly clarify a point or two-- I think we should keep focus of why we are here: to discuss what country name belongs in the location parameter of the university infobox. Of course this would also apply by extension to the location parameters of other PR-related infoboxes such as museums in PR, rivers in PR, mountains in PR, buildings in PR, hospitals, tourist attractions, etc, etc. I haven't yet seen anything that would indicate that the location parameter in the infobox for Universidad del Sagrado Corazón and the others should say it's located in the United States any more than the Instituto de Cultura Puertorriqueña should say it is located in San Juan, Puerto Rico, United States. These are educational articles and, imo, shouldn't be muddied with politics. Mercy11 ( talk) 03:20, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
References
According to well referenced articles, an American (United States) Military Base, camp (Example: the former Camp Garcia in Vieques) or post may be referred to as an installation. Said installations are under the jurisdiction of the Department of Defense, including leased space, that is controlled by, or primarily supports DoD's activities. An installation may consist of one or more sites" (geographically-separated real estate parcels). Military bases within the United States are considered federal property and are subject to federal law. Civilians (such as family members of military officers) living on military bases are generally subject to the civil and criminal laws of the states where the bases are located. [1] Military bases can range from small outposts to military cities containing up to 100,000 people. Military bases may belong to a different nation or state than the territory surrounding it.
A good example as to the proper title of an article about a US Military Base in Puerto Rico is Fort Buchanan, Puerto Rico. The main infobox title is United States Army Garrison Fort Buchanan, Puerto Rico which I believe to be the correct way of putting things. Tony the Marine ( talk) 01:30, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
References
@ Marine 69-71: Hey Tony, wandering if you can shed some light here... In preparing to standardize US military installations, I found it more practical to standardize both US and PR military installations located in the Island. Now, in standardizing the way how locations (such as "Salinas, Puerto Rico" for Campamento Santiago) look, what we really standardize is the type of information that is populated next to the parameter (example: the "|Location =" parameter) or parameters (example: the "|City = " and "|Country =" parameters) of an infobox. Well, it turns out that in Puerto Rico there appears to be 2 types of articles about "military installations": those that, like Fort Buchanan, Puerto Rico use the "military installation" infobox (this is the most of the articles), and those that, like Coast Guard Air Station Borinquen, use the "military unit" infobox. This wouldn't be a problem if both infoboxes had the same types of parameters for displaying location, but they don't: I cannot find a "|location=" or "|city=" parameter for the "military unit" infobox. Is this an error, and should the Coast Guard Air Station Borinquen be using the "military installation" infobox? If not an error, will the integrity of the infobox information for Coast Guard Air Station Borinquen be violated if we removed the US from the country parameter? BTW, if not an error and the "US" must be kept, is this the only military unit operating/based in Puerto Rico (whether US military of PR national guard military)? Thanks, Mercy11 ( talk) 02:47, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello @ Marine 69-71: wondering if you wouldn't mind taking a look at " Coast Guard Station San Juan" as it's using neither of the 2 infoboxes above but the {{Infobox Military Structure}} So, I am wondering which way we should go with this one. Seems to me this is just another "base" of sorts. Can you give me your thoughts on this one, Military Unit, Military Structure, or Military installation? Thanks, Mercy11 ( talk) 02:48, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, @ The Eloquent Peasant: for fixing (well, someone did) the wikidata on Arecibo Observatory. I had noticed a problem there about a month ago and tried addressing it but it took me into a lesson of Wikidata and its databases for which I didn't a the moment have the time.
On another matter, I see you started modifying articles (such as rivers of Puerto Rico) per the Standards. Cool! I was going to wait until we had dressed up the Standards page a bit more but, no problem, they both had to be done! The modifications are looking good. Plus you set a standard for the "edit summary" that I plan to be using as well. Let me see if I can work on the museums in the Standards as well as museums in Puerto Rico articles and, hopefully, with that addition have a neatly formatted Standards page before we start making additional "article types" addition to the Standards page (so we are "caught up"). Mercy11 ( talk) 14:13, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
@ Mercy11: Let's just not work too hard. I wanted to test the 4 dashes to consider separating my messages with lines for easier readability. It's always been difficult when conversations get long.... Anyways and the wiki community was discussing ways to better the "talk" experience but I don't know if they came up with implementable solutions.... The Eloquent Peasant ( talk) 18:19, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
@ Mercy11: I'm afraid we'll have to become experts on wikidata. I believe there's a project to transclude text from wikidata to infoboxes (in effect we wouldn't update the infobox). The problem, it seems, is that wikidata editors who want to fit things neatly into databases are hell-bent into making things fit neatly into databases. When I asked about it and linked to a discussion from English Wiki, (which was probably dumb on my part), about why their project is feeding incorrectly into infoboxes I was told not to bring English Wiki discussions into wikidata.
They speak about how relational databases work. So, currently there's no way to fix the Arecibo Observatory in English wiki because it's 1) transcluding data from wikidata and we're waiting for the coder to fix it and 2) When I, at least, try to update the wikidata item, to at minimum show Puerto Rico in the infobox (as an administrative division), another editor reverts my Wikidata change and states that adding Puerto Rico is "redundant". So they basically don't want Arecibo Observatory showing that it is in the "located in the administrative territorial entity" of Puerto Rico, only United States, because United States is the country that everything in Puerto Rico is in. I guess "of" the US means "in" the US to them.
So it'll have to stay incorrectly showing "Arecibo, US" on English wikipedia, because one expert coded how the infobox should show (BTW, he correctly shows "Arecibo, Puerto Rico" on Arecibo Observatory commons (images) category page seen here and he seems very nice, but is busy. So we'll have to wait for that person to have time to address the question/ issue/ correction I have requested. Until then it will say "Arecibo, US" on the English wikipedia infobox.
