Talk:Portal Fernández Concha

Lots of information

Please help TraceySear840 (talk) 19:12, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Dear Ruud Buitelaar @Ruud Buitelaar,

Thank you for your detailed review and feedback on the Portal Fernández Concha article submission. Your expertise in maintaining the high standards of Wikipedia is invaluable, and I appreciate the time you have invested in evaluating my work. However, I would like to discuss some concerns and request further guidance to enhance the article effectively.

1. Balance Between Promotional and Crime Content: I understand your concerns about certain sections appearing promotional and others overly focused on crime. This might seem contradictory, as promotional content typically emphasizes positive aspects, while a detailed crime section may present a less favorable view. My intention was to provide a comprehensive portrayal of Portal Fernández Concha, covering its historical and contemporary significance. I seek your advice on achieving the right balance between showcasing its cultural and architectural importance and reporting on relevant social issues.
2. Collaboration and Assistance: The threat of deletion, rather than guidance on improvement, is somewhat discouraging, especially for contributors who are eager to add valuable content to Wikipedia. Could you, or other experienced editors, provide more direct assistance or mentorship? This collaborative approach would be more constructive and beneficial for new contributors like myself.
3. Completeness of the Spanish Article: While the suggestion to refer to the Spanish Wikipedia article is helpful, it appears to be incomplete and lacking in certain areas. This gap presents a challenge in using it as a comprehensive model for the English version. Could we collaborate to enhance both the English and Spanish articles, ensuring they comprehensively cover the subject?
4. Seeking Constructive Feedback: I would greatly appreciate more specific guidance on how to improve the article. Could you provide examples of sections that you found particularly problematic or suggest alternative ways to present the information? This constructive approach would be incredibly helpful.
5. Reliability of Sources and Encyclopedic Format: I acknowledge the need for a more rigorous selection of sources and will work to strengthen the article's credibility. Additionally, I will review the language to ensure it aligns more closely with Wikipedia's expected encyclopedic format, addressing your concerns about the formal tone.
6. Crime Section and Sensationalism: The detailed section on recent crimes is intended to provide a factual account of the Portal's current social context. However, I will revisit this section to ensure it balances well with the rest of the article and does not sensationalize the content.
7. Inaccessible Source and Copy-Paste Concern: Regarding the inaccessibility of the source at Patrimonio Urbano, I assure you the content is original. I will cross-reference with other available sources to validate this. https://www.patrimoniourbano.cl/inmuebles-y-zonas-patrimoniales/region-metropolitana/
8. Contemporary Use and Promotional Content: I aimed to illustrate the Portal's role in the community with practical examples. However, I will review these references to avoid any promotional connotations.

I am committed to revising the article to meet Wikipedia's standards and would greatly value a collaborative and supportive approach. I aim to contribute a well-balanced, informative, and neutral article on Portal Fernández Concha and look forward to your continued guidance.

Best regards,

TraceySear840 (talk) 14:19, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Notability

Based on the Wikipedia Notability guidelines and considering the case for the notability of Portal Fernández Concha, the argument for its notability can be framed as follows:

1. Significant Coverage: Portal Fernández Concha has received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. This coverage is not trivial and addresses the subject directly and in detail, fulfilling the requirement of significant coverage under the general notability guideline (WP:SIGCOV). Sources include historical archives, academic studies on Chilean architecture, and reputable news outlets reporting on the Portal's cultural and societal impacts.
2. Reliable Sources: The information about Portal Fernández Concha comes from reliable sources with editorial integrity, allowing for verifiable evaluation of notability per the reliable source guideline. These include peer-reviewed journals on architecture and history, books published on the cultural heritage of Santiago, and articles from established news organizations.
3. Independent Coverage: Coverage of Portal Fernández Concha comes from sources independent of the subject, ensuring objectivity and compliance with Wikipedia's requirement that sources be independent of the topic (WP:INDY). This independence assures that the coverage is not influenced by self-promotion or conflict of interest.
4. Notability is Not Temporary: The Portal's historical significance and its role in Santiago's urban fabric are enduring, meeting the criterion that notability is not temporary (WP:NTEMP). Its historical, architectural, and cultural relevance has been sustained over a significant period, establishing its lasting notability.
5. Presumption of Notability: Given the significant coverage in reliable and independent sources, Portal Fernández Concha is presumed to merit its own article (WP:PRESUMED). This presumption is based on the depth of coverage and the quality of sources, even if some aspects of the Portal might require further sourcing or expansion.
6. Subject-Specific Guidelines: While general notability guidelines are paramount, subject-specific guidelines for buildings and structures also support the notability of Portal Fernández Concha. These guidelines consider the architectural significance, historical value, and cultural impact of structures, all of which are well-documented for the Portal.
7. Notability Requires Verifiable Evidence: The evidence of notability for Portal Fernández Concha is verifiable and documented in accessible sources (WP:NRV). This verifiability is critical in establishing the Portal's eligibility for a Wikipedia article.

