Talk:El Chicó
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Merger proposal[edit]
Non-notable residential neighborhood of Bogotá; article has no sources and is unlikely to expand greatly. Suggest merging it into the article for its parent municipality. Richard3120 (talk) 22:09, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Richard, I disagree. There's more to write, but at least I've started to fill the article on "my" neighbourhood. Same for the other barrios of Chapinero and the other localities; Bogotá is big enough to write about them and es:wiki has a decent structure. Also I've linked (and so de-orphaned) the barrios in the locality infobox added to all 20 localities today. We will get there! Cheers, Tisquesusa (talk) 23:39, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- I think it depends on the barrio. I could see that El Chicó might be expanded as there are notable landmarks, businesses, etc. located within it... I really, REALLY struggle to see how something like Chapinero Alto could ever be expanded significantly. I also have trouble with the stub-within-a-stub-within-a-stub approach: we have a separate article for 93 Park, for example... rather than having lots of stubs with one or two references each, it makes sense to me to try and bring them together to expand a single larger article. And the localidades are easier to define the borders, you can get the population from the DANE census, etc. Just my opinion – I prefer to work from the top down, improving the Bogotá article first, then the localidades, and so on. Richard3120 (talk) 00:25, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree it depends on the barrio and the Chapinero Alto one is a good one to delete, when I was looking for info there was nothing to find. But the barrios are more important than the localidades. Nobody would say if he/she goes to Parque de la 93 "I am going to Chapinero", yet "to Chicó". Chapinero for me and the people I talk to is Chapinero central and Marly; the gay neighbourhood. Not the localidad. I think that should be reflected in the articles. Maybe a good criterion is if es:wiki has a decent short article and there are notable buildings, sights, etc. it's notable. Chapinero Alto then definitely is not, while Chicó definitely is. I started working on it because of the etymology of some barrios from the Muisca; Chicó, Techo and Ciudad Tunal. Those three have decent starting articles and are not microstubs like we have here. Some others are too. Restrepo was deleted last month because of lack of notability, a Chapinero Alto case I'd say. Everyone has his own style of working and your top-down approach works for you. I switch back and forth between bird-eye view and detail, building larger articles like that. So agreed on the non-notable residential barrios, not swipe all of them under the same umbrella, cheers, Tisquesusa (talk) 02:35, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, those are very good points. Perhaps we should look at the 27 articles currently listed under Category:Neighbourhoods of Bogotá and assess them on a case-by-case basis, see which ones are worth keeping and working on. Richard3120 (talk) 03:55, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree it depends on the barrio and the Chapinero Alto one is a good one to delete, when I was looking for info there was nothing to find. But the barrios are more important than the localidades. Nobody would say if he/she goes to Parque de la 93 "I am going to Chapinero", yet "to Chicó". Chapinero for me and the people I talk to is Chapinero central and Marly; the gay neighbourhood. Not the localidad. I think that should be reflected in the articles. Maybe a good criterion is if es:wiki has a decent short article and there are notable buildings, sights, etc. it's notable. Chapinero Alto then definitely is not, while Chicó definitely is. I started working on it because of the etymology of some barrios from the Muisca; Chicó, Techo and Ciudad Tunal. Those three have decent starting articles and are not microstubs like we have here. Some others are too. Restrepo was deleted last month because of lack of notability, a Chapinero Alto case I'd say. Everyone has his own style of working and your top-down approach works for you. I switch back and forth between bird-eye view and detail, building larger articles like that. So agreed on the non-notable residential barrios, not swipe all of them under the same umbrella, cheers, Tisquesusa (talk) 02:35, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- I think it depends on the barrio. I could see that El Chicó might be expanded as there are notable landmarks, businesses, etc. located within it... I really, REALLY struggle to see how something like Chapinero Alto could ever be expanded significantly. I also have trouble with the stub-within-a-stub-within-a-stub approach: we have a separate article for 93 Park, for example... rather than having lots of stubs with one or two references each, it makes sense to me to try and bring them together to expand a single larger article. And the localidades are easier to define the borders, you can get the population from the DANE census, etc. Just my opinion – I prefer to work from the top down, improving the Bogotá article first, then the localidades, and so on. Richard3120 (talk) 00:25, 13 May 2016 (UTC)