I hope their project is not hoping to feed all infobox data from wikidata as it is now because the issues aren't always being addressed, or discussed in English. People are arguing about the problems but they're being discussed in Relational database terms, that most people don't understand. Not everything fits neatly into a database unless you design the database with good feedback from people who know how it all fits together and if you have the understanding of how things work outside of databases then you create the database to address all issues. Put simply, I will now try to explain to wikidata editors that "in English" the word "of" doesn't mean "in", without being rude.. but I'm not sure how else to say it. Like everywhere else: some editors get it, some don't and some don't want to get it. And if I don't care, it'll just stay wrong. -- The Eloquent Peasant ( talk) 15:02, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
@ The Eloquent Peasant: Fortunately, I've had some experience here with jerks like him before. Even after significant improvements were made to the article, he still pressed on, and even after I extended him an olive branch (he knows what I am talking about) he still pushed on. The article even more than double in size but, like the USC complainer, he just kept doing 0% work and 100% whining. He must have swallowed hard when the Keeps started rolling in, yet he continued to be relentless on his focus for a "judicial" approach. Then the entire situation became one of WP:SNOW. Only a fool would had continued at that point rather than doing some soul-searching, a reality check and retreating but he, stubbornly, stayed the course. In the end, when he saw an opportunity to save face, he tended me a trap: in what appeared like a gesture of goodwill, he wanted to compromise. But it was too little too late, because I had lost all trust in the guy's fairness, and could see it was a trap to get the article deleted (his primary goal) in exchange for my writing a new article about tourism in Ponce. What the h*ll does he care about tourism in Ponce? - haha. Nice try, but not with me. Perhaps you noticed (the closing admin sure did), but this guy even put effort trying to get the attention of the closing admin after I cast my 'Keep' vote, complaining "Note that Mercy11 is the creator of the article...", as if there was a rule that the creator cannot vote. Excuse me? He had every opportunity not to get himself in the hole he got in: Before I voted, I made a series of 6 comments and sat back to wait for his response so I could see if he had a reasonable defense and I could decide if I would join him in deleting the article, but he didn't respond so, yes, I went ahead and cast my vote. Then only after I cast my vote did he try to explain his arguments further (introducing, btw, a new attack of WP:V). Still, more Keep votes kept rolling in and, as if to stop the avalanche, he tagged the article with a never-before-used "reads like an ad" tag. He wanted to deal me another unfair card but, no problem, I went off to address that concern too. And, while I was making the additional "ad" improvements, the closing admin closed the nomination... I can tell you this: some ignorantes aqui try to make your life miserable at any cost when they have set their eyes on you. In the end, his own pride took care of him: Although this guy had been editing years longer than I, for the good of WP, I hope he did learn a lesson this time: it's not all about how good of a lawyer you are at presenting your case, you can't lose focus of the community and that teamwork matters more important than who wins the delete nomination. In the end, he was left alone, hanging off a cliff by a single skinny rope that was ultimately cut off by a much more level-minded closing admin. I would bet that if the nomination hadn't been closed, this moron would had still come back after the ad tone was removed and would had still thought of another "deficiency" in the article to continue his "revenge." Like Clint Eastwood said: he wants "revenge for being born." How sad! In the best of cases, it was jealousy: he was jealous that there was an article on nightlife in my town but not once on his town. Mercy11 ( talk) 04:50, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
I think I figured out what happened. On Wikidata: From June 12, 2013 here To June , 2013 here An identified user went through thousands of locations and
added Created claim: located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) and filled it in with a country: The editor received some comments on his talk page here re: incorrect addition on some wikidata items, which other editors had to tediously remove.
And On June 13, added the same claim to Puerto Rico here and to the other US territories here
While some of his additions / errors were questioned and corrected by some editors, Puerto Rico slipped through the cracks. No one noticed or questioned the edit.
The unregistered user responded on his talk page with how he made these edits and I quote him "I created a bot that traverse the entity recursively via the contains administrative territorial entity (P150) property. The assumption is if A subdivides to any entity B or C, then B is in administrative unit located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) of A, and C is in administrative unit located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) of A. This will ensure reciprocity but it seems to be not true all the time, the contains administrative territorial entity (P150) means both subdivides into administrative division and subdivides into other things. I am using this tool to make sure all subdivisions have other property like country (P17) is set to the same country as the root node. And also to be able to view the hierarchy of subdivision for a country. --112.203.160.147 16:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC)"
So that is why since mid-2013, it came to be that on English Wikipedia and other Wikipedias, based on this incorrect addition to the Wikidata item, Puerto Rico was made to be located "in" the administrative territorial entity (131) of the United States.
This is incorrect as the only territories in the United States are the 50 states.-- The Eloquent Peasant ( talk) 20:21, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
@ ElKevbo: @ The Eloquent Peasant: As an update, most (of the 10) Puerto Rico article types involving locations now have their infoboxes standardized. I see that Eloquent completed some, which was very helpful. Thank you. A few observations:
ElKevbo, it's perhaps now time to re-assess: How do you see this work so far addressing the totality of your concerns? Eloquent Peasant: do you have any ideas on how the 902 barrio articles could be approached? Is there, perhaps, a tool that could be used to update them all, considering --in particular-- that there are 78 municipalities? Mercy11 ( talk) 01:33, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
A de facto consensus of Wikipedia editors is not a true consensus nor is it a legal binding consensus. As a matter of fact Wikipedia in itself is considered to be an unreliable encyclopedia and source because anyone without the proper knowledge of things can edit and provide false information. We here have to stick to actual and legal facts and not a so-called consensus which may be the opinion of editors who have little or no knowledge of Puerto Rico, its legal standing nor its relation to the United States. Puerto Rican citizenship was recognized by the United States Congress in Article 7 of the Foraker Act in the early twentieth century and continues unchanged after the creation of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. [1] [2] [3] Section VII recognized a Puerto Rican nationality separate from that of the United States. The United States government continues to recognize a Puerto Rican nationality. [4] Tony the Marine ( talk) 04:19, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
@ The Eloquent Peasant: I would be opposed to standardizing by using Puerto Rico for country in some PR articles but using US for country in other PR articles: that isn't a standard. Also, a standard has to have an unshakable rationale: cherry picking articles is not standardizing. No one will argue that the US is a country because it is also a sovereign state. The confusion comes when we need to categorize territorial entities that, like Puerto Rico, aren't also sovereign states. We try to apply the same definition of country (i.e., the sovereign state definition) and everything, of course, becomes obscure. Why do you think it is OK to have PR display as a country in Cruce a Nado Internacional, but it's not in other articles?
