Talk:Ponce, Puerto Rico

List of notable ponceños

I think the list should be eliminated. It is bound to turn endless and is completely subjective to what one thinks is "notable". A category for "Ponceños" could serve the same purpose. I think the same applies to similar lists in all municipalities articles. I also think the anthem doesn't belong here, just like there's not a single article I could find on any city, town, or country that includes or even mentions the anthem, other than in the infobox. Thief12 (talk) 14:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your rationale about becoming endless, but disagree that the list should be eliminated altogether. I have reintroduced a new list, but listing only those individuals that filled this strict criteria (which I think is a fair compromise):

(1) Must have been born in Ponce - i.e., just raised in the city, or lived most of his/her life in the city, or current-resident-but-not-born-there, etc., don't qualify as Ponceños,

(2) Must have either national (e.g., USA-level) or international recognition/stature/impact - i.e., personalities with mostly local (Island-wide or City-wide) recognition don't qualify as notable,

(3) There must already be an existing Wikipedia article on the person, and

(4) There must already be another, separate, Wikipedia article on the subject matter (e.g., Miss Universe, Medal of Freedom, National Baseball Hall of Fame, etc) that makes the person notable.

If you have a better idea, let me know preferably at my talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rob99324 (talk • contribs) 05:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Reference cleanup

I have removed a disturbing number of commercial and other non-notable external links clearly not meeting WP:RS as references, and I'm sure there are plenty more in this and other related articles that won't withstand scrutiny. Flowanda | Talk 05:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ponce, Puerto Rico/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dave (talk) 03:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I applaud the efforts to build such a comprehensive article. It is clear that the editors who wrote this are "orgulloso Ponceños por la gracía de Díos". However, In it's current state, I cannot promote this article. It is a reasonable good article, however it is very long, repeats itself, and dives into a lot of tangents that don't really help me learn about Ponce. One of the requirements is that the article is focused. This is fixable, but will require a dedicated editor to go through the article top to bottom and prune it. I will place the article on hold, in case someone wants to do this. I will be honest, there's a lot to fix and I think it might be best for all to agree to close this nomination, go slow, fix everything up, and re-nominate a couple of months down the road. I do honestly congratulate everybody for a lot of hard work. The article is almost there, just needs some polish and pruning. Dave (talk) 06:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Good article criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   The History section is fairly well written; however, the Geography and Cityscape sections are wordy and need to be pruned.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   The sections about the U.S. Invasion, Culture and major fires contain several direct quotes without any indication of who made them or the source. The article has several unsourced sections with peacock words. I have given some specifics below. I have also listed sections with no, or inadequate sources. The Police section has already been tagged with "citation needed" this should have been fixed before this article was nominated. The content that is sourced appears to be to reliable sources. There are a few exceptions, but not enough to cause concern.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Focused prose is the most serious issue facing this article. This is a big article that tends to drift on tangents, then focus in minute detail while discussing those tangents.I honestly believe this article could be cut in size by 40% with no loss in quality. I have detailed some examples and suggestions below.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   The section "Ponce massacre" was written by somebody who clearly was passionate about the subject. Other sections were written with a lot of passion and city pride. With that said, only minor changes need to be made to remove the passion, so assuming these minor problems are fixed, I don't see a major issue. For example, if a congressmen used all those words to describe the victims, why is every word sourced to a different source? Why not just source to the congressman's speech?

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Aside from improvement, the article appears stable.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Most of the images are fine. However some need to be fixed immediately as there are copyright violations. I have listed these below.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I'll place the article on-hold for 7 days to give the authors a chance to comment or address the issues raised.

