Talk:Montevideo/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Photo

Can we get a more recent photo?

We have since added more recent photos. However, if someone speaks Russian, it would be nice if we could import some of the extra information and pics from the Russian Montevideo article. — Greenmoss May 18, 23:15

One Problem

I'm a french wikipedian and I'm sorry the article it isn't for the Department but for the city. And Montevideo Department is a redirection on this article.
The other wps do the difference like fr wp. Bye all people.--David 13:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)~

I deleted the redirect. Feel free to author the article for the Dept. Thanks. Regards, El_C 13:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Bye, and if anyone create this article, put the interwikis please ^^. David 13:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Population Section

Does the population section refer to Montevideo, Minnesota rather than the one in Uruguay?

Yes, it did. El_C 07:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Glorious Teams?

Are Peñarol and Nacional really two of South Americas most "glorious" teams. Seems a little biased to me.


Rathersane replies: If Peñarol and Nacional win most of the games, then they may call themselves two of South America's most glorious teams without worrying about NPOV, methinks.

They, along with Real Madrid, São Paulo and Milan (I think), are the only teams to have won the Intercontinental Cup/Club World Cup three times. If that´s not glorious, please tell me what it is. Lomibz 08:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I admit that they are good,but I definitely wouldn't use the word glorious to describe them. Also recently they havent even been that good. nacional was eliminated by cùcuta in the quarterfinals of the copa libertadores. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) --NicoBolso (talk) 19:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

River Plate?

The article states that Montevideo is situated upon the "northern mouth of the River Plate (Rio de la Plata). Is "River Plate" a common English name for the river or is it just a bad translation of "la plata" which means "silver"?

I've seen it on English-language maps as both "Rio de la Plata" and "La Plata River," though I've never seen "Silver" or "Plate."

Someone, G-d only knows who or when, wrongly translated Rio de la Plata (River of Silver or River of the Silver or Silver River) onto River Plate (Plato de Rio). It would rock if we called it Silver of River or Silver River. Alessio.aguirre (talk) 20:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems we are stuck with River Plate only as far as the battle is concerned, because of some historic naming reasons, evidently. I don't know if the British used to call it so even before WWII. Well, and then cane Hollywood and made the film... Hoverfish Talk 22:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Quality of Life

The citation link for quality of life being high does not seem to return anything meaningful. Montevideo is not listed on that page, and even when searched for with their search facilities, only a low cost of living is indicated for montevideo, and not a high quality of life.


---

Sources: 2005 list 

        [1]

        [2]

Etc.

The isla de la Libertad (once called "island of the rats").

This little island in the bay of Montevideo became in 1864 a base for the Italian Navy (Cap. Martini`s Agreement) but a year later the Government of Uruguay revoked the lease to preserve the national sovereignty. (Source: "Storia delle campagne oceaniche della Regia Marina" - vol. I - 1992 - page 49)

Destruction in DC comics.

In the DC-universe montevideo has being destroyed, does that deserves to be mentioned??

Second safest city?

I'm not sure about the statement that Montevideo is "the second safest capital city [in the world]". The citation link given only leads to a page which, although it does state this as a fact, is advertising for students to come to Montevideo, and itself has no source for this statistic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.33.214 (talk) 18:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Where is the shield?

What happened to the coat of arms? I can't find the image anywhere! --Hetfield1987 (Wesborland | James Hetfield) 23:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind--Hetfield1987 (Wesborland | James Hetfield) 23:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination

Per the quick-fail criteria of the GA process, any article that contains cleanup or expansion banners (such as the one in Geography) must be failed immediately, and does not require an in-depth review. Please remedy any issues brought up by such banners, and remove them before choosing to renominate. Additionally, the article is both severely lacking in comprehensiveness and inline citations. Please carefully review the GA criteria on citations, and take a look at a few GA-class articles on major cities for some examples of the kind of content GA requires. If you feel this decision was in error, you may seek a reassessment. Thank you for your work so far, VanTucky talk 21:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Sister cities

I removed Miami from the list of sister cities. This is from the official site of the city of Miami: http://www.ci.miami.fl.us/MIC/pages/SisterCities/default.asp shows the list of sister cities, and Montevideo is not on that list. --Scuac (talk) 20:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

A little more objective introduction maybe?

"Montevideo has a privileged harbor, one of the most important in the Americas. Also, it has beautiful beaches, like Pocitos, Buceo, Malvín, Playa de los Ingleses, Playa Verde, Punta Gorda and Carrasco."

