Talk:Mexico City

Mexico City has been listed as a level-3 vital article in Geography. If you can improve it, please do. This page has been rated as B-Class.

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Mexico (Rated B-class, Top-importance) MexicoWikipedia:WikiProject MexicoTemplate:WikiProject MexicoMexico articles Mexico portal v · d · eThis article 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.  B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.  Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Cities (Rated B-class, Top-importance) CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles Geography portal v · d · eThis article 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.  B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.  Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject World Heritage Sites (Rated C-class, Mid-importance) World Heritage SitesWikipedia:WikiProject World Heritage SitesTemplate:WikiProject World Heritage SitesWorld Heritage Sites articles v · d · eThis article is within the scope of WikiProject World Heritage Sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of World Heritage Sites 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.  C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale. This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked Accessibility: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: | b1 <!--Referencing & citations--> = <yes/no> | b2 <!--Coverage & accuracy    --> = <yes/no> | b3 <!--Structure              --> = <yes/no> | b4 <!--Grammar & style        --> = <yes/no> | b5 <!--Supporting materials   --> = <yes/no> | b6 <!--Accessibility          --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.  Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Olympics (Rated B-class, Mid-importance) OlympicsWikipedia:WikiProject OlympicsTemplate:WikiProject OlympicsOlympics articles Olympics portal v · d · eMexico City is within the scope of WikiProject Olympics. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.  B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.  Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.   This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter. Todo list: edit · history · watch · purge The assessment department of the Olympics WikiProject needs your help assessing articles! If this article is unassessed, please assess it. See the instructions for more information on how to help, or go to the project's discussion page if you have a doubt on a rating. Add full results for events of the: Summer Olympics (from 1924 to 2004) Winter Olympics (from 1948 to 2002) TASK FORCE Bids for the 2016 Summer Olympics Candidate cities Madrid bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics Tokyo bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics Chicago bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics Applicant cities Doha bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics Prague bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics Baku bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 / Vital Wikipedia 1.0Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial TeamTemplate:WP1.0Wikipedia 1.0 articles v · d · eThis article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team. This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. Additional information:   This article is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.  B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. This article is a vital article.

This article is currently or was the subject of an educational assignment. Further details are available here.

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on September 19, 2005.

Archives
Archive 1

Contents 1 Featured Article 2 Too many deadlinks 3 Response to user Floquenbeam 4 Tren Suburbano & Metrobús 5 Introduction: Mexico City and the Federal District 6 Slum 7 Gallery 8 Images added by Benz65 9 Collage 10 Future Projects Gallery 11 Image clutter and puffery 12 Image copyright problem with File:Convergencia logo.PNG 13 Culture section 14 Gastronomic festivities

[edit] Featured Article

"making Mexico City the 25th largest economy in the world," should be deleted.

Woah! I must say that this article is way more extensive that I expected. Why it is not a featured article, what does it lack? so that I can contribute to fix it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.242.39.174 (talk) 10:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, good or featured is really not dependent on quantity of information... a lot of nitpicking. Besides it may not be possible given that this page is changed so frequently and vandalized.Thelmadatter (talk) 14:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I came to the discussion just to figure out why this wasn't featured. Oh well, I like it. 70.251.193.129 (talk) 21:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

This information really should be updated. A lot of the statistical information is out dated. The two 'factoids' that have had the most dramatic change recently is the economy and the population. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.161.100.187 (talk) 19:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Too many deadlinks

There are too many deadlinks in the article. See here --Extra999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 14:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Response to user Floquenbeam

Floquenbeam,

Thank you very much for the message you sent me regarding the article on Mexico City. And thank you for offering me the opportunity to discuss the material I have on numerous occasions had to re-enter as a result of it being repeatedly removed without valid reason.

Here is the situation from my perspective. As you can see by looking at the current version of such article (as of 1:18 am Eastern Standard Time), there is a sentence that reads:

"It is the most important political, cultural, and economic center in the country. "

If you notice my previous edits, I have broken down the above claim into two parts: 1) the part that claims that it is the most important political center in the country, for which support is provided immediately above the claim, i.e. "it is the current seat of the Powers of the Union;" and 2) the part that claims that it is the most important economic and cultural center in the country. This part has absolutely no reference supporting it. In fact, on various occasions I have requested that a reference be entered to back up such claim. And as far as I am concerned (you might be able to verify this), no one has ever supported this claim with a verifiable reference.