@ ElKevbo: I am not sure why you are so focused in the "unincorporated territory" (UT) phrase; I don't see anything about that first statement that I would frown upon. The Puerto Rico article makes it clear, in the very first sentence --even prior to the UT phrase -- that PR is a commonwealth: the "Commonwealth of Puerto Rico" it says. It's a commonwealth, this is why The Eloquent Peasant modified the barrio and municipality articles types (ATs) -- to reflect that relationship. Following your (very valid) rationale, the Commonwealth is listed there first probably because it was more significant that of unorganized territory, and it was hashed out in that specific way by numerous editors over extensive discussion and compromise.
It would be beneficial if you could explain why you appear adamant to "Commonwealth" rendering in infoboxes, and seem to be favoring instead the Unincorporated Territory rendering. I think you need to state what you want more clearly, taking some additional time to give some thought to your vision, and articulate it once only, in its entirety, and without ambivalence, ambiguity or shifts. Your comments appear unrealistic on 2 fronts:
Seems to me we are needlessly chasing after too many loose goats here. Let's not lose sight of what we came here for: to decide whether or not "US" should display in the University infobox after "Puerto Rico" in " Universidad del Sagrado Corazón" (USC). Let's all get on the same foot and all agree to the facts in the USC case:
Is it still your position that the "US" should display in the PR infoboxes here? Please also note there is no "jumping of the gun" here: WP:BURDEN is on the editor entering the information; that would be you. I undid your edit because (1) PR isn't a state, and (2) PR isn't in the US, as your edit implied. This last one is obvious from USC's own website: it says it's located in Puerto Rico, not in the US.
However, your focus now appears to be shifting in favor of Unincorporated Territory (UT). A much different argument than the one from your original objection at USC, you are now appear to be arguing, not that PR isn't a state or that there is no standardization, but that PR isn't a country and that Unincorporated Territory better than country. I have pointed out the difference between a country and a sovereign state, and produced for your perusal 5 sources, including official US government sources, where PR is listed as a country. Tony has provided you some 5 sources as well related to this topic. It is true that "country" generally refers to a sovereign state ( https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/country) and I commend you for taking the high road and showing a preference for that "generally refers to" definition. I would had done the same thing, except that in the case of Puerto Rico the "generally" doesn't apply because the SCOTUS, the Feds, and others have already determined that Puerto Rico, while not a sovereign state, is indeed a country. We could go one with this discuss forever. Fortunately, it really doesn't matter how you prefer to characterize Puerto Rico, country or not, because the rendering of the country parameter displays as "Location", not as "Country" anyway. And, since the bulk of infoboxes render into a Location, not a Country (university being one), we would be wasting time if we went on discussing how to characterize Puerto Rico. It doesn't matter in the vast majority of infoboxes.
There is then, imo, nothing else to discuss here other than the few cases of infoboxes that do render the Country display. But, if all the existing infoboxes are flexible enough to render location without a direct reference that the country, then like Eloquent, I believe that we don't need to ask "for parameters to be added to infoboxes of museums, libraries or universities [and others]", because what is already available will accommodate all rendering needs. Secondly, by implementing Standards we can ensure all PR articles render the right way. An interesting fact is that out of over 40 universities in Puerto Rico, less than 7% of them had "United States" displaying in the infobox. Obviously there was a standard already being followed by 93% of them. It wasn't in writing, but there was one. What has changed now is that there is a Written Standard, with its own page in the Puerto Rico WikiProject, to aid future editors if they need guidance.
You mentioned "sensitive of this topic". You should be aware that there are 2 political groups in Puerto Rico: statehooders and non statehooders. It goes without saying that both groups are welcome to edit PR articles. However, Puerto Rico is not a state, and statehooders often place "state=PR" and "country=US" in infoboxes, to give the impression to the world that Puerto Rico is part of the US (statehooders goal is for PR to be a state) and to advertise, broadcast, boost, or otherwise promulgate their own political agenda. Such spreaders of misinformation for their own personal political goals aren't, imo, welcome to edit Puerto Rico. Please address the questions above if your time permits. Thanks, Mercy11 ( talk) 00:09, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
References
@ Marine 69-71:@ The Eloquent Peasant: I think we can remove the bottom half of the Infobox standards, in the Standards page, for each of the 10 entries there so far. By "bottom half" I mean the part that starts with "Do not use representations such as...". The idea is to just state what to use, rather than state to readers what not to use. What do you think? The Rational section and any Notes would stay. Mercy11 ( talk) 01:41, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
I think we should start adding pronunciation to the articles that require it, i.e Pueblo Viejo- but I've never worked with the pronunciation aspect of an article name before.-- The Eloquent Peasant ( talk) 23:16, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
External audio | |
---|---|
![]() |
@ The Eloquent Peasant:. Hi. In reference to your edit here I totally agree with you that Puerto Rico should be listed as a country, but not just for the case of Cruce a Nado Internacional but for every article that uses the "Infobox sports league", "Infobox Olympic games", "JCC infobox" and all the other sports-oriented infoboxes that include Puerto Rico in it. The reason for that is that, when it comes to sports, Puerto Rico always competes as a separate country from the US. You can see that in the infobox sports league here for Cruce a Nado Internacional (PR is listed under "Countries"), the Infobox Olympic games here for Olympic Games (expand the IOC in the section "Number of athletes by National Olympic Committee"; PR is listed under "Country"), and the JCC infobox here for the Central American and Caribbean Games (Puerto Rico is listed under the "Nation" column). There are scores, maybe even 100s, other WP sports articles where Puerto Rico is listed under country or nation. The reason for categorizing Puerto Rico as a country is simple: it's not only a fact that it competes against other countries, but also a fact that it would be silly to make a separate listing for "non-countries" competing against countries.