TraceySear840 (talk) 19:53, 27 January 2024 (UTC) @Chris troutman

Citations

@Chris troutman @Ruud Buitelaar

I appreciate your efforts in reviewing the draft for the Portal Fernández Concha article and your commitment to upholding Wikipedia's content standards. However, I believe there's a misunderstanding regarding the nature and reliability of the sources used, particularly concerning the guidelines on self-published sources (SPS).

Wikipedia's policy on self-published sources rightly advises caution, given the potential for bias, lack of editorial oversight, and the inherent unreliability associated with personal blogs, social media postings, and similar platforms. However, the contention that the sources cited in the Portal Fernández Concha draft fall squarely under this policy may require reconsideration.

The cited sources from T13 and CHV, while shared on platforms like YouTube, originate from established media outlets with recognized editorial standards and journalistic integrity. These are not akin to content from personal blogs or social media postings, which are typically user-generated without editorial control. The distinction lies in the content producer's credibility, not the medium through which the content is disseminated.

Moreover, the general skepticism towards sources like the tourism site may also benefit from a nuanced analysis. While promotional in nature, information from official tourism websites can be considered reliable for factual data such as historical details, architectural facts, or geographical information, provided they are used judiciously and corroborated with other independent sources.

In light of Wikipedia's guidelines, the argument here is not for an uncritical acceptance of all sources but for a more differentiated approach that considers the nature of the content and the reputation of the content producers. Dismissing sources solely based on the platform (like YouTube) without considering the content's origin and quality may inadvertently exclude valuable information that meets Wikipedia's reliability and verifiability standards.

The aim is to build an article with a foundation of credible, verifiable information that enriches Wikipedia as a resource. I believe that with a careful, nuanced examination of sources, we can achieve this goal for the article on Portal Fernández Concha, ensuring it reflects the notability and significance of the subject in accordance with Wikipedia's standards.

Thank you for considering this perspective, and I look forward to any further guidance or suggestions you might have.

Best regards, TraceySear840 (talk) 20:15, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Rewrite complete, now in mainspace

I have rewritten the article and it is now live on my responsibility (and connected to the Spanish-language article, which provided some useful archived references and a clear exposition of the history). I kept the art gallery and the motion to expropriate, but none of the crime specifics and none of the statements about paranormal phenomena. The categories all relate to the building as a historic structure, which is its reason for notability, and I have accordingly cut the crime and paranormal WikiProjects from this page, along with the history WikiProject, which is too broad.

TraceySear840, bearing in mind that Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia and reflects what reliable sources say about a topic, if I cut something you wish to argue for putting back, please cite here at least one good source for each piece of information you want to be reinstated. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:38, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I felt really disenfranchised with what happened a few weeks ago. I appreciate your efforts to edit the article. There are a huge amount of legitimate sources in spanish, although quite a lot are documentaries and news programmes, given the nature of Chilean media. I thought the links from the Chilean congress were notable about the expropriation. Afterall its not really normal or usual that a national congresstalks about a specific building. I think this highlights its weird position socially and culturally. It on the square where chile was founded in 1541 by pedro de valdivia, its a national monument, next to the main cathedral, the town hall, the national post office, yet its plagued by crime. The spanish article is pretty limited too like many chilean articles.

anyway,thnaks for the genuine effort to start the article. TraceySear840 (talk) 15:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Literary references

The following references have been identified but as yet unused

Bulletin of the Pan American Union, Volume 46, page 156, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1918

New sections based on a single reference.

@Yngvadottir, you made this nice article about Portal Fernandez Concha, and @Chris troutman, since you have been looking at this too, I would like your advice on this matter. @TraceySear840 has included three new sections, namely Portal Sierra Bella, Original Portal Fernández Concha and Commercial Stock Exchange 1870, all three based on a single reference that is used 13 times without indicating specific pages. There are several issues with these additions. The text about the Stock Exchange is largely irrelevant for the Portal Fernández Concha as such. The section on Original Portal Fernández Concha is for the most part a duplication of information already present in Yngvadottir´s original text. And the section on Portal Sierra Bella breaks up the chronological order of the original article.

This is the reference. The text about Santiago is on pages 32-37 in this visor, pages xxxiii to xxxviii in the original numbering. There is nothing on these pages that speaks to Portal Sierra Bella, Portal Fernández Concha or the Stock Exchange. As for the latter, I have searched in spanish and I cannot find a single reference to a stock exchange in Santiago in 1870. I think it simply did not exist. If I am wrong, @TraceySear840, please correct me and indicate the exact pages where the information can be found. If I am right, colleagues, I would like your advice on how to handle this delicate matter. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 00:39, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

@Ruud Buitelaar: Please do not involve me in this. TraceySear840 is single-mindedly here to advertise and is not probably a good-faith contributor. This is Yngvadottir's fault, let them deal with it. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:37, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi Chris troutman, noted. @Ruud Buitelaar: Thanks for the ping and the link. I substantially agree; I am able to search within the pdf of the cited book, and found nothing to support what it was being used for. So I have reverted all TraceySear840s subsequent changes. The "In popular culture" section might be worth restoring, but since it cites only the works themselves, I have provisionally removed that too. Best would be if there are secondary sources concerning the building's occurrence in books/movies. But this article was created by TraceySear840; what I consider I did was save it, because I considered the topic notable. I see TraceySear840 thanked me above, and has also posted on their user talk. I'm going to post there next, so this is a bit of a placeholder. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:54, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Thanks. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 02:05, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

@Ruud Buitelaar@Y 12345 ut @EI_C

I have no idea why you are failing to find the citations. Maybe you are translating it? Using machine search?I just read the book.

