Talk:Tlalli

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 07:36, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Tlalli will replace a monument to Christopher Columbus not to "erase history" but to "deliver social justice"? Source: "Mayor Sheinbaum [...] said that relocating the statue was not an attempt to "erase history" but to deliver "social justice"." (BBC)

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Eric Berger (meteorologist)

Created by Another Believer (talk). Nominated by Tbhotch (talk) at 03:03, 10 September 2021 (UTC).

• The article is new enough and long enough. It is cited throughout and QPQ has been done. Earwig is clear. The hook is cited to a reputable source and interesting to a broad audience. This is good to go. Desertarun (talk) 09:34, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• @Desertarun: the project was modified[1] and it is now uncertain if this bust will be the chosen one. Because of that I propose at the very least: ALT1: ... that Tlalli was proposed to replace a monument to Christopher Columbus not to "erase history" but to "deliver social justice"? (CC) Tbhotch^™ 02:24, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

To T:DYK/P5

Fate, part II

The project has been modified due to the criticisms it has received. At the very least the DYK should be reworded. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 02:19, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Map?

Should we include a map, if the artwork is not installed on the site and may never be? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:25, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

@Tbhotch: Curious what you think. Should we keep the coordinates and map, or remove them until there's confirmation the sculpture will actually be installed on the site? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:45, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

The caption reads "proposed", so I don't think it's currently an issue. Even if it is not placed there, it still plausible that they place it elsewhere (I mean, they are paying for it). (CC) Tbhotch^™ 16:53, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Given the course of events, the map should be removed. It is misleading as it stands today. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 14:08, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Independent significance and possible merging

I just want to link the Talk:Women_Who_Fight_Roundabout talk page, as I think all of these events are unfolding rapidly, but very much in connection with each other. Probably too soon to call, but want to flag now. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 18:11, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Prefer not to merge. Happy to see separate entries for the Columbus monument, Tlalli, and the roundabout. Perhaps, though, mention of Women Who Fight Roundabout should be mentioned in the article's prose instead of the See also section? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:12, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Please note, I am not proposing a merge to be voted on. I'm referring to both of your comments on the 2 talk pages when I write: it would be much more helpful if you weighed in with *reasons* and not feelings or personal preferences... Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 19:14, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Update: Boldly... I added a few lines about and a link to the Women who Fight Roundabout. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 19:30, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm confused, you've created a section about "possible merging" but in your comment you say you're "not proposing a merge to be voted on". What feedback or 'reasons' are you seeking? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:52, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

As I wrote: I am linking my other comments to the discussion in Talk:Women_Who_Fight_Roundabout for the sake of clarity, and transparency to other editors. As these are recent events still unfolding it is too soon to take a decision imo, but I've flagged this as a possibility, mainly because I am not convinced that these pages warrant separate entries. Please have a read of the aforementioned talk page.

Leaving comments about what you subjectively like or feel is not useful for discussion, or making decisions on Wikipedia. That should be self evident. In fact, it's sometimes not necessary to comment at all. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 20:29, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

OK, well I'm not sure I'm doing as asked but consider my preference a vote to keep all 3 entries because IMO each has received sufficient secondary coverage (WP:GNG). Happy editing! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:31, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Maybe this can help: Wikipedia:Merging. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 20:36, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I already commented you that if you believe they should be merged or deleted, you have to request them to be merged or deleted, explaining why they don't meet the WP:GNG criteria. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 21:36, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I must note that it is ironic that you say "because I am not convinced that these pages warrant separate entries" and "Leaving comments about what you subjectively like or feel is not useful for discussion" within the same thread. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 21:38, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, I'm a bit confused about what's being proposed, or not. Hesperian Nguyen, if you wish to formally suggest a merge, go for it, but I don't see that happening. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:13, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Visually exemplified if possible, because what you try to imply is that both pages should be redirected to the Columbus page, because the section §Removal and relocation practically summarizes everything, which seems to be what you want. I have to add that I haven't read a single policy/guideline-backed reason on why this should be merged. And when you do this (expecting others to discuss what you remove) or this (removing legitimate WP:redlinks on notable subjects solely because you find them "bad"), makes me question if you are acting in good or bad faith. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 22:27, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I'll repost this: Hi, those red links are supposed to go to the Spanish language pages for those subjects, but are marked up wrong. Easily corrected for sure, but I don't immediately know how. I'm working on improving the article the best ways I can, sorry a 'deaded' those. Was going to figure out how to do it later. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 02:58, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't aware merger discussions needed a policy motive or a formal suggestion. And I have been clear as possible as to why I'm discussing this in talk: it's recent events about a proposed sculpture and the placing of a cardboard sculpture on the Columbus plinth and renaming of the plaza with what seems like a lot of cut and pasting, Google translated stuff, and the articles can be improved, be less repetitive, more neutral, better translated... I do think there are notability issues, but more so WP:OVERLAP and context. I also make mistakes and am WP:BOLD. If you look at my edits, I think you'll see I'm trying to be fair and improve the article. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 03:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Good morning. As I have written, my only interest is in creating quality, neutral encyclopedic entries, and not surprisingly I do this in areas I am knowledgeable and interested in. The Women Who Fight Roundabout, the proposed Tlalli sculpture, and the Columbus statue on Reforma, and its removal are interconnected events, and things in the same place, that they inseparable from each other, and it is too soon to tell what will have lasting significance. Additionally there seems to be a push to pad these articles with as much content borrowed from other articles as possible, to make them appear more significant than they are. Here are the links to Wikipedia guidelines that relate to the issues, as requested: WP:OVERLAP, WP:DUP, WP:CONTENTFORK, WP:LASTING, WP:NEUTRAL, WP:RECENT. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 17:21, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

