Talk:Córdoba, Spain

Infobox Image

The current image ([1]) is a generic aerial view of Cordoba where you can barely recognize or distinguish anything of the city. Since Cordoba is quite a touristic city, I propose using a collage image with the different points of interest. This one is used in many Wikipedian articles:[2]

This proposition, with their respective image descriptions, is consistent with the infobox image of other touristic cities articles in the Andalusian region such as Seville, Granada, Malaga, as well as a multitude of other articles from different cities around the world, for example: Lyon, Bologna, Ghent, Patras, Cologne, Casablanca, Leeds, Porto, Kraków, Graz, Zürich, Valencia, Thessaloniki and million other articles. Venezia Friulano (talk) 19:41, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

To begin with, you can recognize the city, the river, and the sierra at the background, basically the elements underpinning the geographical location and urban fabric of the city (and the reason why people decided to inhabit that specific point of the Iberian Peninsula). In addition you can also distinguish many specific features of the city centre, including the bridge and the great mosque, to name a few, as you are keen on tourism landmarks. All in one picture which may illustrate the mode of living and urban layout of close to (or even over) half (the) the inhabitants of the municipality. Not too shabby.--Asqueladd (talk) 21:25, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I have no strong feelings about either option, but I will note that we don't often have a similar wide-view image of the city in articles, so the current image seems convenient for a lead image. I would also caution against confusing the purpose of Wikipedia with that of a tourism website; the fact that a city is "touristic" isn't really relevant to the issue either way, in my opinion. If we were to put a collage, I would recommend making something new (using the multiple image template or equivalent), rather than the one suggested above ([3]). The latter is pretty crowded (even a little on the lower-resolution side for my taste), which makes it less practical for writing a caption identifying each of the component images. Higher-quality city articles tend to have around 6 images in the infobox, not much more, sometimes less (e.g. Boston, Manchester, Kigali). As a compromise, a collage could include the aerial view as a first image (similar to how the Barcelona, Madrid, and other city articles have skyline images). R Prazeres (talk) 22:19, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree with your proposal. Fair enough. Venezia Friulano (talk) 16:19, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

There's no hurry, but we seem to have been forgotten this thread; Asqueladd, what do you think of having a photo montage with the aerial image prominently featured in it? If I didn't misinterpret Venezia Friulano's response, they seem to favour that. R Prazeres (talk) 17:09, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

If introducing a collage, I would add one additional row of pics (two at most). I would also favour urban spaces rather than blunt building façades without context.--Asqueladd (talk) 17:13, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Following examples of other high-quality articles, a collage should probably have a mix of major landmarks and urban scenes, identified by caption for context. If doing this, I'd suggest having maybe 5 pics in total (so adding two rows of two below the current image), which makes it easier to have a representative mix. R Prazeres (talk) 17:26, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the proposed collage, I will do it soon. Venezia Friulano (talk) 11:19, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Spelling of name

Not sure why Britannica notes "Cordova" as "conventional", but a quick search of published sources makes it obvious that this spelling is rarely used nowadays in English (ngram seems to confirm it though it's an awkward search to specify). "Cordova" mostly shows up in much older publications whenever I've researched this topic. I will revise the lead's wording to reflect that, but not sure that the citation to Britannica should be kept in this case. Please discuss here as needed. R Prazeres (talk) 16:46, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Córdoba

Córdoba (also Córdova) was from Arabic قرطبة (Qurtuba) and from Latin Corduba Bompanigcc (talk) 12:45, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

1991-2020 climate normals

I am not sure why my edits were reverted. They come from a RS and this is how WP works. It does not matter if the source is from AEMET or not. It is from NOAA as communicated through the WMO. The data are updated climate normals and should remain as they provide readers a cleared and more updated idea of the climate of the city. Weatherextremes (talk) 21:29, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Your edits were reverted because you're replacing the most reliable source on this topic for a less reliable one. Based on WP:RS you can always replace a source with a more reliable one. Not with a less reliable one which has clearly wrong data. Cordoba's sunshine hours didn't boost up with 350 hours and the annual means didn't go lower, but the opposite. The AEMET OpenData (official for foreign agencies such as NOAA) for 1991-2020 has nothing to do with the data NOAA is providing, either with the official WMO data which you can check here: https://worldweather.wmo.int/en/city.html?cityId=1765 (they still provide the 1981-2010 averages, such as AEMET) so even if it's a reliable source as you call it, if it has clearly wrong data, that has to be wiped out. They claim the data is from WMO but it directly collides with the WMO website. It makes no sense. We don't know from where NOAA is taking that data, they aren't referencing anything. Clearly not the WMO (see website above) values. Pfarla (talk) 22:14, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Hey fellow wikieditors @Pfarla: and @Weatherextremes: what if we keep both? So many cities have 2 or more climate charts. And it doesn't bother anyone. You both have good points so what if we keep both? I'm mostly a wiki reader than an editor, and I would enjoy watching both! WikiEditor1890 (talk) 23:48, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I think that is a good idea!We could have both as long as the updated data are shown first to get the reader a better understanding of most recent climate. Weatherextremes (talk) 00:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

The updated source is a completely reliable source. Here what NOAA says about 1991-2020 data

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/products/wmo-climate-normals

More specifically NOAA mentions

Climatological Standard Normals (1991–2020)

Each country provided data calculated and digitized in either EXCEL or ASCII *.CSV (comma separated values) format, following the calculation guidance provided in the WMO Guidelines on the Calculation of Climate Normals (WMO-No. 1203) and additional guidelines provided by the WMO (Annex 2).

Clearly AEMET communicated these to NOAA. It is irrelevant why AEMET has not updated their website. So the updated RS source should be used, not an outdated one Weatherextremes (talk) 00:41, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Also page 70 of the Explanatory notes clearly mentions that Spain provided the data to WMO. The data are good as gold from a RS. They should stay. No way they can't be present in the article. https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/archive/arc0216/0253808/1.1/data/0-data/documents/Explanatory_Information_Region6.pdf Weatherextremes (talk) 00:48, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

There are some minor flaws. Summer night temps being lower in the newer data is really suspicious for this climate. But this is nothing compared to the exaggerated amount of extra sunshine. For me what's a "red flag" is the sunshine hours, but I have calculated 5 years on OGIMET for fun and it has been very sunny lately, so it's possible that the NOAA data is accurate. Then, I have went to the AEMET OpenData posted by an AEMET official worker (very famous on Spanish weather media) and the temps differ a little bit, I have checked meteo-climat (very good reputation, it's used in all weather sites and forums) and it's a little bit different too. But hey since you provided all of this data, I can't deny that. So I am okay with keeping both. In fact I think I will start to complete other cities with the NOAA website you have provided for Italian cities, as most of our data is old 1971-2000 or it comes from less reliable sites.

About the order I still tend to say the AEMET 1981-2010 data is better, because it uses both normals and extremes for references. So we don't have to make a mess with the sources. And the 2nd chart is the NOAA one with the averages themselves. But both charts can prevail as there is no need to collapse the NOAA one. So everyone can see both. Pfarla (talk) 01:05, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

There is the possibility that AEMET reverted from Campbell-Strokes sunshine recorders to automatic ones. We see that trend worldwide. That would explain the sunshine hours OR it simply was much sunnier during the new reporting period throughout Andalusia! You never know. Weatherextremes (talk) 01:12, 28 August 2023 (UTC)