Jump to content

Talk:New Mexico

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 98.160.131.17 (talk) at 14:59, 25 November 2010 (→‎confusing section on property tax: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former good article nomineeNew Mexico was a Geography and places good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 14, 2010Good article nomineeNot listed
June 13, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

Template:WP1.0

Archived 2002–2008

I archived all the discussions from 2002 through 2008 here. All discussions appear to be closed, and the last edit to the page was on 18 November 2008.

The issue of an official language comes up frequently, and I have summarized the discussion in a separate item below. If there are other topics that need to be carried forward, please also summarize those below. Thanks. --Uncia (talk) 16:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Mexico has no official language

The current consensus, backed up by some correspondence with the Reference Desk at the New Mexico State Library, is that New Mexico has no official language. It's true that Spanish is widely spoken in New Mexico, and many official documents are published in both Spanish and English, but it's not true that English and Spanish are the official languages, or even than English is the official language.

Please do not change the article to say that New Mexico has an official language unless you have discussed it on this talk page and developed a new consensus. Thanks. --Uncia (talk) 16:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced section

Hi, I authored most of the Passenger section. Is the whole of the section objectionable or are there some specific claims made there that need to be addressed? It can be fully referenced, but I don't think exhaustive citations should be necessary for basic information. The section is barebones, with most elaboration centered on recent events.Synchronism (talk) 22:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added the tag, prompted by this IP edit that says Rail Runner began operation in July 2008 instead of the correct July 2006. I think this was an honest mistake, but numbers in Wikipedia are very susceptible to vandalism and so I like to see all numbers sourced. Most readers would not know whether 2006 or 2008 was the correct date, and such an error could go undetected for a long time.
It's also true that this section contains a great deal of detailed information about the Rail Runner and about the Southwest Chief, both of which have their own articles and where the interested reader can (or should be able to) find this info. This is not really a sourcing issue, but I figure if there is a lot of info there should be some overall source given - the info came from somewhere, right? It's not common knowledge what the Southwest Chief schedule is, or how often it stops in Lordsburg. The simple solution is to leave that detailed info in the detailed article and just summarize here.
Finally the first paragraph, about the past and future of rail travel, seems a bit WP:OR or WP:CRYSTAL unless there is a WP:RS. Is "demise" an accurate description of intercity rail service? Probably, but some person had to make that judgment. --Uncia (talk) 00:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely agree about citing numbers. It really helps in the fight against the form of vandalism that seeks to discredit wikipedia as an unreliable source. Often edits are made simply to change a number, quite often without explanation and when there are references 'attached' to the value it's easier to distinguish between factual error introducing vandalism and constructive edits.
Referencing the SuperChief and the Southwest Chief's timetable won't be too difficult, I know of several preserved copies at special library collection, hopefully I can find something online (this is no trouble at all for the Southwest Chief actually). I wonder if there is a preferable way to cite a transportation timetable? "Decline" would be more accurate and less opinionated. The description of the history and future will probably morph some with referencing, perhaps replacing that sentence.
Thanks Uncia, Synchronism (talk) 03:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's bring this article up to Good Article status

The article has improved a lot over the past few weeks, and since we now have a number of editors interested in it, shall we try to bring it up to Good Article status? Some areas need expansion (notably Sports), there are still some lists that need to be replaced with narrative, and it needs better sourcing. But I believe we are not that far away from GA status. Once we are happy with the article, it would still have to go through a review by impartial reviewers to reach this status. There are currently no New Mexico-related articles at GA or FA class, and what better place to start that with New Mexico itself? Comments? Interest? Thanks. --Uncia (talk) 13:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to see this article brought up to at least GA status if there is still interest. As far as expansion of the sports section goes, what more should be included? perhaps winter sports and stadiums? Notably, I think the language section could be improved by including more information about the many indigenous languages in NM.Synchronism (talk) 20:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are two FA-class state articles, namely Minnesota and Oklahoma, and we have often used those as a guide to what needs to be improved in the present article. Of course FA is a much higher standard than GA. Wikipedia also has a peer review process where any article can be submitted as often as desired to get feedback and ideas. --Uncia (talk) 14:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Differing Information

