Jump to content

Talk:Mexico City/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2014

"While they represented around 18.74% of the city's population, indigenous peoples from different regions of Mexico have immigrated to the capital in search of better economic opportunities." Please change "immigrated" to 'migrated' as it is talking about national movement rather than international movement. If one were to move to the USA from Mexico, that would be immigration, but to move to one city to the next in the same country is called migration. Thanks. 81.151.70.165 (talk) 11:43, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

 Done - thanks for the suggestion - Arjayay (talk) 17:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

use metro figures for crime comparisons

we should use the metro numbers given that mexico city is a city of 20 to 25 million. people have been trying to say that atalanta or dc has a higher murder rate than mexico city which is absolutely ridiculous. these are actually cities of 5 million or more. i just thought id state this because people insist on repeatedly using this irrational way of measuring cities in the crime section. its not on there at the moment but people might put it on there agan.

'city' should be changed to 'municipality' where the city has grown beyond the historical boundary as it almost always does, this should gappen on every city article on wikipedia. these are outdated, capricuos boundaries thast dont measure a citys current size.

anoyjer thong is the murder rate in the city has been steadily increasing year after year since 2007. it bottomed out that year but it gets worse and worse since like an unstoppable force. the article makes it look like its been going down

Aztec period

Just the mildest of queries - During Cortes seige, "the city suffered from the lack of food and water" (second para). How can you be short of water when besieged on an island in a freshwater lake? Baska436 (talk) 23:24, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Timeline of Mexico City

What is missing from the recently created city timeline article? Please add relevant content. Contributions welcome. Thank you. -- M2545 (talk) 17:03, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

images

we need to go over what images to keep...the image spamming is simply to much ..we dont need 100 images here. Lets go over the ones that best fit each section . as per MOS:IMAGELOCATION. WP:NOTGALLERY..lets not make this article look like tourist brochure . i also think its best to remove the infoboxes from other pages. -- Moxy (talk) 02:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello Moxy, I honestly do not fully understand your posture on the Mexico City article at all. I already reverted many images and the article has as many images as any other similar article (big cities). Look at how images are displaced in the Buenos Aires article for example, São Paulo and the Gallery (which were one of the many pictures I deleted to satisfy your demands) in the Caracas article. The previous city articles are just a few examples and they have similar demographic and historical values as Mexico City. Firstly, I would like to say I appreciate your recommendations to improve the article in question, which regardless, have made significant improvement and cleaning of the article. Secondly however, you replaced many images with some others that are not as relevant to the article(for example, taking away important landmarks and main arteries such as the Periférico or having an iamge for the third time of the Cathedral and removing the La Villa Basilica one in the Demographics section, which is the main Catholic pilgrimage site in the country) and instead leaving "useless" images as you previously cited. Some of the images you had were badly organized in the previous edit, where images of the Revolution seemed to be in the 20th Century section in the computer version for example. Thirdly, I read my last iteration on a Mobile Device and it seems readable and much more organized. The article does not seem or feel overloaded by image spam anymore (I do agree it was disorganized and overloaded at the beginning, but that came even before I began editing, probably months before) if we take into consideration the size of the article and the wide arrange of information and potential it has or can have. Furthermore, the images are also very accurate and relevant to each section as well. Also, I keep emphasizing the the need for an addition of an architecture and a sub section of libraries and neighbourhoods to the article, which play a very important role into how the city is today. This is, taking into consideration that the article in question relates to a 20 million people agglomeration with 4 UNESCO World Heritage Sites in the Federal District plus Teotihuacán in the Metropolitan area, a rich historical background and a contemporary complexity. I can see and again, appreciate your wide knowledge of the Wikipedia tools, nevertheless, I do not know if you even know this city, but I do and I would be glad to co-work with you. I also left the last edit with updates on history and I asked for your feedback to reach an agreement, keep learning from you and other editors and please keep the passive aggressiveness to the minimum. I am willing to hear back to you and reach an agreement, thank you for your time, cheers and again, thank you for your recommendations. DIbraNEW user:DIbraNEWtalk 1:40, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Just try to look at the page with a cell phone....too many pics wont load. An article that loads properly would be Ottawa. To put it simply having so many pics makes the article look like a child wrote it let alone the fact cell phone users will just skip it thus no one learns anything. Even people with normal PC have to side scroll to see all the picks in the galleries. There are also infoboxes from other articles that dont belong....again more load time for just nice pics and info that can be written out, . -- Moxy (talk) 15:00, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

One of the Federal District Section? One in the Education? One in transportation? Health image? Those would me my main candidates, let's leave the infobox issue with feedback from other editors. We may also have to check and upgrade content. The Borough and metropolitan section. user:DIbraNEWtalk 1:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

RfC: does the article have too many images with 86?

Does this article need to have 100 images?

