Template talk:Largest metropolitan areas of Mexico

This template was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

Keep, 29 August 2023, see discussion.
Keep, 11 February 2019, see discussion.

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles

Mexico

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mexico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MexicoWikipedia:WikiProject MexicoTemplate:WikiProject MexicoMexico articles

Untitled section

Source: ISO_3166-2:MX In a previous discussion it was agreed to use the 2-letter format for the purpose of the article where this template is been used. Supaman89 20:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have converted this template to use the variable-length conventional abbreviations for the states, for the following reasons:

The 2-letter abbreviations are not part of ISO 3166-2:MX and appear to have no official standing. In fact, we don't know where they came from or who, if anyone, uses them. Vicente Fox's website uses a set of 2-letter codes, but they are not the ones specified in the article; for example, Morelos is MS on Fox's website but MO here.
In the previous discussion at User talk:Rodulfo, the main motivation for keeping the codes was that they were used in the map of Mexico appearing in the Mexico article. However, this map has since been revised to use the variable-length conventional abbreviations.

Spacepotato (talk) 02:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Standardization

It was agreed upon that templates of cities are to have only two cites. Because the picture is bigger and there is really no need for three small picture. This is accountable with Template:United States cities and Template:Russian cities. — Nuclear Vacuum 01:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me but, who agreed that? each template is independent, in fact this was the first one, the others models where model after this one, 3 pictures work just fine, it shows the three mayor cities of the country. Supaman89 (talk) 03:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still waiting for your answer. Supaman89 (talk) 22:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It works equally well with two pictures, in fact better because with three images you can barely see them. The other cities are just as important, but we need to make a bigger presentation to viewers, and two catches the eye. Second, the two largest cities of every country (Russia, the US, Canada, Britain, France, China, etc.) are the most important and most known. And F.Y.I., I was not informed by you that there was a response her. Plus, I only wrote this less then a day ago. There is no need to get testy with me. — Nuclear Vacuum 15:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three cities is fine, they have a good a size, it doesn't have to be like other templates, let me put it this way mate: Someone creates a temple for the U.S. article, it looks good so other people start copying it, then they change it a little bit and then go back to the original one and change it so it'll fit with the others. This template was originally created for the Mexico article, so it's not like it's a standart thing, I've no problem with other countries copying the template but don't change this one just because it doesn't fit with the others. Supaman89 (talk) 19:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find it much better if all of them are standardized. What if (for example) the templates for the country (Template:Infobox Country) was at a point where Russia's box looked different from Mexico's. I'm not talking about a small difference that make a specific one look unique, I'm talking about one that totally makes them look like a different item all together. I just find it in better interest if we make all the templates like this with two pictures and keep then standardized. — Nuclear Vacuum 00:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah mate, but the Infoboxes have always existed, they were created to be used in all the articles, but in this case, this template was created individually and somehow it became popular, again that's fine but trying to modify the original one, just doesn't seem right, so I don't really see any problem with some versions just having 2 pictures and others having 3, or some version including 20 cities and others including 10, after all even this template has been transformed eventually, (it was even deleted once), so I don't know it's probably going to keep changing in order to improve, and that's fine I just don't think they all (5?) have to be identical as if it was Wikipedia's standard table or something like that, if they wanna change colours in the Brazilian version or they wanna change the size in the American version is fine by me, it gives them freedom to improve it as much as they want. Supaman89 (talk) 02:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, you can keep helping us in the Mexico article if you want. Supaman89 (talk) 23:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cities or metropolitan areas

If this is a template to be used exclusively with cities, then we should think of using an alternative, because the figures reported in this template are those of Metropolitan areas of Mexico and not of Cities of Mexico. The first column (rank) is linking to Metropolitan areas of Mexico; the second column "Core City" (i.e. in reference to the core city of a conurbation) is linking to articles of the core cities and the population figures come from the latest report from INEGI of "zonas metropolitanas" (i.e. metropolitan areas).

We are misinforming the reader by implying that these are cities, whereas in fact, they are metro areas. For example, the Template:United Kingdom cities is showing figures of cities not of metropolitan areas (i.e. Birmingham proper has a population of less than 1m, its metropolitan area is over 2 m).