Resolved
 – These statements have been replaced by more nuanced ones: lede diff, Culture diff. --Uncia (talk) 13:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, new to Wikipedia so don't know how this is usually handled, but I found a contradiction in the article: the intro says that the Hispanic population in the state is mostly due to recent immigration, but the "Culture" section states that the vast majority of Hispanics are descended from the original Spanish columnists. On its face, the second one seems correct, but I didn't think my best guess was enough to delete one and copy the other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajgutie2 (talk • contribs) 08:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted table of New Mexico Metropolitan Areas

I have boldly deleted (diff) a table labelled "New Mexico Metropolitan Areas (MSA)" under "Important cities and counties", on several grounds:

  • The items listed are not MSAs (they appear to be CSAs)
  • The whole table is unsourced
  • The numbers seem to have been subject to some vandalism (diff)
  • The reason for the selection of these four items is not clear (presumably they are the biggest ones of whatever they are, but what are they? And why only four instead of five or ten?)
  • Whatever these things are, they are not "Important cities and counties"

I won't object if someone wants to put a sourced and carefully labelled table here, but please don't simply revert to the old table. Thanks. --Uncia (talk) 03:26, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, that table was cluttering up that section. Junhalestone (talk) 09:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted census-designated places from city rankings

I have boldly deleted (diff) the use of CDPs in the table of most populous cities under Important cities and counties. We do not have comparable figures for the two types of entities, so it doesn't make sense to rank them together: city populations are estimated by the Population Estimates Program, and CDPs by the American Community Survey; cities and CDPs are estimated using different methodologies; and cities are estimated each year and CDPs irregularly. So for example we have 2008 estimates for cities (which are in the current table) but only three-year 2005–2007 estimates for South Valley, the one CDP that was in the old table. --Uncia (talk) 22:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I support this removal. CDPs are not really comparable to municipalities.Synchronism (talk) 23:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed "Politics" section

I have boldly removed (diff) the "Politics" section under Law and government, which appears to be intended to give information on party strength. The removed material had several faults, including:

  • completely unsourced
  • time-dependent material without dates given
  • often unclear and vague, for example, what does "Democrats hold majorities in 21 of the 33 counties of New Mexico" mean? (Probably it means the majority of the registered voters are registered as Democrats, but in fact this is true in only 19 counties.)

I don't object to including this type of material in the encyclopedia, but it is a treacherous area and needs to be written very precisely and carefully, and completely sourced. --Uncia (talk) 02:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:New Mexico/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: White Shadows you're breaking up 03:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Checklist

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  • The article is fairly well written. If I were you though, I'd take one more look over it to check any spelling and grammar mistakes.--White Shadows you're breaking up 03:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are also a few bits that are oddly worded for example, "The United States Census Bureau, as of July 1, 2008, estimated New Mexico's population at 1,984,356" How about "As of July 1, 2008, the United States Census Bureau estimated New Mexico's population at 1,984,356.":* Done NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ msg • changes) 04:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a few sections that are way too small to deserve it's own section. For example, the "Flora and fauna" secion should be merged with perhaps the Geography section or enlarged. It does'nt make since haveing a secion talk aobut flowers if it is entitled "geography" so you may also want to rename that section an appropriate new name if you take my advice. Not a deal breaker but it does seem a bit odd.--White Shadows you're breaking up 03:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Offline source accepted in good faith. No issues here. You just need more of them! (See above)--White Shadows you're breaking up 03:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Well, overall, the article is broad in coverage and is on topic. The only exeptions are that you'll need to expand the Sports, Art and Literature adn Education secions a bit. (Along with the others listed above)--White Shadows you're breaking up 03:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    No POV in existance.--White Shadows you're breaking up 03:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    No issue in this category.--White Shadows you're breaking up 03:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Good to go.--White Shadows you're breaking up 03:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Overall: Well, this is almost there. You'll need to properly adress those issues and then I'll pass it. And as for the deadline, as long as you keep working on it, I'll make the deadline indef. You'll need the extra time. Perhaps you can get Spongefrog and a few other people to help you out. I'd help out but seeing as I am the reviewer, I can't really work on it without a COI!--White Shadows you're breaking up 03:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Pass/Fail:

