Talk:Belo Horizonte

I have performed two deletions today. (Yeah, I was not logged in when I did it.) First, the Demographics section: it stated wrong numbers for in-town and metropolitan area population (in complete disagreement with those in the infobox) and was overall poorly written. Demographics information must be added, but after proper research and writing. The second was a "Curiosity" (Trivia) section that was completely incomprehensible. I understand that people want to contribute but, please, let's not worsen the article by adding non-sense to it. --AndreFillipe 11:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

And a third one, "Notable people". Sepultura is not notable people: they're a band. If the author wanted to put the name of their favorite band in this article, he should at least have added other (more notable) names. --AndreFillipe 12:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I remember a beautiful evening in a West End street, letting my tongue be taught the easy tones of the Portuguese language, "Belo Horizonte" and wishing my Brazilian friends did not have to go back to their beautiful place in the southern sun, but could stay and spread their warmth throughout London. I have never visited that far off place but its bright sun has touched these cold, damp shores, and I will never forget. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:41, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I could say all the same things, except that I subsequently did visit BH and lots of other places in Brazil. But this isn't a message board. Notreallydavid 01:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Someone could get a photo of the new tower, in the Altavista Shopping... it is quite a noteworthy change ni Belo Horizonte's landscape. Rodrigoleite 02:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Someone could do this, but I would suggest that there are more than enough photographs on this page already. I would ask that people don't add any more photographs unless they meet Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion.Jimjamjak (talk) 14:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

A picture of Altavista tower should not be included in this article for it's architecture is not only an offense to Belo Horizonte's scenario, but also completely different from the architecture of Minas Gerais. And still, it will close pretty soon for no one go there anymore.

This is not a reason for including or excluding an image.Jimjamjak (talk) 14:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

A picture taken FROM the Altavista tower would be nice, though. I believe there is a webcam set up on its top. --AndreFillipe 02:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I rearranged the introduction so that it now sounds more encyclopedic. The picture in the City Infobox shows the Palace of Liberty; the Liberty Square is almost invisible. --AndreFillipe 14:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think the section about roads and highways could be improved. I changed it a bit and now I'm working on a map, using sources from DNER. Hope to finish it soon. --AndreFillipe 18:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

"One of the characteristics for which Belo Horizonte is best known in Brazil is its overwhelming proportion of women to men. In the mid 1990's there were more than 175,000 more women than men. Nobody knows the reasons for this, but some say that job opportunities outside the state have attracted men away from Belo Horizonte, while women would rather stay close to their families."

I removed the previous paragraph from the article because it has three questionable claims: first that Belo Horizonte is well known for unbalanced proportion of women to men. Sources would help. I live in Belo Horizonte and never heard of such thing. (But have, for Sete Lagoas.)

Second, the data presented (so many more women than men) is not at all an indication of "overwhelming disproportion". A toy research on IBGE results for 2000's census^{[1] [2]} ranks Belo Horizonte as the second southeastern capital (tied with Vitória) regarding the women:men proportion. The results consider only urban population, disregarding age. They are:

1. Rio de Janeiro, 113:100
2. Belo Horizonte, 112:100
3. Vitória, 112:100
4. São Paulo, 110:100

However, an interesting result arises. Governador Valadares, popularly regarded as having far less women due to emmigration of men to the US has the same 109:100 proportion. The average for the whole country (and also for the Southeastern region) is 106:100. It's also common for western countries to have Sex ratios that favor the women population.

Someone with more time could perhaps dig deeper into IBGE's website and restrict the comparison by age (e.g. from 18 to 35) because I have a hunch that this misbelief is "conversa de barzinho".

The third disputable claim is the guesswork that says men leave the state while women stay with their families. Even if the population dynamics results from the census shows more men leaving, without further data that would only mean correlation, not cause.

--AndreFillipe 02:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hello my fellow Belo Horizontinos and people who know Belo Horizonte,

Let's improve this article with every information we can find. And please do not forget to add your references. One day, perhaps, we might reach the featured article status.

Today an anonymous user made good contributions to this article, but a city like Belo Horizonte deserves contributions from many people.

I shall be willing to help anyone if necessary!

Cheers!

Cheiro de lysoform 02:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Could anyone supply _referenced_ weather data? I've just done some work to make the weather section cleaner and tighter, but I don't know where to find weather data for Brazil. (I'm English, but I've been to BH - Hi Angela, if you're reading) Notreallydavid 01:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

I replaced the weather table with an infobox template. The data is provided by Weatherbase. I searched IBGE (the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics) for this data, but couldn't find it. The description of the weather is however rather vague and inaccurate. I'll try and find a decent source and rewrite it. --AndreFillipe 14:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Can we get some more info on the planning? From reading this it sounds like Grand Manner or Baroque planning like Washington, DC, is that the case? --AW 22:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well... There are some very important pics of the city missing... For instance, Pampulha's church and September 7th square...