Copyright violations and similar image issues

• File:LeonPonce.gif should be removed immediately. The 2nd point of the Fair Use rational for Ponce is false; this image is not necessary to identify the subject of the article. The subject of the article is the city, not the basketball team. Furthermore, the article Leones de Ponce does not support the fair use claim of this being an official logo. That article has a different image that is claimed to be the official logo. As such this appears to be a regular copyrighted image used without permission.
• File:Castillo serrales2.jpg should be removed immediately. It is claimed that his image is available under the Creative Commons license. Checking the source, the author a. does not license the image under Creative Commons b. gives terms of use that are NOT COMPATIBLE with the Creative Commons license. (For example the Creative Commons allows for commercial use, this is expressly forbidden by the Author) Either permission should be obtained from the author, or an administrator on Commons should be notified to delete the image, as this image should not be on Commons until this is resolved.
• File:Mameyes.jpg is improperly attributed. The author is claimed to be 2 wikipedia users. The author is R.W. Jibson of U.S. Geological Survey. The source should be updated to the new URL: http://landslides.usgs.gov/learning/imagepreviews.php

*****RESPONSE*****

*File:LeonPonce.gif should be removed immediately. The 2nd point of the Fair Use rational for Ponce is false; this image is not necessary to identify the subject of the article. The subject of the article is the city, not the basketball team. Furthermore, the article Leones de Ponce does not support the fair use claim of this being an official logo. That article has a different image that is claimed to be the official logo. As such this appears to be a regular copyrighted image used without permission. >>> FIXED [1]

*File:Castillo serrales2.jpg should be removed immediately. It is claimed that his image is available under the Creative Commons license. Checking the source, the author a. does not license the image under Creative Commons b. gives terms of use that are NOT COMPATIBLE with the Creative Commons license. (For example the Creative Commons allows for commercial use, this is expressly forbidden by the Author) Either permission should be obtained from the author, or an administrator on Commons should be notified to delete the image, as this image should not be on Commons until this is resolved. >>> FIXED [2]

*File:Mameyes.jpg is improperly attributed. The author is claimed to be 2 wikipedia users. The author is R.W. Jibson of U.S. Geological Survey. The source should be updated to the new URL: http://landslides.usgs.gov/learning/imagepreviews.php >>> I SEE THE PROBLEM BUT DON'T KNOW HOW TO FIX IT.

Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 01:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, FYI, I've corrected the author info on Mameyes.jpg and have tagged the Castillo sarrales2.jpg for a copyright status review. Dave (talk) 03:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Manual of Style issues

Note that 100% compliance with the WP:Manual of Style is not required for an article to be ranked as good; however, at least some of these should be fixed.

• Inconstancies in the article:
  • Multiple spellings of Portuguese River and Anón
  • Article does not use a consistent date format (MMDDYY, DDMMYY) See WP:DATE **The article sometimes uses only metric units and sometimes only imperial units. Per WP:UNITS, one standard should be the primary, with conversions to the other. The template WP:convert is great for this.
  • Citations style - The article is not consistent regarding the placement of the footnote indicator and the punctuation mark. (i.e. Hi mom, verses Hi mom.) WP:CITE encourages that the punctuation mark come first (like the first example in my previous sentence) but only requires the order be consistent.
• Examples of WP:Peacock words
  • The last paragraph of "19th century invasion" (i.e. enormous).
  • The descriptions of museums and other city features go overboard with words like world class, and internationally recognized.
  • "astounding" increase in traffic
  • "most unusual histories of any city hall throughout the world"
  • The Last paragraph of the intro to the Government section has WP:Weasel words. In my opinion, the paragraph doesn't add much. I'd just eliminate it.
  • horrendous fire

References

*****RESPONSE*****

**Multiple spellings of Portuguese River >>> FIXED [3]

... and Anón >>> FIXED [4]

**Citations style - The article is not consistent regarding the placement of the footnote indicator and the punctuation mark. (i.e. Hi mom, verses Hi mom.) WP:CITE encourages that the punctuation mark come first (like the first example in my previous sentence) but only requires the order be consistent. >>> FIXED [5]

*Examples of WP:Peacock words

**The last paragraph of "19th century invasion" (i.e. enormous). >>> FIXED [6]

**The descriptions of museums and other city features go overboard with words like world class, and internationally recognized. >>> FIXED [7]

** "astounding" increase in traffic >>> FIXED [8]

**"most unusual histories of any city hall throughout the world" >>> THIS SHOULD PROBABLY STAY AS IS: THIS IS HOW OTHER SOURCES CHARACTERIZE IT. Example: [9]

** The Last paragraph of the intro to the Government section has WP:Weasel words. In my opinion, the paragraph doesn't add much. I'd just eliminate it. >>> TO BE REVISITED.

