Talk:Mayors in Puerto Rico

Recent edits by Ahnoneemoos

THESE edits diminished the quality of the article, as such they have been reverted again, and the adding editor has been advised at his talk page to discuss his changes here. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 15:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.

They do not diminish the quality of the article. I'm reverting them back per WP:BEBOLD. If you disagree with this assessment then you should work on improving the changes rather than reverting the whole page. Please see WP:OWN as well. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 15:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

No Ahnoneemoos, you have it wrong: I am a volunteer editor, abiding by community rules. You don't tell me what to do or not to do. If I disagree with your view, I improve the article, and there are many ways to improve an article that just your -- no offense intended -- self-selving, convenient view of what improving an article means. While you made a few good edits, the overall results was negative. As such the article was reverted to the previous state, a state that was the result of many years work by many editors, and which was better quality than your recent edits. What needs to occur now is to come to a WP:CIVIL agreement on what the article should look like. If that fails, we can request others to join in (RfC etc). Simply reverting my edits will not work. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 16:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.

No, you don't understand. Stating that an edit is "diminishing", "bad", or "negative" is subjective and a personal opinion. You can't execute a revert based on an opinion. You revert based on facts, truths, and evidence. You also need to understand WP:BEBOLD very, very well and realize that the fact that people have worked on the article for years is completely irrelevant per WP:OWN. Wikipedia is a collaborative work and changes to its articles are not only encouraged but expected. It seems that your whole argument is based on WP:OWN. Finally, if your personal assessment of certain portions of the article is that they need improvement then tag the corresponding portions with a cleanup template rather than reverting the whole thing. You also need to get accustomed with WP:ONLYREVERT and WP:EDITWAR. Your reverts were not based on facts nor absolute truths, they were based on a point-of-view which is contrary to WP:NPOV. This is why your reverts were reverted. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 17:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Ahnoneemoos, when you performed THIS edit, you failed to *ask* what portion of your edits were uncontructive and diminished the quality of the article. Instead you *assumed* that "the sentences regarding the Federation and Association", as you edit-summarized it, was what I considered uncontructive. Have you considered that perhaps if you spent more time in *dialogue* and less in unilateral non-communal pursuits you might understand better why others consider your edits controversial and your behavior beligerent?

The majority of your edits were, as I edit-summarized HERE, of poor quality, and the large number of more recent changes partly demonstrate that fact. However, to bring the quality of the article to what it was before you introduced your edits, you will need to do much more edit work if your edits are to stay. A major portion of the problem with your edits to this article lie in the fact that you introduced text but failed to back it with citations. The templates you added at the top of the article HERE do not exempt the article from WP:V as you might be believing. To help you avoid WP:OR, I have removed the uncited text but, of course, if and when you can provide citations then the text may be reintroduced. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 02:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.

I have reverted your revert. That's not how Wikipedia works. Either tag the content with {{citation needed}} or with {{original research}} if you beleive it to be so. Just because a content has not been provided with a reference it doesn't mean that it can't be added. If we adopted that policy Wikipedia wouldn't even exist. Considering that this has become an WP:EDITWAR due to your complete lack of desire to WP:DISPUTERESOLUTION even after an Administrator has personally asked you to engage in a discussion or reach WP:CONSENSUS, I have opted to revert your reverts per WP:IAR since these actually help improve Wikipedia and your argument is solely based on subjective statements. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 02:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Mercy11, per WP:BURDEN you must identify which content you claim to be unfactual so that we can find references for it. You are not supposed to just revert it and that's it. I'm open to contribute and improve this article but it seems that you are on some sort of crusade and holding onto this article as defined in WP:OWN. If you tag the text I can provide with the references you are asking for. Your current standing on this matter is quite harmful for Wikipedia as, per WP:BEBOLD it is encouraged to submit content to Wikipedia. If you beleive a certain text to be WP:OR then you must tag it first and open it up for discussion rather than simply removing it from the article. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 02:48, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I have added references to every single sentence that I added to the article; all of them from highly reliable sources. I highly suggest that from now on you focus your energy, time, and effort on improving Wikipedia rather than on WP:DISRUPTPOINT, WP:WINNING, and WP:BUREAUCRACY. Your actions both in this article and others have shown that you are not working towards Wikipedia's goal and ambitions, nor acting in WP:GOODFAITH. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 04:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Please form a consensus. War is not needed.