Support removal of more the half of the images Wikipedia:Image dos and don'ts... simply too many picks...wont load on my cell phone WP:ACCIM. Just the lead infobox has 15 pics not one is identified. Need to figure out the best ones to keep and have them in the proper sections. -- Moxy (talk) 15:12, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support pruning down. I checked a few other pages to see what they were like. New York City has around 60 or so, and London has a more modest 50. I guess it does make sense to cut down on the excessive number of images here. I don't know how many it should have, but I guess 40–50 seems pretty reasonable, and maybe even 60 would be alright. It's tough to say without any kind of guideline on the matter. Having this many images does kind of overwhelm the reader, though. I'm not sure which ones are important, which ones are the most representative, etc. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support reduction per MOS and nominator.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:02, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support reduction per MOS and nominator. I see at least ten photos that need to be removed (photos of the same building or monument). -- Kayoty (talk) 20:30, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support reduction quality > quantity Mcgrubso (talk) 16:05, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support reduction per MOS and WP:COMMONSENSE. This is wrong per both the images instructions and the infobox instructions. New York is a good model, other than over-inclusion of parnoramas. London not so much, because it's abusing the infobox as a gallery. PS: Speaking of panoramas, won't inclusion of them at that size force a quite large minimum window width, and force side-scrolling on many devices, including all smartphones, to even read the basic text?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:24, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Mexico City. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Please verify edit

Can somebody please verify this edit?
Mexico_City&diff=680048840&oldid=679821641
Thank you. Checkingfax (talk) 02:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

@Checkingfax: Also, IvanScrooge98 I could be wrong, but that is, in fact, the probable way a Mexican native would pronouce "Mexico, D.F.". I dream of horses (T) @ 03:22, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 18 external links on Mexico City. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:43, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mexico City. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:17, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

city of Mexico

Why was the first paragraph and inbox changed to show "city of Mexico", instead of "Mexico City"? Is there any reputed source that presents it this way? dúnadan : let's talk 00:23, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Mexico City. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:22, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Mexico City. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:20, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Mexico City. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:30, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Mexico City. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:40, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mexico City. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mexico City. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:54, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mexico City. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:30, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

CDMX is not an official name, nor the official abbreviation

I decided to start this talk because one of my edits was reverted, but more importantly, because the information in the entry as it is presented right now is not accurate. CDMX is not an official name, nor the official abbreviation. In fact, is a trademark (Landívar & Landívar, 2016, CDMX, A new trademark for Mexico, http://www.landivar.com/news/news5.html, access date July 19, 2017 and also Mexican Institute of Industrial Property, 2016, Servicio de Consulta Externa sobre Información de Marcas, http://marcanet.impi.gob.mx/marcanet/, access date July 19, 2017). I encourage you to read this sources. As a matter of fact, the logo used by the city government right now cannot be used freely for at least 10 years starting from 2014. Also, if you check the Diario Oficial de la Federación (DOF; translated variously as the Official Journal of the Federation or else as Official Gazette of the Federation, http://dof.gob.mx/), there is not a single entry on this abbreviation. There are other problems (http://www.elfinanciero.com.mx/opinion/mauricio-jalife/cdmx) but of course are beyond the scope of this article. Please let me know what you guys think. Best, ishiba — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ishiba (talk • contribs) 20:39, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

official or not it’s the way people who live there abbreviate it multiple times per day. Technically, someone needs to find a source which says that. But look at the city’s website plastered with CDMX. To claim that this is not the official abbreviation seems rather pedantic. Keizers (talk) 18:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Elevation. Near enough?

2240m in text and archives. 2250m in info box. I get 2230m with Google (near a lake). MBG02 (talk) 09:43, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Disputes should be solved with discussion on the talk page

@BrugesFR and Generic515:, you two have made more reverts than is allowed. Try to sort out things here, and if that does not work, open a RfC. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:19, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Truly jealousy sabotage by long-standing editors

Please take advice to truly sabotage that receives the Mexican capital article. --Voche537 (talk) 19:12, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

best make sure our readers can see text based on contrast of colours ... Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility.--Moxy 🍁 20:12, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
I no see any "contrast of the colours", please stop vandalizing the article, also you claims to be Canadian but your editions are like by a British/Latin American. --Voche537 (talk) 20:21, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Ok, that articles are biased. --Voche537 (talk) 21:07, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps another language Wikipedia would serve you better.--Moxy 🍁 01:45, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Duh. Ok. --Voche537 (talk) 01:56, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

"D.F." listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect D.F.. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 2#D.F. until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TheAwesomeHwyh 03:15, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 September 2020

In the Nationality section, I prefer it if you would link the term "Asia-Pacific" with the page Asian Mexicans. I think this linking is useful for readers, but please check and make sure for yourself if it is a necessary addition before doing it. EagerBeaverPJ (talk) 07:41, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Not done – please clarify Why should we link a territory with a group of people? GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 21:40, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 04 October 2020

The time zone is linked in the infobox as UTC– 06:00 (with an en dash and a space), but it should be UTC−06:00 (with a Hyphen-minus). Please change the former to the latter, for both summer and winter time.