Following Wikipedia's rules, I have offered a different view to the second part of this claim. And I have provided verifiable references to support my view. Specifically, I have offered a view that counter-argues the claim that it is the most important economic center in the country by pointing out that, as the federal distric, which belongs to the entire federation, this city receives financial aid from the Mexican federal Congress, which is controlled by the 31 Mexican states. I have provided a specific example by pointing out that the head of government of this city recently asked the federal government for the return of the tortibono program (tortilla coupon program), a federal government funded program that for an extended period of time allowed a substantial number of the inhabitants of this city to eat tortillas for free. My external reference to support my view follows: [1]. Kindly note that the above reference is for an article associated with Televisa, one of the two major television networks in Mexico. Therefore, the reference is not only verifiable, but it is also from a reputable source. I understand that it is in Spanish, but, as you will be able to notice by going over the list of references in this article, many of the references in this article are in Spanish.

I also offer a counter-argument to the second part of the claim that states that this city is the most important cultural center in the country (which has never been supported by a reference.) My counter-argument is that this Mexican city, unlike two other Mexican cities, has never been named American Capital of Culture. To support my counter-argument, I provide an external third-party, verifiable reference, which follows: [2]

Invariably, however, my view, counter-argument and associated third-party, external, verifiable references are always removed (which may constitute vandalism.) And, not surprisingly, the same unsupported, reference-lacking claim that this city is the most imporant economic and cultural center in the country is re-entered.

Given that, as per comments entered by numerous users in the discussion section of this article, such as those entered by user Thelmadatter, who maintains " this page is changed so frequently and vandalized", I would like to recommend that this article be DELETED, as it puts Wikipedia in utter disrepute.

Thank you again for giving me the opportunity to discuss the material I have entered adhering to Wikipedia's rules, as well as for your consideration regarding the DELETION of this low quality article.

Sincerely,

ElEditordeWiki (talk) 05:51, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, first I want to thank you for finally accepting to discuss the edits you have been making. I had already invited him twice to discuss the edits in his talk page, and both times ElEditordeWiki silently refused by removing the notes I left at his talk page.

Second, as I had explained to you, your edits constitute POV pushing and original research. It is your opinion (POV) that Mexico City is not the "... most important political, cultural, and economic center in the country". You base your opinion on two verifiable facts: that Mexico City hasn't been the American Capital of Culture, and that Mexico City's Chief of Government asked the federal government for fundings to relief the price of a primary product for the habitants of the City. The drawing of the conclusion ,that because such request Mexico City is not the most important economic center in the country, is of course valid and you may have a point. But it constitutes Original Research. And likewise, you may infer that Mexico City is not the most important cultural center of the country given that two other cities of the country have been American Capitals of Culture and Mexico City hasn't. The argument is valid and logically correct. But the inferring of the argument by you, is what constitutes Original Research.

Being brief, neither of your sources discusses directly the fact that you are trying to include in the Wikipedia. None of them say anything about Mexico City being or not being the most important economic, political or cultural center of the country. That is why your edits are being rolled back continuously.

To be fair, the point that you are trying to argue against is also not well-sourced. Wikipedia doesn't require for every piece of information to be sourced, only the controversial ones. I didn't think that the importance of Mexico City among other cities in the country would be controversial, but it apparently is. So what I'm suggesting is for you to be bold. If you think that the line in the lead about the importance of the city is not well sourced or not sourced at all, remove it. But please don't try to push your point of view just because you think something is not well sourced.

And common, obviously deleting the article is not an option. Killing someone just because they have gangrene in one leg is ridiculous when it could be just amputated. The sole mentioning of the possibility sounds a little provocative from your part, but I'm going to assume that you made the proposition in good faith.

