Talk:Madrid/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Good Article Review

I've now reviewed Madrid as per the request for assessment for Good Article status.

• Following your peer review, substantial improvements were made.
• The article reads well and is referenced/cited properly.
• I did not detect any spelling or grammar issues. I would appreciate someone double checking this, I may have missed something.
• Images are used correctly. Either free, or under the fair use guidelines.
• I am satisfied that the article is written from a NPOV.
• I consider the article to be stable.

I am giving this article a PASS. Congratulations, and please continue to improve the article where it is possible to do so. Pursey 05:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that this article meets the Good Article criteria, primarily on account of criterion 1.b (lists), and criterion 2 (references). Specifically:

• Almost the entire history section is unsourced (with the exception of the olympic city part at the very end).
• The history: 21st century section is a bulleted list -- it should ideally be converted to prose. The 'see also' link in this section is also in the wrong place (minor issue; but it should be placed at the beginning of the section).
• The climate section is completely unsourced. There is a significant issue with all those temperature and weather figures not having a reference. It should be easy enough to find a reference at www.weather.com or www.wunderground.com.
• The subsection headers in the economy section don't seem to serve any purpose, and are rather long and ambiguous. I would recommend removing these. The text itself seems to address the topic, but is rather dry and uninteresting; I had to re-read it several times to really "get it". Plus, it seems like it isn't exactly complete and more could be added about specific industries. Some of this goes a little beyond GA criteria, as I think it probably meets the *minimum* standards. But I'm letting editors know of some issues for improvement purposes.
• The population statistics in the demographics section are completely unsourced, which is a huge red flag on 2 (references). The only sourced information in this section is on the name; ironically, that blurb could slide by unsourced by the GA criteria, but the specific numbers is not good.
• I also think that the demographics section is a little too crowded with the table in the top left and the image in the top right with text in between. The graph is really showing almost the same data as the table anyway, so it could probably be eliminated.
• Government - no sources whatsoever.
• Culture - largely unsourced. Most of the subsections here are just lists, which goes against criterion 1.b. Lists are acceptable in an early stage of the article's development, as it's a good way to organize information. But they should largely be converted to prose format prior to either GA or FA status. These lists are a definite 'B-class' characteristic. Also, the arts and literature subsection is a list of external links to sites; external links should only be found in the external links section at the end of the article, and not in the article content itself -- only wikilinks should be present within the article text.
• Recommendation: move sports to it's own subsection. It doesn't really fit with the arts and culture. I'd also move the bullfighting section into sports, since it's pretty short and really falls under that category. (note: these are just recommendations, but go a little beyond the GA criteria)
• The 'universities' section is pretty good, but it completely neglects the primary & secondary education levels in the city. Some basic information about the school systems at these levels (grammar, high schools) should be provided, though simply listing all the schools in a city should be avoided.

On the plus side, the article does have a very good lead section, and some very nice photography (and all of the images seem to have the correct image copyright tags, too ;-). So it's on the road towards being a good article, but as it stands now, it does not meet the criteria. I am delisting this article placing it back on hold at WP:GAC for a period of one week (until September 10, 2007), so that these issues can be resolved. Dr. Cash 05:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I am personally taking both of your opinions and advices into account. I will take a look at all of them and try to improve the overall article. Thanks to both of you for the advices. I believe I will be able to improve most of them. Only one question... Are city articles in wikipedia about the very cities or also their metropilotan areas? I'm asking this to know if a section about the Madrid regional government is needed. --Maurice27 08:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Individual city articles should focus primarily on the city itself, with some information on the metropolitan area (population of greater area and neighbors) covered, probably in the geography section. Some cities also have a separate article on the metro area as well (see New York City and New York metropolitan area as an example). Obviously, an article about the metro area is a separate article, and not taken into account when reviewing the article for GA status. You might also want to review WP:CITIES for more information on writing city articles; specifically, there are two templates - WP:UKCITIES, for cities in the UK, and WP:USCITY, for cities in the US (suggestions from both template/guidelines could be used for other cities in the world). Dr. Cash 18:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

On hold time at WP:GAC has elapsed, so the article is listed as failed. The primary issues remaining with the article are citation/reference issues, as well as completeness (e.g. listing in the culture section) issues. Please renominate when these issues are fixed. Thanks! Dr. Cash 22:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Quite some references have been added. There is, however, still much work to do. --Maurice27 16:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Irregular climate

It's not told in the article that Madrid climate is very irregular, as it's often affected by drought or unexpected rains. Too, cold and heat is, at times, out-of-season. By the way, July and August are the dry season. It's unexact to say the rainfall occur throughout the year.

• No, the text is correct. Climate is not weather, the weather is irregular in Madrid and everywhere, but you can say that the climate of Madrid is characterized by summer drought and spring and autumn rains. And yes, it rains every month because on average there is not a single month with 0 mm of precipitation. David (talk) 13:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute in Geography section

However, much of this is currently under threat as the Spanish capital continues to sprawl ever outwards and upwards into the Sierra, fueled by speculation, yuppie dreams of Anglo-American lifestyles in detached homes and the policies of the regional government.

Does this sentence fit under the NPOV of Wikipedia? It seems to expose viewpoints as facts.

Freakant 15:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd agree. I'd suggest fixing this up. I'm not going to do it myself as I've just participated in a Good Article review on this article which I'm leaving to Dr. Cash to handle for now. I'll add in some comments when Dr. Cash finishes his review. Pursey 17:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Erm, I've actually already made my review, and placed the comments in the above section. Those issues, as well as this NPOV issue, must be resolved before this will pass as a GA. Then again, maybe the better thing to do is to just fail this now, and let editors take their time to fix it and then renominate it later. Dr. Cash 02:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Hehehehe... I believe that we all correctly agree it does NOT fit. I will also take a look at it ASAP. --Maurice27 08:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this phrase can't stay in as worded, but I also think it does touch on a genuine issue which has a place in this article. There are parts of the Sierra near Madrid where new construction is taking place directly at the foot of the mountain. If I find a decent source on it I will try to find a way of wording the issue in a less judgemental way. Southofwatford 13:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

the 21st century section imbalanced

I feel that the section is imbalanced because it immediately mentions two instances of terrorism, which is associated with western hemisphere beliefs and feelings. Perhaps this really isn't a big deal, but I feel that it could be-- Thinboy00 ^talk/_contribs 00:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The first instance of terrorism (2004) is now a significant part of the city's history and certainly needs to be mentionned, although it could be a shorter, tighter reference, given that well covered elsewhere. The second smaller instant could also be retained. I think the imbalanced reference can be removed after minimal editing Cckkab 15:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

This reply might arrive a little bit late, but... excuse me?. What do you mean by "terrorism, which is associated with western beliefs and feelings"?. Do you, by the slightest chance, think that the reckless murder of nearly 200 civilians in a brutal attack to the rapid transport systems is not morally wrong in every sane system of beliefs? Because, if you do, I fear that your mind needs some "fixing". In the Soviet/Orwellian way. Habbit 19:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Changes made in order to make "Madrid" article a GA

After taking a look at some of the advices and opinions by Dr.Cash and Pursey in order to get this article as GA, I made the following changes:

• The history section is now correctly sourced
• The 21st century history section is now included inside another section and changed into prose
• The climate section is now sourced
• The population statistics in the demographics section are now sourced and updated to last numbers by INE (National Statistics Institute of Spain)
• The government section is now sourced
• The universities section has now become "education" and adds info about primary & secondary education in the city adding a link to the main article "Education in Spain"
• Moved sports to its own section
• I haven't touched the bullfighting section as it is considered in Spain more as a show (like a music concert or the circus) than a sport. Therefore I understand it to be correctly placed in the culture section. But that's only my opinion.
• The only RED FLAG remaining is the culture section. I added a "prose" template. If anyone is willing to help to converted it to prose format, it would be very helpful
• This talk-page has now the option to be archived from time to time

I hope those changes are helpful to the overall article. Cheers, --Maurice27 23:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

The traduction of Madrid´s motto isn´t "From fuck", oviously. I´ve remove this traduction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.19.65.40 (talk) 07:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Um, I'm sorry if I'm intruding on something, but there are two parts of the article about the water supply that both say the exact same thing. Should one of them be deleted? I'm just someone who noticed, I'm not an editor or anything. Just thought it should be pointed out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.202.247.184 (talk) 03:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Etymology correction...

The Arabic name of Madrid, at the time of the Arab domination of the Iberian Peninsula, was Majrit مجريط which comes from Majra مجرى which means river. It was built by the Ummayad Emir Muhammad ibn Abdul Rahman.
So the section : Names of the city and origin of the current name is not accurate, because it cites that its Arabic name was Mayrit!!!!! But, in the section : History, the Arabic name is correct... but, it cites that it means 'source'!!!!!

SKYLINE ANYONE?

this is one of the only major city articles i have ever come across that had no skyline photo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dogma5 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Madrid has a poor skyline, with only 7 greats buildings. I live here, so I know it; the people of Madrid prefers small and middle-tall buildings. LasMatas01 17:10, 21 August 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.217.161.16 (talk)

a poor skyline? i deeply disagree —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.153.94.227 (talk) 06:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Multiple spellings

Why is Madrid categorized as "place with multiple spellings"??

Good question. I will remove the category. In fact, many of the items in that category don't really make much sense. Dnowacki (talk) 23:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Tourist Guide?

I think that this article is written like a tourist guide —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.253.59.63 (talk) 02:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely, the article is very bad. Most of it is made up of peacock statements, containing no sources and very little factual information. In addition, the English used in this article is very bad at times, it's just Spanish sentences with English words, paying no attention to English grammar and syntax. An article on a major European capital must not be this badly written. Unfortunately, the quality of the article is so low that it will be a major project to get it into a normal Wikipedia article. JdeJ (talk) 08:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

All edits for the past six weeks reverted

Unfortunately, I've had to revert all edits for the past six weeks to return this article to an encyclopedic article. On the 6th of February, the user user:Pierre Bailey made extremely unencyclopedic edits to this article. What the user did was to replace most of the article with what is either a copy/paste from a tourist guide or his own personal and highly subjective description of Madrid. Whichever the case, it's unsuitable for an encyclopedia. The new version by Pierre Bailey was unorganised, written in poor English, completely lacked Wikilinks and was filled to the brim with peacock statements, POV and weasel words. Unfortunately, the only way to restore what once was a proper Wikipedia article and not one single individual's personal idea of Madrid is to revert back. I apologise to those who have made constructive edits, but wish that some of them would have taken the time to look at the page they were editing so that this (hopefully unintentional) vandalism would have been reverted long ago. That an article on such an important city as Madrid has been allowed to remain unchecked in that sorry state for six weeks is a bad sign for all of us who edit Wikipedia. JdeJ (talk) 09:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

sister

madrid has a lot of sister cities, not only two. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.19.95.123 (talk) 20:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Though according to Paris and Rome, they only consider each other as "sister cities", so this section should actually either be deleted or it should be merged with the "Partner / Twinned" cities section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.196.152 (talk) 19:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Motto

An anonymous user changed the motto from "La Suma de Todos (The Sum of Everyone)" to the "de Madrid al cielo" without giving a reason (Revision as of 04:05, 16 May 2007) Actually, upon checking the history it seems like the first edit was the "cielo" one (Revision as of 19:11, 4 March 2007). I have certainly heard of the "cielo" one and not the other, but I do not think it is official. The Spanish Wikipedia makes no comment about the city's motto.--208.102.210.163 (talk) 02:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

"La Suma de Todos (The Sum of Everyone)" is definetively the official motto from the Madrid Community (not to mistake with the city of Madrid itself). That said, the "de Madrid al cielo" is not official at all. It comes from a novel called "Entre Visillos" published in 1957. It became more and more popular with the years and it finally was adopted popularly as the unofficial motto: "De Madrid al cielo...y desde el cielo un agujerito para verlo" (From Madrid to the Heavens... And from the Heavens a little hole to see it). Cheers. --MauritiusXXVII ^{(Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!)} 06:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

"La Suma de Todos" is not the official motto of the Madrid Autonomous Community. It's only a commercial and political propaganda motto of the present political authorities, in TV and mass-media propaganda advertising. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.128.75.225 (talk) 14:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it seems that this motto has been made official by our fearless leader Esperanza Aguirre :P . I have added it to Community of Madrid.

For the city itself, the motto would most probably be "Fui sobre agua edificada, mis muros de fuego son. Esta es mi insignia y blasón" (On water I was built, my walls made of fire are. This is my ensign and escutcheon), altought I think that it has never been made an official motto. Google books had a few good sources, but all were of restricted view [1]. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Irregular climate

It's not told that irregularity is one of the main characteristics of Madrid climate. Often affected by drought or unexpected rains. And, of course, summer is a dry season.

Blank etymology section

I have erased the etymology section above the history section since it confuses the reader by going into unproven theories on the etymology of the name Madrid. The only confirmed etymology of the name is the Arabic. The city was founded during the andalusi period. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.38.85.178 (talk) 11:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The etymology section makes no sense. Either the name comes from Latin, or Arabic, or some other language. You can't have it both (all) ways. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.52.9.199 (talk) 20:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Old Skyline

The skyline into this article is very old... It's true that Spain doesn't have a good skyline 'cause spanish people don't like hight building if we compare with NY, Chine or more,it's clear the diference but I think that it's more pretty than in the photo uploaded. IF you want to change it look at this photo, thanks http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c209/esaalto/76026955_1680e7066c_o.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.144.142.81 (talk) 22:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

There are a few really nice skylines in Madrid. The view from C/Portugal near the river in Principe Pio has a pretty nice one and shows Plaza d España, telefonica and the Charmatin towers. Ill ask a photographer friend who lives close there to catch a few photos and ill upload it for everyones consideration. But that being said, its silly to think that Madrid should have just ONE skyline, as the city just doesnt work that way (i.e. no harbour or straight lines of buildings, few skyscrapers etc...) and it would be putting a square peg in a round whole trying to tick off some arbitrary box of what each city should have. shabidoo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shabidoo (talk • contribs) 23:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Education in Madrid

The description of the Spanish Education System is not relevant on this article. It should make references to specific aspects of the education system in Madrid City. ----Karljoos (talk) 23:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The section "universities" is full of peacock terms (also WP:NPOV), lacks sources and promotes the subject subjectively. The section includes promotional/viewbook material about the universitiies --> "Students from the United States for example, might go to Madrid on a program like API (Academic Programs International) and study at Complutense for an intense immersion into the Spanish Language. The beautiful setting of the campus allows students living temporarily in Madrid to have access to all of the city's public features including Retiro Park, El Prado Museum, and much more. After studying at the University, students return home with a fluent sense of Spanish as well as culture and diversity. There're articles about these universities, and the history and activities of the individual universities is not the topic of the section. I will delete info and give it a more neutral and encyclopedic tone.--Karljoos (talk) 03:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The Universidad de Alcala is not in Madrid, is it? This article is about the city of Madrid and not about the province or state. So, off the list it goes! --Karljoos (talk) 03:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Gardens Edit

That is mine, Dsnow75 [[User Talk: Dsnow75|Talk]] (talk) 22:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Bold text uzhyhghtyajètkuvf,jg,j manehgh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.5.182.251 (talk) 19:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Too many images

The number of images in this article, although they are good ones, is absolutely overwhelming and takes away the focus of the text, most of them are unrelated to the paragraph they are attached to. I have the unpleasant idea that too many people are trying to show off their photography skills here, and it is not the right place I'm afraid. David (talk) 13:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Maybe it would look better with one image per section and moving the rest to a gallery at the end. More opinions? --Cmontero (talk) 19:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

May be one image per section and no gallery.--87.218.20.6 (talk) 11:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Although I'd generally rather one per section and no gallery, in this particular case I support one per section plus gallery. David (talk) 06:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree, there are too many images. Seniorfox (talk) 01:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. Too many images. Roughly a pair of pictures per section plus a well sorted image gallery should suffice. I'll work on it this afternoon. If you want a particular image to be used, please point it out here! 89.129.41.141 (talk) 07:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Culture in Madrid:classical music

All references to classical music and opera in Madrid have been removed. Nothing is said about the Auditorio Nacional de Música, Teatro Monumental, Queen Sofía Chamber Orchestra, Teatro Real, Community of Madrid Orchestra, RTVE Symphony Orchestra or the Madrid Symphony Orchestra. Reading the article as it is now seems that culture in Madrid is limited to Art Galleries, Nightlife and Bullfighting.

Yep, I have been doing a bit of archeology and it seems we lost it around august 3rd in a mix of very small edits and vandalism reversions. I saved the text from there and will try to add it back tomorrow. We also lost a table with the sport teams.

I'm also very distressed by the District table/map we have now. I think it's much, much uglier than the list and numbered map of Madrid that we had before (see at [2], the District section), and somebody replaced it without commenting here. I think we should change it back to the map and list, but I would like to get other people opinions on it. --Cmontero (talk) 00:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I added a new section about classical music and opera. --Karljoos (talk) 03:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

District table

I agree with Cmontero: the new table is just monstrous. --Karljoos (talk) 12:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Deleted content

I deleted this content because it's unsourced and needs improved writing quality.

A new green area, which will take place on the northeast part of the city, is now on terms on construction, as a part of the "Parque de Valdebebas" project. This new park will be the second of Madrid, being just overcame by "La Casa de Campo", and will be even bigger both than Hyde Park and Central Park. This park will represent the silhouette of a big tree, which will be seen from the planes landing and taking off in Barajas Airport.

SamEV (talk) 17:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not a native English speaker, but maybe this improves a little bit the paragraph. Please help me with grammar. As for sources: [3][4][5][6][7], and so on.

A new green area, placed on the northeast part of the city, started its construction in 2008, as a part of the "Parque de Valdebebas" project. This new park will be the second of Madrid in terms of extension, being just overcame by "Casa de Campo", and will be even bigger both than Hyde Park and Central Park. This park will reproduce the main ecosystems of the center of the Peninsula and will represent the silhouette of a big tree, which will be seen from the planes landing and taking off in Barajas Airport.Garcilaso (talk) 12:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Images and Organization

I think that the images are very good, but they don't show the Madrid now-a-days: It doesn't show the 4 towers business area, or the "Puerta de Europa", the "Banco de Espana", those type of things. As for the organization, I think it should show the main atractions at the top, and the less important ones at the bottom.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.30.107.24 (talk) 20:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC) 

Well, the previous collage wasn't very updated, so I tried to make a new, more organized and modern one. The Puerta de Europa skyscrapers (the most Madrid-defining monuments) are shown at the top, and I've included other monuments as the Puerta de Alcalá, the Atocha Station... and I've also included the Madrid modernist architectures as they converge on Calle de Alcalá-Gran Vía. Notsureifsrs (talk) 14:44, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Montage

There seems to be a current issue as to which montage to choose. The three current montages to choose from:

• 
  Medium load time; largest montage; shows statues and buildings
• 
  Longest load time; medium length; shows primarily buildings
• Fastest load time; smallest montage; shows buildings of new and old Madrid
  Fastest load time; smallest montage; shows buildings of new and old Madrid

The purpose of this discussion is to obtain a general consensus as to which montage/photo to display. It may be best to get rid of the montage and replace it with a good photo as is done with the Paris and San Francisco articles. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 19:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I like the look of the current one but would like to see the image of the Cuatro Torres Business Area incorporated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.78.137.200 (talk) 23:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Climate

The one reference that gives the climate of Madrid as "continental" refer to the highlands of the Madrid Community, not to the city of Madrid. The second reference ([8]) doesn't use the Köppen climate classification system at all.--Ultimate Destiny (talk) 13:11, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Since there is no opposition, and the current revision is clearly mistaken on the matter, I've removed any references to the Continental Mediterranean climate entirely.--Ultimate Destiny (talk) 01:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

As in every climatologic domain, the highland locations of the Mediterranean domain can present cooler temperatures in winter than the lowland areas, temperatures which can sometimes prohibit the growth of typical Mediterranean plants. Some Spanish authors opt to use the term "Continental Mediterranean climate" for some regions with lower temperature in winter than the coastal areas[5] (direct translation from Clima Mediterráneo Continentalizado), but most climate classifications (including Köppen's Cs zones) show no distinction.[[9]]http://www.ign.es/espmap/graficos_clima_bach/Clima_Graf_05.htm 87.223.112.49 (talk) 10:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Churches

"Madrid has a considerable number of Catholic churches, some of them are between the most important Spanish religious artworks." I don't understand this sentence. I *suspect* it means s.t. like "Madrid has a considerable number of Catholic churches, some of them contain important Spanish religious artworks." (I left out "most important", which may be important, because I don't know what it's saying.) Mcswell (talk) 01:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Help!

Could you tell me how can I indicate I'm working on the article, please?

Thank you very much.--JuandeVillanueva 17:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

What part are you working on? I think the history section needs to be rewritten to improve the English. Currently, it reads like a translation from Spanish. I might spend some time revising it, but I don't want to collide with something you are working on. TundraGreen (talk) 15:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Massive deletion

Why has been deleted so much information? Could anyone undo those editions? I am speaking for example about: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Madrid&diff=530406512&oldid=530402266 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Madrid&diff=530415167&oldid=530413415 I think it is necessary to talk before do those editions. 188.78.17.154 (talk) 17:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Pollution in Madrid

The extraordinary levels of contamination in Madrid should be reflected in this article. The European community is going to sanction the madrid government because exceed maximums levels allowed for human health. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quasipodo (talk • contribs) 10:41, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

While contamination levels in Madrid are certainly high, they are on par with that of the big cities. If you check out the ranking of cities by pollution ( http://www.numbeo.com/pollution/rankings.jsp ), you'll see that Madrid ranks just near Paris and Los Angeles, and noticeabily better than Brussels, Toulouse, Rome, Milan, Mannheimm, Turin, Antwerp, Bucharest and Barcelona, being many of those smaller cities than Madrid and some of then even with the sea as a godsent cleaner.

