Talk:Aztec, New Mexico

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Aztec, New Mexico. 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:
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6YSasqtfX?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.census.gov%2Fprod%2Fwww%2Fdecennial.html to http://www.census.gov/prod/www/decennial.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110531210815/http://www.naco.org/Counties/Pages/FindACounty.aspx to http://www.naco.org/Counties/Pages/FindACounty.aspx
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6YSasqtfX?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.census.gov%2Fprod%2Fwww%2Fdecennial.html to http://www.census.gov/prod/www/decennial.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:19, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Required Discussion Before Making Changes
 Background/Preface 

A 'contributor' recently began making wholesale deletions in this entry WITHOUT any discussion or inquiry. After an attempt to revert them was subsequently re-deleted, the 'contributor' insisted to "please discuss your proposed changes"... even though that person never initiated any discussion about their own deletions. They further sent a threatening message to my user page stating that I was being 'disruptive'. They have been involved in Wikipedia much longer than I, but the extensive double-standard is interesting, to say the least: a contributor can delete and revert other people's changes, but other people cannot revert theirs?

These are statements of fact to provide some contextual background. I am not attacking the contributor, per se, and am not being 'disruptive'. In fact, I believe that we should adhere to that user's own insistence...

 Proposed Rule-Making for this Page 

As a result, for this page, I suggest we execute on that premise, such that:

Any proposed changes must be discussed prior to submission.

Moreover, let us hold everyone accountable to that standard. Forthwith, any edits, other than minor corrections, that are not given an opportunity for discussion here (at least a few days) prior to being entered are subject to being reverted by other users without objection.

The Aztec community is small and does not change rapidly or dramatically, so it should not be a great ask to vet changes or additions when they are proposed.

 Edits So Far 

I recently made a few minor corrections of which my brief in-edit explanations should be sufficient and are factually supported; some of these bring back some of the deletions made (noted above). However, if there are any questions about these, I am monitoring this page, so feel free to reply here and I will respond. BTW, if any of the elements the other contributor has removed remain factually relevant (you'll have to review the history), let's discuss. In my opinion some of the deletions were warranted, but others were not, and did not violate any principles or standards of Wikipedia. (As a side note, I live in this geographic area of the country, so if needed let me know and I can reach out to verify any facts in-person when traveling.) 4CornersGuy (talk) 20:38, 24 December 2023 (UTC)


 * First, please be brief. Second, you write, "Any proposed changes must be discussed prior to submission."  Could you please list the Wikipedia policy that supports this?  Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:34, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Firstly, since this was derived from YOUR insistence initially vis-a-vis your comment in the revisions, I don't see any obligation for me to cite policy... in fact, I believe it is YOU that needs to cite a policy if you want to hold some high ground here, not me. In short, YOU insisted on this, so I'm merely proposing it in a more formal discussion here on the Talk page.  And the word is 'proposing'.  PROPOSED.  Read it again.  I'm not burying this in hidden text or making a statement of absolute demand.  It isn't about policy enforcement, it's about a request for respect and courtesy, which you've already shown you are ready to discount by again reverting changes without discussing them.
 * You know what, you're right. In fact, Wikipedia says to be bold and edit despite arbitrary statements such as yours.  So I guess I'll be bold. 4CornersGuy (talk) 07:28, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Kinteel
I have sincerely tried, but contributors are intentionally attempting to purge indigenous history from this page. Despite repeated attempts to keep and re-add the Navajo name of the community, a certain user is spending significant time to refuse to delete it, remove it whenever re-added, and then applies specious arguments to disregard even when sources are cited.

Note that I went above-and-beyond adding those sources, as sources are NOT given for this fact under normal circumstances: I have scoured Wikipedia, and citations to 'prove' a language translation are simply not required on any other page that I've explored where accepted community names are entered. I can only assume the contributor has a targeted goal here in scrubbing the Navajo people's language from this community, but it's hard to understand why a complete stranger to the community would take such a keen interest in purging one of it's own local names, especially for such an otherwise insignificant town. Perhaps the user is one of those "America is English only" people... I can only guess, though.

I am not a native Navajo speaker, so if anyone reads this who is, perhaps you can find an online record of oral traditions or history in an attempt to beat back this effort. Navajo readers should be further aware that if keeping this term fails, there is a strong possibility that most other references to Navajo culture may be purged from Wikipedia, especially since Navajo is a spoken-only language and written etymology only sparsely exists. 4CornersGuy (talk) 07:12, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

City versus Town
Documenting events to-date should dispute resolution be required.

I have had to now revert changes by Second_Skin twice, who insists on switching all occurrences of "city" to "town", because - in his words - "6000 people is not a city. This is a small town."

Regardless of this user's opinion/perspective, it is in direct contradiction with the community's legal name. It is a city. I provided a link in the reversion comment to support this as well.

WP:USCITIES also clearly addresses this topic, and I quote: "For incorporated communities, the legal term defined by each state shall be used, such as city, town, village, borough."

See here for additional info (source also used in WP:USCITIES). In New Mexico, a named "city" can be for a community with a population as small as 150. 4CornersGuy (talk) 05:55, 22 May 2024 (UTC)


 * There are literally other articles that refer to this place a "small town". It's not my opinion Second Skin (talk) 00:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a reliable source. You also improperly modified a citation. Given your topic ban on other "categorizations" I suggest you cease, especially improperly modifying citations. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:54, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The official website calls it a city. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:18, 23 May 2024 (UTC)