Finally, I also have counter-arguments for the ones you provided. But Wikipedia is not a forum to vent points of view, so I'm going to refrain from mentioning them. I hope that you understand that what you are trying to include is highly controversial and not well sourced. Again I invite you to be bold and remove the content that you see is not well sourced as we have done previously with your edits. Thank you. --Legion fi (talk) 07:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Legion fi, thank you for your message. Please note that I deleted the messsage you left me because, by going over the messages left in the discussion section of this article, I noticed that you had already accused at least another user of POV pushing, the same thing of which you were trying to accuse me in your message. It was reasonable to assume that you did that on a regular basis in an attempt to prevent others Wikipedia users from presenting points of view that add neutrality to what is clearly a biased article (please see the numerous comments entered by other users.)

I would like to present below Wikipedia's rule regarding NPOV:

Neutral point of view

Wikipedia's editorial policy is the "neutral point of view," often abbreviated "NPOV." This policy says that we accept all the significant viewpoints on an issue. Instead of simply stating one perspective, we try to present all relevant viewpoints without judging them. Our aim is to be informative, not persuasive. Our policy does NOT mean that our articles are expected to be 100% "objective," since in any dispute all sides believe their view to be "true."

It is OK to state opinions in articles, but they must be presented as opinions, not as fact. Also, it is a good idea to attribute these opinions, for example "Supporters of this say that..." or "Notable commentator X believes that..."

Kindly note that you can re-read the above by clicking on the following link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tutorial_(Keep_in_mind)

I would like to request that you carefully re-read the following: "This policy says that we accept all the significant viewpoints on an issue. Instead of simply stating one perspective, we try to present all relevant viewpoints without judging them."

Again, in an attempt to add neutrality to this article, which is considered by other users to be a biased one (as per the numerous comments they have entered in the discussion section), I have presented a most significant viewpoint on the issue of the claimed economic and cultural importance of this city, claim which, as you have acknowledged, is not supported by any reference. And, as you have acknowledged, I have supported my viewpoint with verifiable references.

Regarding your claim that I am using original research, let's present below what Wikipedia says about it:

Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.

As you have ackowledged, my reasoning is logical and correct and the references I have provided are verifiable. In addition, the fact that the tortibono (tortilla coupon) program from which Mexico City benefits is financed by the federal government is a published fact. Furthermore, this fact was published by Televisa, one of the two major television networks in Mexico.

In your message above you say "it is the inferring of the argument by you that constitutes original research." I would like to request that you kindly carefully re-read the above paragraph on original research. As you can realize, it does not say anything about anyone inferring any argument. I am not inferring any argument. I am presenting published, verifiable facts.

Before reading your message, I read the message that Floquenbeam had left me, in which he suggests that I consult the dispute resolution section. I did, and, following Wikipedia's rules, I removed the unsupported, reference-lacking claim that this city is the most important economic and cultural center in the country. Maintaining neutrality, I have left the well supported claim that this city, as the current seat of the powers of the union, is the most important political center in the country.

Also, complying with Wikipedia's NPOV policy, I have left intact the sentence and associated reference that support the contention that Mexico City is one of the most important financial centers in Latin America, both of which, by the way, I entered (it should not be difficult for you to corroborate this.) Interestingly, however, neither you nor anyone else has removed neither this sentence nor the associated reference I entered.

Are Wikipedia's rules interpreted differently depending on whether what is written is agreeable to the reader or not? It is left to the critical thinking reader to draw his or her own conclusion.

I thank you again for your message, as well as for acknowleging that my logic is correct, that the references I have provided are verifiable, and that I have valid points.

Most sincerely,

ElEditordeWiki (talk) 02:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate that you seem to be making an effort towards understanding what we are trying to say. Yes, I have reverted POV pushing in the past and I will continue to do so. You can read why I do that in the BE BOLD guideline.

Also, just to be clear, one of the five pillars of Wikipedia is the Ignore All Rules policy, which basically means that there are no hard rules. You seem to think that policies are strict rules, but they aren't. I just wanted to clarify that.

Now to the matter at hand. I'm sorry, but your own quote of the OR policy states exactly what you are doing. You are using a "synthesis of published material" to "advance" your "position". You are not presenting published verifiable facts. You are saying that Mexico is not the most important cultural nor economical center of the country. And neither of your sources state that POV. The sources that you are using state two facts: that Mexico City Chief of Government asked the federal government for a program similar to the old tortibonos, and that two Mexican cities which are not Mexico City have been American Capital of Culture. Those are the verifiable published facts. You are using those facts to draw the conclusion that Mexico City is not the most important cultural nor economic center of the country. That conclusion is yours, and your conclusion hasn't been published by a third-party source, therefore is not verifiable.

