Talk:Cumbia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Latin music: Tropical music High‑importance

	Latin music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latin music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Latin music (music performed in Spanish, Portuguese and the languages of Ibero-America, see project scope for more details) 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.Latin musicWikipedia:WikiProject Latin musicTemplate:WikiProject Latin musicLatin music
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Tropical music task force.

Is this really an ambiguous term?

Seems more like a WP:Broad-concept article to me. We can't just move this over the top of Cumbia; this strikes me as a sort of WP:Content fork. There are over 700 links which would need to be disambiguated.

Even on Spanish Wikipedia there are nearly 400 links that still need to be disambiguated. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

Some unlucky moving was done, making Cumbia a redirect to this page. But with Cumbia essentially empty, the content of this page should be better placed at that page. The Banner talk 10:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The two pages shouldn't be merged. They should be WP:ROBIN swapped per WP:MALPLACED.

There's also the suggestion, above, that Cumbia should be a BCA. That change could follow a ROBIN swap. Narky Blert (talk) 11:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No objection against a swap. The Banner talk 11:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Im agree with the merge, I want to explain why:

Moment # 1: The entry "Cumbia": Contained the information of the Panamanian and Colombian cumbia. There was no desambiguation page.

The problem has its origins that Colombian Wikipedians didn´t tolerate that the information of Panamanian cumbia, appeared in the entry "cumbia" next to the Colombian one. Also they didn´t tolerate that cumbia was defined as binational genre. Their thesis was that we were referring to two different genres or that the Panamanian cumbia is a derivative of the Colombian cumbia, so egalitarian redaction was not tolerated although there were sources.

Moment # 2: As a result of this problem, a Wikipedian chose to apply the same solution that was applied in Spanish wikipedia, in that way everyone agreed:

Cumbia: A disambiguation page.

Cumbia (Colombia): All contents about the Colombian cumbia

Cumbia (Panama): All contents about the Panamanian cumbia

Moment # 3: Then came a moving before mine that caused the following problem:

"Cumbia" to "cumbia (disambiguation)".

Cumbia (Panama): It remained

Cumbia (Colombia): It remained

Cumbia: They copied the same information that Cumbia (Colombia) had.

With this, two entries were left with the same information and it was intended to monopolize the "Cumbia" entry with the information from Colombia, leaving out the panamanian and breaking the consensus of the moment # 2.

Moment # 4: With my edition I tried to remedy this situation and far from being unfortunate, I tried to do my best to eliminate the duplication of articles. The idea is to make the entry "Cumbia" a neutral space and not an entry that pretends to be monopolized by nationalist interests.

Im agree that the Cumbia entry (Desambiguation) should be merged in Cumbia. And that Cumbia (Colombia) and Cumbia (Panama) remains, in that way the balance of moment # 2 is achieved, which seemed good to all of us.

Greetings

--Panama1519 (talk) 01:06, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Cumbia" versus "Cumbia (Colombia)"

The destinction between these two articles is blurry.

The titling leads me to believe "Cumbia (Colombia)" is a sub-category of cumbia, the same as the other 15 regional variations identified in the "Cumbia" article. However, it's not the sub genre; it is the genre (or at least that is where the genre originates from.

So then I might expect "Cumbia (Colombia)" to include the origins of cumbia but focus on cumbia in Columbia. Perhaps there's no major difference; however, higher-level "Cumbia" contains no reference to cumbia being originally Colombian besides the Regional adaptations of Colombia Cumbia heading and "Cumbia (Colombia)" being included in an examples list (along with Panamanian cumbia.) Ostensibly there is a difference, and I might expect higher-level "Cumbia" article to address that, but it does not. The article has no real purpose.

I'm unsure how this could be rectified. Should "Cumbia" be edited to include origins, a music genre infobox, and other "generalities" with "Cumbia (Colombia)" being left as is. Should "Cumbia" be replaced with a disambiguation with "Cumbia (Colombia)" acting as the primary topic and absorbing any asynchronous information? Sr Desayuno (talk) 02:22, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the answer to your question but the correct term is "Colombia" or "Colombian", not columbian Jonjon1324 (talk) 19:13, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, I edited the comment Sr Desayuno (talk) 20:22, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]