Jump to content

Talk:El Paso–Juárez

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

Accuracy

[edit]

Polaron, you have not provided any basis for your "accuracy" banner. With all due respect since this is up for DYK nomination I must insist that you explain this immediately or I have to remove the banner as vandalism.

--Mcorazao (talk) 19:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single metropolitan area

[edit]

This region is not a single metropolitan area and should not be treated as such. There is no freedom of movement of labor across the border. Further, while there may be continuity of urbanization between some parts of Ciudad Juarez and El Paso, Las Cruces is not in any way connected by urbanization to the other two and there is insufficient worker flow across the two areas. --Polaron | Talk 19:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Polaron, Thank you very much for responding so quickly. I very much appreciate it.
The things you are stating or WP:OR. This is not to say that your statements are not in some ways correct. But the simple fact is that these communities are considered by reliable sources to be a single metropolitan area. The point is that you cannot make these accusations based simply on the fact that the statements don't seem right to you. There are more than enough reliable sources that back up the characterization of this as metropolitan area. So you have one of 3 choices:
  1. Explain why the sources provided are not reliable.
  2. Provide reliable sources that genuinely establish that the ones I have provided are simply a "fringe" viewpoint.
  3. Remove the banners.
--Mcorazao (talk) 20:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will change some of the phrasing in the lead of the article as well as rename the article to a more appropriate name. --Polaron | Talk 20:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not rename the article without discussion. As I say, this is up for DYK so please be careful what you do. --Mcorazao (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many people misuse the term metropolitan area to mean any urban region. There is no established urban geography source that would treat this as a single metropolitan area. Neither government treats this as a single metropolitan area. --Polaron | Talk 20:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents: I don't care whether it's a "metropolitan area" or a "region" but that part of the title should be lower case. Also it should probably be "El Paso–Juárez" rather than "El Paso-Juárez" (that is, use an en-dash, not a hyphen) both in the title and in the text of the article (note however that there is currently disagreement over on WP:MOS whether the en-dash should be spaced in instances such as this one). So: El Paso–Juárez region or El Paso–Juárez metropolitan area. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

requested move 2

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved back to previous name without prejudice for new discussion, open for new Requested Move. doncram (talk) 00:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


El Paso–Juárez region → El Paso-Juárez Metropolitan Area — The name change to this page was made without consensus (deliberately without consensus). I asked that this be undone so that the discussion about the name could continue (continuing the discussion on this page is rewarding bad behavior) but Sarek has chosen to close that discussion. I am renewing my request through this forum. As I have stated before, I open to discussing this but only if it is done ethically and constructively. Mcorazao (talk) 22:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

where is the first requested move discussion, said to have been closed by Sarek? --doncram (talk) 22:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think he means this one, but I need to clarify my wording on that a bit.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Sarek. In that discussion, the parties agreed to have the article moved back to the original title. Polaron, who made the original move that was contested, stated "Please move the article back properly. Because you didn't use the move function and did a copy-paste move instead, an admin needs to move it back. Once it's moved back to its original title (with admin assistance), we can start a discussion. In the meantime, please edit the original article if you want to change the content. Creating content forks is against policy. --Polaron | Talk 20:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC) " And Mcorazao asked repeatedly (and again here) to have it restored to the previous name. So, it would seem most fair if you could assist by doing that (I'm assuming you are an Administrator, you must be if you merged the histories. Thanks for doing that!) Then there could/should be a new Requested Move. The starting position could end up affecting the outcome, conceivably, if there is "no consensus to move", while a decision based on merits could go either way presumably. (Disclosure: I have had previous interactions with Polaron, but have no particular view on the naming issue here.) --doncram (talk) 23:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm disinclined to reward Mcorazao's accusations of bad faith, but if you want to try moving it back (you should be able to, now that I've merged the version there into the history here) and flip the movereq above, I won't contest it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, i moved it back, was trying to revise the request here. Seems this is closing, someone needs to make a new Requested Move request. --doncram (talk) 00:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


rename article

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Close - Page already moved to agreed new name  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

El Paso-Juárez Metropolitan Area → El Paso–Juárez area — The conurbation of El Paso and Juarez is not universally considered as a single metropolitan area because there is no free flow of commuters across the international border. Certainly, no urban geography source does. A more generic, non-loaded name would be more appropriate. This is also borne out by Google hits, with less than 400 hits for the current name[1] and over 100,000 for the generic name[2]. --Polaron | Talk 01:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If its not a metropolitan area, defined by the US census/Mexican authorities, then move the page (obvious). But, if it is an official metropolitan area then keep it this way. House1090 (talk) 02:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The page was just moved. You are going to get the same comments. Just saying. However the do from a "metropolitan area", it just may not fit one description of the term. SoCal L.A. (talk) 03:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for opening this discussion.
Let me share my thoughts.
--Mcorazao (talk) 03:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
House1090, I'm not sure what your point is. The U.S. census does not define statistical regions that include other nations nor does any branch of the Mexican government. What do you mean by "official"? In the U.S. a metropolitan area is not a legal entity. The incorporated entities are states, counties/parishes, and cities (and territories and a couple of other oddball things). The U.S. OMB defines some other subdivisions for the government's reporting purposes (and these are often overlapping) but these have no force of law, nor do the community's themselves necessarily use these definitions for anything except mostly to quote census numbers. What does that have to do with anything? --Mcorazao (talk) 04:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Regarding the upper/lower thing it is not a big deal to me but, strictly speaking, it is improper English usage to use the lower case here, even partially. That is, whatever title we use here is a proper noun, by definition (since we are talking about a specific place, not a generic term). So whatever name we choose to assign it has to be upper case (c.f. you can give me the nickname "Phil" but you cannot nickname me "phil"). For comparison, since we have used the name Greater Austin, we can say the "Greater Austin area" in the article. But if we want to use the term "area" as part of the name of the article then it cannot be Greater Austin area. It must be Greater Austin Area.
Case aside, El Paso-Juarez is ok but I could make the same argument that we should call Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex simply Dallas-Fort Worth. Quite frankly in everyday speech and probably in most writing people use the latter more. However, the former is seen as more descriptive and "proper". El Paso–Juárez Region and El Paso–Juárez Area are ok but, to me, they are less descriptive names (i.e. they can and are used to refer to slightly different things from the article's topic).
--Mcorazao (talk) 08:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:CAPS. It is WP house style to use lower case in article titles except for proper names. I agree this is contrary to usage in titles elsewhere. On WP, Greater Austin area would be the correct title and Greater Austin Area would be incorrect. That's why I favor a move. Station1 (talk) 08:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the question here is what constitutes a proper noun. Nevertheless I asked for some neutral guidance Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles#Question on case and the feedback was to use lower case unless there is consistent upper case usage in the sources. So though I don't agree with this I'll bow to the majority on the name case. --Mcorazao (talk) 17:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To chime in, I basically agree with Station1 here. In Wikipedia, we want to avoid coining new proper noun terms. Another wikipedia guideline along these lines is wp:neologism. Offhand to me "Dallas – Fort Worth Metroplex" looks like a coined, artificial term, but I am not informed about local usage, about whether the proper noun has common usage. --doncram (talk) 17:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Undent) Be careful about applying WP:neologism too liberally. All words and expressions in the language ultimately began as neologisms. That guideline — I believe — was intended to keep people from using terminology that is not generally recognized, not to say that the term with the longest history wins. --Mcorazao (talk) 17:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, yes, we want to avoid enshrining recently-coined-by-others terms that will not be generally recognized, and we want to avoid coining brand new terms and presenting them as if they are generally recognized (i.e. by giving the new term as a proper noun). The neologism guideline states: "In a few cases, there will be notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists. It can be tempting to employ a made-up or non-notable neologism in such a case. Instead, use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title." So that tends to make me think one of the options using "region" would be both awkward and appropriate. I have not browsed in the references you've provided, Mcorazao, however, so please, everyone, don't take me as having "!Vote"d yet; i have not yet come to a conclusion. --doncram (talk) 17:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, my vote at this point is
--Mcorazao (talk) 17:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

::::If its a bi-country metropolitan area, like San Diego Tijuana then keep it, if its not then change it to El Paso-Juárez area or El Paso-Juárez (region). House1090 (talk) 23:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me for being dense but I don't understand the distinction that you are drawing. It is a given that it is a metro are that spans two countries but it seems that you are implying something more specific. What is that more specific thing (i.e. what is the characteristic about San Diego-Tijuana that you consider significant)? --Mcorazao (talk) 23:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move to match San Diego Tijuana. I just think that SD-Tj is a major region and, this article should be similar to that one. House1090 (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, well, Polaron renamed that article just a few days ago to push an agenda. That article was named "San Diego – Tijuana metropolitan area" which is a more appropriate name. I'm guessing that you know that already ... --Mcorazao (talk) 02:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not in favor of it being region. Either of them. Major moves like that should be discussed on a talk page. SoCal L.A. (talk) 04:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think what we need here is a RfC to settle this, I could go either way, but for now I agree to a move. House1090 (talk) 22:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the movereq template is somewhat equivalent to an RfC but feel free to add an RfC if you like. --Mcorazao (talk) 22:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lets wait to see if we get more responses and not any one can add it to the RfC. House1090 (talk) 22:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that additional commentary is not forthcoming. But I don't feel like we have any real consensus (I don't like leaving it at "no consensus so we do nothing"). At the very least I think everybody is in favor of making anything but the city names lower case, yes? Given that, the proposals on the table seem to be
  1. El Paso–Juárez area
  2. El Paso–Juárez region, or El Paso–Juárez (region)
  3. El Paso–Juárez metropolitan area
  4. El Paso–Juárez
I'm in favor of the last two. We have one who has stated a preference for the first two. Two have said they would accept all four but favor the last. One has said s/he doesn't like #2. House1090, I'm unclear where you stand but I think you favor the first two. At the risk of sounding arrogant I am the only one that has provided sources (though at least some sources can be found for all four).
Does anybody want to clarify their opinions at this point or do we declare a mistrial?
--Mcorazao (talk) 18:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The unqualified "El Paso-Juarez" is probably the least controversial, similar to how Detroit-Windsor is titled. --Polaron | Talk 19:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am in favor of El Paso-Juárez if we can't agree on El Paso–Juárez metropolitan area. SoCal L.A. (talk) 23:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So does anybody object to El Paso-Juárez? --Mcorazao (talk) 03:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree to that. House1090 (talk) 05:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. San Diego-Tijuana region has been moved to San Diego-Tijuana for the same reasons. SoCal L.A. (talk) 01:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Plea for civility

[edit]

For whatever reason this article has stirred some passions. May I suggest a couple of things for the sake of constructive progress:

  • Base edits on references - This is good practice in general but, particularly when a topic is so sensitive, let's follow the rule that if a statement is cited then before significantly changing the statement either:
  1. Provide an explanation on the discussion page as to why you believe that the reference is not a reliable source, or
  2. Provide a reliable source which supports your changes (bearing in mind that if the sources conflict that does not in and of itself mean that your source is right and the other is wrong).
  • Avoid technicalities - It is generally better for articles to acknowledge widely held viewpoints than to try to argue that one authority is right and everybody else is wrong. Just because one can come up with an argument that according to one authority some of the content is technically invalid does not mean it is best that the content simply be stripped away entirely (though it probably means that it should be phrased carefully).

--Mcorazao (talk) 04:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in El Paso–Juárez

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of El Paso–Juárez's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "NOAA":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 17:56, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted to before the edit that copied the partial reference in along with a big block of material from another article. This idea of copying lots of contents from one place to another is not generally a good idea anyway. Dicklyon (talk) 18:30, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on El Paso–Juárez. 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 13:14, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on El Paso–Juárez. 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) 19:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on El Paso–Juárez. 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) 18:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:El_Paso–Juárez&oldid=1239351360"