Wikipedia:WikiProject Mexico/Terminology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

WikiProject Mexico: Terminology Noticeboard

First of all, I am so glad this forum was created. It was quite hard to request op's, suggestions or comments to the people involved in the Mexican categories and/or look up for precedents or conventions all over the Wiki talk pages.

Now, back to business. I've worked mostly with bios and I think we need to come up with several conventions. Feel free to add your own. Ruiz 02:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] A. INSTITUTIONS

[edit] A.1. Ministries or secretariats? (i.e. Secretariat of XYZ, Ministry of XYZ, XYZ Secretariat, Department of XYZ?)

The participants of this project have already reached a consensus about this. See the relevant discussion Talk:Mexican Executive Cabinet

Secretary of XYZ and Secretariat of XYZ have came up as the convention to be used. (Hajor, Ruiz, Rune.welsh and Abögarp have voted in favor.)

[edit] A.2. Legislatures (i.e Senate of Mexico, Chamber of Senators of Mexico, Mexican Chamber of Senators, Chamber of Senators (Mexico), Congress of Nuevo León, Nuevo León State Congress, Legislature of Nuevo León, State Legislature of Nuevo Leon, Nuevo Leon State Legislature?)

  • Federal ones: Mexican Chamber of Senators or Chamber of Senators (Mexico). Local ones: Congress of XYZ. Ruiz 02:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Federal: as is (I didn't read that properly) I'd go for Mexican Chamber of Senators. Local: Congress -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 10:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • (1) Senate of Mexico (with a redirect from Senate (Mexico)). This Cámara de Senadores thing they came up with just sounds too goofy in English. As long as the intro says "(Spanish: Cámara de Senadores or Senado)", I think that's enough. And both Cámara de Senadores and Senado seem to enjoy similar official currency (eg here). (2) Congress of Nuevo León, etc., as article titles. But reserve the right to phrase it otherwise in side article text ("the Nuevo León state congress"). –Hajor 13:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Alternatively we could use Mexican Senate. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 15:13, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Local (States): Congress of XYZ. Federal: Mexican Chamber of. BUT What about the federal District? They dont have congress, they have ASAMBLEA LEGISLATIVA, in this case i vote for Legislative Assembly of the Federal District (Note: In the U.S. an Assembly is the lower house of the legislature in certain states). Abögarp 16:21, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: on List of national legislatures, most of them appear to use the "Legislature of Exland" format rather than "Exlandian Legislature". Whichever we choose between "Senate" and "Chamber of Senators", I'd rather it was "...of Mexico". "Congress of Exxestado" seems to enjoy consensus; and "Chamber of Senators" has two votes to one. Do we enshrine that as policy? (I'm personally not at all happy with "Chamber of Senators", but if that's what the majority wants, so be it. –Hajor 03:14, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A.3. Political parties (i.e. National Action Party or Partido Acción Nacional)

  • In English. It's quite uncomfortable to read something like "After attending the Vejhjhjkhjkh Ehjkjhjh, Fulano joined the Jjkaksjsks Inlkklakl" when you are not familiar with that language (and most users of W:en are not familiar with our lang.) Ruiz 02:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Give both Spanish and English names for parties on lead paragraph, then use the Spanish abbreviation for the rest of the article. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 10:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Essentially, "what they said", but give the abbreviation in the intro too, Perhaps favor the Spanish abbreviation in the body text but don't make it an article of faith. –Hajor 14:17, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
    • In English. Spanish name on the lead paragraph only on the party's article. Abögarp 16:21, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
    • In Spanish, to go with the initials (PRI, PAN, which are popular outside of Mexico). --Vizcarra 22:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Revealed consensus: English for the article title. Spanish and English in the introductory paragraph. In the text, mixed use of the translated English name and the Spanish abbreviation. Is that what we're saying? –Hajor 03:18, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A.4. Universities and schools (i.e. Autonomous University of Sonora or Universidad Autónoma de Sonora?)