I'm not the reviewer, but I'd say that the Race and ancestry section needs more sources, especially with the percentage of which cultures live there (hopefully you know what I mean). --Hadger 04:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the reviewer, I'll have to argee with what he's saying here. You need a citatin for every culture.--White Shadows you're breaking up 04:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There already citiations that cite this. It's after "According to the US Census" or something like that. ~NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ message • changes) 15:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remaining issues

  1. The Transportation section still needs some more citations.--White Shadows you're breaking up 17:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The Political section needs more citations.--White Shadows you're breaking up 17:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The education system still needs major expanding and citations as well.--White Shadows you're breaking up 17:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Expansion needed tags still need to be addressed.--White Shadows you're breaking up 17:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. some links are have names but nothing else. You need access dates for evey online source as well as an author if possible.--White Shadows you're breaking up 17:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — This article should not be passed in its current state. Many sections need expansion and lots more refs are required. Aaroncrick TALK 04:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC) He's right. I'm going to have to fail this one since nothing much is happening. I'm sorry NSD, maybe you can keep on working on it and nominate it later.--White Shadows you're breaking up 10:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Celsius

Could you please add Celsius in this article. In Australia we dont use Fahrenheit.

Done. DBaK (talk) 06:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

State Seal

Those edit waring over the state seal should take a look at [1] which has a nice graphic. It has a blue background and a yellow/gold ring. I love to see some more sources on the subject and even a formal blazon if such a thing exists but they belong at Seal of New Mexico not here, of course. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Whether File:StateSealofNewMexico.gif or File:Great seal of the state of New Mexico.png should be used in the infobox to represent the State Seal. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saw this at the RFC. I think that either is fine. Sorry I can't settle this, but I don't see much difference. The Great Seal is a little more elaborate. Figureofnine (talk) 19:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Atari video game burial

Weren't unsold copies of E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (video game) buried in New Mexico? Shouldn't it mention that in this article somewhere?

82.12.1.173 (talk) 14:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sound like a very bizarre method of waste disposal and probably is too trivial for this article. Any reliable sources for the burial? Huon (talk) 14:16, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Check the Atari video game burial article and the E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (video game) article. When I first heard of the Atari video game burial, I thought that the Irate Gamer was making it up. But he wasn't!!! I've never been to New Mexico before. In fact, I've never been to the USA before! I'm from the United Kingdom and the only other places I've been are Spain and the Republic of Ireland!

82.12.1.173 (talk) 14:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so we're dealing with (disputed) legal waste disposal in a landfill. That's hardly significant enough to be mentioned in an article on the state. A nuclear waste storage site, probably. Plastics trash? Not so much. Huon (talk) 14:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

confusing section on property tax

"Property tax is imposed on real property by the state, by counties, and by school districts. In general, personal-use personal property is not subject to property taxation. On the other hand, property tax is levied on most business-use personalty. The taxable value of property is 1/3 of the assessed value. A tax rate of about 30 mills is applied to the taxable value, resulting in an effective tax rate of about 1%. In the 2005 tax year the average millage was about 26.47 for residential property and 29.80 for non-residential property. Assessed values of residences cannot be increased by more than 3% per year unless the residence is remodeled or sold.[62]"

well in no expect, but this seems very confusing to me , because it says personal use property is not subject to taxation , well isn't a residence used for personal use? It goes on to say that personal private residences are taxed. So what is the article talking about under the personal use property, things like stereoes and tv's? if so it should be omitted, because thats obvious and silly to state something like that. Otherwise maybe it should also state that new mexico does not tax for sunlight and oxygen either use.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_Mexico&oldid=398816721"