Talk:Barcelona/Archive 2

Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2018
Please change Collserolla to Collserola in the Parks section. The other 6 instances are spelt correctly. Etka9 (talk) 07:37, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ ― Abelmoschus  Esculentus  08:45, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

categories
Just a quick question. Why is Barcelona considered (as per the categories on the bottom) a "capital of Europe". Is it because its the capital of Catalunya? If that the case why not other Regional capitals like Valencia? Why is Barcelona the only city in the list thats not actually a capital. The only other similar example I found was Sukhumi‎ which is capital of an unrecognised breakaway state...? is that the case with Barcelona? Mostly was just curious because im trying to categorise on the irish wiki and was curious as to the choice here. --Spaircí (talk) 00:27, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Done. Wrong category. Deleted. Thx. Subtropical -man  (talk / en-2 ) 14:12, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:59, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Flag of the Soviet Union (1955–1980).svg

Outdated government section
The government section goes as far as 2011, it does not say anything about the 2015 and 2019 municipal elections. Nanotechnologist (talk) 00:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Independence demonstrations?
The article mentions the massive demonstrations on 11 September 1977 for a greater autonomy of catalonia, should it also talk about the massive yearly independentist rallies every 11th of September from 2012 forward? 95.17.66.78 (talk) 00:21, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Notable People
The list is ordered by birth date, the first item is not and lacks essential information. Nanotechnologist (talk) 00:27, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for spotting that. I have moved Álvaro Soler down and added his birth year. Cnbrb (talk) 07:56, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Barcelona.sarajevo.mural.jpg
File:Barcelona.sarajevo.mural.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a non-free use rationale. Using one of the templates at Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

– Marchjuly (talk) 02:19, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Not encyclopaedic enough
Is it me, or does the lead of this article read a lot like a promotional peace? There's a lot of WP:PUFFERY in both the lead and the Economy section (I haven't read the rest of the article) – I think those parts could do with a substantial rewrite, and the rest probably needs a proper review by someone with an NPOV. I hate to be the guy with all bark no bite, but I feel this is too big of an undertaking for my inexperienced self. --User: Kris159 (talk – legacy) 08:42, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing this out. You are quite right. I have rewritten the lede for neutral point of view and concision, removing the sort of info that belongs in other sections anyway, as well as outdated statistics that date as far back as 2008. This level of statistical detail doesn't belong in the lede, not to mention all the promotional language. Carlstak (talk) 01:39, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you. This entrance is quite "promotional". It is not surprising, since everything related to Catalonia is carefully monitored by nationalists that actually "control" it. The case is even more extreme in the catalonian version of Wikipedia where it cannot be included that Barcelona is a city located in Spain! So,...

Thanks Kris for the ammendments. I hope that it can survive for sometime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.61.97.30 (talk) 15:41, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Weather Box
The climate data chosen to represent the city doesn't seem loyal to the actual climate. 18.2ºC of average temperature. Really?? So you are telling me Barcelona has the same average temperature as Valencia which is 200km south and has not only warmer winters than Lisbon, but has higher winter nightime temperatures than most mediterranean islands? Pure nonsense, besides that:

1- It isn't a climatological normal

2- It is not referenced in the official AEMET page

3- Not even the official website puts the averages that high on the map

4- Not a single climate model website agrees with those averages (climate-data.org has a tendency to put winters lows higher than other websites and it still as a whole 2.2ºC diference)

The averages on the airport represent a lot more of Barcelona's climate, usually we try to go with the closest station to the city center but in this case it's pretty safe to say it's not the right thing to do. The Weather Box should represent as best as possible the real climate of the city, even if it's not anywhere near the city. The problem is, how did those averages stay there as long as they did without anyone reporting on them? This is a clear case of purposely trying to advertise the city as warmer than it really is because it's obvious it doesn't match up to the real values. Average Portuguese Joe (talk) 20:44, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

That's not the reality in Barcelona. That data does represent the city with accuracy. Everything I'll say now can be easily proven, and it is by that official source. Let's start: Barcelona is a big and very dense city in a very specific spot, sheltered by nearby mountains. What you wrote is simply not true as the airport of Barcelona is located in El Prat de Llobregat at 15km from the city itself, in a different county, a different geographical area without any kind of nearby mountains and instead of an UHI phenomenon, it does have a thermal inversion effect caused by the heavy industry Barcelona has in its outskirts. I also don't understand why are you saying that an official weather station is unreal while you're trying to make a point using two non reliable computer generated websites.