  • In English (same reasons as in A.3) Ruiz 02:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Give both names on lead, use English name for article. I do think article name should be in Spanish though but it may be confuse readers if we adopt my proposed usage but MoS seems to suggest otherwise and it may all be confusing for readers at the end. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 10:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm generally sympathetic towards the use of the Spanish name for universities: some don't get xlated (El Colegio de México); others sound goofy xlated (Cloister of Sor Juana University). But Wikipedia:Naming conventions would seem to require translations, and we all know what those this is the English wikipedia zealots are like. –Hajor 14:17, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
    • In English. Abögarp 16:21, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm for English as well, in this case. --Spangineer (háblame) 15:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • In Spanish, becase:
  1. the official names are in Spanish, and the English translations may not be unique ("Technological Institute of Sonora" vs "Sonora Institute of Technology" vs "Sonora Technological Institute") and should point to the Spanish name.
  2. the initials (ITAM, UAS, UABC) correspond to the Spanish name
  3. all articles are now in Spanish except for UNAM and UANL.
  4. most articles in other Latin American categories are in Spanish or Portuguese (for Brazil) such as:
France as well (11 vs 2) in Category:Universities and colleges in France

--Vizcarra 22:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Vizcarra's arguments are convincing. Now im not so sure whether the english translation would be the best convention for Universities and schools. Abögarp 23:12, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I have to admit they do cast rather a different light on the matter. –Hajor 23:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Summary: Ruiz says English, in accordance with the MoS. Vizcarra and Spangineer say Spanish. Abögarp and Hajor sit on the fence, but seem to be leaning towards Spanish. Rune gets in a muddle, confuses everyone, and trips over his own feet. Further comments? Do we follow the MoS because this is the English Wikipedia and the policy's been set? Or do we do what Peru, Argentina, and France appear to be doing in practice? Maybe sign your names under the options below:
    • Article located at Universidad Autónoma de Sonora, best/official translation given in 1st paragraph?
      1. –Hajor 03:31, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
      2. --Vizcarra 03:55, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
      3. If everyone else does it, why not us? :D -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 09:18, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
      4. Abögarp 13:18, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
      5. Me too. --Spangineeres (háblame) 19:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
      6. ...
    • Article located at Autonomous University of Sonora, Spanish given in brackets in in 1st paragraph?
      1. Ruiz 01:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC) I am strongly against leaving those articles under a Spanish title (lots were in EN before Vizcarra moved them) for several reasons: First of all, the universities THEMSELVES translate their name when dealing with an international audience (i.e. the UNAM, the UANL, the UdeG, etc. -- the first two straight from rectoría); that's the way the are refferred to in prominent encyclopaedias (check out the UNAM or the UdeG @ Britannica, which also mentions the UAG); that's the way they are called by @ intl institutions (ITESM at the WTO, the UNAM at the FAO), by foreign officers (i.e. UNAM at the U.S. Embassy, the ITESM at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan); by the the intl academia (University of Guanajuato, Autonomous University of San Luis Potosí, etc. at the Fulbright Scholarships, the UNAM at the David Rockefeller Centre for LatAm Studies, Harvard University), etc. Last, but not least, because of the rather explicit W:EN policies. We can make some exceptions (19th century schools are a good example -- particularly because they had ambig. religious names, or the ones which are almost impossible to translate without dist. the original meaning, such as Colmex, Libre de Derecho, Universidad Regiomontana, etc.) But most Mexican schools get translated, check out the journals. Ruiz 01:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
The W:EN conventions are "conventions, not rules written in stone". For naming articles, the convention is to use English names for articles "unless the native form is more commonly used in English than the English form".
Therefore, the native seems to be more commonly used for the UANL and therefore, the convention would indicate to re-name the article as Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León --Vizcarra 20:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
That's an quite an interesting search: if you take a look at the top ten Google hits for "Universidad..." not a single one is actually written in English. In my opinion, it carries far way more weight: 1) The fact that the uni's themselves translate their name when dealing with an EN: audience; 2) That fact that the two main encyclopedias in EN: Britannica and Encarta also use the English transl. Even the UNESCO is listing them in EN. Ruiz 01:40, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Still, the convention is clear, articles should be named in the language of the term in the most popular form , which would be Spanish in this case. Maybe instead of 31,800 vs 753 is 31,790 vs 753. --Vizcarra 04:07, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A.5 The DF Govt (Jefe de gobierno, delegados, asamblea)