One, the other or both of you may be correct. Or neither may. Form a proper consensus on the matter. Make a proposal for what is desired and then form consensus by, if necessary, inviting uninvolved editors here. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The list of current mayors...

It was duplicating not only a list held elsewhere, but also the template at the foot. It has no place in the article at all. I have removed it. Duplication is unhelpful to our readers. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Uhm, that's, like, your opinion, man—don't make it a statement. Here, let me show you: I believe that it is crucial for the article to list the current mayors but only in a concise manner by municipality and by their name, while detailing their political party, date they took office, and all other details in a completely separate article such as List of current mayors of Puerto Rico. See the difference? I'm expressing my opinion and not masking it as factual truth. Now, having said that, I won't be reverting your edits per WP:ONLYREVERT but like I said I completely disagree with your assessment. Regarding the template, it can simply be collapsed so that it doesn't show the whole list. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 17:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I am content for you to form a consensus against my edit, but duplication of another article is, at best, unusual. The normal approach is to remove all major duplications. So yes, it is my opinion, and I have stated it clearly. Having large items intrude into the body of the article (the two enormous templates) is stylistically unusual, too. I'm happy for consensus to overturn what I've done.

May I ask you, please, to be less combative in the way you address me? You can achieve a better result by not doing so. Disagreeing is fine, but what I perceive to be aggression is not. Assertive behaviour is far more useful. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I have added the template {{move portions from}} to the article. Notice however that I have NOT reverted your edits. Regarding the templates, like I said just simply pass them the argument |state=collapsed About your inquiry, please WP:AGF. You have a perception which is very different than reality; don't assume emotions that can't be channeled through a written medium, especially over the Internet. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 18:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming that you have not been displaying aggression.

Since the template exists there is no point in adding some or all of the article you propose to this article. We do not, in general, make such duplications. I therefore wish to register that I oppose your proposal. This is based solely upon custom and practice. I have no particular interest in or knowledge of the topic material in the article. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

No problem man, I'm actually glad that there is someone with a differing point of view willing to have a constructive discussion. Now, back on topic, per WP:NOTPAPER duplicating portions of content is not a violation of any rules and it's actually quite common (it happens a lot with prose). Having said that, I believe that your concern is actually about showing both the list and the expanded template that has the list on the article. Therefore, I suggest that we simply either stop using the template or collapse it. If your concern is about having a concise list on the article which is a duplicate of some portions of another article, then, fortunately, such style is not a violation of any rules and is acceptable on Wikipedia. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 18:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

My first concern is much more aligned with WP:REDUNDANTFORK which explains the issue in some detail. I do not see it as "either the template or the list" for that part of the discussion. I see it as duplication of the list in this article with the list in that article and thus the maintenance issues concerned with that

My second concern is that, should the list be present in this article, then the template renders it superfluous.

So, to be clear, I am worried about and oppose the list being in the article if the other article exists. If it does not exist then that concern is removed. However we come then to the duplication of the list by the template(s), which I believe to be bad practice. I am not worried about its not being paper at all. I am concerned about readability, and I am certain that somewhere in the Manual of Style there is guidance on the duplication of the same content in the body of the article and in a navigation template.

As an aside I have added the merge template to the list article to ensure people know it may or may not be merged here depending upon the consensus that forms. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

No, you misunderstood WP:REDUNDANTFORK. WP:REDUNDANTFORK is about duplicating the very same subject on two separate articles—kinda like having United States Constitution to be an article and Constitution of the United States to be a separate article. That's a fork and should not normally happen. However, that is not what this discussion is about.

This article is about the post of mayor in Puerto Rico, not about the persons that hold said post right now. However, naturally, people will look for the current mayors within the article itself. We have the following situation in our hands:

Task: we need to detail the current mayors and include: Municipality, Picture, Name, Date they took office, and Political party.

Problem: if we detail all that on the main article then visually the article becomes more about the current mayors than about the political post of mayor since the table listing the current mayors would be extremely long (78 of them + pictures + other bells and whistlers like party colors).

