Talk:Mexico City/Archive 2

Too many deadlinks
There are too many deadlinks in the article. See here --Extra999 (Contact me + contribs) 14:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Population
The population of Mexico City is supposed to be gigantic. It does not read so, here. I've noticed, as of late, that the population of many cities is not so vast as it was fifteen years ago or so. Places that had a population of two million now seem to have one of a half million etc. Was there some enormous plague that I missed? Maybe I read 1984 too many times but... Gingermint (talk) 02:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Response to user Floquenbeam
Floquenbeam,

Thank you very much for the message you sent me regarding the article on Mexico City. And thank you for offering me the opportunity to discuss the material I have on numerous occasions had to re-enter as a result of it being repeatedly removed without valid reason.

Here is the situation from my perspective. As you can see by looking at the current version of such article (as of 1:18 am Eastern Standard Time), there is a sentence that reads:

"It is the most important political, cultural, and economic center in the country. "

If you notice my previous edits, I have broken down the above claim into two parts: 1) the part that claims that it is the most important political center in the country, for which support is provided immediately above the claim, i.e. "it is the current seat of the Powers of the Union;" and 2) the part that claims that it is the most important economic and cultural center in the country. This part has absolutely no reference supporting it. In fact, on various occasions I have requested that a reference be entered to back up such claim. And as far as I am concerned (you might be able to verify this), no one has ever supported this claim with a verifiable reference.

Following Wikipedia's rules, I have offered a different view to the second part of this claim. And I have provided verifiable references to support my view. Specifically, I have offered a view that counter-argues the claim that it is the most important economic center in the country by pointing out that, as the federal distric, which belongs to the entire federation, this city receives financial aid from the Mexican federal Congress, which is controlled by the 31 Mexican states. I have provided a specific example by pointing out that the head of government of this city recently asked the federal government for the return of the tortibono program (tortilla coupon program), a federal government funded program that for an extended period of time allowed a substantial number of the inhabitants of this city to eat tortillas for free. My external reference to support my view follows:. Kindly note that the above reference is for an article associated with Televisa, one of the two major television networks in Mexico. Therefore, the reference is not only verifiable, but it is also from a reputable source. I understand that it is in Spanish, but, as you will be able to notice by going over the list of references in this article, many of the references in this article are in Spanish.

I also offer a counter-argument to the second part of the claim that states that this city is the most important cultural center in the country (which has never been supported by a reference.) My counter-argument is that this Mexican city, unlike two other Mexican cities, has never been named American Capital of Culture. To support my counter-argument, I provide an external third-party, verifiable reference, which follows:

Invariably, however, my view, counter-argument and associated third-party, external, verifiable references are always removed (which may constitute vandalism.) And, not surprisingly, the same unsupported, reference-lacking claim that this city is the most imporant economic and cultural center in the country is re-entered.

Given that, as per comments entered by numerous users in the discussion section of this article, such as those entered by user Thelmadatter, who maintains " this page is changed so frequently and vandalized", I would like to recommend that this article be DELETED, as it puts Wikipedia in utter disrepute.

Thank you again for giving me the opportunity to discuss the material I have entered adhering to Wikipedia's rules, as well as for your consideration regarding the DELETION of this low quality article.

Sincerely,

ElEditordeWiki (talk) 05:51, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, first I want to thank you for finally accepting to discuss the edits you have been making. I had already invited him twice to discuss the edits in his talk page, and both times ElEditordeWiki silently refused by removing the notes I left at his talk page.
 * Second, as I had explained to you, your edits constitute POV pushing and original research. It is your opinion (POV) that Mexico City is not the "... most important political, cultural, and economic center in the country". You base your opinion on two verifiable facts: that Mexico City hasn't been the American Capital of Culture, and that Mexico City's Chief of Government asked the federal government for fundings to relief the price of a primary product for the habitants of the City. The drawing of the conclusion ,that because such request Mexico City is not the most important economic center in the country, is of course valid and you may have a point. But it constitutes Original Research. And likewise, you may infer that Mexico City is not the most important cultural center of the country given that two other cities of the country have been American Capitals of Culture and Mexico City hasn't. The argument is valid and logically correct. But the inferring of the argument by you, is what constitutes Original Research.
 * Being brief, neither of your sources discusses directly the fact that you are trying to include in the Wikipedia. None of them say anything about Mexico City being or not being the most important economic, political or cultural center of the country. That is why your edits are being rolled back continuously.
 * To be fair, the point that you are trying to argue against is also not well-sourced. Wikipedia doesn't require for every piece of information to be sourced, only the controversial ones. I didn't think that the importance of Mexico City among other cities in the country would be controversial, but it apparently is. So what I'm suggesting is for you to be bold. If you think that the line in the lead about the importance of the city is not well sourced or not sourced at all, remove it. But please don't try to push your point of view just because you think something is not well sourced.
 * And common, obviously deleting the article is not an option. Killing someone just because they have gangrene in one leg is ridiculous when it could be just amputated. The sole mentioning of the possibility sounds a little provocative from your part, but I'm going to assume that you made the proposition in good faith.
 * Finally, I also have counter-arguments for the ones you provided. But Wikipedia is not a forum to vent points of view, so I'm going to refrain from mentioning them. I hope that you understand that what you are trying to include is highly controversial and not well sourced. Again I invite you to be bold and remove the content that you see is not well sourced as we have done previously with your edits. Thank you. --Legion fi (talk) 07:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Legion fi, thank you for your message. Please note that I deleted the  messsage you left me because, by going over the messages left in the discussion section of this article, I noticed that you had already accused at least another user of POV pushing, the same thing of which you were trying to accuse me in your message. It was reasonable to assume that  you did that on a regular basis in an attempt to prevent others Wikipedia users from presenting points of view that add neutrality to what is clearly a biased article (please see the numerous comments entered by other users.)


