Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Puerto Rico/Archive 1

Florida flag

 * 1) Yarfpr statement - Based on information provided on LexJuris and BoricuaOnline, the Florida flag should have the upper stripe green and the lower stripe white. Some photos of the flag with the stripes in that order can be found on the municipality's Facebook page, so the file used in Commons must be inverted. Yarfpr (talk) 04:19, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Eloquent statement - I can understand why it was created inverted. It's because the lexjuris site itself describes the flag as green, red and white but displays the flag incorrectly as white, red and green!  So based on the description it should be "verde (green) al superior y blanca (white) al inferior (on the bottom), de cinco módulos de ancho cada una, y la del cantro roja (red center), de solo un módulo de ancho (thinner strip). So this is an example of "do as I say, not as I do." Anyway, I searched around their FB page and found one template with the green, red, and white version. I don't know who wants to try to make this .svg. I don't make .svgs, I just critique them.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 10:52, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: I can do it later, but I like to contact the person first and see their availability. When I overwrote Quebradillas and Comerío files, I did it to avoid repeating the same image around Commons. If I have to create a new file for Florida, Quebradillas and Comerío, I will. Yarfpr (talk) 13:28, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I just sent a message to the user, which is the same one that uploaded the Comerío flag. Yarfpr (talk) 13:43, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I updated the .svg discussion page to explain why it is incorrect. I don't know if he'll mind you overwriting the file, even though it's incorrect. He didn't mind before.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 03:48, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Excellent! Thanks for letting me know. Yarfpr (talk) 14:29, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I fixed and uploaded the correct version with the green, red and white colors. Thanks! --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 22:11, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear you corrected it. Thanks! Yarfpr (talk) 00:14, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

If you're passing by, we could sure use your help

 * Hurricane Maria - with this we'd like to add refs from newspapers, and images to each muni and their barrios with what Hurricane Maria took from them
 * New Deal - with this, we'd like to add history from https://livingnewdeal.org/ website, about the projects that were completed in Puerto Rico then
 * Economy of Puerto Rico - the municipality articles of P.R. are in dire need of information regarding their economy, historic and modern. With this project I'd like you to help add context, images and refs
 * Maps of barrios - with this we'd like to ensure that every barrio and municipality has a good map ✅
 * Images of Puerto Rico - with this we'd like to forage through flickr to find good images and add them to articles where appropriate
 * Archive.org - with this project, we'd like to find historical documents, not only on archive.org, that could be added as refs to existing articles
 * Wikisource - with this project, we'd like to find historical documents that should be uploaded to commons and then to Spanish Wikisource
 * NRHP in Puerto Rico - with this project, we'd like to create and build on articles of places on the National Register of Historic Place listings in P.R.
 * Historical population - with this project, we'd like to add historical population for the 78 municipalities, especially in light of the fact that the census 2020 data is around the corner and we'd like to see statistics of out-migration in Puerto Rico, at least to the municipalities ✅
 * Puerto Rico highways - with this project, we'd like to add good information to articles re: highways in Puerto Rico

Ponce coat of arms

 * 1)  statement: The Ponce COA now at Commons (HERE) is in JPG format, it needs to be done in SVG format. In addition, the current resolution is extremely poor; a COA in a much larger resolution should be created. A much larger resolution would allow us to create a WP article about the coat of arms and what the symbols in it mean. A hi-res .svg of the Ponce COA, using THIS as a sample, would be good.
 * Request: A hi-res .svg file of the Ponce COA, using THIS as a a sample, but in much larger resolution than the current Ponce COA file at Commons. Mercy11 (talk) 03:21, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi. I just wanted to let you know, just in case  you hadn't noticed, that I did create the Coat of Arms for Ponce (and flag too) and I added them to all the articles. There were many articles!  I've been trying to fix one issue with it but I give up.  Today I added eyes to the lion and when you refresh the page, his eyes seem to open and close. So that is fun. I hope you like it. File:Escudo de Ponce, Puerto Rico.svg Take care! --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 21:58, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * . It's awesome! I think the effect is really unique as it affected so many articles! Thanks for creating it in this most perfect format! Cheers, Mercy11 (talk) 01:18, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Ponce flag

 * 1)  statement: There are 2 problems with the current flag of Ponce as shown in Commons HERE: (Problem #1) It is in GIF format, it should be in SVG form. (Problem #2) Ponce has 5 flags*, but only 2 of them are generally flown: THIS ONE, with the 1877 year (currently at the Ponce article) and THIS ONE, with the 1692 year. On Flag#1, the "1877" represents the year it was granted "City" status by the Spanish Crown. On Flag#2, the "1692" represents the year it was founded, as a municipality. Since (1) Ponce is more than a city, as it is also a municipality, and (2) since the Municipality is the larger entity, that is, the Municipality includes the city, then the flag associated with Ponce articles should be the one with the 1692 date on it, the date the Municipality (not the city) was founded.
 * Request: A hi-res .svg file of the 1692 Ponce flag, using THIS as a sample, but in much higher resolution than the file currently at Commons.
 * (Note: Just for the record: Ponce has 5 official and semi-official flags, but only the 2 above are the ones most commonly flown at public events nowadays. For example, see #1 flag flown HERE, HERE and HERE; and see #2 flag flown HERE, HERE, and HERE) Mercy11 (talk) 03:21, 29 September 2020 (UTC)


 * [Note: A group of comments followed here, but were moved to HERE and HERE, as those two locations were deemed the more appropriate places for discussing this(these) image(s). The text above was preserved and left "behind" as reference, intended to "tie" the 3 discussions.] -Editor.]

Bayamón coat of arms

 * 1) Eloquent statement - Pinged  (author) - The  Bayamón coat of arms.svg is inferior to the  File:Bayamon esc.png)  The description and images are here: Ex. A, Ex. B, Ex. C, the current .png version. Errors on .svg include 1) the towers...


 * Comment: I have made a version of it myself since the user isn't responding. Check it out on the talk page of Bayamon. --Cookieman1.1.1 (talk) 18:28, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Niko3818 didn't respond and his .svg was quite inferior. Yours looks very good so I have superceded the other versions of the Bayamón Coat of Arms with yours. Also, I've gone and added your file on Wikidata and a few of the other language wikis (Spanish and Italian). I'll ask a user on Arabic wikipedia to make the change for us over there.  We'll need to go through and replace the use of File:Bayamon esc.png with your file.  But do note: sometimes I've noticed that when the file is added to Wikidata, the other language wikis get automatically updated. So, maybe if we wait a little we may see that we don't have to add the  COA image file individually to all the language wikis but that somehow they'll be updated automatically. If that doesn't happen automatically, then we'll go through and add to each language-wiki version of Bayamón (and that would be humbug). Thank you very much! --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 20:06, 4 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: If you can see here, the sugarcane flowers are silver instead of gold. Yarfpr (talk) 20:42, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Aguada Coat of arms
There are two versions of this arms. One made by TEP and the other by myself. Cookieman1.1.1 created later. Many things are wrong with TEP's version: I would love if this is looked over and we reach a consensus. --Cookieman1.1.1 (talk) 02:57, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) the mural crown is a mess and is sloppy.
 * 2) the tinctures dont look exactly correct
 * 3) it uses png files converted into svgs
 * 4) it is a complete asset bash
 * TEP - Escudo de Aguada, Puerto Rico.svg
 * CM - Coat of arms of Aguada, Puerto Rico.svg

I agree with # 3. I did use a png for the arms and traced it and even though it looks good to me, you seem to think it's a problem. So because I do not intend on redoing it (because I'd have to make too many changes) to fix either issue #3 and issue #1 about the mural crown being a mess and sloppy, I am pinging,. If you two care to let CM know any changes you'd like to see on his version of Aguada. I just think the arms look too muscular and the tincture on the right looks a little too red. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 02:24, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. It's a minor but very important detail. In everything else, I think it's very good. Yarfpr (talk) 02:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Also based on the blazon, The tower doors / windows openings should be blue - : ''El escudo de Aguada consistirá de dos cuarteles, plateado el superior y azul el inferior. En el primero figurará la insignia de la Orden de San Francisco, a saber; el brazo de Nuestro Señor superpuesto al brazo de San Francisco, vestido con el habito de la orden, y ambos salientes de nubes y puestos en forma de aspa sobre el pie de una cruz de madera, al natural. En el segundo cuartel figuran cinco galeones españoles del siglo XVII, de oro, sus velas de plata recogidas, puestos tres arriba y dos abajo. Sobre el escudo descansara una corona mural de oro de cuatro torres, con puertas y ventanas *rojas*.''--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 02:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: The dressed arm is dressed witth order of Franciscan habit (sleeve) so sleeve should be loose near wrist as seen here:  --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 03:05, 6 February 2021 (UTC) So to enumerate: The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 03:21, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) doors / windows should be blue red
 * 2) Franciscan habit sleeve should be loose / see my coat of arms and the one here as an example
 * 3) the tower should be gold (your tincture looks wrong)
 * 4) the arms shouldn't be so muscular

But that would be design and not following blazon which can lead to issues, other then the towers (which is a simple fix) its correct with the blazon. All the tinctures are correct, you say towers should be gold but then wouldn't that make your towers also incorrect? The Or is fine. When it comes to the sleeve or arms it is not blazon specific so it is merely the artists interpretation.

Edit: I just seen the crown was changed on your part, however I would still like to point out my crown has nothing wrong.

--Cookieman1.1.1 (talk) 04:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I added the Franciscan frock / sleeve because the blazon states about the "Orden of San Francisco" and if you search the images for that show a loose sleeve. A lot is up to artist's interpretation. I still think it would be a more efficient use of our time if we worked on different municipality coat of arms so that each one ends up with a symbol. I'm working on Aguas Buenas next- but drawing (not tracing a png) of a Madonna and child will take time. There are many municipality pages that don't have a COA at all. Your Coa looks fine but it may be easy for you, because you have many elements in the Commons library. There isn't much in Commons that I can use with Adobe Illustrator (compatability issues) so I have to create many things from scratch. For example, the mural crown with 4 towers doesn't exist in a format I can use right now. Eventually someone will make that element. Do you know what I mean? I'm going to sleep.  --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 08:00, 6 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Yeah I get you, thanks for fixing it. Any arms in particular you would prefer me working on? --Cookieman1.1.1 (talk) 16:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Whatever you randomly pick that is missing one may be a way of choosing your next work.. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 05:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: the doors and windows are not blue per blazon because everywhere at places in Aguada where the coat of arms is displayed the colors are red. So the blazon had a typo or was changed with that detail --> azules --> should be rojas. Also are red in the lexjuris site. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 16:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Personally, I like the Eloquent Peasant’s version more. Mercy11 (talk) 00:06, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: Both shields look gorgeous. However, the version recreated by The Eloquent Peasant is more in line with the blazon and the meaning of some elements present in the COA. Knowing the meaning of each component of a shield is as important as the quality of its design. Yarfpr (talk) 00:16, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Aguadilla flag

 * 1) Yarfpr statement - The shield's crown must have 5 towers, not 4. See the municipality's website.

Añasco coat of arms

 * 1) Eloquent statement - Coat of arms Anasco, Puerto Rico.svg is incorrect. The seashells are too large. My position is that the gold seashells are too large. see lexjuris.com and salonhogar.com. I know other exhibits show large gold seashells but I believe that is incorect. The description talks about the seashells on the corners, not the seashells taking up the entire space inside the quadrants. See: * Ex. A, * Ex. B
 * 2) Cookie statement - Coat of arms looks like original used from sources.
 * 3) Also the ends of the cross should be cruz floreteada as described on lexjuris Añasco. A Yahoo, Google or Bing search of "floreteada" (flory) and images shows floreteada crosses. Also the svg code on the file is invalid - has 52 errors.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 00:53, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

San Germán coat of arms
(copied comments from project page comments column) "Escudo de San Germán.svg || same as above. See  Heráldico I reverted new user:Cookieman1.1.1 .svg off Wikipedia articles because lion should be purple (w/ red claws) 9/22 - Fixed lions claws and colour.   --Cookieman1.1.1 (talk) 20:16, 22 September 2020 (UTC) 9/22 - Thank you. We'll review shortly.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 03:19, 23 September 2020 (UTC)"

San Germán flag
(copied comments from project page comments column) "Flag of San Germán, Puerto Rico.svg || I reverted new user:Cookieman1.1.1 .svg off Wikipedia articles because lion should be purple (w/ red claws) 9/22 - Fixed lions claws and colour. --Cookieman1.1.1 (talk) 20:16, 22 September 2020 (UTC) 9/22 - Thank you. We'll review shortly.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 03:19, 23 September 2020 (UTC)"
 * Im waiting. --Cookieman1.1.1 (talk) 18:00, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * See the flag discussion page.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 23:49, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

San Lorenzo coat of arms

 * 1) Eloquent statement -  thank you for working on this.  I did find an official doc with the symbol / coat of arms. It's the budget for the San Lorenzo municipio. Please look it over. This is what i noticed off the bat when comparing it to your .svg.   a - 4 towers (not 3), b- the colors should be red (not maroon), c- the land should be black, d- the crosses should be as seen in the .pdf attached (not rounded on the ends), e - please make the default size slightly larger (I added same comment to Coat of arms of San Lorenzo, Puerto Rico.svg talk page, just in case..... (updated) but sometimes I don't know what is official. The .pdf of the municipality budget shows what I described above, but the official FB of the municipality shows different colors altogether. See here (the Official FB page of San Lorenzo).which seem to look like the lexjuris version here . It seems you based your colors on  BoricuaOnline: The description on lexjuris says  red and gold ...  Which one do you guys think? --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 01:18, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think the only thing that needs to be changed is the number of towers in the crown (4 instead of 3), keeping the crosses rounded at the ends and leaving the mountains in gold. Yarfpr (talk) 01:22, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

(Copied comments from main project page comments column) "Coat of arms of San Lorenzo.svg || 9/22 - I reverted Cookieman1.1.1 because of reasons stated on talk page 9/22 Coat of arms is appears correct but if needed colours can be changed by myself --Cookieman1.1.1 (talk) 20:03, 22 September 2020 (UTC)"

Vieques coat of arms

 * 1) Eloquent statement - Currently there are two Vieques coat of arms files in use around Wikimedia projects: 1) an .svg which is incorrect and 2) a .png which looks "correct" when comapred to Vieques FB page here. File names are: Escudo de armas de Vieques, Puerto Rico.svg and Coat of arms of Vieques (Puerto Rico).png . The .svg should have wavy waves, not straight waves. I don't know if someone wants to go in and change the .svg created by User:Konstantinopoulosstephanopoulos  or start a new file. (If something is a small change we're allowed to go in and upload a new version but is this a small change? A small change is making the waves wavy (since normally ocean waves are wavy, not straight).   But maybe the Vieques COA requires a larger change such as adding the ribbon with words "Isla Nena" and "Municipio de Vieques"... Anyway, I tried to help with a translation:  "On a barry shield with silver and blue waves is a green losanje with a gold castle and on top is a golden crown with silver sails. The silver and blue waves symbolize the sea around Vieques. The lozenge or green rhombus has a historic Vieques fort represented by the traditional Spanish heraldic castle."

Florida flag

 * 1) Yarfpr statement - Based on information provided on LexJuris and BoricuaOnline, the Florida flag should have the upper stripe green and the lower stripe white. Some photos of the flag with the stripes in that order can be found on the municipality's Facebook page, so the file used in Commons must be inverted. Yarfpr (talk) 04:19, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Eloquent statement - I can understand why it was created inverted. It's because the lexjuris site itself describes the flag as green, red and white but displays the flag incorrectly as white, red and green!  So based on the description it should be "verde (green) al superior y blanca (white) al inferior (on the bottom), de cinco módulos de ancho cada una, y la del cantro roja (red center), de solo un módulo de ancho (thinner strip). So this is an example of "do as I say, not as I do." Anyway, I searched around their FB page and found one template with the green, red, and white version. I don't know who wants to try to make this .svg. I don't make .svgs, I just critique them.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 10:52, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: I can do it later, but I like to contact the person first and see their availability. When I overwrote Quebradillas and Comerío files, I did it to avoid repeating the same image around Commons. If I have to create a new file for Florida, Quebradillas and Comerío, I will. Yarfpr (talk) 13:28, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I just sent a message to the user, which is the same one that uploaded the Comerío flag. Yarfpr (talk) 13:43, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I updated the .svg discussion page to explain why it is incorrect. I don't know if he'll mind you overwriting the file, even though it's incorrect. He didn't mind before.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 03:48, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Excellent! Thanks for letting me know. Yarfpr (talk) 14:29, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I fixed and uploaded the correct version with the green, red and white colors. Thanks! --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 22:11, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear you corrected it. Thanks! Yarfpr (talk) 00:14, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Juncos flag

 * 1) Eloquent statement - 9/22 - Communicated with User:CarlosArturoAcosta about fixing the .svg and is already being used in different Wikimedia projects. Carlos quickly made the requested changes to the .svg file - it looks good. I marked File-Bandera de Juncos, PR.gif, created by Tony the Marine, as superceded on Commons. However, as of 9/30 upon further review I have asked Carlos to make the branches of the river plant less thick. Image discussion page is here.

Río Grande flag

 * 1)  Eloquent statement - there are three versions of this flag.  The .jpg is the best looking one but maybe we can supersede it with one of these .svg files:  1) Flag of Rio Grande, Puerto Rico.svg or 2) Flag of Rio Grande.svg . Need to see the usual sources for descriptoins and sample images

Arecibo coat of arms
There are two versions. One I created, one Cookieman1.1.1 created later. I opened up a discussion on Cookieman's version because I see 3 things wrong with it: 1) the tower 2) the crown 3) the belt - is not what I've seen in templates. I do like Cookieman's dimensions of the coat of arms.