Yes, we can and we should include all the relevant points of view. But those points of view need to be backed up by reliable sources. If you find an article, a book, or any other verifiable piece of information that clearly talk about Mexico City not being the most important cultural or economical center of the country, you are more than welcome to publish that opinion backed by the source.

As you can see I haven't edited your edits and in fact I haven't watch the article state. What I'm trying to do is to explain why so many editors (because not only I have done so) have reverted your edits. Also please note that you not only removed one of my messages, but you removed two of them, and again, not only my messages but other editors messages urging you to talk about it first. As you can also see in the BE BOLD guideline, the fact that we revert you edits is nothing personal. We have done so with many people, and fortunately you seem to be willing to reach a Consensus on the matter. Sadly, no other editor has expressed their opinion. I will not enforce any agreement that you and I could reach until at least someone else has stated an opinion. And I humbly ask you to do the same, as I think we can agree that we need some more opinions about this matter.--Legion fi (talk) 03:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Legion fi, thank you again for your message. With all due respect, I think you have it backwards. As per the message I left right below the message you left another user accusing him/her of POV pushing, it is SOMEONE ELSE that is POV pushing. SOMEONE ELSE is trying to push the POV that this city is the most important economic and cultural center in the country. Unfortunately, their POV pushing does not work because no support is provided. No verifiable reference is ever provided despite numerous requests. It is us, other Wikipedia users, who have the right to present all relevant viewpoints who offer a different view to that POV that someone else is trying to push. Unfortunately, there are so many residents in this city (as per the article, around 20 million) and potential Wikipedia users from this city, it appears that this POV pushing is being performed by so many people. It is not that my edits are being removed because they do not adhere to Wikipedia rules. They do, as they simply present a different, relevant viewpoint and as verifiable references are provided. What appears to be happening is that no resident of this city that reads about the tortibono program seems to like the unquestionable PUBLISHED fact that this city for an extended period of time received financial aid from the federal government (which is controlled by the 31 free and sovereign Mexican states) so that a most significant number of its inhabitants could eat tortillas for free and that its head of government recently asked the federal government for its return. Needless to say, they remove this PUBLISHED FACT and its associated verifiable reference, despite the fact that doing so may constitute VANDALISM, which violates Wikipedia rules. And yes, they are to be respected. First you claim to try to enforce Wikipedia rules by pretending to prevent others from POV pushing. Now you talk about there being no hard rules. You have mentioned being bold. I encourage you to be bold and to once and for all accept that Wikipedia rules provide for the presentation of all relevant points of view. The view I am presenting is a much needed viewpoint that provides that attempts to add objectivity to the unsupported, reference-lacking claim that this city is the most important economic and cultural center in the country. It is simply the presentation of PUBLISHED FACTS. And it provides balance to a clearly biased article. Again, it is not just me thinking this article is biased. Please read the comments that many other users have made regarding the lack of objectivity of this article. By reading such comments you will notice that other users have complained about well referenced pieces of information being removed. Again, unfortunately, there are so many potential Wikipedia users from this city of around 20 million people, it is difficult to stop the removal of one's verifiable refernces and published facts. Regarding what you say about what I present being an analysis of published facts, it is completely inaccurate. What I state is that, as a belonging of the federation, this city receives fiancial aid from the federal government, which is controlled by the 31 free and sovereign Mexican states. I then provide an external, verifiable reference so that the reader can corroborate this published fact. There is no analysis here. It is purely a simple, verifiable, publised fact. And no, Wikipedia rules are not contingent upon the number of users who might agree or disagree with my or your point of view. The content of this article will be decided by Wikipedia rules, not by the number of people that agree with you. What you say about my removing your messages, you are right. I did, as I did not want to be harassed, which is against Wikipedia rules. Given that I was and have been following Wikipedia rules, I considered unnecessary discussing anything. And again, I did not want to be harassed by someone that has accused other users of POV pushing. And I did not want to have to read unpleasant, unfounded messages. Well, this is rather long paragraph, so I will stop here. Again, I thank you for having acknowledged that my points are valid, that my logic is sound, and that the references I have provided are verifiable. And please, let's be bold and stick to Wikipedia rules. Please don't change your mind, first advocating its rules and then saying there are no rules to be followed. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. I respectully ask that you kindly stop changing your mind. I encourage you to be make a bold decision to RESPECT Wikipedia rules, regardless of whether what you read is agreeable to you or not. I do appreciate your having respected my last edit. I think that consensus can be more easily achieved if no unsupported, reference-lacking claims are entered in Wikipedia articles. Thank you again. If you intend to respond to this message, I kindly request that you do so after having taken the bold decision respect Wikipedia rules and to avoid giving them an interpretation that is contingent upon the agreeability, or lack thereof, of the views presented in our encyclopedia. And, again, let's just stick to the job of entering objective information supported by verifiable references. This is what Wikipedia is all about. Sincerely, ElEditordeWiki (talk) 01:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, there are two clear things here. ElEditordeWiki doesn't want to discuss or reach consensus in this matter. Seeing that he disputed non-sourced content that was mostly considered not controversial, I tried to open a discussion about how to balance the lead section. Second, no other editor seems interested in contributing to this discussion.