 * I would like to present below Wikipedia's rule regarding NPOV:


 * Neutral point of view
 * Wikipedia's editorial policy is the "neutral point of view," often abbreviated "NPOV." This policy says that we accept all the significant viewpoints on an issue. Instead of simply stating one perspective, we try to present all relevant viewpoints without judging them. Our aim is to be informative, not persuasive. Our policy does NOT mean that our articles are expected to be 100% "objective," since in any dispute all sides believe their view to be "true."
 * It is OK to state opinions in articles, but they must be presented as opinions, not as fact. Also, it is a good idea to attribute these opinions, for example "Supporters of this say that..." or "Notable commentator X believes that..."


 * Kindly note that you can re-read the above by clicking on the following link:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tutorial_(Keep_in_mind)


 * I would like to request that you carefully re-read the following: "This policy says that we accept all the significant viewpoints on an issue. Instead of simply stating one perspective, we try to present all relevant viewpoints without judging them."


 * Again, in an attempt to add neutrality to this article, which is considered by other users to be a biased one (as per the numerous comments they have entered in the discussion section), I have presented a most significant viewpoint on the issue of the claimed economic and cultural importance of this city, claim which, as you have acknowledged, is not supported by any reference. And, as you have acknowledged, I have supported my viewpoint with  verifiable references.


 * Regarding your claim that I am using original research, let's present below what Wikipedia says about it:


 * Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.


 * As you have ackowledged, my reasoning is logical and correct and the references I have provided are verifiable. In addition, the fact that the tortibono (tortilla coupon) program from which Mexico City benefits is financed by the federal government is a published fact.  Furthermore, this fact was published by Televisa, one of the two major television networks in Mexico.


 * In your message above you say "it is the inferring of the argument by you that constitutes original research." I would like to request that you kindly carefully re-read the above paragraph on original research.  As you can realize, it does not say anything about anyone inferring any argument.  I am not inferring any argument. I am presenting published, verifiable facts.


 * Before reading your message, I read the message that Floquenbeam had left me, in which he suggests that I consult the dispute resolution section. I did, and, following Wikipedia's rules, I removed the unsupported, reference-lacking claim that this city is the most important economic and cultural center in the country. Maintaining neutrality, I have left the well supported claim that this city, as the current seat of the powers of the union, is the most important political center in the country.


 * Also, complying with Wikipedia's NPOV policy, I have left intact the sentence and associated reference that support the contention that Mexico City is one of the most important financial centers in Latin America, both of which, by the way, I entered (it should not be difficult for you to corroborate this.) Interestingly, however, neither you nor anyone else has removed neither this sentence nor the associated reference I entered.


 * Are Wikipedia's rules interpreted differently depending on whether what is written is agreeable to the reader or not? It is left to the critical thinking reader to draw his or her own conclusion.


 * I thank you again for your message, as well as for acknowleging that my logic is correct, that the references I have provided are verifiable, and that I have valid points.