OK, you've made your case, time to let other editors weigh in. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:52, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Hesperian Nguyen, you still need to prove your point, because several of these further indicate the opposite of what you are claiming:

• From WP:OVERLAP: "There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept. For example, "flammable" and "non-flammable" can both be explained in an article on flammability." These are not related subjects, these are related events, which leads to:
• WP:LASTING: "Events are often considered to be notable if they act as a precedent or catalyst for something else". Event A (the removal of Columbus statues) lead to Event B (the attempted topple at Reforma), which forced Event C (the removal of Columbus "for restoration purposes"). As correlation does not imply causation, can you demonstrate that Event D (the announcement of the total removal of Columbus), Event E (the announcement of the installation of Tlalli), Event F (the announcement of the suspension of the installation of Tlalli) and event G (the installation of the feminist monument) are related?
• From WP:FORKING § Acceptable types of forking: "Sometimes, when an article gets too long (see Wikipedia:Article size), an unduly large section of the article is made into its own highly detailed subarticle, and the handling of that subject in the main article is condensed into a brief summary section." This is why I asked you to "Visually exemplified if possible" your version of the events because the Columbus Monument is clearly incomplete. A significant old monument like that can be as big as the Statue of Liberty. Even with your removals at Tlalli, Tlalli is still larger than the article of Columbus; the feminist monument is half the size of Columbus.
• From WP:Recentism: "Recentism is a phenomenon on Wikipedia where an article has an inflated or imbalanced focus on recent events." Where is the imbalance? In fact, this contradicts you in the worst way: "A news spike is a sudden mass interest in any current event, whereupon Wikipedians create and update articles on it, even if some readers later feel that the topic was not historically significant in any way. The result might be a well-written and well-documented neutral-point-of-view article on a topic that might hardly be remembered a month later ... Still, these articles are valuable for future historical research.
  • "Articles should be written from a neutral point of view, with attention to the long-term significance of the information included, and with awareness that, under the general notability guideline, not every topic will merit its own stand-alone article." Which the article does and leads me to think that you ignored Wikipedia:Notability is not temporary.
• WP:NEUTRAL is unexplained and in itself is not a reason to delete or merge an article. What's unneutral about them? As you don't explain your point, I'm going to assume that it is the lack of positive comments about how this government has a Stalinist agenda. However, I can't get positive comments when there are no positive comments. If they exist, however, they should be added, which further strengthens the reason to keep this page.

Frankly, if you are not going to start the WP:MERGEPROP, and continue saying "they should be merged, but not now because the dust should settle first, but honestly they should", I will open the AFDs myself, because this discussion is pointless. Since this page was created it has received 9634 views (8442 views by users; 2092 if you exclude the DYK date). Out of those, you are the only person that has found it problematic. Basilico's, for example, was featured on the main page, it was viewed 7,825 times that date and 1 person noted something wrong. The AFD reads: "This restaurant's only claim to notability is recent media coverage about its COVID stance. This media coverage only covers the COVID stance and nothing about the actual restaurant. As such I do not feel it passes notability guidelines." Long-story-short, "this article is in fact about Basilico's COVID-19 stance", an event that was deemed not-notable by the community and therefore it was deleted. The consensus also found that if Basilico's deserves a page, the article has to focus as well on the restaurant (i.e, clients, building, location, service). Here's an example of how Wikipedia's notability for events works. Do you think the community will merge Tlalli into Columbus? The article has information about the sculpture, the creator, why it was conceived, the controversy, and how it has been received by notable people

And finally, I don't use Google Translate, I am a translator myself. If you are going to criticize my work, inform yourself before doing such insulting claims. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 19:32, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

