Talk:Madrid

From Wikivoyage
Jump to: navigation, search

I reverted this page because it was easier than going through and unlinking all the links. Please see Project:What is an article? for what we make articles about here. --(WT-en) Evan 11:14, 14 Mar 2004 (EST)

Standard headers[edit]

OK, I didn't realize there were "standard headers" -- I see I have had my wrists slapped already...

Those headers are so tacky, though, that I think it highly unlikely I'll be contributing to WikiTravel again. A shame, say I, if I may be so immodest, since there are factual errors on almost every page I have looked at so far (the triumph of form over substance?) which I'd love to correct... (yes, I'm a Wikiholic, self-employed pedant, and travel writer <<-- whoops, shouldn't have mentioned that [see below]: "travel experts not wanted here").

Quote: To provide for a more consistent layout for readers of Wikivoyage, we use article templates

Do "we"? Who are "we"? So this is a members only club, is it? They're templates, Jim, but not as we (Wikipedians) know them.

Quote: People should see a guide and say, "Hey! See, Do, Eat -- this came from Wikivoyage! Those guys rock!"

Yukh. I am not a "guy" and I don't rock.
"Hey! See, Do, Eat -- Wikivoyage: clearly written by "guys" who think we're all morons!"

Quote: The other [reason for "templates"] is to discourage wholesale copyright violation by well-meaning but ill-informed contributors. We don't want folks copying stuff in directly from their tattered 1974 Europe on a Shoestring guidebook.

More dumbing down: "folks", "stuff", "we figured" (that presumptive "we" again!). Is this meant to be a travel guide as written by George Dubya? Not to mention the condescension, and downright insultingness (well-meaning but ill-informed contributors).

It's hard to think of a project beginning with the term "wiki" that is less "wiki" in spirit, if this is the thinking behind WikiTravel.

Quote: We figured that if the formatting and stuff was different enough, that would be too much of a hassle to deal with.

Sorry: you've lost me there.
"Different enough" = sufficiently different to satisfy a need. Certainly "Get in", "Get out" (and "Shake it all about"?) are different, if that's what you mean by "formatting and stuff". Sufficiently different to cause an excessive amount of hassle? But why would you want to do that? Devise a system of formatting which would be "too much of a hassle to deal with"??

Are you really saying that you devised "Get out" as a heading so that the tattered-guidebook-owning saps you so despise would take both fright and flight rather than dare to sully WikiTravel with some information that they found under the heading "Excursions" in another source. Facts, by the way, cannot be copyrighted, so I don't know why the possibility of repeating them should cause such anticipatory vapours...

Let's look at one different bit of "formatting and stuff". In my (yes, tattered) book of linguistic experience (I have lived long), "Get out" means "go away (and don't come back)" -- perhaps this is the subliminal message you are attempting to impart. For myself, however, I don't think that the "Get out of jail free" card is all about taking a little day trip from prison and being back by suppertime.

Quote: There are few if any "travel experts" working on Wikivoyage.

Is it any wonder? With your contemptuous quotation marks and know-nothing smugness...

There are English-as-a-second-language infelicities, too (like "Plunge forward". Eh? What language was that translated from?) which could benefit from a tidy up -- but I'd probably better not JUMP IN there as it's just occurred to me that perhaps the royal "WE" wrote that phrase, and it might even be perfectly normal American...

Sadly, however, I have to conclude that this site is clearly not really WikiTRAVEL at all, but rather "WikiTOURISM for those unused to thinking".

WikiTravel? Oh, how ironic that you have a page entitled "Where you can stick it"... -- 81.154.44.16 19:05, 23 Jun 2005 (EDT)

The above was by (WT-en) Picapica 19:07, 23 Jun 2005 (EDT)
(I seem to have somehow got logged out during the course of my rant.)

I seem to be compelled to respond to this
"Those headers are so tacky, though, that I think it highly unlikely I'll be contributing to WikiTravel again" - Isn't that a bit shallow? Just because you don't like the headers. It took me a while to figure them out, but its not that difficult.
"A shame, say I, if I may be so immodest, since there are factual errors on almost every page I have looked at so far" - Then why leave? Actually, on the pages I've looked at (Mostly Scotland as that is my home country) I've found them to be fairly acurate - a few errors in spelling and punctuation, but nothing serious.
"I'm a Wikiholic, self-employed pedant" - If you are leaving then that statement is untrue. A true pedant and "wikiholic" (If such a word exists - I'm taking it to mean addicted to Wikis) wouldn't let this lie and would get out there to correct errors.
"Do "we"? Who are "we"?" - I just took it to mean the people who've been here longer than I have. I'm sure that if you raise your voice in the right place (rather than on the Talk page for Madrid) you can argue your case for the templates to be improved.
"They're templates, Jim, but not as we (Wikipedians) know them" - This is not wikipedia, nor is it associated with Wikipedia. It just happens to use the same Wiki software. But, you'd know that if you actually read the guides, read through the traveller's pub, etc. That was one of the first things I did when I arrived here. i.e. get to know the community before getting involved with it. It stops everyone from getting all upset.
"I am not a "guy" and I don't rock." - Curiously, I've noticed that "guy" over the last few years seems to have taken on a more gener-neutral stance. Maybe its just where I live.
"that presumptive "we" again" - If you don't like it then change it. Ranting here won't do much good.
"Not to mention the condescension, and downright insultingness (well-meaning but ill-informed contributors)." - "condescension", "insultingness"? Are those real words? Surely you mean "condescending and downright insulting nature". However, on the point you were trying to make, I have come across well-meaning but ill-informed contributors that dump text into wiki's (not just this one) that should not be there because of copyright violations and such like.
"It's hard to think of a project beginning with the term "wiki" that is less "wiki" in spirit, if this is the thinking behind WikiTravel." - I can. Wikipedia has more rules and regulations.
"Facts, by the way, cannot be copyrighted" - True, but the expression of those facts can be copyrighted and that is what the author was getting at.
I hope your rant was just a result of you having a bad day, because if this is your normal attitude god help anyone that knows you. --(WT-en) Colin Angus Mackay 07:16 24 Jun 2005 (BST)
Picapica, now that I've calmed down from reading your rant, I've raised the issue on the Article Templates Discussion page. Please feel free to add your voice as I had a look at your headings and they are much more sensible than the ones that currently exist. --(WT-en) Colin Angus Mackay 02:32, 24 Jun 2005 (EDT)

Colin, thanks for taking the trouble to respond in such detail to my "plunge forward". Will reply in due course and in due place to those points, but for now I'll just steal 10 minutes of my employer's time (<-- only joking, IT department: I've already completed my timesheet and knocked off for the day) to answer your vocabulary doubts:

Yes, the word "wikiholic" exists, though "wikipediholics" have the affliction in a more virulent form: see, for example, [1] and [2].

"condescension", "insultingness"? Are those real words? They surely are. See [3] for a dictionary definition of the first and here are examples of the second in action:

  • The frequent insultingness of modern (scientific-technological-industrial) medicine is precisely its inclination to regard individual patients apart from their lives, as representatives or specimens of their age, sex, pathology, economic status, or some other category.
  • "offensive" means "disagreeable or nauseating or painful because of outrage to taste and sensibilities or affronting insultingness".

By the way, I'm sorry if, as seems likely, I misled you when I said that I was not a "guy":

  • guy: noun 1 informal, a man. 2 (guys) N. Amer. informal, people of either sex. 3 Brit. a figure representing the Catholic conspirator Guy Fawkes, burnt on a bonfire on 5 November to commemorate a plot to blow up Parliament in 1605. (Compact Oxford English Dictionary)

I am indeed a man, but not an informal one. I am not, though, a North American of either sex. And I certainly don't fancy being burnt on a bonfire.

Oh, and the "self-employed pedant" was a brainstorm. I meant "self-confessed". (Call yourself a pedant? Get it RIGHT, Picapica, get it RIGHT...) -- (WT-en) Picapica 12:23, 24 Jun 2005 (EDT)

Thank's for the vocabulary deails. I learn something new every day. I look forward to the rest of your reply. However, looking over what I wrote, I see that most of it was done in the heat of the moment. So, hopefully you'll look past the disagreable nature of some of it.
Also, the thread on the Article Templates Discussion page has generated a few replies. --(WT-en) Colin Angus Mackay 15:11, 24 Jun 2005 (EDT)

Copyvio[edit]

The extlinks section (including many Categories, a feature we do not use) were copied directly from Wikipedia, which is a copyright violation. I haven't been able to detect additional copyvios, but I'm worried. -- (WT-en) Colin 16:27, 28 Jun 2005 (EDT)

The extlinks were part of a batch of changes from User:213.0.205.164 [4]. From the history it looks like this is probably a single user who also operated as User:213.0.206.211 and User:213.0.212.26. -- (WT-en) Colin 16:33, 28 Jun 2005 (EDT)

{{style}}[edit]

I added the MoS disclaimer at the top because Eat and Sleep sections need to be "Budget," "Mid-range," and "Splurge." Also the listings need to be MoS'd. - (WT-en) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 11:01, 28 May 2006 (EDT)

Apartment rentals[edit]

None of the seven apartment rental web sites that were listed in this article had a physical location in Madrid on their site, so I've removed them [5] in accordance with Project:Accomodation listings#Apartment listings. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:28, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

Apartments (again)[edit]

The apartments section is back with several non local apartment aggregation websites. Like Ryan in May of 2007 I believe they should be removed, but I'm not an expert so I'll leave that up to someone else to do. (WT-en) CarsonR 14:56, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

Agreed. I checked Project:Accomodation listings#Apartment listings and the web site for each Madrid apartment listings. I kept the following as satisfying the policy, and cleaned up the formatting: Apartments in Madrid HomesForTravellers.com, Apartments Gran Via, StopInRoom Apartments, FlatsInMadrid. I deleted the following as not satisfying the policy. (WT-en) JimDeLaHunt 18:33, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

Districtification[edit]

I know this guide still doesn't have an overflow of entries, but my experience of Madrid is that you cannot get to know it as a whole. I am thinking carving out Centro, Retiro, Salamanca and then North, South, East and West could be a start. What do you think? PrinceGloria (talk) 13:18, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I won't be able to help much because I haven't visited Madrid since 1977, but it sure sounds reasonable to me to district Madrid. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Centro did not change much since 1977. They've only got a new king ;) PrinceGloria (talk) 23:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
So, se have Madrid/Centro, Madrid/Retiro, and Madrid/Salamanca. Madrid/Moncloa-Aravaca describes the western parts, and the rest can be divided into Madrid/North (including Ciudad Lineal, San Blas and everything north) and Madrid/South. /Yvwv (talk) 01:46, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
I have only ever been to Madrid during a roughly eight hour layover and the time outside the airport that allows. I am afraid, I won't be able to help much, either. Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:28, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Hmm, with two visits to Madrid in the first decade of the 2000s, I could perhaps help out a little bit, though I'm mostly familiar with Centro. Your division seems to be OK, provided that all articles would get a couple of POIs. How far would the North and South articles stretch? Until the borders of Area Metropolitana? ϒpsilon (talk) 14:44, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
I can help out a bit as well, although I've spent only a grand total of five days there, most of it also in the Centro, so I can't really offer an informed opinion regarding where to draw district boundaries. –StellarD (talk) 15:43, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
I think Yvwv's proposal above sounds great. I got to spend a few days in Madrid back in 2012, and based on what I saw breaking it down between Centro, Retiro, Salamanca, West (Moncloa-Aravaca), North, and South makes sense. Centro and Retiro have the lion's share of attractions, naturally, but there's enough stuff scattered through the rest of those districts that we shouldn't wind up with any completely empty districts under that layout. PerryPlanet (talk) 02:59, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
The scope of Madrid/North and Madrid/South would be within the administrative borders of Madrid. This would, for instance, exclude Madrid-Barajas Airport. /Yvwv (talk) 13:14, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Districts of Madrid
We might consider having an article for the airport itself. It's a major hub for flights to half of Latin America. Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:49, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
There is one already. ;) ϒpsilon (talk) 16:01, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Foiled again by an unredirected redlink! Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:14, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Any progress?[edit]

Soooo, is there any progress to be reported? @StellarD: maybe you'd want to weigh in? Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

The proposed districts seem reasonable to me. It will be easier to proceed once all listings are geotagged and placed on the map. –StellarD (talk) 08:50, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
@PrinceGloria:, @Yvwv:, @Ypsilon:, @PerryPlanet:, what's keeping us from implementing it, then? At the very least creating a rough draft of a map and the likes? Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:16, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
With regard to me - my decision not to contribute to WV until the image policy is amended, which seems most unlikely. Thanks for the honorable mention. PrinceGloria (talk) 18:21, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

What to do about the already created two outlines?[edit]

Someone apparently created Madrid/Centro and Madrid/Retiro some months ago. Should we already move listings there while we figure out where to draw the boundaries of other districts or should they for now be redirected to the Madrid page? Are they good districts to have to begin with? Oh and pinging @StellarD: in particular. Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I've been working on geotagging listings so that we can eventually move this forward. However I'm currently traveling in the US for a month, so it will take a little while until I get everything mapped. If you'd like to start moving relevant geotagged listings to the two aforementioned articles, please feel free :) –StellarD (talk) 20:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Oh, happy travels then. I am afraid I don't know where the borders of the district articles are supposed to be. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Reviving the discussion[edit]

Can we please get any kind of resolution on this? User:StellarD seems to be back from his travels, but it would perhaps be easier if some other user(s) could jump in and help? With geotags for many listings it shouldn't be that hard to move them to districts, right? Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:08, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

New proposal, after having visited Madrid last month (not claiming to be an expert, though). I admit that my idea of districtification is a bit influenced by Lonely Planet's (and also by the one used at Madrid's official website for tourists), but it is not a one-to-one copy and a bit simplified and focused on the neighbourhoods with most sights and points of interests from a traveller's perspective:

  • Madrid/Huertas and Sol: the centre of centre, including Puerta del Sol, Cortes, Barrio de las Letras, Gran Vía from Cibeles to Plaza España
  • Madrid/La Latina and Austrias: old town with its narrow lanes plus the quarter around Royal Palace and Plaza Mayor
  • Madrid/Malasaña and Chueca: including neighbouring Conde Duque for sake of simplicity – lots of restaurants and nightlife
  • Madrid/Lavapiés – or merge into Huertas and Sol, as there are not yet many listings right now (there should be more, though)
  • Madrid/Retiro and Paseo del Arte: including Parque de El Retiro and the museum strip (or "Museum Triangle") from Prado via Thyssen to Caixaforum and Reina Sofia (convenient for readers to have most art-related contents in one article)
  • Madrid/Salamanca: whole district – upscale shopping, restaurants and hotels
  • Madrid/Chamberí: whole district – not many listings right now, but interesting enough and may be further developed in the future
  • Madrid/Moncloa: whole district of Moncloa-Aravaca, including Argüelles, Ciudad Universitaria, Parque del Oeste, Casa de Campo
  • Madrid/Arganzuela: the whole district – getting increasingly interesting for travellers thanks to the Madrid Río and Matadero projects
  • Madrid/Outer districts: everything else, given that there are few points of interest for travellers, anyway – an alternative might be to put everything north of the centre into the "Chamberí" article, everything west into "Moncloa", everything east into "Salamanca" and everything south into "Arganzuela". This may be inaccurate but pretty handy.

I do not think that Madrid/Centro makes much sense, as almost everything that is relevant for tourists is in Centro, and the Centro article would become nearly as long as the Madrid article is now, while most other district articles would be almost empty. --RJFF (talk) 20:58, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Personally I think subdividing the Centro at this stage is premature and overcomplicates things; we can further subdivide Madrid/Centro later if there is a consensus that it is warranted. And it is not really unusual to have such dense central districts – see for examples Vienna/Innere Stadt and Berlin/Mitte.
I do believe it will be easier to migrate listings to newly-created districts after everything is geotagged and not before. Hobbitschuster, if the slow progress upsets you so much why do you not roll up your sleeves and help out? I myself am not located in Madrid and do not personally know the city all that well. My tools are Google maps, Wikivoyage geomap, and es.Wikipedia, which anyone can use.
And why is the gender of any Wikivoyager assumed to be male by default? ;) –StellarD (talk) 06:11, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Vienna's Innere Stadt is considerably smaller than Madrid's Centro; while Berlin is a somewhat different case, given that it is a multi-centric city created by the merger of several towns and cities each whith its own core (hence the saying that "Berlin is not a city, but a collection of villages"), plus it was divided for 40 years. Therefore touristic points of interest are spread over more parts of the city (I do not like WV-en's districtification of Berlin anyway). Madrid on the other hand is, according to my impression, very centralistic with almost all things of interest for travellers concentrated in Centro and adjacent districts. Just look at the dynamic map: about 80 % of listings are in Centro! This is because Madrid used to be restricted to today's Centro district until the 19th century and most other districts are just bedroom suburbs created during the 20th century, with few reasons for visitors to go there. --RJFF (talk) 11:25, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
One more comparison: The 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th arrondissement of Paris combined are about the size of Madrid's Centro, and we have four separate articles on them. I find it reasonable to divide Centro into 3–4 articles, too. --RJFF (talk) 13:03, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
RJFF, OK you've convinced me that Centro should be divided up, especially as you seem to know Madrid better than I do. I'm not entirely in agreement with your Centro divisions though, as they don't make sense to me when I look at a map. Would it not make more sense to just divide along the traditional barrio boundaries as the city has done? –StellarD (talk) 14:20, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
I do not think that the barrios in this map are "traditional". These are pretty arbitrary "barrios" drawn only for administrative reasons, which do not correspond to the traditional neighbourhoods as they are perceived by locals and tourists. Who, except administrators, refers to Universidad rather than Malasaña, Justicia instead of Chueca and Cortes in place of Huertas or Barrio de las Letras? By the way, Wikivoyage's own dynamic map (the one in the map frame) shows the neighbourhood names that I use, too (i.e. Lavapiés, La Latina, Austrias, Malasaña, Chueca), and even Madrid's own tourist website does. --RJFF (talk) 14:32, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Well you seem to know the district, so your proposal sounds good to me especially if you can write up something in the 'Understand' section of each new district article. Unfortunately as it appears there are currently only two people in this discussion who have spent any amount of time in Madrid, we'll have to form a consensus of two, unless someone else stops by who wants to chime in. –StellarD (talk) 15:15, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
OK. Then, we still have to decide: 1. Should Lavapiés have its own article or be included in "Sol and Letras" (it appears that "Barrio de las Letras" is a bit more common than "Huertas" in the tourism context, both denote approximately the same neighbourhood). "Sol, Letras and Lavapiés" looks a bit clumsy to me... and 2. Should there be an article on "Outer districts" for everything even further off than Chamberí, Salamanca, Retiro, Moncloa and Arganzuela or should listings located in these outlying districts simply be included in the nearest district article (i.e. let Chamberí include everything north of it, Salamanca everything east, Moncloa everything west, Arganzuela everything south)? I must admit that I don't know anything about these external districts, I just see that there are only very few listings for them. --RJFF (talk) 15:44, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Another question: How do we move the listings to district articles? Is it OK to simply copy-paste them or would that be a copyright violation? --RJFF (talk) 18:44, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

After some reflection, here are a few thoughts:

1) Currently Lavapiés doesn't seem to have quite enough listings just yet, so perhaps it should be included with 'Sol and Letras', to be broken off in the future when it does have more content. Yes, the name 'Sol, Letras and Lavapiés' is decidedly clumsy; maybe 'Sol-Letras-Lavapiés' might work. Or alternatively what about labeling the central districts something like 'Centro East' and 'Centro West', etc.?

2) Vienna's outer districts (also clumsy) include such titles as 'Inner East' and 'Outer East', etc. Boston has a district titled 'Outer Neighborhoods'. Munich's districts are even more simplified. I realize that these names may be anathema to someone used to working on de.wv, but here on the English side I think we tend to be somewhat less encyclopedic (although I do have my own encyclopedic tendencies).

3) Regarding copyrights, moving content to new articles by cut-paste or copy-paste is no problem at all, as long as no content is lost.

StellarD (talk) 11:42, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I am in favour of using the names of the traditional neighbourhoods not because they are more encyclopedic, but because they are more recognisable for travellers (they will find these names on customary maps as well as "on the ground", moreover most of these names are linked to a barrio with a certain character) while terms like 'Centro East' and 'Centro West' sound cold and bureaucratic and cannot be found anywhere outside Wikivoyage. I stayed at an apartment in Malasaña and can tell you that there is a very strong local identity and "flavour", they even sell Malasaña merchandise, Malasaña beer etc. No one would speak of 'Centro North'! The same probably applies to Chueca, Lavapiés etc. Madrid/Sol-Letras-Lavapiés looks handy enough to me, though. --RJFF (talk) 17:58, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
OK then, how does the following line-up look to you?
Madrid/Sol-Letras-Lavapiés
Madrid/La Latina-Austrias
Madrid/Malasaña-Chueca
Madrid/Retiro-Paseo del Arte
Madrid/Salamanca – including stray listings to the east
Madrid/Chamberí – including everything north
Madrid/Moncloa – including every west
Madrid/Arganzuela – including everything south
StellarD (talk) 08:37, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Very well. I have started with copying listings to Madrid/Sol-Letras-Lavapiés. Please have a look if you like. For now, I have not yet deleted the duplicate listings from the main article, because after we are done with distrification, the main article should still contain a list of top sights and some general remarks in each of the sections, like where to find certain shopping opportunities, this or that category of restaurants, this or that type of club, bar etc. --RJFF (talk) 10:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I am done with creating the district articles and moving the respective listings there. Now we should condense and trim the Madrid article. I could need some help with the decision which listings are important enough for the whole city to stay in this article (perhaps with a shortened description) and wording some generic information, e.g. in which districts this or that type of restaurant, nightlife venue or hotel can be found. --RJFF (talk) 17:42, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you RJFF for jumping in and taking on this task single-handedly. At a glance the district articles all look great. I can help with the main Madrid article, but it will have to wait a bit as I'll be off-wiki and traveling for the next week and a half. –StellarD (talk) 07:47, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Dynamic Map[edit]

Good day, PrinceGloria, Ikan Kekek, Yvwv, Hobbitschuster, StellarD and RJFF. I have set up a dynamic district map taking the input from the discussion above into account. A few comments:

  • I added Northern Suburbs and Southern Suburbs article to the city. Listings still have to be moved over from Arganzuela and Chamberí and Castellana.
  • What I personally don't like with the current districts is, that some prime tourist attractions - namely the Parque del Oeste with Templo de Debod are covered in this huge district Moncloa. I guess it would be nicer to either have another central district or add this locality to Malasana or La Latina. Then we could separate the District chapter nicely into Central Districts and Outer Districts just like in Beijing for example.--Renek78 (talk) 19:46, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for your work! I don't know Madrid nearly well enough to offer any substantive opinions about these districts, though. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:02, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you so much – this is a huge help! I've been following others' progress with dynamic district maps and had made an attempt in my sandbox, but technically it was really over my head.
Regarding the current districts I don't really feel qualified to offer any more guidance than before, especially as I've spent only 5 days total in the city. (That may change though after my next trip this fall.) Maybe RJFF has a stronger opinion? –StellarD (talk) 21:43, 13 August 2017 (UTC)


Hello @Renek78: Thanks a lot for your addition of a dynamic map of districts. I actually had wished for a district map, but was not able to produce one myself.
However, I am not 100 % happy with the tailoring of districts done by you. As I tried to make clear on this talk page as well as in the introductions to Madrid/Chamberí-Castellana and Madrid/Arganzuela, I intended these articles to include Chamberí, Castellana and other northern districts (or suburbs, as you call them), respectively Arganzuela and other southern districts. So these articles deliberately include a few listings outside Chamberí-Castellana or Arganzuela proper. Likewise, I imagined Madrid/Salamanca and Madrid/Retiro-Paseo del Arte to include the districts to their east. The reason for this is merely pragmatic: There are barely any points of touristic interest in the northern and southern suburbs as defined by you, so I do not see the necessity for creating separate articles, instead covering them in the articles of the nearest district that is more relevant to travellers. I took the inspiration for this approach from the districts of Bangkok where e.g. Bangkok/Ramkhamhaeng covers much more than the actual Ramkhamhaeng area but rather serves as a blanket name for all of the less-known eastern districts. To be completely exact, we could rename these articles to Madrid/North and Madrid/South, but I thought they were easier to find via search engines and get more pageviews if they are named after relatively well-known districts instead of generic points of the compass.
Regarding the extent of Moncloa, I have also seen the problem of including Plaza de España and the Templo de Debod (which, perceivedly, are still part of, or very close to, the city centre) in this article. But I do not see a convincing alternative, as they definitely do not belong with Malasaña or La Latina.
Moreover, I would propose to use a slightly different colour scheme as e.g. the shades of green used for Retiro–Paseo del Arte, Moncloa, and the Southern Suburbs are too similar in my view.
Please excuse my nitpicking, all in all I am very thankful for your work. --RJFF (talk) 15:25, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi RJFF! Sorry for this very late reply.
  • Do you want me to include Southern Suburbs to Madrid/Arganzuela and Northern Suburbs to Madrid/Chamberí-Castellana? But then the naming would be a bit misleading, if they cover much larger parts of the city than just those 2 districts.
  • I increase the area of Madrid/Retiro-Paseo_del_Arte to the west, so that the museums are covered in this article?
  • I will update the color scheme. Some proposals are appreciated.
--Renek78 (talk) 20:16, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
@Renek78:
ad 1. My idea was to include points of interest in outlying, rarely visited areas in the article on the nearest well-known district. So Madrid/Chamberí-Castellana would cover the whole north (Chamartín, Tetuán, Fuencarral-El Pardo; northern parts of Ciudad Lineal, Hortaleza and Barajas), Madrid/Salamanca northeast (San Blas; the remaining parts of Ciudad Lineal, Hortaleza and Barajas), Madrid/Retiro-Paseo del Arte southeast (Moratalaz, Vicálvaro; northern parts of Puente de Vallecas), Madrid/Arganzuela south (Carabanchel, Usera, Villaverde, Villa de Vallecas; parts of Latina and Puente de Vallecas) and Madrid/Moncloa west (remaining parts of Latina). The articles Madrid/Southern Suburbs and Madrid/Northern Suburbs would be unnecessary. According to my proposal, the article titles should be understood in a "pars pro toto" way, not in an exact or exclusive one. I don't find this misleading, but justified, as the vast majority of points of interests in each article is concentrated in the respective eponymous areas, while only a few scattered POIs would be outside of them. After all, we are writing a travel guide, not an encyclopedia, so a focus on tourist-relevant areas is expedient. I think the guidelines at WV:Geographical hierarchy support this approach: it fits the 7 ± 2 rule; "avoid creating a separate district article until we have enough content for it" (there would not be enough content for separate articles on the Northern and Southern suburbs) and "The legal divisions in the geography of the world (...) don't necessarily make for reasonable travel divisions", so we may make up districts along a traveler's point of view, ignoring official district borders. Of course, this makes drawing the district map a bit more difficult. For example, I would include the southern portions of Ciudad Lineal and Hortaleza in the Salamanca article, as they are conveniently accessible from Salamanca, but lump the northern parts of these districts with Chamberí-Castellana, as they are closer to the Castellana area. I think, this makes sense from a traveller's perspective, as the administrative limits are irrelevant to them.
ad 2. Yes, that would be great. See the district limits in the Madrid/Retiro-Paseo del Arte article.
ad 3. Good. I don't have any particular ideas, just make sure that the colours of neighbouring districts are easy to distinguish. Thank you! --RJFF (talk) 16:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata items for dynamic map[edit]

Below is the list with all Wikidata items for the districts of Madrid. This should simplify the work in case we want to change the district set-up in the future.--Renek78 (talk) 20:40, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Madrid districts
Name Number Wikidata-ID
Arganzuela 2 Q2000929
Barajas 21 Q807230
Carabanchel 11 Q1001991
Centro 1 Q1763376
Chamartín 5 Q1766348
Chamberí 7 Q1763370
Ciudad Lineal 15 Q1763694
Fuencarral 8 Q1059853
Hortaleza 16 Q1928529
Latina 10 Q794954
Moncloa-Aravaca 9 Q2017682
Moratalaz 14 Q2076109
Puente de Vallecas 13 Q2003054
Retiro 3 Q2002296
Salamanca 4 Q1773521
San Blas 20 Q2001937
Tetuán 6 Q1773540
Usera 12 Q953368
Vicálvaro 19 Q589403
Villa de Vallecas 18 Q1947988
Villaverde 17 Q919536