 * Most sincerely,


 * ElEditordeWiki (talk) 02:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I appreciate that you seem to be making an effort towards understanding what we are trying to say. Yes, I have reverted POV pushing in the past and I will continue to do so. You can read why I do that in the BE BOLD guideline.
 * Also, just to be clear, one of the five pillars of Wikipedia is the Ignore All Rules policy, which basically means that there are no hard rules. You seem to think that policies are strict rules, but they aren't. I just wanted to clarify that.
 * Now to the matter at hand. I'm sorry, but your own quote of the OR policy states exactly what you are doing. You are using a "synthesis of published material" to "advance" your "position". You are not presenting published verifiable facts. You are saying that Mexico is not the most important cultural nor economical center of the country. And neither of your sources state that POV. The sources that you are using state two facts: that Mexico City Chief of Government asked the federal government for a program similar to the old tortibonos, and that two Mexican cities which are not Mexico City have been American Capital of Culture. Those are the verifiable published facts. You are using those facts to draw the conclusion that Mexico City is not the most important cultural nor economic center of the country. That conclusion is yours, and your conclusion hasn't been published by a third-party source, therefore is not verifiable.
 * Yes, we can and we should include all the relevant points of view. But those points of view need to be backed up by reliable sources. If you find an article, a book, or any other verifiable piece of information that clearly talk about Mexico City not being the most important cultural or economical center of the country, you are more than welcome to publish that opinion backed by the source.
 * As you can see I haven't edited your edits and in fact I haven't watch the article state. What I'm trying to do is to explain why so many editors (because not only I have done so) have reverted your edits. Also please note that you not only removed one of my messages, but you removed two of them, and again, not only my messages but other editors messages urging you to talk about it first. As you can also see in the BE BOLD guideline, the fact that we revert you edits is nothing personal. We have done so with many people, and fortunately you seem to be willing to reach a Consensus on the matter. Sadly, no other editor has expressed their opinion. I will not enforce any agreement that you and I could reach until at least someone else has stated an opinion. And I humbly ask you to do the same, as I think we can agree that we need some more opinions about this matter.--Legion fi (talk) 03:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Legion fi, thank you again for your message. With all due respect, I think you have it backwards.  As per the message I left right below the message you left another user accusing him/her of POV pushing, it is SOMEONE ELSE that is POV pushing.  SOMEONE ELSE is trying to push the POV that this city is the most important economic and cultural center in the country.  Unfortunately, their POV pushing does not work because no support is provided. No verifiable reference is ever provided despite numerous requests.  It is us, other Wikipedia users, who have the right to present all relevant viewpoints who offer a different view to that POV that someone else is trying to push.  Unfortunately, there are so many residents in this city (as per the article, around 20 million) and potential Wikipedia users from this city, it appears that this POV pushing is being performed by so many people.  It is not that my edits are being removed because they do not adhere to Wikipedia rules.  They do, as they simply present a different, relevant viewpoint and as verifiable references are provided.  What appears to be happening is that no resident of this city that reads about the tortibono program seems to like the unquestionable PUBLISHED fact that this city for an extended period of time received financial aid from the federal government (which is controlled by the 31 free and sovereign Mexican states) so that a most significant number of its inhabitants could eat tortillas for free and that its head of government recently asked the federal government for its return.  Needless to say, they remove this PUBLISHED FACT and its associated verifiable reference, despite the fact that doing so may constitute VANDALISM, which violates Wikipedia rules. And yes, they are to be respected.  First you claim to try to enforce Wikipedia rules by pretending to prevent others from POV pushing.  Now you talk about there being no hard rules.  You have mentioned being bold.  I encourage you to be bold and to once and for all accept that Wikipedia rules provide for the presentation of all relevant points of view.  The view I am presenting is a much needed viewpoint that provides that attempts to add objectivity to the unsupported, reference-lacking claim that this city is the most important economic and cultural center in the country.  It is simply the presentation of PUBLISHED FACTS. And it provides balance to a clearly biased article.  Again, it is not just me thinking this article is biased.  Please read the comments that many other users have made regarding the lack of objectivity of this article.  By reading such comments you will notice that other users have complained about well referenced pieces of information being removed.  Again, unfortunately, there are so many potential Wikipedia users from this city of around 20 million people, it is difficult to stop the removal of one's verifiable refernces and published facts.  Regarding what you say about what I present being an analysis of published facts, it is completely inaccurate.  What I state is that, as a belonging of the federation, this city receives fiancial aid from the federal government, which is controlled by the 31 free and sovereign Mexican states. I then provide an external, verifiable reference so that the reader can corroborate this published fact. There is no analysis here.  It is purely a simple, verifiable, publised fact.  And no, Wikipedia rules are not contingent upon the number of users who might agree or disagree with my or your point of view.  The content of this article will be decided by Wikipedia rules, not by the number of people that agree with you.  What you say about my removing your messages, you are right. I did, as I did not want to be harassed, which is against Wikipedia rules. Given that I was and have been following Wikipedia rules, I considered unnecessary discussing anything.  And again, I did not want to be harassed by someone that has accused other users of POV pushing.  And I did not want to have to read unpleasant, unfounded messages.  Well, this is rather long paragraph, so I will stop here.  Again, I thank you for having acknowledged that my points are valid, that my logic is sound, and that the references I have provided are verifiable.  And please, let's be bold and stick to Wikipedia rules.  Please don't change your mind, first advocating its rules and then saying there are no rules to be followed.  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. I respectully ask that you kindly stop changing your mind.  I encourage you to be make a bold decision to RESPECT Wikipedia rules, regardless of whether what you read is agreeable to you or not.  I do appreciate your having respected my last edit.  I think that consensus can be more easily achieved if no unsupported, reference-lacking claims are entered in Wikipedia articles.  Thank you again.  If you intend to respond to this message, I kindly request that you do so after having taken the bold decision respect Wikipedia rules and to avoid giving them an interpretation that is contingent upon the agreeability, or lack thereof, of the views presented in our encyclopedia.  And, again, let's just stick to the job of entering objective information supported by verifiable references.  This is what Wikipedia is all about. Sincerely, ElEditordeWiki (talk) 01:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, there are two clear things here. ElEditordeWiki doesn't want to discuss or reach consensus in this matter. Seeing that he disputed non-sourced content that was mostly considered not controversial, I tried to open a discussion about how to balance the lead section. Second, no other editor seems interested in contributing to this discussion.
 * Reading the article lead, I think that the matter at hand has graciously settled itself by the Be Bold - Revert - Edit lifecycle and it looks good at the moment. Editors, including ElEditordeWiki, have done a wonderful work in this matter. So I will not be following this debate any longer (feel free to contact me at my talk page if you wish to say something to me).
 * Lastly, I do not wish to engage in a personal discussion or in wikilawyering. But I do stand in the point that there are no hard rules. Many of those "rules" that I cited were policies and one of them was even a policy related essay. That is why the "Ignore All Rules" pillar policy is so great. It allows ample flexibility and consensus, making wikipedia richer than most encyclopedias with strict editorial rules.I finish by thanking ElEditordeWiki for his efforts. I do not disagree nor agree with what he is saying. I'm simply pointing out that there are no reliable sources that talk specifically about the point discussed. The reliable sources cited during this discussion talk about a local government asking the federal government for funds to support a social aid program, and about two Mexican cities being the American Capital of Culture. Those facts are well sourced and, as I have already said in revert summaries, they definitely belong to the respective section for each. Thank you. --Legion fi (talk) 06:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It seemed a simple matter to ask a search engine for "Cultural capital of Mexico" and note the large responses for Mexico City on the web. Hence it may be possible to insert the following statement into the article: 67.86.75.96 (talk) 23:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Mexico City is the cultural capital of Mexico.

