Talk:Madrid

Arabic name

"From the Arabic maǧrà / majrā (meaning "water stream")[ref 1: Pérez Orozco] or Arabic: ‏مجريط‎, romanized: majrīṭ, lit. '"spring", "fountain"'.[ref 2: Ikram Khayat] The latter is the first documented name of the settlement.[allegedly based on Khayat]"

The claim that the Khayat source would contain the theory that مجريط (majrīṭ, "spring") "is the first documented name of the settlement" is completely wrong. Khayat only implies that Madrid was founded by Arabs. Not a word about any document containing the name (I was curious about the nature and date of such a document; nada, nothing).

Also, the Arabic name and its transcription differ:

• مجريػ not مجريط
• Mayrit not majrīṭ

English-speaking readers will read j like in Joe, not as the Germanic j in Jürgen.

I don't read Arabic, but the last letter is different.

Too many inaccuracies to allow the alleged ref to remain standing. Now we have a major claim w. no source to support it. Arminden (talk) 06:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Initially, Khayat was not invoked as a source for the alleged first document containing the name. It was only later pushed into the unwanted job :) For years, the claim was simply left unsourced.

It was an anonymous editor who made this edit here, with related changes in the previous edit. I'm removing the unsourced claim, waiting for a source if such does exist. Arminden (talk) 07:12, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Habibicb, hi. You have introduced the claim that "This Majrit (romanized as Magerit) is the first documented name of the place" here, edit summary "This information is very important". Please support it with a source; without a source, it must remain deleted. Thanks. Arminden (talk) 07:29, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Yet another anonymous editor has introduced the change in what the source actually says, claiming that they've "fixed typo in the arabic and changed transliteration from Spanish to English orthography" (here), by turning mayrit (مجريػ) to majrit (مجريط). This is prohibited by default (an editor can never contradict the referenced source), plus it looks illogical, given that the author seems to be an Arabic native-speaker. Changed it back. However, the claim MIGHT still be correct, but then it must be supported by its own source. Anyone? Arminden (talk) 07:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

The issue is that the last letter of the word "مجريػ", i.e., "ػ", itself does not exist in Arabic. Even the Arabic article for Madrid has no mention of the word "مجريػ". Any native Arabic speaker can confirm my claim? MFM.Shourjo2003 (talk) 19:18, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Tackling the lede section's excess of WP:PEACOCK and namedropping features

Currently the lede puts an emphasis on "boasting" about the city in different ways. This is by no means uncommon in Wikipedia articles about cities, but not being uncommon does not mean being appropiate. A large part is devoted to namedropping companies and institutions. I see a way for improvement in removing such mentions to companies and institutions and, at most, looking instead for synthetic statements in reliable sources to replace them. Some statements are underpinned by citing and extracting WP:SYNTH (directly) from web rankings for the prose. IMHO, that practice leans into original research and bypasses any safeguard for guaranteeing the notability of the ranking's publisher (for Wikipedia purposes those safeguards may generally be reliable secondary sources). In addition it presents some promotional wording such as While Madrid possesses modern infrastructure, it has preserved the look and feel of many of its historic neighbourhoods and streets that look as if they were written by a chatbot to sell the city to visitors.--Asqueladd (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

The current version of the introduction includes unsourced and/or poorly sourced content (mainly related to WP:PUFFERY) I plan to remove and replace by verifiable content. I plan to do it step by step. I also intend to remove the excess of namedropping as per above.--Asqueladd (talk) 20:24, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Question: Is the mention to the "World Tourism Organization (UNWTO), the Ibero-American General Secretariat (SEGIB), the Organization of Ibero-American States (OEI), and the Public Interest Oversight Board (PIOB)" really necessary for outlining the topic in the introduction? They seem to be third-rate international organizations with reduced staff. Is Madrid remarkable for hosting third-rate international organizations? We could not be sure, but the lead should include basic facts and if no holistic reliable source presenting Madrid highlights such organizations, we should perhaps avoid doing it in the lead section.--Asqueladd (talk) 21:28, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Question: Is no one able to bring in relevant sourcing to stand for those third-rate institutions in the lead section?--Asqueladd (talk) 11:50, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Pronunciation in footnote

@Asqueladd This method is the same as London article. Why do you disagree? Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 14:34, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