Disagree with this comment on several counts. This is not a tourist brochure or guidebook. It should be an encyclopaedic article. See the section on removal of the gallery below.Jimjamjak (talk) 09:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

There are far too many images in this article showing "views of BH". I think that one is sufficient, unless they specifically demonstrate som particular feature of the city. All but one of the general "views" should be removed.Jimjamjak (talk) 11:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

There's a need to add objectivity and improve this aspect, the introduction is filled up with adjectives praising the "exquisite" artifacts and several other value judgements... In fact, there's a whole paragraph at the end of the introduction which looks as if it had been written by the city hall's office for the promotion of tourism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.59.178.159 (talk) 19:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Agreed! I've been through sections of the article before in an attempt to remove this kind of language and general tourist-promotion angle. Any help much appreciate!Jimjamjak (talk) 12:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

This article is still full of promotional language that would better serve a tourist brochure than a Wikipedia article. This has been a problem with this article for some time, so I will be attending to this over the coming days.Jimjamjak (talk) 08:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

The section on "Tourism and recreation" is absolutely dreadful at the moment. I'll delete most of this content over the coming days as it is not cited, not encyclopaedia-worthy, and largely irrelevant.Jimjamjak (talk) 13:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

There is no real need for the image gallery present in this article. I suggest placing any truly useful/illustrative photographs into the relevant text sections. See these guidelines for further information.Jimjamjak (talk) 09:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Well, after zero responses on this I finally removed the gallery. See link above for the reasons I have done this.Jimjamjak (talk) 09:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I am deleting the section on "distances". This is totally unnecessary. If readers wish to investigate the spatial context of BH, then let them look at the map.Jimjamjak (talk) 09:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have moved some content (specifically on the economy) into the appropriate section of the main text. I think this could be done for much of the content of the introduction at the moment. Even New York, for example, hasn't got more that four paragraphs. I also deleted some of the more rambling descriptions of things that sounded a bit too much like a tourist brochure (see this page in the Wikipedia guidelines for the reasoning).Jimjamjak (talk) 23:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Most of the section on "relief" is in fact dealing with geology, with a small part on terrain. I don't agree that geology is a subset of relief. I would suggest a separate section on this. Also the section appears to have been written by someone who knows the subject, which I am very pleased about, but the language is a bit problematic. I will try to edit it to be more easily interpretable, but apologise in advance for any misinformation that results!Jimjamjak (talk) 23:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

The section on culture is very confused at the moment. I suggest merging the section on "events" and perhaps some of the content on tourism, where relevant. I would suggest looking at the way culture is dealt with in the articles on London or Tokyo, for example. I'm not keen on the idea that culture is only represented by the edifices in which "high culture" takes place, but I think that this would be better in this case than just a jumbled assortment of elements, as is presently the case. Maybe it would be good to structure this as follows:

• Museums
• Theatres
• Events/festivals
• Music

I am willing to make a start on this.Jimjamjak (talk) 10:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

I've made a start on this, but the sections are not exactly content-rich at the moment. There needs to be a lot more effort made with additions to these sections to cite correctly, and present relevant information. I suspect that much of the existing content could be safely cropped from the article, I just haven't had time to check it yet.Jimjamjak (talk) 13:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

There is too much information about Cruzeiro football club here - all of it is just repetition of the content in its own article. I suggest drastically shortening this section since the information can all be found in the Cruzeiro page.Jimjamjak (talk) 08:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Differences in population between the figures in the infobox and in the text. I suggest removing this information from the text, and updating the infobox. Leaving in both will likely result in the same disagreements in future, unless people are editing with considerable care.Jimjamjak (talk) 13:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

The page is still stuffed full of photographs which make it look very messy. I would suggest moving at least 50% of the current set of photographs, retaining only those that truly illustrate something from the text usefully. I'll do this in the coming days if no one else feels like doing it.Jimjamjak (talk) 12:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Several months - and a number of edits later - the page is still cluttered with photographs. I will remove some of these, as they generally distract from the article. I'm not expecting this edit to be popular, but please consider WP policy on photographs when adding to the article.Jimjamjak (talk) 11:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Well, this is getting pretty annoying. I try to actually edit text and make the article a bit better quality, and all the contributions anyone else seems to make are pointless cluttering with totally unnecessary photographs. How about trying to actually add something of use? Improving the poor English? Adding some cited material? Boring, pointless photographs of no relevance to the article... more and more of them. Quite tiresome. Jimjamjak (talk) 15:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Both sections need serious revision and provision citations for most of the 'facts' presented. Also, there is some repetition in the two which should be dealt with.Jimjamjak (talk) 14:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Much of the information presented in the article is not provided with an appropriate citation. Gradually, as I edit sections of the article, I am adding "citation needed" templates for those facts that require some corroboration. Please feel free to add any relevant references. This is one of the best ways to improve the quality of this rather poor article.Jimjamjak (talk) 22:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