This MUST Be Wrong

Under the history of the name 'Madrid', the relevant paragraph begins, "Nevertheless, it is now commonly believed[citation needed] that the origin of the current name of the city comes from the 2nd century BC. The Roman Empire established a settlement on the banks of the Manzanares river. The name of this first village was 'Matrice' ..."

There was NO Roman Empire in the 2nd century BC. There were no Romans in Iberia in the 2nd century BC. The Roman Republic did not even control the whole of Italy in the 2nd century BC. So, someone needs to research this issue and correct this glaringly obvious error as soon as possible.

Small wonder people complain Wikipedia is highly inaccurate!

76.126.3.38 (talk) 01:34, 24 November 2012 (UTC) --- You are wrong. Romans came to Spain in 212 a.C, in order to figth against Cartago in Punic Wars. In the early 2nd century (177 B.C)Spain (Hispania) was organizated through Lex Provinciae, that divided Spain in two regions: Ulterior and Citerior

Why don't you do it? You seem to know a bit about the subject. 86.25.28.114 (talk) 12:12, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The paragraph is in fact wrong, but there is evidence of the existence of a village situated on the banks of the Manzanares river which the romans called 'Matrice'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.61.77.4 (talk) 21:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

--- .

Location

Why is Madrid situated in the middle of the country, far away from the sea and seaports? Also, Madrid isn't situated on any major river. Most major European cities are situated either on a major river or on coast. What explains that the capital of Spain is situated as it is – is it just coincidence? Or was there some reason that it was founded on such place (intentionally)? --Hartz (talk) 10:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

The previous capital of Castile, Toledo, was situated on an elevation which made it easily defensible, yet it also made transport of water to the top (where the old palace/castle of the Alcázar is situated) very difficult, as well as it limitated the growth of the city. Madrid was situated on a much gentler ground, which allowed the king to reform and expand the city as he liked; the region posseses outstanding natural resources (there was a high population of game as well, which made it and ideal zone for hunts, the favourite sport of the nobility of the time); it was situated in the geographic centre of the Peninsula, which made the capital more accessible to the various kingdoms of Philip II and much more protected from invading armies than other peripherical cities such as Seville, Barcelona or Lisbon, and it wasn't under the influence of powerful nobles such as the Archbishop of Toledo; nevertheless, Philip II is known to have considered moving the capital to Seville or Lisbon in order to make the management of his American empire easier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.61.77.4 (talk) 21:57, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

New deletion

Why someone deleted this page again? Madrid is the capital of Spain, so why delete it? I don't get this... MYS77 ^{talk with me ☺} 13:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

This is causing all sorts of problems with other pages, which are linking to a page which doesn't exist... ~J349 (talk) 14:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about that. With the assistance of the steward DerHexer, I was trying to do a history merge of this page. However it couldn't be undeleted in the normal way due to the high number of revisions (and perhaps due to other server issues). DerHexer finally managed to do it through the API. Graham87 14:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Notable people from Madrid

I strongly disagree with the two current-time politicians Esperanza Aguirre and Ruiz Gallardon included in the 20 most "Notable people from Madrid" alongside geniuses and talents like Lope De Vega, Francisco de Quevedo, Gregorio Marañon... It's a real blasphemy! I wouldn't be surprised if they were added here by their internet community manager (that will problably be the same company, as they both are from the same party)

I think this section should be reserved for people that made outstanding contributions in their jobs, or really bright differently, and not for politicians that obviously are on TV, but have not (yet?) accomplished anything specially significant nor are seen by the citizens as role models at all.

There were mayors and presidents of Madrid thousand times more popular than Mr. Gallardon and Mrs. Aguirre, whose best merit could be the modern highway infrastructure around the city, but it all was done against the debt, making Madrid the most indebted city in Spain (probably Europe?) being it for example 4 times bigger than Barcelona's.

I'd propose Mr. Tierno Galván ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enrique_Tierno_Galv%C3%A1n ) to replace Mr. Gallardon, for he was the most beloved mayor this city ever had, by children, youth and grown-ups alike, and besides, he wrote over 30 books, preambled the Spanish Constitution and founded a political party (did this guy ever sleep?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.9.132.56 (talk) 22:58, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Article Size / Architecture

At 166kB, this article is much longer than the recommended length in WP:SIZERULE, which states that articles over 60kB probably should be divided. The architecture section in particular is quite lengthy, discussing hundreds of years of Madrid architecture in some detail.

I propose an article WP:SPLIT and creating a new article titled Architecture of Madrid. All of the material in the Architecture section of the Madrid article would be copied there. In accordance with WP:SUMMARY, the architecture section of the Madrid article would be reduced to about half of its current length, and would become more easily readable. If readers want to see the detailed information, all of that information will be preserved in the linked architecture article.

I wanted to give people fair warning of what I was planning, and explain in case people are wondering why the Architecture section starts shrinking on this page. If anyone objects to what I have described, please speak up now. Barryjjoyce (talk) 02:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

One of the main problems with the article seems to be lack of inline citations. Some sections of the text seem rather dated; some of it does not seem to have been significantly touched since 2006/7. The prose could also do with some improvement. I fully support your attempts to reduce the length of the article by splitting some of it off, etc.--Ipigott (talk) 21:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Transport in Madrid has now also been split off. I agree with splitting off over-long and detailed sections, although Madrid now at 154kB is comparable in size with articles on such other European capitals as London at 191 kB, Paris 181kB, Rome 144kB: Noyster (talk), 16:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I consider that rule obsolete. There are a smaller percentage of low-bandwidth connections than there were when it was adopted, and an encycopedia would be expected to have substantial articles on major subjects. DGG ( talk ) 06:37, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Timeline of Madrid

What is missing from the recently created city timeline article? Please add relevant content. Contributions welcome. Thank you. -- M2545 (talk) 16:23, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Symbols

The lede tells "Cibeles Palace and Fountain have become the monument symbol of the city". I find it preposterous really. You look at the sources that back that up: [10] (this one doesn't directly back up the statement) and the other [11] (a tourism excerpt from spain.info) actually tells The Cibeles fountain, the symbol of Madrid. So my question: Does the statement have a place in the lede or having to rely on cherry-picking crappy sources, we should refrain from talking in absolutes? By sticking to that sourcing standards, I can easily find a "crappy" web telling a different symbol of the city (be it the bear and the tree statue, the Gate of Alcalá), but I can also find a better source telling us about the current lack of a true icon for the urban marketing of the city (Canosa Zamora & García Carballo, 2012, p. 214) So I think we can put that statement to rest.--Asqueladd (talk) 07:24, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Infobox image

Why is the vertical size of the infobox image such a big issue? Articles for other cities have much taller images like those in New York City, Paris or Berlin. The current collage is an uninteresting selection of building façades with uniform sunlight. While each chosen photograph is an interesting image on its own, the resulting montage lacks contrast, variety or any kind of focal point, needed to make the composition attractive by basic aesthetic rules.