Tren Suburbano & Metrobús
I've seen someone deleted the Tren Suburbano(TS) image. I really think that this train is a really important transport inside Mexico City. So theres must be an image about TS. Another comment is that the image of Metrobús seems old, (2005) there are just few buses that seem like that, there must be an updated image of Metrobús. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seitseman88 (talk • contribs) 05:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Introduction: Mexico City and the Federal District
This issue has been extensively discussed in the past, not only in the English wiki, but also in the Spanish wiki. Mexico City does not occupy the Federal District; Mexico City is not located in the Federal District. Mexico City is the Federal District.

Back in the 1990s confusion as to which entity superseded or absorbed the other led the Chamber of Deputies to modify the 44th article of the Constitution which now reads:
 * "La ciudad de México es el Distrito Federal, sede de los Poderes de la Unión y capital de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos."
 * "''Mexico City is the Federal District, seat of the Powers of the Union and capital of the United Mexican States.'"

When the Statute of Government of the Federal District (basic organic law) was approved, it confirmed this designation. The second article of the Statute reads:
 * " La Ciudad de México es el Distrito Federal, sede de los Poderes de la Unión y capital de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos. El Distrito Federal es una entidad federativa [...]"
 * "Mexico City is the Federal District, seat of the Powers of the Union and capital of the United Mexican States. The Federal District is a federal entity [...]"