The former isn't referenced, and the latter is subjective. Wikipedia shouldn't be functioning as a tourism brochure, I think the language should be a little more neutral here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.228.67 (talk • contribs)

It's not beach

"Also, it has beautiful beaches, such as　Pocitos, Buceo, Malvín, Playa de los Ingleses, Playa Verde, Punta Gorda and Carrasco."

There are no beach at Pocitos and Carrasco. Its seems like beach, but it is river.

--YIMTRYM (talk) 21:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)YIMTRYM

Etymology = Origin of the city name

I'm surprised that there's no mention in the text of how the city received its name (From the Portuguese for "I have seen a hill"), or of the cerro which is the "monte" in the name. The hill is only about 400 feet high, but the land is so flat it stands out.--Syd Henderson (talk) 01:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Video appears to be Latin rather than Portuguese. Monte isn't to be found in many Latin dictionaries, so perhaps a mix? No web sources found. Best of luck to whoever takes up this task next.

I have heard that "montevideo" sounds like "I see a mount" in Portuguese. I speak spanish and it sounds a bit like it. "Monte eu veu" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alessio.aguirre (talk • contribs) 20:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

some transport info

According to this site the last trip of a trolleybus line was on 26 January 1992. 67.86.73.252 (talk) 02:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC) The author's main page is at this place. 67.86.73.252 (talk) 02:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

"Education" section pictures are messing up the page

I tried resizing them, but that isn't helping. Some of the "edit" links are not appearing by their respective sections because of them. Seregain (talk) 16:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Montevideo/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Nikki♥311 04:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry to inform the editors of this article that I am quickfailing its Good Article nomination based on the cleanup tag located in the article (additional citations needed). However, I am going to give some suggestions for improvement. Please feel free to renominate when the issues have been addressed.

  • The additional citations banner needs to be addressed and then removed.
  • Per WP:LEAD, the lead needs to be a little bit longer and summarize all the main points of the article.
  • All citation needed tags need to be fixed.
  • A lot of the sections are short or merely lists. These sections need expanded prose. Culture and sports could be expanded a lot.
  • All local people need a citation.

Good luck with the article. :) Nikki♥311 04:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Introduction fixed

... and therefore removed the lead too short template.--Izmir2 Let's talk 08:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Addition of external link

To conform with the policy of Wikipedia on Advertising and conflicts of interest, and to avoid self-promotion, I ask here another editor, if possible relevant to the edit history of the article, to decide on the inclusion of the following external link to the new trilingual Exploring Montevideo site. Thank you.

* [http://sites.google.com/site/impressionsofmontevideo/ An exploration guide of Montevideo] {{en}} {{es icon}} {{gr icon}}

Hoverfish Talk 13:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Dazedbythebell (talk) 16:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Hoverfish Talk 16:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Noted local people

There are currently 641 Uruguayan footballer articles in the english wikipedia. Is there any stucture or limit of inclusion for this section? Hoverfish Talk 19:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Landmarks and architecture

There are some people who like to present Montevideo as World Trade Center and ANTEL Tower, but this does an injustice to the city which is full of much more amazing buildings and as famous "symbols of Montevideo". The Palacio Legislativo and the Palacio Salvo are worth to precede these two glass era marvels and that;s not just IMHO, but according to postcard stands everywhere, and most-basic touring group schedules. I placed the Parliament on top. In this case a good image is worth it, maybe one catching some details in. Also the Salvo can get out of the Old City section and stand alone on top of the chapter. Hoverfish Talk 17:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I visited Montevideo several times in 1998/1999, and again in in 2005: not much had changed. I took some snapshots, see below. Not great: scans of prints of shots made with a cheap camera by a non-photographer. But to me they give a more accurate impression. The current pictures imply that it is always sunny. In my experience, it is usually overcast. Somehow the article reads as if it were written by the city department of tourism. Accurate maybe, but not balanced, not "real". Maybe one or two of the snapshots could be used. If I find time I will try to help on the text. "Food" should cover the almost total absence of seafood, the mind-boggling Chivito Canadiense etc. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:55, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Was it summer when you visited? Right now it's brilliant and it gets annoyingly sunny for a while later on. I just got me an Aussie hat to go around. I used the City Hall and the Ministry of Tourism info because the sourcing is more easy and acceptable. If I get into the private sector it might be like advertising. But you are right, I will cut some official stuff there. Truth is that tourism is not well organized here. As for fish, there is the fresh fish market in the port Buceo which is very frequented, but Montevideans are mostly red-meat consumers. Do you have any good reference on this? It's worth including. Hoverfish Talk 16:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

