Should this be at "Sao Paulo" or "São Paulo"? IMHO, the correct name is "São Paulo", but some people don't know how to type 'ã'. -phma 12:49, 24 Mar 2004 (EST)
The correct name in Portuguese is definitely São Paulo. But I don't know if the tilde is also used in English. Dhum Dhum Akubra 12:56, 24 Mar 2004 (EST)
I'm not sure whether "Sao" or "São" is more common in English. My dictionary shows "Sao" and not "São". Searching on Google, I see that the Associated Press seems to use "Sao", and so does the New York Times. I'm not finding a lot of English sources that use "São". "São" is of course the local spelling, but that's not how our Wikitravel:article naming conventions work. As far as I can tell, this should stay "Sao". --Evan 21:28, 24 Mar 2004 (EST)
On pages that say "Sao", do they write other names that should have accents with them or without them? This should indicate whether they consider the correct name to be "Sao Paulo", or they consider the correct name "São Paulo" and don't know how to type it. -phma 21:49, 24 Mar 2004 (EST)
Following the article naming conventions it should be "Sao Paulo" in English, with "São Paulo" identified as Portuguese. The English language does not use "ã", only "a". I encounter the same sort of problem in Maori, where the "a" is written as "ā" ("a" with a macron) in the maori language to indicate long vowels. Unfortunately, "ā" often does not show correctly on screen and is also sorted incorrectly in a word sort. Provided "São Paulo" redirects to "Sao Paulo", (and it does), there should not be a problem, and search engines will find both versions of the entry. My vote, if there is to be one, is "Sao Paulo". - Huttite 06:17, 25 Mar 2004 (EST)
I believe that according to current practice the article name should be São Paulo with a redirect setup from Sao Paulo. "ã" is a Latin character and thus does not need to be converted to anything else provided a redirect is in place for those of us unable to type "ã". -- Ryan • (talk) • 01:28, 9 February 2010 (EST)
Agreed, but that means that we should move the district articles to São Paolo/xx?, ClausHansen 01:42, 9 February 2010 (EST)
I prefer without the tilde. The tilde is of course from the Portuguese, but the English language doesn't use tildes... ChubbyWimbus 03:26, 9 February 2010 (EST)
Breadcrumbs on the district articles ignore ispartof/isin, and use the base pagename. If district article subpage name does not match exactly the city pagename, then the breadcrumbs fail. So city and district must all have the tilde or none can have it. Redirect does not help. Based on the specific example of this city in Article naming conventions which says this specific city should have tilde, I'm starting to move the district pages and update links. Just done one as example so far:São Paulo/Bixiga vs Sao Paulo/Liberdade. --Bill in STL 15:18, 8 September 2010 (EDT)
Is: "You're expected to take a straw when you buy a bottle of juice or soda, since the water used to cool the bottles is sometimes not fit for consumption." This Sao Paulo advice, or does it apply to Brazil in general? -- Nils 15:21, 5 Apr 2004 (EDT)
This is Brazil in general. It is best because where they are stored and how they are transfered also is not always the cleanest. But note: if you are at the beach...make sure to blow through the straw first or you may end up with a little sand.
I removed the following links altogether because they refer to Brazil at large, not to São Paulo itself (in spite of the title of the first one).
gringoes.com is an English language website with many useful pointers to Sao Paulo.
Confirm driving days?
I removed this as it sounds like a wacky law-- this of course in no way suggests that it's not really a law, but I'd like some confirmation:
Unless it is the wrong day of the week: cars whose license plate end in 1 and 2 cannot circulate on Mondays; if it ends on 3 or 4, Tuesday is off; 5 or 6, stay home or take a cab on Wednesdays; 7 or 8, Thursday is the unlucky day; 9 or 0, on Fridays you can walk as a penance.
Not only should these not be moved, the original Sao Paulo article shouldn't have been moved either; see the discussion at the beginning of this talk page. The redirect should go in the reverse direction. With very rare exceptions, on this site, place names with diacriticals should be rendered without the diacriticals as they appear in English. See Wikitravel:Article naming conventions for an explanation. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 14:25, 16 September 2006 (EDT)
I'm updating information about Metrô tickets: they cost 2,30 now and there are no more 10-trip tickets.
Centro rather than Downtown
I believe the name "Centro" for the central area in Sao Paulo should be kept as it is. In Lisbon for instance, all travel guides such as the Lonely Planet use the name "Baixa" for what is considered the centre of town. And there is the "Historical Centre" as well, never "Downtown", which names no place at all and it's a name with no character. Why change names when all the maps and guides will refer to that area as "Centro"?
This place is not New York, sorry. In the same guidelines, I've seen many a Wiki-editor change the very name of the city to Sao PaOlo. Where is the authenticity of writing a travel guide?
Some may say that there is no borough called "Centro", but in the same sense, there is no borough called "East Side" or "North Side", as for this terminology is a cross-reference to New York. I was quite surprised that there was no district named "Upper East Side" on the article.
Information to be verified or added
The Bertioga entry on the Get Out section didn't mention which state motorway (official name and number, i.e., BR 116) to be taken from Sao Paulo. Could somebody please check this information on a road guide and post it where appropriate?
Under EAT section, at the Figueira Rubaiat description:
"Although these are the advertised times my party started dinner at 10 pm and we finally left the restaurant at 3.30am without anyone hurrying us out!"
This is a personal experience and, therefore, doesnt fit inside a serious guide... Is it OK to delet it?
Not only OK, but encouraged! I took care of it. Texugo 05:23, 16 June 2007 (EDT)
Do we really need all these churches in the See section? Maybe we should just have some highlights or if they are that important, maybe there should be a separate article on churches and temples. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Carsonroen (talk • contribs)
Yeah, that list looks way too comprehensive—looks more like a phone book than a travel guide. If you (or anyone else) know which are actually tourist attractions, please do remove the excess listings. --PeterTalk 20:01, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
Currently it seems that there are waaay to many districts... The top level ones may be a good breakdown, but then does each one need that much subdivision? Does downtown need to be divided into 5 sub-districts, or can those be combined?
Either way, the only ones that should be listed on the main Sao Paulo page are the top level ones, so if we do decide to keep the sub-districts, they should only be listed on the respective district pages... anyone with the familiarity of Sao Paulo want to clean this up? – cacahuatetalk 15:06, 25 September 2008 (EDT)
All discussions of this city above state that it should be reverted to its original name "Sao Paulo". Perhaps that should be worked out before the districting mess is sorted... ChubbyWimbus 14:01, 26 May 2009 (EDT)
This has still not been solved. We should only have one level of districts, so either the top level or the detailed sub-districts should go. I do not know the city well enough to decide this, thoughts?, ClausHansen 12:44, 24 April 2010 (EDT)
Considering a redistrictification
São Paulo is an enormous city and it's a damn shame that it is still in such a freaking mess. I have come back to it numerous times, and it's such a mess that I don't even know where to start. I am not really that familiar with the city, but my fiancé is from there and we're going to be moving there next March, so I'd like to dig into it.
I believe we should get away from using Expanded Center as one of our districts. It might be in common parlance to describe areas near the historic center, but there is nothing else to tie these areas together in a significant way, and if we're ever going to get a nice set of maps for this city, it doesn't make sense to have a district that takes the shape of a ring around another district.
It has been suggested above that there are too many districts. That may or may not be true-- personally I think a fully developed set of articles on a city the size of New York City will probably have at least this many, but... We are simply not there at this point, and I think it would be best to simplify things into a smaller set of articles first. If at some later point they need to be split into more districts, fine. I think starting from this three-layered approach is backwards.
So... I think we should take a step back and re-do this whole districtification thing from the beginning. Here is what I suggest for a new starting point to move forward: 9 districts, based on a map from SP city hall , and changing the names slightly from their literal translation.
What does everyone think? texugo 01:59, 11 August 2011 (EDT)