1- It is an official GenCat meteorological station with a source from Generalitat de Catalunya located inside the city of Barcelona. The values and the official chart are in the same website.

2- It is the real representation of the climate of Barcelona. It's simple: Together with it's geographical features, the city itself has a strong Urban heat island phenomenon and it's much more representative than the airport, which is located in a different city. Barcelona is very built up, dense and sheltered by nearby mountains, isn't it? There is a lot of UHI going on there. Saying the airport values are "more representative" is far from reality and it doesn't make any sense. Both places have different urban and geographical features.

3- It's the only reliable source representing the city because Barcelona has 0 official AEMET stations offering long term averages. The city itself does have a couple of AEMET stations, but they're only observational ones. The one that comes closer to Barcelona is the airport which is in El Prat de Llobregat, at about 15km from the last inhabited outskirts of Barcelona. And take note of this, the municipal area of Barcelona goes closer, but it's only industrial area. The city ends at the "border" where Hospitalet de Llobregat starts, in La Marina de Sants. After clarifying that, this is why El Prat is not even close to being representative since it's not even in El Barcelonès, the same county as Barcelona. Since you mention Lisbon, let's use the same scenario. Saying the airport is representative is like saying Montijo is the better climate for Lisbon, whilst Montijo has 5.8ºC January lows, Lisbon has 8.3ºC January lows. In Lisbon, they're much milder due to the density, UHI and the better sheltered geographical position. Just like Barcelona and El Prat. Do you understand it now?

So, these are the real values. In the page Climate of Barcelona you can find as well many other climate boxes including the airport one, which is not representative of the city whilst Can Bruixa – Les Corts is, because of all of the reasons mentioned above. The climate box of the page won't change since it's backed up by an official Generalitat de Catalunya source: http://w1.bcn.cat/temps/es/climatologia/clima_barcelona at the bottom is clearly stated that the data comes from Servei Meteorològic de Catalunya, and that source is from the official government site of Barcelona (Barcelona.cat) so that's an official and trustworthy source. It's not fake made-up data like climate-data, weatherspark or similar websites. These are the real values, official and representing values of the climate of Barcelona.

Spain is split up by autonomies which are akin to federal states, Catalonia has a proper official meteorological agency (Servei Meteorològic GenCat) with region-wide stations, this one being one of them. If AEMET would provide long term data for one of the 2 stations they have inside of Barcelona we would prevail these. But since that's not the case, the GenCat source is much more realistic and representative of the city than the airport being located in a much different scenario in a different city. If you want to see the airport and other stations which are not as representative for Barcelona, then go to the separate page Climate of Barcelona where you can also learn more about the geographical features of Barcelona. Nothing else to comment or to debate here. It's backed up by an official level 2 source, Generalitat de Catalunya which comes 2nd only after the official Spanish data, but since we have 0 official AEMET stations within Barcelona's city limits with long term data... Case closed. The actual weatherbox is official, real and backed up by an official source.

Oh and the latitude has nothing in common here, I can put many Mediterranean examples. Check this one out, just compare Monaco (44ºN) to Marseille (43ºN) Monaco has warmer January lows than Marseille's January mean! But Monaco is in a very sheltered spot, whilst being much more dense thus having a higher Urban Heat Island adding to that unique geographical area. Exactly the same scenario as Barcelona. Have a nice day, my fellow Portuguese friend! --TechnicianGB (talk) 06:35, 30 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Don't get me wrong, I do believe the values in central Barcelona should be higher than the ones on the airport, especially the lows, but having a 4.1ºC diference in the January low while at the same time being more inland is just insane, you still haven't responded to the fact that AEMET doesn't even put the average temperature in the centre of Barcelona higher than 17.5ºC and, as you said, they do have 2 stations inside of Barcelona, so they probably know what they're doing. They clearly put an Urban heat island effect around Barcelona and even after that the low in January barely surpasses 5ºC.