  • If you are there, forget my clumsy snapshots! But I think typical street or market scenes give a better feel for the place than the landmark buildings. Maybe something like the fourth picture in the gallery above, showing the 30s architecture above and shops below, which is very typical. I made several trips there, usually for a couple of weeks at a time, over about a year. I may have missed the good weather. I did not see much evidence of tourism. I think most people go to Punta del Este. I did have fish occasionally, but given the location one would expect it to be much more common. If I can get away from Maritime history of Orissa I may try to find some material on food. I remember some memorable Lomo. I love Tannat. Local pizza is best forgotten. I liked the place and the people a lot, and would love to have a chance to return. But somehow this article does not capture the feel of it, warts and all. Easy for me to criticize... Aymatth2 (talk) 17:55, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Excellent! Thanks for the pics!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I like what you say about the photos. I always avoid the street scene and try to get the architecture. I have been critisized for avoiding people and I have no answer. It's like my style or behavior. The thing about the article is that we can't do reporter-style writing, and most people go by what they find most impressive, which surely doesn't give the whole picture. But Wikipedia is the best place to try to give a more real description. If one is set upon doing it, references can be found, in newspapers, books, whatever. And it has to be given "proper weight" in the article. Also I think that different kinds of people are moved by different things, so there could be many "feels" this place could offer. There are many here who look at Montevideo only as Pocitos, Punta Caretas, Carrasco, etc. They don't want to take a look at the poorer areas. But there is the Hipodromo area which is considered a dangerous place even in broad daylight, there are the homeless and squaters and the tin sheds in so many places. It's hard to put it all in here and in the correct proportion, but it's not impossible. Hoverfish Talk 02:13, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

  • It probably is impossible. People who have lived there all their lives will only known a small, selected part of the city, only some aspects. A water engineer would see it in terms of a huge system of underground supply and drainage pipes, which the article does not cover at all. A singer would see it differently from a car mechanic. With luck, different editors will find different aspects to cover, but there will always be huge gaps. Impossible. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Quick notes

  • No refs in the lead. You've got 9, seven of which are bundled.
    • Refs in the lead are permitted, just not required. Insofar as the lead is a summary of what follows, they aren't needed. - Jmabel | Talk 22:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Too many images. Some jam the text. I doubt most readers need park maps - those are certainly useful, but can be wlinked instead. Materialscientist (talk) 00:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I did my best with the maps and images and uploaded one more relevant, as all the Old City images were from the same square. I hope the section is OK now. I will check the intro refs soon. Hoverfish Talk 02:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Copyedit cont.

In the Demographics section:

  • "The census covered an area of 55.995 sqkm": In the lede we say that Montevideo is "an urban area of 1,968,324 hectares" (19683.24 sqkm). Something somewhere is very wrong: a difference of several orders of magnitude. Even if this means to say "55,995 sqkm," that would be a 2.7x discrepancy in the opposite direction. All cited to a massive PDF, and no page numbers given.
    • According to thess trustworthy sources [3] & [4] the area is 528,7 km2 (or aprox) 530 sqkm. I will correct the numbers and text accordingly. Hoverfish Talk
  • "According to the census ... Montevideo had a population of 1,325,968 persons... Today, its metropolitan population is stated to be around two million people." So is the "metropolitan" area larger than the city itself? This is a claim of 50% more people. Should be clarified one way or another. - Jmabel | Talk 03:53, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
    • This is certainly wrong. According to the 2004 census PDF there is a negative growth rate (p.17), estimating a population of 1,305,749 million for 2025. The only distinction made is between urban and rural areas (p.25), showing a very small percentage of rural population. I will correct the lede info, which seems to be the problem and source it. Hoverfish Talk 11:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

In the Tourism section:

  • "32 sights have been listed as of tourism value": note the passive voice. As far as I can tell, there is nothing definitive about the list: it's just the number of sights the Lonely Planet guide happens to list. Unless I'm missing something, this should either say, "for example, Lonely Planet lists 32 sights in the city as being of touristic interest" or (more appropriate, in my view) either simply dropped or replaced by something either broader (several sources) or more definitive (something more official than a random guidebook). - Jmabel | Talk 22:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I do not think that the 32 items of lonelyplanet are anything to go by. It is a good effort, but like, Estadio Centenario appears as a separate "sight" from the Football Museum, which it contains, Teatro Solis is listed twice, and some very important sights, like the Fortaleza del Cerro are missing. What I find misleading is the "of tourism value". It sound like an official classification (as in "of municipal interest"). So I will drop this line and try do what you are suggesting next instead. Hoverfish Talk 11:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
      • I improved (hopefully) the tourist section, but I think it needs some copyediting again... Hoverfish Talk 14:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
  • On a non-copyedit note, it would probably be worth listing a half dozen or so notable attractions, since all that is in this section now is rather vague phraseology ("historical tours, nightclubs, beaches, and agricultural tourism"). - Jmabel | Talk 06:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I think the section on hotels goes into far too much detail about the Radisson & Belmont House, and reads like an advertisement for these. I'd be inclined to lose most of this section and roll the rest of it into the more general tourism section. - Jmabel | Talk 06:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. They are the most notable hotels in the city so a basic description is perfectly fine. The problem was undue weight with Radisson and Belmont, not because it was an advert. Hotel articles are amongst the trickiest to write to avoid sounding like an advert anyway...♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

