| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Panama City article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies |
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This  level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
what are some events that happened in panama before 1492— Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.3.136.2 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 23 November 2004 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to ask this because most important cities do have large, informative headers, but I'm out of ideas, do you know what should go in it?
Cocoliras (talk) 01:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Should we indicate Panama City's name as Panama City, Panama, or leave it like this. 201.218.82.81 22:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The name of this city is Panama, not Panama City or, in Spanish, Ciudad de Panama. The same as Houston or Detroit or Chicago; their names are not Houston City or Detroit City or Chicago City. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.227.103.38 (talk) 21:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Panama City is great for a Spanish class research paper — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.4.82.16 (talk) 16:33, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why was the photo from Cerro Ancon resized and moved up? Does it render badly for someone? I suppose most people will have a scree well over 800 pixels wide these days. I've moved it back for now. I've also shuffled the pics again, partly because the causeway was built by the US, so it's more in place where I put it.
Also, two of the other photos (the ones of and from NAOS) were very blue tinged, which I corrected, but this has reduced the quality of the photos somewhat. And the photo of the view of Panama from NAOS isn't too brilliant I'd say. Hope I don't insult anyone by saying this. DirkvdM 08:28, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to see the citation request for the following quote, but I push to remove it from the article altogether:
... most of the workers involved in the construction of the canal were brought in from the Caribbean, which created unprecedented racial and social tensions in the city.
As it is it implies that the majority of Caribbean immigrants came after the 1903 treaty that granted canal construction rights to the United States, where other sources say this happened to a greater extent during the earlier French attempts to construct the canal. If tensions did increase from a sudden influx of foreigners then of course it should be included, but the timing needs to be verified. 190.10.1.35 (talk) 12:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Panama City Article isn´t adverting, Panama City economy as many other Countries in the World, is heavily based in tourism, so is logical to make many references about it, but I agree that should be more information about another matters. So I ask to the person who put the template to consider if it is really necessary and if posibly enhance the content certain subcategories "Beaches" or "Nature". Nando Cdl 07:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine to highlight the importance of certain industries, as long as we avoid mentioning specific businesses or anything like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.66.52 (talk) 09:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It should be moved back to "Panama City, Panama". If you are editing in ENGLISH Wikipedia, you should abide by the pronunciation in English where there are no accent marks (tildes) in names. Regardless of the editor being an American or Panamanian, the page should be moved back to the English pronunciation.--Schonbrunn 21:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could someone think about make a section in this article about the real state boom (without fall in advertising) or it should be created a new article about this. I saw tha Kuala Lumpur has a whole article about its infraestructure and its skycrapers.
Please if anyone sees that something isn`t correctly sourced then just erase the references, not the whole article, and please be nice and give some advice before, so the person who cited the references could be able to make something to fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.140.161.149 (talk) 21:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone isn`t agree with the information in the article just let us know before make a major significant change in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.140.161.149 (talk) 21:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I want to ask user Schonbrunn where does he lives (country) and if he do actually knows to speak spanish.190.140.161.149 (talk) 02:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nando Cdl (talk) 17:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The source for this magazine is a widely circulated magazine. As such, it very likely qualifies as a reliable source, as per WP:RS. It is not considered reasonable conduct for any party to unilaterally remove sourced information. If a party wishes to try to establish that the information is from an advertisement, I believe it is incumbent upon that party to establish that, not only to his own satisfaction, but also to the satisfaction of the majority of other interested editors. To date, I have seen no such attempt at determining consensus. Therefore, I am restoring this sourced information until such time as the consensus clearly supports its removal. John Carter (talk) 14:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wanna state that the Prensa Newspaper is a widely circulated newspaper and one of the most importants newspapers of Panama. As a important national newspaper it qualifies as a reliable source. If somebody desagrees please write it here before erase a entire section. Nando Cdl (talk) 17:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying that La Prensa is not a widely circulated newspaper. The problem is that the content comes from an op/ed piece, so it should not be considered as factual. As I said below, let's try to add information that adds value and does not sound as an advertisement or a tourist guide.--Schonbrunn (talk) 21:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)--Schonbrunn (talk) 21:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP: Central America and WP: Cities, I have added the Heritage Site Section and I have cited the UNESCO Official Site directly, please if somebody can help to expand this section, do it. Nando Cdl (talk) 17:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I propose to MERGE the Nature in the City and Panama City as a Tourism Destinacion Sections into a Single Section. Please leave your comments or Support. Nando Cdl (talk) 17:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And I think we should add a Geography/Climate Section.Nando Cdl (talk) 17:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The information in this section is not sourced from facts. It comes from two opinion articles published in different newspapers. Given that they are only an opinion, the information is not properly sourced. It should not be included.