**horrendous fire >>> FIXED [10]

By Mercy11 (talk) 01:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

References

Sourcing issues

• Inadequate sourced sections:
  • Period of stagnation
  • Ponce massacre - This section needs to be re-written. There is a footnote after ever word in the first paragraph, yet no sources for the rest of the content in the section. It's difficult to read.
  • Sports
  • Transportation

• Sources with issues: That I listed them here doesn't mean these sites cannot be used. Just their reliability should be examined and discussed
  • statoids.com looks like a personal website
  • Care2 looks like user generated content
  • 50megs.com looks like a personal website
  • webcindario (reference 23) claims to be using content from Ponce's official site, why not use the original?
  • A citation linked to http://boricuaonline.com/ is falsely claimed to be from the United States Geological Survey, no such connection is visible on the website. I think this is an acceptable website to use, but the attribution is not correct in this article.

Focused prose

• There are already separate articles detailing some sections of this article, for example: the U.S. Invasion and Ponce massacre. As such this article should only give an overview of how those events directly affected the history of Ponce, and have something like
  See also: Ponce massacre
  at the top of the section.
• There are also a lot of stray sentences that don't add value. For example, this sentence (in the U.S. invasion section) has nothing to do with the U.S. invasion: "The most important statesman of the time in the Island, Luis Muñoz Rivera, by the close of the 19th century referred to Ponce as "the most Puerto Rican city of Puerto Rico."[48]"
• There are scattered mentions of topics throughout the article that could be consolidated. For example, museums are mentioned in throughout the article; yet, the most logical place for coverage of museums, the culture section, barely mentions them.
• I don't think listing the major chains with hotels in Ponce is helpful. The fact that Ponce has a Howard Johnson's isn't notable.

Examples of where the article repeats itself:

• • Lists all the barrios one-by-one then lists them again one-by-one sorted by population.
  • Cerro de Punta being the highest spot in Puerto Rico is mentioned in multiple places.
  • The quote by Luis Muñoz is repeated in multiple places. His name is also misspelled in some places in the article.
  • The soon to be completed Mega-port has three scattered mentions
  • Ponce used to be the largest city in the island is mentioned in multiple sections

*****RESPONSE*****

*There are already separate articles detailing some sections of this article, for example: the U.S. Invasion and Ponce massacre. As such this article should only give an overview of how those events directly affected the history of Ponce, and have something like

See also: Ponce massacre

at the top of the section. >>> FIXED [11] & FIXED [12]

*There are also a lot of stray sentences that don't add value. For example, this sentence (in the U.S. invasion section) has nothing to do with the U.S. invasion: "The most important statesman of the time in the Island, Luis Muñoz Rivera, by the close of the 19th century referred to Ponce as "the most Puerto Rican city of Puerto Rico."[48]" >>> FIXED [13]

*There are scattered mentions of topics throughout the article that could be consolidated. For example, museums are mentioned in throughout the article; yet, the most logical place for coverage of museums, the culture section, barely mentions them. >>> TO BE WORKED ON LATER

*I don't think listing the major chains with hotels in Ponce is helpful. The fact that Ponce has a Howard Johnson's isn't notable. >>> FIXED [14]

Examples of where the article repeats itself:

**Lists all the barrios one-by-one then lists them again one-by-one sorted by population. >>> FIXED [15]

**Cerro de Punta being the highest spot in Puerto Rico is mentioned in multiple places. >>> FIXED [16]

**The quote by Luis Muñoz is repeated in multiple places. His name is also misspelled in some places in the article. >>> FIXED [17]. AS FOR THE QUOTE, PLEASE BE MORE SPECIFIC: NO QUOTES FOUND.