 Done. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:29, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 October 2020

The short version: one of the sources cited seems to be a conspiracy theorist.

This statement: "The oldest signs of human occupation in the area of Mexico City are those of the "Peñon woman" and others found in San Bartolo Atepehuacan (Gustavo A. Madero). They were believed to correspond to the lower Cenolithic period (9500–7000 BC).[29] However, recent studies place the age of the Penon woman at 12,700 years old, making her one of the Americas' oldest human remains.[30] Its origin due to its mitochondrial DNA suggests Asian,[31] or Caucasian having an appearance like Western European whites,[32][30] or Australian."

One of the sources used (32) is by an author sympathetic to Creationism (presenting both I.D. and Evolution as equally at fault(?)) who has also written "new-age" books and that specific source has wild conspiracies about "Caucasians" being the original inhabitants of many places (such as New Zealand!), presents evidence of Biblical giants as really existing, and presents the Ancient Astronaut hypothesis as a valid alternative to Darwinian evolution. The other source is a news article which I feel does not warrant such attention but is at least a valid source. Also, the grammar/syntax of the second half is confusing. It would be better to erase the parts following "Cenolithic period". MToumbola (talk) 20:17, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

To editor MToumbola:  Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Seems that the info is pretty well-sourced. I've improved sentence structure a bit; however, I think that info is far too important to remove altogether. Of course if the consensus is to remove it, then I would go along with it, but I myself would have to oppose its removal. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 00:26, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Infobox flag RFC

Should this article have a flag inside the infobox? There is a discussion about it at WikiProject Mexico, where you can join and discuss it. (CC) Tbhotch™ 20:32, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Made me look at infobox....great example of image spam.--Moxy 🍁 01:13, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Economic description very inflated

I've been to MC many times. You do not have to look far to see examples of poverty. The article makes it sound like it's very middle upper class: "The top twelve percent of GDP per capita holders in the city had a mean disposable income of US$98,517 in 2007. The high spending power of Mexico City inhabitants makes the city attractive for companies offering prestige and luxury goods." This paper written by the World Bank, on the other hand, gives the average income in 2003 as $14,180. In other words the POV is quite biased. --- Possibly (talk) 07:29, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Image change

I worked on a new image for the infobox because the current one is over packed and messy, i made it a little more organized and took out a few unnecessary images, i want to include it in the article but it keep getting reversed, can someone please fix the issue. --- kaidros (talk) 06:50, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

mAth

fast and quick and i dont care❤️❤️💜90 37.210.59.154 (talk) 08:37, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Photo collage

Hello, I recently tried to put a new collage of photos with the main landmarks in the city. However, I was reversed by the editor Kaidros for not reaching consensus before making such changes. That said, I come here to formally make this proposal. The advantage of this format that I am proposing is that the photos can be changed separately afterwards. Thanks in advance. Cordial greetings. Chronus (talk) 18:47, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@Asqueladd: Can you participate os this debate too? Chronus (talk) 18:47, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
@Chronus: Haha, this is too much for me. I've little input to add other than some generalities. I'll try: Besides the handy feature of the proposed collage consisting of a collage with images which can be locally replaced one by one, I like the proposed general view at the top of the collage insofar it conveys better the "megalopolis" character of the city. While far from the city, the administrative division includes some tall mountains. I wonder if the inclusion of an image of sorts about it is viable, even if it fails to feature any urban element? I also observe the Zócalo is not featured in the current collage whereas it is featured in the proposal (albeit only the façade of the Metropolitan cathedral). A similar thing could be said about the Monument to the Revolution. Those are quite landmark-y, if you ask me, although I'd prefer that, if possible, they featured in pics in connection with their surroundings (as urban spaces) rather than as mere façades.--Asqueladd (talk) 22:21, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Here is an interactive collage version of the current collage. Kaidros (talk) 02:49, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