--TEP (talk) 19:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * CM1.1.1 - Coat of arms of Arecibo, Puerto Rico.svg
 * TEP - Escudo de Arecibo, Puerto Rico.svg

1. Not blazon specific, both are correct. It is also recommended we dont copy off templates as doing so could lead to copyright issues as some renditions are not free. --Cookieman1.1.1 (talk) 19:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: As in Aguada, both versions of Arecibo look beautiful, but, again, I think there's an error in one of the elements of the Cookieman's recreation. The small crown inside the COA is based on Arasibo, so the Taíno crown shouldn't look like an European crown. Yarfpr (talk) 00:27, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Cataño coat of arms
9/22- I reverted the Catano.svg uploaded by new user: Niko3818 and added Category:Disputed coats of arms to image (TEP) 9/22 Shield and branches seem alright, the mural crown is incorrect and some of the coloring is also incorrect and needs work. --Cookieman1.1.1 (talk) 20:06, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Ill be working on this arms over the weekend so please bare with me :) --Cookieman1.1.1 (talk) 14:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Culebra coat of arms

 * 1) Yarfpr statement - According to LexJuris and the official Facebook page of the municipality, the coat of arms should be red in the center, silver in the lower part, and gold on the right side (the same colors of the crown). (See Ex. A.) Both files on Commons have blue in the center, gold on the bottom, and silver in the right. (See Ex. B and Ex. C.)

Catholic Church in Puerto Rico
It seems that this page has been overtaken by -what I can only call- a Marian sect of some sort. The cult per see seems to have existed for well over a century (early 20th Century, if the dates are accurate) but I’m unfamiliar with it. Perhaps one of you knows if it is notable enough to be spinned into an article by itself, or if we should create a page for unorthodox religious groups in Puerto Rico (of which there are several). In either case, since the Catholic Church has yet to recognize them, the content needs to be removed from this page. Old School WWC Fan (talk) 02:46, 14 January 2020 (UTC)


 * And, perhaps, a page on local folk saints as well? People are trying to get people like Roberto Clemente canonized and to some extend these initiatives begin with veneration that takes place out of organized religion. Old School WWC Fan (talk) 03:03, 14 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Oh dear. I want to look at this article as soon as I have a moment. Thanks for noticing this. I'll be back. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 16:51, 11 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi - Holy Moly!  Sorry it took me so long. Removing content.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 11:16, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Toa Baja coat of arms

 * 1) Yarfpr statement - The crown must have 5 towers, as shown on the official website of the municipality.

Toa Baja flag

 * 1) Cookie statement - The flag is incorrect with the colours and the keys. The file used currently has a rounded hole near the bottom and on the municipalities site it is boxed. It is an easy fix and since the user isn't responding i wouldn't mind fixing it. Here is the flag as shown on the official website.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cookieman1.1.1 (talk • contribs) 23:02, 4 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: I agree with . Yarfpr (talk) 00:51, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: I agree too . The author of that Toa Baja flag is gone. I'm sure you can overlay the existing one as it's a small change.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 01:03, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

(Copied comments from project page comments column) "Flag: Flag of Toa Baja, Puerto Rico.svg || (Flag of Toa Baja.svg) ||  10/4 I would like this SVG to be removed as it is incorret. Check this pages talk. --Cookieman1.1.1 (talk) 23:04, 4 October 2020 (UTC)"

Trujillo Alto flag

 * 1) Cookie statement - I made a version of the flag using the coat of arms i made for it. File:Flag of Trujillo Alto, Puerto Rico is its file, tell me what you think. This is so fun! --Cookieman1.1.1 (talk) 02:32, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Eloquent statement - "This is so fun!"  Really? The Trujillo Alto flag is not ready since the Trujillo Alto coat of arms is not yet ready as of 10/5 at 7:am EST (they are essentially the same except the flag doesn't have the crown or ribbon).   It needs to be validated and needs to have less land,... etc. See same comments over there at the Trujillo Alto, Puerto Rico talk page. Let's try to have a good week.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 11:19, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

(Copied comments from project page) "Flag of Trujillo Alto.svg by Carlos, TrujilloAltoFlag.jpg, File:Flag of Trujillo Alto, Puerto Rico by Cookie |   9/22 Need a better .svg, too much land on the image. Should be more mountain, less land (see usual sources) I fixed the flag in my version, check it out and please give feed back --Cookieman1.1.1 (talk) 02:34, 5 October 2020 (UTC)" --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 11:35, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Vega Baja coat of arms
I've made the coat of arms of Vega Baja. It isn't finished as it doesn't have its motto complete yet. Thoughts on it so far? --Cookieman1.1.1 (talk) 18:16, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It's beautiful. Thank you. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 19:51, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Just the windows and doors of the tower should be sinople (green). Here's the desc. in Spanish. En campo de plata una cabria anglesada de sinople, cargada de cinco rosas de plata y acompañada de tres naranjos arrancados, al natural, frutados de oro. Por timbre, corona mural de plata de cinco torres, mazonada de sable y aclarada de sinople. The muni FB page shows 5 towers.
 * It is green, sinople is just another term for vert and the mural crown has five towers. We shouldn't be basing our arms off design. The arms follows its blazon. --Cookieman1.1.1 (talk) 00:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Just the windows and doors of the tower should be green / sinople/ vert and the text is missing in the ribbon.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 01:36, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. I'll get it done later today. --Cookieman1.1.1 (talk) 15:10, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Your COA looks great! The only thing missing is to change the color of the windows in the crown to sinople and add the phrase "Gobierno Municipal de Vega Baja" (completely in capital letters) to the ribbon. The word "Gobierno" would go on the left; "Municipal de", at the bottom, and "Vega Baja", to the right. In Google there're a few images of the COA if you put "escudo vega baja" in the search. Yarfpr (talk) 00:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I like Cookieman’s COA version of Vega Baja so far. But it’s not finished (ribbon and windows aren’t finished yet). If those 2 small details are completed, then I don’t think it’s going to be necessary to make any other versions. Mercy11 (talk) 00:05, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Done and made, sorry for the delay. :) --Cookieman1.1.1 (talk) 15:09, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Dorado coat of arms

 * 1) Eloquent statement - 9/16 - I reverted new user:Cookieman1.1.1 .svg -.svg is wrong: windows should have brown fill color, it's also too small. On my PC I have to zoom in, but if I do then all my other windows on my PC get zoomed in, so if I tab to another window I have to zoom out, then back to the Dorado .svg have to zoom in again ... the size needs to be corrected
 * 2) Cookieman statement - 9/22 The svg Needs windows and motto added then fine --Cookieman1.1.1 (talk) 20:03, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) Yarfpr statement - According to the municipality's website, the crown should have 4 towers instead of 3.

Yauco coat of arms

 * 1) Yarfpr statement - The shield's crown must have 4 towers. See the municipality's FB page.
 * 2) Eloquent statement - copied comments from this project page " Coat of arms of Yauco.svg  I marked .svg made by Cookieman1.1.1 as a copyvio because it looks like same file on source site and This appears to be a complex logo not originally created by uploader.

Facts
It should be noted that the term "territory" should not be included in an infobox related to Puerto Rico, because the true fact in regard to the political status of the island is that it is considered to be a permanently inhabited, "unincorporated territory" by the United States. The pure and simple fact is that Puerto Rico is a nation, it is a country, although not an independent one. Puerto Rico has all of the requirements which define a nation such as it's own citizenship, culture, traditions and customs. Tony the Marine (talk) 15:16, 8 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I would agree with that; it's all in line with the SCOTUS decisions. The SCOTUS sometimes makes decisions that basically say Puerto Rico is independent, then later on issues decisions that basically say Puerto Rico is not independent, and then again later on issues a decision on some other case taking the independent position, and so on it goes. We will just have to do our best to ensure the locations in the infobox reflect their decisions. For example, going back to the link provided, once we come across articles in which the dual jeopardy doctrine comes into play, then those articles can also be treated accordingly ("not independent"). That would be my opinion. Mercy11 (talk) 21:29, 8 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Please check the Standards page and my recent edit's "edit summary" and let me know what you think. thanks, Mercy11 (talk) 00:30, 9 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I do think "Commonwealth" and linking to Commonwealth (U.S. insular area) would be a good option for: 1)municipality, 2)barrio subdivision and 3)river infoboxes. See current version of Camuy River--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 06:50, 10 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Geographically, it's not in the US so .. No wonder! For hours, as a little girl I'd stare at the maps and atlas (books) of the US and could never figure out why Puerto Rico was missing. I hope no child now should look at a map of the US and wonder why PR is missing - it's not a graphical "typo" error. IT'S BECAUSE IT'S NOT IN THE US, DEAR CHILD, THAT'S WHY IT'S MISSING! (sorry - I had to holler at my younger self)--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2019 (UTC)


 * But, then, are we using "Country" or are we using "Commonwealth" as a standard throughout the encyclopedia?
 * -Country is more generic, Commonwealth is more restrictive.
 * -Country is more easily understood by readers, Commonwealth is more politically associated and may get us back at the same non-standards as the previous Country-Territory-City scheme that bought us here in the first place (universities).
 * -Country fits neatly into the database searches (at least, most database, imo) that had mentioned at one point. Commonwealth would be useful only in those cases (articles, etc) that handle discussions of sovereign states, international relations, and the like, no?
 * I have a concern with this sort of split, where for some articles it's rendered as Country but in others it's rendered as Commonwealth. Seems to me it should always be Country with some rare exceptions (still to come and to be justified) where Commonwealth would be the obvious subdivision type, entry, and rendering. Mercy11 (talk) 14:39, 11 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't think that "country" is an accurate description or one that would be widely accepted by the Wikipedia community. The main article for the island says that it's an "unincorporated territory of the United States." ElKevbo (talk) 14:45, 11 November 2019 (UTC)


 * It is a territory like the other US territories, but there are different kinds of territories, incorporated, organized, unorganized and commonwealth. See further definition. PR is a commonwealth. See the orange legend and orange Puerto Rico on the map (the map is in the infobox). --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 20:14, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Let's not lose focus of why we are here: to standardize the location of universities in Puerto Rico as universities being located or not being located in the United States. If Puerto Rico isn't in the United States then those articles are wrong in including US as its location. Since the the SCOTUS has already made a determination on this subject, it really doesn't matter what I think or what you think; we need to go by reliable sources and, in this case, that would be the SCOTUS, and they ruled that Puerto Rico is not in the United States. If PR is not in the United States then, by simple reasoning, those universities cannot be in the US either, and the location cannot say US. If we really wanted to do hard work, we could also go to NationsOnline, PuertoRico.org, NationsFacts, The World Bank, even the US's own CIA's World Fact Book, and a million other places, to see listings of Puerto Rico among the countries of the world. However, we don't have to because the SCOTUS has already stated that it's not part of the US, which is what matters in this university infobox location issue.

ElKevbo, I know it may appear "mutually exclusive" that if PR isn't in the US then, it's logical to ask why the main article for the island says that it's an "unincorporated territory of the United States." A few things are happening here that I suggest you look out for: (1) That quote is entirely correct regarding what PR is: it's not in the US, but it is of the US. (2) The lead says the words you quoted because that's the job of a WP:LEAD, to describe what something is. Leads about countries (you can check a few) also state where they are located and, in the case of PR, nowhere does it says that Puerto Rico is located in the US. (3) The lead also says what PR's relationship to the US is: "a commonwealth"; that is, it describes the political relationship between the two countries. Leads of countries commonly describe geography, politics, economics, etc. about a country, and Puerto Rico's lead is no different: it describes those aspects of this country. (4) We shouldn't rely entirely on what an Wikipedia article says, and should do our own research; please remember that citing WP (i.e., citing the WP Puerto Rico article) is like citing an unreliable source. (5) I would encourage you not to take the "country" parameter in the university infobox too literally. When first created, was the university infobox conceived to enter only sovereign countries into the "country" parameter? Of course not, the country parameter was to enter countries and nowhere in the university infobox documentation it says the country parameter is for entering sovereign countries only.

It's fine if the country description is "one that would [not] be widely accepted by the Wikipedia community." It's a matter of education and these guys (and gals) here in the PR Wikiproject are experts at educating others about PR's unique and somewhat complicated status and its implications on Puerto Rican citizenship, nationality and, now, location. It's a known fact most editors are young American males; it's also a known fact that half of them don't know Puerto Ricans are US citizens.

I think we need to keep focus of our purpose here and, rather than going off into tangent discussions --though at times helpful and necessary to quickly clarify a point or two-- I think we should keep focus of why we are here: to discuss what country name belongs in the location parameter of the university infobox. Of course this would also apply by extension to the location parameters of other PR-related infoboxes such as museums in PR, rivers in PR, mountains in PR, buildings in PR, hospitals, tourist attractions, etc, etc. I haven't yet seen anything that would indicate that the location parameter in the infobox for Universidad del Sagrado Corazón and the others should say it's located in the United States any more than the Instituto de Cultura Puertorriqueña should say it is located in San Juan, Puerto Rico, United States. These are educational articles and, imo, shouldn't be muddied with politics. Mercy11 (talk) 03:20, 12 November 2019 (UTC)


 * actually, upon re-examining 's proposal, I would agree it's the most elegant way to go about this., I have a concern, however, about articles for libraries in Puerto Rico: the library infobox doesn't have the city parameter the university infobox has. It only has Country and Location parameters. Of course we could throw in a "Country = Ponce, Puerto Rico, but it wouldn't be too elegant bc it renders as "Country   Ponce, Puerto Rico". If, on the other hand, we use "Location = Ponce, Puerto Rico, then the subdivision name of "Commonwealth" would be absent altogether and, then, the infobox of library articles would not be consistent with the rendering convention of infoboxes for the municipalities, barrios, rivers, etc., articles. How do you think the available library fields should be populated to be consistent/standardize with all PR articles across the entire encyclopedia?


 * Also, I see a pattern developing: Municipality, Barrio, Rivers, are all rendering as "Commonwealth=PR" followed by "Municipality= ". The pattern is that Municipality, Barrio and Rivers all have "subdivision_nameX = " parameters that allow us to enter the Commonwealth name as a subdivision which then renders as expected, but other infoboxes (museum, library, university) do not have those "subdivision" parameters. Perhaps to standardize all PR articles across the encyclopedia, we will need to ask they be added as  suggested in a related matter here. What are your thoughts on this? Mercy11 (talk) 21:45, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi . I don't see why we'd ask for parameters be added to infoboxes of museums, libraries or universities. Isn't "location" sufficient? If we were to ask for other parameters for the locations wouldn't we then ask for a parameter for street address, and a parameter for the zip code and a parameter for PO Box, etc. and what about address parameters for the way other countries addresses are formatted? No. The "location" parameter is great- flexible and sufficient for containing the "location" of a place. TY. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 22:58, 12 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Ok, I am good with that; seems everything so far is working out nicely - just wanted other opinions. A second set of eyes is always best! In any event, should any complications appear in the future (say, as we move along to standardizing other article types) that option can always be another ammunition to be brought out if needed. Thanks, Mercy11 (talk) 23:56, 12 November 2019 (UTC)


 * The university infobox, and probably many others, already has parameters for street address and postcode. It's pretty bloated so editors would be hard pressed to argue adding one more parameter if you had a good argument for adding it. ElKevbo (talk) 04:15, 13 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I completed the museums in Puerto Rico and updated the Standards page with a Done check mark. Please take a look at the Standards page and update with a check mark any other article types if you have completed any of those other groups. Thx, Mercy11 (talk) 22:03, 13 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I am not too crazy about using the University Infobox as a sample for other infoboxes, in the sense that university articles often seem to be the product of fans (college kids from the university that is the subject of the article) and I feel its infobox has, to extent, taken on that "fanatics" character. Just IMO. Mercy11 (talk) 22:06, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

US Military Bases
According to well referenced articles, an American (United States) Military Base, camp (Example: the former Camp Garcia in Vieques) or post may be referred to as an installation. Said installations are under the jurisdiction of the Department of Defense, including leased space, that is controlled by, or primarily supports DoD's activities. An installation may consist of one or more sites" (geographically-separated real estate parcels). Military bases within the United States are considered federal property and are subject to federal law. Civilians (such as family members of military officers) living on military bases are generally subject to the civil and criminal laws of the states where the bases are located. Military bases can range from small outposts to military cities containing up to 100,000 people. Military bases may belong to a different nation or state than the territory surrounding it.

A good example as to the proper title of an article about a US Military Base in Puerto Rico is Fort Buchanan, Puerto Rico. The main infobox title is United States Army Garrison Fort Buchanan, Puerto Rico which I believe to be the correct way of putting things. Tony the Marine (talk) 01:30, 9 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Tony, if I understand your comments correctly, it sound like US military installations in Puerto Rico would not be entered as located in the "US", but simply located in "XYZ, Puerto Rico". Is that right? BTW, to facilitate the work regarding "US military installations in Puerto Rico" (if any work is required, that is), I noticed there is an cat about "Category:Military installations of the United States in Guam" but no corresponding cat "Category:Military installations of the United States in Puerto Rico". There is a "Category:Military facilities in Puerto Rico", but apparently Guam has no corresponding cat named "Category:Military facilities in Guam", apparently because Guam doesn't have its own National Guard as well. Unless you beat me to it, I might find the time to create it and move all the appropriate facilities there...let's see... tc, Mercy11 (talk) 02:22, 9 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Yep, you got it right. A good example is Camp Fuji in Japan. When I was stationed there in what was a USMC Base or camp. Regardless of the fact that it was an American Military Base, it was located in Japan and not the US therefore the correct name would be "United States Marine Corps Garrison Camp Fuji, Japan". The creation of the categories you mentioned will be perfect. Tony the Marine (talk) 03:29, 9 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Cat creation completed ("Category:Military installations of the United States in Puerto Rico"). You might want to take a look in case I missed anything, particularly Ramey which is a "former" base but seems to continue open. Not sure in which of the 2 cats its more appropriate, so left it alone for now. Thx, Mercy11 (talk) 01:52, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * BTW, do you know of a *.gov or *.mil site that lists US bases in PR? Thought with be easy finding one but did search and came out empty-handed. any leads? thx, Mercy11 (talk) 02:17, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Coast Guard Air Station Borinquen
Hey Tony, wandering if you can shed some light here... In preparing to standardize US military installations, I found it more practical to standardize both US and PR military installations located in the Island. Now, in standardizing the way how locations (such as "Salinas, Puerto Rico" for Campamento Santiago) look, what we really standardize is the type of information that is populated next to the parameter (example: the "|Location =" parameter) or parameters (example: the "|City = " and "|Country =" parameters) of an infobox. Well, it turns out that in Puerto Rico there appears to be 2 types of articles about "military installations": those that, like Fort Buchanan, Puerto Rico use the "military installation" infobox (this is the most of the articles), and those that, like Coast Guard Air Station Borinquen, use the "military unit" infobox. This wouldn't be a problem if both infoboxes had the same types of parameters for displaying location, but they don't: I cannot find a "|location=" or "|city=" parameter for the "military unit" infobox. Is this an error, and should the Coast Guard Air Station Borinquen be using the "military installation" infobox? If not an error, will the integrity of the infobox information for Coast Guard Air Station Borinquen be violated if we removed the US from the country parameter? BTW, if not an error and the "US" must be kept, is this the only military unit operating/based in Puerto Rico (whether US military of PR national guard military)? Thanks, Mercy11 (talk) 02:47, 15 November 2019 (UTC)


 * The infobox used in the Fort Buchanan, Puerto Rico article is the right one since it is a Military Installation. However, the Military Unit infobox used in the Coast Guard Air Station Borinquen is not the proper one since the Coast Guard Air Station Borinquen is not a unit, but an installation. an example of a military unit is 2nd Battalion, 9th Marines or the 65th Infantry Regiment. Tony the Marine (talk) 05:21, 15 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Tony, please review Coast Guard Air Station Borinquen when you get a chance. I used Ft Buchanan's infobox as a guide as you suggested. The only field that I couldn't find was "(year) built". Once I get your nod, we can review the infoboxes of all U.S. military bases in Puerto Rico for location standardization and update the Standards page as needed. Thanks, Mercy11 (talk) 21:48, 18 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Personally, I think it looks really good. Plus, the infox is specific about where the station is located and who runs it. Tony the Marine (talk) 23:18, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Coast Guard Station San Juan
Hello wondering if you wouldn't mind taking a look at "Coast Guard Station San Juan" as it's using neither of the 2 infoboxes above but the  So, I am wondering which way we should go with this one. Seems to me this is just another "base" of sorts. Can you give me your thoughts on this one, Military Unit, Military Structure, or Military installation? Thanks, Mercy11 (talk) 02:48, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I will be honest, I think the infobox looks pretty good regardless of it being a "Military Structure infobox". Sometimes these infoboxes can get confusing. One thing though and it is that it is not a "Military Unit". As long as the information is correct I think that the infobox should stay. Tony the Marine (talk) 04:01, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually the military structure infobox has been discontinued and points to the Infobox military installation. This makes the Military Structure a mute point. thx! Mercy11 (talk) 21:24, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Arecibo Observatory
Thanks, for fixing (well, someone did) the wikidata on Arecibo Observatory. I had noticed a problem there about a month ago and tried addressing it but it took me into a lesson of Wikidata and its databases for which I didn't a the moment have the time.

