User talk:Cobblet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Bias concerns at VA/5[edit]

Just wondering if there was somewhere where I messed up and need to reassess how I'm going about populating the VAs. pbp 00:56, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

@Purplebackpack89:: If you can point out which sections you worked on, I'll do my best to provide feedback. Cobblet (talk) 01:32, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
I did some work on the American and European political leaders, and some in the military leaders and activists, and some in the businessmen. My goal is to keep geographical representation similar to that in the 4 list. pbp 01:36, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't recall any part of the level 4 list where I find the geographical balance satisfactory. We need to do a lot better on level 5. I hate to belabor the point and I realize I'm asking a lot of you to venture beyond your comfort zone and investigate the histories of other countries, but the fact remains is that you're one of the few contributors who has any expertise in history to begin with: if you won't do it, I don't expect others to.
Politicians and leaders: While you've included some extremely well-known leaders of minority groups in the US, you've ignored a few others (Marcus Garvey, Mary McLeod Bethune, Dolores Huerta, Crazy Horse). In recent times, I'm a little surprised you put Cheney and especially Biden in ahead of Al Gore or Ralph Nader or Ted Kennedy. Also I know it isn't your doing, but I don't see why we need to list every US president. And what's going on with all the Oceanian leaders?
Military leaders and activists: I think you've definitely gone overboard on American Civil War generals. How do you justify their presence when you haven't included politicians who played prominent roles in 20th-century US foreign policy and military conflicts like Robert McNamara or Dean Acheson? And notice the extremely unbalanced coverage of this section in the first place – coverage of Asian, African and Latin American military history (e.g. in the context of decolonization) needs to be massively expanded. Also I notice Alice Paul and Kate Sheppard are missing.
Explorers and businesspeople: Again I know they're not your doing, but it's simply absurd to group explorers and businesspeople together, and the presence of Jeremy Clarkson must be some kind of sick joke. Off the top of my head I can think of Samuel Colt who seems more vital than several of your additions. Helena Rubinstein also comes to mind – she is not less vital than Estée Lauder. Even taking into consideration American dominance in the corporate world, the coverage of non-American businesspeople is pitiful. Cobblet (talk) 04:26, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
OK, good suggestions. I think I saw Garvey on the list somewhere, but as a Jamaican rather than an American. Cheney was not my doing; Guzzy added him with all the Oceanian articles. I guess Bethune is a political leader, but I'd definitely classify Huerta and Crazy Horse as activists. Gore, McNamara and Ted Kennedy would be good adds. pbp 14:21, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
I made some of the changes you suggested here. I also took a stab at expanding Mexican vital articles. I started on Jurists because I saw where Guzzy was going with it in his sandbox and wanted to preempt that. John Marshall was in political leaders at Lv. 4, but he's in Jurists at Lv. 5. Earl Warren is at jurists, but William Howard Taft and Charles Evans Hughes remain at political leaders. pbp 14:50, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
As for military leaders, I may have gone a little overboard with 9 Civil War generals and 5 Revolutionary War generals (well, three generals, a colonel, and a commodore). But I do think there's definitely room for at least 4 or 5 Civil War generals. pbp 14:59, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Let's start with four. I'll take a look at GuzzyG's sandboxen. Cobblet (talk) 16:01, 26 November 2017 (UTC)


Thanks for catching my error; I had started some work and got interrupted before fixing it. Parkwells (talk) 15:22, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Interested in Mexican Municipalities?[edit]

Hi, I had a question I wanted your opinion on before making any changes. I recall that you were interested in these pages.

I'm wondering if I should begin standardizing Mexican municipality pages so that there is one page per municipality. I like how it is done here Colima City where the page is given the main city name, and there is a section for the municipality (Colima_City#Colima_Municipality). Alternatively the page could be titled after the municipality and the article can have subsections for the city. I prefer the former, since there is always far more information on the city than the municipality. What do you think? Mattximus (talk) 15:47, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey Mattximus, I'm travelling in Guatemala atm and can't find the talk page where some of these issues had been discussed a few years back - I only recall that there was no consensus on anything. The lack of consistency is something Tobias Conradi tried to "fix" before he was finally blocked. I myself have gone both ways (San José del Rincón, Tlaxco Municipality, Tlaxcala). I don't have a firm opinion on any of the issues you raised, but here are some of my thoughts:
  1. First, I'm not convinced there is a need for standardization across all Mexican municipalities because they vary so widely in their geographical context. What makes sense for the municipalities in Baja California may not make sense for those in Oaxaca.
  2. That being said, there should always be an article that treats the municipality as the primary topic since it is the basic unit of local government.
  3. If the names of those articles have to be standardized they ought to take the form of "X Municipality", following the precedent of many country subdivisions. This is what I think Tobias was trying to do.
  4. But I am not convinced that adding "Municipality" to the name of every such article is necessary or even desirable even if it preserves consistency. I am not sure how often this naming format is used in English sources other than Wikipedia. I also personally dislike using names that have a disambiguating term if it's unlikely the disambiguation is actually needed for any reason other than consistency, e.g. there is another name the central locality goes by (San Jose del Rincón vs. San Jose del Rincón Centro); or if there is no need to have articles for both, either because there is only one INEGI-recognized locality in the municipality, or the municipality is dominated by one locality. The latter is subjective to an extent, but FWIW IMO Colima the city does not "dominate" Colima the municipality, since IIRC there are several auxiliary councils under the municipality. So IMO Colima City and Colima Municipality should have separate articles in theory.