Reading the article lead, I think that the matter at hand has graciously settled itself by the Be Bold - Revert - Edit lifecycle and it looks good at the moment. Editors, including ElEditordeWiki, have done a wonderful work in this matter. So I will not be following this debate any longer (feel free to contact me at my talk page if you wish to say something to me).

Lastly, I do not wish to engage in a personal discussion or in wikilawyering. But I do stand in the point that there are no hard rules. Many of those "rules" that I cited were policies and one of them was even a policy related essay. That is why the "Ignore All Rules" pillar policy is so great. It allows ample flexibility and consensus, making wikipedia richer than most encyclopedias with strict editorial rules.I finish by thanking ElEditordeWiki for his efforts. I do not disagree nor agree with what he is saying. I'm simply pointing out that there are no reliable sources that talk specifically about the point discussed. The reliable sources cited during this discussion talk about a local government asking the federal government for funds to support a social aid program, and about two Mexican cities being the American Capital of Culture. Those facts are well sourced and, as I have already said in revert summaries, they definitely belong to the respective section for each. Thank you. --Legion fi (talk) 06:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

It seemed a simple matter to ask a search engine for "Cultural capital of Mexico" and note the large responses for Mexico City on the web. Hence it may be possible to insert the following statement into the article: 67.86.75.96 (talk) 23:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Mexico City is the cultural capital of Mexico.^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]}

[edit] Tren Suburbano & Metrobús

I've seen someone deleted the Tren Suburbano(TS) image. I really think that this train is a really important transport inside Mexico City. So theres must be an image about TS. Another comment is that the image of Metrobús seems old, (2005) there are just few buses that seem like that, there must be an updated image of Metrobús. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seitseman88 (talk • contribs) 05:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction: Mexico City and the Federal District

This issue has been extensively discussed in the past, not only in the English wiki, but also in the Spanish wiki. Mexico City does not occupy the Federal District; Mexico City is not located in the Federal District. Mexico City is the Federal District.

Back in the 1990s confusion as to which entity superseded or absorbed the other led the Chamber of Deputies to modify the 44th article of the Constitution which now reads:[3]

"La ciudad de México es el Distrito Federal, sede de los Poderes de la Unión y capital de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos."

"Mexico City is the Federal District, seat of the Powers of the Union and capital of the United Mexican States.'"

When the Statute of Government of the Federal District (basic organic law) was approved, it confirmed this designation. The second article of the Statute reads:[4]

" La Ciudad de México es el Distrito Federal, sede de los Poderes de la Unión y capital de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos. El Distrito Federal es una entidad federativa [...]"

"Mexico City is the Federal District, seat of the Powers of the Union and capital of the United Mexican States. The Federal District is a federal entity [...]"