Here is my repsonse on my talkpage to this. Which coveres things well I feel

I appreciate your effort to be fair and thorough in your response. However, I kindly ask you to consider the following points.

1.) Why would someone compose a paid article centered on topics such as crime and delinquency? I found the article, both in Spanish and English, lacking in substance. There was no payment or other benefit involved, just personal interest. However, my enthusiasm is waning as it seems my efforts are not appreciated and are causing inexplicable upset.

2.) I did not use AI; this is my own work. It took a long time.

3.) I cannot confirm whether you have read the book or not. However, having read it myself in Spanish, it's abundantly clear that the portal is mentioned numerous times, a total of 15 instances to be precise. I took the time to work on the sections pertaining to it, only to find them promptly deleted.

4.) I believe it's important for us to be mindful of being Anglo-centric.

5.) You have accused me of using a false citation. Allow me to demonstrate where to find the citations (an apology would be appropriate).

© Cámara Chilena de la Construcción, 2011

Marchant Pereira 10

Santiago de Chile

© Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, 2011

Av. Libertador Bernardo O’Higg ins 390

Santiago de Chile

© Dirección de Bibliotecas, Archivos y Museos, 2011

Av. Libertador Bernardo O’Higg ins 651

Santiago de Chile

Registro Propiedad Intelectual

Inscripción Nº 208.527

Santiago de Chile

IS BN 978-956-8306-08-3 (Obra completa)

IS BN 978-956-8306-73-1 (Tomo cuadragésimo cuarto)

Page 41: Portal Fernandez Concha and Portal Sierra Bella

Page 70: Three references mentioned

Page 158: Discussion on the stock exchange

Page 181: Reference to the commercial exchange

Page 809: General information regarding the Portal

6.) I didn't extend the text to accommodate more photos.

I genuinely want to avoid conflicts. My intention is solely to contribute positively. I welcome constructive criticism and truly value your feedback. However, I would greatly appreciate it if you could verify my citations before simply deleting them. Please feel free to rewrite or modify them as needed, but kindly refrain from making unfair accusations against me TraceySear840 (talk) 15:31, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir apologies I used the wrong person link in the last message! Please forgive me. TraceySear840 (talk) 15:32, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

@Ruud BuitelaarYour reference is wrong - its actually SM000588 not SM000585 TraceySear840 (talk) 15:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

@Ruud Buitelaar You are looking at the "Cartografía histórica de Chile" not the "Chile Ilustrado" by Recaredo Santos Tornero

here is the link [1]https://www.bibliotecanacionaldigital.gob.cl/bnd/632/w3-article-355633.html TraceySear840 (talk) 15:39, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir worth being aware of this I guess. TraceySear840 (talk) 15:40, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the link! I find discussion of the Portal Fernández Concha on pages 41 and 70, which can be used to reference the description of the original version of the building. On p. 158 there's material about the establishment of the hotel. The mention on p. 809 is less detailed than the sources we already cite for the high-end shops in the pasaje. However, p. 181, which you list in a response on your talk page, doesn't support the stock exchange (Bolsa Comercial) having been initially established on an upper floor of the building. What it says is that the organization that was established in 1870 to create the stock exchange had its office there, and that can be added to the article. It's a lovely book and it does provide some additional references. I apologize; Ruud Buitelaar found the wrong book and I didn't notice the difference in title. But your expansion was hugely out of proportion and repetitive. And I agree with Ruud Buitelaar that there is no reason to have more than a mention of the Portal Sierra Bella that was formerly on the site. (That can and should be described at the Plaza de Armas (Santiago) article.

If no one else does so first, I'll add a little to the article using the book (and adding the url to the reference). Yngvadottir (talk) 00:19, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Wait a minute! At User talk:TraceySear840, Ruud Buitelaar has pointed out that the book cited in this version of the article was indeed Cartografía histórica de Chile, not Chile Ilustrado. TraceySear840, you cited the wrong book, it was your error not theirs. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

@Ruud Buitelaar@Yngvadottir Thank youfor finding thatout and highlighting. I am the one that needs to apologise then. I cited badly so I will hold my hands up and apolgise. Sorry guys! TraceySear840 (talk) 12:31, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for apologising. I did add a couple of references to Chile ilustrado. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Apologies accepted. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 15:22, 22 February 2024 (UTC)