On another matter, I see you started modifying articles (such as rivers of Puerto Rico) per the Standards. Cool! I was going to wait until we had dressed up the Standards page a bit more but, no problem, they both had to be done! The modifications are looking good. Plus you set a standard for the "edit summary" that I plan to be using as well. Let me see if I can work on the museums in the Standards as well as museums in Puerto Rico articles and, hopefully, with that addition have a neatly formatted Standards page before we start making additional "article types" addition to the Standards page (so we are "caught up"). Mercy11 (talk) 14:13, 11 November 2019 (UTC)


 * The Arecibo Observatory infobox is a special case because the infobox is populated by info transcluded from its wikidata item. A kind wikidata editor stated here they may be "fixing" it soon. So until they do, it'll incorrectly show Arecibo, US.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 23:44, 22 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks, so it wasn't me imagining things! That's like getting a "clean" bill of (mental) health...so I guess I am good to continue editing in WP! (heehee) tc, Mercy11 (talk) 14:11, 23 November 2019 (UTC)


 * No. It doesn't necessarily mean that-I still think you're crazy. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 15:18, 23 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Best complement I've received here so far!! :-) Thanks for your dedication here. As for me, I only feel qualified with Ponce articles (as opposed to my more limited knowledge of articles about PR at large), so that's where you will see me editing mostly. tc, Mercy11 (talk) 15:28, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Let's just not work too hard. I wanted to test the 4 dashes to consider separating my messages with lines for easier readability. It's always been difficult when conversations get long.... Anyways and the wiki community was discussing ways to better the "talk" experience but I don't know if they came up with implementable solutions.... The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 18:19, 24 November 2019 (UTC)


 * OK, looks cool!! BTW, what happened to the jibara message? I was getting ready to comment when it disappeared! Just thought jíbara was fine if talking to Tony but might confuse new users in any discussions they just happen to drive by, etc. In any event, I don't want to get off on a tangent, let's keep this about the Observatory, and if you have solved the mysteries of wikidata namespace, great!, bc so far I haven't dedicated much time to it but when I last looked into it is seemed like Greek to me. Mercy11 (talk) 23:30, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid we'll have to become experts on wikidata. I believe there's a project to transclude text from wikidata to infoboxes (in effect we wouldn't update the infobox). The problem, it seems, is that wikidata editors who want to fit things neatly into databases are hell-bent into making things fit neatly into databases. When I asked about it and linked to a discussion from English Wiki, (which was probably dumb on my part), about why their project is feeding incorrectly into infoboxes I was told not to bring English Wiki discussions into wikidata.

They speak about how relational databases work. So, currently there's no way to fix the Arecibo Observatory in English wiki because it's 1) transcluding data from wikidata and we're waiting for the coder to fix it and 2) When I, at least, try to update the wikidata item, to at minimum show Puerto Rico in the infobox (as an administrative division), another editor reverts my Wikidata change and states that adding Puerto Rico is "redundant". So they basically don't want Arecibo Observatory showing that it is in the "located in the administrative territorial entity" of Puerto Rico, only United States, because United States is the country that everything in Puerto Rico is in. I guess "of" the US means "in" the US to them.

So it'll have to stay incorrectly showing "Arecibo, US" on English wikipedia, because one expert coded how the infobox should show (BTW, he correctly shows "Arecibo, Puerto Rico" on Arecibo Observatory commons (images) category page seen here and he seems very nice, but is busy. So we'll have to wait for that person to have time to address the question/ issue/ correction I have requested. Until then it will say "Arecibo, US" on the English wikipedia infobox.

I hope their project is not hoping to feed all infobox data from wikidata as it is now because the issues aren't always being addressed, or discussed in English. People are arguing about the problems but they're being discussed in Relational database terms, that most people don't understand. Not everything fits neatly into a database unless you design the database with good feedback from people who know how it all fits together and if you have the understanding of how things work outside of databases then you create the database to address all issues. Put simply, I will now try to explain to wikidata editors that "in English" the word "of" doesn't mean "in", without being rude.. but I'm not sure how else to say it. Like everywhere else: some editors get it, some don't and some don't want to get it. And if I don't care, it'll just stay wrong. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 15:02, 25 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Don't let the name "relational database" bother you. It simply means that instead of framing data hierarchically (example: US->Florida->Miami, with all the states branching of the "US" truck, and all the cities in the states branching off state branches which branch off the "US" trunk; so that data could look like an upside down tree (trunk up, branches and leaves down); Another example are family trees (mother is the trunk, with children as branches and grandchildren as leaves, etc.), bc these look like hierarchical DBs), data in a relational database is stored in tables of fields (attributes) related to the object of the table.
 * For example, a table ("A") of States would contain, say, 4 columns with the state name on column 1 and columns 2 thru 4 would have attributes of that state, like its territorial size, its population, and whether land-locked or not. There could also be another table "B" called Congresspeople with, say, 4 columns, where column 1 is the name of the Congressperson and columns 2, 3 and 4 are the gender, party affiliation, and their state. (Likewise, you could have other tables, line Table "C", Voters, with, say 3 attributes, like voter's DL#, age, race, and gender. and other tables yet, like Polling location, etc.) The relational part is simply meant to describe that you can create relationships (links, pointers) from one table to another table to get a bigger picture of the data collected and to get to the data of another table from a values in one table. For example, you can get to data in Table B by starting with values from, say, Table A. Like above, you can get the names of all congresspeople from states that start with letter "C", not because any 1 of the tables has that information, but bc by "linking" data in table A to data in Table B you can answer that query. Table A has all the states that start with "C", now that you have identified the states from only one table, you use the relation that exists between those 2 tables (namely, that "state name" is common to both tables) and go to Table B and look up the names of the congresspeople. So don't let anyone scare you with the fancy "relational database" term; that's all it means.
 * Apply that to data about Observatories, and you will know, or be almost on target, as to how their Observatory tables look like. Hope this helped! BTW, The wikidata for AO also has that its named after both Arecibo and "William Gordon". That's nonsense bc the observatory's name isn't "The William Gordon Arecibo Observatory" nor anything with the name "William Gordon" in it. An additional attribute is need in that table, like "First Director" that, when populated with "William Gordon" will render those 2 fields as "Named after: Arecibo, Puerto Rico" and "First Director: William Gordon".  It must have been entered by a fan of the guy, maybe some student who took an astronomy course with him. Another piece of stupidity in that infobox is that the architect was this same William Gordon. An astronomer can't design an observatory any more than a driver can design a race car. This was designed by an architect other than him. Of course, he could had given the architect input as to his needs in the observatory (antenna size, # of offices needs, size of auditorium, etc, etc. but that isn't being the designer/architect. Mercy11 (talk) 22:36, 25 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the explanation. I was creating relational databases in 1981 using DB2 and worked with them on and off (at a Fortune 500 company for 5 years testing programer's changes), then switched industries still worked with SQA until 2006 when I moved into teaching, however, the controversy of Infoboxes has been ongoing for years: I'll copy this text from a 2013  Signpost "Infoboxes have been controversial, explained Kleinzach, because they have often been edited behind the scenes, without content contributing editors being involved. The idea that there are two ‘stances', "pro-box" and "anti-box", is not really correct. "There is a spectrum. Objections to infoboxes have been localized, and focused on particular topics and particular infoboxes."  Just thought the Project should know that nothing has changed since 2013. It's a content issue. If it continues to be wrong it doesn't have to be included in the article. I put something in my preferences to not even see infoboxes anymore. Also: Manual_of_Style/Infoboxes#Using_infoboxes_in_articles--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 23:46, 26 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Cool! Hey, here's another option: we just create our own infoboxes, like HERE,,, heehee... Mercy11 (talk) 23:50, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * :) Magic. The streets of Ponce were empty until you added that picture. It was magic! and Ponce is magical.The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 23:52, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Fortunately, I've had some experience here with jerks like him before. Even after significant improvements were made to the article, he still pressed on, and even after I extended him an olive branch (he knows what I am talking about) he still pushed on. The article even more than double in size but, like the USC complainer, he just kept doing 0% work and 100% whining. He must have swallowed hard when the Keeps started rolling in, yet he continued to be relentless on his focus for a "judicial" approach. Then the entire situation became one of WP:SNOW. Only a fool would had continued at that point rather than doing some soul-searching, a reality check and retreating but he, stubbornly, stayed the course. In the end, when he saw an opportunity to save face, he tended me a trap: in what appeared like a gesture of goodwill, he wanted to compromise. But it was too little too late, because I had lost all trust in the guy's fairness, and could see it was a trap to get the article deleted (his primary goal) in exchange for my writing a new article about tourism in Ponce. What the h*ll does he care about tourism in Ponce? - haha. Nice try, but not with me. Perhaps you noticed (the closing admin sure did), but this guy even put effort trying to get the attention of the closing admin after I cast my 'Keep' vote, complaining "Note that Mercy11 is the creator of the article...", as if there was a rule that the creator cannot vote. Excuse me? He had every opportunity not to get himself in the hole he got in: Before I voted, I made a series of 6 comments and sat back to wait for his response so I could see if he had a reasonable defense and I could decide if I would join him in deleting the article, but he didn't respond so, yes, I went ahead and cast my vote. Then only after I cast my vote did he try to explain his arguments further (introducing, btw, a new attack of WP:V). Still, more Keep votes kept rolling in and, as if to stop the avalanche, he tagged the article with a never-before-used "reads like an ad" tag. He wanted to deal me another unfair card but, no problem, I went off to address that concern too. And, while I was making the additional "ad" improvements, the closing admin closed the nomination... I can tell you this: some ignorantes aqui try to make your life miserable at any cost when they have set their eyes on you. In the end, his own pride took care of him: Although this guy had been editing years longer than I, for the good of WP, I hope he did learn a lesson this time: it's not all about how good of a lawyer you are at presenting your case, you can't lose focus of the community and that teamwork matters more important than who wins the delete nomination. In the end, he was left alone, hanging off a cliff by a single skinny rope that was ultimately cut off by a much more level-minded closing admin. I would bet that if the nomination hadn't been closed, this moron would had still come back after the ad tone was removed and would had still thought of another "deficiency" in the article to continue his "revenge." Like Clint Eastwood said: he wants "revenge for being born." How sad! In the best of cases, it was jealousy: he was jealous that there was an article on nightlife in my town but not once on his town. Mercy11 (talk) 04:50, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Well you know... What can I say? BTW- Yes, I think "boasts" is the right translation you do on this - (re: an old think on my talk page which is now archived). Sorry, I was a little slow and I find translations can be difficult. Sometimes they're just wrong and sometimes we need consensus and sometimes people get fixated and sometimes projects just fail. I tell my students to use Wikipedia and they answer "Yeah, but anyone can update it." They have a perception that it's not accurate. When they see something like "Arecibo, US", I can understand why they would say it's not accurate and like you mentioned, that the Infobox also states the Arecibo Observatory is named after a guy whose name isn't even in the .. I don't even know what to say about that. I think accuracy is something we should strive for, as a community.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 13:19, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * whether for the Arecibo Observatory/AO or any other article, have you looked into Wikimedia Education for your students? Don't know if you have ready pages like this one. Even if it doesn't change their idea that "anyone can update it", it may expose them to the limits that do exist. IAE, since this is getting off the AO subject, if you choose to reply you might want to reply at my talk page instead. Mercy11 (talk) 01:45, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Discovery
I think I figured out what happened. On Wikidata: From June 12, 2013 here To June , 2013 here An identified user went through thousands of locations and

added ‎Created claim: located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) and filled it in with a country: The editor received some comments on his talk page here re: incorrect addition on some wikidata items, which other editors had to tediously remove.

And On June 13, added the same claim to Puerto Rico here and to the other US territories here

While some of his additions / errors were questioned and corrected by some editors, Puerto Rico slipped through the cracks. No one noticed or questioned the edit.

The unregistered user responded on his talk page with how he made these edits and I quote him "I created a bot that traverse the entity recursively via the contains administrative territorial entity (P150) property. The assumption is if A subdivides to any entity B or C, then B is in administrative unit located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) of A, and C is in administrative unit located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) of A. This will ensure reciprocity but it seems to be not true all the time, the contains administrative territorial entity (P150) means both subdivides into administrative division and subdivides into other things. I am using this tool to make sure all subdivisions have other property like country (P17) is set to the same country as the root node. And also to be able to view the hierarchy of subdivision for a country. --112.203.160.147 16:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC)"

So that is why since mid-2013, it came to be that on English Wikipedia and other Wikipedias, based on this incorrect addition to the Wikidata item, Puerto Rico was made to be located "in" the administrative territorial entity (131) of the United States.

This is incorrect as the only territories in the United States are the 50 states.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 20:21, 1 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't understand half of it but, great!, that you figured it out. I always said it's good to have someone who can understand that wikidata stuff in this project - especially if they are gonna try to "scare" us off with their "relational" database talk. Anyway, yes, that's correct: there is a difference (which most US citizens are totally unaware of so they go about editing and making mistakes) between the US territories in the US, and the US territories of the US. Hey, do you have your email activated with WP, that is, the one at Preferences>User Profile>Email Options>allow? It should work only if "on". BTW, I was curious as to if you planned to monitor List of potentially habitable exoplanets that you added the PR WikiProject to it yet I couldn't see the relationship to us (the project). Granted, the Arecibo Observatory is located in PR and thus it is within the scope of the PR project, but as for the science of exoplanets, I couldn't see why it would be in our project. Thanks, Mercy11 (talk) 03:03, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Update on Standardizing Infoboxes
As an update, most (of the 10) Puerto Rico article types involving locations now have their infoboxes standardized. I see that Eloquent completed some, which was very helpful. Thank you. A few observations:
 * (1) I dread taking on the job of addressing the 902 subbarrios. My real-life commitments just don't allow me that luxury right now. Fortunately, most of the most urgent article types (headed by universities, which triggered this whole "project") are now standardized.
 * (2) Taking into consideration ElKevbo's concerns regarding future database searches, as for the article types I updated, I made a conscientious effort to stay away from use of the "location" parameter, and approached this standardization by used the "city/country" parameter pair instead. This was done to facilitate any potential future automated database searches/manipulation involving fields related to location (meaning the location, city, state, province, and country parameters) because the city/country breakdown is inherently more beneficial than lumping all the location information into the location parameter.  I think there was consensus that this was a more elegant approach; thus my stated approach.
 * (3) There were some article types (museums, libraries, and parks are the most notorious so far) that do not have city/country parameter pairs defined, only a "location" parameter. I'd benefit from your thoughts on this. IMO, if in the future there is a need for DB searches, the infobox template itself will need to be updated to have those parameters added and, then, have those 3 templates updated in every article that uses them. This, of course, happens quite often when, for example, templates are merged, deprecated, etc. In addition, and perhaps more importantly, this wouldn't be unique to Puerto Rico-articles, so I am not too worried about this.
 * (4) I see a pattern developing in that the use of "Commonwealth" seems necessary, almost even mandatory, but only for articles where a political hierarchy needs to be depicted. So infoboxes of articles such as municipalities, barrios and sub-barrios need this entry. Non-political articles, on the other hand, seem to be a Don't-care: this would include articles such as those of an educational nature (libraries, universities, museums, etc.) cultural (cuisine, music, etc.), geography (mountains, rivers, bays, etc.), hospitality/tourism (beaches, restaurants, hotels, attractions, etc.), science and healthcare (geologic formations, fauna, flora, hospitals, etc).
 * (5) I have found a few more infoboxes that I intend to also add to the list of 10 in the Standards page. They are, basically, the 12 or so in the previous statement. If anyone wants to jump in, better yet!