In practice I don't mind the merge you've made which I've also seen in many other articles - if we don't have the content right now to justify two separate articles, it makes sense. But in theory I think we should eventually have separate articles in most cases. I don't think it's generally true that there's more info on the municipal seat than the municipality - e.g. try finding something specifically on San Jose de Rincón Centro. There is an encyclopedia on the municipalities; there isn't one on localities or municipal seats AFAIK. Cobblet (talk) 01:58, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your insight. I agree with your comments. With those in mind, what do you think about these suggestions:
1. Strive for a single non-stub page for every municipality, named after the municipality (but does not include the word "Municipality" in the title)
2. All localities within each municipality should be part of the main municipality page unless there is enough information to warrant separating into multiple articles. In which case, a summary should still remain for the locality in the main municipality page.
Unless I am mistaken, I think these suggestions are in agreement with your comments, I will try changing a few to meet this standard and see if it works. Mattximus (talk) 16:24, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
I've now found the discussions I was trying to remember: see Talk:Municipalities of Mexico#Naming, Wikipedia:WikiProject Mexico/Strategy and Wikipedia:WikiProject Mexico/Terminology#C. TOPONYMS: Nomenclature for administrative divisions in Mexico.
I'm fine with your second point. I'm fine with your first point except the bit in parentheses – I don't think we should attempt to decide on a blanket rule either way without seeking a broader consensus first. In practice, here are the factors I consider when deciding whether to name a page "X Municipality" or just "X":
  1. Whether the municipality and its seat share the same name;
  2. What proportion of the municipality's population lives in the municipal seat;
  3. How many other localities exist within the municipality;
  4. How many of these other localities have their own auxiliary authorities;
  5. How Wikipedia currently names nearby municipalities.
Hope that helps. Cobblet (talk) 00:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Municipalities of Colima[edit]

Municipalities of Colima has been promoted to featured list thanks to your help. I just wanted to send my appreciation for your work on this list. Now that it is promoted, it will now get more activity, be better monitored for quality, and be part of the greater goal of having a list of all first level administrative divisions in all countries on wikipedia. I'm currently working on bringing at least the tables and formatting up to date on the other lists for Mexican states. If there is any of those lists that interests you, and you want to see promoted, please let me know and I will try to work on that one, at least as much as I can given my language barrier. Mattximus (talk) 21:29, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I admire the work you've put into local government-related lists. Your work nicely complements mine on creating articles for Mexican municipalities that still don't have them. I'd be happy to pitch in whenever you need any help with your lists, whether Mexico-related or not. Cobblet (talk) 23:20, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! I've already nominated the second list Wikipedia:Featured list candidates#Municipalities of Aguascalientes using all the references you dug up for Colima, but applied to Aguascalientes. I believe the table is accurate and the lead nearly complete. If you would like to review, that would be fantastic, especially if there are any Aguascalientes specific laws I have neglected. And there is absolutely no hurry, so please only review when you feel so inclined, as these nomination procedures often take months anyway. Thanks again! Mattximus (talk) 01:43, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Also if there is any list that interests you, please let me know, I'm happy to work on tables for any list of municipalities. Mattximus (talk) 01:43, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Sure, I'll take a look at the Aguascalientes list when I have a chance. In the meantime I've noticed that you've copy/pasted references to Colima's legislative provisions into that and other pages. Also some of the pages you've reformatted are now missing noinclude tags which have led to them being incorrectly transcluded into List of Mexican municipalities. Cobblet (talk) 01:56, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the catch, these paragraphs are just temporary as I improve the lists over time. I have now removed all references to Colima from them, keeping only information that holds true for the entire country. I fixed all the noinclude tags, so they should translocude correctly now. I really don't think that big list of every municipality in Mexico should be featured, since each state list has random info, and there is no significant lead, I might nominate that for de-listing since it is really far too large for a single page anyway. Mattximus (talk) 15:58, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
I think the star on that list has been transcluded from the Colima list. Cobblet (talk) 16:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)