Both laws make no space for ambiguity. Mexico City is the Federal District. -- the D únadan 15:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Having lived almost my whole life in Mexico City and also being born here, I disagree. The law unfortunately does not correspond to the reality. The Federal District has more cities besides Mexico City. Santo Tomás, San Miguel, Tulyehualco and other towns in the south belong to the Federal District but in practice they are different from Mexico City. My birth certificate estates that I was born in Miguel Hidalgo, D.F. not in Mexico City. The INEGI usually presents data regarding the Federal District as composed by 16 different cities, each of them a delegación. I will look for references, but at least in everyday life, most people having lived here will consider Mexico City as the metropolitan area located in the northern half of the Federal District and the surrounding municipalities of the State of Mexico. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.137.9.138 (talk) 07:09, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Slum
Nothing about the slum (barrio) areas? See for example National Geographic. --Ettrig (talk) 07:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me sir, but the definition of slum that Mark Jacobson uses for the so called "Neza-Chalco-Itza barrio" is not correct —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielfc.mx (talk • contribs) 05:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Gallery
I have created a gallery and moved a huge amount of the pictures included in this article too it. There were way too many pictures, cluttering out text and looking unseemly. If anyone objects to a particular picture removal to gallery, bring it up here. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 01:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Images added by Benz65
Benz65 has added many images for which he claims most are his own work and gives them a public domain tag. Many of the images look too professional and too diverse to be taken by one uploader and I have already found several copyright violations of Flickr images, and nominated for deletion. Please help identify sources for the others and nominate them for deletion or drop me a note and I will do it. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 14:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If there's no objections I am going to revert all the edits anyway. Totally destroyed the point of the gallery I had made merely 2 edits before!
 * I will not add any of Benz65's photos to the gallery, due to the above objection. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a reasonable course of action. If anyone can assist tracking down sources for his images it would be appreciated as finding copyright violation is a thankless task for this type of abuse. TIA ww2censor (talk) 15:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Future Projects Gallery
In the FUTURE DEVELOPMENT section, under the Future Projects Gallery there are three projects out of the four that were listed that should not be there.

Torre Xochimilco and Torre Tezozomoc were not actual projects but only a ´vision´that never went beyond a conceptual idea. Torre Bicentenario II was a proposed project but it never got enough financial support nor political backing to become a reality so it´s completely dead.

Torre Reforma is the only project out of the four that became a reality and is actually being built.

Besides that the only serious and real notable potential projects in the works are the 50-story, 221-meter Torre Bancomer, scheduled to be complete in 2012; the 52-story, 191-meter Reforma 432 building, scheduled to be ready in 2013; and the Plaza Carso mixed-use complex, currently under construction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marino33 (talk • contribs) 06:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Image clutter and puffery
I have removed a number of very ordinary images. There are still far too many, and the text is sandwiched between right and left images on smaller monitors in many cases. There are repetitions in the galleries.

In far too many places, the article looks like a tourist brochure, with puffy text. This urgently needs to be toned down.

Most disappointing. Tony  (talk)  12:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I dont think there is much that can be done about the text. This is one of those articles that everyone wants to put their two cents in. It is also noticable to me that there is something of a culture clash. What we would consider "puffy" is not in most Spanish language rhetoric. It is only natural that someone from Mexico or Mexico City with a good level of English would want to contribute to the article, but would not understand the cultural rules. However, I think the BIGGEST problem here is mere size. This article is far too long with too many trivial facts. But again, I dont know how to fix this without ticking off people by taking "their" information out. It wont stay out anyways.Thelmadatter (talk) 01:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we should move ahead and remove superfluous content - if we step on some toes we can take the argument then. We can't stop striving for quality merely because there are two many chefs in the kitchen.·Maunus· ƛ · 02:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Convergencia logo.PNG
The image File:Convergencia logo.PNG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --02:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Culture section
To me the Culture section is very confusing: most of the content is in the "Music, theater and entertainment" section which also includes museums and passages that really belong to other sections.

There is a separate section for museums that discusses opening hours and admission prices only. Moving the museums from the "Music, theater and entertainment" section would make that section much more readable. In addition the Landmarks section mentions "over 300 museums" so Museums could be expanded in the future.

It would be very nice to see a separate section on Cinema given Mexico's important contributions to world cinema. Are there specialist art houses showing mainly Mexican/other Latin American countries' movies? Again, creating this section and moving the content from the "Music, theater and entertainment" section would make that section much more readable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petercascio (talk • contribs) 20:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Gastronomic festivities
“La feria de la enchilada” is an October festivity located in delegación Iztapalapa, with an affluent of approximately 300,000 persons per week, this gastronomic event is considerate very traditional according to Mexican association: Camara Nacional de la Industria Restaurantera y de Alimentos Condimentados (Canirac). Almost 200 varieties of enchiladas are taste in this succulent event. La crónica de hoy ASR & SASC SUAYED UNAM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonio Santiago R (talk • contribs) 06:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Files for deletion/2011_March_31
All opinions welcome. Thank you. walk victor falktalk 15:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Much of the city's population lives in high rise apartment buildings????
WTF, thats all I could say when I read that footnote. I was born and raised in Mexico City and I believe that such a claim is not true. Do you have any data that support it???? by the way, I loved the picture, I believe its the "Insurgentes Sur" area. cheers, Daniel F.C. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.128.204.98 (talk) 04:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Does Mexico need "City?"
For the Spanish translation section does Mexico need City, ie reffering only as "México" or its alternative spelling "Méjico"

