Talk:Santa Fe Plaza

National Register of Historic Places High‑importance

	National Register of Historic Places portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: New Mexico Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	New Mexico portal This article is supported by WikiProject New Mexico.

Recent dispute

I came upon this article only today, and endeavored to make a few improvements, at a couple of small margins. User:Randy Kryn has since helpfully improved one of my edits and the article is improving, as we all should want Wikipedia articles to do.

I then observed in the article history that there was a bit of an ongoing kerfuffle between User:VT440genoa and User:KidAd, starting on 5 Feb 2021, ending a very clear edit war between the two of them on 12 Feb 2021. User:Netherzone rightfully reverted the edit warring on 12 Feb and suggested the parties discuss it on this Talk page. To date, that has not been initiated by either party to the edit war.

As an outsider, I'll just kick this off and say that I looked at Netherzone's final revert today, and found that much of what was removed, including both sources and prose, would seem to improve the article if left in the article. Moreover, what was removed was not particularly "travel info" or excessively travel info specific as KidAd had asserted in some of their reverts of edits made by VT440genoa.

Here is the final revert that (correctly) ended the edit war. (diff) I believe substantial parts of the material removed would be fine improvements to the article; and I suspect that the full-on "revert it all" behavior shown by KidAd in the edit history may have been colored by disagreements between the two editors from a week earlier.

A more appropriate and collegial approach would be for KidAd to merely make edits to remove any smaller/particular parts of the changes by VT444genoa rather than the entirety of the recent edits by VT440genoa. (FULL DISCLOSURE: as far as I know, I know none of the four editors I linked above, and am an ousider to the controversy between KidAd and VT440genoa.) Cheers. N2e (talk) 13:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

N2e, Hello, and thank you for reaching out here. There was a discussion on my user talk page about this and I had suggested that the two editors use the article talk page instead of my talk. VT440genoa had discussed arbitration, which seemed out of proportion for a simple content dispute. I told VT they could go to the Help desk or TeaHouse if they wanted to go down that route. KidAd also expressed surprise at the notion of arbitration. I again suggested using article talk on Feb. 12. Then there was silence, so I archived the discussion. Since it seems to not be quite over, I've moved the discussion back to my active talk page.

That said, I'd really rather discuss the article here. So again, thank you for your post, and starting the discussion here.

The changes look fine. Regarding the failed verification nowiki message, if I remember correctly, Old Pecos Trail merges with Old Santa Fe trail just before the ring street, Paseo de Peralta, then dead-ends at the historic La Fonda hotel kitty-corner to the Plaza. Perhaps VT440genoa knows about the rerouting of Old Pecos Trail and has a verifiable RS source for that info so the maintenance tag can be removed.

Re: the Gregg and Summerhayes references that were undone, they introduced errors because titles were placed in the URL field and added the text "Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming" into the Refs. VT440genoa, you can learn more about how citations (references) work on Wikipedia here: WP:CITE and WP:FOOTNOTE. If you have difficulty adding them back (and it reintroduces the errors) post them here on Talk, and another editor will place them in the article. Netherzone (talk) 14:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for interest in this page, which all agree, needs help. Couple points. First, I was in the middle of correcting the Summerhayes and Gregg URLs when they were removed by others. They are available on Internet Archive. Second, Old Pecos disappears into Old Santa Fe Trail several blocks before (south of) Paseo de Peralta. It has never extended to the plaza. The road "Old Santa Fe Trail" is roughly the same as the the historic Santa Fe Trail route in town. Today, it ends a block from the plaza at the rear of La Fonda.

I appreciate the comment supporting my revisions. As reverted and seen now, much correction is needed. I had fixed links and added requested addition of citations. This was removed by others. A sentence of mine poorly edited by others changed the intent of the material; it now reads as if statehood was the enabling legislation for the 1912 preservation plan adoption.

There is need for a good understanding of the physical evolution of the plaza, starting with the Spanish plan; the evolution of the Mexican period to half the size of the early plaza; the revisions made and plan as a city park, 1860s-1880s; and the modern additions to create a "historic" look. I started to do this, but it was removed by others. VT440genoa (talk) 21:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]