This appears to be fixed. I can't find it anymore. Dave (talk) 04:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

** The soon to be completed Mega-port has three scattered mentions >>> FIXED [18]

** Ponce used to be the largest city in the island is mentioned in multiple sections >>> FIXED [19]

By: Mercy11 (talk) 09:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Friendly suggestions

These are suggestions for improvement that are not covered by the good article criteria, some are my opinion, and none of these suggestions are required to pass the nomination process.

• Citations in lead - Though opinions differ, in my opinion the lead does not usually require citations. Per WP:LEAD, the lead section is supposed to be a summary of the article, as such, everything can be cited when it is explained more fully in the body. In my opinion, only controversial details need to be cited in the lead section.
• Adjacent wikilinked terms - WP:LINK discourages two adjacent words being wikilinked, as a reader could believe it is a single wikilink that spans two words. For example, I would not link conquistador next to a name, as most people are likely to know what conquistador means. However, I would re-word the sentence to say, "Agueybana, a cacique who led the region, was among those that greeted ..." so that both Agueybana and cacique can be linked without confusion.
• WP:Overlink - Per this guideline, relevant terms should only be linked on the first use in each major section of an article. Some words, such as Puerto Rico, Portuguese River and Royal Decree of Graces are wikilinked multiple times in the same paragraph. Also some words are linked on their second mention, but not first, such as hamlet and Spanish. Remember, the point of a link is to provide additional information when helpful. If someone has read 2/3rds of the article they will certainly know what Puerto Rico is, and if they wanted to click the link, would have done so when they first read "Puerto Rico" before getting this far into the article.
• Some of the footnotes misuse bold text. Although not required, I prefer to use the WP:Citation templates as they force consistent formatting that conforms with the manual of style.
• The soon-to-be-completed mega port - Best not to say this, someone in 10 years might still think the port isn't finished, if someone forgets to update the article.
• can be found HERE. This should be converted to a traditional external link or footnote.
• No need to both spell out and present numerals for the number (i.e. Nineteen (19) ) a couple of places the article does this.
• ward." (orphan quotation mark)
• International relations. It's a little silly to have 2 lists with 1 item each. Better to have this in prose.
• The same reference to an article on cheverote.com is cited and credited multiple ways at multiple times. Similar for articles on usgs.gov and enciclopediapr.org and salonhogar. It is possible to have use the same citation in multilple places in an article this is done by <ref name=cheverote>http://whatever.... </ref> on the first mention and <ref name=cheverote/> on subsequent mentions.

*****RESPONSE*****

*Citations in lead - Though opinions differ, in my opinion the lead does not usually require citations. Per WP:LEAD, the lead section is supposed to be a summary of the article, as such, everything can be cited when it is explained more fully in the body. In my opinion, only controversial details need to be cited in the lead section. >>> STILL WORKING ON THIS.

*Adjacent wikilinked terms - WP:LINK discourages two adjacent words being wikilinked, as a reader could believe it is a single wikilink that spans two words. For example, I would not link conquistador next to a name, as most people are likely to know what conquistador means. However, I would re-word the sentence to say, "Agueybana, a cacique who led the region, was among those that greeted ..." so that both Agueybana and cacique can be linked without confusion. >>> FIXED [20]

*WP:Overlink - Per this guideline, relevant terms should only be linked on the first use in each major section of an article. Some words, such as Puerto Rico, Portuguese River and Royal Decree of Graces are wikilinked multiple times in the same paragraph. Also some words are linked on their second mention, but not first, such as hamlet and Spanish. Remember, the point of a link is to provide additional information when helpful. If someone has read 2/3rds of the article they will certainly know what Puerto Rico is, and if they wanted to click the link, would have done so when they first read "Puerto Rico" before getting this far into the article. >>> FIXED [21] & [22] & [23].