    • A basic description is quite ok, and some prose is fine too, but I am glad that you removed some detail because if we include such descriptions (and there are many places worth it) we would overload the article. Hoverfish Talk 16:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The same should probably be done with the hospitals.. (create articles then condense in main article) Finished translating the itlaian hospital yet?♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Done translating Italian Hospital. However: Most important in the private sector are 1. CASMU (Centro de Asistencia del Sindicato Médico del Uruguay) which has 4 big hospitals and many smaller ones, 2. Asociación Española (2 main hospitals), 3. Medica Uruguaya (2 main hospitals), 4&5 Hospital Evangelico and Hospital Italiano (mutualista Universal). However the Hospital Italiano is claimed by other private asociations [5] and although things are somewhat stable now, the whole situation with it is unstable. Plus many more private asociations that may or may not be as notable (as Universal) etc. So Italian Hospital best be mentioned as building and facility and less as Universal. Hoverfish Talk 02:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

"...with building of three more shopping complexes such as the Shopping Tres Cruces, Portones Shopping, and Punta Carretas Shopping..." Before I try to clean this up: is it exactly these three (in which case "such as" should be removed) or were there others of comparable significance (in which case "three" should be removed)? - Jmabel | Talk 07:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Any particular basis for "The Towers Square" as an English-language name? It sounds very awkward. I'm guessing (without looking at the original) that it is an over-literal translation of something called "Plaza las Torres" or "Plaza de las Torres". If we must translate this proper noun, and if there is no established English-language name, can I suggest just "Towers Square", which is more likely English? - Jmabel | Talk 07:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Overlinking and repetition

Someone should make a pass through this article looking for overlinking and repetition. I've removed some of the more egregious links (we don't need to link vanity or architect!), but I think there are cases where the same place name is linked half a dozen times. In general, in en-wiki we only link names on first mention or when a name that was mentioned before is the main topic of the present section. It is occasionally OK to link a term that hasn't come up in, say, the last half dozen paragraphs. Anything beyond that is definitely excessive.

The repeated linking of the same terms is partly related to coverage of the same topics coming up over and over in the article. For example, someone really should take a look at how many separate places discuss 18 de Julio Avenue or the Old City. It's OK if there is a passing mention in one place and a real discussion in another, but three separate 2-sentence discussions of the same topic is simply poor organization. Another example of this would be that two separate mentions of Torre ANTEL each give its height.

Also, we should try to be consistent about proper nouns. Generally, we should use both English and Spanish on first mention; thereafter, we should use only one, and we should have a consistent policy as to whether we are using English or Spanish on subsequent mentions. For example, on first mention either 'Old City (Ciudad Vieja)' and thereafter 'Old City' or on first mention 'Ciudad Vieja ("Old City")' and thereafter 'Ciudad Vieja'; on first mention either '18 de Julio Avenue (Avenida 18 de Julio, "July 18 Avenue")' and thereafter '18 de Julio Avenue' or on first mention 'Avenida 18 de Julio" ("July 18 Avenue")' and thereafter Avenida 18 de Julio. - Jmabel | Talk 07:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Press freedom

" It has a vibrant artistic and literary community. The press enjoyed full freedom until the advent of the Civic-military dictatorship (1973-1985)." I added the mention of the dictatorship (previously it just said "until 1973," which wouldn't mean much to the average English-language reader). I presume that press freedom was restored either at some particular date or gradually over some period shortly after 1985, but I don't know the details. Can someone please fill in this missing piece? - Jmabel | Talk 07:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

  • "It was restored on March 1, 1985, together with the restoration of democracy." Maybe a better phrasing could avoid "restore" and "restoration"? Hoverfish Talk 00:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Education

As the section of education is becoming more complete, some attention to its inclusions and structure is needed. About higher education, this template page of the spanish wikipedia has it right: es:Anexo:Universidades de Uruguay. However a paragraph or two about primary and secondary education before the higher in each sector would be good. Hoverfish Talk 01:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Saenz-Zumarán

Who the heck is Saenz-Zumarán? No obvious hits from Google. Is it possible that this was a house owned at different times by someone named Saenz and someone else named Zumarán? Or what? - Jmabel | Talk 07:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

  • It is "Sáenz de Zumarán" (see ref in Plaza Zabala), a nicely preserved building, but definitely not of such importance as to mention in such a condenced section. I have reworked the first and last paragraph of Ciudad Vieja. Can you please see if they read well now? Hoverfish Talk 10:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Sub-trivia

Do we really need to say that Parque Rodó "is particularly busy on a Sunday." Presumably a busy day for most parks. Not the sort of thing we need to say in an already long article on an entire city, unless there is something particularly special about Sunday in that park, in which case we should say what is special. - Jmabel | Talk 04:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

  • There is a noteworthy event behind this "busy on a Sunday", which I described briefly.Hoverfish Talk

Similarly, does the following (uncited) paragraph really belong in an encyclopedia?

La Rambla, South of the Gulf of Montevideo, provides a great environment during the afternoon for all kinds of people to do a big variety of things, such as jogging, walking, biking, drinking mate with someone, fishing, taking a sunbath, play with kites and even skateboarding and roller skateboarding in given areas for these two last activities. The avenue is highly secured by the Tourism Police Unit during the summer to keep a safe environment for the tourists there.

If we want to say something to this effect, can't we find something citable (and better written) and quote it? - Jmabel | Talk 05:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and I have no idea what "roller skateboarding" might be. We already mentioned "skateboarding," so it's presumably not that. Perhaps "roller skating"? - Jmabel | Talk 05:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

  • I refactored the last two paragraphs to a much simpler version and with a citation.Hoverfish Talk 11:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Another incomprehensible phrase

"the oldest and ones most prominent theatres in South America." Does this mean "the oldest and one of the most prominent theatres in South America"? or "the oldest and once most prominent theatre in South America"? or something else? - Jmabel | Talk 22:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

  • I followed the logic of the citation given and moved the "most prominent" from "in South America" to "in Uruguay", which is clear. Hoverfish Talk

And an ambiguous one: "In 1816 [the library's] stock was 5,000 volumes, together with donations of Larrañaga and José Raimundo Guerra, as well as others from the Convent of San Francisco in Salta." Should "together with" here be "including," or are these in addition to the 5,000, in which case what was the total? - Jmabel | Talk 01:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

  • I can't find any mention of the 5000 volumes in the refs or elsewhere. I separated the sentences so that the sourced facts are in one and the 5000 in another with a citation needed template. Hoverfish Talk

2 questions in the section on authors:

  1. Hugo Burel is described as a "narrator," which really does not make sense in this context in English (the word has several meanings in English, but none of them is a type of writer). I assume the Spanish original was narrador. Would it be accurate to call him a "short story writer"? I don't know his work, so I hesitate to apply a label.
  2. After a list of contemporary authors we say, "His works have received major awards and have been translated into many languages." It is not at all clear what individual this is intended to refer to and, in any case, it is more or less a given that a major writer will be translated and will receive awards. Can we just delete that sentence?

- Jmabel | Talk 01:11, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Hugo Burel is mentioned in some short biographic notes as a cuentista which means storyteller. In others he is mentioned clearly as an author of short stories and novels.Hoverfish Talk

"Cardiloo, one of the country's leading artists". I suspect that "Cardiloo" is a typo for "Cardillo," meaning Rimer Cardillo. Right?

"The Palacio Taranco... was erected... in the early 20th century... This colonial building...": If it is a 20th century building, in what sense is it "colonial"? - Jmabel | Talk 05:35, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

"El Fogon... is set in a brightly lit, well-mirrored parillada." I gather that parillada must have a meaning I don't know, because to me parillada is grilled/barbecued meat. The restaurant is certainly not set in a meat dish! - Jmabel | Talk 20:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Done. I had a shock when a section edit of mine caused all the rest of the article to blank. My browser had crashed while I was editing and it "restored all tabs" when I restarted it with the editing tab still active, so I guess this caused the accident. Thanks Gongora for noticing in time, as I was busy studying further referencences. Hoverfish Talk 19:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
    • So is there some additional meaning of paradilla that I don't know? - Jmabel | Talk 03:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Sorry for not making this clear, yes, in Uruguay at least, people commonly refer to grill houses as "parilladas". Should I have left it quoted as it was in the article? I am not sure. Hoverfish Talk 09:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

More of the same

Hospital de Clínicas "Dr. Manuel Quintela" is described as "a general reference institution." This is not an expression used in English. What is it intended to mean? - Jmabel | Talk 06:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