Solution: keep a concise and clean list of the current mayors on the main article and split the details into its own article.

This is what my edits tried to accomplish and I strongly believe that it is a formidable solution for our conondrum. Having separate detailed lists with bells and whistles is perfectly normal on Wikipedia. There are even categories for them, see Category:United States-related lists.

Now, the reason why {{Current mayors of Puerto Rico}} exist is so that we can use them on the biographies of the current mayors. If it's bothering you on this article then either remove it or collapse it.

I understand that you are more than entitled to have your own opinions, but if you look closely about how you are approaching them it's all based on worries, beliefs, and custom and tradition rather than on facts or truths.

We don't necessarily need to list the current mayors on article, but readers expect to see such list in an article about that political post. However, they don't expect to see their pictures, party colors, or date they took office on this article. Leave that to a detailed article like List of current mayors of Puerto Rico. That is my proposal.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 19:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

You and I are not going to agree on this, I think. That's fine. We do not need to. SInce we disagree there is no consensus ether way yet. More eyes on this issue would be a benefit, and a consensus, perhaps for my thoughts, perhaps your yours, perhaps for something else entirely, may be built. The only thing I feel strongly about is that this consensus be built before the items we disagree on are changed further. We are each pretty sure we are correct, after all, so we need other eyes on the topic. I'm going to see if I can find a Manual of Style guru to come and take a look. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Like I said, I won't revert your edits per WP:ONLYREVERT but have placed the proper cleanup templates on the article. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 21:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

By the way, the WP:MOS you are looking for is available at WP:EMBED and WP:STANDALONE. Per WP:EMBED it is perfectly fine to use bulleted lists within an article. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 22:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

It's kind of you, but I am looking for somethng else, to do with duplicating content in (eg) templates and within the body of the article, and similar items. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:SYNC is what you are looking for. You have to add up several policies too. In this case, WP:EMBED + WP:SUMMARY + WP:STANDALONE = WP:SYNC. Hope this helps. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 23:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm responding to a request to comment as a MOS regular. I don't really see this as a MOS issue; it's a content dispute. I think it would be most constructive to open a WP:RFC on the matter. It needs to be framed as a single, simple question, perhaps "Is it helpful for this article to summarize information about current city mayors in Puerto Rico (with most details remaining at List of current mayors of Puerto Rico)?" I suspect that the answer would be "yes", but I'm not known for my future-predicting powers. :-) I actually think a good case could be made for merging the list into this article. But there could be reasons to not do that, including a programmatic "List of current mayors of X" de facto standard I'm unaware of. I.e., if it's expected that the list article exist, and its absence would be conspicuous, then don't merge, but if the article is weird – if there's no List of current mayors of Texas, List of current mayors of the United Kingdom, etc., then that may be a hint that these should merge. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 10:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for coming to comment. The sole reason I felt it was MOS was the duplication of the list in the template. I had a bell ringing at the back of my mind suggesting it was an issue. I'm happy to be corrected. I'm happy to step away form the matter and the article now. Its; always good to get other views. RFC is not a bad idea, but I'll leave that to the content specialists at work here. A good byproduct of an RfC is that new input often happens in an article, so it has my recommendation. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, the thing is that per WP:STANDALONE, WP:SUMMARY, WP:EMBED, and WP:SYNC it is perfectly fine and within Wikipedia's framework to present a short and concise list on the article while having a detailed list on List of current mayors of Puerto Rico. It is simply WP:COMMONSENSE. If the issue is the template being used that lists the current mayors, then that template can be either removed from the article or collapsed.

Now regarding the burden on precedence, fortunately, per WP:IAR, WP:PRECEDENT, and WP:OSE, precedence is not a requirement on Wikipedia as contributors are encouraged to WP:BEBOLD and contribute new content or come up with new ways of presenting said content. Perhaps there are no List of current mayors of Texas simply because of the way mayoralty works in Puerto Rico in comparison to other places in the world. Let me explain:

By the Autonomous Municipalities Act of 1991 all of Puerto Rico is subdivided into municipalities of Puerto Rico. All of it. There are no counties, nor "towns", nor "cities". Every single subdivision is a municipality. Furthermore, there are no different types of government; none of them have a council-manager, nor a mayor-council, nor a town meeting, it is all based on mayoralties and mayoralties alone. Therefore, in the case of Puerto Rico it makes perfect sense to have a WP:STANDALONE of its current mayors due to the intricacies regarding its political nature, laws, and form of government.