ElKevbo, it's perhaps now time to re-assess: How do you see this work so far addressing the totality of your concerns? Eloquent Peasant: do you have any ideas on how the 902 barrio articles could be approached? Is there, perhaps, a tool that could be used to update them all, considering --in particular-- that there are 78 municipalities? Mercy11 (talk) 01:33, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * it'll take me a an hour to do the barrios. (Update: 2 1/2 hours and with the help of Thanks!--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 23:28, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Cool! Mercy11 (talk) 01:49, 15 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Given the discussion so far, I still think the "Country" parameter may be inaccurate or incorrect to use since there appears to be a consensus in Puerto Rico that this entity isn't a country. Because of this, I also thought we were agreeing that the broad "Location" parameter was the better approach. So I'm confused as to how you arrived at your conclusion and worried that you've jumped the gun by making edits that may have to be undone or changed especially since this discussion has only involved three editors.
 * I recommend you determine your best recommendation and then create an RfC to gather project-wide input from a larger group of editors. Editors who focus on articles related to other locations that share some similarities with Puerto Rico may have important and useful input or be interested in this discussion as a way of setting precedent. ElKevbo (talk) 11:44, 15 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you I agree that we shouldn't be rendering "Country" on most articles.  let's hash this out a little more. We have to consider all the readers.  I completely understand what you're saying Mercy11, but we have to avoid rendering "country" in most cases, except we could use country here, for example: Cruce a Nado Internacional, here the use of country would be appropriate.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 23:28, 15 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I am sorry to state that I believe that ElKevbo is wrong in stating that there is a consensus in Puerto Rico that the island is "not" a country. What consensus? Provide us with the consensus which is non-political and which proves that Puerto Rico is not a country. A country is a nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory. A country has its own citizenship, which Puerto Rico has, its one language or dialect, which Puerto Rico has, its particular traditions, which Puerto Rico has, its own customs, which Puerto Rico has and so on. Puerto Rico may not be an independent country, but unlike the states of the United States, it can become an independent country if it so wishes. This is about facts and not about opinions which in the case of Puerto Rico may be politically biased as it often is. Puerto Rico may be an unincorporated territory through no wish of its own or a so-called commonwealth, but the fact remains that Puerto Rico is a country whose independence has been denied. Why do you think that the majority of Puerto Ricans identify themselves with pride as "Puerto Ricans" and "Boricuas"? Let's stick to "facts" and not to opinions. Tony the Marine (talk) 23:37, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with Tony. ElKevbo is thinking of a sovereign state, not a country.  ElKevbo, all sovereign states are countries but not all countries are sovereign states.  I understand the difficulty you may be having in grasping that idea, especially if your are British or American.  It's not so difficult, though, for folks like Tony and myself because we have been studying and writing about these differences for decades.


 * That said, I am glad you have chosen to stick around and bring your perspectives: it is valuable and I will disagree with anyone that believes it is not. I haven't had a chance to lay out my proposal to you (you all, that is; ElKevbo included) but now that the weekend is here, I will hopefully have a bit more time. No worries, no sweat; there's still plenty of time to "hash out" a solution that takes all opinions into consideration. Thanks, Mercy11 (talk) 23:49, 15 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I am specifically referring to the lede of Puerto Rico which seems to be a de facto consensus of Wikipedia editors. ElKevbo (talk) 23:48, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * What sort of consensus do you see in the lede? That it's a commonwealth? a territory? "in" the Caribbean? "in" the US? You will need to be more detailed and specific.  For teh sake of avoiding confusing, I am of teh opinion this isn't the occasion for short statements. Thanks, Mercy11 (talk) 23:58, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm most focused on the very first noun following the very first verb in the lede sentence: "...is an unincorporated territory..." I don't know because I haven't yet looked into the history of that article but given the sensitivity of this topic I am betting that the lede sentence has been the subject of extensive discussion and compromise among many editors.  The lede is supposed to summarize the article and the very first sentence is supposed to offer a concise, accurate definition of the subject so if everything has worked correctly then that should reflect a consensus definition of this subject.  If things haven't worked "correctly" (or just according to my expectations) then that statement doesn't reflect any sort of solid consensus and we're free to come to an agreement ourselves (although we really need to make a concerted effort to get input from other editors but that can wait until we have a solid proposal or at least clearly defined proposals for others to consider). ElKevbo (talk) 01:05, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

A de facto consensus of Wikipedia editors is not a true consensus nor is it a legal binding consensus. As a matter of fact Wikipedia in itself is considered to be an unreliable encyclopedia and source because anyone without the proper knowledge of things can edit and provide false information. We here have to stick to actual and legal facts and not a so-called consensus which may be the opinion of editors who have little or no knowledge of Puerto Rico, its legal standing nor its relation to the United States. Puerto Rican citizenship was recognized by the United States Congress in Article 7 of the Foraker Act in the early twentieth century and continues unchanged after the creation of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Section VII recognized a Puerto Rican nationality separate from that of the United States. The United States government continues to recognize a Puerto Rican nationality. Tony the Marine (talk) 04:19, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I would be opposed to standardizing by using Puerto Rico for country in some PR articles but using US for country in other PR articles: that isn't a standard. Also, a standard has to have an unshakable rationale: cherry picking articles is not standardizing. No one will argue that the US is a country because it is also a sovereign state. The confusion comes when we need to categorize territorial entities that, like Puerto Rico, aren't also sovereign states. We try to apply the same definition of country (i.e., the sovereign state definition) and everything, of course, becomes obscure. Why do you think it is OK to have PR display as a country in Cruce a Nado Internacional, but it's not in other articles? I am not sure why you are so focused in the "unincorporated territory" (UT) phrase; I don't see anything about that first statement that I would frown upon. The Puerto Rico article makes it clear, in the very first sentence --even prior to the UT phrase -- that PR is a commonwealth: the "Commonwealth of Puerto Rico" it says. It's a commonwealth, this is why modified the barrio and municipality articles types (ATs) -- to reflect that relationship. Following your (very valid) rationale, the Commonwealth is listed there first probably because it was more significant that of unorganized territory, and it was hashed out in that specific way by numerous editors over extensive discussion and compromise.

It would be beneficial if you could explain why you appear adamant to "Commonwealth" rendering in infoboxes, and seem to be favoring instead the Unincorporated Territory rendering. I think you need to state what you want more clearly, taking some additional time to give some thought to your vision, and articulate it once only, in its entirety, and without ambivalence, ambiguity or shifts. Your comments appear unrealistic on 2 fronts:
 * (1) You say "I still think the 'Country' parameter may be inaccurate or incorrect to use" but at the same time are arguing in favor of "Unincorporated Territory". You need to clarify how you envision implementing your UT aspirations since there seems to be no appetite in the PR Wikiproject to render "Unincorporated territory" anywhere in the infoboxes (other than, of course, the Puerto Rico infobox) based, it seems, on the fact such entry UT would be unnecessary and inappropriate.
 * (2) The phrase "unincorporated territory" isn't going to be used to replace any "Country" or "State" or "Location" infobox rendering. Those 3 parameters are generally rendered as "Location". So it's not clear why you are suddenly trending to the phrase "unincorporated territory".

Seems to me we are needlessly chasing after too many loose goats here. Let's not lose sight of what we came here for: to decide whether or not "US" should display in the University infobox after "Puerto Rico" in "Universidad del Sagrado Corazón" (USC). Let's all get on the same foot and all agree to the facts in the USC case:
 * (1)The university infobox doesn't render a display "Country" at all; it renders a display of "Location".
 * (2)The initial concern was my removal of Puerto Rico from the State field, arguing that PR wasn't a state, and the consequential placement of Puerto Rico in the Country field, resulting in the displacement of United States from that field, and in an infobox that rendered "Location = San Juan, Puerto Rico", instead of your preferred "Location=San Juan, Puerto Rico, United States".
 * (3)There is currently no parameter in the university infobox that, after manipulation, will render a "Country=country_XYZ" display from the various parameters in the university infobox template. That is, it doesn't have the free text "subdivision_type1" parameter that other infoboxes have (such as the "infobox settlement"). It will instead render into "Location = CCC, SSS, CCC", so the original objection wasn't really the rendering of "Country=Puerto Rico"; the original objection was the fact that Location wasn't going to render with "United States" in it, as in "Location=San Juan, Puerto Rico, United States".

Is it still your position that the "US" should display in the PR infoboxes here? Please also note there is no "jumping of the gun" here: WP:BURDEN is on the editor entering the information; that would be you. I undid your edit because (1) PR isn't a state, and (2) PR isn't in the US, as your edit implied. This last one is obvious from USC's own website: it says it's located in Puerto Rico, not in the US.

However, your focus now appears to be shifting in favor of Unincorporated Territory (UT). A much different argument than the one from your original objection at USC, you are now appear to be arguing, not that PR isn't a state or that there is no standardization, but that PR isn't a country and that Unincorporated Territory better than country. I have pointed out the difference between a country and a sovereign state, and produced for your perusal 5 sources, including official US government sources, where PR is listed as a country. Tony has provided you some 5 sources as well related to this topic. It is true that "country" generally refers to a sovereign state (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/country) and I commend you for taking the high road and showing a preference for that "generally refers to" definition. I would had done the same thing, except that in the case of Puerto Rico the "generally" doesn't apply because the SCOTUS, the Feds, and others have already determined that Puerto Rico, while not a sovereign state, is indeed a country. We could go one with this discuss forever. Fortunately, it really doesn't matter how you prefer to characterize Puerto Rico, country or not, because the rendering of the country parameter displays as "Location", not as "Country" anyway. And, since the bulk of infoboxes render into a Location, not a Country (university being one), we would be wasting time if we went on discussing how to characterize Puerto Rico. It doesn't matter in the vast majority of infoboxes.

There is then, imo, nothing else to discuss here other than the few cases of infoboxes that do render the Country display. But, if all the existing infoboxes are flexible enough to render location without a direct reference that the country, then like Eloquent, I believe that we don't need to ask "for parameters to be added to infoboxes of museums, libraries or universities [and others]", because what is already available will accommodate all rendering needs. Secondly, by implementing Standards we can ensure all PR articles render the right way. An interesting fact is that out of over 40 universities in Puerto Rico, less than 7% of them had "United States" displaying in the infobox. Obviously there was a standard already being followed by 93% of them. It wasn't in writing, but there was one. What has changed now is that there is a Written Standard, with its own page in the Puerto Rico WikiProject, to aid future editors if they need guidance.

You mentioned "sensitive of this topic". You should be aware that there are 2 political groups in Puerto Rico: statehooders and non statehooders. It goes without saying that both groups are welcome to edit PR articles. However, Puerto Rico is not a state, and statehooders often place "state=PR" and "country=US" in infoboxes, to give the impression to the world that Puerto Rico is part of the US (statehooders goal is for PR to be a state) and to advertise, broadcast, boost, or otherwise promulgate their own political agenda. Such spreaders of misinformation for their own personal political goals aren't, imo, welcome to edit Puerto Rico. Please address the questions above if your time permits. Thanks, Mercy11 (talk) 00:09, 17 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Given my understanding of the issues as currently described (here and elsewhere in Wikipedia), I am opposed to labeling "Puerto Rico" as a "country" in any infobox. It's very shortsighted and problematic to only focus on how the location will be rendered given the increasingly different and varied uses of information and data in Wikipedia articles.  Avoiding the issue altogether by simply inserting this information directly into the "Location" parameter of this and other infoboxes is an imperfect compromise but it certainly has the advantage of avoiding avoiding miscategorizing this location or misrepresenting the consensus.
 * We seem to be going in circles here. Is it time to launch an RfC or some other process that will draw opinions and advice from other editors? ElKevbo (talk) 01:53, 17 November 2019 (UTC)


 * ... that you don't think PR should state "country" in any infobox may be inflexible because look here. I think in the article Cruce a Nado Internacional, the use of "country" in the infobox is appropriate. It's a sport competition, where all participant countries are listed. I once worked for an adoption agency. They wanted a marriage certificate to be produced for the prospective adoptive parents, who'd been married 50 years, had children and grandchildren and belonged to an ancient religion where divorce isn't even an option but they didn't have a marriage certificate. And their country didn't have a neat filing cabinet in a perfect little office from where to get a copy of their marriage certificate. The person demanding the document lived in a country where everything was so neatly filed and the person demanding the marriage certificate failed to see that the people were married, and that despite the fact that they couldn't produce a marriage certificate, the adoption could still go through and that demanding something that they could not produce was insulting. Not every place has a neatly alphabetized filing cabinet where one can pull out a marriage certificate. Not everything is neat and perfect for databases, again.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 02:56, 17 November 2019 (UTC)


 * A "reminder", Wikipedia is not about what we like or do not like. It is not about opposing nor supporting our opinions or what we personally believe, which in these case would be considered POV. Wikipedia is about facts plain and simple. In this case the sources state that the United States accepts the existence of a Puerto Rican nationality and not only that if the recognition of a sovereign state is required for a place to be considered a "country", then guess what? Spain recognizes Puerto Rico's citizenship and nationality also. Tony the Marine (talk) 19:25, 17 November 2019 (UTC)


 * ElKebvo, I see no response from you to the other participants, so... Are you expecting me to respond to your RfC question? If so, why are you asking me "if it's time", when  you are the only participant here objecting to the consensus ?


 * You are the one who tried to make Puerto Rico a State of the U.S. and also part of the US? You insisted, and were reverted, not once but twice, by 2 different editors. Only when you realized you were edit warring against 2 editors did you start discussing the matter. You and I discussed this, not once, or twice, but three times, and you continued to object.


 * You were happy I offered you to take it to the Puerto Rico WikiProject for discussion, and the editors there provided you with at least a half dozen official Government references showing why they felt you were in error. In return you provided nothing --except your personal opinion that "country doesn't seem to be right" and  you continued to object. When we were discussing the contents of Universidad del Sagrado Corazón's university infobox Location parameter, you went off in tangents about issues regarding Puerto Rico and unincorporate terrirtory, and at a time even admitted going in circles. I tried, not once, but several times to refocus your attention, but you would go into tangents again and again.


 * You first wanted a standard and the Puerto Rico Wikiproject created the Standard. Then we were somehow under the understanding you wanted us to populate the Country parameter for future editors to do "database searches" and we did work on that, but you stated it was Location you preferred populated instead, and we also did that for you, so that now the entire Standards page doesn't use the Country field at all. So what's your objection now?  Excuse me, but when everyone here was nice and polite to you, even relating stories so you could relate to the work, you just continued to object.


 * So, why are you asking me? I believe, I answered all your questions. If you don't have any more questions, please head to WP:DISPUTE for further instructions. Mercy11 (talk) 06:37, 18 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I have no idea why you're so belligerent and unwilling to ask other editors for input on your self-proclaimed "standards." But this is not that important to me so I'm removing this and related pages from my watchlist. Best of luck! ElKevbo (talk) 07:37, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Simplifying the Standards
I think we can remove the bottom half of the Infobox standards, in the Standards page, for each of the 10 entries there so far. By "bottom half" I mean the part that starts with "Do not use representations such as...". The idea is to just state what to use, rather than state to readers what not to use. What do you think? The Rational section and any Notes would stay. Mercy11 (talk) 01:41, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 01:45, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I also agree--Tony the Marine (talk) 04:50, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Pronunciation
I think we should start adding pronunciation to the articles that require it, i.e Pueblo Viejo- but I've never worked with the pronunciation aspect of an article name before.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 23:16, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "adding pronunciation": (1) adding the audio files as in the external audio to the right or (2) adding the IPA phonetic pronunciation (the one with all the funny-looking backwards and upside letters, etc., like this: "|p|ɔː|n|s|eɪ|")? Also, whether audio or phonetic, are you looking for English-only pronunciation or both English and Spanish pronunciations? If English only, the US only, or the US and UK? Mercy11 (talk) 01:26, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Cruce a Nado Internacional
. Hi. In reference to your edit here I totally agree with you that Puerto Rico should be listed as a country, but not just for the case of Cruce a Nado Internacional but for every article that uses the "Infobox sports league", "Infobox Olympic games", "JCC infobox" and all the other sports-oriented infoboxes that include Puerto Rico in it. The reason for that is that, when it comes to sports, Puerto Rico always competes as a separate country from the US. You can see that in the infobox sports league here for Cruce a Nado Internacional (PR is listed under "Countries"), the Infobox Olympic games here for Olympic Games (expand the IOC in the section "Number of athletes by National Olympic Committee"; PR is listed under "Country"), and the JCC infobox here for the Central American and Caribbean Games (Puerto Rico is listed under the "Nation" column). There are scores, maybe even 100s, other WP sports articles where Puerto Rico is listed under country or nation. The reason for categorizing Puerto Rico as a country is simple: it's not only a fact that it competes against other countries, but also a fact that it would be silly to make a separate listing for "non-countries" competing against countries.

By the way, the same is true of all (the 100s of) WP beauty pageant articles (Miss Universe, Miss World, etc.) such as shown here. The beautiful ladies from the beautiful country of Puerto Rico have won more titles that the women from the country of the United States.

Let me add that there are dozens of WP articles I constantly come across that list Puerto Rico as a country. This goes to show that even (some) Wikipedians know the difference between a country and a sovereign state. An example is here. Not that I am poking around all day long looking for such article: I always knew Puerto Rico was a country, just not a sovereign state. I always knew it was a dependent entity, but still a country. It's just common sense that Puerto Rico is a country but, unfortunately, many people equate country with sovereign state (and others deduce it can't be a country if it's a dependent entity). I suppose they think that way out of ignorance, or perhaps bc they weren't taught differently in school, or maybe bc being citizens of a country which was also a sovereign state it became natural for them to think of both as being the same thing - but they are not. I am, of course, thinking of Americans, bc they make up -by far- the largest group of editors here. However, this is true of most editors, because 97% of the people in the world are citizens of countries that are also sovereign states. And yet it should be common sense that countries and sovereign states aren't the same thing: for example, wasn't Australia a country before 1986, the year it became fully independent? Of course it was a country! So independence had nothing to do with becoming a country, but everything to do with becoming a sovereign state. Australia was a country before 1986 even though it was still largely controlled by England. There was also no magic wand waved in 1950 which converted the Philippines from a non-country to a country. The Philippines was always a country, just not a sovereign state until that year.