  • Head of Government (or Mayor of Mexico City, just to include the "regentes"), borough mayor... I preffer to leave it to the guys in Mexico City since I am not quite sure how they see them. Ruiz 02:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • This is a tricky Regente and Jefe de Gobierno are two very different offices if we follow the letter of the law and in practice they were quite similar. However using Mayor of Mexico City as a blanket term just doesn't do justice to the subtle differences between the two. I say we use both regent and head of government and explain the differences between the two as appropriate. Now, for delegado I think borough mayor is a good term. It may warrant its own article where we would explain what a delegado can (e.g. manage a budget) and cannot (e.g. be in charge of public security) do. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 10:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I vote for Head of Government and borough mayor. What about the federal district ASAMBLEISTAS?.. I would propose Federal Distric Assemblyman. Abögarp 16:21, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • "Head of Government", not "mayor of Mexico City" because in fact is the Federal District that has a government. "borough major" is not accurate either since we are refering to "delegacionse" as "boroughs". --Vizcarra 22:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • My approach has been to speak of the Head of Government of the Federal District and then gloss it, in parenthesis and scare quotes, as (the "mayor of Mexico City"). Were it ever to arise, I'd probably speak of the Head of the Federal District Department and gloss that, in parens, as (the unelected mayor of Mexico City, commonly referred to as "the Regent"). W/r/t Vizcarra above, "borough mayor" is being proposed for jefes delegacionales, not for the jefe de gobierno, and I think it's a pretty good option. And the extinct delegados could be "(unelected) borough mayors". Finish that off with the Legislative Assembly of the Federal District, comprising assemblymen or (if we want to use gender-inclusive language) assembly members; officially they're diputados -- assembly deputies would be another, sex-free option. Probably it's the person who writes the article who gets to choose. –Hajor 00:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Towards a conclusion:
    • Jefe de gobierno
    • Jefe delegacional
      • Borough Mayor
        1. –Hajor 03:43, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
        2. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 09:13, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
        3. Abögarp 13:18, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
        4. Ruiz 01:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Other01 (Chief administrator, chief executive, borough chief, borough head...)
        1. Definitely other, but I'm not sure yet, probably borough chief/administrator/head --Vizcarra 03:53, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Asamblea legislativa
      • (Mexico) City Council
        1. ...
      • Legislative Assembly
        1. –Hajor 03:43, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
        2. --Vizcarra 03:53, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
        3. Abögarp 13:18, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
        4. Ruiz 01:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I think we can leave the asambleístas for later, if at all. –Hajor 03:43, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] B. NAMES

[edit] B.1 People: Full names or "artistic names"?

[edit] B.2 Places: Legal names or "colloquial names"?

  • Strongly for colloquial ones (Veracruz over Veracruz de La Llave, Veracruz-La Llave or whatever), unless used for disambig. Ruiz 02:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Definitely colloquial. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 10:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Amen. The craziness they get up to over on w:es is... uh, enfermizo. It also gets very muddy when deciding whether the legal name is the municipality's or the city's. –Hajor 14:29, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Colloquial names should redirect to legal name.Abögarp 16:21, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm with Abögarp. Not only because that is the officialn name of the city/state but because an encyclopedia should teach things. When a reader looks for Michoacán and is redirected to Michoacán de Ocampo they will learn that, it is the official name without much confussion. I'm sure that if they access the article through a category and don't see "Michoacán" they will assume "Michoacán de Ocampo" is the state they were looking for. --Vizcarra 21:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Colloquial should be used for article title. --Spangineer (háblame) 15:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Revealed consensus: appears to stand at 4:1 for colloquial names. Any more comments, or can we sign off on that? –Hajor 04:12, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] B.3 El estado de México