The Dictionary according to both RAE and the Academia Mexicana appears to support both spellings and as such both views should not be myopically and summarily eliminated. http://buscon.rae.es/dpdI/SrvltConsulta?lema=mexico —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.156.209 (talk) 05:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If you didn't know this article is about Mexico City, the capital, not Mexico, the country. Also, see WP:SYN A is not B because of C -> Mexico City is NOT Méjico because of the country is misspelled as that. Tb hotch * ۩  ۞ 05:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

It is not mispelled according to the dictionary as both spelling variations are accepted, crack a dictionary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.156.209 (talk) 05:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The article is about Mexico not Mexico City, read polices. Tb hotch * ۩  ۞ 05:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

It can be spelled as with a J or X.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.160.228 (talk) 05:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Editing Content
Some sections of the textual content need to be revised and re-edited so that they make sense to an English speaking audience.

Example:

Under Luxury Goods

"The Colonia Del Valle is one of the largest residential colonies exclusive of Mexico City. Famous for its large Green Areas, Parks, Monuments, Department Stores, Boutiques, K-Fe (Cafeterias), Holiday Chocolate, Exclusive Restaurants scattered throughout the colony. With two luxury shopping mall, Galerias Insurgentes, Centro Coyoacán. The two shopping centers contain large department store El Palacio de Hierro and Liverpool, these two contain the most exclusive boutiques like Chanel, Armani, Salvatore Ferragamo, Burberry, Lancôme, MaxMara, Hermès, Oscar De La Renta, Longchamp, DKNY, Ralph Lauren, Liz Claiborne, BCBGMAXAZRIA to mention some buotiques, jewelry such as Cartier, Swarovski, Longines, Marc Jacobs, Michael Kors, Rolex, for some dimensions. The colony also Homes Cars such as Mercedes Benz, Lamborghini, Lincoln, Mercury, and many more. Restaurants like Bellini, the only revolving restaurant in the country, and Suntory called the most Exclusive and Luxury Restaurant of all México. Arcos Bosques is a relatively new shopping complex in the namesake office complex in the upscale Bosques de las Lomas neighborhood, near Santa Fe. The complex hosts scores of restaurants, including a branch of Nobu, and smart shops including: Marc Jacobs, Thomas Pink, Edmond Frette"

First of all Colonia Del Valle is NOT an "exclusive" neighborhood in Mexico City. It is a middle-upper class neighborhood and the two shopping malls the article is referring to are average malls by Mexican standards so I´m not sure why they are included in the Luxury Goods section.

Secondly the article needs to be re-edited: "The Colonia Del Valle is one of the largest residential colonies exclusive of Mexico City". The sentences need to be restructured so that they sound right. Also, using words like "colonies" is obviously wrong since what they really meant is neighborhoods, or in that case they could leave the word colonia in Spanish and then link it to the actual translation on a different page.

Finally, using capital letters when referring to "Green Areas, Parks, Monuments, etc." is grammatically wrong.

I would probably just remove the entire article since Colonia Del Valle and the malls in the article are NOT a good way to describe or illustrate luxury goods in Mexico City and it takes away some credibility from the entire Mexico City page on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marino33 (talk • contribs) 06:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Inaccurate content
Only the "nice" sections of the city are featured.

Mexico City doesn't have an extremely large market for high end luxury cars.

Much of the city's population doesn't live in high-rise apartment buildings.

Slums/poor neighborhoods photos should be included. The photos in the article are very misleading.

Crime is a big and ongoing problem, this info is absent from the article.

The article is too long. It should be semi-protected against irresponsible edits.

Kakumiran (talk) 00:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree the article is written as a tourist brochure, not as an encyclopedic article.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Changes are needed urgently
I totally agree with Kakumiran and Marino33, it's ok to include Mexico City high development parts, but the article misses totally the historic centre which is the main tourist atraction since it holds the cathedral, the main square, the national palace, the aztec ruins and not to mention is the oldest part of the city and a World Heritage Site, Mexico city is not about skycrappers, it would be like having tons of pictures of La Defense on Paris page and forget about Notre Dame. For cities like New York it's ok to do this since skycrappers are the ones that formed the city and its inhabitants as it stands today, but this one is far older and with things more important than new buildings that don't even rival with other ones in the world. A cleanup and proper sourcing is needed. Pure 360x (talk) 15:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * One issue is that this article has far to many photographs. If you look at pages like New York City and Paris, they have at most three pictures per section. This should be dealt with prior to the addition of more historic landmarks in the city. 08OceanBeach S.D.  20:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Pyramid of the Sun
Hi, I noticed that there is a picture of the Pyramid of the Sun in the Tenochtitlan section, and it is described to be built by the Aztecs. The Pyramid of the Sun though, was built by the Teotihuacans, who lived about 1000 years before the Aztecs, so it's kind of a big mistake. Also, Teotihuacan stood in the land that is now the State of Mexico, outside of Mexico City boundaries, so the picture doesn't really belong here given that there is no historical or geographical connection. Should I just delete it or how does this work? 04:43, 13 June 2011, 189.217.93.77 (talk)