Has been the size of this image discussed before? I only see the above "Montage" section where an old selection of images was debated, though not is layout. Diego (talk) 18:14, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Your post is meaningless. Infobox' image has 3/4 of your images[12] but you are saying that the graphics are poor quality, uninteresting selection, uniform sunlight?!? You add to collage this, you think is better?!?

Sorry, but the current collage is good and do not need to change. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 19:17, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Now, we can discuss about the topic calmly. 1) A resulting smaller collage is a huge win. 2) I think both the current collage and the alternative one portray a somewhat misleading vision of the city: it is not that "white-ish". Cheers.--Asqueladd (talk) 20:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

@Asqueladd. Precisely, the current image provides an unnatractive impression of what the city looks like. This is not Wikivoyage, but having high quality & attractive images is a relevant criterion for featured picture criteria and articles. I'm not defending the proposed change as the only possible replacement, clearly there are numerous ways of creating a good collage. I suggest looking at the one in the Spanish article, which provides a nicer and more varied look at the city highlights (but it's still taller than the one in this English article).

@ Subtropical-man: what is important is not what specific images are included (as I said, the images are themselves quite stunning, if watched independently), but what effect they produce when joined as a single composition. If you compare the color palette of the current collage vs the proposed change, which one would you say has a wider cromatic variance? And which one has the highest difference between the lightest and darkest point? If I asked what is the first point in the image that draws your attention, which one would you say it is such point in each image? You can't evaluate the aesthetic experience by comparing "what information is included".

And can someone please, PLEASE answer the question of why this article NEEDS to have an image that is significantly smaller than those in other similar articles? (And in case it's just a matter of vertical vs horizontal proportions in the thumbnail, and not total pixel count in the expanded image, would you consider having an image that maintained the same VxH ratio but contained a different layout of images and colours?) Diego (talk) 21:28, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I mean more about the colour of the façades. The center of Madrid (not even talking about outer districts) is not made mainly of white buildings (not even all the somewhat "famous" ones are white: The Carrión Building, Edificio España, Plaza Mayor, Real Casa de Correos, Casa de la Villa...) are not coloured in plain marmoreal white. I feel the problem I perceive has its roots there, in the forced selection (which both proposals share), it doesn't particularly come from the light of the pics. Cheers.--Asqueladd (talk) 21:43, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Asqueladd, can you explain what do you mean when you say "A resulting smaller collage is a huge win"? Diego (talk) 21:45, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I deem a compact vertical dimension for infoboxes as a great plus for readers, who don't pointlessly burn their mouse wheel in order to reach the end of it. About the former, I think a nod to herrerian Madrid (I dunno, something not white-white with chapitels! haha) in the collage is convenient.--Asqueladd (talk) 21:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, Plaza Mayor would be a good addition to the collage (with something like this better than this; while the blue sky of Madrid is so beautiful, I'm afraid having too much of it is part of what makes the current collage so monotonous). I was concerned that almost all the building in the current image are from the XXth century, except for the Royal palace (and maybe the Almudena basements). Diego (talk) 22:16, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

It might be. About modern skylines, albeit convenient for a change, I do not deem them strictly indisposable. The one in the current ccollage (pic taken from the Círculo de Bellas Artes?) feels somewhat chaotic. If anyone had a badass camera with a great zoom, a twilight pic taken from the Cerro de los Ángeles (sort of like [13][14]), where you can see a progression and a sense of depth in the highrises would be fantastic and would also add for a more colourful composition. This is too much to ask, hehe, but I would put it here.--Asqueladd (talk) 22:25, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

• In my opinion, in collage must be: 1) skyline (AZCA/CTBA), 2) Royal Palace with Almudena Cathedral and 3) Calle de Alcalá street with Metropolis Building. The rest is to (eventual) discuss. However, at present - I support current collage and I think that the changes are not necessary. Subtropical-man talk
  (en-2) 19:04, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Well. Until you add a more nuanced opinion, we can't work with it. The likes of why Metropolis building is a must and so on... Madrid has not a neo-classicist downtown. At least acknowledge that so we can move forward.--Asqueladd (talk) 23:43, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

"why Metropolis building is a must (...)", generally - I wrote "Calle de Alcalá street with Metropolis Building" (on one picture) because there are icons of Madrid. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 12:32, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Again, mythbusting about the same thing. There is not a true icon for the city, see the quoted article above (Canosa Zamora & García Carballo 2012, p. 214). There are potential candidates for it but the Metropolis building façade to Alcalá Street is not ahead of them (I would add, even the pirulí is more iconic). Don't act like it's undisposable, because in the case of Madrid there is not an undisposable item. If you drop the absurd claim that pic is undisposable (or any other for that matter), we can move forward in the discussion in order to get a collage encompassing better the city (or, at least the city centre) including at the same time identifiable items, and stop being entangled by preconceptions/mantras.--Asqueladd (talk) 14:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

By the way, as Diego Moya have already mentioned it, I proposed back then at the spanish wikipedia's Wikiproyecto:Madrid a collage that was later added to the infobox. Sucessive changes have enlarged it (I don't understand that much the criteria for Museo del Prado, surely it is very visited but I don't think that the pic aesthetically adds much to the collage and the museum building itself, albeit not strictly photo-unfriendly, lacks wow factor for photographs). Along those lines, I think the following collage is tidy and compact enough. It features a skyline with old and modern buildings. However the old skyline, "Cornisa del Manzanares" (Royal Palace, Almudena and Museo de Colecciones Reales, when they're gonna open the last one? lol) and "Plaza de España" (Edificio España and Torre Madrid) prevail over "AZCA", "Puerta de Europa towers" and the "CTBA". It uses identifiable items such as Plaza Mayor, the City Hall, Puerta de Alcalá, and the Gran Vía/Callao Square (featuring the Carrión Building). Some important items (such as Puerta del Sol, the Pirulí, the old Atocha Train Station, or the Retiro Park) are missing, but it is a compromise between size, trying to portray the city centre (not forgetting the "Madrid de los Austrias", lol), a cromatic variance, and featuring identifiable items.--Asqueladd (talk) 18:47, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Photomontage 0

I like it much better than the current article image. I particularly like that the center is occupied by a wide image, providing a focus point for the composition. Additionally, using the photomontage tag rather than being a single file makes it possible to change one or several of the component images if someone thinks that a different monument should be used. Diego (talk) 22:02, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Your changes in article are reverted until there is a clear consensus. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 17:30, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I think this topic is closed, but, in my opinion, I would place a better panorama with the modern skyline (such as this one) in the middle of the collage. In this way, we would have a (better) combination with the ancient and modern monuments. This would be the result (description included). What are your opinions? --5truenos (talk) 10:12, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

User:5truenos, topic is not closed - changes by user:Diego Moya in article are reverted, the discussion is still going. By the way, I also support skyline and oppose for any collages without skyline.