By the way, the same is true of all (the 100s of) WP beauty pageant articles ( Miss Universe, Miss World, etc.) such as shown here. The beautiful ladies from the beautiful country of Puerto Rico have won more titles that the women from the country of the United States.
Let me add that there are dozens of WP articles I constantly come across that list Puerto Rico as a country. This goes to show that even (some) Wikipedians know the difference between a country and a sovereign state. An example is here. Not that I am poking around all day long looking for such article: I always knew Puerto Rico was a country, just not a sovereign state. I always knew it was a dependent entity, but still a country. It's just common sense that Puerto Rico is a country but, unfortunately, many people equate country with sovereign state (and others deduce it can't be a country if it's a dependent entity). I suppose they think that way out of ignorance, or perhaps bc they weren't taught differently in school, or maybe bc being citizens of a country which was also a sovereign state it became natural for them to think of both as being the same thing - but they are not. I am, of course, thinking of Americans, bc they make up -by far- the largest group of editors here. However, this is true of most editors, because 97% of the people in the world are citizens of countries that are also sovereign states. And yet it should be common sense that countries and sovereign states aren't the same thing: for example, wasn't Australia a country before 1986, the year it became fully independent? Of course it was a country! So independence had nothing to do with becoming a country, but everything to do with becoming a sovereign state. Australia was a country before 1986 even though it was still largely controlled by England. There was also no magic wand waved in 1950 which converted the Philippines from a non-country to a country. The Philippines was always a country, just not a sovereign state until that year.
I am discussing all this because I plan to continue helping in the Standards page and the standardization of the PR articles infoboxes. So I plan to add, with justification, those types of Sports infoboxes to the Standards page and with the "Country=Puerto Rico" in them and I am opening this for discussion here so we arrive at a consensus together, hopefully, with Marine 69-71. I think with a Standards page in place, we will be able to help other future PR article editors have guidance as to how to code the infoboxes of PR articles. Plus, of course, we can all be on the same page too. For example, I myself just discovered that Teatro La Perla (when compared with, for example, Teatro Tapia) may not be using the correct infobox. So I plan to work on that as my time permits. Let me know if this makes sense. Thanks, Mercy11 ( talk) 23:22, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi @ The Eloquent Peasant:. I was recently at the El Tuque article, and noticed that the routine you ran a few days back to render all Municipality articles to read "Commonwealth of Puerto Rico" and <municipality name> (e.g., the routine that effected THIS change), doesn't seem to have affected El Tuque which, like Ponce and all the other municipalities, uses the Infobox settlement. No sweat: I did it manually (side note: you may want to double check it - I hope I didn't miss anything!). But now I am thinking (1) "Why wasn't this one changed automatically by your routine", and (2) "could there be others (beaches, etc. -- bc settlement is used in more than plain settlements) that also didn't get updated?" Any ideas? Thanks, Mercy11 ( talk) 01:23, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Anyone has any ideas how to deal with the Office and Country parameters in the "Infobox union"? For example, Puerto Rico Teachers Association. There's no Location parameter in the infobox that I see available. There's an entire category "Category:Trade unions in Puerto Rico". Interestingly, while Teachers has country=PR, UTIER has country=US. Any ideas? Mercy11 ( talk) 02:25, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Notice how with time the use of commonwealth versus territory changed. Books on Google books, searched for both terms shows that Commonwealth was used a lot more from 1940s to 1960s when suddenly its use in books started decreasing, but Commonwealth is still used more in books on Google books than territory.-- The Eloquent Peasant ( talk) 17:56, 25 November 2019 (UTC) <iframe name="ngram_chart" src=" https://books.google.com/ngrams/interactive_chart?content=commonwealth%2Cterritory&case_insensitive=on&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=21&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t4%3B%2Ccommonwealth%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3BCommonwealth%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Bcommonwealth%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BCOMMONWEALTH%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2Cterritory%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bterritory%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BTerritory%3B%2Cc0" width=900 height=500 marginwidth=0 marginheight=0 hspace=0 vspace=0 frameborder=0 scrolling=no></iframe>
It will take me some time to go thru all the PR articles using this infobox. Part of the problem is that it's associated category is a huge (upside-down) tree containing some 6 or more levels of sub-container members. This is crazy! To me, companies, political parties, churches, etc. aren't organizations that belong in the "Organizations based in PR" category. To me, organizations"" are basically those that are NGOs, say, like non-profits, and nothing else. Hospitals, schools, political parties, churches that are already categorized as such under other PR Category branches don't need to appear also using the "organization" infobox. If a PR article is using the organization infobox but can be categorized under some other branch of the PR tree (churches, parties, fishing clubs, hospitals, etc), then it shouldn't be using the organization infobox to begin with (nor should it be categorized anywhere under the Category:Organizations based in Puerto Rico structure!). Oh, well, when I got the time I will try working on them...but may not be until 2020.... Mercy11 ( talk) 03:22, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
As always bringing up good points, the scope is something we should definitely discuss. The scope means if it's in the project, we tag its Talk Page with WikiProject Puerto Rico and expect to update and watch it.
What I did: 1) I took it on a case by case basis but mostly yes (I added the WikiProject Puerto Rico template to them). 2) if born in PR yes, if born in NY to Puerto Rican parents yes, if the person has some Puerto Rican ancestry I went with no for example 4) no 5) I took it on a case by case basis and mostly yes. Rationale: It could have been a general in the Spanish-American war who made a comment such as "we will take Puerto Rico" or something to that effect. If there were big repercussions on how that person was related to Puerto Rico, then I did go ahead and add the Wikiproject Puerto Rico to the talk page. (BTW, only once did another editor remove the addition of the Wikiproject Puerto Rico. It was on one of the many West Side Story articles. They said that the Wikiproject Puerto Rico had not contributed to the article.) Examples: On Oscar Lewis, yes, obviously, because the effects of his book were huge and those who worked with him on the book, were also tagged (for the same reason). On List of potentially habitable exoplanets, I added it but maybe should not have. Yet I did not add it to the Arecibo message.
Your comments on scope are very much appreciated.-- The Eloquent Peasant ( talk) 12:44, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
I think we should strive to move articles from Stub to Start. See here.-- The Eloquent Peasant ( talk) 15:28, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello Puerto Rico WikiProject members: Please see the question posted here and share your thoughts. I am re-posting it on this page for Project visibility:
--Posted by Mercy11 ( talk) 23:30, 10 December 2019 (UTC) on behalf of Yarfpr.
==External links==
----------vs---------- |
{{Portal}}
creates a list of one or more portal links within an accessible navigation region. It is hidden in printer and mobile view. This is useful, for example, in an article's "See also" section.{{Portal-inline}}
creates one portal link with no accessibility context. It is visible in printer and mobile view. This is useful, for example, if making a mid-sentence link on a talk page, or if there is an alternative list structure in a "See also" section. {{stack|{{portal|Puerto Rico|U.S. Roads}}}}
code, which allows you to adjust its location in the "See also" section (you can see as an example the
Puerto Rico Highway 1 article). In relation to external links associated with Commons, if what appears in that section is that link, the inline format should be used, while if that list includes other links, the box could be used, depending on the size of the space or the quantity of links that exist (that could be left to the discretion of the editor or author of the article).
Yarfpr (
talk)
21:38, 11 December 2019 (UTC)@ Mercy11: You're right. I just solved the problem. Yarfpr ( talk) 00:53, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
@
Mercy11: I just corrected the design of several articles to prevent the portal box from entering more to the left than desired and simplifying the standard we want to set. Basically I decided that the box should always be kept to the right and below the infobox road, regardless of the fact that sometimes it moves away from the "See also" section to create a balance between the left and right parts of an article. The first thing I did was to delete the {{stack|(PORTALS)}}
code, moving images between the different sections and changing their sizes. In some cases I used the {{-}}
code, which generates a blank space between the most important sections and those at the bottom (See also, References, External links, etc.). As an example, you can see the following articles:
Puerto Rico Highway 133,
Puerto Rico Highway 163,
Puerto Rico Highway 500,
Puerto Rico Highway 503,
Puerto Rico Highway 511 and
Puerto Rico Highway 577.
Yarfpr (
talk)
02:00, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
@ Yarfpr: Posted here. I made some minor changes to the wording which I don't think will be a problem: since all PR articles (not just PR roads) should be using the PR portal image link, the changes were to make the Standard more generic. Check it out and let me know what you think.
Also, I updated Proposed points 3 & 4 in the Sandbox to eliminate the rational and list just the Standard, which I think is leaner and goes straight to the point (making it potentially less confusing). If you want to include the rationale (whether that one there or the one to be developed, if any, based on the outcome of the pending decision) just let me know and we can add a rationale, perhaps in a format similar to the one used in the Standards for the "Use of "U.S". in the infobox". See the Update to the Proposal (3&4) here. Mercy11 ( talk) 19:54, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
The Eloquent Peasant & Mercy11: Wow, that's a great find! I love that format! I would like to place it in some articles to know if that alternative is better than all the previous ones. In fact, that could be a standard for the entire WikiProject, not just on road articles. Even, it's likely that the bar can also use the stack code without any problem. Yarfpr ( talk) 00:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
{{Portal bar|Puerto Rico|U.S. Roads}}
is shown as {{stack|{{Portal bar|Puerto Rico|U.S. Roads}}}}
is shown as{{Portal bar|Puerto Rico|U.S. Roads|border=n}}
is shown as{{stack|{{Portal bar|Puerto Rico|U.S. Roads|border=n}}}}
is shown as@ Yarfpr: My heart aches for those affected in PR. But the Puerto Rican people have been around over 500 years and will continued moving forward. I am convinced the islanders will rise stronger than ever. Best of wishes to you and yours. Mercy11 ( talk) 21:15, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Ok, so late to this party, but apparently there's a local standard being used that isn't following a general standard. This is related to
Puerto Rico Highway 723. First, per
MOS:LAYOUT, the see also section should not contain links that are already in use in the article. That means
List of highways in Puerto Rico (bottom of the infobox) and
Ruta Panorámica (in the junction list) should not be repeated there. There also shouldn't be links there that aren't useful to the reader, so that means
List of highways numbered 723 should be dropped. That leaves just the portals, and the general standard is not to use a portal box if there are no other links, switching to the inline template.
That last point is why you should use the inline version of the Commons template if there are not other items in the bulleted list in the external links section. If there are items, put Commons back in its box and list it first before any KML box to give priority to a sister project over links to other non-affiliated websites. 22:28, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Yarfpr and Imzadi1979, I agree that photos currently above the infobox in PR-487 and the others are best moved elsewhere. My reason is their position there almost makes it seem as if the photo was part of the infobox and, unlike maps or company logos, which aren't dependent on the viewer's perspective, a photo does not reflect everything about a road and there could be millions of photos about the same one road.