Also, language and content that are not proper for an encyclopedia should not be used. For example, in the introduction, it shouldn't say that it has a "nice skyline". The content should be more objective, or else it falls into sounding more as advertisement and the article is then not taken seriously.--Schonbrunn (talk) 20:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)--Schonbrunn (talk) 21:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok now we are getting a consensus, I agree with you in the introduction point. About the references, I will get more facts from serious sources. Nando Cdl (talk) 21:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with user Schonbrunn that the reference #16 "Burica Press" in not serious enough because is not from a well known newspaper, and that references from La Prensa Newspaper are from the opinion section, but this articles are actually essays from arquitechs, engeneers and lawyers, so they are talking seriously about this problems, they are not making up all this stuff, and at the same time they cited serious facts in they essays. The articles itself have references. Please before make signficant changes lets reconsiderer this sources and give the time to get more. Nando Cdl (talk) 22:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Schonbrunn (talk) 22:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK I didn´t write this section, but I know that Cerro Patacon is both a landfill and a slum, because many people use the garbage from the garbage land fill to build their homes, yes it is a both things. Nando Cdl (talk) 22:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC) And I thinks that this paragraph adds value because it shows that Panama City is changing for good.Nando Cdl (talk) 22:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK OK I agree, I know that people actually lives there, but I can`t prove it. A nyway I saw tha changes that Schonbrunm did and I agree with them. Nando Cdl (talk) 22:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
i just want to know why you don't talk about colombia in this article despide the fact of panama belonged to this country before 1912... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.111.152.12 (talk) 23:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC) I agree some information shou1d be added about the time we were part of Co1ombia. Just to make c1ear we separated from Co1ombia on november 3rd, 1903 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.218.13.54 (talk) 06:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As the "internationalliving" site is on the spam blacklist, I've removed the links to it so the article could be unblanked. Admins don't get to bypass the SBL either. :)
If possible, please find new non-SBL'd references for the sections that I've labeled {{fact}} please. If you prefer a different way of taking care of the issue, please feel free to undo my changes, of course. Thanks. :) Kylu (talk) 20:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
we need info on the boundaries and the branches of this country.......................... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.42.83.239 (talk) 21:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if/where this image should go into the article, posting here for comment — raeky (talk | edits) 16:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Surely, why not ??? --Extra999 (Contact me + contribs) 07:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The introduction is pretty messy. There are somewhat contradictory informations (without good sources about economics) since sometimes data for the whole country are used (instead of the city). I don't know if it's relevant to have the American Capital of Culture right in the introduction either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timlemoustique (talk • contribs) 15:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So today it is called Panama City (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch? Is not that a US name (–1999), that should be localised? Is there any source that says that today it is "Panama City"? I doubt it. Since the end of CZ (1999), Panama does not use US words any more. -DePiep (talk) 01:04, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What is missing from the city timeline? Please add relevant content. Thank you. -- M2545 (talk) 12:26, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Panama City. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Panama City. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:56, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Most of these pictures are heavily outdated, I think it's time for an update considering the rapid growth of the city in the late decade, the amount of new buildings constructed is quite significant. 1st Duke of Wellington (talk) 03:31, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
