Talk:Madrid/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Third Largest City in Europe after London and Berlin?

Example a) One box of chocolates is 500mm x 200mm x 40mm and it contains 20 chocolates. Another box of chocolates is 250mm x 120mm x 25mm and it contains 30 chocolates.

The first box of chocolates is clearly 'larger' than the second, although the second contains 50% more chocolates than the first.

Which is the largest?

Example b) An apple tree is 5 metres high, it's branches and foliage span 4 metres and it's trunk has a circumference of 2 metres. It has a yield of 40 kg of apples per annum.

A plum tree is 3 metres high, it's branches and foliage span 3 metres and it's trunk has a circumference of 1 metre. It has a yield of 50 kg of plums per annum.

Which is the largest?

As it happens, London (the City) is probably the SMALLEST 'city' in Europe. And then there's the Greater London / London Metropolitan County / London Borough / London Urban Area etc. And London Airport (Luton), which isn't in any of those due to the fact that it's in Bedfordshire!

The moral of the story is - 'population density' and 'size' are not the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.33.12 (talk) 19:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

For me, the moral of the story is everyone knows and understands flawlessly what a big city is. A big city spans across your literal definitions and barriers. London has a population over 10million in its area, and the different communities you found there, call'em Bedfordshire, any metro county or city borough, contribute to the spirit of the whole place, besides being totally integrated in a multimodal transport network with other areas, let alone being international gates of entry for thousands of people daily. Same thing happens in Madrid at a smaller scale, but Madrid metro area has grown spectacularily over the last 25 years, transforming the city of the 70's (just a densely populated core) into a 6.8 million people metro area. Anywhere inside that metro area people are from "Madrid", then you can descend to the specific city,borough or county.

I am aware that following your calculations, any provincial town will happen to be bigger than "London" or "Madrid" :)

Luton is as London as Oxford Street, Canary Wharf or Candem Town, just like in Madrid, Fuenlabrada, Mostoles or Escorial is as Madrid as the Calle Serrano may be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.9.132.56 (talk) 16:31, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

The article lede is a trifle full of breathless superlatives, but I suppose one expects a bit of this kind of boosterism in any article about a major world city. In any case, as of today at least it is generally well written and the statistics cited do check out with sources, with the exception of a phrase about being the "financial centre of southern Europe" which is not supported by its sources and I'll bring up elsewhere.

When speaking about sizes of cities, one must be very careful to define one's terms: city limits, "municipalities," counties, provinces and even country borders can interfere with actually seeing the metropolitan area as a unit. Metropolitan area or any of the larger units sometimes analysed are the way to go, dividing up these entities is ridiculous as it doesn't give you a true idea of the economic, social, etc., impact of an area. I think the reference in the first paragraph to Madrid being the "third-largest city in the European Union" and linking to a useless page that should not exist, the "List of cities in the European Union by population within city limits" does Madrid a disservice as it has the same ranking as a metropolitan area in the EU taking the 2017 Eurostat figures. Unless one wants to include the megalopoles of the "Polycentric metropolitan areas in the European Union" further down on the same page as "cities," in which case the Rhine-Ruhr megalopolis which occupies the better part of an entire German state, and the Randstad, which occupies essentially the whole of the west-central Netherlands, would outrank Madrid and leave it number 5. But that would be rather dubious. So indeed Madrid seems to deserve its number 3 spot.

