Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Puerto Rico/Archives/2016/January

Revamping the WP's image; proposal for logos and task forces
Hello, I have been working with a graphic artist in a "real life" project and figured that creating a customized logo for WP:PUR would help refresh its image and attract new users. However, before doing that, I have been thinking for a while that we need to create a few subdivisions, some articles within our scope require a different set of guidelines than the general ones. As usual, the main concern would be politics, but I am also interested in creating a "NuyoRican task force", which could deal with articles about the diaspora in general. Any support for these and suggestions for additional ones are welcomed, I think that we can even get a logo for every taskforce as well, besides the ones for the main project and the portal. -  Ca ri bb e a  n ~ H. Q.  15:32, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Great idea as always. Tony the Marine (talk) 01:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your proposal. Could you please elaborate? It seems you want to create a set of guidelines for each category? And that these guidelines will be enforced by a corresponding task force? &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 06:51, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Not enforce; the political articles are unstable and there are going to be some exceptions. No... What I seek is uniformity and a general idea of how these articles should be structured that goes into more detail than the general MoS. Those that know me are aware that I do not edit anything related to modern political parties, they are too volatile for my taste. But, that does not mean that I haven't noticed that we are ignoring ways to minimize damage to the main prose. For example, if we include a section that discusses "other views/reception" those are more likely to attract the edits of people from opposing factions instead of the sections dealing with history, etc. while also "balancing" the article's POV in a way that allows us to argue that it is "neutral" in a GAN/FAC. The articles dealing with diaspora Boricuas present a different kind of challenge, including the removal of mentions of nationality, lineage or involvement with PR by random people, the removal of relevant categories, etc. -  Ca ri bb e a  n ~ H. Q.  07:36, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I think your proposal is based on a subjective notion. I don't know which articles you consider "unstable" nor what methodology did you use to conclude that. For example, looking at one of the most contentious ones, "Political status of Puerto Rico", the article has been edited only nine times in the last nine months. That's an average of one edit per month, which is quite stable. I'd say that it would be best if we work on a draft first because right now I just can't grasp what this would entail. &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 11:13, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

(←) No, I was actually thinking about the surge in visits that occurred in the pages of the active candidates during the last campaign (2012 examples: Luis Fortuño: Pre-Campaign vs Peak of Campaign; Alejandro García Padilla: Pre-Campaign vs. Peak of Campaign) and the increase in overall activity and redrafts in them. There is also the current, and ongoing, surge of pre-campaign interest in some candidates (i.e. David Bernier) that may lead to similar peaks. Political status of Puerto Rico is one hell of a busy page, but oddly it has not been a consistent target for thorough rewrites AFAIK, my guess being that first and foremost, the language is mostly-legal and out of reach for "Juan del Pueblo" and that despite being central in the proselytism of the parties the status issue lags behind the figures that represent the opposition (attacking the other candidate is a priority). I also assume that regardless of our respective political ideologies, virtually all of WP:PUR understands that we are still a territory and do not contest it, leading to an uniform presentation in the political status page, which dissolves when dealing with particular parties or individuals.

However, I would not be surprised at all if we also see that page gathering a lot of interest if SCOTUS rules in favor of the García Padilla administration in ELA vs. Sánchez Valle. We had a lot of silly edit wars in the past, such as the one involving the color of the flag that should be used, so es mejor prevenir by keeping an eye there. Anyways, I am digressing a bit here... My only proposal was simply to balance the articles in order to increase the chances that we can work them towards promotion (eventually), a "reaction/alternate views" section could do just that in the same line that Public image of George W. Bush, Public image of Barack Obama, etc. depict all sides of the debate regardless of how silly some criticism may be. Besides that, I hoping to hear any ideas that anyone else may have, this is not an imposition but rather an open invitation. -  Ca ri bb e a  n ~ H. Q.  02:50, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Ah OK I see what you mean now. But for me all of that is just part of the process. It seems to me that what you are advocating is already covered by WP:NPOV. I'm personally watching all the candidates articles and have even rewrote several of them. As always, I welcome your edits just like somebody did on Bernier's article. Regarding SCOTUS, I recently created Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle. Can the WP:PUR lawyers help with that one? We need to expand the background a little bit. &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 16:19, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * To a point, yes. NPOV states that we should "Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views." However, it does not propose exactly how to handle and integrate these "opposing views" further than to avoid giving undue weight to fringe criticism. My proposal is to take the examples quoted above and create some uniformity across our articles, organizing the criticism in such sections instead of spread throughout an article and introducing such a section in articles that are missing it. It's organized, balanced and it may attract the attention of drive-by editors more than the main prose. Of course, a task force is not necessary for that, but I am expecting it to canalize the discussion and attract more non-Puerto Rican users by serving as a link between WP:PUR and WP:PLT. A task force about the diaspora could also integrate WikiProject Demographics. -   Ca ri bb e a  n ~ H. Q.  23:30, 19 January 2016 (UTC)