  • It's the only state that doesn't get its accent in the article title. While the name "Mexico" is familiar to foreign audiences, the state itself isn't and so therefore needn't have its name "localized". We should be bold and move it to México (state). And city names, etc., in the state should be disambiguated in the form La Paz, México, in line with the other 30. –Hajor 14:29, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Since no one else is commenting here, I'm just going to add that I agree with this renaming. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 15:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • State of Mexico, which is the name that the state government gave itself in English (Gobierno del Estado de México) and La Paz, State of Mexico for the city, I think La Paz, México looks misleading and I would never write it in a sentence ("the population of La Paz, México", but instead "the population of La Paz, State of Mexico"). --Vizcarra 22:28, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • There's actually three issues at play here:
    • The location of the current Mexico (state) article: leave it where it is, or move it.
      • Options: Mexico (state), México (state), State of Mexico, State of México, Mexico State, México State, Edomex...
        • Maybe we can start voting contenders off, instead trying to agree on which one is the best term. Given that the word "state" is embedded in the name in Spanish, it should be part of the name of the article (not in parenthesis). So Mexico (state), México (state) get my vote (off). To make matters worse, Britannica writes it "México estado", although I am becoming more inclined towards a name that includes the accent-mark (since Michoacán, Nuevo León, etc. will have it as well), so accent-less names (Mexico State, state of Mexico, State of Mexico) also get my vote (off). --Vizcarra 20:54, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
    • How to disambiguate article titles, when neeeded: e.g., Xico, México from Xico, Veracruz
      • Options: Xico, México, Xico, México State, Xico, State of México, Xico, state of México, Xico, Mexico State, Xico, State of Mexico, Xico, state of Mexico, Xico, Edomex...
    • How to refer to the state in body text.
  • There's clearly no agreement so far, so -- any more comments and/or opinions? –Hajor 04:12, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] B.4 Alliances for the 2006 General Election (Use the name in Spanish or English??? (i.e. Alliance for Mexico, Alliance for the welfare of everybody, Alliance for the welfare of all, etc...)

ALIANZA POR MEXICO (PRI/PVEM) ALIANZA POR EL BIEN DE TODOS (PRD/PT/Convergencia)

  • Same as with parties, mention Spanish name once, but use English name throughout the article. I really don't see why this should be any different. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 02:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Ditto, there is already an Alliance for Mexico article. Also Alliance for the welfare of all instead of "everybody" (which sounds silly to me). --Vizcarra 02:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with Alliance for the welfare of all.., and as Rune mentioned, lest use Spanish name only at the begining of the article but English as the name of the article. Abögarp, 16:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • First of all, I believe that most Mexican electoral coalitions do not deserve their own article because: A. They tend to last, at most, a few months and are always disbanded after election day, B. The associated parties form weird and totally contradicting alliances at the state level because in Mexico those coalitions are formed for electoral convenience, they're not political movements. Now, regarding the Alianza por el bien de todos, I think I'll vote for Alliance for the Welfare of All, but I rather redir it to a section of the 2006 Mexican general election. Ruiz 23:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Spaniards" vs. "Spanish"

There is a low-intensity debate over whether to use "Spanish" vs. "Spaniards" in articles related to the era of Spanish colonial rule over Mexico and Latin America. We are specifically talking about the Spanish conquest of Mexico and related articles such as Aztec. However, the general question applies to any article related to the Spanish colonization of the Americas starting from the time of the conquistadors through the end of the colonial era.

Some Wikipedians argue that the modern-day term "Spanish" should be used (as in "the Spanish conquered Tenochtitlan in 1521"). Others argue that, whatever the modern-day term may be for people from the country of Spain, the term "Spaniards" is more appropriate when referring to the conquistadors.

Your opinion is solicited.

IMHO almost a non-issue, except that within an article, consistency is definitely required for purposes of readability. Bridesmill 22:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Disagree that this is a "non-issue" for two reasons. First, User:Nanhuatzin and I had more or less agreed to use "Spaniard" over User:Rockero's suggestion that we use "Spanish". Then User:Madman2001 made a mass conversion of "Spaniard" to "Spanish" in the Spanish conquest of Mexico article without consulting anybody. So now that article uses "Spanish" and most of the other Aztec-related articles use "Spaniard" primarily and "Spanish" here and there where I haven't changed it to "Spaniard" yet.

We need to agree so that we can push all the articles to one usage and then document that usage clearly so that newly arrived editors won't undo all the work.

I was pretty annoyed at Madman2001's edits because it undid all the work that I had done changing "Spanish" to "Spaniards". I'm sure he'd be none too happy if I undid all his work by changing it back unless there was a clear consensus that "Spaniards" is the preferred usage.

--Richard 04:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

We are not the only group of Spanish speakers in the English Wikipedia and personally I find this discussion to be out of place in this particular board. This issue would be better discussed in the Village Pump since this discussion is quite likely to affect articles that are not related to Mexico anyway. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 11:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Why does it all have to be the same? That is the same argument as 'should all spelling be American or UK English' That's what I mean by non-issue. If things are mass reverted one way or the other, invariably people are going to be annoyed (q.v. Jewelry/Jewellery) Both forms are technically correct, if one is considered 'off' in one place, odds are good the other is not preferred somewhere else. Consistency within an article should suffice.Bridesmill 02:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Additional thought - two people agreeing to change all usage of a word in WP seems a bit bold; then two people coming along & disagreeing - not exactly unusual or unexpected; one of the reasons I would suggest stick with article consistency.Bridesmill 02:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I have to confess that I can't remember whether it was predominantly "Spanish" or "Spaniard" before I started editing. I do know that some articles said "Spanish", some said "Spaniard" and some had both.

I think it was predominantly "Spaniard" but I can't say that I actually counted every instance of each word. I started changing them all to "Spaniard" because Nanahuatzin (a Mexican editor) was using that.

My main concern is that the Hernan Cortes article now says "Spanish" but all the Aztec-related articles predominantly say "Spaniard" with a few instances of "Spanish" here and there. I don't think this kind of inconsistency is professional.

--Richard 04:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] C. TOPONYMS: Nomenclature for administrative divisions in Mexico

There is a consensual rule of thumb already in use for cities and states in Mexico. (See: WP:Naming conventions/city names/Mexico). While this rule has been applied successfully, there are two issues that require our attention: (1) an inconsistency in regard to boroughs vis-à-vis municipalities; and (2) the ambiguity with regards to metropolitan areas vis-à-vis core cities. These will be explained below. Please participate by expressing your opinion, agreement or disagreement so that we can reach a consensus.

[edit] C.1 Boroughs of the Federal District

As of now, the naming convention is [[Borough, D.F]]. I find this convention misleading for several reasons:

  • The constitution of Mexico (art. 44) and the Statute of Government of the Federal District clearly establish the synonymity of Mexico City and the Federal District (La ciudad de México es el Distrito Federal); that is, the city is organized as a federal territory (district); the district is coextensive with the city. When an address is written as "México, D.F.", that does not imply that México is a city within the Federal District, but the Federal District in itself. (See for example the similar case of Washington, D.C.). Boroughs of the Federal District are indeed boroughs of Mexico City. In other words, there is only one city in the Federal District, Mexico City. The current naming convention implies that each borough in the Federal District is equivalent to a city within the constituent states. That is not so, as I will explain on the following point:
  • By using the current naming convention, we are inappropriately saying that the boroughs are second-level administrative divisions with full autonomy, like that of cities and/or municipalities. They are not: unlike municipalities they do not have a council (ayuntamiento), nor a chairman (regidor) nor a board of trustees (síndicos). Moreover, boroughs do not have regulatory powers and are not even autonomous in providing municipal services, which are centralized in the Government of the Federal District, even if part of the administration (or application) may be delegated to the boroughs. While used for administrative purposes, boroughs of the Mexican Federal District more appropriately resemble the Boroughs of New York City. Moreover, other cities in Mexico are also divided into boroughs (e.g. Querétaro), in which case boroughs are divisions of cities (whether second or third-level) and should be treated as such.
  • In all official correspondence in Mexico, addresses are written as follows: Delegación Cuauhtémoc, México, D.F., thus implying that the boroughs are part of the city and do not supersede the city neither they conform a city themselves (as would be implied by saying Cuauhtémoc, D.F.).

My proposal would be either to use [[Borough (D.F.)]], [[Borough (Mexico City)]], [[Borough (Federal District)]], or even (though I don't particularly like this one given that Mexico City is not known as ''Mexico, D.F.'' in English) [[Borough, Mexico, D.F.]]. Alternatives that other users want to propose are acceptable, as long as they do not imply that delegaciones are the equivalent of autonomous cities within the Federal District. The Federal District is formed by only one city: Mexico City. The city and the Federal District are coextensive jurisdictionally, constitutionally and administratively (in spite of the fact that the southern portion of the Federal District is not urbanized).

--theDúnadan 20:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC) 18:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] C.2 Metropolitan areas vis-à-vis core cities

It has been suggested that single names should be used for the articles of the metro areas or redirect to them. For example, that Mexico City should refer (or redirect) to Greater Mexico City; Monterrey to Monterrey metropolitan area, et al., and that the article about the city and municipality be renamed as Monterrey (city) or Monterrey (municipality), et al., (if coterminus).

[edit] [Perceived] Current Issues and Proposed Convention

Currently, certain cities, like Puebla and Guadalajara haver articles with names like "Guadalajara, Jalisco", or "Puebla, Puebla", which make it possible for it to be precise. "Guadalajara, Jalisco" can only mean the municipality of Guadalajara, and thus the article clearly must talk about that municipality.

Not necessarily. The fact that the name of the town is followed by the state doesn't make it automatically the municipality (or city). Remember that not all cities are coextensive with municipalities (e.g. Tijuana), and not all municipalities have the same name as their largest city and cabecera muncipal (e.g. municipio Centro vs. Villahermosa or Benito Juárez vs. Cancún).Or, to put it differently, even the municipality of Puebla is comprised (apart from the city of Puebla) by several separate localidades or pueblos. So, does "Puebla, Puebla" really refer to the municipality? "Guadalajara, Jalisco" could be as precise (or as imprecise) as simply Monterrey. --theDúnadan 00:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

However, other cities like Monterrey and Mexico City have title names like "Monterrey" and "Mexico City", which make it unclear to the reader exactly what they are going to talk about. In the case of Mexico City, will the article talk about the Metropolitan Zone of the Valley of Mexico, or will it talk about the Federal District? How do we know what information is being looked by the reader, and what can editors expect to add or subtract from those articles?

As explained numerous times, Mexico City is as clear as it can be (it is a city!) plus it is the Federal District (one and the same thing by constitutional and statutory definition!). If a reader needs further explanation please read and compare content of Mexico City and Greater Mexico City. Municipalities and cities are not always the same thing. In the case of Monterrey, being coextensive and coterminus, it is the same thing (i.e. there is no other localidad in the municipality of Monterrey apart from the city of Monterrey). I have already explained the situation about the Federal District (and refer below for a further clarification). The district administered by a federation (i.e. federal district) has a name: Mexico City. That is why it was agreed (with an overwhelming support) that Federal District had to be merged with Mexico City. As of now, Mexican Federal District redirects to Mexico City. They are one and the same concept. Mexico City, therefore, cannot be the Metropolitan Area of Mexico, we engage in a logical contradiction, as it has been explained thoroughly countless times in several talk pages.
If you will, forget about logical contradiction, Mexico City (and Monterrey) are what they are simply because the constitution says so. --theDúnadan 00:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The term "Monterrey" refers, colloquially, to the metropolitan area, and officially, to the municipality. In the same way, the term "Mexico City" refers, colloquially, to the metropolitan area, and officially to the Federal District. In other words, the term means two things, and the article should only talk about one.

Here is were we are getting confused. There is only one meaning, and a separate colloquial phrase. If we ever had to decide, the article should talk about the meaning not about a non-restrictive and not-universal colloquial phrase. --theDúnadan 00:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

To make matters worse, articles about both the colloquial and the official meanings already exists (i.e., there is an article called "Monterrey (Municipality)", and another article called "Metropolitan Area of Monterrey", plus the article called "Monterrey". Same happens for Mexico City, there is an article called "Distrito Federal", another one about the Metropolitan area, and another one called "Mexico City").

As I said above, there is only one article (both in this wiki and in the Spanish wiki) about Mexico City (DF redirects to Mexico City) because they are the same concepts (only one meaning). However, being a separate concept, as outlined by CONAPO and INEGI, there is a separate article for the Metropolitan area of Mexico City. We are being consistent with official nomenclature. In the case of Monterrey, like I said above, the municipality is coterminus with the city. There is no need to have an article about the municipality and the city: both the city and the municipality are the same thing. But the city and the metro area are not the same thing. Not in jurisdiction and not in official nomenclature. Now, beware, this is not the case with other municipalities: the city of Tijuana is not coextensive with its municipality. Two separate articles are required, because the municipality of Tijuana is comprised by several cities of which Tijuana is only one. Moreover, per the official definition of CONAPO, the cities that interact with Tijuana form a single metropolitan area (i.e. Playas de Tijuana vis-à-vis Tijuana) even if they are in the same municipality. A third article is required for precision: city, municipality and metropolitan area.

The information is presented redundantly in wikipedia, it is also disorganized, and because of the above, innacurrate in any account. A solution must arise. It is clear that one of the three articles (for both cases) must dissapear in a way. It is clear there only be two articles: one for the official meaning, and one for the colloquial meaning (i.e., one for the city itself, be it municipality, core of the municipality, or Federal District ("Federal District", or "Monterrey (Municipality)", and one for the metro area).

Given what I explained above, I strongly oppose the above argument. Information is not redundant, and definitely not inaccurate. If anything, having separate articles for the three concepts is far more accurate and verifiable (see CONAPO publication on "Delimitación de Áreas Metropolitanas", accessible in their webpage at http://www.conapo.gob.mx), except for those concepts that are coextensive (DF vis-à-vis Mexico City).
Hari, you had said it was just a matter of taste, and as such I was open to discuss alternatives about possible redirects. But you cannot claim "accuracy" in this matter; especially because cities, municipalities and metropolitan areas are clearly defined and clearly differentiated constitutionally and by all relevant demographic institutions (i.e. not only NPOV but verifiable). An encyclopedia must strive to be accurate not with colloquial meanings (which are, for the most part, misconceptions) but with the verifiable data, governmental and constitutional definitions. I see no point in having an article on a colloquial misconception (and I insist, this misconception is not restrictive and not universal: that is, not all residents within any given metropolitan area, including Monterrey, have the same view, and the location of the interlocutors plays a very important matter when using the terms). --theDúnadan 00:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The question now arises, what happens to the already existing Third Article ("Monterrey" or "Mexico City")?

There are three proposals:

  • Redirect to colloquial usage (see arguments in favor of proposed convention)
  • Redirect to official usage (see arguments against of proposed convention)
  • Turn it into a disambiguation page (like Guadalajara).

Whatever proposal is chosen, it must be exported to other cities, like Tijuana, Ciudad Juarez, Tampico, Torreon, etc... It would be best if information about Mexican cities was standarized.

Hari Seldon 22:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arguments in favor of proposed convention

The arguments in favor of this convention (as proposed by Hari Seldon) are:

  • Inhabitants and visitors of the metro areas use the name of the city to refer to the whole metro area even if they live in adjacent municipalities (i.e. "Hershey will open a plant in Monterrey" when it will be open in the municipality of Escobedo; or "I live in Mexico City", when they live in Naucalpan).
  • Currency of use is important in that culture is built down up (that is, from people to intellectuals), and since this is the culture that has been built by the inhabitants themselves, I would recommend that this is the treatment the metro area gets in the article.
  • Most metro areas in Mexico form a de facto single unit in many aspects (transportation, media, police) that might be administered jointly by the states they belong to (e.g. Monterrey and Guadalajara), in which case, the "official treatment" does not correspond to the "official nomenclature" of cities.
  • The interconectivity of the metro area, and its interdependence makes it common the treat the whole metro area as one single entity.

