Talk:Lima/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

San Lorenzo Port??? NOT!!

The Maritime Transport section of the article states that "There have been plans to build a new megaport on the island of San Lorenzo known as the San Lorenzo Megaport Project. This port is planned to become the largest of Latin America."

This is just a blatant lie.

There's no official project to build a port in San Lorenzo Island. The current official project in San Lorenzo is about housing, NOT ports (http://www.proinversion.gob.pe/0/0/modulos/JER/PlantillaFichaHijo.aspx?ARE=0&PFL=0&JER=4096). As a matter of fact, the so called San Lorenzo port project has no backing technical studies whatsoever and has never been picked by the Peruvian government, due to the fact that it's not economically feasable at all. It has never been considered. The only port project currently taking place in Callao is the Dubai Ports World "Muelle Sur" project, which is under development. According to the National Ports System Act (Ley 27943), for a public port project to be developed, it has to be included in the National Ports Development Plan, which is not the case with San Lorenzo. For more info (in Spanish) check out the National Ports Authority of Peru's website www.apn.gob.pe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supermellowman (talk • contribs) 15:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}}

The coordinates need the following fixes:

• Write here

longide coordinate value for Lima (PE) city is incorrect, please check. Real is around 77ª. BR

201.230.72.10 (talk) 07:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

And 77 deg is what is already given in the infobox. If something else is given somewhere else in the article, I can't find it. Coords appear to be correct, unless I'm missing something. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 22:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

oscar anemo// yousif shamasha

Lima är en fin stad men det luktar inte gott :S —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.200.163.36 (talk) 10:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

First section is illogical

The first section has some statements that I believe are opinions and difficult to justify objectively. "... one of the most important cities in the world leveled with Tokyo, New York, Paris, London, Sydney and Dubai." Based on what measurement?

The following statement makes no sense: "Lima's Commerce and economy are classified as the biggest percentage in South America." Percentage of what? Finally, this statement is logically inconsistent: "Along with Santiago, São Paulo, Buenos Aires, and Caracas, Lima is the second most important city in South America after São Paulo." Marzolian (talk) 15:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

It's been improved. Nice job. Marzolian (talk) 22:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

It still needs improvement. It states that as a "major beta world city" it is on the same level as New York, London, Paris which are obviously ranked as "alpha cities". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.230.53.116 (talk) 12:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Events section needs to be trimmed

I'm seeing that the events section is becoming a laundry list of high profile acts who have played in Lima. Is this really necessary? Couldn't we just put "many high-profile acts have played concerts in Lima," and just leave it at that? I would like to think we could put in an example of a high profile act, but there's no way to determine who should make the cut, vs who doesn't, and then people would just do all over again what's already been done: make this a laundry list. Another thing is that this section strongly favors American and English recording acts, when Lima is obviously going to have major Spanish speaking/South American concerts and such that don't seem to be recorded. Anyone have any thoughts on this before we make some changes? Hires an editor (talk) 13:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

70% White and White-Amerindian

According to a 2008 survey by the Instituto de Opinión Pública de la Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, 70% is considered White and White-Amerindian, 30% are considered by other groups. http://iop.pucp.edu.pe/images/documentos/2008%20ENERO%20LIMA%20LIMA.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vasco-peruano (talk • contribs) 01:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• That's not true. I clicked on your link, and it says 7% white, 63% mestizo, 18% amerindian. You apparently created your own categories? etc. etc. Rafajs77 (talk) 02:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Lima Collage.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Lima Collage.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Collage in Infobox

It is usual Wikipedia practice to include a collage in the Infobox of place Wikipedia articles — city, country… —. It does not disrupt reading at all, and it illustrates the subject. Illustrating is an important part of Wikipedia, and of all other encyclopedias. The collage in the Infobox informs and makes the page look nicer and makes the page more attractive and more pleasant to read.

--Nnemo (talk) 21:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Contradicting Info

In the introductory section I read, "With a population fast approaching 9 million, Lima is the fifth largest city in Latin America, behind Mexico City, São Paulo, Buenos Aires and Rio de Janeiro"

This seems to contradict the population estimates in the overview section on the right-hand side for these cities. Lima's population is listed at 7,605,742, while Buenos Aires is listed at 2,891,082, and Rio de Janeiro is listed at 6,323,037. I know population depends on how you measure it, but this is confusing and Buenos Aires doesn't even seem close (although I would have thought it would be more). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aknittel (talk • contribs) 19:17, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem isn't population, but where it's defined as being. Metro area or city limits? There should be a way to make all the entries use the same concept for the definition in various articles about cities...but I think that may be too hard...Hires an editor (talk) 17:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Callout for a NEW main Lima Image

The Main image of Lima,Peru 'the top of Cerro San Cristobal' was taken on the 21st of September 2003. I think this photo is considerably outdated, and a much recent photo would suffice in portraying the city of Lima more accurately......... VineViVenci (talk) 13:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree, that image is a disgrace. Untill a new one is found, it should be taken down. 203.134.11.248 (talk) 10:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Why is it disgrace? It shows the city's core from one of it's most traditional vantage points. I think it's alright. --Victor12 (talk) 13:52, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Vista estadio.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Vista estadio.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

New Lima Main Image

The pic of Lima from the San Cristobal Hill should be replaced. It just shows one view of the city, while Limaperu1.jpg feels like a proper city collage highlighting the most important parts of the city, like in various other city articles. What do you guys think?

File:Limaperu1.jpg

I think that the image we have is fine, and should stay the same. It shows an unvarnished view of the city, as a previous poster indicates, in an iconic way. We should not attempt to make this article about a city into a brochure. Wikipedia is not a guidebook. Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. The edit history of this article over the last few years has been a basic edit war to prevent this article from becoming full of "peacock images". There are various images that demonstrate notable things about Lima in the article already. Another reason for leaving the image alone is that we don't need to imitate other articles, which is an argument that has been made before. Just because other articles do it, doesn't mean we need to do it that way here. Hires an editor (talk) 14:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually infoboxes of cities across wikipedia are slowling being changed to this sort of image because it better represents the locations that are the subject of the article. Infoboxes are supposed to give quick summaries of the article and these do a better job of that then a single image. It also helps cut down on the number of images in the main body of the article which often creates clutter. This certainly isn't the only page where this style is used and eventually most will likely be converted to this style. Now in saying that I don't know if these are the best landmarks to show. Usually the images put in a cities collage show a mix of history, culture and current. So if its the pictures that are the problem its easy enough to find better representative pictures. But we definitely should make the change. It drastically helps out the page. -DJSasso (talk) 13:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

One of the better examples I know of is File:Calgarymontage4.jpg because it has an image of a very unique landmark, then it has a picture indicating some of the cities culture which is of the Calgary Stampede, the worlds largest outdoor rodeo and what the city is best known for, then it has another shot of the Olympic Winter Games ski jumps which shows its past as an Olympic Host City, and then it has some images of other history buildings to show its past and then it has a a good picture that shows its greenspaces. Overall it gives a quick well rounded outline of the city in a single image, which is what the purpose of the infobox is. It has also helped drastically cut down the number of images that would get thrown into the body of the article cluttering it up. -DJSasso (talk) 13:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

File:CollageLima.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:CollageLima.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:CollageLima.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Blake24 - Images

I'd like to try to understand the images issue, because I'm not. Why keep adding images? Hires an editor (talk) 03:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)