As for the so-called "local standard" being followed in PR-723 that doesn't follow the so-called "general standard" as it regards the portal "box", I don't see a problem leaving it in the boxed format so long as it's applied consistently to all the road articles in the same series, in this case, the "series" being all the road articles in the Puerto Rico roads series. It's currently well done and very neat. Plus there is consistency as a reader moves from article to article in that series. Consistency helps readers find the information faster as they become accustomed to expecting certain layout because in other articles of the same series the same layout is consistently used. Consistency is preferred over a "general standard" which, to begin with, it's neither applied everywhere nor documented anywhere I am aware of. My reasoning is dual in that this was also already extensively discussed (and, discussed recently, as opposed to eons ago) and discussed over a fairly lengthy period of time (3-4 months, see above). At that time, every conceivable scenario was examined at length (top vs. bottom, left vs. right, short article vs. long aticle, bulleted portal list vs. non-bulleted, etc, etc). In fact, scenarios that are popping up now again, such as huge chunks of blank space, were all explored by various editors. In the end, the format and the section were ultimately decided upon to be the standard for all such articles: boxed and under the See also section. We also should note that many PR road articles are stubs, However, as they grow in content (road history, fully-populated infoboxes, route descriptions, tables of major intersections, photos of the road, etc etc,) the additional content will do away with concerns such as having chunks of blank spaces in the article. As articles get filled in with more content, concerns such as portal links that don't visually "fall" into the see also section will also disappear.
As for the view that List of highways numbered 723 should be dropped, I don't agree. MOS:SEEALSO states "whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense." Here, in PR-723, we have what appears to be a precendent: road articles with wikilinks to other seemingly unrelated road articles (highways numbered 723). I beg to differ from the "aren't useful to the reader" categorization in that I choose not to be too presumptuous to believe that such links wouldn't be useful. I think they can be and will be. I can visualize, for example, how such links may be useful to someone performing serious research about roads throughout the world numbered, say, "4". Articles about "List of highways numbered XYZ" are not disambiguation pages, but list articles on their own right. I also note that this is not the first road article series using those types of "List of highways numbered XYZ" links in their "See also" sections; see, for example, K-1 (Kansas highway) and Utah State Route 4 (there are many others). So the timing may be about right to start adding such links to perhaps all road article in all roads series. For these reasons I think the " List of highways numbered 723", and similar links, should be kept.
Lastly, I also agree that the "See also" section should **not** contain links already linked in the article (or even already included in but not yet linked in the article). This is expected per MOS:ALSO.
Regards, Mercy11 ( talk) 02:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi! On bios, I've seen the blurb re: "Spanish naming customs" sometimes in the article lead and sometimes footnoted / in notes.
It goes something like this "This article uses Spanish naming customs: the first or paternal family name is Torres and the second or maternal family name is Nadal." An example of blurb in lead is here and an example of blurb in a note is here.
According to the MOS it should be in the lead, (I think) but it does seem to clutter the top of the article lead. Where do you prefer the blurb on Spanish name customs to be? -- The Eloquent Peasant ( talk) 01:52, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
This is a tough one: seems there is no consensus. I may be wrong so please check the 4 preferences above and let me know if I am mistaken:
Depending one how we read this above (because Yarfpr had a change of mind [***] and later said both options seemed good), we seem to have a 2-2 tie, and no one to break it. Options: (a) we could ping other project members to see if anyone else answers and if there is a consensus or (b) we could leave it as it is and let each editor code according to his preference above, or (c) we could read Yarfpr's vote as 1/2 each way, so the final count becomes 1-1/2 votes for the hatnote vs. 2-1/2 votes for the footnote, so the winner is As a Footnote, and use that as a consensus. Any other ideas? Mercy11 ( talk) 21:42, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Present the issue involved in the consensus with the pros and contras of both options (No personal opinions). Then go to the Wikipedia Puerto Rican community and ask them to vote on the issue. Tony the Marine ( talk) 23:00, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Related to this discussion - just wanted to mention that it seems after long contentious discussions by the Wikipedia community, it's been decided to eliminate many of the names templates and merge them.. Even the Spanish name template will eventually be merged into the family name template... I don't think the community cared to discuss *the location of the template* / whether its done as a hatnote at the beginning of the article or as a Group note that shows more like a reference. The bot is just changing the template itself. 1) See here and 2) here for an example of the changes being made to the thousands of articles with the Spanish name template. -- The Eloquent Peasant ( talk) 18:58, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
@ The Eloquent Peasant: In reference to Catholic Dioceses in Puerto Rico, I am not sure why we would change from Country=US to Country=<blank> (in, for example Arecibo, [1]). My view is that since ecclesiastical hierarchies aren't established by political entities (but by ecclesiastical bodies) ecclesiastical articles need to follow the nomenclature established by religious bodies - in this case the Holy See or the US Conference of Catholic Bishops. For example, the Episcopal Conference of Puerto Rico is separate from the Episcopal Conference of the USA, see List of Catholic dioceses (structured view). Furthermore, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops does not include Puerto Rico -- Puerto Rico has its own episcopal conference, separate from the US conference (see United States Conference of Catholic Bishops). I think the Country parameter for dioceses in Puerto Rico should be "Country=Puerto Rico" because, imo, this analogous to the reasoning for ; those follow regional geology and dioceses follow ecclesiastical, not political, directives (i.e., the SCOTUS has no authority here). Can you review your rationale and share your thoughts. Thanks, Mercy11 ( talk) 04:11, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi all! Just an idea. I noticed that the 78 barrio-pueblo articles example here.. Corozal barrio-pueblo are almost a start. If you have anything that you can add to a barrio-pueblo article please do so and then update the talk page class from "stub" to "start". -- The Eloquent Peasant ( talk) 11:44, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
The push for .svg comes with the danger that anyone can upload an .svg file which does not represent the municipality. Once the .svg is uploaded, it may even 'cause the deletion of a previous (more correct) .jpg file. Currently there are many people creating .svg files of flags and coats of arms. Tony the Marine created many of the flag and coat of arms files that are currently being used on hundreds of Puerto Rico articles but they are not in .svg and I'm concerned are in danger of being replaced by poor representations (as long as they have an .svg extension no one seems to really be watching).