Hope this clarifies things up.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 13:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted the change that put the list of mayors into this article. There was no concensus to do this. Personally, I can see no reason to duplicate the list here, it would become a maintenance nightmare otherwise. As requested above, please open an RFC before putting the list of mayors in here. Op47 (talk) 19:12, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

There was no consensus to either remove it or add it. I have re-added it per WP:EMBED which is an official guideline. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 19:29, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

RFc for list of mayors

MERGED:

The consensus is that there should not be two sets of lists. There are comments that List of current mayors of Puerto Rico should be merged into Mayoralty in Puerto Rico, and as there is a significant degree of overlap that seems the appropriate solution. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There is a separate article List of current mayors of Puerto Rico that lists the mayors in Puerto Rico. Should the list be included here as well? Op47 (talk) 13:20, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Warning: the question is not wether the whole list should be included on this article, as this is NOT what is being done. What is currently being done is that we have a DETAILED list of current mayors at List of current mayors of Puerto Rico but a concise, summarized, descriptive bulleted list on this article under the section "Current mayors". This is perfectly fine and quite common on Wikipedia per WP:SUMMARY, WP:EMBED, WP:SPLITLIST, WP:STANDALONE, WP:SYNC, and WP:SPLITTING. If you ask me, this is just a waste of time from an editor that is unfamiliarized and inexperienced with Wikipedia's policies, guidelines, and practices. I mean, we have six, SIX, guidelines that cover this matter already... —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 14:11, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Survey

• Oppose Having the list repeated in 2 places makes it harder to maintain articles. In addition, the list in this article is rather large for an article that is not supposed to be a list. Op47 (talk) 13:20, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

See WP:SYNC which already covers your concern and notes that it is fine to have similar content in two different articles. Regarding the length of the list, well, what do you expect? Puerto Rico has 78 mayors. Our job is to present who they are in a short and concise manner since people expect to see such list on this article but we can have a more thorough list on a different article per WP:EMBED. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 04:40, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:SYNC covers the situation in the future where someone edits the sub article and fails to alter the summary accordingly. It does not cover the situation where the summary and sub article have been written in such a way as to make the situation likely. Op47 (talk) 11:48, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:SYNC covers precisely that: what we should do as editors when two articles have similar information and said information must be kept synchronized in both articles. For your convenience: "To keep articles synchronized, editors should first add any new material to the appropriate places in the detailed article, and, if appropriate, summarize the material in the summary section." —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 13:52, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate you giving me this information, but it is not relevant. I am opposed as stated above to this because it will mean future editors having to go through this rigmerole. Op47 (talk) 17:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Is English your native language? It seems we have language barrier here because that is EXACTLY what WP:SYNC says and is the most relevant guideline that we have that defeats your argument/concern. That doing such things is FINE. We actually do this in many many articles. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 17:39, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per Op47. Links are perfect for this kind of thing, this article can concentrate on the substantive content of the role and it can contain a link to the list of current officeholders. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 18:52, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

See WP:SUMMARY which already covers your concern and actually advises to NOT do that. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 04:40, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Where in WP:Summary does it advise not to do that? Op47 (talk) 11:48, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

At the very top of WP:SUMMARY it says, and I quote, "Sections of long articles should be spun off into their own articles leaving summaries in their place." The list of current mayors was at first hosted on this article but we spun it off onto its own article as it was way too long. We left a summary in its place but then someone else removed that summary (see the conversations previous to this one). —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 13:52, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Ahnoneemoos, you are contradicting yourself. The snippet that you have quoted is suggesting to do exactly what Dailycare is proposing. Op47 (talk) 17:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, we definitely have a language barrier here because WP:SUMMARY explicitly says that we should be "leaving summaries in their place", not simply LINKING to the article. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 17:39, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• The list is relevant to the topic. I propose merging them. Kingdylan (talk) 02:14, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