User:Diego Moya show new version of collage above, lacks typical skyline, photo of Plaza Mayor is ugly / poor (maybe there are better photos of Plaza Mayor). Palacio de Comunicaciones? For me, better show photo of Royal Palace with Almudena Cathedral. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 17:27, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Whatever selection of photos you want to have, the photomontage template is better than a simple collage image - since it makes it possible to change individual photos without resorting to an image editor. We can discuss what images to include without reverting to the ugly selection of the collage. Diego (talk) 23:05, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

No, I am not interested your opinion about photomontage vs collage, other users may have a different opinion. We act according to the rules, with the procedures (for example Wikipedia:CYCLE. Must to be consensus for change collage and photo selection. Your first and second changes are pushing your changes without consensus, with debatable images and explicit opposition of one of the Wikipedians. Next such edit are will be treated as vandalism and quickly undone, and also you will be reported to the block. This is the last warning! First: discuss and consensus here, if there consensus about all graphics of photomontage/collage, then we can make a change in article, according to the Wikipedia:CYCLE. Simply. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 01:34, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

If you read the rules page you have linked, you will notice that it is labelled as an WP:ESSAY, without weight for enforcing editor actions. Moreover, it recommends doing bold edits to change the article. It even says that "not having consensus" is a reason that should not be used to perform a revert, so your recommended guide doesn't support your actions.

The photomontage I inserted is the one posted by Asqueladd, to which you hadn't objected even if it was posted for a week. Please drop your WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality (hey, this one is actually a policy!); consensus requires that both editors adopt some of the concerns introduced by the other one. Diego (talk) 06:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia:CYCLE (WP:BRD) is WP:ESSAY (like most standards of the Wikipedia) but WP:BRD is the primary method of resolving such conflicts/edit-wars. You wrote: "recommends doing bold edits to change the article" - yes, ...to first revert. After revert new changes by other user, should be discussion and consensus to new changes. Simply.

Present situation: you want change collapse - ok, few your changes has been reverted by more than one user but still you continue pushing own version before completion of the discussion and obtaining consensus. At the moment I have the right to notify the administrators and ask for a block - reason: clear edit-warring to enter your new changes.

The situation in the discussion: you want change collapse - ok, user:Asqueladd wrote their opinions, I oppose for changes (even I expressed willingness to discuss the possible replacement of part of photos - if in the future, there is consensus for changes) and user:5truenos, which de facto does not agree with your pictures because he supports the skyline. The discussion is still going, there is no any! consensus.

I advise you to be patient. Discussions to change in collage are usually long because few users = few opinions/ideas. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 12:46, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't see what you find so typical about the AZCA and CTBA skyline - it's not specially touristic nor historic - but I've included it in the photomontage on your behalf. There are several photos of Plaza Mayor here, just pick one you like and we can replace the current one. Diego (talk) 23:12, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

P.S. I've also included Palacio Real and Almudena view, and switched the spectacular view of la Gran Vía as the primary photo, making the overall result much more dramatic. Diego (talk) 23:21, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

"touristic nor historic"? Madrid is one of the largest financial centers in Europe and with one of the tallest skyscrapers in Europe, collage also should shows it. Collage should show the current city, not history or only touristic attractions. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 01:53, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

The version that you just reverted has the skyline in it, so why on earth did you remove that version? Diego (talk) 06:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Why revert? The discussion is still going, there is no any! consensus and you enter new collage/photomontage to article. Never again do not enter his version before the end of the discussions and obtaining consensus (Wikipedia:Consensus). I think this case is closed.

By the way, your skyline is poor/inappropriate, at least according to the the part of Wikipedians (for example user:Subtropical-man, user:5truenos), so... Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 12:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Subtropical-man that is important an image with the financial districts at the forefront. I know that AZCA and CTBA are not as tourist as other places in the city centre —but it has places to visit too—, but I remind you that Madrid is the main financial district in Spain, and one of the most important in Europe (specially in Sothern Europe). In conclusion, I prefer the current collage in the infobox. It has less pics but it's more complete.--5truenos (talk) 14:30, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

5truenos, the version that Subtropical-man reverted also included the same AZCA and CBTA image. Is there any other reason why you prefer the current collage over that one? The lack of the financial district is not something that distinguishes both versions. Diego (talk) 15:09, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

• "your skyline is poor/inappropriate". We have the beginning of an agreement here. The skyline of the financial district included in my version is exactly the same one that is part of the current collage; and I agree that it is inadequate and should be changed. So let's discuss how to find a better version that addresses the problem of an ugly and unattractive composition, while maintaining the same selection of areas and buildings - I don't really have a strong preference to change the selection of monuments displayed (so again we can have an agreement here), it's just the way they are arranged and the particular choice of photographs that is unacceptable. Diego (talk) 15:00, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Photomontage 1

Third version by Diego, above

• Dear Diego, I reverted your new (third) version because you enter own new version without consensus. It does not matter whether your next version has skyline with AZCA and CBTA or not. You have new proposition of collage? Ok, show it in discussion page, other users see it and write own suggestions. I add your third version to discussions, above. Note also that your new version is against me and user:Asqueladd arguments, we prefer compact version of collage, your new version is again, too large (as your first version). Subtropical-man talk
  (en-2) 16:28, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Maybe it: below ???

Photomontage 2

or

Photomontage 3

Above, this is my suggestion (do on quickly), so the sequence of images, and other versions of the photos to negotiate. What do you think? Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 16:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I've repeatedly asked why you and other editors have a preference for a short vertical image, but no one has provided a reason why this is preferred; that's why I expanded my initial change in this iteration (which was the version suggested by Asqueladd and who nobody opposed for a week) by adding a new horizontal strip including the financial district, which is what you had requested to have in the image. This addition was open to removing any one of the additional horizontal layers - which is what these two versions that you posted right here are doing.

Any of these versions are clear improvements over the current collage. I prefer the second one for including Puerta de Alcalá (much to my regret as it loses my preferred building in the city, the Cibeles Palace). I would arrange them like this, as the continuity of colors and light is more consistent:

Photomontage 4

However if we agree to reduce the number of items shown, I would prefer the following version which gives a prominent place to the most striking image (and removing Plaza Mayor, which nevertheless is not shown in the current collage, and for which we don't have a very good image):

Photomontage 5

Any of your two proposed versions is acceptable though, and are preferred to the current collage, so we should include one of them immediately. Diego (talk) 17:14, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Skyline, skyline, skyline. You keep repeating that word. I do not think it means what you think it means, Subtropical-man. I don't understand either the fetishism towards the tacky Almudena while vouching at the same time "for showing the city and not touristic landmarks". The new proposals are however great improvements over the current version (bar the last one). The second to last proposal (you could have named them, Diego Moya...) is probably the nicest one although I would put the City Hall of the City instead of the Palacio Real & Almudena, as this is the entry for a city and a municipality, hence the portrayal of the seat of local power (while also being a very identifiable image) is probably quite fitting.--Asqueladd (talk) 17:26, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Named per your request. Diego (talk) 17:56, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Let's see how Asqueladd latest proposal works...

Photomontage 6

Yes, I like it too.

