YOU CAN EDIT THIS PAGE! Just click any blue "Edit" link and start writing!


From Wikitravel
Jump to: navigation, search

This article was the Collaboration of the week between 12 January 2007 and 18 January 2007.

I reverted this page because it was easier than going through and unlinking all the links. Please see Wikitravel:What is an article? for what we make articles about here. --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 Wikitravel, 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 Wikitravel! Those guys rock!"

Yukh. I am not a "guy" and I don't rock.
"Hey! See, Do, Eat -- Wikitravel: 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 Wikitravel.

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"... -- 19:05, 23 Jun 2005 (EDT)

The above was by 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. --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. --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...) -- 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. --Colin Angus Mackay 15:11, 24 Jun 2005 (EDT)


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. -- Colin 16:27, 28 Jun 2005 (EDT)

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


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. - 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 Wikitravel:Accomodation listings#Apartment listings. -- 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. CarsonR 14:56, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

Agreed. I checked Wikitravel: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, Apartments Gran Via, StopInRoom Apartments, FlatsInMadrid. I deleted the following as not satisfying the policy. JimDeLaHunt 18:33, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
  • Madrid Apartments A cheap, alternative way to spend your time in Madrid in centrally-located, self-catering Madrid apartments for rent. Office in Barcelona not Madrid — JimDeLaHunt 18:33, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
  •, Divino Pastor 27, tel. +34 630408155, [6], [7]. Website gives same contact tel as Apartments in Madrid — JimDeLaHunt 18:33, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
  • WayToStay dot com Apartments Madrid, Plaza Mayor 22, tel. +34 666 791 731, at waytostay dot com, dot waytostay dot com. Website seems to say they are just a booking service, and office is in Barcelona, not Madrid. — JimDeLaHunt 18:33, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

City Hall[edit]


De gepubliceerde foto in het artikel " Madrid" is niet van het stadhuis . Het is het hoofdpostgebouw = Palacio de Comunicaciones ! Het stadhuis (1640) bevindt zich op de Plaza de la Villa in de oude wijk van Madrid, op twee straten van de Plaza Mayor. Het is verbonden d.m.v. een brug met het Casa de Cisneros(1537). Het stadhuis werd ontworpen door dezelfde architect als deze P-M. nl. Juan Gomez de la Mora.

Vriendelijke groeten,

D Goris.

Above comment was left by another user, translated from dutch: The picture on the Madrid Article is not the city hall, but it is the main post office = Palacio de Comunicaciones. The city hall (1640) is located on the plaza de la Villa in the old part of Madrid, two streets away from Plaza Mayor. It is connected to the Casa de Cisneros (1537). The city hall was designed by Juan Gomez de la Mora. As far as I am aware (looking at info on the internet) the former postoffice is now used as city hall, since 2007. If the picture is not correct, can someone who knows Madrid advise and/or edit? Thank you! Adzas (talk) 09:40, 23 July 2013 (EDT)

Vote for deletion[edit]

This article was nominated today for deletion — by (talkcontribs) . I know there are certain procedures in place for this, but before nominating an article for deletion it is also necessary to verify if an article is indeed a candidate for deletion. Please specify what your reasons are to start this procedure, as honestly as far as I can see this is a great article with a lot of input from many contributors. Thanks Adzas (talk) 12:06, 21 January 2014 (EST)

It's a troll.--IBobi (talk) 13:52, 21 January 2014 (EST)