If a user is interested in the population figures of the cities and not metro areas in Mexico, then that information comes from the Excel Files of "localidades" at INEGI's webpage. Some municipalities of Mexico can contain more than one city, so using municipal figures would also be incorrect. --the Dúnadan 16:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed and re-designed the table, based on the ones for Argentina, Australia and the U.S., specifying the metropolitan area and its respective core city. Check it out! Kraft. (talk) 02:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Misinformation and reiterated unjustified reversions

I opened a discussion section above, only to be ignored and reverted reiteratedly by a NuclearVacuum (talk · contribs) who insists in mixing two differnet concepts and thus misinforming the readers, just to preserve his "standard" format. Now he argues that "headers" (i.e. title of the table) are not important.

Let me try to explain why this table, without proper labeling, would be inaccurate and plainly wrong. Metropolitan areas in Mexico are integrated by several municipalities that interact with each other. Municipalities of Mexico, on the other hand, are integrated by one or more cities. Therefore, a metropolitan area is integrated by one or more (usually more than one) municipalities and municipalities are integrated by one or more (usually more) cities.

Now, problems with the table:

The first column (Rank) is linking to the list (and ranking) of metropolitan areas of Mexico.
The second column should have had the name of the metropolitan area (i.e. Greater Mexico City, Greater Guadalajara, etc.). Instead, the author(s) insisted on listing cities (core cities, or the city proper of the metropolitan areas). So here we have the first confusion.
The third column (State) is also wrong. Several metropolitan areas extend over the limits of one state (namely, Greater Mexico City, Greater Puebla and Comarca Lagunera), but since the second column is listing cities, arguably, the author(s) decided to list only the states in which the cities are located, and not the states where the entire metropolitan areas are located.
The fourth column has the population, not of the cities themselves, but of the entire metropolitan areas. So, again, we have another source of confusion.

So the table, as it is, is mixing two different concepts, that of cities and that of metropolitan areas, confusing the reader. If the table is to be left as it is, then proper contextualization is needed. First, the title of the table should clearly state that we are talking about Metropolitan areas. The second column should be clearly labeled as City proper, since it is linking to the articles of cities and not to the articles of the corresponding metropolitan areas (i.e. Rank 1, is linking to Mexico City (pop 8.5 million), instead of linking to Greater Mexico City (pop. 19.2 million)). As long as the labels are set up correctly, the table wouldn't be misinforming the readers.

Alternatively, the table can be corrected by using the population figures of the cities, and not the metro areas (just like it is the case in Template:United Kingdom cities). Of course, that will drastically change the ranking of the cities. The second most populated city happens to be San Cirstóbal Ecatepec (with almost 1.7 million), which, however is also part of Greater Mexico City. Monterrey, on the other hand, would fall into the 11th position, with only 1.1 million.

If NuclearVacuum (talk · contribs) insists on reverting and ingoring this second attempt at discussing, I will resinsert the inaccuracy tag, and will bring the issue to Request for Mediation and/or Arbitration.

--the Dúnadan 16:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits by User:Generic515

User:Generic515, please explain why you're taking exception to the reasons I gave in this diff. All the Mexican metropolitan areas are called zona metropolitana de... in the cited INEGI source. There is no difference in nomenclature between the metropolitan area centered on Toluca and the one centered on Tijuana, for instance. So why would we make such a distinction here? Cobblet (talk) 02:47, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't a medical procedure guide, official names aren't necessary just in a simply list. That is the misterious explanation. --Generic515 (talk) 02:59, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And yet you just added four official names (but not the rest), which I have reverted. You are arguing against yourself. Cobblet (talk) 03:02, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry by no put more attention. Ok, all cities not have official names forcefully, but... you have obsessive–compulsive disorder?. Duh, relax friend and don't make mistakes, don't biased edits more, please. --Generic515 (talk) 03:15, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks, please. Address the issue: why are you putting in official names when you're claiming they're not necessary? Cobblet (talk) 03:21, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry by no put more attention.. Relax, friend!, what thing was "personal attack"?. --Generic515 (talk) 03:31, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the content, not the contributor. Failing to do so will get you blocked. "Sorry by no put more attention" is not a grammatical sentence in English. You have still not addressed the issue at hand. Cobblet (talk) 04:57, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]