UNAM's ranking is very wrong
The current wikipedia article states that UNAM was ranked 45th in the world in 2009 according to The Times Higher Education Supplement. According to those very rankings, UNAM was really ranked 190 in 2009. Also, the link that is given in the article for that citation is not actually for a ranking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.92.150.13 (talk) 05:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Difficulty Editiing
I recently added some information to the Law enforcement section which contains information from this news report (   theglobeandmail.com/news/world/americas/security-central-in-mexico-citys-makeover/article2084076  ) but whenever I try to add it as a reference it freezes. Can someone please add it on my behalf? 69.235.225.159 (talk) 00:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Images
Does this article overuse images? If the anwser is yes, How many images needs to have this article? Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions.  03:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Background
I think that this article needs a general clean-up with the images. Moments ago I removed over 40 pictures with the summary "Removing many images non-related or useless. Wikipedia is not a collector of them, I left relevant ones". (Something that was reverted because "Please discuss which images you want to delete on the talk page before deciding which are not relevent and deleting so many", which is translated into "discuss it and do not remove the images"). Note: I boldly removed information because the readability of the page was committed, per Layout.

Excluding the images in the infobox, this version of the article had approximately 118 pictures, which is in few words is an abuse. Wikipedia is not a collector images or information, and per the WP:MOS "Images are typically interspersed individually throughout an article near the relevant text", which was not the case. I removed many irrelevant images to Mexico City or article sections, such as:
 * File:PyramidOfTheMoonTeotihuacan.jpg - Teotihuacán is located in San Juan Teotihuacán in the State of Mexico, not Mexico City.
 * File:Torre Latinoamericana 1.jpg - Which has nothing to do with the "Growth of the colonial city"
 * File:PopoAv0005.jpg - The Popocatepetl, which is located in Puebla
 * File:Cumbres del Ajusco.jpg - Which has nothing to do with the "Climate" section.

I can continue with this but I'm not going to. Comparing Mexico City (152Kb, ~66pics) with similar articles (Top-priority cities with >100Kb of information), such as Toronto (118Kb, 29pics), Seattle (147Kb, 28pics), Melbourne (128Kb, 31pics) or New York City (166Kb, 34pics), this article still having a lot of pictures.

Seeing that this article is widely watched, and to avoid future edit wars with IP editors, I believe that we have to search for consensus to know how many images this article can have, where they can go, and when they are relevant to the article and its sections. Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions.  02:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Solutions

 * Sol1: The obvious one, remove the images that have no relevancy to this article, lefting the important ones.
 * Sol2: Revert my edits and continue adding indiscriminately more images (Something that the IP editors are doing right now).
 * Other solutions are welcomed.