With regards to London and Luton... I don't think many Londoners think of Luton as being "in London." Or Stansted or Gatwick for that matter. Nor I think do residents of Luton, Stansted or Gatwick think of themselves as living "in London" -- perhaps "near London." Obviously, they are part of the London megalopolis, that's why there are "London" airports there, accessible by anyone with plenty of cash for the long and expensive train ride, they are tied into the London economy in many ways. But I think it's a far stretch to say they are London. Whereas big areas surrounding Madrid are very tightly identified with Madrid, I'd say. Stycklyr (talk) 20:47, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Minor edit to lede -- Madrid as economic hub, not financial centre

In the middle of the third paragraph of the lede was this poorly written and inaccurate sentence: "Due to its economic output, high standard of living, and market size, Madrid is considered the major financial centre of Southern Europe[15][16] and the Iberian Peninsula" A financial centre and a commercial or economic one are not the same thing. Of the two sources cited, one link (MasterCard study) no longer works and the other, to a Japanese study, does not support Madrid as a centre of finance. Rather Madrid is referred to repeatedly in the study as having some importance for global non-financial companies. The MasterCard study seems to have contained similar information to the outdated 2008 data available here , which refers to commercial, rather than financial, prowess. So I have rewritten that sentence fragment to read, "Due to its economic output, high standard of living, and market size, Madrid is considered the leading economic hub of the Iberian Peninsula and of Southern Europe", which seems to be supportable by the available stats. Milan seems to be a more important or at least equally important financial centre, so giving Madrid the leading spot in Southern Europe based strictly on finance would be a stretch. Stycklyr (talk) 21:14, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

@Stycklyr: It seems an advance. In relation to this, another issue is to what extent Milan qualifies as Southern Europe, but that would be up to the sources to decide. It's fair to say the current sources are not conclusive in the matter in either direction. It's the problem with relying on superlative statements circling around vague criteria... Regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 21:51, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Excessive cluttering in the transport section

I notice there is too much tabulated stuff in the transport section. I've checked other articles for big cities and they don't usually feature that level of detail in that regard. For good reasons, I think: The sections look cleaner, there are already specific entries for that kind of content, and the entry for the city does not intend to be a transport guide. I propose to simplify it.--Asqueladd (talk) 09:56, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Images and content

@TechnicianGB:, @BrugesFR:, @Moxy: While the last edits of Bruges look a bit disruptive, there is much to discuss about the images and about the text content. For example I don't think there are too many images relative to the existing current text about churches (nor the idea that mini horizontal 4x1, 3x1 et al. galleries are a bad option for those pics), but I arguably think there is too much text content about churches in this general article, possibly suitable to a more specific one. The gallery about urban sculpture looks indeed a bit in the "over-the-top" territory and the section itself... could possibly be included in a more specific article too. In addition I just read a comment by Moxy in his/her talk page. There is indeed a fascination for including pics of buildings and more buildings in these city articles. In particular, in the Sports section I just cannot see the reason to not include (instead of the stadiums) pics about the actual "practice of sport". For example, an "Real Madrid-Atlético" football derby as well as other pics representing other elite sport events in Madrid) Not to say that beside "elite sport", an illustration of common madrilenians practising sport may also be helpful. In addition, the football section could be enhanced with content dealing with women's football.--Asqueladd (talk) 07:10, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Pls review WP:Gallery, WP:Undue and MOS:ACCIM..... See talk about a few pages at User talk:Moxy#Architecture of Valencia.--Moxy 🍁 07:21, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean? I am opening a discussion here about content in this article (about what to chop). I couldn't care less about the developments of the Valencia one.--Asqueladd (talk) 07:24, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

"Capital of Spain" redirects here.

Would it not be better to have an article about the cities that have been used as capitals throughout the history of Spain and its predecessor countries? Or is there such an article elsewhere in WP ? ♆ CUSH ♆ 15:27, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