See WP:STANDALONE which already covers your concern and actually advises to NOT do that. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 04:40, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I understand that you are proposing to put the content of List of current mayors of Puerto Rico into this article and delete List of current mayors of Puerto Rico. Op47 (talk) 11:48, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

By the way, merging is not advised in cases like this. See List of current United States governors, List of current foreign ministers, and List of current sovereign monarchs as samples of articles that list current head of governments. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 14:22, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

The 3 articles that you have quoted are analagous to List of current mayors of Puerto Rico and very properly contain a list of current incumbents. Taking List of current United States governors as an example, the analagous article to this article is Governor (United States). In Governor (United States) there is no list of governors and quite rightly too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Op47 (talk • contribs) 13:20, October 6, 2013‎

No, you cannot compare the post of a governor to the post of a mayor. Having said that, stating that the list of governors not having an embedded list is "quite rightly" is an opinion, not a fact. Furthermore, as mentioned in previous conversations in this talk page, Puerto Rico is unique because EVERY SINGLE SUBDIVISION is a municipality. EVERY. SINGLE. ONE. There are no different types of government. NO council-managers. NO mayor-councils. NO town meetings. It is ALL based on mayoralties and mayoralties alone. That's why there are 78 of them. Therefore, in the case of Puerto Rico it makes perfect sense to have a WP:STANDALONE and an WP:EMBED of its current mayors due to the intricacies regarding its political nature, laws, and form of government. Perhaps you should get accustomed to the intricacies of Puerto Rico and its mayoralty before expressing or forming an opinion? Ignorance is bliss. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 17:39, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

There is no need for this survey as WP:SUMMARY, WP:EMBED, and WP:SPLITLIST already cover this very same subject. We even have a template for this at {{sync}}.

For your own convenience, from WP:SUMMARY:

Sections of long articles should be spun off into their own articles leaving summaries in their place.

From WP:EMBED:

Consideration should be given to keeping embedded lists and tables as short as feasible for their purpose and scope: material within an embedded list should relate to the article topic without going into unnecessary detail; and statistical data kept to a minimum per policy.

So, which policy is this violating exactly? Unless you can come up with a policy we are just wasting our time with this RFC.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 22:28, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

The list that has been included in this article is not a summary so it violated WP:SUMMARY.

From WP:EMBED (The next line from the section that you have quoted):

Some material may not be appropriate for reducing or summarizing using the summary style method. Consideration may be needed to either keep all the material embedded in the main article or split it off entirely into a sub-article, leaving a template which produces:

I consider this material not to be appropriate for reducing per the summary style and that it should be split off entirely into a sub article. WP:SPLITLIST is similar. For some reason you disagree, so I have set up this RfC to get the views of other editors so that a concensus may be reached. If doing an RfC will save time on edit wars then I thing it is anything but a waste of time.

In the intrests of clarity, it would be preferred if you would have discussions in this section and not answer points in the survey section (see WP:RFC). Op47 (talk) 11:48, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

No, that's not how Wikipedia works. Leave the conversation in the survey section. This is a mess. Don't use @ style replying, this is not Twitter. Give me a moment to fix the mess you just created. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 13:05, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

If WP:RFC tells me to do something in a particular way then I have to assume that is the way Wikipedia works. Since you will not co-operate then I will have to be wrong with you. Op47 (talk) 17:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Why exactly do you consider this material "not to be appropriate for reducing"? It seems you have not given a reason at all, except for "I don't like it" and that's not enough for Wikipedia. You must give a valid reason. Have you seen WP:SPLITTING? It states exactly how to perform this kind of stuff. This content style is quite common on Wikipedia, have you seen National Governors Association for example?

Did you even read further below what you just quoted from WP:EMBED? For your convenience:

Some information, such as "Notable people" or "Alumni", which may be read for context or scanned for content, may be formatted with a section lead and a descriptive, bulleted list, or as prose, depending on size. If the list is long, is unable to be summarised, but is not appropriate for splitting out, then a section lead, with a descriptive, bulleted list may be more appropriate than a long prose section.