I'm concerned that incorrect representations of municipality flags and coat of arms will continue to be uploaded to Commons. See Yauco, Puerto Rico for an instance of this problem. See Trujillo Alto, Puerto Rico for another example. In the history of the articles you'll see I reverted the addition of images which are not correct. How do you suggest we handle this without one of us suddenly having to become the .svg expert.
A second issue I find with this topic is that finding the "real" images of flags and coat of arms is not that easy. The pr.gov website has them but you can barely see the symbol and there's no way one could create a good .svg based on their tiny representations of the images. boricuaonline.com has images on their website but how do we know they're accurate? I have lots of questions and no answers. Have a good day guys! --
The Eloquent Peasant (
talk)
17:30, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Yarfpr: (my #'s here don't correspond to your numbers but #ing is nice)
I would like to create a "mass deletion request" of flag and coat of arms of municipios de Puerto Rico found on Wikipedia Commons.
The Puerto Rico gov't website - directory of municipios, has the municipio's flag and coat of arms graphics on a page bearing "pr.gov © 2020 , Todos los derechos reservados" at the bottom of each municipio page. The flag / COA images are small.
Also each of the 78 municipality description pages on the lexjuris site, which hosts the laws of Puerto Rico, hosts a very blurry, low resolution of the flag and coat of arms ( at the top of the pages).
Why do those two important websites have tiny, or blurry images of the symbols? Is it so a person trying to make the flag can "guess" what it looks like?
I believe it has been done that way on both websites to protect the copyrighted materials! If they weren't trying to protect the symbols, they would display clear, high resolution images so that anyone could use the image. That is not the case: the pr.gov website and the lexjuris are protecting the copyright (modeling the behavior) we should be following here on en-Wikipedia.
On pr.gov, the copyright info is on the last page of this .pdf document and states: "Este Portal contiene información protegida por los derechos de propiedad intelectual y derechos morales de autor. El ELA, sus agencias y corporaciones públicas tienen derechos propietarios sobre todo el conteni do que aparece en este Portal. El ELA, las agencias y/o las corporaciones se reservan todos los derechos que existen o puedan existir sobre este contenido. La publicación de información en este portal no constituye una cesión de los derechos o una licencia para utilizar la información sin obtener el consentimiento previo del ELA."
Please find discussion here on Commons related to this.
From such blurry examples on official government sites, how are we able to make good .svg or .png files? It becomes untenable to ensure that wrong symbols are not added to articles when 1) most editors don't care to get it perfectly correct, 2) there is no clear image to go by.
Which one is right? How do we know? Do we want people uploading incorrect symbols, as they've been doing?
Are we then to plead and chase after uploaders to correct the flag and coat of arms? This situation is the most ridiculous thing I've run into in my time here and as my friend from Jersey used to say To his mother, “what WTF ma?!“
A small, non-free image should be created or left on each municipio of Puerto Rico's main article.
What are your thoughts on this? -- The Eloquent Peasant ( talk) 01:10, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
And I've asked a governor of Puerto Rico via email about the copyright status of municipio symbols. The Eloquent Peasant ( talk) 17:00, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Someone from the governor's office responded with
"En general, le puedo orientar sobre el uso de imágenes en Internet. Lo ideal es buscar en banco e imágenes de uso libre como Pixabay. También, al hacer una búsqueda de imágenes en Google, va a la sección de Images, luego seleccione Herramientas (Tools) y finalmente vaya a la sección de derechos de uso. Una alternativa es seleccionar las de libre uso o creative commons.
Son imágenes ya con uso libre permitido.Recomendamos que si utiliza una imagen de alguna plataforma de gobierno, incluya la referencia y enlace de donde fue obtenida la misma.
Le incluyo la Ley pars usos oficiales de Escudo, bandera y sellos en Puero Rico.
http://www.lexjuris.com/LEXLEX/Leyes2006/lexl2006070.htm " ... --
The Eloquent Peasant (
talk)
17:34, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
The email from Biblioteca Centro para Puerto Rico
Fundación Sila M. Calderón
787-765-4500
biblioteca@centroparapuertorico.org
1012 calle González Urb. Santa Rita, San Juan, PR 00925
Which basically states go ahead and search around the internet for files, work them up and create your versions of the Puerto Rico symbols just ensure you link to where you got the file / idea from for your version of it.-- The Eloquent Peasant ( talk) 20:58, 21 September 2020 (UTC) Updated: -- The Eloquent Peasant ( talk) 20:58, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
This is
the definition by the US Census which Puerto Rico is a part of every 10 years:
"Barrio
Along with Barrio-Pueblo, the primary legal subdivision of municipios in Puerto Rico. Similar to the minor civil divisions (MCDs) used for reporting census data in 29 states of the United States."