@Cush:I don't know. Has some source actually worried about the study of Madrid as capital in connection to the capitals of the "predecessor countries" [sic] (of Spain)? Valladolid was actually capital of Philip III for a few years in the early 1600s and in the context Madrid was fixed as capital of Philip II in 1561, sources often make a passing mention of the cities of the Crown of Castile that had been the most common residences of royal court (despite actually being an itinerant court); most critically Toledo. Sources also mention in that context the candidate cities to become the capital of the Hispanic Monarchy that were discarded in 1561 (most often mentions to Lisbon and Seville). I've yet to read a source mentioning the condition of capital of Madrid contrasted to the former capitals of the Crown of Aragon, the Nasrid Kingdom of Granada or the Kingdom of Navarre... I don't think there is enough material for an article, and, particularly if when delivering that article we create a magnet for original research and preposterous statements: I'll say "pass" with more reason. There are sources dealing with the importance of certain cities vis-à-vis certain polities during the middle ages, but probably the articles of the respective cities and the articles of the respective polities (which are not "Spain") as well as possibly the article of "Spain in the Middle Ages" are so far the best places to deal with the nuances.--Asqueladd (talk) 07:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

"Landmarks" section

The frame of the section looks more apt for Wikivoyage than for Wikipedia. I suggest to rename the section to "Tourism" (possibly remove it from the "culture" section), and also include the effects of gentrification of the city centre on rental prices (and possibly protests by locals in that regard).--Asqueladd (talk) 09:12, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Fiesta de la Trashumancia

Just seen Madrid taken over by hundreds of sheep for annual festival should this be mentioned somewhere? GrahamHardy (talk) 09:26, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@GrahamHardy: Why not? The local festivities section could use more substance. In any case keep in mind it is not a holiday. In addition, there are pics hosted in Commons (example) ready to illustrate the event if they were needed (although, regarding images, the section is already a bit cluttered). Regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 09:32, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Flagcruft

Why so much obstinacy on flags? Per WP:FLAGCRUFT (et. al) flags in the "sister city twin town" section may not be appropriate. Country flags confuse the issue and move the focus/emphasis away from the cities (partnership is with the city, not with the sovereign country), suggesting some non-existent broader relationship aside from bluntly detracting from the actual purpose of the section which it is to highlight the link between cities, not countries.--Asqueladd (talk) 21:56, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Re-Translated the City´s Motto

Somehow, it was mistranslated. The actual motto has nothing to do with "going to a fixed river": it testifies to Madrid being built over terrain crossed by many streams and small rivers. Therefore, I changed it to the more literal "I was built over water". The "my walls are on fire" translation was not that far from the original, but the motto in Spanish references the original city walls being made of flintstone, shining bright when hit by the sun at dusk or dawn. I changed it to the more literal "my walls are made of fire", to convey the walls not actually being on fire, but looking like they were on fire because of the building materials used on them (in Spanish, this is made clear by using the verb "ser", which indicates an inherent quality of the object, rather than "estar", which indicates a transitory state of it. An accurate translation of that part of the motto, "mis muros de fuego SON", would be "my walls are of fire", rather than "my walls are on fire". Conversely, to express "my walls are on fire", the expression used in Spanish would be "mis muros ESTAN en llamas", which is very different to the sentence used in the city´s motto). 82.158.155.195 (talk) 11:30, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree, but the motto is not particularly relevant to the infobox anyways. Most Spanish cities do not put any meaningful importance to it. No "motto" or text whatsoever is actively used/displayed by the municipal authorities of Madrid (the way the coat of arms or the flag are used). Spanish cities often have an intitulation (very loyal, very happy, very noble, etc... city/town granted by a monarch, often featured on the coat of arms and not conveying a motivation/drive in itself the way a traditional motto does). Or (even worse?) a catchphrase brought forward by the municipal department for tourism. Or, in this case, apparently an inscription carved in a stone that according to the cited source it is "forgotten". Introducing this sort of information without context is a misleading effort giving UNDUE weight to fringe features, not considering issues such as cultural context: infoboxes should not become a signboard to show such things, which rather fall under the scope of decontextualised folk trivia/wisdom. Not to mention if in the attempt to introduce the data, unfortunate translations slip in.--Asqueladd (talk) 18:50, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

• Ave - Madrid Puerta de Atocha.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:26, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Sources

Regarding these edits from July: Is it the case that a "TFG" (a "Trabajo de Fin de Grado": a bachelor's thesis) has been cited there, henceforth shoehorning synthesis with the content of a reliable source?--Asqueladd (talk) 16:47, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Madrid a city?

Is Madrid actually a city or is it technically still a villa? 77.228.231.90 (talk) 08:15, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Photo collage

Hello, I recently tried to put a new collage of photos with the main landmarks in the city. However, I was reversed by the editor Subtropical-man for not reaching consensus before making such changes. That said, I come here to formally make this proposal. Thanks in advance. Cordial greetings. Chronus (talk) 17:48, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't like either of them, but the older is at least shorter. There is no need for these - both have lots of white space below them & individual pics would be better imo. Johnbod (talk) 18:01, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Mistake in demographics - Life expectancy at birth (reference 102)

Hello,

Just wanted to point out that after how the pandemic really hit hard the Madrid region, the statement ´The wider Madrid region is the EU region with the highest average life expectancy at birth´is not true anymore. The life expectancy at birth has dropped and it is currently situated just above the average for the country according to INE (Statitics National Institute).

Ruben — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.177.164.62 (talk) 18:53, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

On Retiro Park Weather station

Regarding the recent edits about climate, both stations are representative of their specific location (either a thinly vegetated wasteland beyond the urban limits or a lushy park in the city centre). None are specially representative of a different place (people don't live there, neither they do in Cuatro Vientos). The Retiro station is for some reason (perhaps its central location) the one traditionally used as a reference, tho. This is not strange at all: for example NYC favours Central Park and Paris favours Parc Montsouris. Of course this data contrasts with other locations (as the airport does too, most notably with the extremes), but all of this is only important insofar it can be contextualised with sources. In any case, whether if it looks less fancy or not, the most important thing is improving (expanding) the specific article Climate of Madrid. Regarding this, please read: Wikipedia:Main article fixation. And regarding edit summaries about what sources refer to, please only make such comments after reading such sources (that does not seem to have been the case here). Asqueladd (talk) 16:09, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Asqueladd, I disagree. The Retiro park is very obviously a microclimate where temperatures are significantly depressed by the thickness of (artificially planted and tendered) vegetation - typically old chestnut trees among others, which is not representative of either urban nor unurbanized parts of Madrid.

It suffices to look at the record highs for different points of Madrid to see the extreme climatic anomaly of the Retiro Park measuring station. When this summer Retiro Park hit its all time record of 40,7 degrees, it was simulatenously 42,2 in Adolfo Suárez Madrid–Barajas Airport, 42.2 in Torrelodones, 42.2 in Alcalá de Henares, 43,3 in Villanueva de la Cañada and 43,3 in Arganda del Rey. Within the city limits I believe the all time record is in Ciudad Universitaria and Cuatro Vientos both measuring stations at 42.2. [1] [2]

If we are going to choose a measuring station I would go for Barajas, using the source already mentioned in the article explaining why Retiro is not representative. Otherwise, Cuatro Vientos or Ciudad Universtaria if available. Radosveta Evlog2 (talk) 19:30, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I would also add that I do not believe there is such a divergence between in Paris and New York between measuring stations, nor is there sourcing I have seen to support it. Parc Montsouris is not as densely and artificially covered in vegetation as Retiro. We also have a range of sources pointing to the existence of this microclimate one already included (and somewhat misrepresented) in the article, to which I would add this one which shows summer temperature differences of 4 degrees between the coolest part of Retiro park and Atocha station, located just a few hundred meters away.: [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radosveta Evlog2 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Radosveta Evlog2 I do not believe Ok. You don't believe. Case on point. Any input you can provide with reliable secondary sources in prose (rather than what you believe), should be thoroughly developed in Climate of Madrid, which as you can check, is asking for an expansion more than this one. There is no compelling reason to change the station (which I think has been the reference station on here for a while), other than, yes, higher temperatures have been broken in other stations of the municipality (so what?, the article where extremes (both highs and lows) should be prominently featured and where to track the day-to-day of the climate crisis should be the "Climate of Madrid" one to begin with...). If there are sources stating that temperatures across the urbanised area routinely break 40 degrees and have been on the wrong side of 42ºC in some areas in July and August, we can include it on prose. If the max temperature ever recorded in Madrid is X perhaps that can be included here, in prose. Why not? A compelling reason to change the station? Nope. PS: What is not cool either is your edit distorting the content of a cited source under a wrong assumption .--Asqueladd (talk) 20:40, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Asqueladd, when I say "I don't believe", I am simply being polite and it is up to you to provide sources supporting your statements/arguments. And as far as I am aware I am not distorting anything. Regardless, my argument is also based on many articles on Spanish provincial capitals with an airport use the airport weather station (e.g. Seville, Málaga, Barcelona. The Barcelona article, shows two weather stations precisely because the urban heat effect is so obvious in city center one compared to the airport one. If we absolutely do not want to use Barajas airport (you seem a little evasive on your reasons), I would then include a mention of Retiro Park weather station being located in a microclimate and that hotter temperatures are reached elsewhere in the city and surrounding areas, perhaps with some examples. I don't see why there should only be one, though. Athens has three weather stations in the article. Madrid city particularly has a very high difference in altitude between different parts of the city and spans two climatic zones, another reason to have more than one.Radosveta Evlog2 (talk) 21:08, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Yep. I still don't see any reason to move away from the Retiro station, the centennial station traditionally used as reference, and with continuous records since 1893, one of the oldest if not the oldest from Spain, sorry. It's not me, it's the WMO. Whatever ammendment or disclaimer you feel entitled to include, I "politely" suggest that it is better off in prose with secondary sources elsewhere. spans two climatic zones This is quite asinine as an argument. Madrid is in the middle/transition of two conventional "man-made" climate "boxes" separated by a precipitation threshold. That's just it. There is a NW/NWW-SE/SEE gradient in precipitation (which we can mention, if sources are provided), but it is not particularly marked to warrant two or three climate boxes in the main article. The city is not a special snowflake with a helluva geographical variation vis-vis climate types, it just happens to fall in the middle of two labels (Bsk and Csa; both already mentioned in the opening statement of the climate section) of a conventional classification (Köppen) when it comes to distribution of yearly precipitation. And by the way, regarding your "beliefs" about what you think it does not happen in other cities and Madrid being a special snowflake: [4]. Regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 21:50, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Asqueladd I don't want this to turn into the typical argument on the internet where both sides are fixated on being "right" but I think you are, no doubt unintentionally, misrepresenting reality here, probably because you are simply not a Madrid resident and do not know the city well. I have lived in Madrid for the last 8 years and I can assure you what you are saying is simply untrue.

Firstly, Madrid city being on two climatic zones is not the product of "coincidence because its right on a man-made threshhold. There is no other city in Europe with equivalent variation of both altitude and precipitation. As an example, Pinar de Chamartín neighborhood (near where I live) is at 742 meters altitude, whereas the lowest altitude in the city - just east of Villaverde is at 543 meters. This by the way excludes El Pardo, which has higher points but is unpopulated. As for precipitation it ranges from over 537 in the northern parts of Fuencarral district to under 435 in the southeast - over 100 mm precipitation a year difference.[5]

Your source does not show inherent climatic difference in New York. Evidently there are none, its a flat coastal city. It, simply shows vulnerability to heatwaves which is the product of urban layout and types of buildings, nothing else. Madrid actually has climatic differences between different parts of the city and surrounding areas, as anyone who has lived there knows just from seeing the notable difference in vegetation. All of it is "mesomediterranean" according to local isotherm-based classification (the threshold is around 900 m for supramediterranean in Madrid region, I believe) but the differences are nevertheless notable.

You still have not given a clear answer why "there can be only one" climatic box. This rule seems your own, not implemented widely on Wikipedia. In many articles of cities showing climatic divergence such as La Paz, Athens or Istanbul, I see two or three climate boxes. I see no reason for not doing likewise in Madrid. There are no doubt wider climatic differences within Madrid than between the Retiro and Barajas, but showing both gives a clearer picture of Madrid´s overall climate. In other words, I don't see how your position of only having one "improves" the article. I only see it making it worse.

Let me know your thoughs.

R.Radosveta Evlog2 (talk) 13:02, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I think that both you and I can agree that record temperatures recorded in points of the city (most notably in July and August) being higher than those of the Retiro station is a potentially relevant factoid encyclopedy-wise. We disagree on what follows: I take that you think that circunstance alone warrants a weather box change (or the addition of more boxes pertaining the two available AEMET stations from the two nearby airbases) in the main article while I do not think so (pursuant to WP:SPLITLIST, WP:MAFIX, WP:LENGTH et. al). I am perfectly open to provide nuance (but you think that it can only be provided by adding/cluttering the article with more boxes or changing the longstanding stations of reference for the city, while I think it can and should be done with prose. I wish that, if can we agree on something specific, that this can be the beginning of a fruitful collaboration, in this article (the so-called main article) and this other one (where there can be, THERE already ARE', three climate boxes). Regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 02:12, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

History section seems like a jumble of facts, could use significant improvement

Section 2 is difficult for a person to read and make sense of. It seems to provide a jumble of facts without a logical sequence and without providing contextual information for the facts the article selects for inclusion. It's not enough to provide lots of links to other articles that one must read to follow the thread. I'm new to editing and don't know how radically one can rewrite or reorganize a large segment of an article, but this desperately needs it. Phoititis (talk) 16:00, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Adding a photo to the infobox

@Diego Moya, JackkBrown, HeyElliott, and Kleuske: I am trying to include in the infobox of this article this panoramic image that includes important symbols of Madrid (the Royal Palace and Almudena Cathedral), but the editor Asqueladd insists on considering himself the owner of this article and invoking a supposed "consensus" from 2016, which is nothing more than a brief discussion in which three editors participated and which ended with the editor Asqueladd imposing his will once again. I would like to know if there are any concrete arguments to prevent any kind of changes beyond the fact that they don't suit the personal taste of the "owner" of the article.

Also changes made to the "Culture" section also break WP:SANDWICH by placing images next to each other, "crushing" the text on the page. Are we even going to respect the most basic of our style manual? This situation is completely absurd and goes against the pillars of collective construction of this project. Chronus (talk) 20:11, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

By the way. I have not considered myself the owner of anything, anywhere. This is certainly not a good faith start, but I'll take it.--Asqueladd (talk) 20:14, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Let's begin. What does SANDWICH have to do with adding a photo to the infobox? If your aims are wider (I am positive they are), could you reframe the preface of this subsection (or alternatively opening a new thread for a different grievance)?--Asqueladd (talk) 20:17, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@Asqueladd Don't you consider yourself the owner of the article? So why is every attempt at editing I make to this article reversed by you? What kind of other interpretation would you like me to have on your behavior? If you're not the owner, why do you behave like one? Chronus (talk) 20:18, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@Asqueladd And why don't you read what I write more carefully? I invoked WP:SANDWICH based on the reversals you made in the "Culture" section, where your "dynamic and illustrative images" are squashing the text and making the content difficult to read. Chronus (talk) 20:20, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi there. Just to be clear, I don't question the punctual application of WP:SANDWICH, but the set of images to illustrate the article, and that's what I intend to discuss here. Regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 13:27, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Sports illustration

Let's discuss for example the football image in the sports illustration. I argue that a image of the depiction of the event (as in the footballers of Real Madrid and Atlético playing the socalled derby) is a better fit than a depiction of a stadium. 1) Because there is already an excess of buildings in the article, 2) because the depiction of a player dribbling across rival players is more dynamic than a building (you cannot argue this, can you?), 3) and because the selected picture illustrates both Real Madrid and Atlético at the same level at the same time bringing balance 4) because the core meaning of the section is "professional sports in the city" (I would personally like an expansion to include non-professional practice of sports, but that it is the way it is now), not "professional sports venues in the city".--Asqueladd (talk) 20:22, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@Asqueladd The image I had put in the "Sports" section also showed an image of a Madrid Derby, only with a wider shot of the stadium as a whole. I don't think the two-player picture could get any more "dynamic" than that. Furthermore, this concept of "dynamism" is quite subjective. If you want to defend your opinions, at least rely on official project policies. But I already told you, leave whatever image you want in the sports section. It's amazing how you like to deviate from the main focus of the discussion, isn't it? Will your majesty allow the inclusion of the sixth image in the infobox and will you comply with the WP:SANDWICH says or will additional steps need to be taken? Chronus (talk) 20:35, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

• 
• 

discussion

There is an error in the words part of the article :The factories that now surrounded the city. Wikinafia (talk) 13:31, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Lead image for article

Good Morning. I have changed the lead image from that of Edificio Espana to that of Gran Calao. I believe the new lead image is a superior image in 3 aspects: a) image quality. b) Depicts a very famous part of the city whilst still being an excellent skyline picture c) is a better candidate for representing the unique identity of madrid as a city rather than just being any other mediterranean city as the edificio espana image makes it look like.

Please do give your thoughts below. Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 06:16, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for opening a thread. I lean towards favoring wider panoramic views in the infobox putting the city in a geographical context. For Madrid it is perhaps a bit difficult as the points of reference vis-à-vis the environment are not clear (only the Manzanares, the Manzanares slope, and far far away, the Guadarrama mountains). I don't think that there is currently a pic fulfilling both an adequate representation of the Manzanares and the Guadarrama. A wide-angle lens panorama of the city skyline from Valdemoro or Cerro de los Ángeles in a clear day may perhaps satisfy the latter (but there is currently none available in Commons, and a regular photo in non-perfect atmospheric conditions such as this one does not cut it), perhaps a wide-angle top down shot from La Pedriza could make the trick too (but there is none available either I think, and a regular photo does not seem adequate), while there are some shots from San Isidro illustrating the skyline and the river slope (but not the river itself). Anyways, while the image you moved to a less prominent position does not offer real geographical insight, but still gives a glimpse of the city's urbanism and density. is a better candidate for representing the unique identity of madrid as a city rather than just being any other mediterranean city I don't understand this one bit. Which is the "unique identity of Madrid" according to you and which is the look of "any other Mediterranean city"? Zaragoza or Mediterranean cities such as Valencia, Barcelona and Málaga, to name a few, have similar street crossings to that one, by the way, although I think that that's beyond the point. Let's see if this thread develops some track... All in all, as mentioned above, I would lean towards a panorama view of sorts as the largest infobox image.--Asqueladd (talk) 09:05, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree. I'm not thrilled with the current photo, but it is superior overall than the proposed alternative, and I would only support replacing it with an image that gives a better overview, not of a particular spot. Cerebral726 (talk) 13:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt response.

Addressing your question about the unique identity of Madrid. What I meant is that the previous lead image looks like a skyline photo which could very easily be used to represent nearly any Mediterranean city with their low rise mixed use, colorful buildings, loads of brick roofs etc. A unique picture would be one which better represents the city in question. For example, the very very famous NYC skyline means the article has a skyline lead image of manhattan which features the Empire State, etc. For Barcelona, the lead image depicts the square grid of L'Eixample, which is an very well known aspect of Barcelona. For Paris, the eiffel tower, notre dame, as well as Paris' famous style of architecture is very prominently featured. For London, the tower bridge, the shard, the gherkin are all featured whilst showing a great skyline. How is this relevant to my point? Madrid is known for its wide boulevards and Gran Via is a rather excellent representative of Madrid as such. pictures featuring the metropolis building would be an even better choice as it's considered by spain's official tourism site itself to be one of the most famous buildings + it's at Gran Via and thus at an excellent location for skyline pics. while i do agree that the option i proposed would be better from a higher altitude, i do feel it's far superior to the rather throwaway lead image which doesn't even have Madrid's skyscrapers like Las Cuatro Torres which would arguably be the best option tbh Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 14:00, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

here are some excellent other options:

This not only features a skyline, but also feaures the Metropolis building, and Gran Via. Negative is that it's at dusk

More of a Dark Horse candidate, this features a famous aspect of the city + the skyline and is much clearer i.e. in the mrng. But negative aspect is that it's zoomed in

Here's a bunch of choices which would not only feature skylines, but also famous sections of the city.

prolly the best example i've seen so far

here's a much superior skyline picture which is in the same section of the city as the current picture but has a better angle Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 14:17, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree. I'm not thrilled with the current photo, but it is superior overall than the proposed alternative, andI would only support replacing it with an image that gives a better overview, not of a particular spot. @Cerebral726: I am not particularly thrilled it with it either but I don't think that the alternatives are better so far. Indeed, I'd say the main virtue of the current image is not focusing on a specific spot, but depicting different layers of urban development. A similar composition depicting an older section of the city could be this one. I i do feel it's far superior to the rather throwaway lead image which doesn't even have Madrid's skyscrapers like Las Cuatro Torres @Becausewhynothuh?: Huh? The so-called Cuatro Torres are depicted in that image (Torre Cepsa, Torre de Cristal, and Torre PwC plus the adjoining Caleido). Madrid is known for its wide boulevards Is it? First news. Gran Via is a rather excellent representative of Madrid as such I'd rather say Gran Vía is an excellent representative of itself (and it is quite "unique" in a Madrid context rather than "representative"). Shall the infobox include several images in a collage composition (as it is right now), a specific "iconic" spot such as Gran Vía/Callao crossing could be depicted as it is right now (in a secondary position). This seems... fitting. Still I am not sure how that translates to favoring it as the larger infobox image over a wider overview.--Asqueladd (talk) 14:45, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I definitely feel this :

is a vastly superior option to the current choice, and if we could come to an agreement regarding this picture, I'd be very content.

Is it? First news.

Indeed it is. Here's a source : [6]

Regarding your second reply, I apologize if my logic sounded a bit bizarre. What I meant was that a picture from the angle as the current lead is too much of a generalist picture which neither shows the city skyline in a satisfying manner, nor shows those 4 towers prominently. essentially, nothing is given any significance in it and everything feels part of the background so the image just feels odd iygwim

I gotta disagree with your last reply though. I feel Gran Via is an excellent representative of Madrid because not only is it the most famous street in all of madrid, but a quick search shows that a number of websites end up having it as the lead image. While i'm not saying that we should necessarily be aping them, I just feel that Gran Via skyline image pops out in the mind as "madrid" more than the status quo. I do agree, a wider overview would certainly be the better option generally, and so the pictures I replied with all fit that metric. Kindly review them and I'd be pleased if you could please give your critiques/issue with any or your thoughts on why the image is more fitting etc. Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 08:14, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@Asqueladd@Cerebral726 I strongly disagree that the current image that is at the top of the montage in the infobox is "inappropriate". It presents a complete and general skyline of the city, with its main symbols, such as Cuatro Torres Business Area, AZCA, Gate of Europe and Torre Picasso, etc. It may not be the best image of Madrid, but it's the best option available so far and I disagree with any changes until we find a better alternative. Chronus (talk) 06:08, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

@Chronus: I get that you are thus somewhat agreeing with the users you are pinging? Who called the image "inappropiate"?. @Becausewhynothuh?: Indeed it is. Here's a source That is not a good source by any means and it does not even directly back up your assertion.--Asqueladd (talk) 15:31, 2 September 2023 (UTC)