So, tell me once again, why exactly should this NOT be done? What policy is this content style violating? It seems you are just making us waste our time since this is already covered in our editing guidelines.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 14:03, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I believe I have given valid reasons above. The difference between National Governors Association and this article is that there is no equivalent to List of Chairs of the National Governors Association.

This says may, not shall. Op47 (talk) 17:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Please please please CEASE replying INLINE, you are fucking up the discussion and people will believe that I was the one that made such statements. Please reply BELOW my comments, not WITHIN my comments. This type of editing can be considered WP:DISRUPTIVE and can even led to a ban as you are modifying what other user said. Having said that, you still have not provided a REASON nor a POLICY of why this should not be done this way. The only thing that I hear is: "this does not exist over there" which is pretty much WP:OSE which is not a policy!!!!!!!!! You have been told exactly what makes the mayors of Puerto Rico unique below. Please please please educate yourself on this matter before trying to compare them with other places in the United States. It is making you look like a fool. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 17:53, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I am doing this because this change was opposed by several people above. You claim there is no consensus not to do the change and I see no concensus to do the change. At least one of the people opposing you asked for an RfC to determine the concensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Op47 (talk • contribs) 13:38, October 6, 2013

So basically this is pretty much a WP:BUREAUCRACY thing from you because you beleive that "due process" was not followed? Here, let me explain to you how WP:CONSENSUS works since it seems you are highly unfamiliar with our policies and practices. We are ruled by WP:IAR, WP:BEBOLD, and WP:AGF. I was the one that put the WP:EMBED on the article per WP:BEBOLD but somebody else reverted it. When disagreements like that happen users discuss the issue on the talk page and try to involve more people. IF NO CONSENSUS CAN BE REACHED THEN THE CHANGE THAT SPARKED THE DISCUSSION REMAINS as WP:BEBOLD triumphs our inability to reach a consensus. That is what happened here. The editors involved asked for a third party to voice his opinion but even after that we could not reach a consensus to REMOVE the change. As no consensus could be reached to remove it, the change must remain in the article. That is why it was reverted. Right now we are conducting an WP:RFC which is simply a waste of our time, energy, and effort as we have provided you, the requestor of the RFC, with six, SIX, different guidelines that state very very clearly and very explicitly that using the content style of WP:EMBED is MORE THAN FINE. You, however, HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO PROVIDE A REASON OF WHY THIS SHOULD NOT BE DONE NOR HAVE PROVIDED A POLICY TO BACKUP YOUR CLAIM. Do you understand now why this is a waste of time? Wikipedia doesn't do things simply because "you don't like it"; we do things because it is what is best for the project: what helps us attract more donations to our vault. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 17:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

•  Comment: on October 11, 2013 User:SilkTork, an administrator, decided to close this RFC for unknown reasons; 7 days after having been opened with only 4 participants. I have reverted his edits in order to allow the discussion to extend up to 30 days per WP:RFC. The reason for this is that only a handful of people have participated. It also seems that User:SilkTork is unaware of the differences between WP:POLL and WP:CONSENSUS, and opted to not apply WP:SUMMARY, WP:EMBED, WP:SPLITLIST, WP:SYNC, WP:STANDALONE, and WP:SPLITTING which are all official guidelines. User:SilkTork has been notified of these actions on his talk page. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 14:28, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Ahnoneemoos has been blocked for 60 hours, and his edits have been reverted. Hopefully he will return will a more collegiate and less abrasive manner. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:23, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

• A satisfactory resolution to a largely overblown debate. Kingdylan (talk) 05:57, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