 * Lows in Lisbon are higher than Montijo's because it's simply closer to the ocean and it's not a 1971–2000 average, the problem is the airport in Barcelona is closer to the sea than Les Corts so that 4.1ºC difference should actually be more like a 5–6ºC difference since Can Bruixa is more inland.


 * That point you said about the airport having thermal inversions whilst Barcelona does not is the type of statement that needs to be sourced.
 * Also there is not one single source besides that one proving Barcelona has an average (especially lows) that high. You can't just put a source to something while 90% of the other sources deny that from hapenning, I used climate models to emphasize my point.
 * About the UHI effect, you can literally find this writen in the article:

"For example, Barcelona, Spain is 0.2 C-change cooler for daily maxima and 2.9 C-change warmer for minima than a nearby rural station."


 * (The rural station is probably more inland than the city centre, but still, it's clearly UHI)


 * And finally, take for instance these stations, one is from the airport and the other one is from the city centre, this last station is also very recent (from 2006 onwards) and just to be clear, these are official values, they are exactly the same as the ones on DwD's website. Analising the data from the last 3 January's 2018–2020 you can clearly see the average low is higher, but only by 1.2ºC and the average high is actually lower than on the airport, clearly agreeing with the citation above, although the station at the centre of Barcelona has less data availability but that should give you an ideia of how wrong that 1987–2010 station is and how it needs to be changed. Average Portuguese Joe (talk) 12:56, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Good ol' pal, as you can see in the source, it's a genuine station from the Servei Meteorològic from the Generalitat de Catalunya as proven in it's own official source (L'orígen de les dades meteorològiques i climàtiques d'aquesta web és el Servei Meteorològic de Catalunya) nothing to discuss here because 1. It does have trustworthy evidence and 2. The source (website) is an official website. If it was a questionable source then okay... but given the fact that website is from Barcelona.cat which is the official Barcelona website (like Lisboa.pt is for Lisbon) controlled by the Generalitat de Catalunya, with own Servei Meteorològic GenCat data coming from an official weather station they have in the Les Corts District (Can Bruixa) that's prime class trustful data. I have seen the AEMET map, it's the most useful source for Spanish data, but the problem is that it's based in nearby long term averages. Unfortunately, Barcelona doesn't have official AEMET averages as you know, the closest station is El Prat, where the city's airport is located. But let me show you something. I can't blame anyone because we don't grow up knowing everything and much less places outside of our countries which we haven't studied. I'm not an expert either. So I have made a quick Google search and I found very interesting information.

Here you have a study made by Javier Martín Vide, one of the World's most reputated Climatologists, well known for his climate-related thesis, that's also a Geography Professor, Writer and Cathedratic at the University of Barcelona who's teaching geography and environmental science. He's also a counsilior in the International Journal of Climatology and he was the president of the World Climate Research Programme from 2010 to 2015. So well, I think we can take his word as totally unbiased, reliable source, right? Check this: According to the studies made by Javier Martín Vide and other Cathedratics at the University of Barcelona, Barcelona has 93.5 days with "tropical nights" (lows above 20ºC) which perfectly correlates to the Can Bruixa station from the Servei Meteorològic. In fact, he used a mixture between the 3 GenCat official stations inside of Barcelona to arrive to such a conclusion. Posting such a large text would be stupid, so I have found a news article proving all what I wrote above, based on a thesis made by the University of Barcelona.

Here you go: https://www.lavanguardia.com/natural/20200929/483755298381/noche-torridas-estacion-el-raval-martin-vide-noche-tropical.html

The professor is stating that "over 90 days per year have tropical nights in the city of Barcelona" and "due to the intense Urban heat island effect in Barcelona, temperatures are 2–3ºC warmer than in the city's outskirts, especially during summer nights" which makes sense since from El Prat station to the Can Bruixa – Barcelona official stations, the average annual temperature difference is around 2ºC, having quite warmer average lows all year round. As you can see El Prat has barely 1 month with lows above 20ºC yet the one in the city of Barcelona has 3 months, 2 of them above 22ºC and 1 even above 23ºC so well, if the based study of one of the most reputated European climatologists (who's also a native from Barcelona) and an official GenCat station aren't "loyal representations of the climate" then nothing else is. We can't deny that Can Bruixa is much more representative than the airport which is located in El Prat in a different environment as well as with a different geographical and urban position. Also UHI vs thermal inversion, 2 opposite phenomenons.

Another website talking about an ecological problem in Barcelona, but based on Javier's studies, also mentions the Urban Heat Island in Barcelona and that the city has more than 90 days with lows above 20ºC again proving that the airport from El Prat is nowhere representative of the city itself. In fact, there are 3 official stations from the Servei Meteorològic from the Generalitat de Catalunya in Barcelona. One is this one with long term averages (Can Bruixa) located in Les Corts district, another one located in Raval district, and another one located in Eixample district. Now this is representative because of the urban and geographical layout of Barcelona. Remember Barcelona is very properly sheltered in the foothills of a mountain range! That's a good heat trap as well.

That climate box has a genuine official GenCat station and it's within a trustworthy website, we can't say nor discuss it's accuracy. But don't get me wrong, I am saying everything: Yes, it's strongly affected by the Urban Heat Island. But that's Barcelona, a big city in a small area with an extreme density. Thermal inversion does happen at the airport because, just check with Google Maps, there's a very big heavy industrial zone between the ending district of Barcelona all the way around to the airport (more than 10km, remember it's in another county) and the pollution causes that effect. I know it's closer to the sea but it doesn't have either these hills/mountains nearby just as the city itself does. Not even mentioning the extreme density of Barcelona, 1.6m inhabitants in 100km2 now imagine that... It's nothing strange. I mean it's not my word but it's the reality and it's backed up by climatologists. Now I write all of this just to have a nice chat with you, it's nice to learn one from eachother. Have a great day! --TechnicianGB (talk) 14:21, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Climate Error
I am not able to edit the article, but the Climate section talks about the urban heat island effect found in Barcelona, and it mistakenly says that 2 degrees centigrade is 36 Fahrenheit instead of 3.6 F. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TreeSchoolForRottenKids (talk • contribs) 15:07, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The Convert template doesn't seem to cover that use, so I've just taken it out. --Jotamar (talk) 22:55, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 November 2021
North -> south 2600:8800:1D1B:CF00:F87E:1489:3F1:295F (talk) 01:22, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:31, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

We need of new article
We need of new article of Barcelona–Pyrenees bid for the 2030 Winter Olympics, and linked it to 2030_Winter_Olympics. Information on the referendum may be included. Subtropical -man ( ✉  | en-2 ) 22:25, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2022
Image stating "City Centre" is not correct since it is showing the Naturgy's HQ. 139.47.113.191 (talk) 09:18, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You're right, deleting the image. --Jotamar (talk) 13:15, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done Please remember to close the edit request. Thanks! --Ferien (talk) 18:48, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Photo collage
Hello, I recently tried to put a new collage of photos with the main landmarks in the city. However, I was reversed by the editor for not reaching consensus before making such changes. That said, I come here to formally make this proposal. Thanks in advance. Cordial greetings. Chronus (talk) 17:51, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Other than the sheer increase of the number of pics (which should not be encouraged per se), I think your selection (at least the initial part) is a slight improvement (a more informative view from a geographical standpoint, a more natural view of Sagrada Família, and the display of the urban environment around the Palau Nacional, including the so-called Venetian Towers, rather than the building façade itself). I personally see less positives about the proposed bottom images, although I indeed find the current display of the inner view of a sports facility (even if it is BIG) somewhat uncalled for. I am mulling whether a pic of the Collserola Tower and surroundings might further enhance the illustration of the environment (particularly nature-wise, given the absence of large parks in the city proper). Regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 18:28, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for commenting. The advantage of this format that I am proposing is that the photos can be changed separately afterwards. Chronus (talk) 18:40, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course, that is another important improvement. Regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 18:42, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Lets not spam the lead with more images pls.-- Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 01:19, 24 February 2022 (UTC)


 * It looks to me like your selection is a massive improvement on the current lot which I've always felt was fairly drab.


 * Getting rid of the bottom two would make it better, though. And isn't the caption normally clockwise rather than left-to-right? Otherwise, please go for it! 92.16.13.142 (talk) 10:00, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2023
In The Spanish Civil War section it can also be mentioned that George Orwell once, during the war visited Barcelona which was a life-changing event for him, he saw the possibilities of a class-less society and this event turned him pro-socialist. Astronics01 (talk) 22:02, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * that's more relevant to George Orwell than it is to either the city or the civil war. M.Bitton (talk) 22:36, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. This needs secondary sources discussing it in context to demonstrate that it is WP:DUE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:39, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Lead Image
As a result of the BRD, I suggest we swap the lead image:

with this other photo from the 'population density' section :

Why? because I feel the new picture would better represent the skyline of Barcelona, better illustrate Barcelona's coastal location and depict the l'Eixample grid in a much superior fashion.

@Bcorr do reply Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 17:07, 1 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I think that Image 1 (the current image) is superior. Image 2 (proposed replacement) has some blurry sections in the heart of the city, and overall is a bit too zoomed out to show as much meaningful detail. Additionally, there is already an image of the coast in the infobox, so we are covered there. Cerebral726 (talk) 17:14, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * hmm, gotta disagree with the blurry sections point because so does the 1st picture. What about the superior illustration of the Eixample grid? it's a world famous aspect of Barcelona which instantly helps connect a viewer to Barcelona, second only to the Camp Nou, which would arguably also be a good candidate for a position in the box. Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 17:22, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Image 2 depicts the city's relation with its environment (Mediterranean, Montjuic, Collserola range, even Montseny at the very back) in a better fashion.--Asqueladd (talk) 18:29, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * any further thoughts? Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 12:57, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The 1st image doesn't include the center of the city, the 2nd one is better. --Jotamar (talk) 19:02, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Overall, the pros of the 2nd pic far better do the job of lead images which is:
 * 1. to illustrate the city's location and landscape through a quality picture of its skyline. as @Asqueladd stated, the 2nd picture does that very well.
 * 2. to help strike an instant connection with the city so that viewers can visualize the city. This is best done by taking iconic skyline pictures or skyline pics which have a very well known landmark in them so as to help the viewer. in this case, L'Eixample is an extremely well known aspect of the city, as photos of its famous grid often make the rounds of the internet. the 2nd picture helps the viewer see this better than the 1st one does.
 * 3. look attractive. the picture must obviously be a good looking one. and the 2nd picture is a glorious evening photo which also shows the gorgeous blue Mediterranean i.e. the Port of Barcelona, highlighting Barca's coastal location better than anything in the infobox
 * i rest my case. Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 05:52, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * While Image 1 showcases the city center much better, Image 2 does showcase the city better in context of the region. Would it be possible to just use both images? &mdash; JJ Be rs  09:17, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Image 1 does not include the city center, it focuses on a new business district (22@) far from the old town. --Jotamar (talk) 20:17, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Image 1 does not showcase the city center much better than image 2, but the contrary. It showcases the district of Sant Martí in greater detail, also displaying the Sagrada Familia and the dildo-shaped highrise building, both of which are already featured in other items of the already very bloated infobox collage. Given current bloat, I do not see any pressing need to use both images.--Asqueladd (talk) 21:21, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Image 2 definitely is superior per reasons above. I agree with Asqueladd that the infobox is too crowded with photos; the bottom four should be removed right away, and that of the hideous dildo (Torre Glòries) should be replaced. Carlstak (talk) 02:37, 21 September 2023 (UTC)