*Some of the footnotes misuse bold text. Although not required, I prefer to use the WP:Citation templates as they force consistent formatting that conforms with the manual of style. >>> NO COMMENT ON THIS ONE. (FRANKLY, I PREFER THE ONES IN THE ARTICLE. IT'S JUST MY OWN PREFERENCE, BUT WITH TIME, I MAY CHANGE THIS VIEW/PREFERENCE)

*The soon-to-be-completed mega port - Best not to say this, someone in 10 years might still think the port isn't finished, if someone forgets to update the article. >>> FIXED [24]

*can be found HERE. This should be converted to a traditional external link or footnote. >>> FIXED [25]

*No need to both spell out and present numerals for the number (i.e. Nineteen (19) ) a couple of places the article does this. >>> FIXED [26]

*ward." (orphan quotation mark) >>> FIXED [27]

*International relations. It's a little silly to have 2 lists with 1 item each. Better to have this in prose. >>> WILL COME BACK TO THIS ONE LATER

*The same reference to an article on cheverote.com is cited and credited multiple ways at multiple times. Similar for articles on usgs.gov and enciclopediapr.org and salonhogar. It is possible to have use the same citation in multilple places in an article this is done by <ref name=cheverote>http://whatever.... </ref> on the first mention and <ref name=cheverote/> on subsequent mentions. >>> SIMILAR TO STAR #4. AGAIN, I PREFER IT THE WAY IT IS NOW, BUT MAY CHANGE IN THE FUTURE.

Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 05:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Closing Nomination

The seven days are up. While this article has improved in this time, there is more to do. The big things, like the copyright violations, have been fixed. Thanks Mercy11 for doing this. However there's still issues. For example, I cannot pass an article with statements tagged with {{citation}}. (There are two) I encourage you all to keep working on the article, I have no doubt it will make it someday. Dave (talk) 05:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment by User talk:76.228.44.108

"A country is a geographical region considered to be the physical territory of a sovereign state, or of a smaller, or former, political division within a geographical region. Usually, but not always, a country coincides with a sovereign territory and is associated with a state, nation or government. Puerto Rico is a country. Puerto Rico has its own olympic team, culture and national identity."

Added to new section by QuAzGaA 23:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC).

File:PonceCollage.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:PonceCollage.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

No weather station?

Ponce doesn't have a climate box, so I assume no weather reporting station. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.42.75 (talk) 00:53, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi there. I was able to find a weather reporting station for Ponce. It is located at Ponce 4 E, which has records extending back to 1898. I have added the climate data for that station. Ssbbplayer (talk) 16:42, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Hacienda Buena Vista.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Coat of arms/Shield edit reverted

I have left User:Viiticus a message on his/her talk page to discuss, on this page, the change s/he made to the Ponce coat of arms in this edit of 21:00, 4 May 2023. I reverted the edit s/he made until s/he can gain WP:CONSENSUS that his/her replacement COA it is more beneficial to the article than the one that had been there for over 15 years. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 23:28, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't like either of them. The original one is 6790 lines long, far longer than necessary; and may be a machine-conversion from a bitmap file, with concerns about copyright. The proposed replacement is one line long, an absurdly long line, making it difficult for anyone to work with. Maproom (talk) 07:43, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

3805 lines long, the newly created COA for Ponce reflects a design that has been seen for many years to represent the Ponce COA, but pasant per description. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 03:25, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

This version of the Ponce lion COA has been on the Ponce article since November 21 2004 with this change:

In my revert edit summary I wrote "replaced with version that's been on the article" because the image of the Ponce lion COA has been consistent since 2004. My "poor quality svg" was based on the image that had been on the article since 2004. I recently created a higher quality svg and made it passant. Please keep in mind that the Ponce COA lion has never been a "heraldic lion" with claws and tongue sticking out, etc. Thank you. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC)