Talk:Barcelona

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article incorporates text from the public domain Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography by William Smith (1856).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Barcelona article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Barcelona is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs.
Peer review This Geography article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale (comments).
Barcelona was a good article, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Delisted version: February 5, 2007


Contents

[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)


St. Petersburg is listed as a sister city in 1984. At that time it was called Leningrad. Please fix —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.71.103.70 (talk) 17:11, 20 December 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(2)

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)

If those cities are there, then Barcelona should definitely be, too. I think that Mariehamn is pretty much in the same situation as Barcelona: the capital of an autonomous region, with different language and culture than rest of the country. I am a Finn and know something about Spain, having traveled there tens of times. About Edinburgh, Cardiff and Tórshavn I am not an cannot say I know very much, but I definitely think Barcelona belongs there.--Raketooy 15:54, 20 August 2007 (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.. —Preceding unsigned comment 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!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment 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!! —Preceding unsigned comment 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.... —Preceding unsigned comment 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? —Preceding unsigned comment 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! —Preceding unsigned comment 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... —Preceding unsigned comment 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. —Preceding unsigned comment 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 :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inslide (talk • contribs)

thank you, i agree. "for students, by students".. that is all... —Preceding unsigned comment 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 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 18th century. The Catelonians renamed the site as Barcelona but were eventually pushed out by the Canadians.


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).
I found Barcelona's cabbies pleasant, knowledgable of the city, happy to speak Castilian, and some were quite idiosyncratic, but in an enjoyable way and most of the cabs clean. Such a vast contrast to where I live (Melbourne) where most of the cabbies barely know their way around, are recent arrivals, mainly overseas students with an attitude problem. Was I just lucky? Provocateur 05:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Nope, you were just in a cab in Barcelona :) I've travelled many times by cab in the city and never had a single problem, other than the accursed traffic around 9am.. why should nationalism be an issue, ffs? Xenophobia is a much bigger problem, and I don't mean among taxi drivers. mikaultalk 11:45, 22 April 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)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Whatlinkshere/Talk:Barcelona What links here 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.
  1. The map is in Spanish. This alone makes the map useless. I believe we should assume the reader only knows English.
  2. 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.


[edit] Rephrase intro

I thought some of the sentences in the intro were a little awkward, so I rephrased them. Also, there was some political innuendo - "currently under Spanish dominion" etc - which doesn't belong in the intro.

What a great city - the rest of the world should take lessons from Barcelona. Even the police are great when you fall victim to the pickpockets!--Shtove 19:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flag of Barcelona

The Flag of Barcelona article has no links to it from other articles. Perhaps a link to the Flag of Barcelona article should be included under the See Also heading. Dissentor 12:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Info box broken

The info box says {{{community}}} instead of Catalonia. Madrid and Sevilla (Why is the article called "Seville?") are fine. The link works correctly. I checked and "community" is spelled correctly in the box. Dmbrown00 05:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tourist propaganda

This entry reads like a blurb by the Barcelona Tourist Board (English mistakes and all). Anyone thinking of adding information on Barcelona's petty crime, noise and pollution, rampant property speculation, appalling traffic (average speed: 12 km/hour - that's 7.5 mph!) had better think twice. It will be edited out of existence faster than you can say "propaganda". The trouble is, Wikipedia's former strength is quickly becoming its fatal weakness. Allowing anyone to edit the entries sounds democratic but will only lead to Wiki being sequestered by the PR departments of big corporations (or in this case, by the Barcelona Tourist Board). Such organizations have the time, resources, and will denied to individuals. With millions of dollars of tourist revenue at stake, do you really imagine for one moment that Barcelona's PR-obsessed authorities are going to keep their grubby paws off Wikipedia?

Notthebarcelonatouristboard 10:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Then add the facts along with reliable references. As long as they can be verified, they can stay no matter how unflattering they are to certain people. You can make a difference. --BorgQueen 15:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Paranoid much? --Andromeda 10:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Much of that sounds like generic stuff that could be written about any major city. Such things are only notable when they are quite exceptional, and have attracted an extraordinary level of attention well beyond the city. Otherwise, they are merely regurgitated local newspaper fodder, and very dull for an international audience. For example, if Barcelona had the highest murder rate in Europe, that would be notable, but the fact that it has "petty crime" is about as notable as the fact that it has petrol stations. Nathanian 13:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] To SERRALONGA

I think you are confused, maybe because of your apparently few knowledge of how Wikipedia works. Therefore I'll try to explain you some reasons concerning the reverts on your work.

There is absolutely no problem to write about the environmental problems of Barcelona, of course not. However, it is not logic to write it just after the leading paragraph of geography, before the climate. It is also not well balanced to write two big paragraphs about it, almost as long as the history section. All the content you wrote, can be easily summed (thank you for the correction) up in two lines to give an equitative importance to all the elements of the article. We could surely write a whole encyclopaedia about Barcelona, but the article about Barcelona doesen't need so much interpretations of some statistics of just one source. If you think there is much to say about it, you can write a separate whole article. Also the sentences "A particularly acute (problem)", "serious noise problem", "another severe problem" etc, create a kind of alarmism complitely unjustified: in the public-oppinion polls, the citizens of Barcelona don't seem to agree with this sentences. Sentences like "A PhD dissertation noted..." and the following reference are complitely out of the style of Wikipedia.

So then, since (as you noted) my English is not good enough (I'm sorry, I'll flagellate myself later, promised), but the content as it is now doesen't fit the Wikipedia, I revert your contributions and I encourage you to write a better version, following the Wikipedia style. Then I won't have any problem to accept that, indeed, Barcelona is polluted and noisy.

Just a last remark: personal attacks are not welcomed in Wikipedia. If you continue with them you might be blocked. Cheers. --Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 23:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Environmental problems

I should be grateful that you recognize Barcelona is both noisy and polluted. Of course, the city is not unique in this respect but as you say, the problems are sufficiently acute to be worth mentioning in some form. Arguably, the subject is just as relevant as climate since cities produce their own micro-climate (pollution + heat island effect). Accordingly, I have placed it after the climate section. By the way, I have added a rider to the temperature measurements made by the Fabra observatory. Presumably, the siting made sense in the late 19th century when Catalonia began to take a scientific interest in meteorology. However, I would suggest that the measurements are somewhat misleading now. A temperature map of the metropolitan area (showing both background and heat island readings) would make much more sense.

I have removed the adjectives despite their appropriateness. I have also cut down the entry and removed the PhD reference (let us hope the "censors" will not seize upon this as an opportunity to allege lack of sources).

What public opinion polls say is really neither here nor there. After the scandal concerning the Catalan Government's doctoring of opinion polls during the CiU party's spell in power, I doubt whether anyone pays any credence to publicly-funded surveys any more. In any case, noise and pollution are facts - how people perceive them (or are persuaded to perceive them) is irrelevant.

Lastly, may I suggest you spare yourself the flogging and brush up your English instead? It may be equally painful but it will certainly be a great deal more instructive.

SERRALONGA 07:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

anonymous ed. deletd section today. have reverted as discussion is ongoing 3tmx 15:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hamilcar Barca legend

I'm fine with its being a legend, but what sort of a legend? Transmitted by whom? Was it known in classical antiquity (I guess it would be fact, not legend then)? Did it appear in modern times (then I'd call it an urban legend)? The idea that the inhabitants of Barcelona themselves preserved the memory about Hamilcar for 2200 years seems sort of unlikely.--91.148.159.4 22:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Parks

I concur with 80.58.35.236 - the entry as it currently stands gives the totally misleading impression that Barcelona is choc-a-bloc with parks. The entry should make it clear that the major parks (Collserola, Montjüic are on the city fringes (literally so in Collserola's case, effectively so in the case of Montjüic). There is no point in whining about "poorly-sourced" either - cursory examination of a map reveals this as an incontrovertible fact. Any decent infra-red satellite photo also reveals the urban jungle of downtown Barcelona. I have therefore reverted to the original entry. On a more general note, it is high time this site was overhauled to give a genuine picture of Barcelona. It currently reads like a tourist brochure.

SERRALONGA 11:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Why do I have the feeling that you, Notthebarcelonatouristboard, Heliodore and that ip are the same person? Perhaps because you all try to add the same edits over and over in any article to happen to edit? --Andromeda 17:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

[edit] What is in a name? Focus on the content.

As Shakespeare put it, "What is in a name?" It is the facts that are important - something to which you are apparently blind. I fail to see why a ban on skateboarding (which, incidentally, Barcelona Council does nothing to enforce) should be included in the article yet much more important information on city pollution levels left out (or more accurately, censored out). It is editing policies like this that are getting Wikipedia a bad name.

SERRALONGA 14:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC) _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

If you use several dummy accounts to make it look like several people agree with you, when in fact it's only you, it's a problem. It's a big problem and against Wikipedia rules, if I remember correctly. Not to forget morally questionable. You make yourself look like a champion of the truth when, in fact, you're just a liar. --Andromeda 19:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Parks, pollution - official figures

Anyone inclined to compile comparitive data (aka facts) from an official and verifiable source might want to peruse this online resource. I hope it goes some way to resolving the dispute about relative pollution levels, public open spaces, etc.

I have to say, looking at the WP pages for most major European cities, all of them read a little like tourist brochures in places (ie positive, upbeat, ignoring negatives, etc) and none mention pollution or air quality to any extent, despite cities such as London, Rome, Madrid, etc being notably worse than Barcelona in this respect. This is practically the norm throughout the encyclopedia for European city pages: it may not be desirable, balanced or even thoroughly accurate, but the Barcelona article is clearly not exceptional in this respect. If this needs to be changed, it needs to be changed at policy level first, not here. mikaultalk 18:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More absurd accusations from "Andromeda"

I see no reason why I should not use whatever nicknames take my fancy. "Andromeda" falsely claims this is an attempt to establish a consensus. Frankly, I have no interest in either seeking a consensus or pretending that there is one. That is because I do not believe that truth is the result of a straw poll. What counts are facts and sources - not how many people think the Earth is flat. "Andromeda", on the other hand, sees truth in terms of a popularity contest. Accordingly, any attempt to engage flat-Earthers of her ilk in any kind of meaningful debate is doomed to failure.

I think the sources I cited are more credible than the EU web mentioned by Mick Stephenson. A doctoral thesis by a student in the Environmental Engineering Department of the UPC (The Technical University of Catalonia) should, I believe, carry more weight than a rough-and-ready EU survey serving a political agenda. One has only to read the disclaimer on the EU regional policy site to realize that the information contained therein is of doubtful veracity and of very little practical value.

Stephenson is of course right in noting that some (possibly many) other Wiki entries for European cities also read like tourist brochures. However, this is surely a fundamental criticism of the content found on Wikipedia, not a reason for making the Barcelona article conform to the same low standards. Similarly "policy" cannot reasonably be accepted as an excuse for accepting fifth-rate articles. Should policy be allowed to prevail over quality content, Wikipedia's days will be numbered.

SERRALONGA


Just a couple of points. The reason policy exists is primarily for consistency across the encyclopedia, it's not some ideological dogma. The sort of policy I was thinking of was WP:SOURCE, specifically "exceptional claims require exceptional sources". The Barcelona article is close to GA rating, hardly "fifth rate", with well-sourced content based on a broad consensus. Yours is a lone voice contrary to this consensus, one prepared to accept the opinion of a single student over a 58-city, Europe-wide, ten-year study by the European Commission. I agree with your complaint, but you're making it difficult for people to take your complaint seriously. mikaultalk 00:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Exceptional claims?

I disagree that Barcelona's pollution figures can be dismissed as "exceptional claims". My point is that any reference to the city's environmental problems is going to be censored by people like "Andromeda" using any excuse that comes to hand. I could quote chapter and verse from Barcelona's Environmental Atlas (funded by the city itself) but this would no doubt be labeled "too technical". I could also mention Greenpeace's yearly reports which repeatedly slate the galloping coastline destruction produced by city policies (I bet it would be argued that information from an environmental advocacy group is not neutral and therefore inadmissible). One might also include Barcelona's problem with VOCs (Volatile Organic Compounds), which partly stems from the fact that the city's gas stations do not use the vapor recovery systems found in more advanced countries. However, the effort would be a waste of time. Wikipedia's policy and ratings systems would simply remove them, leaving the "tourist-friendly" version intact.

I have no quarrel with the breadth of the EU study - the problem is its depth. The EU disclaimer on the aforementioned web site is a long one but here is a short excerpt:

This information is:

* of a general nature only and is not intended to address the specific circumstances of any particular individual or entity;

* not necessarily comprehensive, complete, accurate or up to date;

* sometimes linked to external sites over which the Commission services have no control and for which the Commission assumes no responsibility; (...)

There are obviously considerable incentives for cities to fudge the figures in such an international comparison and the easiest way to do this is to play fast and loose with the base definitions. A 2002 Newcastle University report to the Office for National Statistics put its finger on the problem:

Statistical comparisons between areas may not be meaningful or valid if the areas’ boundaries have not been defined as consistently and appropriately as possible. This fundamental problem underlies, for example, the call for definitions of metropolitan areas in the EU for the Urban Audit (Taylor et al 2000)(...)


Accordingly, the Commission's figures should be taken with a very large pinch of salt. One should recall too that the institution is highly politicized and consensus-driven (a bit like Wikipedia writ large) - yet another reason to wonder whether the survey results really mean anything. Given the choice between this and locally-produced university caliber field studies, I would choose the latter every time.

Your earlier reference to "upbeat" information worries me. There has been some discussion of Wikipedia's commercial potential in the media and I fear that this may be linked to Wiki's consistent tendency to weed out inconvenient truths.


SERRALONGA

[edit] Reply to Serralonga

Regarding the pollution info you're right, Barcelona has its share of serious air quality issues and for some types of pollutant it's worse than other cities – but only for some, and it's far from being the worst overall. Singling out Barcelona for in-depth critical analysis of quality-of-life issues is more misleading, in terms of balance, than no mention at all. If you're genuinely concerned about urban air quality issues, or the state of public open space in urban Europe, or Wikipedia's less-than-critial coverage of European cities, it's up to you to address these issues throughout the city pages. Otherwise your focussed attention here alone ends up looking like no more than sustained soapboxing and grudge-harbouring (or at the very least recentism) and does your case no favours at all. Local bias is a recognised problem with Wikipedia and there are projects you can join to combat it.
I can't disagree about the depth vs breadth nature of the EU data, but I fail to see why depth is of any consequence. All cities have poor air quality; absolute data is meaningless to the casual observer, while relative stats are interesting and encyclopedic. Also the discaimer you mention clearly applies to the whole EU webspace, not just that one section of it. It's standard practice; you won't find an official statistics webpage anywhere which doesn't carry a similar disclaimer along with the published stats. This is because these sources are accountable for the information they publish in a way that an unknown postgrad student is not. That's one major reason why they carry more kudos. Anyway, why attempt to discredit a source which ultimately supports your case? It allows you to verifiably state those issues which are unique to a given city. No-one can justifiably revert official quoted figures, assuming, of course, that you balance both the weight of that info relative to the rest of the article and the presence of that analysis with that of similarly-themed pages. Forget depth, go wide.
Or you could just stick with the conspiracy theories, they're probably more entertaining anyway ;) Good luck with it, whichever. mikaultalk 13:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pollution is relevant

1. It is not really a question of singling out Barcelona but rather of reporting on an important aspect of the city. If the Wikipedia entry on Los Angeles can include air pollution, why not Barcelona? You say "focused attention" - I say covering a subject of relevance and importance. Are we really to believe that arcane discussions on Hamilcar or skateboarding are of more relevance than air quality, noise, and urban sustainability?

2. I do not see the need either to prove that Barcelona is unique when it comes to pollution or that it is the worst. Evidently, I would expect any Wiki article on most major Chinese cities, Mexico City, etc. to contain more information on this topic. Furthermore, any reference to pollution in general or to certain pollutants in particular could be linked to another Wiki page on the subject in question. Expunging any mention of pollution in Barcelona is thus a great disservice to the concept of a hypertext-based encyclopedia.

3. I grant your point regarding the disclaimer but the problem lies in making meaningful comparisons. I respectfully suggest that there are strong incentives for national authorities to put their cities in a favorable light. It is just unfortunate that the EU Commission is unable to independently verify the information. Specialist Wiki pages providing such comparisons and a discussion of their meaning could prove very useful.

4. The PhD study is both a source and an indicator. I could equally well have cited The Barcelona Environmental Atlas, which was produced by a high-powered team headed by a fully-tenured lecturer. It contains a lot of pretty damning evidence on the city's environmental problems and its policies (or lack thereof). I would happily quote from it at length but what is the point if people like "Andromeda" are given carte blanche to revert the text?

5. Conspiracy theories hold no special attraction for me but it is hard to fathom why anything that suggests that Barcelona is other than heaven on earth gets cut out. Our world is an imperfect one - surely it is Wikipedia's job to portray it as it is (warts and all).

SERRALONGA 15:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reply to Serralonga

Points 1 to 4 – sounds like you need to greatly expand Air quality and link to it from here.
Point 5. Warts? I agree, but there are worse offenders. Lets start with London, it sounds like unbridled nirvana. Oh, wait a minute, it's been protected.. ;o/ mikaultalk 23:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia's big problem

I agree - a lot of the article sounds as if it has been written by the London Enterprise Board. I think Wikipedia has a big problem here - there must be an army of hagiographers beavering away at making their favorite city sound perfect. It seems that Barcelona and the "Andromeda" syndrome are just the tip of the iceberg. At this rate, Wiki city entries are going to end up sounding like a cross between Virtual Tourist and the stuff churned out in regional development brochures.

SERRALONGA 10:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reply to Serralonga

    • Cities like Milan, Paris or Madrid have worst "air quality" than Barcelona and I can't read nothing about it in their wikipedia articles ... Why Barcelona article should be different? Barcelona's issues with air pollution have no special relevancy. This is not Mexico City, Los Angeles, Guangzhou or Chongquing --BarcelonaMarc 16:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Som 1 meravella! [We're a Marvel]

Presumably "Barcelona Marc", you mean "worse", "relevance", "anything".

I think you are missing the point. It does not behove me to show that Barcelona has the worst air and noise pollution of any city or that it is unique in either respect. It is merely sufficient to establish that Barcelona has serious pollution problems. To my mind, it makes no sense to quote general climatic data for the city without also mentioning the considerable impact of human activities on air quality, temperature, noise and so on. Evidently, the same goes for Milan, Paris, Madrid (etc.) but these are not cities I feel knowledgeable enough to write about. I am, however, well-qualified to write about Barcelona.

Incidentally, Wiki entries should not be used as "creative writing" projects by locals with an inadequate command of English or for people to "sell" their home towns.

With around 75% of the EU's population living in urban areas (and roughly half the world's population), coverage of the environment in cities is of the greatest relevance. Let others draw up rankings and make comparisons if they want, I simply wish to see the facts and figures on Barcelona's own pollution problems stated in this article. The Catalans/Spaniards who so eagerly censor such information might also like to reflect on whether they are really doing either Catalonia or Spain a service. I recommend they watch all six episodes of Albert Boadella's "Som 1 meravella!" [We're a Marvel] before reaching a conclusion.

SERRALONGA 11:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

---

[edit] "Contestación" (Reply)

    • Serralonga (¿no debería ser Serrallonga?) primero decirte que si te crees que tu inglés pasa por un inglés nativo estás bastante equivocado, se nota una hora lejos que no eres angloparlante, por lo tanto no vengas a recriminar a nadie por no tener un inglés perfecto porque el tuyo deja mucho que desear y ni de coña cuela como inglés nativo que no sé si es lo que pretendes ...
    • En segundo lugar, el aire de Barcelona no es peor que el de otras ciudades de su tamaño incluso más pequeñas, Madrid mismo tiene una calidad peor de aire que Barcelona, no hablemos ya de París o Milán o ciudades industriales de Polonia o Rumania como Katowice ... Y qué decir de las grandes ciudades chinas, México DF o Los Angeles dónde aquí sí la polución del aire es un serio problema para la salud de sus habitantes.
    • Si tienes algún problema con Barcelona y/o sus habitantes es cosa tuya, pero pretender que Barcelona es el Londres de hace 100 años es una falsedad . Es por ello que cualquier cosa que edites al respecto será eliminada, prueba en París o Madrid a ver si te dejan, payaso arrogante --BarcelonaMarc 12:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Spanish Inquisition...

It is curious to see one's English criticized in Spanish but then such irrationality is not unheard of in Wikipedia. I am sure Marc feels equally well-qualified to take Serbo-Croat speakers to task and I eagerly await his observations on Mandarin Chinese.

I have already written about the issue of comparisons and I shall not labor the point. Careful reading and judicious use of the dictionary should reveal the message.

The threat of censorship sounds depressingly familiar even if reading it in Spanish is something of a novelty. I wish I could say "I wasn't expecting the Spanish Inquisition" but I am afraid I was. The inquisitorial mindset is becoming increasingly common among those wielding real power in Wikipedia. Marc, it seems, has just appointed himself as Grand Inquisitor of the Barcelona section. No doubt he is busy breaking out the soft cushions in his mission to smother any mention of pollution in Barcelona.

I concede that "Serrallonga" has two "l"s. I shall rectify the spelling forthwith.

Serrallonga 08:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barcelona's "modern" architecture and design

I see the article contains the usual self-serving guff about Barcelona as the city of design. For those who entertain serious doubts about the aesthetic and practical qualities of Barcelona's "modern" architecture, awful concrete squares, etc., I have a message of hope - you are not alone:

"Purgandus populus" in Barcelona.

SERRALONGA 13:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unbalanced article

As it stands, the article is completely unbalanced. The entry devotes 26 lines to the city's Byzantine (and deadly dull) administrative arrangements and roughly half as much on the city's economy (excluding my additions). This is pathetic for what is Spain's second biggest city and supposedly one of the powerhouses of the country's economy. This in itself suggests that the Catalan/Spanish contributors to the article are hacks working for the local council and/or have little knowledge of the real world. Serrallonga 20:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


So, only your biased and poorly sourced information is interesting, yet hard facts about the city are "dull"? Please, stop trying to vandalize this article. Is obvious nobody else here agrees with your views. --Andromeda 18:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The only one who seems to consistently censor any mention of pollution is you, my enigmatic Andromeda. Trotting out the same old rubbish about "poorly-sourced", "biased" etc. simply does not cut the mustard. Why not focus on the facts? What on earth is the point of pretending that Barcelona does not have pollution or noise problems? One can argue the toss about their relative importance in comparison with other cities but simply pretending they do not exist is both silly and misleading.

There are those - and I suspect you are one of them - who would rather concentrate readers' attention on hyped events like the "Bread and Butter" fashion shows than on the real city. Surely an encyclopedia article on a major city should be broad-based and reflect real life rather than merely being an extension of the Town Hall PR department. Incidentally, in your censoring zeal, you have also removed references to city measures aimed at cutting noise and providing cleaner public transport. Now, why would the authorities do that if there were no problems to begin with?

Serrallonga 23:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

1) STOP MODIFYING OTHER PEOPLE'S REPLIES!! Not only is of very bad education, you also make the replies more difficult to read. And you've been told that before in other articles.
2) I'm not the only one who's reverting your additions and I'm not the only one who doesn't agree with your additions. People here have raised very valid points for not accepting your additions but, as always, you ignore everybody who doesn't agree with you. Everything you don't like is "hyped" or "dull", yet all your additions are "interesting" and forget what other people think. Read some featured articles about cities. None have any of the information you insist on adding here.
3) Here or in other articles your only goal is to debase and destroy. I don't know what do you have against Barcelona or Catalonia in general, but this is *not* your personal politic playground. We were working in this article without problems until you arrived. Not only you pretend to shape the article to your personal views, you keep insulting people left and right. If you're so good and perfect and we are so stupid, what the hell are you doing here? Go find someone of your "intellectual" level and leave us work in peace!
--Andromeda 01:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


1. I do not change other people's replies - I simply put in breaks or headers so one can see where one comment ends and the next one starts. I call that logical.

2. Words like "people" in this context mean very little. You are welcome to marshal a "moral majority" if you please but that cuts very little ice with me. What counts is the arguments for or against inclusion and the facts themselves. You have conspicuously failed to address these, resorting instead to the underhand tactic of arguing that your opponent is a lone voice in the Wiki wilderness.

3. Twenty six lines on Barcelona's administrative arrangements may thrill pen-pushers in Town Hall but I think the overwhelming majority of readers would find them dull and disproportionately long. I am not arguing that they should be omitted completely - merely cut down to size.

4. I imagine that most contributors add what they happen to find interesting and I am no exception in this respect. Furthermore, I think it likely that most readers will find content concerning what "makes the city tick" and affects its quality of life to be of more interest and value than a litany of Barcelona's fiendishly complex (not to say irrational) administrative arrangements. Of course, you are welcome to differ on this score.

5. Imputing me with motives of wishing to "debase or destroy" is so absurd it hardly merits a reply. Modern societies are highly complex and naturally contain imperfections. An encyclopedia should reflect the real world and hence should also cover real issues and flaws in human society. You might like to consider that the modern encyclopedia owes its origins to the great thinkers of the French Revolution. None of them shirked this duty so why should you and your disciples?

6. I neither claim to be perfect nor omniscient. However, I do expect arguments to be considered on their merits and not dismissed out of hand. You may label this attitude as "intellectual" but to me it seems basic common sense. If Wikipedia is not to succumb to the stupid and the ignorant, it needs to adopt this attitude to contributions and show a little more intellectual rigour.

Serrallonga 21:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


Apropos of Point 5 above, I think most residents (and tourists) would agree that Barcelona has a crime problem but there is no mention of it in the article (I bet "Andromeda" for one would swiftly censor any reference to it, employing the specious argument that it is not featured on other city sites). Well, I have news for her: Birmingham has a long and pretty unflattering section on crime and policing in the city. I invite anyone with in-depth knowledge of Barcelona's crime scene to write a similar section.

As pointed out earlier, Los Angeles has a section on pollution and many other cities should have one too.

Serrallonga 22:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

1) No, it isn't. What's logical is to use the ":" operator to indent the replies. That way everyone sees what you are replying too. What you do is simply make everything harder to follow because nobody knows what you're replying to.
2) You should ask yourself why you are a single voice then, and why nobody agrees with you.
3) The number of lines is proportional to the complexity of the information they convey. If the information is complex, then more lines are needed to explain it properly. And do not speak for the majority of readers. It has become obvious they don't think like you.
4-5) What makes the city thick? Absurd? All the information you've added or tried to add is, in some way, detrimental to the city, the same you've done with other articles. You take a small fact and make a mountain out of it, and downplay any other information other people think is important. Your information is only on the negative side and it stinks of political partisanship. Your mention of Albert Boadella is a clear example of that. Also, your first additions to the page speak for themselves.
6) Your acts speak for you. Your "Tidying up some of the crappy English written by the locals" comment, for example? Your reply to BarcelonaMarc? Or just the general tone of our replies in general.
7) Los Angeles is not a featured article. And Barcelona is not Los Angeles. Barcelona has the problems any other modern city has. They do not warrant a section of their own.
--Andromeda 00:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)



1. I have no objection to using an indent instead of a line. Maybe what Wiki needs is a proper threading mechanism for discussion pages. The current system is visually confusing and too limited.

2. The same worn argument, the same attempt to marshal a "moral majority". Is this the new McCarthyism?

3. Complexity is not the issue here. I am sure ENDESA has an incredibly complex system of transforming stations in Barcelona (many of which are sited in the most improbable places) but does that mean the subject should occupy lots of space in the article? I think not. This might be called the "cite the whole telephone directory" approach. Unfortunately, it tends to produce mediocre encyclopedia articles - as your efforts so clearly demonstrate.

4. The key word here is "information" (to which I would add "factual"). Construing the information as "detrimental" is a purely personal interpretation. While most people would agree that noise and pollution in cities are negative features, I disagree that mentioning them is "detrimental" to the greater cause of truth and knowledge. Evidently, you feel that the purpose of the Wikipedia entry is to extol Barcelona. I, on the other hand, think it should give a well-rounded vision of the city (warts and all). I have set out this argument at length in previous comments and it strikes me as an utter waste of time to draw them to your attention yet again.

You obviously misread the comment or are unfamiliar with the expression "to make something tick" (or both). Linguistic competence (or rather the lack of it) is another issue that Wikipedia needs to address.

I cited Boadella's satirical program because it pokes fun at official propaganda and a tendency to pretend that "everything in the garden is rosy" (another expression - look it up before replying). "Som 1 Meravella" was not only very funny, it provided a much-needed reality check. I mentioned it because I feel you could do with one. Boadella's political aspirations in the form of the "Ciutadans" party are much more recent and I have no great interest in or affection for this political formation. As the writer Terenci Moix once observed during a TV program, Catalans generally lack the ability to laugh at themselves. Some might see this as a virtue but it strikes me as a shortcoming. Humor has cathartic qualities - why not give it a whirl?

5. The comment about "crappy English" was perhaps a little too direct but no less true for that. I have no quarrel with people practicing their English but I wonder whether they should be given leave to do so in Wikipedia.

Serrallonga 10:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

1) Wikipedia is build on consensus, have you forgotten?
2) Everything is information. But it is the choice of information what makes a point of view. And yours is extremely negative. You don't want a well-rounded article, you want a derogatory article, since all the info you've added is negative. There is not neutrality in your additions. They're extremely POV, often using "weasel words" to both.
3) Boadella has had a political agenda for a long time. And there's a difference between poking fun and being offensive, and Mr. Boadella crossed it a long time ago.
4) Because that's Wikipedia's policy? Everyone can edit to the best of their abilities, and other people can copy-edit their additions.
--Andromeda 23:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

1. One thing is consensus, quite another is defining one's own view as orthodox and all others as heterodox. Given Spain's long history of religious and ideological intolerance, it does not surprise me that you bend Wikipedia's principles to suppress content that does not happen to coincide with your own preconceived ideas.

2. This is nonsense. The facts reflect a problem and that is all there is to it. If the encyclopedia were aimed at young children, there might be good reason for producing articles that contained a wholly rosy view of the world. However, this is not one of Wikipedia's stated aims. One therefore assumes that it is aimed at adults who are capable of taking issues such as pollution in their stride. You can trot out the Wikipedia buzz words until the cows come home but basically what you are advocating is a kind of child's encyclopedia (which, in the case of the Barcelona article, seems to have been cobbled together from tourist brochures).

3. You may find Boadella offensive, I find him funny and thought-provoking (which does not necessarily mean that I agree with him). A man who was arrested by the Franco regime for his powerful play (La Torna) against the execution of Puig Antich commands my respect and he ought to command yours too. It is a pity that many of Catalonia's more gifted sons and daughters are fêted abroad but shunned at home.

4. This is a fundamental weakness. Foreigners may be allowed to write and edit English-language texts but is it desirable when they lack the linguistic skills needed do it well? The results of this policy are all too plain.

Serrallonga 08:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

If you don't link Wikipedia's policies, what are you doing here? --Andromeda 07:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I for one would like to back Serrallonga. If he is just trying to add information and has sources, then Andromeda you have no right to remove it, regardless of the content of past featured articles or other city pages. While we obviously try to aim for consistency, each city page should be unique to that city and if pollution is a problem like sources can attest, then it should be included to form a better worldview of this city. While you two consistently battle over the fine points of wiki policy, the greater point here is that this is sourced material and there is no reason to remove it. Serrallonga is not defacing the article, he is only adding sourced information to it, which is by all means protected by wikipedia policies. Trigger hurt 10:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I find a much more reliable source an EU Audit as this one in which in Barcelona part you can see no problems of pollution and a very different % of people exposed to noise (Serrallonga deffends 65% is over 65 decibels, the EU says 34,5%, it is a too big difference to believe Serrallonga's source, sorry).
Also, if you look all the other changes that the "Serrallonga group" makes (and I say the people/sockpuppets deffending Serrallonga's version), you find many unsourced references: "The Council's policy of bowing to speculative pressures and permitting an increasing number of high-rise buildings in certain designated areas has been widely criticised both in and outside the architectural profession.", " the Trade Fair (...) has lost ground in recent years to other Spanish fair sites - notably IFEMA in Madrid and, to a lesser extent, Zaragoza and Valencia." as well as many more. Also in this changes there are mistakes that have been introduced many times. Not to mention that in the last changes, even the categories and interwikis were deleted and the article was truncated. This is not a way to collaborate...--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 23:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Woody Allen film in Barcelona

Woody Allen is shooting his new film in Barcelona with Scarlet Johansson and Penelope Cruz... Maybe a mention about it could appear in the article. What do you think?

I think it should be here only as a part of a brief section talking about the movies filmed in Barcelona, perhaps expanding it a bit in the Culture of Barcelona article. Several movies have been filmed in Barcelona. It would be unfair to single out this one. --Andromeda 22:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Fully protected

This article was semi-protected yesterday my myself via a request on WP:ANI, due to revert-warring and rampant sock-puppetry. Since then, it has continued unabated. For that reason, the article has now been fully-protected from editing until you all decided to talk here, discuss your differences and come to some working compromise - Alison ☺ 02:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It still says it is semi-protected, but I can't edit it. Something is wrong. Nathanian 13:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I'm not a part of the edit war

I'd like to update the link to Barceloneta under Beaches in Barcelona to point it to the newly created article on Barceloneta, Barcelona instead of to the disambig page. J Crow 21:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Urban spread statistics

WHERE ARE THE URBAN SPREAD STATISTICS??? NO INFORMATION ON URBAN AREA POPULATION, METROPOLITAN AREA ETC!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.83.54.69 (talk) 18:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ask for unprotect

I want to add some cultural information but page is protected. Can you unprotect please?

Arnau de BCN 14:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

One of the weaknesses of Wikipedia is the way "local" writers like "Andromeda" are granted wide-ranging privileges regarding the content of articles. Lack of knowledge, it seems, is no obstacle to being given sweeping admin. powers and "local guru" status. "Andromeda" et al. would have us believe that Barcelona has no environmental problems and that pollution is just a figment of some contributors' imagination. How then can one explain a recent report commissioned by the Catalan Government that reveals that Barcelona is the world's 8th most polluted city (and even higher up the ranking of Europe's most polluted cities). Allowing people like "Andromeda" to insist otherwise is tantamount to giving free rein to pig ignorance. No wonder Wikipedia is getting a bad name for itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Time for truth (talk • contribs) 21:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spanish city

The country of Barcelona is Spain so that is more logic put Spanish city than Catalan one. Put that could confuse the reader and impoverish the article... KR--Kurrop 23:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not think it is more logical to say that it is a Spanish city. People tend to identify regions and countries with their capitals and so many people can easily identify Barcelona by knowing that is the capital of Catalonia. In addition, it gives more precise information and since both options are correct I would prefer the original. By the way, remember that the recent decision of the Arbitration Commitee (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Catalonia) asks all users to reach a consensus on controversial topics before changing these kind of things. A consensual decision could be, for instance, use {{otheruses}} instead of {{otheruses1}} as it is done in London or Edinburgh. --SMP - talk (en) - talk (ca) 13:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I've changed it to "the Barcelona city", it's even more precise information (it hides all the hierarchies). I think we have other problems with all Catalonia related articles. And a lack of logic too. The "more precise information" is not highlighting the Catalonia hierarchy (hiding the upper and breaking the structure). If we give more precise information respecting the logical structure, we could get the high-quality. BTW the expressions "People tend to..." and "so many people can easily..." might be classified inside the "other problems" section (please, read the "Implicit endorsement of faulty logic": bandwagon fallacies-Argumentum ad populum). --Owdki talk 06:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
First, I did not say "'so many people" but "(...) so [therefore] many people", and I do not think it is wrong to use these kind of sentences in a discussion about the convenience of a term as Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words only applies to articles. In addition, I do not see any problem of weasel words here. Maybe we could say so if we had written Barcelona, Barcelonès, Barcelona province, Catalonia, Spain, European Union, Europe in the header which obviously is much more informative but not useful. That is why I propose to change the template if we do not reach a consensus on whether to put only Spanish or only Catalan. I do not find the current solution as a good one since saying that the article is about "the Barcelona city" does not distinguish it from Barcelona, Sorsogon. --SMP - talk (en) - talk (ca) 12:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
As there is no answer I am going to change the ambiguous sentence "The Barcelona city" and return into the previous "The Catalan city".--SMP - talk (en) - talk (ca) 14:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Location

Barcelona is betwen Sierra de Collserola and Mediterranean sea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.54.255.230 (talk) 20:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Population

Is the population listed accurate? I think its impossbile and me be vandalsim. October 16, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.19.28.130 (talk) 21:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Balance - or lack thereof

What utter rubbish this article is. Frankly, it reads like a tourist brochure and I suspect the people behind it only have an interest in lauding the city to the skies. The city's appalling housing crisis only gets passing mention, references to rampant property speculation and environmental destruction are repeatedly censored, and the pathetic state of Barcelona's transport and power infrastructure do not get a look in. Anecdotic details such as the (unenforced) skateboarding ban are included, as is the totally intrancendental "Bread & Butter" fashion fair. Those who believe the Wikipedia system does nothing but breed crap need look no further than the "Barcelona" entry. Oddly enough, the city mayor seems to have cut a deal with Wikipedia - at least as far as his biographic entry is concerned. Politics, it seems, makes strange bedfellows - and that includes former Internet pornographers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.6.166.160 (talk) 14:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

You are wildly biased. Your hobby horses do not deserve special attention. The article is far better than it would be if you had your way. Nathanian (talk) 12:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Transportation section - serious omissions

The transportation section omits any reference to the disastrous management of the high-speed train project (AVE). At the time of writing (October 2007), Barcelona's rail network and suburban services have been thrown into chaos by decisions taken on political rather than technical grounds. Things are unlikely to get any better while the current administration insists on a city-center route for the rail line. Clearly, this kind of information should be included in the article. Instead, it is systematically censored out. Disgraceful! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.25.245.67 (talk) 19:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Climate

The text says that the average temperature of the warmest month is 30 C. Furthermore it says that the highest temperature ever measured is around 39 C. Comparing this with my homeregion, Stockholm, where the highest ever recorded temperature is 38 C but the average of the warmest month is below 20 C, the figure for the average temperature in Bercelona cannot be accurate considering this ever high temperature, unless the daily temperature variations are minimal and stable. Nirro (talk) 00:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Names

In the names section, I think it would be worth adding that the city is colloquially known as "Barna". As I can't edit, maybe someone with the necessary permissions could add this info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.109.206.126 (talk) 09:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] stop changing districts/distritos/districts

Don't edit war about that name. If you look at the official website of the city of barcelona, you can see that they are called different on each language catalan, spanish and english. Since this is the english wikipedia, I think they should be called districts. Please make your point here before reverting again --Enric Naval (talk) 08:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

P.D.: Meh, I misunderstood the issue a bit. I saw it clearer when I edited the passage in question. It's already called "districts" on the article body. It was just a note on how they are called on Barcelona. At the end, I just added the name on both languages, since it's just called different on each language and there is no official name, I think. Official website will display a different name depending on what language you are using --Enric Naval (talk) 09:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Sensible approach, Enric. I guess we should have thought of that before. Rarelibra (talk) 13:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Nah, I live near Catalonia, on a bilinguistic zone, so this sort of issues arises often, it's just a question of having experience. (you'll find this duality of names occurs at most Catalonia-related articles, actually) --Enric Naval (talk) 14:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I will be in Barcelona in 5 days! :) I look forward to speaking Spanish and hearing the Catalan spoken - it sounds so different from Spanish. Rarelibra (talk) 14:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Capital of Catalonia and second largest city in Spain (or viceversa?)

I have restored the previous formulation for several reasons:

  • It seemed to enjoy a general consensus for a long time.
    • Since when is that a reason not to improve an article even further? --user:israel.galan
  • The proposed change was redundant. It is already stated that Barcelona belongs to Spain and it is its second largest city. Moreover, it does not seem necessary to claim here that Catalonia is nowadays a Spanish autonomous community, as this is one the first information anybody will find when following the link to Catalonia.
    • It is interesting how things can be seen differently by different people. While my edition was just to complete the article with additional information, this is viewed as claim of some sort... By the way, I like the "nowadays". It's getting easier to guess where this is coming from...--user:israel.galan
  • The proposed change did not seem to be done for the sake of complete information, but with the goal of stressing unnecessarily the fact that Barcelona belongs to Spain.
    • Again, an assumption that hints a bias that is against the spirit of what we are trying to accomplish here. --user:israel.galan
  • It seems that being the capital of Catalonia is somehow more relevant to define Barcelona, rather than the property of being the second largest Spanish city. Moreover, the former is an official and historical status while the latter is just some contingent state of things that could change any day (if some other important city would increase its population enough).
    • Whether it is more relevant or not is simply a matter of opinion (which you imply by saying "it seems"). In a Catalonian-centric mind, being the capital of Catalonia is surely the most relevant way (maybe even the "only" way) to define Barcelona. In a global world, which is what Wikipedia tries to reach, locating Barcelona in Spain is the first step to understand its location and its relevance in the full picture. In my mind, the initial words of an article describing a city should aim at helping the reader to narrow down the location and relevance of that place and doing so with a top-down approach strikes me as the most appropriate way. --user:israel.galan
  • Other wikipedia entries about important cities which were capitals of former states have no problem in presenting things in the natural way I am restoring. For instance, Munich is primarily defined as the capital of Bavaria, or Edinburgh as the capital of Scotland.
    • Again, irrelevant. I can find just as many entries were the contrary applies. Take Marseille, for example: the fact that it is the capital of Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur only shows up way down the first paragraph and Shanghai does not even have mention of its provincial status in the first paragraph. --user:israel.galan

I don't really want to play editing table-tennis here and waste time redoing my changes to see how they are undone again under cover of some self-proclaimed neutrality that is quickly negated in a couple of lines. So Cnoguera, if that is the way you want it, so be it. --user:israel.galan

--Carles Noguera (talk) 12:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


Dear Israel, thanks for your comments. I think we can discuss politely about everything without any need for accusing people of being biased. Let us stick to the arguments. I have stated my points in a quite prudent way, don't you think? It is just that it seemed to me that the sentence was already informative, correct and neutral. I would be biased if I would be manipulating things (for instance by erasing references to Spain, or references to Catalonia) but it is not the case. The information about the location of the city is in the first paragraph. I just thought that the order was already correct as it was, since it seems to me that being the capital of Catalonia is some sort of more distinctive property than being just the second largest Spanish city. But, of course, as you said it is a matter of opinion and you, as well as anybody else, could prove me wrong.

--Carles Noguera (talk) 15:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Excusatio non petita, accusatio manifesta. I thought I was polite enough by higlighting how your comments may hint a certain bias, but it looks like you took it literally, which only strengthens my point further. Again, I think I proved that your arguments to reject my changes are a simple matter of opinion, so, unfortunately, the version that will prevail will only be based on who has the most time to spend playing this game. I concede my defeat.--user:israel.galan —Preceding comment was added at 03:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


OK, so let's forget about what I should not take literally. And don't you worry. It's not a matter of victories and defeats. Luckily there are many other wikipedians working on the project, and so anyone could always improve this entry if we would be wrong in our points of view. Best regards. --Carles Noguera (talk) 12:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Transportation and infrastructures

There seem to be a number of logical/factual problems with this section:

  • is 'Roads and highways' not wrongly positioned under Public transportation - they are surely not public transport, certainly no more than the airports or seaport?
  • by the same token, having distinct sections for sea and air, it is then inconsistent to merge international-national railways and buses with municipal metro/trams/funicular/cable cars and cycling together without any secondary headings/navigation;
  • the Montjuïc funicular/cable car reference lacks clarity, it would benefit from specifying that they are extensions of each other rather than mentioned separately, as well as saying where the former starts from;
  • RENFE appears in both upper- and title-case - it should surely be written consistently, I suggest in the upper case as RENFE;
  • the reference to the AVE extension is now some way out-of-date, and needs updating;
  • I am fairly sure there is no such word as "bicing", surely it should read 'cycling'?

In addition:

  • there is no mention anywhere of the city's other international railway station, Estación de França, even though it has its own Wikipedia entry;
  • having mentioned the cycling scheme, it is surely only fair to make some reference (however brief) to wider cycling facilities/experiences;
  • the reference to the AVE could benefit from what high speed means actually - such as "Madrid in just over two-and-a-half hours";
  • it might also help to refer to links between different modes, specifically railway and airport.

--JSN2849 (talk) 11:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Grist's 15 Green Cities

Should it be mentioned Grist has ranked Barcelona as the 11th Greenest City in the world? I've seen articles of cities in this list mention it; this one does not. Here's the link: [2]. I think it's something worth mentioning. GnomesRuleTheEarth (talk) 19:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Map

The location map have to show the situation of Barcelona in Spain, not only in Catalonia, acording with any others location maps.--Phirosiberia (talk) 22:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid this is again the same kind of discussion we had above regarding what comes first (capital of Catalonia or second largest spanish city). I mean, is there any Wikipedia policy about it or is it again just a matter of opinion? By the way, the claim you made above is not true: there are dozens of entries about cities where the location maps are not those of the corresponding sovereign states, but those of the historical (or at least administrative) region (see Edinburgh, Belfast, Cardiff, cities in the USA, cities in Canada, ....). --Carles Noguera (talk) 07:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Trinitat Vella

Trinitat Vella is not in Nou Barris, Trinitat Vella is in Sant Andreu.