  • What I understand from the official website [6] (un modelo de atención que puede constituir una referencia para el conjunto del sistema de salud, y de referencia nacional en lo que competa) is that one of its aims is/was to become a reference for the entire health system. If this means providing reference for diagnosing or treating some difficult cases, it might be a valid statemnet, being a University clinic. But if it means providing a reference in performance, or quality of service, what I know is that, like other public hospitals in most of the world of today, it suffers from lack of funds, to say the very least. One way or the other, I remove this part until someone decides to do a more specific work on the issue. Hoverfish Talk

Further, the same hospital is described as being "on 23 floors arranged with one side facing north." Now if it had three sides facing north, that would be worth remarking on, but don't most buildings have one side facing north? What, if anything, does this mean to say? - Jmabel | Talk 06:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

  • The intention might have been to say that its main entrance faces north (though it's somewhat northwest), which is the sunny side in this hemisphere. Hoverfish Talk 11:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

With reference to Hospital Vilardebó: "Today the hospital is very deteriorated, with broken walls and floors, lack of medicines, beds, and rooms for the officials." I have no clear idea what is meant here by "rooms for the officials." "Officials" in English is rarely used outside of the context either of (1) referees and administrators in sports or (2) government dignitaries or government authorities. Does this simply mean "administrators" here, or something else? - Jmabel | Talk 06:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

& I don't understand you new sentence "In both sectors, medical services are provided by polyclinics, including emergencies, and hospitals or sanatoria." "including emergencies" is kind of dangling there: it's not clear included in what. - Jmabel | Talk 02:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Ok, thank you for being so watchful. I was not very clear and in the meanwhile I found out that the information is also not very correct. If you do not have private med care, you are taken to the closest public emergency facility. If you have a private med care they are supposed to take care of you in case you have an accident and this would be to take you to the emergency of their polyclinic and treat you there and from there forward you to wherever is necessary. However, in real practice, if you have an accident, no matter if you do or not have private med care they anyway take you to the closest emergency facility and then your private med takes over. Now I wonder how all this might be stated and sourced well. Hoverfish Talk 21:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Railway stations

The article talks about General Artigas Central Station being closed, then says "...Montevideo had a historic 19th century railway station located six blocks from the central business district facing the harbour..." Are these the same station? If so, we should reword accordingly. If not, we should give the name of the latter station. - Jmabel | Talk 03:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

  • It is the same station, so I joined the sentences in one. However the statement that the station is under repair is not true. I wrote instead the actual situation, sourced from newspaper articles and from a support group. Hoverfish Talk 15:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I also had to change the first paragrapg of "Transport" as it was also describing twice the same station as if it was a different one. Can you please copyedit it further, if necessary? Hoverfish Talk 15:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The state of things

I've made a pass through the whole article, copyedited what I could, and noted here the issues I couldn't quickly resolve (many of which others, Hoverfish especially, have now fixed). I'll keep an eye on this for a few more days (assuming that a few more loose ends will be dealt with) but after that if someone wants my help please ask on my user talk page, because I don't really maintain a watchlist on en-wiki.

A few things that should be addressed besides specifics that have been noted:

  • Pick one format for dates: there is a mix here of the style "25 November 2008" and "November 25, 2008". Both are perfectly acceptable; mixing them is not. Since it seems the article favors British spelling, the former would be more congruent.
    • Done as best I could. There are also YYYY-MM-DD dates in some refs.
  • Try to stick to one way to refer to something. Give alternate names only on first mention. For example, we shouldn't keep going back and forth between "Old City" and "Ciudad Vieja" after first mention. Pick one and stick to it.
    • One thing to decide and agree on here is whether we shall name all X Square as Plaza X, like most articles created for them. A very striking example of the opposite is Constitution Square (Montevideo), which although conforms with the style guidelines, it produces a very alienting sound. All maps and travel guides have it either as Plaza de la Constitución or Matríz. I would suggest we keep the Plaza X format and even that we rename this article. But I am not sure if this is asking too much. Hoverfish Talk 19:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
  • The article as it stands is over-linked and some words (e.g. gaucho) are not linked on first use, but are linked later (very backwards). In general, (1) link on first mention and not afterwards; (2) don't link words that are just used in passing and are very tangential to the topic of the article, unless they are either ambiguous (e.g. I linked "football" to be clear which game by this name) or likely to be obscure to English-speakers (e.g. cacique). I think I nailed most of category 2 (inappropriate to link at all), but category 1 (failure to link on first mention, or multiple links to the same thing) could still use work (things like linking "photography").
  • Quite a bit of information is given more than once in the article (for example, the Telecommunications Tower is discussed in three separate places). Someone could definitely have a go at that.