Subtropical-man, do we all agree to switch the article to either Photomontage 3, 4 or 6, while we discuss further refinements? Diego (talk) 18:00, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Generally, I think - Photomontage 4 is ok. Asqueladd, Almudena Cathedral is not important for me but Royal Palace of Madrid - very. I suggested that, on a single picture were both buildings. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 22:09, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I like how you like to change up your mind. First you say, it is not about inserting touristic features, but dismissing that, I like to see you arguing why the Palacio Real (without full institutional use since more than 75 years) is a more important pic than the city hall (also, big as it is, isolated it is a way less identifiable building than the Palacio de Comunicaciones, it is just a rectangular versallesque façade). Second, the picture of the skyline you deemed not to be an skyline (paraphrasing Iñigo Montoya, you keep repeating that word, I do not think it means what you think it means) featured the Palacio Real&the Almudena (put in their context, La Cornisa del Manzanares), The Plaza de España (another very recognisable element of the city), with the Torre de Madrid and Edificio España Building, part of Puerta de Europa buildings, the CTBA and Torre Picasso.--Asqueladd (talk) 09:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC) PS: option 0 or option 6 are most optimal to me, although, as I have written before, a pic from Cerro de los Ángeles using a long focus lens as core pic would improve both significantly.--Asqueladd (talk) 09:49, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Culture

Hello. I moved Culture, Architecture and Sport sections to the article Culture in Madrid. I think there is enough material to create a separate article.

Of course, if you don't agree can be returned to its original.

Bye.--JuandeVillanueva (talk) 18:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

~~If you do that with all categories we only will read the introduction ... think about it. I reverted that change. Thanks.~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.223.179.186 (talk) 19:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks ;) --JuandeVillanueva (talk) 19:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I am planning on adding a paragraph about LGBT Culture to this section. --Clopez2732 (talk) 06:41, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Solo madrid es corte

I am bothered by the inclusion of this sentence: "This fact was decisive for the evolution of the city and influenced its fate, and was well expressed by the dichotomous expression: "Sólo Madrid es corte." This literally translated to "Madrid is the only court,' but with the connotation 'Madrid is nothing more than the court.'"

This is a reworked version and it still intuitively does not make sense to me. Wouldn't the 2nd translation be "Madrid es solo corte"? I don't understand where the dual meaning comes from. Ies (talk) 06:53, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you! I don't understand where the dual meaning comes from.--AlfaRocket (talk) 12:33, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Picasso's Guernica

@Coldcreation: You were bold, you reverted, now's the time for you to join discussion. Inclusion does not at present have consensus, and so the image should not be readded until and unless consensus is reached for it to be readded.

You claim that it should be included per WP:NFCI numbers 7 and 8, but given that there is no sourced commentary of the image in this article, and the image is not used to illustrate any relevant historical event (it's in a section on modern museums), this claim can be safely dismissed out of hand.

Even if it were correct, note that the rule explicitly says the image still has to meet the rule on contextual significance. Perhaps you should explain precisely how inclusion of this image would significantly increase readers' understanding of Madrid?

Note also that the NFC rationale says that the image is used "for purposes of identification and commentary in a discussion of Guernica's significance to modernism". Please would you point out precisely where this discussion is located in this article and how said discussion is relevant to Madrid. Kahastok talk 16:20, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. The painting belongs in the article. It's mentioned in text; it's a famous Spanish asset, it's one of Picasso's most important works; Picasso is one of Spain's most important artists. it has a valid Fair Use Rationale, and most importantly it is a work of visual art - that must be seen to be understood. Consensus is tied, the image must stay...Modernist (talk) 16:39, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

"Consensus is tied" means there is no consensus for inclusion, and NFC policy therefore requires that the nonfree image be removed unless consesus is established (and not merely by a momentary !vote plurality). This is a textbook case of WP:NFC#UUI #6, a point the advocates cannot refute and have made no attempt to refute. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:47, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the image both belongs and is probably essential to the article. This is Guernica, there is no other image which could define Madrid (or even Spain for that matter) than this image. Arguably a special case and an exception from any Wikirules which exclude it, because of its unique status, fame, and profound imagery which is imbedded in all who view it, a link is certainly not enough when the image is available to define the artwork housed in Madrid. The importance of this national treasure to the world, this visual definition of the Spanish Civil War, and the fact that this is the most famous painting by the most famous and honored artist of Spain has already propelled it to iconic status. Wikipedia presenting it on its Madrid page seems WP:COMMONSENSE and, if critically stymied by a catch-all rule, presents a near-perfect example of WP:IAR to facilitate the improvement of the encyclopedia. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:05, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

There are lots of iconic images out there and this one is not so uniquely iconic that the rules we have cannot be applied. There are plenty of free images that we can use to define Madrid and Spain to our readers that do the job much better than this one.

But that the proposal is that this be used as an incidental image in a section on museums, not as a definitive image of Madrid. Specifically, per the FUR the image is here "for purposes of identification and commentary in a discussion of Guernica's significance to modernism" (a discussion that doesn't exist in the article). We can do fine with a Wikilink. Kahastok talk 17:46, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

The image of the painting, along with the following text, needs to be added to this article: In 1992, Guernica was moved from the Museo del Prado to a purpose-built gallery at the Museo Nacional Centro de Arte Reina Sofía, both in Madrid, along with about two dozen preparatory works. This action was controversial in Spain, since Picasso's will stated that the painting should be displayed at the Prado. However, the move was part of a transfer of all of the Prado's collections of art after the early 19th century to other nearby buildings in the city for reasons of space; the Reina Sofía, which houses the capital's national collection of 20th-century art, was the natural place to move it to. At the Reina Sofía, the painting has roughly the same protection as any other work. Upon its arrival in Spain in September 1981, it was first displayed behind bomb-and bullet-proof glass screens at the Casón del Buen Retiro in Madrid in time to celebrate the centenary of Picasso's birth, 25 October. The exhibition was visited by almost a million people in the first year.

And so, the inclusion of Guernica in this is not only perfectly acceptable per WP:NFCI #7 and #8, it is obligatory. Good day. Coldcreation (talk) 18:57, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Acceptable how? Obligatory how? Kahastok talk 19:20, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

@Coldcreation: Non-free content use is not automatic and it certainly isn't obliglatory as stated in the first sentence of WP:NFCCP. WP:NFCI just provides some examples of what are generally considered acceptable types of non-free use; it doesn't mean that every non-free file which falls it to one of those catagories is automatically non-free content use policy compliant. The criteria which are relevant here are WP:NFCC#3 and WP:NFCC#8. What you're going to need to clarify is how this additional use of the file has the context needed for non-free use required by NFCC#8. In other words, why does the reader need to see this particular image in this particular article so that omitting it would be detrimental to the reader's understanding of the relevant article content. Please just don't say Picasso is mention in the text or that visual art must be see to be understood. The former is not necessarily the case because of WP:NFCC#1 (text and a link to Guernica (Picasso) is a more than sufficient acceptable free equivalent per item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI) and the later is the reason why the non-free image is being used in the satand-alone article about the painiting itself. The non-free use rationale needs to better explain why this image should be used in this particular article, not why the image should in general be used on Wikipedia.

