Talk:Tlalli
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tlalli article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 12 months |
| This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
A fact from Tlalli appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 25 September 2021 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
| This article was created or improved during WikiProject Latin America's Latin American and the Caribbean 10,000 Challenge, which started on November 1, 2016, and is ongoing. You can help out! |
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)
- ... 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)
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 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)
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 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", 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)". On October 10 apparently you let this die , 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)
- This is not a RfC matter. Please follow the guidance at WP:MERGE. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:48, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