- Jmabel | Talk 06:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Religion section

IP user 190.135.180.119 (Montevideo) blanked a part of Religion section on the Mormons. I did not revert, although this was undiscussed, for the following reasons: 1) the blanked section reads like an advertisment for the said church, 2) the whole section on Religion needs to take in consideration the multiplicity of faiths practiced in Montevideo in a proper way, not just by interjecting another faith's temple. As it is, we cover only the Catholic church. Note that there is no "official religion" in Uruguay today, although the historic ties are predominantly Catholic. I see nowhere a mention of all the other faiths practiced. Hoverfish Talk 10:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi

I live in Montevideo, and speake some english, enough to translate english - spanish (sadly, not backwards) but if you need some help, please ask me in my talk. I use to be in en:WP often because I used to translate articles to es:WP. Cheers. --Andreateletrabajo (talk) 00:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Clarification needed

In the lede: "It is home to the longest Carnival in the world." Does this mean the oldest currently active carnival, the one that lasts for the most days each year, or what? - Jmabel | Talk 20:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Duration I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Exactly equally unclear. Duration over years, or duration in days each year? - Jmabel | Talk 22:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
It refers to its duration in days each year (2 months). 190.135.141.13 (talk) 04:11, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The supposed "academic origin", “Monte-VI-D-E-O”.' (Monte V'I De Este a Oeste) seems to be cited from rather weak sources, and none of them indicate anything about who put forth this hypothesis. - Jmabel | Talk 22:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

You are right. I have translated it from the spanish article and carried over the citations without checking them. I will have to look in a library, but until I find a source for it, what do you think is best to do? Hoverfish Talk 01:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is one article written by "Ariel Collazo, Ex legislator", where it is attributed directly to "Rolando Laguarda Trías, professor of History of the Armed Forces": [7] (see 4th paragraph). Hoverfish Talk 01:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

  • It takes several hours for all the drum bands to march past, but compared to Rio or San Paolo it does not really last all that long. Maybe longest in the sense that it stretches for miles rather than forming, going through the Sambadrome and then dispersing? Aymatth2 (talk) 01:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Nice article. Thanks (and congrats). I linked it in demographics. I will look if there are more articles to link in this section. Hoverfish Talk 01:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to focus on copyedits & probably raising more questions where it's not clear. I hope no one minds I don't get heavily into resolving the issues I may raise. I'm more focused at the Commons these days. - Jmabel | Talk 00:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

In the 19th century section:

  • "Until 1860, commerce had been the city's principal source of income...": as against something else later? What?
    • Could not find source and also, to the best of my knowledge, this didn't change after 1860. Removed. Hoverfish Talk
  • "Other notable occurrences between 1875 and 1894 were..." (and then a long list): each event in the list should be followed by a year in parentheses.
    • The whole section rewritten with better selected events and sourced. Hoverfish Talk
  • "In 1889, the football teams of Montevideo and Buenos Aires played one of the first international games between their countries" (was "counties", but obviously that was a typo & I fixed it.). Sorry is this saying "one of the first international games anywhere" in which case drop "between their countries", or merely "one of the first games between Argentina and Uruguay", in which case say that, or drop it entirely because it doesn't seem all that important.
  • Also, "relaxation areas" is a bit awkward. Could someone clarify? Is this "resort areas" or something else? - Jmabel | Talk 01:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Changed it to "Capurro beach resort". Hoverfish Talk 00:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • "Atop the fortress is a lighthouse on a circular masonry tower at an altitude of 148 metres (486 ft), the highest of the Río de la Plata." The last phrase is not terribly clear (some of the wording of the sentence is mine, but I promise it was no clearer before!). Does it mean "the highest lighthouse along the Río de la Plata"? If not, what does it mean? - Jmabel | Talk 05:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I find no sources supporting claim , plus it is not a geographic feature. Removed. Hoverfish Talk
  • "...negative wind chills, which affect the tranquility of the city." I have almost no idea what this could possibly mean. - Jmabel | Talk 05:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Changed to "giving an unpleasant chilly feeling to the everyday life of the city". Hoverfish Talk 00:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Jmabel. PLease edit out or alter what you think is problematic. Anybody would think this was a GA review. Its still early days...♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

You asked me to help. The help I'm giving is a thorough copyedit. If I can't even understand what a sentence means to say, I can't copyedit the sentence, and, furthermore, the sentence is presumably useless if it's incomprehensible, so I'm bringing the matter to that talk page. In my experience, it's a lot more useful to point all these things out while the work on the article is still recent and people probably remember what they meant to say. But if you'd rather I either stop - I certainly didn't ask to work on this - or simply delete what looks useless to me as it stands rather than bring issues to the talk page, I'm perfectly glad to do either of those instead. - Jmabel | Talk 06:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I am glad this is going on and thankful to Gmabel for his time. I would like to see the copyedit all the way through. I translated some parts and the original was vague in some places; additionally, my English is not perfect at all. What is wrong if we get it closer to a GA now that we have such participation? Please note that when I was translating and when I saw parts of the other translations I had similar thoughts. Hoverfish Talk 11:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I am currently scouting for sources that support and complete the arguments given. Some of the citiations are not helpful. I will either complete or modify the problematic parts of remove them. Otherwise I am a naive reader and couldn't possibly do what Gmabel is doing, so I need it to guide my actions. Hoverfish Talk 12:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh I'm happy Jmabelis making suggestions for improvement too, it definately needs a major copyedit and improvement before GA...♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, then, I'll resume. - Jmabel | Talk 04:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

"The Junta, composed of 31 elected and honorary members..." Not sure what is intended by "honorary" here, but it's probably the wrong word. Presumably they are either "ex officio members" (holding their positions on the Junta by virtue of some other post they hold) or "appointed members" (named to their positions by some official or body). An "honorary" member would suggest someone who had certain privileges of a member but wasn't really a member in the usual sense. See for comparison honorary degree or citizenship#honorary citizenship. - Jmabel | Talk 04:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

It is in the sense that they hold this position without getting paid. "2.a. Holding an office or title given as an honor, without payment: an honorary colonel. b. Voluntary: the council's honorary secretary." (The Free Dictionary) Same also below. I am not sure how it is best to put it here to avoid other connotations. Hoverfish Talk 10:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
So are you saying the "elected" and "honorary" members are the same people? If so, "unsalaried elected members". Normally, an "honorary colonel" is not simply without a colonel's salary: he's without a colonel's duties. - Jmabel | Talk 03:16, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Similarly, in the list of Intendants of Montevideo: "Elect members of the Concejo Departamental", "Elect" is probably not the right word, but I'm not sure what is meant. Possibly "Elected members..."? "Several members"? Something else? "Elect" as an adjective before the noun in English tends to mean "chosen" only in the sense of "God's chosen ones" or some secular equivalent (although it can also be used ironically), but seems unlikely in this context. (By the way, "elect" as an adjective after the noun in English means "elected but not yet serving" as in "president elect"). - Jmabel | Talk 05:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

In this case, it was a period in which the office of the Intendant was held by the Board of the Montevideo Department council. I am not sure if all 6 members of the Board held the office or just the President with the Secretaries, so I left it to "Members of" instead of "The Board". Hoverfish Talk 10:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Vagueness in section "Religion"

In the begining of the section "Religion" says:

The main religion in Uruguay is Roman Catholicism and has been since the foundation of the city. The city is part of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Montevideo which was created as the Apostolic Vicariate of Montevideo in 1830...

As you should say, Uruguay have no official religion, therefore catholicism is not the main religion but is the widest religion if we do not count the atheist people (around half or more of the population). Besides this: "the city is part of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Montevideo..." do not sounds good, because the city is not part of any church because the religious organizations and the state does not have any relationship.

In this wikipedia, you only focuses in the catholic church, but, what about evangelical church in montevideo? and the judaism? Another worship you forgot is the ´umbandismo', a syncretism with some of people who believe in it, which came from Brazil and Africa.

--Zerabat (talk) 03:50, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

You are correct. I have done some modifications to the direction you pointed out. However, in Wikipedia there is no "you" who focuses in this or that. Some editors who consider Catholisism as important have done these edits, others who consider other faiths, or no-faiths as important can do other edits. The common rule here is that these edits should be based in citations and not on editors' "know it to be so", as is very often done in Uruguayan topcis in the Spanish Wikipedia. Hoverfish Talk 14:24, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The citation I offered from the National Institute of Statistics, states that in 2006, in Montevideo, there were 22.7% of people who professed as atheist and agnostic together, so I find your statement "around half or more of the population" as an unsupported claim. This is what I mean that we cannot write things because we "know them to be so". Some notable source has to say so and we have to attribute what we say to this source. Hoverfish Talk 14:38, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Timeline of Montevideo

What is missing from the city timeline? Please add relevant content. Thank you. -- M2545 (talk) 13:04, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Montevideo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:09, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Montevideo/Archive_1&oldid=1150242868"