A few years ago this wouldn't have been an issue, the articles would have been merged simply to comply with quality standards.It seems that WP:PUR needs to seriously consider the re-establishment of higher standards. At the moment there is a large number of unassessed articles that establish little to no assertion of notability (see Aceitunas, which was created by a sockpuppet and left to stand, despite being compossed by a number of inhabitants that would hardly fill a small stadium) and these should be listed and merged into relevant articles or even deleted. Those active participants should also learn that articles must be elaborated before being published, we are being plagued by stubs of borderline notable institutions/people that may be better organized in lists. - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:PUR is not a governing body. They are just a bunch of editors that have grouped themselves for a particular interest. You can't blame them for everything related to Puerto Rico as they are volunteers, not employees. Having said that, there is absolutely nothing wrong in having sttubs on Wikipedia per WP:STUB. Articles do NOT need to be elaborated before being published, per WP:EDIT. If there is a large number of unassessed articles and this is something that bothers you then please feel free to improve them per WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. WP:PUR is a volunteer organization and does not have any responsibility nor duty WHATSOEVER to assess them. If you have anything to say about the guys at WP:PUR I highly encourage you to post on their talk page rather than here. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 20:05, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Don't patronize me. I am quite familiar with the guidelines and the bunch of policies that you keep citing, I was an admin in my active days. The fact of the matter is that WP:PUR clearly proved to be the best tool to gather a consensus and is directly responsible for most of the remaining FAs and GAs. During the peak of activity WP:PUR was one of the most productive WikiProjects in all of Wikipedia and counted with a 100% assessment rate. Dismissing its value towards re-establishing viable standards is foolish and I am not blaming anyone. As one of that project's most produced editors I am entitled to an opinion, be it as a critic or in some unwarranted WP:WL role such as the one that you assumed.

Now, that does not change the fact that there is a massive ammount of worthless stubs that have been published lately (just following you there, since my comment had little to do with the stubs and everything to do with the quality of the articles under scope, but whatever). It is not about them being "wrong", it is about them being impossible to elaborate due to obvious lack of notability. With that said, there was no need to go off on a tangeant when it was you who requested comments and even did some WP:Canvassing to rally some support, which is why I commented on the matter here (in other words, you made WP:PUR and its standards relevant). This edit war was unnecessary and it rightfully got you blocked for simply trying to prove your WP:POINT. Perhaps if we had solid standards still active that would have been avoided in time... - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:06, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Stating that there a bunch of "worthless" stubs is just an opinion, not a fact. Could you please list said stubs and improve them yourself? In my vast experience, which is much much longer than yours, most of the time what people consider "worthless" and "lacking 'obvious' notability" translates to simply being unreferenced. Case in point is this very same article which was considered "bad" until I provided a reference for every single statement made. So, why don't you do us all a favor and list said "worthless" stubs so we can work them together? Finally, don't accuse me of canvassing. Canvassing is when you ask for support for a specific outcome which is NOT what I did as my request was NEUTRAL. It seems you are participating in this conversation for other motives, rather than for the specific reason listed on this RFC. Regarding standards, we do have them. We call them policies and guidelines, which have been provided on this conversation yet everybody else but me has decided to ignore, including yourself. Here, let me list them for your convenience once again: WP:SUMMARY, WP:EMBED, WP:SPLITLIST, WP:SYNC, WP:STANDALONE, and WP:SPLITTING. Do you truly want to collaborate or do you just want to vent and ramble? —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 11:49, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Please, you "requested the opinion" of people that cooperate with you on a regular basis, it may be somewhat shrouded, but that is also canvassing. Take a look at the long list of RfAs where that argument was brought when the nominee "neutrally" asked acquaintances for their "opinion". What makes a stub worthless has nothing to do with references. If one of your sockpuppets watchlisted the new articles (which I did, actually moving several toward at least a "Start" class), you should know that while assessing them I simply categorized the notable ones as "stubs", despite having the tools to delete them and shove the evidence under the rug. I am not a "deletionist" and actually had my share of encounters with their kind. An article covering mayors would not have been deleted on my behalf and Aceitunas would had been simply merged following a discussion, of the kind that are still archived in WP:PUR's talk page to this day (go on, check them out).

And finally, in your "vast experience" you should be able to see that the "standards" that I speak about have nothing to do with a laundry list of behavioral guidelines, the quality of the articles within the project has clearly declined with some being demoted from their previous classifications or remaining in outdated incarnations. Several of which, again, I helped promote with my "rambling" (actually more of a "diagnosis" in this case), only for them to be butchered due to lack of continuity. In your long history of sockpuppetry, do you have enough featured/good articles to claim that I have no interest in cooperation? On the other hand, I never had any interest in playing politics or attempting to WP:GAME the system towards my own goals. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:34, 17 October 2013 (UTC)