13 images in the lead is way to much......will lose readers because of scrolling nightmare. Pls read over THIS PLS.Moxy- 01:31, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

i made the original collage into a multiple image template as you asked, please discuss specific image changes now. Kaidros (talk) 00:01, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
@Kaidros There is no 'original collage'. You changed the old collage without any discussion and now calls for a status quo that never existed. Why can't you discuss changes to each of the images in the format I suggested? In fact, several of the images from the 'original collage' are still present in the current version. Remember: this article is not your property. Chronus (talk) 02:41, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
first, thats not even me, thats not my edit, and second, im fine with discussing edits in that format, I'm just reverting it because you've changed it multiple times and I dont want it to become an edit war. I would like discuss changing image1 since its super sharpend and edited, a less edited and clearer image would be better in my opinion, also a lot of the images just dont have color harmony and makes the collage look messy as apose to the other collage which has a clear blue and silver color harmony.Kaidros (talk) 02:55, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
@Kaidros Oh so you started an edit war because you didn't like the color tones of the images? Is this serious? The first image is a wide panoramic one that show all the city and 'conveys better the "megalopolis" character of the city', as said by Asqueladd above. Furthermore, the image was taken by the government of Mexico City. Chronus (talk) 03:03, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
i didnt start an edit war, i only reverted your edit once, also yes the color harmony of the collage is very messy, not sure whats wrong with me saying that when we are discussing a collage (???) also not sure why it matters who took the photo.Kaidros (talk) 04:17, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
You revert my editions at least three times manually. And the 'color harmony' is not 'very messy'. What even meaning that? Chronus (talk) 04:38, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
@Kaidros The current version of the collage has a "clear blue color harmony" now. What do you think? Chronus (talk) 03:09, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
@Kaidros I also improve the quality of the first image of the collage and reverted all the editions. Chronus (talk) 03:14, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
@Chronus do you think this or this image looks better than the current one? Kaidros (talk) 04:23, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
@Kaidros I prefer this image on the vertical side. But what is the problem with the current one? Chronus (talk) 04:35, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
The current one seems like a very badly lit image in comparison with the others, let me know what you think. Kaidros (talk) 04:40, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
@Kaidros How can a photograph voted one of the best images on Wikimedia Commons be 'bad'? Chronus (talk) 04:44, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
@Chronus
how does this look to you:
| image1 = Sobrevuelos CDMX HJ2A4913 (25514321687) (cropped).jpg
| image2 = Bellas Artes 01.jpg
| image3 = Angel-de-la-Independencia--Mexico-D.F.jpg
| image4 = Lago y plataformas de césped.jpg
| image5 = Paseo de la Reforma Torre Reforma, Chapultepec Uno and Torre Mayor.jpg
| image6 = Mexico-3271 - Zócalo (2214738586).jpg
| image7 = Monumento a la Revolución 2.jpg
@Kaidros The image of the Paseo de La Reforma only shows three buildings and you can barely identify the location. I prefer the current aerial photo of that place. And, again, what is the problem with that image? Chronus (talk) 04:41, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
i answered above, what about this image? not only does it make refrence to paseo de la reforma but also to chapultepec castle, another important part of the city.Kaidros (talk) 04:43, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
@Kaidros: And I repeat the question: how can a photograph voted one of the best images on Wikimedia Commons be 'bad'? An what is now the problem with this image? Please present concrete arguments, not just your personal opinion. Chronus (talk) 04:46, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
you reorganized the collage based on your opinion as well (on how you though it would look better), not sure what kind of arguments you expect when talking about a visual edit, im telling you my visual opinion since its what we are both going off on. the images have drastically different lighting and dont match, thats my arguement, i am trying to fix it and come to a compromise with you but you seem to not want to.Kaidros (talk) 04:52, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
@Kaidros On the contrary. When questioned, I presented concrete arguments to defend the permanence of each of the images. You, on the contrary, in addition to claiming a false status quo, still defend the images saying only: 'I like this one', 'I don't like this one.' With so much to do in Mexico-related articles, it's amazing that you'd waste so much time and energy just on a photo collage. By the way, if I hadn't been willing to reach a consensus, I wouldn't have made the various modifications I've already made to the photo collage to meet your demands. Chronus (talk) 04:54, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
@Kaidros See this. Happy now? Chronus (talk) 04:48, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
@Kaidros Happy or no? Chronus (talk) 04:57, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
@Chronus
looks better but tell me how this looks to you:
| image1 = Sobrevuelos CDMX HJ2A4913 (25514321687) (cropped).jpg
| image2 = Bellas Artes 01.jpg
| image3 = Angel-de-la-Independencia--Mexico-D.F.jpg
| image4 = Mexico-3271 - Zócalo (2214738586).jpg
| image5 = Lago y plataformas de césped.jpg
| image6 = CDMX - Paseo de la Reforma.jpg
| image7 = Monumento a la Revolución 2 (cropped).jpg Kaidros (talk) 05:00, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
@Kaidros Ok.  Done! Have we reached a consensus? Chronus (talk) 05:02, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
yes, thank you, have a good night @Chronus. Kaidros (talk) 05:04, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

wrong time zone

"Thursday, 19 September 1985, at 7:19 am CST" is broken. It should be CDT, possibly an hour later. Randal L. Schwartz (talk) 04:55, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Mexico didn't observe daylight time until after 1995. (CC) Tbhotch™ 16:27, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:24, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mexico_City/Archive_3&oldid=1210856594"