[edit] Arguments against proposed convention

I object the proposal based on the following:

  • Definition. Like in the US (and unlike the UK and Chile), cities and metropolitan areas are well defined and differentiated by governmental institutions, namely INEGI and CONAPO. Cities are contained within a municipality (and may be coextensive with it) but they are not trans-municipal (each city is properly represented by an ayuntamiento). Metropolitan areas are defined to be the group of cities/municipalities that heavily interact with each other, usually around a core city. As such, Monterrey (in all official documentation) refers to the city/municipality whereas Área metropolitana de Monterrey refers to the whole conurbation integrated by the cities of Monterrey, Apodaca, Garza García, etc. Official nomenclature should therefore overrule currency of use. (If currency of use is imprecise, Wikipedia should use the nomenclature that is precise). Moreover, cities take precedence over metro areas: metro areas are named after the core city, and not vice versa.
  • Administration. In spite of being a single unit, metro areas do not have a unified elected administration, but state commissions that coordinate projects (if the metropolitan area is wholly contained in one state) or by metropolitan commissions that require agreements by different states and the federal government (if the metropolitan area extends over two or more states). Since, jurisdictionally, they are not one unit, they cannot be treated as such.
  • Logical consistency. The proposed redirections are not simply a "spelling variant" but have serious logical implications in all metro areas but this is specially noticeable with the case of Mexico City. [Please note that the 44th article of the constitution clearly established the synonymity of Mexico City and the Federal District: La ciudad de México es el Distrito Federal, sede de los poderes de la Unión y capital de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos]. If Mexico City refers to the metro area, then Naucalpan is Mexico City; then Naucalpan is the Federal District (first logical contradiction) then Naucalpan is the capital of the United Mexican States (second contradiction). For the sake of accuracy, not only the titles of articles, but also redirections should be consistent with logic. If common usage is inconsistent with logic, then an encyclopedia should inform the user of a fallacy instead of condoning their misconception by allowing a false redirect. The same is true even with other metro areas: Monterrey is the capital of Nuevo León (by constitution and differentiated from the rest of the adjacent municipalities).
  • Complications. It is far more complicated to change all instances to redirect to the "appropriate" article within the text (e.g. "The capital of Mexico is [[Mexico City proper|Mexico City]]" or "The capital of Mexico is [[Federal District|Mexico City]]" or "He was born in [Guadalajara, Jalisco (city)|Guadalajara]]"). This is specially noticeable with Mexico City. Even if we redirect it to Federal District, this is the type of entity (we are so used to it we forget what it means: a district administered by the federation), but the name of this district (constitutionally) is: Mexico city, but then, Mexico City is redirecting to Greater Mexico City. So then, which is which?
  • Wikipedia's de facto convention. Cities of countries that distinguish metro areas from cities follow the convention being use as of now: Los Angeles, for the city Greater Los Angeles Area for the metro area, New York City vs. New York metropolitan area, and Mexico City vs. Greater Mexico City.

My proposal is that, in spite of a common colloquial (mis)usage of the terms, simple names should refer first to the cities, then to municipalities (if they are not coextensive or coterminus) and then to metropolitan areas. That means that Monterrey should be about the city/municipality (being coextensive) and Monterrey metropolitan area should be about the conurbation. In the case in which cities are not coextensive with the municipality, this distinction should be made: Tijuana, for the city, Tijuana (municipality) and Tijuana metropolitan area for the metro area. This is a particular case, in that the municipality of Tijuana contains several localidades, pueblos and ciudades, of which Tijuana is only one. The metropolitan area includes several of these, but not all (since the municipality is very large). So is the case with other large municipalities in Baja California Sur, and to a lesser extent in the rest of the northwestern states. In other words, precision is better, we inform the reader of all.

--theDúnadan 20:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[In fact I would even extend that to states, but that is differnet matter, because it was already decided to follow the American convention of "City, State" where the state takes precedence, in spite that the Spanish/Mexican convention in encyclopedias is that cities take precedence: articles are usually named as follows: Puebla; Puebla, estado de; Puebla, municipio de. That is, the city took precedence over all. And since this particular issue has already been discussed, I won't reopen a debate unless several users wish to do so] --theDúnadan 20:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Next Steps

I have presented my arguments, Dunadan, you have presented yours. I wish to see what other people think of them and then take a course of action. Hari Seldon 22:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia%7EWikiProject_Mexico_Terminology_ec70.html"