Comments
I fully agree that a bunch of images should go but there is no reason for you to act hostile. You have deleted some relevant images while keeping some non notable ones and you have just deleted many images without fixing the formatting making still hard to read such as in the Political Structure section. The point of discussing it here is to gain a consensus as to which images should be deleted so please list what you want to get rid of. This isnt your personal website and I'm pretty sure most people will agree with the majority of your edits anyways. 75.80.58.122 (talk) 02:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note that the editor above decided to revert some of my changes and the article now have over 75 pics. Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it!  See terms and conditions.  03:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, some, not all. Many of your deletions have staid. This current edit has gotten rid of many useless ones. Which would you like to see gone now? 69.235.199.247 (talk) 04:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Btw, in my own opinion I think we should get rid of the picture gallery at the end of the article. It doesn't add anything worthwhile. 69.235.199.247 (talk) 04:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I also think that the gallery(es) are not needed here. Also, some of the "Shopping", "Culture", "Demographics" and "Politics" can be removed, for example, how relevant is that "Santa Fe [is] in the rainy season", and it is featured under the "Politics" or this image that is from the state of Hidalgo. As I said, there are many images that are not related to Mexico City (Teotihuacán, the Popocatepetl), but still here, I removed them but you re-added them. Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it!  See terms and conditions.  05:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Articles on places can certainly benefit from a lot of images, and I think having a near-continuous bar of images on one side of the article is even acceptable. However, this needs to be tailored towards the low end as users with low screen resolution will be swamped with images relatively easily. In the case of this article, though, the number of images isn't the main problem, it's their distribution.  No images for cuisine or media,  for example, and many sections are lined completely on both sides with images that don't necessarily improve things.  The landmarks picture gallery is helpful, but the final gallery is gratuitous. siafu (talk) 17:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Action. I removed the final gallery mentioned by siafu, but anybody can put it back if he or she feels it will really add to the article. Some of the other photos are really not very good, and I suggest editors remove them one at a time—and then see if anybody wants to put them back. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:29, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 1 or 2 images per sections is good - Some guidance can be found in WP:LAYIM which says "You should always be watchful not to overwhelm an article with images by adding more just because you can. Unless clearly better or more appropriate images are available, the existing images in the article should be left in place. Images should ideally be spread evenly within the article, and relevant to the sections they are located in."  Of course, it does not contain an exact formula or upper limit on the number of images.  This article, at this moment, has 60 images (plus about 5 in a gallery).   Those images do not overwhelm the article, and most of them seem helpful and appropriate.  As user Siafu says above, articles on places can and should have more illustrations that the typical article.  The general rule I would suggest is:  More images are better, unless they are irrelevant to the section they are in; or the images start to crowd-out the text.   Finally, using a gallery (WP:Galleries) may be a good solution, but as that guideline cautions: the article should not be used as a WP-commons-style image repository.  --Noleander (talk) 14:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've had a look, I would propose removing the images with the following captions:
 * "The 2nd tallest building in Latin America, the Torre Mayor was completed in 2003." as a duplicate of another image in a better section (or move this one and remove that one);
 * "Large urban upper middle class neighborhoods are common throughout the northern and western area." and "Santa Fe in the rainy season" as irrelevant to the section they are in;
 * "Newly built office blocks in the Santa Fe business district";
 * "Highrise apartments under construction.";
 * "Boats in Xochimilco" as duplicate of "Xochimilco riverboats"
 * "Torre Pemex" as unimportant and "Palace of Fine Arts" as it is duplicate below under 'Arts';
 * "Highways connect all areas of the city" with little to add to the accompanying passage;
 * "Departures waiting area in Terminal 2 of the Mexico City airport." - just like any other airport. Possibly add a more useful image;
 * One of the two "Museo Nacional de Antropología" images;
 * "Decorated facade of the Portal de Mercaderes market building." as adding nothing;
 * "Downtown Mexico City" as uninformative;
 * Hope these suggestion meet with some approval. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Images Are a Plus I find that the images really enhance the text in this article. I appreciate the guideline about not overwhelming an article, which also needs to be followed. But I am for as many images as possible here to bring to life the factual information in the article.Coaster92 (talk) 22:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Definitely remove the landmarks gallery. The rest of the article seems OK as it stands now. The mayor of Yurp (talk) 21:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I just took a look at the site and thought it was a perfect balance of pictures and word content. There are some sections (such as: art, demographics, federal district) that may seem a little cluttered and could benefit from the removal of one or two images. However, for the most part the images seem to enhance the content rather then distract from it.


 * 1 or 2 images per sections is good - Per Noleander. Good policy cite Noleander! As it stands I think it's pretty clear this article has way too many images. NickCT (talk) 04:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 2-3 images max onscreen: This is my own personal rule - if there are more than 2 or three images onscreen at once (outside of galleries) it starts to look cluttered. there are places in this article where I can see 6 at a time, and that's no good.  Keep the images that are discussed in text; trim the decorative images down so that one can scroll through the article and not run across dense clusters, and it should be fine.  -- Ludwigs 2  14:57, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Planta de Hidalgo.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion
I just took a look at the site and thought it was a perfect balance of pictures and word content. There are some sections (such as: art, demographics, federal district) that may seem a little cluttered and could benefit from the removal of one or two images. However, for the most part the images seem to enhance the content rather then distract from it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agarland1 (talk • contribs) 08:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Pictures
I've removed some excessive pictures - particularly those that were repetitive or of low quality.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Collage
The collage used in the article features many unexisting buildings, either they have not been approved or they are under construction. I think that the previous collage should be displayed again :)

Why is there a section completely in Spanish there right now? 77.237.22.102 (talk) 16:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Too much Photos
This article has too much photos. Good quality photos should be used and the number should be kept down (maybe one or two on the main topics). There is too much photos in the wealthier districts and Santa Fe. Ssbbplayer (talk) 20:34, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. I'd say you may take off some pictures you deem unnecessary. Best, ComputerJA (talk) 06:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ip editors keep adding too much photos that are either low quality or only show the positve aspects of the city. I think that this article should be semi-protected or that if you want to add or change photos, discussion should be the first option cause this article keeps changing. Ssbbplayer (talk) 20:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

There is a need for a collage
You need convert the photomontage current into a collage of truth. --Razesuds (talk) 03:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC)