Talk:Museo de Arte de Ponce

Museums Low‑importance

	museums portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Museums, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of museums 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.MuseumsWikipedia:WikiProject MuseumsTemplate:WikiProject MuseumsMuseums articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Puerto Rico High‑importance

	Puerto Rico portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Puerto Rico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to Puerto Rico 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.Puerto RicoWikipedia:WikiProject Puerto RicoTemplate:WikiProject Puerto RicoPuerto Rico articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Visual arts

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts 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.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles

World class

How can it possibly be "world class"? Edwardx (talk) 20:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinates

The current coordinates are wrong, the museum is on Las Americas Avenue. Mercy11 (talk) 01:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edits by Looks2See1

I have reverted these edits HERE as they constitute basically (1) a moving around of sections that were otherwise just fine, (2) making an issue of the renaming of the street where the museum is at (but this article is not about the street but about the museum; in addition, the change would introduce an inconsistency as the Museum's own website continues to report its address as Av. Las Americas), (3)Likewise for the city where the museum is located, where an issue is also made of that, but this article is about the museum, not about the city of Ponce and, in any event, that's what wikilinks are for (ex: use "[[Ponce, Puerto Rico]]" rather than describing the relative location of the city or where it stands in population relative to other cities in Puerto Rico), and (4)adding an "Introduction" section - unnecessary as the info there can go in the lead (where it was) for this article is not so long as to require a separate Introduction section and, in any event, that's the purpose of the lead section, namely to introduce the article.

While the museum did reopen and that part of the article did need an update, reworking the whole article was not the way to accomplish that, for, though primarily those above, the changes are extensive. It is best, when dealing with articles that have enjoyed relative stability, like this one, to first bring to discussion the intention to rewrite the article if the changes are numerous and significant, as was the case with these edits. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 23:56, 1 November 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]

One of two accredited museums

Is there some reason why we don't want the second accredited museum to be here? Andrevan@ 02:23, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It make more sense to mention the detail that the museum was the only museum accredited until 2013. I think the fact is an important milestone in the history of art institutions in Puerto Rico. Of course, it doesn't hurt to mention the other museum without deleting the year of accreditation. --Jmundo (talk) 02:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that sounds fine. I wasn't trying to delete the year, just add back in the other museum. Why don't you do the honors? Andrevan@ 02:58, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am reverting Andrevan's change for the following reasons: Discussion has already taken place as shown above, and consensus has already been established as two editors, User:Jmundo and myself, have already opposed Andrevan's prose here. Second, since the museum that reached a accreditation milestone was Museo de Arte de Puerto Rico, that's where that sort of information belongs (Readers wouldn't come to this article to find out if Museo de Arte de Puerto Rico is accredited). To exacebate, the information about the acreditation of MAPR is not even found at its own article, Museo de Arte de Puerto Rico! Third, we should also consider how other articles handle this situation: Do we talk about the Empire State Building in the Sears Tower article? No, we shouldn't here either. It's just not how we do things in Wikipedia. Fourth, per WP:LEAD, "significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." We don't cover MAPR's accreditation in the remainder of the article, so it doesn't belong here either. Mercy11 (talk) 02:00, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mercy, you are editing aggressively. Clearly you have learned nothing from your post at ANI. Reverting edits and owning articles is not the way we do things here at Wikipedia - did you not notice that several admins specifically called me out about reverting your changes? Anyway, there is no consensus here to remove the link to the other museum - Jmundo said he felt that the good faith, well referenced, informational and contextual changes by anonymous editor 136, which I reverted your revert of, did not hurt. They clearly flesh out the context of Museo de Arte de Ponce versus the newer museum. The Sears Tower happens not to mention the Empire State Building but it does mention the World Trade Center, which was notable for the same exact reason that you might imagine one would mention the Empire State in your metaphor: a tall building in the same country. I don't think it necessarily belongs in the lead section but then your appropriate action would be to move it to the appropriate section, not revert me (or good faith anonymous users). Andrevan@ 02:32, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relax, and I am editing in compliance with WP:PG. I didn't have to give but one reason, I gave four. If you feel that strong about a couple of words here and there, then take it the proper forum. Also, you can't count the anonymous IP because, despite his edit, he is not participating in this discussion (Consenseus is arrived at with discussion, not with edits, right?). In fact, guess what, as a show of goodwill, let me know what forum you want and I will happily bring it there. Deal? Mercy11 (talk) 03:45, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care about the text or this museum, I care that you have a pattern of editing protectively on articles such as the Puerto Rican road articles, biographies and cultural articles that you deem to be stable such that you will revert productive, good faith changes. I am the author of WP:DAQ but this is not how it's done. If you keep this up you are headed for a WP:RFC/U which will involve heavily researching your past edits, and I know there is a lot in there to read. Andrevan@ 03:52, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andrevan, this is not the forum to comment about Mercy11's actions across Wikipedia. I'm glad that we all agree that the information doesn't belong in the lead section. As for aggressive editing, it goes two ways. As part of your edit warring you were deleting crucial information from the lead. I know you don't care about the material but try to be more careful about your editing and use of talk pages. --Jmundo (talk) 17:26, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I actually did not delete any information. Mercy deleted information. My edit has the same informational content, plus the addition of the other museum.[1] More to the point, I'm not trying to hold a referendum on Mercy on this talk page; that will be for WP:RFC/U. But there's no reason why the contextual information of the other museum should have been reverted here. Andrevan@ 18:43, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about listing the other museum in the "See Also" section? Andrevan@ 00:46, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What fundamentally happened here is that an anonymous editor corrected an error in the article [2] and added useful context on the fact that another museum has been accredited in Puerto Rico, and for his troubles he had his information removed [3] with a blatant misapplication of policy. Some of the admins on ANI attacked me for sending a bad message to users that I revert warred with Mercy, but I would like to ask what kind of message it sends possible contributors who are anonymous editors correcting errors when they are reverted with no logical application of policy - basically word salad. Jmondo, you say that I "removed the year" - while I did not qualify the statement that there is another accredited museum with the information that this had not been the case until this year, Mercy removed the reason, which is worse, and as you can see from the latter diff I amended it according to your comment that the year was important - which indeed qualifies the accreditation. Andrevan@ 04:03, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]