This article is the current Peru Article Improvement Drive.

Help select the next collaboration now!

Nominate an article you think needs improvement or vote for one of the candidates here.

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion edit

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:38, 25 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 2 edit

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:21, 11 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 3 edit

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:36, 23 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Itchyma edit

Citation requested for assertion in "etymology" that early Spanish articles (should this read chronicles?) called the area "Itchyma". No independent sources found to confirm this statement. Can anyone provide details to substantiate this statement? BobKilcoyne (talk) 04:16, 13 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tourism or Religion? edit

It is rather typical of the biased Western approach - and anglo-saxon in particular - that all the religious buildings are presented under the section 'Tourism', that is : places to be visited. Please do remember and keep in mind that those churches, convents and monasteries are first of all places of worship and of other religious activities of the Christians of Lima and Peru. In this long article there is not even a section 'Religion' but under the section 'Tourism', the large majority of touristic places are in fact religious buildings. This bias is plaguing quite a few similar articles.--Zerged (talk) 04:36, 19 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What ignorant racist nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.21.126 (talk) 13:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This Westerner agrees with you that the absence of a religion section is surprising. You could begin to create one yourself. HiLo48 (talk) 04:48, 19 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion edit

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:24, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lima
en.m.wikipedia.org
CC-MAIN-2024-10
113070
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:5JZZUOBL4CJLGXAXEYNWNCFJZP4YBFAW
<urn:uuid:ac75f4ea-3c71-4530-b76e-a512febf0382>
2024-02-26T17:40:45Z
208.80.154.224
text/html
sha1:GVOVRHASWOKRSVUJFBGOUDVEY37L7GGJ
<urn:uuid:6c0f022b-000a-49e4-bec3-4c3a96898d24>
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lima
response
<urn:uuid:c0f99720-3c0e-4477-a023-3fa1ccad20a6>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2024-10
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for February/March 2024
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-208
software: Apache Nutch 1.19 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.5-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: https://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/