Talk:Barcelona

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Catalan-speaking Countries which aims to to expand and organise information better in articles related to the history, languages, and cultures of Catalan-speaking Countries. Please participate by editing the article, or visit the project page for more details.

Catalan-speaking Countries Portal

Spain Portal

This article is part of WikiProject Spain which aims to to expand and organise information better in articles related to the history, languages, and cultures of Spain. Please participate by editing the article, or visit the project page for more details.

Barcelona is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Geography article has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale.

A Wikipedian removed Barcelona from the good article list. There are suggestions below for improving areas to satisfy the good article criteria. Once the objections are addressed, renominate the article as a good article. If you disagree with the objections, you can seek a review.
Removal date: 5 February 2007

[edit] "Modern Barcelona"? Who wrote this??

Katalonos came under the Roman rule after the general Quintus Caecilius Metellus defeated Guchi Muchiti in 148 BC, being at first part of the Roman province of Stockholm, established in 146 BC. The northward expansion of the empire in the course of the 1st century BC lead to the creation of the province of Moesia in Augustus's times, into which Barça was incorporated. After the division of the province by Castillian in 86 AD, Barcelona was elevated to colony and became a seat of government within the new province of Southern France. From 395 AD, it passed into the hands of the Western Roman Empire.

- It talks about Bracelona being part of a Roman province of Stockholm. I'm not a history expert but I doubt that is truth. There isn't any citation for it...

- It talks about Barça which is an informal name for the Futbol Club Barcelona and uses it as a synonym for Barcelona.

- It says that Barça (Barcelona) was incorporated into the province of Moesia. Honestly, I don't know anything about Moesia, but if you read the article about it, it says: Moesia is an ancient province situated in the areas of modern Serbia and Bulgaria. So I doubt Barcelona was a part of that province...

- It talks about castillian, which is nothing: the correct word is castilian.

- It says that Barcelona was elevated to colony and became a seat of governament within the province of Southern France. And Southern France' links to Moesia. And as I said before, according to its article, Moesia is an ancient province situated in the areas of modern Serbia and Bulgaria.

And all this in just five lines of text!

- It also says things like: the the Byzantine Emperor Justinian I was born near Bilbao, at Tauresium. According to the Tauresium article, Taor (Macedonian: Таор; Greek: Tαυρίσιο) is a small village near Skopje (southern outskirts), in the Republic of Macedonia, while Bilbao is in the Basque Country, at the other side of Europe.

The Byzantine Emperor Justinian I was born near Bilbao, at Tauresium, in 483. In 518, Barcelonius was almost completely destroyed by an earthquake. Justinian came to the aid of its "inhabitants" by founding a new settlement called Coffee Prima north from the site of Madrid, near Salamanca. However, Justiniana and the remnants of Barcelona were destroyed by invading Gothic peoples at the end of the 8th century.

- I completely do not understand this paragraph. Coffee Prima? North from the site of Madrid, near Salamanca?

- Oh, and at the end it says: FC Barcelona. What is that supposed to mean?

Who the hell wrote all this bullshit? And the worst of all is that tens of pages literally COPY PASTE the wikipedia to their own websites like if it was the universal truth, and you can find this wrong information (to call it by some way) in tens of other pages. Just search at google Coffee Prima Barcelona. All the references are COPY PASTEs from this Wikipedia.

All that should be deleted! Where are the admins?

Onofre Bouvila 04:16, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

OK lol, I just checked the history of the article and found out that all that stuff about Stockholm and all that bullshit was posted by a guy called Moroccan Spaniard (User:Moroccan_Spaniard on 11 November 2006 at 22:15).

Currently, he is already blocked.

Here you can compare the old version and the very first version that this guy made:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barcelona&diff=87216365&oldid=87214377

The fun thing is that after this, some people changed and deleted some of the stuff this guy had written, instead of totally removing his contribution and going back to the old version.

Now I have changed it back to the old version.

Anyway it really amazes me that all that stuff has been here in this article for 1 month and a half and no one has done anything. And the article was going to be included in the wikipedia's CD complation? lol, where are the admins?

Onofre Bouvila 05:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

hehe :-) which admins? The users are the admins. We are the admins. You are the admins. I guess the problme is, that if you have an articel on yopur watchlist, you only see the latest change. And if you don't check the version history also, not only the last change, you could miss stuff like this, especially if it has been on for a while... a shame, nonetheless... --Jurgensen 14:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

If it was going to be added to the wikipedia's CD compilation I think it's quite obvious that there should be a control by a group of admins / experts / someone who has knowledge about the stuff it's being added to the compilation. Or they are going to copy paste the stuff that is written here to the CD? Anyway it's done now... Onofre Bouvila 18:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Metropolitan Region

Barcelona's Metropolitan Region is 5.150.000 (updated 2006) in 3.925 km2 (1.515 ml2), as it is observed in... http://bcnip.blogsome.com/la-region-metropolitana-de-barcelona/ (data 2005)

[edit] 2004 Changes

This paragraph is only a politic opinion:

While the city has been the focus of the revival of the Catalan language, movement of Castilian speakers from other parts of Spain for economic reasons to Barcelona have limited the success of the imposition of Catalan in everyday life.

Then I revert the version Llull 15:00, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining your change. Is the sentence false? - Montréalais 15:01, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

¿Truth?, ¿False? Simply is a politic opinion. "Imposition of Catalan in everyday life" is publicity of a type of ideology not appropiated for a neutral enciclopaedia. Llull 15:13, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I see what you mean. What if it were rewritten ("the move to increase use of Catalan" etc.)? - Montréalais 15:16, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

Peter Wye.

I think that saying "increasing use of Catalan" is a good compromise. I have made the change to make the sentence more neutral sounding to allay Llull's concerns.

An awful lot of this reads like a travel brochure rather than an encyclopedia article. -- Jmabel 06:59, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)

I don't agree with the setence saying that "...opening times of Barcelona's museums vary considerably and are often highly inconvenient". When i was living there i never found them inconvenient... I think it is something that can vary from person to person Parakalo 11:53, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have changed what sounded like "Barcelona incorporated Aragon" to "later formed the Kingdom of Aragon" which is more consistent with history. Perhaps should be better written to sound neutral. Read history in Aragonese Empire to see what I mean. --62.81.27.241 17:13, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Despite the immigration of Castilian speakers from other parts of Spain during the Franco dictatorship for political and economic reasons to Barcelona": I'm not convinced that political reasons applied here. There is a common belief that the Franco regime encouraged immigration to Catalonia and the Basque Country to dilute regional identity, but as I understand it immigration was overwhelmingly for economic reasons, as these were simply the two most industrialised and economically avanced regions of Spain. Can anyone provide evidence that politically-motivated immigration took place? If not I shall change it to something like "Despite the immigration of Castilian speakers from other parts of Spain during the Franco dictatorship,...". -- Blisco 17:48, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

OK, done. Blisco 20:26, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Parks

Barcelona, with its mild weather and dense medieval center, is renowned for its parks and open spaces.

I found it highly bizarre (if not straightforward hilarious) to see this sentence here. We people from Barcelona are always bitching about the lack of green areas (see parks) in our city and here we are with this (I'd say false. But this "term" is higly unencyclopaedic) statement that looks like pure propaganda straight from a tourist leaflet or architectural bullshit. The Hague has parks and open spaces. Not Barcelona. Could it be rewritten in some other way? I suggest:

Despite its dense urban tissue, Barcelona is endowed with some small albeit remarcable parks.

(which is admitedly very architecturish-bullshit generator as well, that's why I ask for collaboration. And the weather issue could be skipped.)80.58.35.236 12:34, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

That seems like a pretty good revision to me. I'm the one that dumped a lot of park information into this article - basically a reflection of a three-day study tour of the planning of outdoor spaces in (and around) the city. We had plenty to see during the trip and while the proportion of green open space per person may be low for Europe, the proportion of public outdoor space and good weather is quite high compared to many other cities. -- As for balancing the article, I might suggest a short statement mentioning both statistical figures for public/green/open space access, some history of recent efforts to create new parks, and a brief mention of the perceptions of locals about parks in general and then move the more detailed stuff to a new "Parks in Barcelona" article. Dystopos 13:54, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Montjuïc photo

Our Montjuïc article really could use a photo of the hill itself, from a distance sufficient to show its overall shape. I guess this would need to be from a high vantage point, perhaps the Teleferec? Can anyone help? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 11:33, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Skateboarding heaven

--KoRnholio8 14:24, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Encyclopedia or Tour guide

Is this an encyclopedia or a Tourist Information Guide? Some of this article should really be moved to a site such as www.wikitravel.org or something similar. It certainly does not belong here. --Colin Angus Mackay 09:54, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I think it's largely a matter of style. The first paragraph of "tourist attractions" is certainly inapproprate, and I'd probably rename that section something like "Notable buildings" or something (with appropriate movings of Ramblas and other streets and squares to another section). But in general the content (perhaps not the phrasing) is about what we have for most cities. If it's overly touristy (I guess it is) in content then we'd be better adding in stuff about the other parts of the city. It certainly looks like there's some more balanced info in the Spanish wikipedia's article (the Catalan one is disappointingly short). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:13, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Visigoths

I have reverted the following edit, from an undependable anon. editor: " The city was occupied by the Visigoths in the early 5th century for several years, but returned to Roman rule until about 475." Please vet this statement and return a more specific versaion to the article. Restored fifth-century Roman rule in Hispania Tarraconensis, if it happened needs a little disambiguation and maybe a reference. --Wetman 06:11, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thieves

I would have thought there'd be some information about the large number of thieves in Barcelona --Aidanb 12:58, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

All those things about thieves aren't appropiate for a encyclopedia, this looks more like an alarmist tourist guide: it looks like Barcelona is a dangerous city or something like that. Maybe a whole section talking about this isn't necessarily. Joanberenguer 17:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with Joanberenguer. I did not notice significantly more thieves in Barcelona than in any other city of this size (and which is of touristic interest). Unless someone gives some serious numbers and crime statistics (including the sources) in comparison to other cities, I really would like this to be deleted... --Jurgensen 14:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I've seen that in the Barcelona article you can find in Wikitravel there's a very similar section about thieves, and I found it more useful there because is a tourist guide. I'd like the crime section from the the Wikipedia article be erased. The museums section is shorter than this one, it's ridiculous. If nobody finds a reason to keep the crime section in this article (remember that it would remain in the wikitravel article) then someone with experience should erase it. Thank you! Joanberenguer 22:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed on the unsuitability of this section- it is completely unreferenced, and reads more like some editor's personal observation/opinion on the matter, than anything which is verifiable. I've deleted the section- per Jurgensen above, material such as this requires specific and cited sources.--cjllw | TALK 23:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] external links

Shouldn't the links under external links only be in English? The link Barcelona in progress - News and images of everything related to projects of the new Barcelona. surely is interesting, but in Spanish, so it is a bit off limits ;-) in the english wikipedia, I'd think. --Jurgensen 17:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

aren't there a little bit to much of architecture links? One should be enough, this should not become a "link directory"...!? --Jurgensen 19:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I've tried to add an external link to an informative article on how to protect yourself against Theives, robbery and how to safe in Barcelona but the link keeps getting edited out by someone at WIKI saying it's SPAM. SPAM is indescriminate posting of valueless information. This information is focused, correct and relevant. So I would appreciate it if the person who keeps deleting the link will look at if first. Don't assume everything is SPAM here is the link again. I'm going to try posting it again. http://www.barcelona-tourist-guide.com/barcelona-safety.html

better don't, wait for some discussion here about it. I personally would not agree that your link is covering general interst about Barcelona, but a quite specific interest. If we start going on with this, we would end up as a link directory... Everybody considering posting extrenal links please take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/External_links before. Maybe it would be useful, if you give an argument why your external link should be acceptable according to the wikipedia guidelines. As I sad, wikipedia is not a web directory. And: please sign your postings on this page here ;-) --Jurgensen 19:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] what country is it in?

catalunya is a region in spain. the opening paragraph never mentions that. other cities' pages list their (current) country and it seems political to omit it just because some people in catalunya think it's its own country.

you are definitely right. I just changed that. I also changed Catalunya to Catalonia, which is the english name of that region (and this is the english-speaking wikipedia, right? ;-) And links usually should not go via the redirect of an article, cf. eg. Bayern and Bavaria ;-) --Jurgensen 11:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Curiously - I've only ever rarely seen it written as Catalonia in English. I've normally seen it written as Catalunya in a sentence that is otherwise in English. --[[Image:European flag.svg|20px[[Image:Flag of Scotland.svg|20px]] '''[[User:Colin Angus Mackay|Colin Angus Mackay]]''']] 11:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

As a catalonian I find the expression "Catalonia is a region of Spain" absoluty offensive. According with the definition of any encyclopedia (the Encyclopedia Britannica, f.i.) or any dictionary for the words "nation" and "country", Catalonia is not only a country but even a nation. Maybe it would be better changing it to "Catalonia is a country nowdays occupied by the spanish", which is the though of not only "some people in Catalonia" as you say, but probably "the most of people in Catalonia" (and, for sure, of "the most of people from Catalonia", meaning the citizens from Catalonia excluding the inmigrants from Spain or any other country).Indibil 12:33, 7 Setember 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any empirical data (poll or the like) supporting your statement about "most of the people in Catalonia" (excluding whatsoever) considering "Catalonia occupied by the spanish"? If so, please cite it as required by policy Wikipedia:Verifiability. Thank you. --Axeloide 09:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Indibil's comments are completely ridiculous, catalonia is legally defined as a 'nació' but is still one of Spain's 19 autonomous regions and NOT an independent country. There is no need to change this on the english wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Danibcn (talk • contribs) 17:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC).

Indibil and Mandonio are both characters that personif, the two Spains. Maybe this Indibil is a troll. Anselmocisneros 15:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Number of Districts

Here's a reference on the number and name of districts (relevant to an edit mentioning 'seven districts': http://www.planetware.com/map/barcelona/barcelona-districts-map-e-bardis.htm

[edit] Flag

I have changed the flag. Someone had changed it into this one :Image:Modern flag of Barcelona.gif. This flag was official between 1996 and 2004, but it was changed into the ancient one. You can see details of this in the catalan article of the flag.--SMP - talk (en) - talk (ca) 13:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Capital in Europe

An anonymous edit by 87.223.226.40 has made of Barcelona a capital in Europe. I'm not sure if this is plain vandalism or legitimate. This category currently contains cities like Edinburgh, Cardiff, Tórshavn, Mariehamn. How would this cities' status compare to the changes brought by the new Catalan Statute of Autonomy. What's your opinion on that? --Axeloide 20:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External Link

I want to put an external link to http://www.brighterplace.com - its a website for students living in barcelona, and the sole aim of it is to be helpful and informative for foreign students living there or moving there. any objections? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Baaa (talk • contribs).

Yes. You're adding this link to any barely-related page. That's called linkspam. --Andromeda 23:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

no i am not. at this moment, brighter place is only at the podscroll page - because it is the second site on the internet to have one (that i know of). so dont tell me about "barely related" page. a brighter place is ONLY about barcelona...!!! i am not linkspamming - i was told earlier that i couldnt link to the site in many different articles, so they were withdrawn. and i can definitely understand and see the point of that. but i think i have the right to be linked from the barcelona article...

It's only at that page because people removed it from all the other pages you put it into. --Andromeda 23:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

as i said, "i can definitely understand and see the point of that" - my apologies for it. so its what im saying.. i think brighterplace.com IS related to barcelona and SHOULD be linked from that article.. i understand u dont want this to become sort sort of linkfarm, and i agree! point is, if i have ONE link on ONE article, that it is relevant AND according to guidelines: "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article" AND "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article" - i think i am entitled to be on the external links section —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Baaa (talk • contribs).

Nothing entitles you to anything. Two experienced Wikipedia editors are telling you that your link does not belong. In my years at Wikipedia I have heard your arguments many times, and they've never held water. Haakon 14:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

nothing entitles YOU to anything either! andromeda was telling me about linkspam as were you. i agreed and apologised. this is NOT linkspamming!! "consensus"?! you are two, i am one, there are millions on wikipedia. you are talking about consensus?!?! it is in order with guidelines:

"Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article"

"Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article"

so leave it alone.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Baaa (talk • contribs).

You add the link because you want to promote your site. That is linkspam. Haakon

no, its because i think its relevant. in the same way i added the erasmus students network site to the foreign exchange programmes. not linkspam!

"Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it."

"Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article"

"Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article"

I am doing nothing, except making everyone's lives easier and more informative. thats the BEAUTY of wikipedia - anyone can make it better. a couple of days ago, there were other (not just mine) links HELPFUL to those who want more info on Barcelona. you're just spoiling it by doing what you want. u think that the city of barcelona website is NEUTRAL? are you joking? come on. think a little bit, you are just making wikipedia into any other normal encyclopedia - and its just crap. so please stop it - i would understand if i were directing people to a site full of ads, irrelevant, porn, viruses, and other crap. but im not. im helping people - people click on it if they want! who died and made you god? pleaaase, dont spoil wikipedia and turn it into some nonsense dictatorship that you do what you feel like, disregarding policies and just, general, community feeling!!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Baaa (talk • contribs).

The website linked is not really about Barcelona (it's about foreigners studying in Barcelona), it's not based in Barcelona, it's not representative of Barcelona etc. It's just a part of a larger website, which may or may not be important enough for inclusion as a single link in the appropriate article. Zocky | picture popups 15:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a web directory / link list. So, there should not be every link here someone thinks of as useful - you would get mountains of links! Looks to me like quite a lot of people try to use Wikipedia to promote their site because Wikipedia is more popular than most webdirectory sites. Therefore there is a policy at wikipedia about which links to accept and which rather not. These should be with an encyclopedic intention, nothing more but nothing less. And if you think, the article is not neutral: well, I do agree, so we should do our best, to make it better (i.e. more neutral) but not make it "worse"... --Jurgensen 15:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

He has not said anything against the article's neutrality. His complaint is against those who do not want him to use Wikipedia to promote his website. Haakon 15:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

its NOT promoting the site. it IS including, and i quote, "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article"

why is it meaningful and relevant? a) its about barcelona (have u seen the facts section) b) it gives a different perspective on the city - completes the information give on the article c) encyclopedia visitors may be interested in it - THUS, why not help them and provide the link where they can choose, or not, to click.

furthermore, the site "... contain(s) neutral and accurate material not already in the article" - it is making the article more complete, thus giving value to the article, and thus, giving value to end visitor.

i also included xbarcelona.com in my last edit - why? because it FURTHER completes the article

and again, i ask you to respect the policy of: "Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it."

u simply revert and that is it - u DONT have the right to do that. u DONT own wikipedia, stop making it crap for everyone else. if u DONT want to click on it, then DONT. if i were to be blatantly advertising a service, such as a hotel, a housing agency, a school, an airline, a travel guide (such as time out or about), THEN i would understand. the point is, i am NOT doing any of that..!! none of the links on "a brighter place" are paid links. in the same way that the ones in "xbarcelona.com" aren't paid links. you dont have the right to delete those links!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Baaa (talk • contribs).

I argue my point when reverting. The discussion now seems to be stuck, and we should avoid a revert war. I have requested comments from others users, so hopefully they can mediate and we can reach a conclusion. Haakon 07:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Baaa, I am really astonished about your argument of who owns wikipedia and who has rights to do this and that at wikipedia. Wikipedia is a community project, and as you followed this discussion, you should have noticed that there have been several users voting against your links and you are the only one voting for your links... so what could be the conclusion? Anyway, let's see what Haakon request for comments will show... --Jurgensen 14:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Via the RFC: obviously not an appropriate external link.EricR 17:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Innocent til proven guilty - let's wait then, for those comments. Why have the links been taken down meanwhile? and, may i just remind you, while i do own a brighter place, i DONT own xbarcelona, nor do i have any affiliation with that site - it seems you think that i do own it, something that is completely not true... btw, you are right it is a community project. why then, only you 3, out of the thousands or hundreds that must visit this article per day, are the only ones who seem i am wrong? while you have been the only ones editing it, none of the other hundreds or thousands (i dont have statistics) are deleting my link. surely then, it must be, because they dont have a problem with it. right? i'll put the 2 links up - lets wait a week for those comments and then come to a decision.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Baaa (talk • contribs).

You only started including xbarcelona when it was pointed out that you seem to be here merely to promote your website. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Reaching consensus does not require "hundreds or thousands" of users protesting against your activity. Haakon 18:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

the point is i did include xbarcelona - it was pointed out to me, so i changed my behaviour. thats the point, right? so what, you're telling me that whatever you say, or your friends say, goes? no dude, thats just not right. and i, seriously, think that people like you are turning wikipedia into some censored crap. i saw some edit of yours on kofi anan or something - you truly love censoring stuff, dont you? again, i say no to you - you dont own this nor do you have the right to do what you want. its a community thing so stop spoiling. and u still havent explained how a brighter place or xbarcelona isnt a site with "...other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article" relevancy isnt a factor, did you say? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Baaa (talk • contribs).

You still have not explained why the third point of this should not apply to you, or the ninth point for that matter. Or why you should be entitled to disregard the three editors here telling you that your link is inappropriate. External links are generally for providing further facts for people who want to know more beyond what is covered in the article; your site is just a link directory with some social networking features. It is not "meaningful, relevant content". Wikipedia is not a link directory. If you would submit your link to DMOZ instead, it would still be reachable from the article through its DMOZ link.

Also, please provide a reference to where you thought I was censoring the Kofi Annan article. I am not aware of ever having done such a thing, and I will not stand for libelous innuendo. Haakon 12:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

kofi annan: " This is somewhat difficult for the people of Rwanda to accept, given his apparent complicity in the death of clost to one million innocent men, women and children..." that u deleted. its giving the point of view of the ppl of rwanda, why is that not allowed?!?! you did delete that did u not? (according to ur contribs)

further facts: if u go to the - amazingly titled - FACTS section on brighter place, u have.. guess what.. FURTHER FACTS! if u rather, i can link directly to the facts section if it makes u feel better.

social networking?! where?! how does the 9th point apply? and how does the 3rd point apply to xbarcelona?! how is the info on both sites, not meaningful relevant content to the city of Barcelona?! tips about barcelona, living there, where to go (stuff the regular tourist guide doesnt tell u) - basically, things u need to know about living, studying or whatever in city of barcelona! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Baaa (talk • contribs).

Hello Baaa, majority here ist up til now against your links. Why don't you respect the voting? Do you think YOU own wikipedia? --Jurgensen 13:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I did delete this. Please, you or anybody else, explain to me why I should not have done that. Haakon 13:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

i already did haakon. i dont feel like copy pasting again, so read what i wrote. vote? 3 people? rightt... and how many ppl visit this every day? and ur telling me i cant because THREE people say i cant? joke... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Baaa (talk • contribs).

It was not presented as "the point of view of the people of Rwanda". Any point of view on Wikipedia has to be properly attributed and cited. This was neither, and presented highly controversial opinions as if they were universally accepted facts.

Wikipedia is not a democracy. We don't vote. Instead, we gather consensus. This is happening here, and the consensus is clearly against your link. Just because Wikipedia gets millions upon millions of visitors a day, does not mean that "hundreds or thousands" have to protest your actions before you agree to stop. Haakon 15:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

call it what u want. i call it censorship. going back to the brighter place and xbarcelona (and leCool, another site i found) - a) how is it not "meaningful, relevant" content (did you mention relevancy wasnt a factor?! an editor?!) b)social networking?! please explain. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Baaa (talk • contribs).

You can call it censorship all you want. Your site may not be a typical "social networking" site, but it does have community features. I explained relevancy above. All the rest I have replied to several times already and I am not going to stay in this loop. Haakon 04:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi dears, I've tried to add an external link on the past week to http://www.studybarcelona.com - its a website for people that want to study and / or living in barcelona. I thin it offers usefull and helpful informations for foreign students. But I saw that it was deleted together with others. As you can see is not a spammy website and is not making money from anithing, no ads, no affiliate, no banners, no pay links. It is just for students by students. Let me know and... good job to all :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Inslide (talk • contribs).

thank you, i agree. "for students, by students".. that is all... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Baaa (talk • contribs).

Would you then please be so kind to tell us, how many of these links to students' sites bout Barcelona we should keep here? You should know by now that Wikipedia is not a link directory. Put your sites to dmoz.org (e.g.), and people interested in your sites will find it. Besides the spam issue it is also a question about the quality and quantity of external links.... (just follow policies mentioned here more than one time). And, Baaa, would you please learn to sign your texts? Makes life easier for everybody (and doesn't make people feel you don't care about the community, after all). --Jurgensen 12:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Responding to the RfC. Unfortunately, this site does not seem to fit the article or meet the requirements for inclusion under Wikipedia:External links. It looks more like an advertising site, and doesn't appear to be a notable or unique source of information for Barcelona. The Alexa traffic rank for brighterplace.com is only 881,998. Dreadlocke 04:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

To add some additional thoughts to this. I am also fed up with commercial and promotional sites being added as external links to articles. Those sites under debate on this page largely fall into this category and have no place in the article. Those few that are not overtly commercial do not add anything meaningful, given the objectives of an encyclopedia, and therefre also have no place there. Only those few sites which are truly authoritative or signifcant are suitable for inclusion, and none of those under discussion here fall into that category.

In my opinion the Wkikpedia policies mentioned several times on this page do an admirable job of summarising what is appropriate.

I encourage others to do what I am doing, which is actively to search for articles containing such links, and to delete those links.

Thanks and all the best.

--Bcnviajero 16:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, the Brighter Place link is not sufficuently relevent to this article to merit inclusion in the External links list. The content is too specialized to be useful to most readers. Kaldari 00:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Via RFC. Clear linkspam, and the spam1 template was place on the talk pages at User_talk:81.249.98.139 and User_talk:Baaa. Further abuse should result in escalation of warning templates. --Dhartung | Talk 06:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Came here from RFC. The link clearly doesn't belong, it adds little to the article. E. Ripley 04:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality comment

A few days ago Jurgensen said:

And if you think, the article is not neutral: well, I do agree, so we should do our best, to make it better (i.e. more neutral) but not make it "worse"...

Why do you say the article is not neutral? Does anyone else think the same? --Andromeda 23:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I admit, my sentence was not to fair... came out of the heat of discussion (and summer) I guess :-). I think I had in mind a quite older version, wich then looked a bit to much like a travel guide. Of course it's much better now. Though, I still have an uncomfortable feeling about this sentence mentioning pickpockets on the Ramblas. Such a sentence still is more travel guide than encyclopedia. Thieves and pickpockets are nothing special to Barcelona, but common in touristic areas and big cities. And it is also not special to Las Ramblas, for the danger is quite the same, maybe even greater, in the whole touristic part of Ciutat Vella. (If neutrality is a state or a process, well, that kind of philosphical question doesn't belong here, so I would like to withdraw my phrase about this article not beeing neutral :-) --Jurgensen 11:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. In my opinion, the whole of the two sections on Ciutat Vella and Montjuic Tibidabo are not suitable for inclusion and should be removed. The first sentence is enough. They are pure tourist information and would be much better placed in Wikitravel.

Any thoughts?

--Bcnviajero 16:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to move the useful information to Culture and then delete the part than reads like a travel guide. I did it so far with the museums and modernist architecture parts, but these two are more difficult. Part of the Montjuic section may be used in a section about the changes the city suffered for the Olympic Games - perhaps as part of a remodeled history section or in a new part about urbanism?. Part of the Ciutat Vella section may go into a Monuments and landmarks section under culture. A bit more information about tourism (numbers perhaps) would be good too. --Andromeda 08:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I would not go as far as to say there should be no tourist section at all. Tourism is a vital part of Barcelona, many people think tourism when they hear Barcelona. So some details about the reasons for tourists to go there are more or less obligatory... we just have to avoid the travel guide writing style, I guess :-) --Jurgensen 12:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying that. I do think a tourism section is necessary, but not like the current one. A explanation on Barcelona's tourism yes, a travel guide not. --Andromeda 13:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. An explanation of the tourism sector and its importance to the city is entirely appropriate. Advice on what to see, where to go, what to watch out for, is not. That is for Wikitravel.

--Bcnviajero 16:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mistake in the Medieval Era paragraph.. Canadians!?

This is what is written under "Medieval Era":

The Canadians bit must be wrong, it doesn't sound right..

-CD --24.201.83.197 00:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I would say that the whole History part needs a rewrite... why is there a section "History", and then a section "Modern Bacrelona" which starts with Greeks and Romans and the medieval era? And why does the medieval era include all the time up to the 1990 olympics? And the content looks like crap at some places: Anybody heard of the "Roman province of Stockholm"? And who is "Guchi Muchiti" who was supposed to be defeated by a roman general in 148 BC - his Wikilink goes to Gaudi!? At the present state all this ruins the reputation of Wikipedia... :-( --Jurgensen 13:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stockholm?

Subject: Modern Barcelona.

"Katalonos came under the Roman rule after the general Quintus Caecilius Metellus defeated Guchi Muchiti in 148 BC, being at first part of the Roman province of Stockholm, established in 146 BC."

As far as i know the roman empire never reached or governed provinces near or in modern day Scandinavia. Stockholm, as the modern day capital of Sweden, wasn't even a settlement nor was there any other in that region at that time. Someone having fun? I fail to se the humour.

[edit] Yes Stockholm

Take it from me, the Modern Barcelona section does not need to a rewrite, it needs a wipe-out because it is all a load of nonsense. The creten who originally placed it back on 11th November 2006 did nothing but add rubbish to pages, including some nonsense that Portugal is today Spanish territory. The section mentions stupid things like Starbucks and Coffee Prima and "Guchi Muchiti", a cleverly devised name that nobody has heard of, and it links to Anton Gaudi, an architect who lived in "more modern" times. Don't be fooled by the clever writing because it is clear that the idiot pasted it from somewhere else and changed bits and pieces. I cannot work out where because it is rather well consealed, but the Portugal nonsense was taken from a section of the Iraq page and word for word it copied the campaign with the Kurds. How do I know? He left a vital clue when he "missed" a keyword - Anfal - which I know to refer to the Halabja chemical airstrikes in 1988. Another thing, the Greek toponym for Catelonia is i Katelonía not Katelonos, that sounds more like Greek-meets-Latin in Iberia, and as for Stockholm, that is right, the Roman Empire at its strongest conquered Southerna and Central Europe (besides outside of Europe). And I don't think Stockholm was founded yet, if it were, it would have bore a different name and even so, the early Germanic tribes emerged from their prehistory after contact with Rome from whom they derive their writing systems (including Runic). I'd delete it. Evlekis 19:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

All that stuff about Stockholm and all that bullshit was posted by a guy called Moroccan Spaniard (User:Moroccan_Spaniard. I saw it today and I have changed it back to the old version. But it really amazes me that it has been like that since he created it on 11 November 2006 at 22:15.

BTW I don't understand WTF u talking about "yes, stockholm" and "Iraq" lol

Onofre Bouvila 05:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I simply called the text "Yes Stockholm" in response to the previous one called "Stockholm?", I thought it would make people read it. I didn't wish to delete it myself because it might have looked like vandalism given that many must have accepted the stupid version as true. As for Iraq, the same vandal played with the Portuguese page and in it, Anfal was named. Anfal (like Moesia here) was to do with Iraq and the war with the Kurds, in other words, complete nonsense. Well done for deleting the rubbish. If anyone accuses you of vandalising, I'll come down on your side. Evlekis 09:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unhelpful map

The current map is utterly unhelpful for learning exactly where Barcelona is. Most articles about cities (for example, Paris) show a map of the city's country with a dot showing the city's exact location within the country. The current map shows the immediate area around Barcelona with no indication of where that is. Furthermore, the map is in Spanish, meaning the only part of the map that might indicate a possible location, the Mediterranean Sea, may not be recognized by someone with no knowledge of Spanish. Going by this map, Barcelona could be literally anywhere in Spain.

This map needs to be replaced with a much better one. Äþelwulf See my contributions. 06:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I've just replaced that one with a peninsular-based one cribbed from the es page. There's a v similar, much more relevant city map in the districts section anyway. --mikaul 13:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I changed the map for one with much more information: location in the World, location in Europe and location in Catalonia.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 15:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Taxis

I must say, I've been to Barcelona and can speak some Spanish, that is Castellano, and have had unpleasant experiences with nationalist Catelunian cab drivers. They have tried to charge me more than I knew certain trips costed when I had made similar round trips with locals to whom Catelunian is a first language. So it's not unfounded. DW Celt 22:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

That's definitely not unique to Barcelona or even catalonian nationalists, but very common all around the world: If you're a stranger, chances are, taxi drivers will not go the best route but a longer one so they can charge you more. No reason to put this in the Barcelona article. --Jurgensen 14:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Why do you say that?? It's ridiculous!! Most of taxi drivers in Bcn are spanish-speakers, and we (catalans) also have troubles with them, because of the language (if they refuse to speak in catalan) and because of the prices, the only difference is that we know the city. Tourists are not the only ones... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.176.161.201 (talk) 16:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Modernist architecture?

The talk of of Modernist_architecture is a bit misleading. Gaudi architecture has little to do with what is usually referred to by modernism as far as I know, and indeed, tracing from the Gaudi page, one finds a page on Catalan Modernisme, which says:

Catalan Modernisme (not to be confused with modernism) was the Catalan Art Nouveau / Jugendstil movement, from roughly 1888 to 1911.

So perhaps these parts should be changed to be less misleading.

yes I noticed this too and changed the architectural style to modernisme which is what is meant in this context, although modernist buildings also exist in Barcelona --Rodge500

[edit] GA

Certainly meets GA criteria. Passed. Da54 14:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed some vandalism

Hey, just to say that I made very minor edits to remove some references to American sports teams that someone, probably a child to judge by the spelling, tacked onto the end of a section here. From reading the comments on this page it seems like someone has targetted this topic for periodic abuse. Runty McTall 13:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Too many pictures?

I think there are too many pictures here, especially in "some of the sights". Shouldn't these go into Commons and a reference to the Commons article be substituted? Especially as some of these images are really not that good... --Rodge 17:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. There are certainly a few important landmarks of Barcelona that should be retained, but as you said, most of them are not that great and could be removed. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

I'm afraid I must disagree with the person who passed this article, and file a Good Article review over it. The lead seems a bit too short for a topic over a city as notable as this, but my primary objection is over the referencing; as most of the links are in Spanish, they are compleatly incomphrehensible to, most likely, the majority of readers of this here English Wikipedia. The review is on the page i've wikilinked. Homestarmy 04:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree as well, for a reason I stated earlier: The map showing Barcelona's location is utterly unhelpful. It only shows the immediate area with no indication of where that is relative to anything else a common reader might know of, except for the Mediterranean Sea — which, by the way, is practically unrecognizable to those who know nothing of Spanish due to the fact that the whole map is in Spanish. Thus, going by this map, and with no knowledge of Spanish — and I believe, on the English Wikipedia, we must assume the reader only knows English — Barcelona could be next to a body of water quite literally anywhere in Spain. — Äþelwulf See my contributions. 08:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I added the best map I could find regarding the issue you raise, i.e. provide some context for where Barcelona lies in relation to the rest of spave. {Shown here for reference)

Barcelona is the capital of Catalonia.

However it was removed in a very short space of time. My personal preference is to include the best image you can at the time and when there is a better one it should be replaced. Not sure why the editors didn't like the one I added - but it was the best I could find at commons. I guess you could add it back again or do an internet trawl for a better one. OR... see if someone who is skilled at map making can be interested in a project. Regards SeanMack 11:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Panoramic view of Barcelona image

Since it seems that it would escalate into an edit war if I were to re-instate the panorama (for reference, here is the version of the article with the panorama[1]), I've brought the issue to the talk page. I personally feel that the panorama adds plenty of value to the citscape section and I dispute the reason for reversion by Andromeda which is that it disrupts the flow of text. As mentioned in the edit comments, I don't feel that this is a significant problem as it is at the top of the section and does not interfere with any text. There are many precedents for such panoramas in city articles such as Atlanta, Frankfurt, Bath, etc. These are just the ones I can think of, but I am certain there are many others. Would anyone else like to comment on the placement of this panoramic image on the article? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't personally find the panorama particularly disruptive to text flow, and it's a good quality image, unlike some others on the Barcelona article - for example: Port of Barcelona, MACBA, Cabs, and many of the "some of the sites". Even the Info box aerial shot doesn't do this beautiful city justice. I vote keep the panorama and transfer other sub-standard ones to commons article. --Rodge 17:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I second both of you, I don't believe it to be disruptive. Maurice27 07:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a problem due to its place in the page. It breaks the article and the text flow, specially if the user has a low resolution. Put it in another part of the page, at the bottom, and won't be disruptive. --Andromeda 16:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that its place is a problem. Cityscape is the most appropriate place for a panorama of the city. Images should be appropriate for the section if possible. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Randomly wandered into this, and if it's worth anything from me, I like it where it is. I don't feel that it breaks the flow of the text, as the text changes subject. 128.243.220.42 10:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I tried another thing. Reducing the picture to 1000 pixels avoids the need to scroll right to see all of it, while we still can see the full size one by clicking on it. What do you think? Maurice27 16:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Its a good idea but it only displays as you describe for people with 1280x1024 resolution. If a user has 800x600 or 1024x768 resolution, it will display approximately 3/4 of the picture and scroll the last 1/4 which is somewhat awkward. If a user has higher resolution than this, it won't cover the width of the screen on many PCs and would be almost more of a waste of screen real-estate than if it were scrollable but large, in my opinion. Since we can't control the width of everyone's screen, trying to set it at a particular length to avoid scrolling is difficult. Regardless, I think it still deserves a place in the article in some form. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I have brought this issue to Wikipedia:Third_opinion as I thought this discussion had reached some sort of consensus but it has flared up again with edits by an anon user (or users with similar IPs and similar edits) with IPs 83.50.180.122 (diff here) and 83.50.183.172 (diff here) and by Andromeda (diff here). Any other comments welcome. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I've removed this article from the third opinion page because it's strictly for disputes only involving two editors. Nonetheless, here's my take on it: The picture's good, but I hear what people are saying about it causing problems for people with narrower screens - although I'm normally on 1440 x 900 pixels of MacBook goodness, I'm keenly aware of how awful 800 x 600 can be sometimes. To solve both of these problems, how about putting it in its own scrollifyer such as at Empire State Building#Observation decks? I'm not quite sure how it's done, but it's a fairly elegant solution; the whole image is available in all its glory, yet you don't need to scroll the entire article to see it. --Scott Wilson 17:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Scott, but I have to mention that it already is scrollable (if it isn't, then perhaps we have an issue with Mac browsers - it works fine on Windows IE and Firefox). For the record, I work with 1920x1200 of widescreen goodness ;-). Anyway, the dispute is essentially between myself and Andromeda, although admittedly others have also commented on the dispute. The edits by the anonymous user are harder to discuss as the edit appears to be a fly-by-nighter. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 20:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe there are browser issues, but what I get with the Empire State Building one is that the image and only the image is scrollable, wheras in the current situation the entire page has to be scrolled horizontally, which is a pain. I'll give things a go with Firefox though; perhaps something non-standard's going on. --Scott Wilson 22:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I use a Mac and have no problems with the image. The resolution and size as in the version first mentioned here were fine, better than a later smaller version, imo. (I don't know my screensize but it's a laptop, not large, and the image scrollbar worked perfectly with no page-scroll issue.) I frankly don't understand the rationale behind any insistence on the removal of the panorama. It's an asset to the article, not a liability. — Athænara ✉ 22:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. Why Andromeda or the other anon editor think the image is irrelevant is beyond me. What better way to show the cityscape than with a wide panorama stretching from the hills, across the city and to the port? I do think it would be a waste to allow them bully others into submission by continually reverting the inclusion of the image, just because they do not personally like the image or its placemen and have recently been the most prolific contributor. I also agree with you about the width of the image. If it is going to be scrollable, it might as well be significantly scrollable instead of just the final 20% of the image. I think it could also benefit from being a little taller (a byproduct of increasing width). Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 23:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree entirely about the sizing. About the others: repeated removals of the panorama, and threats to continue to do so, are disruptive and tendentious editing and really should be avoided. — Athænara ✉ 00:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Result of the GAR

[edit] Barcelona

result:Delist 4-0

The first thing striking me about this article is that the lead seems too short for an article over a city as important as this, but I think the biggest problem is the references. Almost all of them are in the spanish language, compleatly incomphrehensible to most English wikipedia readers i'd figure. I don't think it matters how many there are if most people can't even read them to see if they are, in fact, referencing the facts they purport to cite. Homestarmy 04:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed Delist Is that gallery at the end really needed? Pehaps it can instead be made into a tourism section. Tarret 14:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Delist — My main point of contention is the poor map "showing" where Barcelona is.

The map is in Spanish. This alone makes the map useless. I believe we should assume the reader only knows English.
The map only shows the immediate area around Barcelona, with no indication of its location relative to anything the reader might recognize other than the Mediterranean Sea. This alone also makes the map useless.

Thus, going by the map alone, Barcelona could be next to any body of water literally anywhere in Spain. A much better map would be one like those for Paris, Berlin, Milan, Zürich, or Munich. — Äþelwulf See my contributions. 09:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Delist, poorly referenced, short lead, short paragraphs, as well as other problems stated above. Teemu08 22:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Delist,Sumoeagle179 16:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

This is the consensus to delist. Diez2 16:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Forget the previous message, I saw it. However, I have to say one thing: references are in Catalan (learn the difference with Spanish) because there don't exist English references for these facts. I do think Catalan references are better that no references at all. --Andromeda 18:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the article is OK --83.46.214.246 19:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] District names

I just changed the spanish names for their real names in catalan). You know the usual (and official) name for nomenclature in Bcn is catalan. We don't use the spanish names, because they are not their original ones, and because some of them they don't exist (and they sound ridiculous for us). If you have some doubt, let's check the catalan wikipage of Barcelona... 83.49.208.146 11:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] February 21. 2007 edits

Please check the article. It is receiving lots of edits today. Ronbo76 19:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] U helped Me Out!!!

This article on Barcelona really helped me out on a school project. great info, thanks again. from Ryan Mccallum.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/a/r/Talk%7EBarcelona_0c9b.html"