BTW, I will be creating La Joven de Amajac in the next hours, so you now have to request 4 pages to be merged. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 21:28, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Well I'm not going to get sucked into the WP:POPULARITY fallacy, nor the hostility. Although, I find it sort of extraordinary that a non-binding discussion on a talk page is generating so much 'heat' to uncontroversial edits, or why you would cut and paste the content of the links to Wikipedia guidelines instead of simply responding (is this WP:TEXTWALL?) to the content?. I think my points on 'padding' to increase article length are only confirmed by your response. As is as my skepticism for the quick roll out of the Women Who Fight Roundabout (this is where neutrality comes into play, as does WP:LASTING, WP:INDEPTH and WP:NOTTEMPORARY/WP:SUSTAINED). I originally thought this Tlalli article was WP:PROMOTION by the artist's gallery, which is common enough, but still to be watched for neutrality and WP:COI. I agree though we need more opinions, and *again* this is something that needs to be watched as events play out (WP:DELAY), like all current events on here. And apologies, there were quite a few fairly basic translation errors, it wasn't aimed at you personally... That is why we have and rely on numerous editors to form articles. Saludos, Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 23:18, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

You didn't even try to answer any of the points. I'm opening an RM due to your persistent inaction. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 00:27, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Should this article be merged?

Should Monument to Christopher Columbus (Paseo de la Reforma), Tlalli and the Women Who Fight Roundabout be merged into an article? (CC) Tbhotch^™ 01:04, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

RFC opened on behalve of @Hesperian Nguyen: The first comment on the topic by Nguyen [2] summarizes their opinion, but they can freely explain why they should be merged.

If you are unaware of what's going on with them, the background at Women Who Fight Roundabout summarizes most of the situation.

I have to add that I preferred RFC over the merging venue and AFD as RFC tends to generate more comments than merging, and AFD is pointless as these articles won't be deleted.

And lastly my opinion on why they should not be merged. It is explained above but simplified: they are all independent of each other. Nguyen apparently sees this as WP:FORKs because "if they hadn't removed Columbus, Tlalli wouldn't have existed, and without the Tlalli controversy, the WHF wouldn't have existed",[3] but cause-and-effect is not a reason to merge pages. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 01:04, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• No, the articles should not be merged. I've been following the discussions on all three talk pages, alongside the development of each article. I see no reason to merge because each subject has received sufficient secondary coverage. I vote to close this discussion sooner than later unless someone can provide some very convincing reasons why these should be merged. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:06, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
• Do not merge, as they all appear independently notable, with independent coverage of each. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:00, 13 October 2021 (UTC) (Summoned by bot)

Are other editors allowed to open an RFC on "behalf" of another editor and summarise discussion on behalf of another editor? I did not request this to be done, nor authorise this action, nor do I think it is necessary at this time. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 13:46, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Fairly outrageous case of WP:TENDENTIOUS editing by Tbhotch here, not to mention Another Believer for trying to railroad and rush the discussion at every opportunity. Requesting a moderator close this totally not 'on my behalf' RFC. Regards, Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 18:22, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I think I've responded appropriately and reasonably. I'm not trying to "railroad" or "rush" anything; I've merely ask you to let other editors weigh in since you've already expressed your concerns. This is how Wikipedia works. I'm certainly not opposed to closing this discussion. Based on comments by Tbhotch, ScottishFinnishRadish, and myself, there's not a consensus to merge the three articles. Any concerns about the specific entries can be shared on respective talk pages. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:26, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

This is how developed: I kindly asked you to explain your point. I even proposed to you the creation of an article titled "Removal of the monument to Christopher Columbus (Paseo de la Reforma)".[4] On October 10 apparently you let this die [5], but the next day you restarted it. What's the point of your suggestions about them being merged if when you are given the option to merge them you are going to withdraw your proposals? And no, this should not be closed because you want it to be closed. When you say "I want the dust to settle down" you mean that as this is popular at the moment there is no point to discuss the merge, but once it is forgotten, then you will want to discuss it because "[you] feel that the topic was not historically significant in any way." Well, then let the community decide that. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 18:42, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I do have doubts about the notability and intentions of these 2 articles (one is a cardboard cutout with accompanying graffiti and the other is a still in-progress artwork) and I flagged it by starting a discussion on a talk page *3 days ago*, then I linked that on the other article's talk the following day. I provided links to Wikipedia Guidelines on request. This is how Wikipedia works. Further, these discussion can develop over days, weeks, sometimes years. It is especially wise to give these things time given that the events are still unfolding, interconnected, and we don't have a crystal ball to see into the future. The aggressiveness and WP:TENDENTIOUS editing has increased over the past 3 days to the point of being lambasted for making a coding error, posting a poll "on my behalf", summarising my arguments incorrectly, and trying to force an end to the discussion as quickly as possible as many times as possible. This to me is suspicious, disruptive editing not taking place in good faith and that is approaching harassment. Dropping the stick here and, as always, I will continue to boldly make neutral, encyclopedic edits. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 20:07, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:REHASH? (CC) Tbhotch^™ 20:18, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• This is not a RfC matter. Please follow the guidance at WP:MERGE. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:48, 13 October 2021 (UTC)