Both laws make no space for ambiguity. Mexico City is the Federal District. --the Dúnadan 15:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Slum

Nothing about the slum (barrio) areas? See for example National Geographic. --Ettrig (talk) 07:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me sir, but the definition of slum that Mark Jacobson uses for the so called "Neza-Chalco-Itza barrio" is not correct —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielfc.mx (talk • contribs) 05:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Gallery

I have created a gallery and moved a huge amount of the pictures included in this article too it. There were way too many pictures, cluttering out text and looking unseemly. If anyone objects to a particular picture removal to gallery, bring it up here. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 01:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Images added by Benz65

Benz65 has added many images for which he claims most are his own work and gives them a public domain tag. Many of the images look too professional and too diverse to be taken by one uploader and I have already found several copyright violations of Flickr images, and nominated for deletion. Please help identify sources for the others and nominate them for deletion or drop me a note and I will do it. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 14:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

If there's no objections I am going to revert all the edits anyway. Totally destroyed the point of the gallery I had made merely 2 edits before!

I will not add any of Benz65's photos to the gallery, due to the above objection. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable course of action. If anyone can assist tracking down sources for his images it would be appreciated as finding copyright violation is a thankless task for this type of abuse. TIA ww2censor (talk) 15:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Collage

The collage used in the article features many unexisting buildings, either they have not been approved or they are under construction. I think that the previous collage should be displayed again :)

[edit] Future Projects Gallery

In the FUTURE DEVELOPMENT section, under the Future Projects Gallery there are three projects out of the four that were listed that should not be there.

Torre Xochimilco and Torre Tezozomoc were not actual projects but only a ´vision´that never went beyond a conceptual idea. Torre Bicentenario II was a proposed project but it never got enough financial support nor political backing to become a reality so it´s completely dead.

Torre Reforma is the only project out of the four that became a reality and is actually being built.

Besides that the only serious and real notable potential projects in the works are the 50-story, 221-meter Torre Bancomer, scheduled to be complete in 2012; the 52-story, 191-meter Reforma 432 building, scheduled to be ready in 2013; and the Plaza Carso mixed-use complex, currently under construction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marino33 (talk • contribs) 06:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Image clutter and puffery

I have removed a number of very ordinary images. There are still far too many, and the text is sandwiched between right and left images on smaller monitors in many cases. There are repetitions in the galleries.

In far too many places, the article looks like a tourist brochure, with puffy text. This urgently needs to be toned down.

Most disappointing. Tony (talk) 12:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I dont think there is much that can be done about the text. This is one of those articles that everyone wants to put their two cents in. It is also noticable to me that there is something of a culture clash. What we would consider "puffy" is not in most Spanish language rhetoric. It is only natural that someone from Mexico or Mexico City with a good level of English would want to contribute to the article, but would not understand the cultural rules. However, I think the BIGGEST problem here is mere size. This article is far too long with too many trivial facts. But again, I dont know how to fix this without ticking off people by taking "their" information out. It wont stay out anyways.Thelmadatter (talk) 01:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I think we should move ahead and remove superfluous content - if we step on some toes we can take the argument then. We can't stop striving for quality merely because there are two many chefs in the kitchen.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with File:Convergencia logo.PNG

The image File:Convergencia logo.PNG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Culture section

To me the Culture section is very confusing: most of the content is in the "Music, theater and entertainment" section which also includes museums and passages that really belong to other sections.

There is a separate section for museums that discusses opening hours and admission prices only. Moving the museums from the "Music, theater and entertainment" section would make that section much more readable. In addition the Landmarks section mentions "over 300 museums" so Museums could be expanded in the future.

It would be very nice to see a separate section on Cinema given Mexico's important contributions to world cinema. Are there specialist art houses showing mainly Mexican/other Latin American countries' movies? Again, creating this section and moving the content from the "Music, theater and entertainment" section would make that section much more readable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petercascio (talk • contribs) 20:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Gastronomic festivities

“La feria de la enchilada” is an October festivity located in delegación Iztapalapa, with an affluent of approximately 300,000 persons per week, this gastronomic event is considerate very traditional according to Mexican association: Camara Nacional de la Industria Restaurantera y de Alimentos Condimentados (Canirac). Almost 200 varieties of enchiladas are taste in this succulent event. La crónica de hoy ASR & SASC SUAYED UNAM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonio Santiago R (talk • contribs) 06:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)