@Hooman Mallahzadeh: I don't think it is obtrusive or lenghty enough, as I have told you via edit summary. Additionally the comparison with London is unwarranted as the contours of both placenames cannot be more different in regard of their linguistic origin. London is an English-language endonym through and through. Madrid is just an exonym. It is not the most phonotactically natural placename in English either, possibly so in its English-language realization and certainly so for the Spanish-language realization.--Asqueladd (talk) 14:43, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Pronunciation in "lead sentence" significantly disrupts readability of article. I really propose to use footnote for it. I think many users know its pronunciation. Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 14:47, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't agree in absolute terms. There is a tradeoff and, in this case, with two five-character IPA strings, plus the audio files, I think the compromise is worth it. As for any London, take the more comparable contexts, Lisbon, Rome, Paris, or Berlin.--Asqueladd (talk) 14:54, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

But I think more than 50% of viewers of this article do not want pronunciation at all, either because they only want other data of sentence, or because they know the pronunciation. Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 15:01, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

I do not think this proposal is adequately motivated if it falls down to a percentage you pulled out of thin air.--Asqueladd (talk) 06:08, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

This is my estimate. To provide accurate percentage, we need psychological tests. I think this psychological test is worth to be done. Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 06:25, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

@Asqueladd The idea applied by user:CUA 27 in this edit. If it is good, please close and archive the thread. Thanks, Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 13:19, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

@Hooman Mallahzadeh: I do not fully understand the wording of the policy and what does the well known refers to. I don't think the pronunciation of Madrid in the 'non-English language that it is associated to' (i.e. the Spanish-language pronunciation of Madrid) is well-known in English (as in the average English-language reader knowing the Spanish-language local pronunciation, although that may be the default case for your average non-English language placename, so I hence wonder why the guideline chooses "Paris", which could be perhaps the most known). I suppose the English-language one might be known. If the policy encourages a blank removal of pronunciations of locations from the lead section, I think its wording should be improved, because the current one is confusing. Could comment @CUA 27: about how are they interpreting the guideline they are citing?--Asqueladd (talk) 13:45, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

The instruction is in Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#First_sentence and in this sentence:

Avoid cluttering the first sentence with a long parenthetical containing items like alternative spellings and pronunciations: these can make the sentence difficult to read.

Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 13:51, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

The inline part about the pronunciation was not long. The long part was already introduced as a note.--Asqueladd (talk) 14:14, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

@Asqueladd I added one inline pronunciation. Please inspect. Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 14:20, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

So you did add the one pronunciation that is presumably the more well known out of the two? I don't think that conforms to the guideline.--Asqueladd (talk) 14:26, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

So we should show nothing, because we have several pronunciations and showing all of them makes the lead sentence difficalt to read. We can add a sentence at the end of lead section for all pronunciations with full detail. Do you agree? Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 14:31, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

No, in order to solve this ruckus, I guess we need to know if the well-known part of the guideline refers to the English-language pronunciation, to the non-English language one(s) or to both (in addition to somehow determining to what extents are both pronunciations well-known, because non-English language pronunciations are very rarely known by the average English-language speaker, hence why the concept of a well known pronunciation of a non-English language placename is very fraught to begin with). As of now, the common denominator in the "Paris" and "Poland" articles is both the use of notes for the non-English language pronunciation and also shunning the English-language pronunciations for both placenames (which I think that we can agree they are very well-known) entirely. We can also discuss to what extent the former parenthetical was long (I don't personally think it was)--Asqueladd (talk) 14:40, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

I was invited to join the discussion, so here goes --
Beginning generally and looking at applicable guidance, MOS:LEADPRON provides useful direction:

1. Don't include in the text pronunciation guides for "common" words, even if counterintuitive, unless it's "very unusual". Under this criteria, Madrid's pronunciation is commonly known, and should not be included in the lead text.
2. In addition to the above, for foreign words, we should consider whether the pronunciation is "well known". Again, using this criteria, Madrid is well known, so do not include pronunciation in text of lead.
3. "Do not include pronunciation guides for non-English translations of the article title in the text of the lead sentence". Again, useful guidance. If someone wants to provide the pronunciation guide, a note would be fine, but it should not be in the text of the lead.

In summary, for this article, pronunciation guides in a note is fine, but it's best avoided in the text. Madrid is one of the more widely known of non-English place names. CUA 27 (talk) 20:11, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

for foreign words, we should consider whether the pronunciation is "well known". Again, using this criteria, Madrid is well known. Is it? Non-English language pronunciations are hardly "well-known" for the average English-language speaker (this is not a dig, it is the case for pretty much every language).--Asqueladd (talk) 20:47, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

I've reedited the pronunciation guide (with edit summary), which restores the more standard pronunciation in English (-DRID). The other pronunciation (-DREED) is more academic, pedantic, and/or British—but listed second (if it appears at all) in American dictionaries. At the least, this text should include an "also US: -DRID" pronunciation tag. Note: Pronunciation guides are enclosed within an editorial footnote in English Wikipedia to avoid cumbersome lead-in sentences; see Paris, Rome, Munich and others. I've therefore made it an efn. Mason.Jones (talk) 18:30, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

What is the point

of having a linked phrase like "Golden triangle of art" as if it leads directly to a specific explanation, when it only leads to the exact spot as the phrase "Paseo del Prado" two words down? I push for removal. Arcsoda (talk) 07:00, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Changing some intro images

Madrid is a featured article on the Spanish Wikipedia, so I am going to use some of the images from its introduction for this article. These include Madrid City Hall together with the Cibeles Fountain, not just the fountain itself; a skyline view from Gran Vía, which is in the heart of Madrid; and the Museo del Padro, which is probably one of the city's most visited landmarks and part of the UNESCO World Heritage site. ~2026-30324-88 (talk) 17:55, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

If no one has any objections, I’ll go ahead and add it. ~2026-30324-88 (talk) 18:05, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

This has been discussed in the past. With a far greater attention to detail than this thread so far (achieving something akin to an approximate consensus). Check the archive. I agree about the seat of the municipal corporation being represented rather than solely the nearby fountain but do not agree with the rationale of approaching this from the sheer tourism angle ("most visited landmarks" and whatnot). Plus I favour the current wider panorama (there were other panoramas) offering a more holistic view of the city as the leading image rather than a picture displaying a focus on a particular feature (which happens to be already represented in a secondary hierarchy).--Asqueladd (talk) 18:09, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

I have carefully read the three archived threads. If you are referring to the 2016 discussion, the more recent 2023 thread already explicitly notes, as Chronus pointed out, its limited validity and that it should not be invoked, a view I share.

Regarding the skyline, as other users have mentioned, I find it rather unrepresentative of Madrid. As for Gran Vía, I do think it should be included, but I believe there are better-quality images than the current one from 2010.

Regarding the Prado, It is part of Madrid’s only, and recently designated, UNESCO World Heritage Site. I see no reason not to feature an image of the museum. Its absence is quite striking. ~2026-30324-88 (talk) 18:53, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

It seems that this Madrid skyline was proposed and backed by you in 2023, and I find it more fitting than the current one. ~2026-30324-88 (talk) 19:14, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

I am not married to a specific panorama (or "skyline"), but why do you find the current one rather unrepresentative of Madrid? It depicts 20th-century Madrid urbanism (where the overwhelming majority of the population lives in) in Chamberí, plus late 20th- early 21st-century Madrid urbanism on the horizon line in Tetuán and Fuencarral-El Pardo (which underpins a secondary urban centrality—the financial one). I cannot fathom why it is rather unrepresentative of the city other than if we solely favoured the tourist gaze over any other experience (including the living experience).--Asqueladd (talk) 20:08, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, that is easy to answer: a city panorama or skyline should capture the city's centre, whether or not it is residential, financial, or touristic.

The current image does not even represent Madrid’s most residential area, which is Carabanchel. Why should we keep a skyline of an outlying random area of the city rather than one of the city centre, as is the case with any European capital? See the panoramas on Rome, Paris, London, Berlin, etc.

It’s not a matter of tourism or perceived subjective beauty; it simply isn't the representative panorama of the city. ~2026-30324-88 (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Given that you are not married to a particular panorama, I would suggest adding this one, as it had your approval, as well as another user's, back in 2023. Regarding the fountain image, I'll change it to the more complete one, which includes both the town hall and the Cibeles Fountain, since we agree on that. Many thanks. ~2026-30324-88 (talk) 8:04, 21 May 2026 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-30266-10 (talk)