(Copied conversation from my talk page to this section for reference and discussion)
They are barrios. The way Egypt has " governorates" and the Governorates of Egypt article lead states "governorates" not "wards". Each country has their own way of referring to their subdivisions.-- The Eloquent Peasant ( talk) 15:18, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
References
-- The Eloquent Peasant ( talk) 16:38, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't want to create a big giant table. I think a list is nice... we can add comments under or next to each file. See here for the Symbols Project Page as I'm not sure how it'll take form or how you'all want it. -- The Eloquent Peasant ( talk) 17:18, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
This recently came to my attention, as I first started editing on Wikipedia. Articles about other US Territories (like Guam and the USVI) indicate that their country or sovereign state is the 'U.S,' while also listing their respective territories. The same is true for French and Dutch territories. However, PR seems to be an exception. Most Puerto Rico articles seem to be vague on PR's relationship with the U.S. In my opinion, this can be misleading as it can give people the impression that PR is an independent country, if the 'US' isn't indicate anywhere (Remember half of Americans didn't know that Puerto Ricans were US citizens). Also, nobody can really say that PR is or isn't part of the U.S. as 'part' is NOT a political term. Under U.S. law, the 'United States,' when used in a geographical sense, refers to all areas under it's sovereignty (the 50 States, D.C. territories and possessions). This shows me that using the US as the sovereign state/country in PR articles is absolutely fine, as long at it's not related to the Olympics, Miss Universe, or other articles which PR should be talked about alone. Addresses come under 'geographical terms,' which means that it is fine to use the format 'Puerto Rico, United States' if anyone wishes. I tried to find a SCOTUS statement that said that PR and U.S. territories 'belong to, but are not part of the United States.' The closest thing I could find was that they 'belong to the United States, but is not part of the United States within the revenue clauses of the Constitution.' 'Revenue clauses' refers to trade and commerce. It seems like many people only read the first bit because it does NOT simply say that PR 'belongs to, but is not part of the United States' on it's own. The SCOTUS even said that the term 'United States' can also include the territories. Particularly in international law, and in an international and diplomatic sense, PR and the territories are part of the US. When federal politicians say that they want to do/enact '_____ in the United States,' 99% of the time they also mean the territories, including PR. It's also worth noting that the majority of US laws and regulations apply in PR and, in my opinion, it would be silly, and absurd to simply state that PR 'is not in/part of the U.S.' In the CIA World Factbook, French territories (which are considered 'integral parts of France' ), Dutch territories, and other territories/regions have fact pages. This does not mean however that they are simply 'part of/not part of (sovereign state).' I know that British Overseas Territories are very autonomous entities and have their own laws and regulations, and UK law explicitly states that they are not 'part of' the United Kingdom. U.S. territories have about the same amount of autonomy as U.S. States (except in some tax codes). There are federal agencies within the territories, just like there are in States. I do, however, also acknowledge that PR and other territories can be considered 'nations' for cultural purposes. If we continue to say that 'Puerto Rico is not in/a part of the US' then we create lots of confusion when we really don't need to (as I said whether PR is 'part of' the U.S. or not is unresolved and not explicitly stated, and we should just go by the logical definition). In general terms, I think that it is acceptable to say that the U.S. territories are part of the U.S. as they is follows most of its laws, and fit the generally accepted definition of the word 'part.' Hurricane Maria should be a lesson to all of us, and we should not be ignorant and simply say that it's not in the US, it just causes confusion (and ultimately leads to ignorance). I would like to hear others' opinions on the matter as it is indeed a very confusing topic. Thanks:-) Anonymous MK2006 ( talk) 17:31, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
To add to that, U.S. citizens in PR and the other territories can't vote for the POTUS, and have no proper voting representation. This, I believe, should be changed to respect the democratic values that the U.S. was founded on. Puerto Ricans should also decide what the want for their homeland, be that statehood, the free association, or independence. Anonymous MK2006 ( talk) 17:34, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
So just to clarify in the info box said That the Arecibo observatory location was equal to Arecibo, US And that was and would be incorrect. So that is my major concern. We need to be clear that things in Puerto Rico should not say location=US because that would be incorrect. The Eloquent Peasant ( talk) 20:17, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Here is some background info [ [2]] -- The Eloquent Peasant ( talk) 23:45, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
mainly read here - it's a Wikidata project with limitations and poorly defined properties that, according to Jura1, I should now handle through another Wikidata property "disputed claim" when in fact it's a poorly defined P131 property, per discussion 9 months ago Q11703 Q16645 Property:P131 Arecibo Observatory#Where_is_the_Observatory_located? diff=1281113354 User_talk:Jura1=1281115973#Located_in_the_administrative_territorial_entity -- The Eloquent Peasant ( talk) 10:27, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
@ The Eloquent Peasant: Yes, the U.S. has more than 50 states. Whatever you think about the territories, the District of Columbia is most certainly in the U.S. Regarding U.S. territories, it is useless to debate over whether the US Territories are legally 'in the U.S.,' as we just do not have a proper answer. The fact that some websites simply state that PR is 'associated with the U.S.' doesn't mean you actually have to call it that; after all, all the people that make those websites are HUMAN BEINGS. As I said, the terms 'in' and 'part' are not strictly speaking political terms, and it's up to us to interpret these things in the LOGICAL way. If I was in PR, it would be odd to say that I wasn't in the U.S., even if I am literally within the jurisdiction of all the feds, and can be prosecuted under U.S. law in U.S. federal courts. Also, the US govt says that I can say that Puerto Rico is in the US in a 'geographical sense.' This includes, yes, addresses, infoboxes, etc. I have seen a few websites (even U.S. govt websites) that say 'PR, US/USA.' If this was incorrect, they would never write it like that. Even during the coronavirus pandemic, the figures for PR ARE included for figures of the U.S. 90-99% of the time U.S. federal legislation treats PR as a state, even if it's not (even if in federal funding programs, PR and the territories receive less funding than the 50 states). We should understand that we need to look at the bigger picture, rather than a few statements, that we could debate for years and never get an answer. In conclusion, it should be acceptable to add the US to PR infoboxes in the same way we do to other US Territories and States. Yes, we don't have to always mention U.S. in every single Puerto Rico article, but it should at least be in the geographical ones somewhere in the article. Regards. Anonymous MK2006 ( talk) 16:12, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
@ The Eloquent Peasant: Anonymous MK2006 ( talk) 16:14, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
@ The Eloquent Peasant: Anonymous MK2006 ( talk) 16:14, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
@ The Eloquent Peasant: Anonymous MK2006 ( talk) 16:16, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
United States (38) The term “United States”, except as otherwise specifically herein provided, when used in a geographical sense, means the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands of the United States, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Source 8 USC § 1101(a)(38)
Scoping language As used in this chapter United States (38) The term “United States”, except as otherwise specifically herein provided, when used in a geographical sense, means the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands of the United States, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Source 8 USC § 1101(a)(38) @ The Eloquent Peasant: Anonymous MK2006 ( talk) 16:27, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
It's also worth noting that, more recently, American Samoa was added to the definition of the 'United States' in a geographical sense. Anonymous MK2006 ( talk) 16:32, 28 September 2020 (UTC)