I am discussing all this because I plan to continue helping in the Standards page and the standardization of the PR articles infoboxes. So I plan to add, with justification, those types of Sports infoboxes to the Standards page and with the "Country=Puerto Rico" in them and I am opening this for discussion here so we arrive at a consensus together, hopefully, with. I think with a Standards page in place, we will be able to help other future PR article editors have guidance as to how to code the infoboxes of PR articles. Plus, of course, we can all be on the same page too. For example, I myself just discovered that Teatro La Perla (when compared with, for example, Teatro Tapia) may not be using the correct infobox. So I plan to work on that as my time permits. Let me know if this makes sense. Thanks, Mercy11 (talk) 23:22, 18 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Just wanted to mention "happiness". Seeing your dedication to these articles for years and years, and before there was a 'standards' page, has bought me happiness. Mercy, I think they should both be using infobox: venue - see list of infoboxes here.  Sometimes when I run the articles through the AWB (Automated Wiki Browser) it catches that the article is using the wrong infobox. BTW, the wikidata item on some bios already correctly states "country of citizenship" = Puerto Rico and US, both. Definitely it was time to create a standards page for the project! --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 01:50, 19 November 2019 (UTC)


 * (Tony) gets the bulk of the credit. When I first arrived here, unbeknownst to me, Tony was already an old-timer here. And he welcomed me to the "Puerto Rican the community" and I thought he was some sort of a gangster!! Anyway, Tony has been the watchman and gatekeeper here for perhaps longer than everyone else together! Jealously watching over changes made other which do not meet WP:N, etc. But he is an admin and he has to walk a fine line; I understand that.  Be sure you have read his bio at Tony Santiago...what a year that was when we put it together and tried to get it posted!  The battle here yesterday with this "country" thing doesn't compare to what happened back then.  We need people around here like you who can work those automated tools...I just no longer have the time I had in the past to dedicate to WP. Do you really think Tapia needs the venue infobox that La Perla uses? When I brought it up I was planning to change La Perla's infobox to look like Tapia's bc Tapia's is "infobox theater" (theater) which is what La Perla is. Anyway, again, I haven't had time to look at them closely, so you might be right. Thanks for your comments. Mercy11 (talk) 02:39, 19 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I read some of the arguments that took place re: Tony's article. Re: venue; I don't see a template infobox for theatre but I do see one for venue.. see Template:Infobox venue (Transclusion count: 14,399) (stadiums, theatres, etc.) I'll try to pass the article through AWB to see if it changes it automatically, also if I have time. :) My life is busy!  --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 02:56, 19 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks I had forgotten about that. Which is probably why I never went back to fixing it. Mercy11 (talk) 03:29, 19 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Mercy11 and The Eloquent Peasant you both are amazing Boricuas. There have been many Boricuas in this project whose work have helped change the negative image that so many people have of us by presenting the true facts which have been all too often omitted from the history books and letting the world in general know that we Puerto Ricans are a proud people who have made many great contributions to humanity. Many of these great contributors to this project are no longer contributing because some anti-Puerto Rican factions have made it difficult for them. We need more people like the both of you to defend and protect our articles against those who may have an agenda against us. God Bless you all and all those who have made positive contributions to our project. Tony the Marine (talk) 23:06, 21 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Tony and -like my dear old grandmother used to say- "When the going gets tough, the tough gets going!" Keep up the good work brother! Mercy11 (talk) 23:12, 21 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Your mention of a "magic wand"... It's crazy! What we really shouldn't want, while everyone is arguing about whether it's a country or a territory or a commonwealth, what we really don't want is for it to become a "failed state", with people living in quiet desperation, for lack of attention and care and fair policies and treatment. Let's give the people of that little island a chance. Please read: http://www.saisjournal.org/posts/the-myths-of-state-sovereignty when you have a moment.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 11:49, 23 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Excuse me User:The Eloquent Peasant, "magic wand"? What are you talking about? I don't understand, do you Mercy11, have any idea of what The Eloquent Peasant is talking about and what it has to do with what I wrote above? I have no idea. Tony the Marine (talk) 19:39, 23 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Oh, up above you stated "There was also no magic wand waved in 1950 which converted the Philippines from a non-country to a country. The Philippines was always a country, just not a sovereign state until that year...." I just updated Angel Figueroa (boxer) article - (sad)--- Oh and have a nice weekend! The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 20:45, 23 November 2019 (UTC)


 * never mind. It was me who used the "magic wand" phrase, but thought it was your writing.  I have joined my last 2 paragraphs in that (confusing) write up of mine above to avoid misleading others into thinking it was Tony.  Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 23:11, 23 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Oops, sorry.The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 23:56, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Infobox settlement
Hi. I was recently at the El Tuque article, and noticed that the routine you ran a few days back to render all Municipality articles to read "Commonwealth of Puerto Rico" and (e.g., the routine that effected THIS change), doesn't seem to have affected El Tuque which, like Ponce and all the other municipalities, uses the Infobox settlement. No sweat: I did it manually (side note: you may want to double check it - I hope I didn't miss anything!). But now I am thinking (1) "Why wasn't this one changed automatically by your routine", and (2) "could there be others (beaches, etc. -- bc settlement is used in more than plain settlements) that also didn't get updated?" Any ideas? Thanks, Mercy11 (talk) 01:23, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I've missed many. But with the AutoWikiBrowser, I may search all articles within a specific category- any category i.e. University museums in Puerto Rico or I can search and review all articles on my watchlist. I've probably missed some articles and I really don't know how many. Thanks. I haven't looked at this category yet - Category:Houses on the National Register of Historic Places in Puerto Rico --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 01:47, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Infobox union
Anyone has any ideas how to deal with the Office and Country parameters in the "Infobox union"? For example, Puerto Rico Teachers Association. There's no Location parameter in the infobox that I see available. There's an entire category "Category:Trade unions in Puerto Rico". Interestingly, while Teachers has country=PR, UTIER has country=US. Any ideas? Mercy11 (talk) 02:25, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Engram Chart of "Commonwealth" versus "Territory"
Notice how with time the use of commonwealth versus territory changed. Books on Google books, searched for both terms shows that Commonwealth was used a lot more from 1940s to 1960s when suddenly its use in books started decreasing, but Commonwealth is still used more in books on Google books than territory.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 17:56, 25 November 2019 (UTC) 

Infobox Organization
It will take me some time to go thru all the PR articles using this infobox. Part of the problem is that it's associated category is a huge (upside-down) tree containing some 6 or more levels of sub-container members. This is crazy! To me, companies, political parties, churches, etc. aren't organizations that belong in the "Organizations based in PR" category. To me, organizations"" are basically those that are NGOs, say, like non-profits, and nothing else. Hospitals, schools, political parties, churches that are already categorized as such under other PR Category branches don't need to appear also using the "organization" infobox. If a PR article is using the organization infobox but can be categorized under some other branch of the PR tree (churches, parties, fishing clubs, hospitals, etc), then it shouldn't be using the organization infobox to begin with (nor should it be categorized anywhere under the Category:Organizations based in Puerto Rico structure!). Oh, well, when I got the time I will try working on them...but may not be until 2020.... Mercy11 (talk) 03:22, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll try look into this too.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 12:47, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Scope
As always bringing up good points, the scope is something we should definitely discuss. The scope means if it's in the project, we tag its Talk Page with WikiProject Puerto Rico and expect to update and watch it.
 * 1) Every article that mentions anything about Puerto Rico? No or Yes.
 * 2) Every bio of person from Puerto Rico and others of ancestry? No or Yes.
 * 3) Every location in Puerto Rico? No or Yes.
 * 4) Every song written by a Puerto Rican artist? No or Yes.
 * 5) Every article slightly related to something about Puerto Rico? No or Yes.

What I did: 1) I took it on a case by case basis but mostly yes (I added the WikiProject Puerto Rico template to them). 2) if born in PR yes, if born in NY to Puerto Rican parents yes, if the person has some Puerto Rican ancestry I went with no for example 4) no 5) I took it on a case by case basis and mostly yes. Rationale: It could have been a general in the Spanish-American war who made a comment such as "we will take Puerto Rico" or something to that effect. If there were big repercussions on how that person was related to Puerto Rico, then I did go ahead and add the Wikiproject Puerto Rico to the talk page. (BTW, only once did another editor remove the addition of the Wikiproject Puerto Rico. It was on one of the many West Side Story articles. They said that the Wikiproject Puerto Rico had not contributed to the article.) Examples: On Oscar Lewis, yes, obviously, because the effects of his book were huge and those who worked with him on the book, were also tagged (for the same reason). On List of potentially habitable exoplanets, I added it but maybe should not have. Yet I did not add it to the Arecibo message.

Your comments on scope are very much appreciated.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 12:44, 2 December 2019 (UTC)


 * IMO, I think we should stick to our core for now because, unlike past years when we had over 10 regular Project participants, we now seem to have just a handful. But that's only my opinion. I would rather deal with the current 35,000 (I think that's close to what I saw last somewhere) and upkeep them neatly than to exponentially add to the scope articles that aren't directly in our "base" of PR articles. Again, that's only my opinion. Mercy11 (talk) 00:04, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Rating - to not tolerate mediocrity
I think we should strive to move articles from Stub to Start. See here.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 15:28, 2 December 2019 (UTC)


 * There's probably a lot of articles needing despamming too, poorly sourced. Sometimes a sourced stub is better than a longer poorly sourced and structured article! ♦  Dr. Blofeld  15:59, 2 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Exactly. Like this thing was crazy and still needs sources and more work. Thank you.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 16:17, 2 December 2019 (UTC)


 * "[A] sourced stub is better than a longer poorly sourced...article!". Amen! - that's my motto!!! Also, a poorly sourced article is --AFAIC-- an open invitation to other editors to come in and cannibalize it. It's a lot tougher to cannibalize an article that is sourced (and it's certainly a lot easier for you to revert any cannabalizing of a well-sourced article you wrote. I might even add, in many instances, writing poorly sourced articles is an exercise in futility -- a waste of the contributing editor's time. Mercy11 (talk) 00:00, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Which portal format to use in Puerto Rico Road articles
'''Hello Puerto Rico WikiProject members: Please see the question posted here and share your thoughts. I am re-posting it on this page for Project visibility:'''


 * Hi, Mercy11! I take advantage of the fact that we're talking about standards and formats to help me with this question I have. I've seen that some road articles use this portal template at See also or References sections:
 * {|style="background:white;" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"


 * }
 * While others use this other:
 * ==See also==
 * Which of the two should be used? User:Yarfpr|Yarfpr......22:14, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Which of the two should be used? User:Yarfpr|Yarfpr......22:14, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Which of the two should be used? User:Yarfpr|Yarfpr......22:14, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Which of the two should be used? User:Yarfpr|Yarfpr......22:14, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

--Posted by Mercy11 (talk) 23:30, 10 December 2019 (UTC) on behalf of .


 * Comment: Personally I prefer the first one, the one within the box - if only because it appears more presentable, that is, it seems to add more quality to the article. That's just my opinion. Either way, the right thing to do is to be consistent throughout; that is, to have a standard way of doing it. What do you think, you've been around a while, what's your take on this one? In particular, Tony, do you use them below "See also" or below "References" skipping the "See also", if the portals would be the only entries in the "See also" section. , what do you think? Anyone else? Mercy11 (talk) 02:56, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I have always prefered and used the first (Top) example in all the articles which I have authored. Tony the Marine (talk) 03:14, 11 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: My question arose because I created articles in which I put a template format and another user replaced it with the other. Most PR road articles use the first, but in the US roads articles the second is used. I prefer the second option because it fits better with the rest of the content in an article, but because the first option is more frequent among Puerto Rican articles, it would also be suitable for purposes of greater standardization. However, the editors of the US Roads WikiProject usually use the second option for what I mentioned before. In any case, I'll be satisfied with the decision determined by consensus. Yarfpr (talk) 03:33, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This could also lead to consensus:


 * Yarfpr (talk) 04:04, 11 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: Hi. For the Roads / PR portal - I don't really have a preference. I like the one that's "boxed in" versus the sentence version but whatever you guys think is fine with me. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 13:54, 11 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: This information at Template:Portal-inline could be useful:
 * creates a list of one or more portal links within an accessible navigation region. It is hidden in printer and mobile view. This is useful, for example, in an article's "See also" section.
 * creates one portal link with no accessibility context. It is visible in printer and mobile view. This is useful, for example, if making a mid-sentence link on a talk page, or if there is an alternative list structure in a "See also" section.
 * Yarfpr (talk) 14:24, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand that if all of us, to a greater or lesser extent, prefer the boxes instead of the lists, there should be no problem in defining the standards to be followed in the articles. It doesn't bother me to use one style or another as long as they aren't used randomly between articles, which is what is currently happening. Yarfpr (talk) 14:32, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I guess the preference for boxes or lists will depend on how the photos interact with the texts and sections within an article. If you look at the Puerto Rico Highway 500 article, it might be convenient to use the lists because the right part (infobox and photos) extend below the information on the left, unless the photos are relocated and that column is raised a little more. However, in the Puerto Rico Highway 2 article it isn't necessary to replace the boxes with the lists because everything is better located. Yarfpr (talk) 16:40, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, it looks like it's 4-to-0 in favor of the boxes!
 * As for the limited use of the bulleted list forms, I would rather expand the articles that would end up with the bulleted format (like PR-500) by adding more prose so the preference for the bulleted list can be a moot point. Of course, there are probably 100s of (short) PR highway articles that would then fall in this category, so expanding prose for all of them so they can use the boxed format could be a challenge. (In reality, it seems the real problem is the that boxed format defaults to the right of the page, otherwise we could use the boxed format in all pages regardless of article size, right? If so, is there a way to make the boxed format move to the left or right at will (like we can do with pics)?)
 * I guess my preference for the boxed format for all articles, regardless of size, is if future PR editors start using the bulleted form even if the article is long because they have seen it used in some articles (the short articles, of course) but bc they aren't aware that such format is only to be used for short articles (like PR-500). That is, using 2 different formats, depending on article length, might be confusing, and we could, then, end up with some "long enough" road articles that use the bulleted format, which is what we are trying to avoid. Does this make sense? Mercy11 (talk) 21:26, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I've just made several editions in different articles, including the standardization of portals boxes. Answering your question about the portals box location, there is the  code, which allows you to adjust its location in the "See also" section (you can see as an example the Puerto Rico Highway 1 article). In relation to external links associated with Commons, if what appears in that section is that link, the inline format should be used, while if that list includes other links, the box could be used, depending on the size of the space or the quantity of links that exist (that could be left to the discretion of the editor or author of the article). Yarfpr (talk) 21:38, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I just made the stack adjustments in Puerto Rico Highway 500. TC. Yarfpr (talk) 21:44, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hum I tried your trick at Puerto Rico Highway 549 and seems to work quite nicely there too. What does this mean? What, then, is the verdict? What's your proposal? What's your plan?  How should we write up the Standard for this? Can you look at the other (non-roads) standards already in the Standards page and, perhaps, write a draft here that we can incorporate there? (Feel free to post it the Standards page yourself as well - that's always an option!) Mercy11 (talk) 22:15, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Before writing any standard to follow, I must say that what you did in PR-549 I also did in other articles, but then I reversed the changes because they're too small articles. That is, I would only apply the stack if the article has several sections on the left along with several photos below the infobox road on the right (they're only my aesthetic preferences). In the case of PR-549, I would prefer to keep the box where it was before. My idea is that the box is always under the infobox road, not to its immediate left. Yarfpr (talk) 22:29, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * But then how's PR-500 (which you seem to be planning to leave alone) different from PR-549 (which you seem to be suggesting we reverse) - they both have the portals stack box to the left of the infobox, not underneath it? At least this is how they both show on my laptop's screen. Mercy11 (talk) 23:53, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

You're right. I just solved the problem. Yarfpr (talk) 00:53, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I just corrected the design of several articles to prevent the portal box from entering more to the left than desired and simplifying the standard we want to set. Basically I decided that the box should always be kept to the right and below the infobox road, regardless of the fact that sometimes it moves away from the "See also" section to create a balance between the left and right parts of an article. The first thing I did was to delete the  code, moving images between the different sections and changing their sizes. In some cases I used the  code, which generates a blank space between the most important sections and those at the bottom (See also, References, External links, etc.). As an example, you can see the following articles: Puerto Rico Highway 133, Puerto Rico Highway 163, Puerto Rico Highway 500, Puerto Rico Highway 503, Puerto Rico Highway 511 and Puerto Rico Highway 577. Yarfpr (talk) 02:00, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * What??!!?? I thought you had it all neatly squared away and resolved in your last revision (the "Stack" version) because that revision accounted for the behavior of the portal images in the case of very short articles, like PR-549. When I say "your last revision" I mean this one here. In my opinion, short articles look neater if the Road Portal images end up under the "See also" section, not under the infobox. (Long articles aren't a problem because their Portals will end up under the See also section way, way down, way past the bottom of the infobox.) Think of it this ways: (1) the See also is telling the reader to "see also...the road portals". If, in short articles, you have the portals under the infobox all by themselves, there is no instruction to the reader as to why those portal images are in that spot, all by themselves, and also (2) It's not very appealing to have a very large empty space to the left of an infobox. By placing the road portal images under the See also section, and thus, to the left of the infobox, it helps to pad that area that would otherwise be a big white space. It will also deter future editors from using means such as the "Clear" template or moving around of images and/or text simply to try to fill in that area. I hope you can reconsider, or perhaps I missed something in the reasoning you had for the newest change (this one in this newer version here). Mercy11 (talk) 03:28, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I confused you with my changes of opinion. In short articles such as PR-549 it isn't necessary to create such a large blank space so that that area doesn't look ugly. In that you're right. You can see examples in which I didn't implement that nonsense: Puerto Rico Highway 17, Puerto Rico Highway 115 or Puerto Rico Highway 135, to name a few. I've decided to discard the use of the stack code because it doesn't matter if the portal box is far below the rest of the information. The portal box location shouldn't always coincide with the "See also" section in short articles because under that section only few references and sometimes few external links appear. In that sense, the location of the box doesn't lose coherence with the suggestions to see or find more information beyond the article. In addition, having the box slightly to the left can interfere negatively with the infobox road and the photos that may appear on the far right (the article loses aesthetics). In that sense, the inline template would be more useful than the portal box (for those specific cases). After all, when more data such as junction list, gallery, etc. is added, that problem can be solved successfully. In that sense, my decision returned to the beginning of this whole discussion, supporting the use of the portal box instead of the inline template. Yarfpr (talk) 04:33, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yarfpr, of the PR editors you do, by far, the bulk of the work with the PR road articles and, to your credit, you do it with great detail, structure, consistency and patience, so --one way or the other-- in the end, I will implement the Standard you prefer. However, I would only suggest that you think/plan/study well enough what you ultimately want to implement. The idea is to be as convinced as possible that your decision is as close as possible to what you really want implemented.
 * That said, it seems to me (again, not trying to change your mind, just asking if you have considered this additional angle) it seems to me that if you use the Stack template for every single road article, no matter how large or how small then you will be guaranteed a consistent, predictable, outcome from the Wiki processor every time. That outcome is that, for any article, extremely large or extremely small, the See also section will always contain the Portals within the See also area: sometimes to the left of the infobox (for extremely short articles), sometimes way below the infobox (for extremely large articles), and sometimes --by coincidence only-- immediately underneath the infobox (for articles whose length is such that the See also section will just happen to end up immediately underneath the article's infobox). But, regardless of size, the use of the Stack template (as I have seen from playing around with it after you first mentioned the Stack template above) guarantees that the portal images will always be within the See also section.
 * Now, yesterday, before I had sent you my "What??!!??" message above, I had already drafted a preliminary Standard for this and which I was getting ready to send your way for you to review so you could see how the proposed standard looked so far and so you could make any changes as you saw fit (yes, even dramatic changes if need be!). I have placed it here. Please review it and give me your thoughts on what seems to be one of the "pluses" of using the Stack template in  all  articles as I explained it above, let me know what you think of it (feel free to be honest -- I won't cry if you decide against it!!), then let me know in which direction you want to go, so I can redraft it if you decide you still want to code small articles differently from large articles. Thanks, Mercy11 (talk) 23:21, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you writing that draft. It was also good for me to wait many hours for this answer to happened because now I can better understand your point of view based on an idea that I'd previously taken into account. Sometimes I deal too much in a series of things and then I get lost in the process, and that's why it was good for me to take a break. The truth is that the idea of the stack code isn't bad and can help to standardize the portal box location in all the articles, regardless of their size. However, sometimes it may also be positive to create a blank space not too large between two or more sections, depending on whether the body of the article is quite similar to that of the infobox and any other image that is placed below it. By this I don't mean that I'm against the stack code, but in certain cases the subtle white space can also be considered useful.
 * On the other hand, I've noticed that when a photo is placed on top of the infobox road it causes the length of the right side with respect to the left one to become too exaggerated, especially in short articles. Maybe that could have been the reason why yesterday I'd a change of mind. I know that at first I agreed with your idea of placing a photo in that position, and believe me that I still like your idea, but sometimes, depending on the size of the photo (especially if it is very square or vertical), the infobox road appears lower than it should. I tried to manipulate the code of the infobox road to see if the photo can appear inside the box, but on this page I read that that attempt I'd couldn't be possible because in a consensus in the US Roads WikiProject it was determined that they wouldn't be added photos in the infobox.
 * In relation to your draft, I understand that it's very good. I don't know if after my answer there's a need to make changes to some points, but I would like other editors to react to our suggestions before making a final decision. Yarfpr (talk) 02:09, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a plan. Meanwhile, seems everyone is fine with Points 1 and 2 of the draft. If you want we can move those 2 to the official Standards page and, thus, sort of memorialize the start of the PR Roads Standards; additional points can be added later as more reactions come in. What do you prefer, should we move Points 1&2 of the draft from the Sandbox to the Official page now, or wait until Points 3&4 (and potentially further points yet) all get decided on, and them move everything in a lump?  Mercy11 (talk) 01:14, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * For now I consider that points 1 and 2 can be moved to official standards without any objection. Everything else should wait longer to evaluate how each idea behaves in the articles. TC. Yarfpr (talk) 15:23, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Posted here. I made some minor changes to the wording which I don't think will be a problem: since all PR articles (not just PR roads) should be using the PR portal image link, the changes were to make the Standard more generic. Check it out and let me know what you think. Also, I updated Proposed points 3 & 4 in the Sandbox to eliminate the rational and list just the Standard, which I think is leaner and goes straight to the point (making it potentially less confusing). If you want to include the rationale (whether that one there or the one to be developed, if any, based on the outcome of the pending decision) just let me know and we can add a rationale, perhaps in a format similar to the one used in the Standards for the "Use of "U.S". in the infobox". See the Update to the Proposal (3&4) here. Mercy11 (talk) 19:54, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I just saw everything you mentioned and I agree (finally I'm back) with the stack code. I think I'm ready to apply it on all short articles. What is pending is the location of the photos to ensure that all articles follow the same design because in some articles there's a "Gallery" section while in others the photos appear in different areas (above the infobox, to the left of a section, to the right of another section, different sizes, etc.). Yarfpr (talk) 20:20, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not sure we can standardize on location of photos. Some articles will have 0, others just 1, others several. I don't think we can make a standard on this without jeopardizing infringing on editors' use of their own discretion. Let's keep in mind that Puerto Rico road articles (and all other PR articles) can be edited by anyone in WP: other editors may choose to put the images they add anywhere in the article; they may even choose to change the location of ours. To complicate matters further, they may choose to keep a photo where is at but change its size, which can affect the location of the PR/US road portal images (if the portal images aren't set up to bound to the See Also section.) IMO, a standard on photos is beyond the area allowed to a WikiProject. At a minimum, it should be addressed as a separate Standards concern, independent of any discussion on PR road articles and the location of its portal wikilinked images. I suggest you first consider these potential problems. BTW, I may be off the project for a few days, taking a much needed xmas vac time off, so will probably be responding much slower. :-) Mercy11 (talk) 20:42, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I never know where to put the pics and I normally either make a mess or put them in a gallery section. The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 20:52, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I just placed the stack code on many articles. The truth is that I'm amazed at the change that several have acquired (for good, of course). In some I couldn't implement it because the box falls in the references or lower than desired, so it'll occur to me at another time to find a way to correct that detail. Regarding the photos, I think that for now everything can stay as it is. After all, I also need a break, LOL! Yarfpr (talk) 21:36, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * ,  I just saw someone make a change to an article that has two portals, and they put the portals within a bar and they placed the bar way down at the bottom of the article.  See this diff for the article and look at the article using the portal bar to see what I mean.  What do you think about that? --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 14:33, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * seems like an plausible alternative., you had said above, "I guess the preference for boxes or lists will depend on how the photos interact with the texts and sections within an article. If you look at the Puerto Rico Highway 500 article, it might be convenient to use the lists because the right part (infobox and photos) extend below the information on the left, unless the photos are relocated and that column is raised a little more." If I understood your concern correctly, it would now seem to me that this new option of a horizontal alignment of the portals (as opposed to the vertical box display we had been considering), and displaying at the end of the article as opposed to within the "See also" section, now makes any concern regarding interaction with photos a moot point. Is that a fair statement? If so, this might be the way to go, no? I am looking at the PR-500 article and seems this horizontal format at the bottom will be unaffected by photos and/or infoboxes. What do you think? Mercy11 (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

& : Wow, that's a great find! I love that format! I would like to place it in some articles to know if that alternative is better than all the previous ones. In fact, that could be a standard for the entire WikiProject, not just on road articles. Even, it's likely that the bar can also use the stack code without any problem. Yarfpr (talk) 00:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I like it. Yep, maybe the portal bar should be used whenever there is more than 1 portal on PR articles. Thanks. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 02:31, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Look at the following codes and their behavior (see Template:Portal bar for more info.):
 * Option 1 (full bar):  is shown as


 * Option 2 (with stack code):  is shown as


 * Option 3 (invisible bar):  is shown as


 * Option 4 (with stack code):  is shown as


 * The borderless bar can be seen in mobile view unlike the basic format. Yarfpr (talk) 22:03, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Answering your question after so many days, the portal bar doesn't necessarily solve the problem in PR-500 article because the portal bar would cause a blank space between the References and External links sections. If the stack code is used in that portal bar, then the Commons category box would've trouble locating correctly inside the External links section because both boxes would be in the same section using the stack code. That causes one box to be to the left of the other instead of below. Although I really like the portal bar, the reality is that it wouldn't always work perfectly in all articles. My recommendation is that everything stays as it is right now. Yarfpr (talk) 20:15, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, I just noticed that this problem only occurs when the portal bar is placed on top of the External links and the Commons box. I started to see the diff shared by The Eloquent Peasant and the portal bar is supposed to be placed under the External links and the Commons box. If this format is followed in the PR-500 article, a slight blank space remains between the External links and the portal bar. I leave to your discretion the preference for the portal box or the portal bar, although I've already said that I'm in favor of the portal box for obvious reasons. Yarfpr (talk) 20:35, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I had so much Coquito over the holidays that my head is still spinning and can't focus on the various formats any more, let alone their advantages and disadvantages... (haha) If it's OK with the other members here, let's go with your preferred format as the standard for this matter of multiple portals in an article; after all, it seems to me that PR road articles make up the majority of PR articles that will be using links to more than one portal, and you have been doing most of the work with PR road article. As such, to me, your preferred method would vastly outweigh any preference I might personally have. In any event, to be exact, I wasn't leaning that heavily towards any one format in particular. So, let's go with yours! Just one favor if you could: Can you update the portal format for one road article of your choice, and then list the article here for my own reference?  You can pick any one PR road article that we could use as a template for other road articles and, more generally, for the other (few) non-road PR articles that we may occasionally come across that would also have two portals listed (like, e.g., Afro-Puerto Ricans, which contains the PR portal plus the Africa portal). Thanks, Mercy11 (talk) 21:17, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I didn't understand you at all with what you're asking. Currently all PR road articles use the portal box instead of the portal bar. What I don't know is if you want me to place a portal bar so you can see how it looks in the article (as in the diff shared by The Eloquent Peasant). If that is the case, the PR-500 article itself can be used as an example to observe the different variants that I brought up earlier. Maybe a glass of coquito can help me understand you better, LOL. Yarfpr (talk) 23:02, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to come up to speed. Sorry if I confused you! The code currently at PR-500 is in line with your (stacked box) preference and no other sample article is needed. That said, do we need to add anything else to the Standard to finalize it? I thought we left it halfway done awaiting discussing some other point(s). Please let me know.  And, if I missed something this 2nd time around, then I need a vacation to recuperate from my vacation! Thanks, Mercy11 (talk) 01:17, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It's okay. I understand that no other details need to be added to the standard. In all this time I made the changes to all road articles. After what has been happening in Puerto Rico, I've taken a break because the situation has been very draining in every sense of the word. Yarfpr (talk) 03:16, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

My heart aches for those affected in PR. But the Puerto Rican people have been around over 500 years and will continued moving forward. I am convinced the islanders will rise stronger than ever. Best of wishes to you and yours. Mercy11 (talk) 21:15, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I've relatives who were affected, but the rest of us are fine. Yarfpr (talk) 22:28, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It is quite draining. I have found myself in a fog since the earthquakes began; imagining all sorts of terrible things and feeling so bad for people who lost their homes and for the economy and future of PR. Puerto Ricans are strong people, however... there is a limit to what people can handle. The desperation is palpable at times in P.R. (and around the world for that matter).  Puerto Ricans always say "Estamos bien" but we're not / they're not.  Anyway.. when I think of all the problems- I get overwhelmed and emotionally sick. I just have to let it go and worry only about my closest loved ones.  The island is not okay. "No estamos bien".  When your whole life has gone into building your home and then an earthquake breaks it and you don't have "insurance" or have to go through thousands of red tape to get help "no estamos bien". Anyway, I know this is not the place to vent but.. this is why I haven't been so active of late. Hopefully I'll snap out of it.    Re: portals... this article which has tons of portals displays them somewhat differently at the very bottom of the page after templates. Míriam Colón  (~in a fog) --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 00:19, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with everything you say. I've also been a little absent after what happened in Puerto Rico. In relation to that article, I find your finding very interesting. Just the portal bar is good when you have many portals to share. In the case of PR road articles, it's very unlikely that they have more than two portals at the same time, and that's why I haven't taken into account the use of the portal bar, but it never hurts to have knowledge of those options. That's why I thank you for sharing those links. Yarfpr (talk) 02:22, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I breaks my heart to hear these things. My relatives didn't experience any catastrophic losses but, still, their emotional loss is palpable. And, you are right, even when they say "We are fine", I've come to realize they aren't, but it's their way of telling themselves that they are resilient and will, somehow, make it thru all of this. My thoughts and prayers are with you both and your families there. And, needless to say, thanks for your contributions here, even while the tremors continue to occur; it says a lot about your love for the Island. cheers, Mercy11 (talk) 02:25, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Ok, so late to this party, but apparently there's a local standard being used that isn't following a general standard. This is related to Puerto Rico Highway 723. First, per MOS:LAYOUT, the see also section should not contain links that are already in use in the article. That means List of highways in Puerto Rico (bottom of the infobox) and Ruta Panorámica (in the junction list) should not be repeated there. There also shouldn't be links there that aren't useful to the reader, so that means List of highways numbered 723 should be dropped. That leaves just the portals, and the general standard is not to use a portal box if there are no other links, switching to the inline template.

That last point is why you should use the inline version of the Commons template if there are not other items in the bulleted list in the external links section. If there are items, put Commons back in its box and list it first before any KML box to give priority to a sister project over links to other non-affiliated websites. 22:28, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Forgot to mention, but the inline templates are supposed to have a bullet before them per the MOS as well.  Imzadi 1979  →   22:29, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It's never too late to report details that were clearly not taken into account. The main reason why the portal box was chosen was because the rest of the articles in the PR WikiProject use it. For this reason, it was chosen for the road articles as the best option. Any option that is considered appropriate for each article seems perfect to me. For my part, there's no problem in applying what all of you decide. I give a vote of confidence to everything presented by Imzadi. Yarfpr (talk) 23:31, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's assume we have a see also section with just the portal box. Let's next assume that the box hasn't been shoved downwards by photos or infoboxes in sections above it. Now you have a section header above a bunch of white space on the left and a box on the right. That extra space isn't ideal, which is why I generally see the portal links moved to the inline variant in the bulleted list. (Putting them in a list makes them accessible as well.)
 * Let's assume the same scenario, but a photo in the last article section has pushed the portal box downward. (It could even be a really short article whose infobox is pushing the portal box out of location.) Now the portal links aren't visually in the see also section at all, so that's even more problematic.
 * Also in both scenarios, the portal box would be omitted in print, so if a reader prints the article, they get a blank see also section! If the inline template is used, the portal links should appear, so at least something is listed in the printed version of the article in that section.
 * That said, if you pop through the various Michigan highway articles, if there are appropriate article links in the see also section, then the article uses the portal box to link to Portal:Michigan Highways. If the article lacks any articles in that section, then it uses the inline template. Compare List of Interstate Highways in Michigan or M-1 (Michigan highway) to Pure Michigan Byway or M-134 (Michigan highway), for example. Many other states are done similarly.  Imzadi 1979  →   01:14, 9 August 2020 (UTC)


 * You are contemplating changes affecting hundreds of articles if your preferred idiosincrasies were to be implemented. Puerto Rico is not Michigan, it's Puerto Rico. You will need to provide a link to where in WP policies it's stated road articles have to follow your preferred Michigan style, and not just provide Michigan links as examples. Remember, we are guided by WP:PG; let's talk PG first so we can agree on a common understanding initially, details on preferences can follow later. Mercy11 (talk) 01:47, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I love those examples, especially the placement of the photos. I see no reason for anyone to object to everything explained above. Everything you say is clear to me and allows the articles to be better organized, but I want other users to express their points of view. Yarfpr (talk) 01:53, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * if there is a see also section in an article, regardless of the topic, it needs to be useful. MOS:LAYOUT already says not to repeat links there that are present in the rest of the article. So on the article in question, which appeared on User:AlexNewArtBot/USRoadsSearchResult, which I follow to tag and assess new articles, there were three links and the portal box there. Two of the three links were repeats, and should not have appeared per the MOS. The third was not useful and also should not appear there. (What reader who gets to Puerto Rico Highway 723 is really going to be interested in finding other articles with that same number?) That leaves the portal box, and if you read my last comments, it's problematic to put a portal box like that alone in the section. If the box the only content in the section, you get a lot of blank space under the header. If a reader prints the article, the see also section will appear blank. If we use the inline template, we eliminate/minimize blank space under the header, and something will still print.
 * So the solution is to switch to inline templates, or erase the whole section. My Michigan examples only illustrate that we can switch back and forth. Two of those examples are Featured Lists, one is a Featured Article and the other is a Good Article, so three of those have been vetted for full MOS compliance, and the other is still a higher-quality article. (U.S. Route 8 is an FA that could replace the M-134 example and give you two FLs and two FAs.)  Imzadi 1979  →   02:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Today is a new day and that's good because it allows us to see things from another point of view. When I gave Imzadi my "vote of confidence" yesterday, I did so because it's always good to see all the options "on the table" and to know the advantages and disadvantages of them. Again I reaffirm my position that I don't care to apply changes or leave the articles as they're, but always attending to what most of you decide. I know that the one who works the articles the most is me, but it's not good to apply changes based on individual preferences of mine or of some other user. I also wanted to clarify that the fact that the Puerto Rico standard is different from the one followed in other projects doesn't mean that it's invalid for Wikipedia as long as it complies with the basic standards. For that reason, I would like to make a breakdown of all the aspects that are under discussion:


 * 1. Location of photos - Photos in many articles appear above the road infobox. Do you agree with that format?
 * 2. See also section - Here are two things to consider:
 * 2.1. Portals - Inline or box?
 * 2.2. Other links - Repetitions should be avoided, but there're links that could still be valid, like List of highways numbered 723, for example. Should this link continue to exist?
 * 3. Commons category on External links section - There's not much to tell here.


 * If I've forgotten something else, you can "jog" my memory.


 * Now I'm going to tell you my preferences on the aforementioned points. I hope yours too.


 * 1. The photos must not be above the infobox road.
 * 2.1. I prefer the box to keep it consistent with the rest of the PR WikiProject. In fact, in the Template:Portal it says that in case there's no link in See also section, it can be placed in External links. If there's no External links section, then the box is placed where the user sees fit.
 * 2.2. I agree with the elimination of List of highways in Puerto Rico, Ruta Panorámica or Carretera Central (Puerto Rico), but not of List of highways numbered 723. Although this list may seem alien to the article, it doesn't mean that it can't be of interest to readers.
 * 3. This point doesn't need an answer and the rules were applied as established in the MOS:LAYOUT.


 * I hope that what is discussed here becomes the final decision. Yarfpr (talk) 19:56, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

and, I agree that photos currently above the infobox in PR-487 and the others are best moved elsewhere. My reason is their position there almost makes it seem as if the photo was part of the infobox and, unlike maps or company logos, which aren't dependent on the viewer's perspective, a photo does not reflect everything about a road and there could be millions of photos about the same one road.