Finally, simply copying a paragraph of text from the article about the painting and trying to insert into this article just so that the non-free file can be used is not really a good way to justify non-free use because it basically shows that the image can be removed without being detrimental to the reader's understanding in any way since the same article content can be found in the stand-alone article about the painting. Moreover, simply copying and pasting a rationale for another use and only changing the aritcle parameter or adding a new boilerplate non-free use rationale does not make the non-free use policy compliant per WP:JUSTONE and WP:OTHERIMAGE; you need to once again clarify how the specific use of the file meets all ten non-free content criteria. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:28, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

• The edit waring aimed at removing Picasso's Guernica from this article does a disservice to the viewer. Its inclusion accords with Wikipedia's non-free content criteria, and complies with United States fair use laws. Coldcreation (talk) 11:21, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • As explained in WP:NFC#Background and WP:ITSFAIRUSE, Wikpedia's non-free content use policy has been intentionally made more restricitive than US fair use policy and it's the compliance with this policy (not the US principle of fair use) which is being discussed here. Can you explain how omitting this file's from article is a "disservice to the viewer" in terms of the NFCCP (NFCCP is the policy page, not WP:NFC) because that's what matters. For example, it would help if you could explain why the two mentions of the painting by name with a link each to its stand-alone article as explained in item 6 of NFC#UUI and NFCC#1 are not a sufficient alternative to actually displaying the image in this article. If you could also clarify in more specific terms what article content requires that the reader actually see this particular image to be understood, then that might help explain how you think this particular use meets NFCC#8. As for the edit warring, that was initiated by you when you simply copied-and-pasted the non-free use rationale for one of the other file's uses (only changing the article paramter) and then tried to force re-added the file to the article per WP:JUSTONE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:09, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
• I've been having these discussions for more than ten years. Initially the Wikipedia Foundation made exception in its rules enabling works of visual art to be seen. Paintings and other works of visual art need to be visually seen to be understood. Consequently works covered by public domain and fair use resolutions must be used to produce visual understanding in our readers. Simply mentioning or even linking Guernica is not the same as seeing it...Modernist (talk) 12:33, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • • The WMF never made a particular exception for "works of visual art". The WMF's governing resolution states that nonfree content may be used "to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works. This provision applies to images of artwork, sound files, and even textual excerpts from poetry. En-wiki stretches these "narrow limits" to their breaking points already, going beyond articles whose central subject is the work depicted to articleson the creators, histories of the general field of the work, and particular schools of work. We skirt the limits imposed by the WMF's "minimal" scope direction for EDPs. The WMF resolution cannot fairly be expanded to allow nonfree content to be used in any article which mentions it, regardless of the central subject of that article. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:45, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • That's fine and I understand how seeing the painting is important in the stand-alone article about the painting since that is where critical commentary of the painting can be found. That use is fine, and I could even see it being used in an article about painting/art in general if it were used to represent a specific style which is the subject of critical commentary. However, the justification for using the file here is not the same as it is would be for those types of articles. Why does the reader need to see it in this article, and how is it detrimental to the reader's understanding of "and the Reina Sofía Museum, where Pablo Picasso's Guernica is exhibited" and "Certainly the most famous masterpiece in the museum is Picasso's painting Guernica." if the file is omitted? -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:48, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
    • We commonly include images of the skyline of a city in an article on a given city. How is this any different? There may be no mention in the article of the skyline of that city. In this case Guernica is mentioned in the text of the article. Bus stop (talk) 12:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
      • I don't believe any non-free images of a current city skyline would meet NFCC#1. You might find freely licensed or public domain images of a skylines in city articles, but non-free ones are probably rare if any exist at all. Moreover, there are lots of things mentioned by name in the article such as sports teams and major corporations, etc., but we don't add non-free team or company logos to the article just because such things are mentioned. There has to be a much stronger connection between article content and non-free image to provide the context required by NFCC#8. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:07, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I've little to add. In any case, the Guernica painting is representative of the horrors of war, and literally of the Bombing of Guernica, not Madrid. It is obviously a notable item of the Museum, but a mention and wikilink in the museum section of the entry for the "city of Madrid" suffices. It doesn't comply with the rationale for non-free images, at least in this entry the connection is not that strong.--Asqueladd (talk) 14:00, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

"connection is not that strong" The connection could not be stronger. Madrid is the city in which the painting resides. The painting is as synonymous with Madrid as the Madrid city skyline. Its origin may be in the depiction of "the horrors of war, and literally of the Bombing of Guernica" but this is not an iPhone photograph of that bombing which would do quite well in depicting "the Bombing of Guernica" if the Apple iPhone were around then. Its significance is in such factors as nonrepresentationalism, at least partial, and a palette of gray, black, and white. It is an object that resides in Madrid and is one of its most important objects. Bus stop (talk) 16:11, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

The painting is as synonymous with Madrid as the Madrid city skyline I cannot do anything but disagree.--Asqueladd (talk) 16:20, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

The trip advisor website says it is a mandatory stop when visiting Madrid, and I'd assume other travel guides and local promotional campaigns would do the same. Madrid and the painting are tied-together now, and this seems to be the paintings location from here on in. The most significant artwork in a major city would represent that city (kind of like Vatican City without the Sistine Chapel, etc.) The rational does need to be edited, and maybe the editors here, both opposed and for including the image, can draft language which would work. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:41, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Is it the most significant artwork in Madrid? Don't know - the city's architecture would seem more significant to the city. Does the most significant artwork in a major city always represent that city? In the general case, I'd say probably not. Even if both points were true, would that be an argument to include in a Wikipedia article on that city a non-free image that does not significantly increase readers' understanding of that city (per WP:NFCC 8) and can be replaced by a link to a relevant article (NFCC 1 and 3)? No chance.

And no, a single person's review on tripadvisor saying that the painting is a must-see for tourists does not override WP:NFCC.

I will not be helping try to find a form of words that would satisfy WP:NFCC 10, because our aim here is not - and should not be - to try to shoehorn non-free images into our articles when they fail WP:NFCC. Kahastok talk 21:09, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Although Guernica is definitely one of the master artworks hosted in Madrid, I can't see how it overrides WP:NFCC --Discasto (talk) 09:10, 19 June 2018 (UTC) PS: @Coldcreation: May I ask you why you continiously upload copyright violations while not using the proper template?

The Guernica, while at the time was significant historic landmark when it was brought to Spain and stored in Madrid, is definitely not representative of Madrid itself as a city, certainly not to the point of overriding NFCC. However there is a good argument to be made for including more free images of paintings in the Art and Culture section. I find it weird that there's an image for Goya's El Aquelarre, but not the much more popular Las Meninas, the number one must-see for international visitors at the Prado museum. Maybe in addition to the several images of buildings in that section, we should have a small gallery with the most internationally well-known public domain paintings. Diego (talk) 09:53, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Diego Moya, good points, then please add it and them. Guernica is not just stored in Madrid, it is a major, if not the major, cultural attraction of Madrid. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:57, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

The Guernica is stored in Madrid and it's one of the many important landmarks, but it has the problem that it is not out of copyright; as we are building a free content encyclopedia, it is best to use only freely licensed works as the preferred alternative. Having a link to the article where the Guernica is displayed is enough, and complies with all our content guidelines.

The Madrid city official tourism guide may be a good starting point to see which paintings would merit being included in that gallery.[15] This could be contrasted with other travel guides from important publishers, to include paintings which appear in all or most of them.

Unfortunately the article is locked down right now, o_O so this will have to wait. We could use this cool down time to discuss which paintings to include. Diego (talk) 10:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Aside from other images, your suggestion of Las Meninas is a fine idea, it is listed in the List of cultural icons of Spain, and is one which should receive universal agreement. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:14, 19 June 2018 (UTC)