As for the so-called "local standard" being followed in PR-723 that doesn't follow the so-called "general standard" as it regards the portal "box", I don't see a problem leaving it in the boxed format so long as it's applied consistently to all the road articles in the same series, in this case, the "series" being all the road articles in the Puerto Rico roads series. It's currently well done and very neat. Plus there is consistency as a reader moves from article to article in that series. Consistency helps readers find the information faster as they become accustomed to expecting certain layout because in other articles of the same series the same layout is consistently used. Consistency is preferred over a "general standard" which, to begin with, it's neither applied everywhere nor documented anywhere I am aware of. My reasoning is dual in that this was also already extensively discussed (and, discussed recently, as opposed to eons ago) and discussed over a fairly lengthy period of time (3-4 months, see above). At that time, every conceivable scenario was examined at length (top vs. bottom, left vs. right, short article vs. long aticle, bulleted portal list vs. non-bulleted, etc, etc). In fact, scenarios that are popping up now again, such as huge chunks of blank space, were all explored by various editors. In the end, the format and the section were ultimately decided upon to be the standard for all such articles: boxed and under the See also section. We also should note that many PR road articles are stubs, However, as they grow in content (road history, fully-populated infoboxes, route descriptions, tables of major intersections, photos of the road, etc etc,) the additional content will do away with concerns such as having chunks of blank spaces in the article. As articles get filled in with more content, concerns such as portal links that don't visually "fall" into the see also section will also disappear.

As for the view that List of highways numbered 723 should be dropped, I don't agree. MOS:SEEALSO states "whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense." Here, in PR-723, we have what appears to be a precendent: road articles with wikilinks to other seemingly unrelated road articles (highways numbered 723). I beg to differ from the "aren't useful to the reader" categorization in that I choose not to be too presumptuous to believe that such links wouldn't be useful. I think they can be and will be. I can visualize, for example, how such links may be useful to someone performing serious research about roads throughout the world numbered, say, "4". Articles about "List of highways numbered XYZ" are not disambiguation pages, but list articles on their own right. I also note that this is not the first road article series using those types of "List of highways numbered XYZ" links in their "See also" sections; see, for example, K-1 (Kansas highway) and Utah State Route 4 (there are many others). So the timing may be about right to start adding such links to perhaps all road article in all roads series. For these reasons I think the "List of highways numbered 723", and similar links, should be kept.

Lastly, I also agree that the "See also" section should **not** contain links already linked in the article (or even already included in but not yet linked in the article). This is expected per MOS:ALSO.

Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 02:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Spanish naming customs
Hi! On bios, I've seen the blurb re: "Spanish naming customs" sometimes in the article lead and sometimes footnoted / in notes.

It goes something like this "This article uses Spanish naming customs: the first or paternal family name is Torres and the second or maternal family name is Nadal." An example of blurb in lead is here and an example of blurb in a note is here.

According to the MOS it should be in the lead, (I think) but it does seem to clutter the top of the article lead. Where do you prefer the blurb on Spanish name customs to be? --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 01:52, 14 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I like the first one because it warns what will happen in the rest of the article. Yarfpr (talk) 15:27, 14 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I prefer the hatnote (i.e., the first one). My preference is that, with the note embedded in the WP:LEAD section, readers may just read on without refering to the note before continuing to read.
 * However, this whole thing may be a mute point if the MOS you alluded to already sets a standard that we must follow. The, again, why would there be a Spanish naming customs hatnote template if its use would be contrary to MOS standards? (this is a rhetorical question to myself, not necessarily meant to be answered by anyone here!) Eloquent, can you provide a wikilink to the MOS in question?
 * BTW, in the past I have seen editors, not members of this WikiProject, change it from the hatnote into something in the text (not necessarily the lead, but might have been). I haven't bothered to object bc I didn't, then, think it was something to go to battle for, but also bc I hadn't read up on the matter (not to mention that we didn't yet have a standard on it either!).
 * Finally, I think it will probably be beneficial to try get the opinion of on this issue.  I remotely recollect that a few years back he may have been involved in a discussion involving this very matter (might had been regarding Pedro Albizu Campos, but I can't tell for sure). Unfortunately I don't remember what the final decision, if any, was then. He might have knowledge as to which one we are supposed to be using.
 * One last thing yet, have we checked the Standard pages (and/or their Archives) of other Latin-American and Spain WikiProject to see if they have their own standard on this? (PR may have to be a bit different bc, unlike Latin American and Spanish bios, many Puerto Rican bios are about Puerto Ricans in the US diaspora, some of who are known by the father's last name only - something to keep in mind when considering creating a standard). Mercy11 (talk) 20:24, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I couldn't find it in the MOS even though an editor had once mentioned that according to MOS it should be at top of page. I found the template itself here that says it's a hatnote. Do you think that maybe it's a little too "in your face" when it's at the very top of the page? I tend to like it a little more as a footnote: more obscure. Despite my preference I think it may need to be in the top (hatnote). Also Chinese names do something similar and the note is at the top of the page ... See Jet Li --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 20:31, 15 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment and Opinion - I have always preferred the "Spanish naming customs" as a "note" and not in the lead. I believe that as a "note" it would be less distracting to the reader. An article should have the subjects full name in the first paragraph with the "note". The introduction should have the name name which the subject is best known as, however if the subject is known by both his or her paternal and maternal surnames then the "note" would be placed in the intro. Tony the Marine (talk) 21:43, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: The truth is that both options seem good to me. The first one is good because it warns people that in Spanish we use two surnames, but the second one is also valid because if the person already knows that data, or it isn't so relevant to that person, then you don't need to show it from the beginning of the article. I think that with my opinion you can put 4-0 in favor of the second option. Yarfpr (talk) 21:51, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Consensus
This is a tough one: seems there is no consensus. I may be wrong so please check the 4 preferences above and let me know if I am mistaken:
 * (Eloquent) => as a footnote (1)
 * (Yarfpr) => as a hatnote (1) [but see the *** below]
 * Mercy => as a hatnote (Total=2)
 * (Tony) => as a footnote (Total=2)

Depending one how we read this above (because Yarfpr had a change of mind [***] and later said both options seemed good), we seem to have a 2-2 tie, and no one to break it. Options: (a) we could ping other project members to see if anyone else answers and if there is a consensus or (b) we could leave it as it is and let each editor code according to his preference above, or (c) we could read Yarfpr's vote as 1/2 each way, so the final count becomes 1-1/2 votes for the hatnote vs. 2-1/2 votes for the footnote, so the winner is As a Footnote, and use that as a consensus. Any other ideas? Mercy11 (talk) 21:42, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I like both options but I think the hatnote is better (that's what I said for the first time and I hold it). So, this is a tie right now. Yarfpr (talk) 22:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for the clarification! Mercy11 (talk) 22:58, 27 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Suggestion

Present the issue involved in the consensus with the pros and contras of both options (No personal opinions). Then go to the Wikipedia Puerto Rican community and ask them to vote on the issue. Tony the Marine (talk) 23:00, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Related to this discussion - just wanted to mention that it seems after long contentious discussions by the Wikipedia community, it's been decided to eliminate many of the names templates and merge them.. Even the Spanish name template will eventually be merged into the family name template...   I don't think the community cared to discuss *the location of the template* / whether its done as a hatnote at the beginning of the article or as a Group note that shows more like a reference. The bot is just changing the template itself. 1) See here and 2) here for an example of the changes being made to the thousands of articles with the Spanish name template. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 18:58, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Ecclesiastical infoboxes
In reference to | Catholic Dioceses in Puerto Rico, I am not sure why we would change from Country=US to Country= (in, for example Arecibo, ). My view is that since ecclesiastical hierarchies aren't established by political entities (but by ecclesiastical bodies) ecclesiastical articles need to follow the nomenclature established by religious bodies - in this case the Holy See or the US Conference of Catholic Bishops. For example, the Episcopal Conference of Puerto Rico is separate from the Episcopal Conference of the USA, see List of Catholic dioceses (structured view). Furthermore, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops does not include Puerto Rico -- Puerto Rico has its own episcopal conference, separate from the US conference (see United States Conference of Catholic Bishops). I think the Country parameter for dioceses in Puerto Rico should be "Country=Puerto Rico" because, imo, this analogous to the reasoning for ; those follow regional geology and dioceses follow ecclesiastical, not political, directives (i.e., the SCOTUS has no authority here). Can you review your rationale and share your thoughts. Thanks, Mercy11 (talk) 04:11, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

For the barrio-pueblos a little more sourced text
Hi all! Just an idea. I noticed that the 78 barrio-pueblo articles example here.. Corozal barrio-pueblo are almost a start. If you have anything that you can add to a barrio-pueblo article please do so and then update the talk page class from "stub" to "start". --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 11:44, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

.svg files of flags and coat of arms files on commons then added to articles
The push for .svg comes with the danger that anyone can upload an .svg file which does not represent the municipality. Once the .svg is uploaded, it may even 'cause the deletion of a previous (more correct) .jpg file. Currently there are many people creating .svg files of flags and coats of arms. Tony the Marine created many of the flag and coat of arms files that are currently being used on hundreds of Puerto Rico articles but they are not in .svg and I'm concerned are in danger of being replaced by poor representations (as long as they have an .svg extension no one seems to really be watching).

I'm concerned that incorrect representations of municipality flags and coat of arms will continue to be uploaded to Commons. See Yauco, Puerto Rico for an instance of this problem. See Trujillo Alto, Puerto Rico for another example. In the history of the articles you'll see I reverted the addition of images which are not correct. How do you suggest we handle this without one of us suddenly having to become the .svg expert.

A second issue I find with this topic is that finding the "real" images of flags and coat of arms is not that easy. The pr.gov website has them but you can barely see the symbol and there's no way one could create a good .svg based on their tiny representations of the images. boricuaonline.com has images on their website but how do we know they're accurate? I have lots of questions and no answers. Have a good day guys! --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 17:30, 31 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I think it's a bit difficult to know if the images used are correct because you've to take into account several factors:


 * 1) Many municipalities no longer have an official website as before; that could have made many things easier for us.


 * 2) Some municipalities have modified their symbols (some coats of arms now have wall crowns with more towers).


 * 3) The versions used in pr.gov aren't correct; rather they made some simple versions in their design to create harmony on the website. I say this because in the case of my town (Corozal), the coat of arms shouldn't have any red element, so the version presented on boricuaonline.com is correct, with the exception that the municipal flag it also has a variant without the coat of arms.


 * 4) That last point is also important: just as some coats of arms have changed over the years, there're municipalities that have more than one flag, so deciding which one is correct can be confusing. As I said before, my town has two flags: one with the coat of arms in the middle, and the other without it. The one that I've always seen waving on the antlers is the one without the coat of arms, so that variant should be considered as the official one.


 * 5) I've seen municipalities using incorrect versions on their web pages or social networks because they sometimes use the same images that appear on the internet when they publish things. Here again I can give an example of my town. The current municipal administration uses a modified version of the coat of arms, which is the same that appears in areciboweb.50megs.com, while the version shown in boricuaonline.com is the one used by the mayors when I was a child.


 * I think we will need a lot of help and, at the moment, I can think of nothing more than to share my opinion. Yarfpr (talk) 21:39, 31 August 2020 (UTC)


 * There's no solution. If some editor wants to practice their .svg skills on PR files, and replace "correct" images with incorrect .svg versions, it's just what they will do.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 15:26, 2 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Don't get me wrong. Of course, having an .svg is preferable but having an incorrect .svg is not preferable:

Thanks Yarfpr: (my #'s here don't correspond to your numbers but #ing is nice)
 * 1) over the years many editors have tried their hand at making an .svg of a P.R. symbol.  Sometimes the rendition is wrong as happened here in Río Grande, Puerto Rico.
 * 2) Regarding the municipalities not having home pages: even if you follow their page on FB they usually don't have images of their flag / coat of arms.
 * 3) You're right that the symbols on pr.gov aren't very useful as they are so tiny but the existing image versions have been on the wikipedia articles for a long time and we can see also the images on other sites such as boricuaonline and proyectosalonhogar . It's a good thing that the images on those 2 sites can be trusted because they haven't been tampered with by someone practicing their making .svg files skills.
 * 4) It just has to be handled like any other change on an article: reviewed for correctness and discussed on talk pages when there are issues. My belief is that the editors making .svg files normally want to make a correct rendition. For the reviewer: It's just that it's a little more troublesome and time-consuming to review these changes, as it involves wikipedia commons and multi language wikis and wikidata: tthis is because a creator of an .svg file will normally replace existing .gif, .jpg, .png file with their file. That's why the Río Grande flag (with a branch missing leaves) remained on the article for months.
 * 5) Also I wonder how easy it would be, (as  and I have discussed) to just learn how to make .svg files so that even if a poor rendition of the flag was created and uploaded to replace good images...  we could take their .svg file and just fix it ourselves. For example: In the Coat of arms of Trujillo Alto.svg file it's just a matter of changing the pyramids to mountains. How hard can that be? The editor who created that flag has since left wikipedia, it seems.
 * 6) Just when I thought I would start spending less time on Wikipedia... --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 17:18, 2 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I noticed some of the symbols on the muni articles are "non-free" (only found on the wiki article) and meaning they're not allowed on commons at all because of copyright laws. I wonder if the PR symbols are copyrighted and if they should be removed from commons for copyright violations. It doesn't make sense that some are "non-free" and some are on commons. They would either all be "non-free" or all be on commons. For example: The Adjuntas flag is non-free. The pr.gov displays a very blurry version of the symbols, and so does the lexjuris site. Are they doing this purposely because the images are copyrighted? --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 01:56, 17 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't think that's the reason, but if it were, it doesn't make any sense to me either because the coats of arms and flags shouldn't be protected by copyright if they're replicas of municipal symbols, which are public after all. At least I think so. When I helped create highway shields, it never crossed my mind to include copyrights as they're traffic signs based on government and therefore public specifications. The same should happen with municipal symbols. If anyone can have a better answer than mine, welcome. Yarfpr (talk) 02:47, 17 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Just wanted to follow-up on this, albeit late. As seen on LexJuris, most of the 78 coats of arms were designed in the 70s, so they would need to be drawn based on their 'blazon' which is available in the Instituto de Cultura de Puerto Rico. The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 12:20, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Copyright Violation of symbols
I would like to create a "mass deletion request" of flag and coat of arms of municipios de Puerto Rico found on Wikipedia Commons.

The Puerto Rico gov't website - directory of municipios, has the municipio's flag and coat of arms graphics on a page bearing "pr.gov © 2020, Todos los derechos reservados" at the bottom of each municipio page. The flag / COA images are small.

Also each of the 78 municipality description pages on the lexjuris site, which hosts the laws of Puerto Rico, hosts a very blurry, low resolution of the flag and coat of arms ( at the top of the pages).

Why do those two important websites have tiny, or blurry images of the symbols? Is it so a person trying to make the flag can "guess" what it looks like?

I believe it has been done that way on both websites to protect the copyrighted materials! If they weren't trying to protect the symbols, they would display clear, high resolution images so that anyone could use the image. That is not the case: the pr.gov website and the lexjuris are protecting the copyright (modeling the behavior) we should be following here on en-Wikipedia.

On pr.gov, the copyright info is on the last page of this .pdf document and states: "Este Portal contiene información protegida por los derechos de propiedad intelectual y derechos morales de autor. El ELA, sus agencias y corporaciones públicas tienen derechos propietarios sobre todo el conteni do que aparece en este Portal. El ELA, las agencias y/o las corporaciones se reservan todos los derechos que existen o puedan existir sobre este contenido. La publicación de información en este portal no constituye una cesión de los derechos o una licencia para utilizar la información sin obtener el consentimiento previo del ELA."

Please find discussion related to this.

From such blurry examples on official government sites, how are we able to make good .svg or .png files? It becomes untenable to ensure that wrong symbols are not added to articles when 1) most editors don't care to get it perfectly correct, 2) there is no clear image to go by.

Which one is right? How do we know? Do we want people uploading incorrect symbols, as they've been doing?
 * Flag of Rio Grande, Puerto Rico.svg Exhibit A
 * Flag of Rio Grande (PR).svg Exhibit B

Are we then to plead and chase after uploaders to correct the flag and coat of arms? This situation is the most ridiculous thing I've run into in my time here and as my friend from Jersey used to say To his mother, “what WTF ma?!“

A small, non-free image should be created or left on each municipio of Puerto Rico's main article.

What are your thoughts on this? --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 01:10, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The flag of the United States isn't copyrighted. It doesn't become copyrighted by virtue of being displayed on thousands, if not millions, of web pages that assert copyright. That assertion covers material original on the website or web page. It doesn't alter the status of content that site or page has reproduced from elsewhere. One cannot deduce the copyright status of external content on a web page from the page's or site's own copyright assertion. Largoplazo (talk) 03:00, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Further, why, out of all the jurisdictions in the world whose symbols are routinely presented here and elsewhere, would Puerto Rico municipalities be an exception? If they do assert copyright, that's one thing, but I don't see the merits of noting that the icons used on a web page or two are small and extrapolating that it's because of copyright.
 * I opened the PDF referenced above to check whether it says anything specifically about "banderas" or "siglos" but it doesn't. Largoplazo (talk) 03:00, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, I understand. So we should try to manage vandalism and good faith edits. See Exhibit A and Exhibit B and understand that we need to ensure that "incorrect" renditions of symbols not be added to thousands of articles across all wiki languages. Not all .svg creators are made the same. We might get an editor who "works" with you and updates the flag, in a team effort, accepting feedback for changes to the symbol or we might get an editor who's flippant and refuses or simply can't "correct" their wrong rendition of the symbol. And also, who has time to suddenly drop what their doing and try to work with an editor who suddenly wants to update dozens of Puerto Rico symbols? Thank you.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 11:51, 20 September 2020 (UTC) Updated: 11:56, 20 September 2020 (UTC) and Updated: 12:02, 20 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I'll create a subpage for a Flags / Coat of Arms proyect linking to all its files on en-Wikipedia (when the image has been marked non-free fair use) and on Commons. Then when we have time we can post comments under each file. I think it's a worthwhile project. Thanks --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 12:09, 20 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Also, we should add the flag / coat of arms files to our watchlist. If an .svg file is created, the corresponding non-svg file may be marked for deletion. Then it may be deleted before we have a chance to realize it, if we are not "watching" the files. This happened this week on one of the flag files, I think.


 * Perhaps we should add something about this to the "Standards" - " blah, blah, blah...that image files representing flags or coat of arms of Puerto Rico and places in Puerto Rico can not be added to articles until two, three or a # of editors have agreed that the image passes a certain threshold of "correctness". The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 12:18, 20 September 2020 (UTC) Update: --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 23:02, 20 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I would be willing to work on this with you all as i have made plenty of vectorized images for Puerto Rico and not to mention some of it is my cause and responsiblity. I agree with Largoplazo on the copyright of the images as well as that wouldn't add up and the copyright information is usually vauge when it comes to those images. We can either deep dig on our own, contact the municpalities themselves (tedious but helpful none the less) or resize the images to fair-use. I'd prefer that we deep dig on our own before we start contacting administrations as this isn't they're number one priority. In the end if we get no where, which i doubt then we may do a mass deletion with the correct rationale, but of course that is the last thing we would want to do. --Cookieman1.1.1 (talk) 12:48, 21 September 2020 (UTC)


 * In the end, doing a mass deletion would be the right thing to do if the municipalities have been trying to protect the copyright status. Like, a Largoplazo said, I can't 100% extrapolate that they are making their images small and blurry because they're copyright, butI can definiately suspect that is the reason for doing so.


 * I like the non-free use, as is seen on this en-Wikipedia article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Seal_of_the_City_of_Sugar_Land.png - ... I recently received a mysterious call from Sugar Land, Texas .. I then checked their page and I like the way the seal image is handled on this page - See how the description explains the reasonining "Because it is a non-free logo, there is almost certainly no free representation. Any substitute that is not a derivative work would fail to convey the meaning intended, would tarnish or misrepresent its image, or would fail its purpose of identification or commentary."...


 * In light of the fact that we probably don't have the stomach for a mass deletion (at this stage), and since we've decided to "work" together, I'll create a subpage for the PR Symbols Comments Project with links to flags and coat of arms of each municipality so everyone can give their thumbs up or down on the image files.The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 15:58, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * And also, welcome ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Eloquent Peasant (talk • contribs)


 * Comment: The Coat of Arms of PR municipalities were inherited from Spanish colonial times. With rare exceptions (such as US cities in the states of Florida, Texas and California, which had a strong Spanish influence (for example, Laredo, Texas and St. Augustine, Florida)) US cities and towns do not have a coat of arms but a seal. See English Wikipedia articles for Los Angeles; Camden, New Jersey; Portland, Maine; and Atlanta, as examples, then compare to Yauco, Puerto Rico; Madrid; Barcelona; and Puebla, Mexico. That said, the Coat of Arms of PR municipalities are in the public domain as these were first published during the founding of each town, during the 17th thru 19th centuries. Because Puerto Rico coats of arms, including Yauco's, were published before January 1, 1925, they are in the public domain in Puerto Rico and the United States. Mercy11 (talk) 02:23, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Feel free
And I've asked a governor of Puerto Rico via email about the copyright status of municipio symbols. The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 17:00, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Someone from the governor's office responded with

"En general, le puedo orientar sobre el uso de imágenes en Internet. Lo ideal es buscar en banco e imágenes de uso libre como Pixabay. También, al hacer una búsqueda de imágenes en Google, va a la sección de Images, luego seleccione Herramientas (Tools) y finalmente vaya a la sección de derechos de uso. Una alternativa es seleccionar las de libre uso o creative commons.

Son imágenes ya con uso libre permitido.Recomendamos que si utiliza una imagen de alguna plataforma de gobierno, incluya la referencia y enlace de donde fue obtenida la misma.

Le incluyo la Ley pars usos oficiales de Escudo, bandera y sellos en Puero Rico. http://www.lexjuris.com/LEXLEX/Leyes2006/lexl2006070.htm " ... --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 17:34, 21 September 2020 (UTC) The email from Biblioteca Centro para Puerto Rico

Fundación Sila M. Calderón

787-765-4500

biblioteca@centroparapuertorico.org

1012 calle González Urb. Santa Rita, San Juan, PR 00925

Which basically states go ahead and search around the internet for files, work them up and create your versions of the Puerto Rico symbols just ensure you link to where you got the file / idea from for your version of it.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 20:58, 21 September 2020 (UTC) Updated: --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 20:58, 21 September 2020 (UTC)


 * That's great! Thanks for sharing that answer. Yarfpr (talk) 02:48, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Kudos to !!!  Mercy11 (talk) 02:31, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, her answer is pretty awesome.-The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 02:33, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

The term "barrio"
This is the definition by the US Census which Puerto Rico is a part of every 10 years:

"Barrio

Along with Barrio-Pueblo, the primary legal subdivision of municipios in Puerto Rico. Similar to the minor civil divisions (MCDs) used for reporting census data in 29 states of the United States."

(Copied conversation from my talk page to this section for reference and discussion)

They are barrios. The way Egypt has "governorates" and the Governorates of Egypt article lead states "governorates" not "wards". Each country has their own way of referring to their subdivisions.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 15:18, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * PBS. ref:
 * Census and other historic refs:
 * US Census definition: a barrio is similar to a minor civil division
 * Nowhere in the US Census document is the word "ward" mentioned and it is a document written in English - because they are barrios.


 * Puerto Rico:2010:population and housing unit counts.pdf
 * url=https://permanent.access.gpo.gov/gpo35934/cph-2-53.pdf
 * US Census Glossary can be found here:

--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 16:38, 2 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for that detail and sources. My doubt is if the word "barrio" should be place before or after the name of a barrio. For example: "Barrio Hato Viejo" or "Hato Viejo barrio". I think it depends on the context. Maybe isn't an issue that needs a word order nor would it need a standard to stablish on articles, but rather the appropriate uppercase or lowercase of the word "barrio" as in the examples that I mentioned before. Yarfpr (talk) 14:51, 5 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I see on 2010 Census documents it's "barrio" (lowercase) and "barrio" is placed after the name, i.e. Gato barrio. In the 1899 Census only a few of the Ponce barrios had "Barrio" as part of their official name. see here where there is Barrio primero, Barrio segundo... Barrio quinto.
 * From what I have seen in Puerto Rico, (Spanish) normally the word "barrio" is not spelled out (on signs and on websites), but abbreviated: i.e. "Bo. Gato". I think the way we have the WP articles now is good, I guess if you have an example that we should look at. i.e. in an image caption etc. then we could look at those. Take care. The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 01:29, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Symbols Project subpage
I don't want to create a big giant table. I think a list is nice... we can add comments under or next to each file. See here for the Symbols Project Page as I'm not sure how it'll take form or how you'all want it. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 17:18, 21 September 2020 (UTC)


 * How will that work exactly? Should i also put my SVG's i made as well? --Cookieman1.1.1 (talk) 17:48, 21 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Go ahead and update the table as best works for you. There is a column for what's on the municipio article now and for other versions (which can be separated by commas). Then comments can also be seprated by commas. It'll take shape. Thank you much. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 19:12, 21 September 2020 (UTC)


 * The Project page might help you get organized. You've done good work but also seem to be a person with a lot of pride who has stopped taking feedback on the symbols. (see the multiple posts I've placed, and minor fixes required that you haven't had a chance to do). Hopefully, it's not just a lot of lip service. Hopefully, we haven't rubbed each other the wrong way.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 12:50, 22 September 2020 (UTC)


 * what do you say you also join in on the fun since you've also decided to make Puerto Rico symbols your quest. Check out the symbols project page for comments. I reverted your Cataño seal as your .svg version is quite inferior to the .png that was on the Cataño article. I won't link to all the sources you can review for the Cataño seal, but what you created is really not quite right.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 14:24, 22 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Alright, it it is true that i take my work with an amount of pride :D, Apologizes if that was a a pain for you. I have continued making SVG's for Puerto Rico but i am not using them on wikipedia yet nor uploading sources for it as that is where i struggle with the inconstancy and me not being a Puerto Rican but a Michigander. I leave it as such so the it is easier when we decide as a whole what is correct and what is its best source if it needs correcting for copyright reasons. --Cookieman1.1.1 (talk) 19:08, 23 September 2020 (UTC)


 * What if I told you I wasn't a Puerto Rican either? Well- that'd be nuts right? I worked at a Catholic organization once that served everyone and their mission statement said "blah, blah, blah, blah, blah regardless of your faith".  We don't care that you're not Puerto Rican. Thank you for your interest in PR and we can work together. Why not? I've met a lot of people form Michigan- they seem to like Florida a lot. The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 19:26, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Maybe the use of 'U.S.' in PR articles isn't so bad.
This recently came to my attention, as I first started editing on Wikipedia. Articles about other US Territories (like Guam and the USVI) indicate that their country or sovereign state is the 'U.S,' while also listing their respective territories. The same is true for French and Dutch territories. However, PR seems to be an exception. Most Puerto Rico articles seem to be vague on PR's relationship with the U.S. In my opinion, this can be misleading as it can give people the impression that PR is an independent country, if the 'US' isn't indicate anywhere (Remember half of Americans didn't know that Puerto Ricans were US citizens). Also, nobody can really say that PR is or isn't part of the U.S. as 'part' is NOT a political term. Under U.S. law, the 'United States,' when used in a geographical sense, refers to all areas under it's sovereignty (the 50 States, D.C. territories and possessions). This shows me that using the US as the sovereign state/country in PR articles is absolutely fine, as long at it's not related to the Olympics, Miss Universe, or other articles which PR should be talked about alone. Addresses come under 'geographical terms,' which means that it is fine to use the format 'Puerto Rico, United States' if anyone wishes. I tried to find a SCOTUS statement that said that PR and U.S. territories 'belong to, but are not part of the United States.' The closest thing I could find was that they 'belong to the United States, but is not part of the United States within the revenue clauses of the Constitution.' 'Revenue clauses' refers to trade and commerce. It seems like many people only read the first bit because it does NOT simply say that PR 'belongs to, but is not part of the United States' on it's own. The SCOTUS even said that the term 'United States' can also include the territories. Particularly in international law, and in an international and diplomatic sense, PR and the territories are part of the US. When federal politicians say that they want to do/enact '_____ in the United States,' 99% of the time they also mean the territories, including PR. It's also worth noting that the majority of US laws and regulations apply in PR and, in my opinion, it would be silly, and absurd to simply state that PR 'is not in/part of the U.S.' In the CIA World Factbook, French territories (which are considered 'integral parts of France' ), Dutch territories, and other territories/regions have fact pages. This does not mean however that they are simply 'part of/not part of (sovereign state).' I know that British Overseas Territories are very autonomous entities and have their own laws and regulations, and UK law explicitly states that they are not 'part of' the United Kingdom. U.S. territories have about the same amount of autonomy as U.S. States (except in some tax codes). There are federal agencies within the territories, just like there are in States. I do, however, also acknowledge that PR and other territories can be considered 'nations' for cultural purposes. If we continue to say that 'Puerto Rico is not in/a part of the US' then we create lots of confusion when we really don't need to (as I said whether PR is 'part of' the U.S. or not is unresolved and not explicitly stated, and we should just go by the logical definition). In general terms, I think that it is acceptable to say that the U.S. territories are part of the U.S. as they is follows most of its laws, and fit the generally accepted definition of the word 'part.' Hurricane Maria should be a lesson to all of us, and we should not be ignorant and simply say that it's not in the US, it just causes confusion (and ultimately leads to ignorance). I would like to hear others' opinions on the matter as it is indeed a very confusing topic. Thanks:-) Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 17:31, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

To add to that, U.S. citizens in PR and the other territories can't vote for the POTUS, and have no proper voting representation. This, I believe, should be changed to respect the democratic values that the U.S. was founded on. Puerto Ricans should also decide what the want for their homeland, be that statehood, the free association, or independence. Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 17:34, 26 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Pali Highway, Honolulu, HI, United States or Pali Hwy., Kaneohe, Oahu, Hawaii, USA
 * See how nice that looks there? Well, this wouldn't work for P.R. or the US entities that are not US states.
 * Creating this i.e. "Residencial Las Casas, Santurce, San Juan, Puerto Rico, United States" - either by text within the article itself or creating this situation in the infobox would continue to perpetuate the ignorance that the US has more than 50 states.
 * "in" - is a preposition that is not easily understood in some languages.
 * These US entities are not in the US.
 * Databases have limitations but most databases don't claim to be an encyclopedia.
 * You and I are communicating on an encyclopedia which strives to present correct information.
 * You mention PR being the exception here on Wikipedia. Just 'cause the others have an infobox a certain way doesn't make it correct.
 * What exactly would you like to see? I'd like you to see that the Encyclopedia Britannica correctly describes PR as a commonwealth that is ASSOCIATED WITH THE US not IN the US. here:
 * So, since nothing in PR is in the US, adding US to each infobox would "obfuscate" the reader with the relationship between PR and the US. See WP:PRUS.
 * I'm guessing that what you would like to see is this (on places of PR infoboxes)


 * Country: United States


 * Commonwealth: Puerto Rico


 * Municipality:       Guaynabo


 * (And to the person who is watching this conversation and sent me a message that I am obnoxious. ... I'm not obnoxious.) --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 17:21, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Would you like to see the United States added not only to the barrio articles but to anything that mentions Puerto Rico?


 * such as
 * 2.1.1	Barrios, subbarrios and communities in Puerto Rico
 * 2.1.2	Biographies on people born in Puerto Rico - "Place of Birth" parameter
 * 2.1.3	Cays and Islets of Puerto Rico
 * 2.1.4	Companies based in Puerto Rico
 * 2.1.5	Geologic formations of Puerto Rico
 * 2.1.6	Hospitals in Puerto Rico
 * 2.1.7	Libraries in Puerto Rico
 * 2.1.8	Military installations of the United States in Puerto Rico
 * 2.1.9	Municipalities of Puerto Rico
 * 2.1.10	Museums in Puerto Rico
 * 2.1.11	Organizations in Puerto Rico
 * 2.1.12	Parks and Plazas (squares) in Puerto Rico
 * 2.1.13	Rivers in Puerto Rico
 * 2.1.14	Universities in Puerto Rico


 * 1) How would you like to add the US to PR articles?
 * 2) In every lead of every article about something or someone associated with Puerto Rico or just in the barrio and municipality articles?
 * 3) In every infobox of every article about something or someone associated with PR?
 * While Puerto Ricans are US citizens, people born in PR are not born in the US.  Also your large text / commentary about Britain and their colonies doesn't apply here.


 * 1) Finally, PR is not in the US and neither are the other US territories. We had a stuation where the Arecibo Observatory was listed as location equal to Arecibo, Puerto Rico, United States due to a Wikidata property, which of course, is incorrect. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 18:17, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

So just to clarify in the info box said That the Arecibo observatory location was equal to Arecibo, US And that was and would be incorrect. So that is my major concern. We need to be clear that things in Puerto Rico should not say location=US because that would be incorrect. The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 20:17, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

"Maybe the use of 'U.S.' in PR articles isn't so bad" - says who?
Here is some background info []  --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 23:45, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

[https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Project_chat&diff=prev&oldid=1117328770#Which_country_is_Puerto_Rico_in? mainly read here - it's a Wikidata project with limitations and poorly defined properties that, according to Jura1, I should now handle through another Wikidata property "disputed claim" when in fact it's a poorly defined P131 property, per discussion 9 months ago ]''' Q11703 Q16645 Property:P131 Arecibo Observatory#Where_is_the_Observatory_located? diff=1281113354 User_talk:Jura1=1281115973#Located_in_the_administrative_territorial_entity --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 10:27, 28 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Also in response to "|"and/or, some US politicians think it's not in the US."" - it wasn't just "some US politician" who writes the Arecibo Observatory is in Arecibo, Puerto Rico. It was Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 16:03, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the U.S. has more than 50 states. Whatever you think about the territories, the District of Columbia is most certainly in the U.S. Regarding U.S. territories, it is useless to debate over whether the US Territories are legally 'in the U.S.,' as we just do not have a proper answer. The fact that some websites simply state that PR is 'associated with the U.S.' doesn't mean you actually have to call it that; after all, all the people that make those websites are HUMAN BEINGS. As I said, the terms 'in' and 'part' are not strictly speaking political terms, and it's up to us to interpret these things in the LOGICAL way. If I was in PR, it would be odd to say that I wasn't in the U.S., even if I am literally within the jurisdiction of all the feds, and can be prosecuted under U.S. law in U.S. federal courts. Also, the US govt says that I can say that Puerto Rico is in the US in a 'geographical sense.' This includes, yes, addresses, infoboxes, etc. I have seen a few websites (even U.S. govt websites) that say 'PR, US/USA.' If this was incorrect, they would never write it like that. Even during the coronavirus pandemic, the figures for PR ARE included for figures of the U.S. 90-99% of the time U.S. federal legislation treats PR as a state, even if it's not (even if in federal funding programs, PR and the territories receive less funding than the 50 states). We should understand that we need to look at the bigger picture, rather than a few statements, that we could debate for years and never get an answer. In conclusion, it should be acceptable to add the US to PR infoboxes in the same way we do to other US Territories and States. Yes, we don't have to always mention U.S. in every single Puerto Rico article, but it should at least be in the geographical ones somewhere in the article. Regards. Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 16:12, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 16:14, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 16:14, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 16:16, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

United States (38) The term “United States”, except as otherwise specifically herein provided, when used in a geographical sense, means the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands of the United States, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Source 8 USC § 1101(a)(38)

Scoping language As used in this chapter United States (38) The term “United States”, except as otherwise specifically herein provided, when used in a geographical sense, means the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands of the United States, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Source 8 USC § 1101(a)(38) Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 16:27, 28 September 2020 (UTC)


 * To the Project team. Should US be added to the infobox of Municipalities and barrios as requested by Anonymous as long as it's clear that the Wikidata Property 131 stating that PR is in the US not be added? --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 16:29, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that, more recently, American Samoa was added to the definition of the 'United States' in a geographical sense. Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 16:32, 28 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I think you don't think the language used is that important, ie. of, vs in.  I'm saying it makes a huge difference. You don't want to have people believe something that is not true when they come to the English encyclopedia, right?  Do you know how many people have said to me "Oh, PR is not in the US?" .. no, it's not. If it were... we wouldn't be having this conversation. It'd be clearcut and simple but it's not simple.  PR is "of" the US and when I say PR I mean all the territories.  --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 16:43, 28 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, I still wouldn't simply state that PR is 'not in the US,' but this is certainly a very debatable, and confusing topic. I just hope that you will at least consider my point as I believe that there is logical reason to include the US on relevant PR articles. Thanks and best regards:-) Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 16:53, 28 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Invitation for to reply to discussion. Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 18:06, 8 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Correction: Invitation for to contribute to discussion. Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 18:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)