I am very disappointed to see the article getting cluttered with unneccessary images again, to have a lot of extraneous and non-encyclopedic content added, and to find that the editors responsible are not responding to my requests for reversion of some edits. I will make some fairly drastic edits to the page over the coming week.Jimjamjak (talk) 21:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

I removed the information about a supposed "expanded metropolitan area" with over 9 million people. I could not find any source for this, and no information in Portuguese Wikipedia. The municipality of Belo Horizonte has about 330.9 km2 and the regular Metropolitan Region has 9,459.1 km2 (34 municipalities) with about 5.4 million people. Their Mesorregion has 105 municipialities and 39,486.678 km², but yet only 6.3 million inhabitants. This means that, arround the Metropolitan Area, there is a huge territory with less than a million people. Whatever is being called "expanded metropolitan area" (with 9 million inhabitants) would demand a territory much larger than the mesorregion itself. It would be a sparsely populated area, with boundaries too far away from BH, and calling it "metropolitan expansion" makes no sense. 189.67.185.145 (talk) 10:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

User:Subtropical-man has repeatedly removed the green colours for the precipitation colour and stating that the blue colouring is standard on wikipedia. Although the blue colouring is the default colour, the blue colouring can cause a blending of colours if record lows and humidity and precipitation days are added in. it also leaves the false impression of a cold, rainy, and damp climate in places that are not so cold in the winter like Belo Horizonte. I think there should be a discussion on this.Ssbbplayer (talk) 19:54, 7 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

I think these paragraphs are redacted enthusiastically, citing districts whose HDI is greater than Australia, Iceland, etc... but normally referring to districts with just 3 or 4 streets, and a Google StreetView around the place suggests anything but such a luxurious place. I'd request citations for these HDI calculations, and a more balanced calculation of the HDI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.9.132.56 (talk) 16:01, 15 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

I agree. Since no one has paid attention to it. I’ll proceed to delete. ExitFilm(For a Music) (talk) 00:04, 30 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Belo Horizonte. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120514145715/http://www.censo2010.ibge.gov.br/dados_divulgados/index.php?uf=31 to http://www.censo2010.ibge.gov.br/dados_divulgados/index.php?uf=31

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I just noticed that this article says Belo Horizonte is the sixteenth largest city but on the "Largest cities in the Americas" page it says its the eighteenth largest city. One of these is obviously wrong, someone might want to look into this. Also I have never edited or talked on Wikipedia so I apologize if I have broken any Wikipedia etiquette here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.52.17.62 (talk) 22:15, 11 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Belo Horizonte. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140313165145/http://www.pnbonline.com.br/display.asp?id=36736 to http://www.pnbonline.com.br/display.asp?id=36736
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121215050324/http://www.ryerson.ca/foodsecurity/publications/papers/UrbanFoodPolicy.pdf to http://www.ryerson.ca/foodsecurity/publications/papers/UrbanFoodPolicy.pdf

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:40, 27 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Belo Horizonte. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081002024524/http://www.ibge.gov.br/home/estatistica/economia/pibmunicipios/2005/tab01.pdf to http://www.ibge.gov.br/home/estatistica/economia/pibmunicipios/2005/tab01.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.favelaeissoai.com.br/noticias.php?cod=59
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110430085242/http://unifenas.br/ to http://www.unifenas.br/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:13, 30 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Belo Horizonte. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150904085205/http://www.pampulhanews.com.br/2011/10/belo-horizonte-1949-brazil.html to http://www.pampulhanews.com.br/2011/10/belo-horizonte-1949-brazil.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706153130/http://www.insieme.com.br/portal/conteudo.php?sid=226&cid=1467&parent=0 to http://www.insieme.com.br/portal/conteudo.php?sid=226&cid=1467&parent=0
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://noticias.terra.com.br/brasil/interna/0%2C%2COI1422832-EI306%2C00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090321113242/http://www.counterpunch.org/lappe03182009.html to http://www.counterpunch.org/lappe03182009.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110523063243/http://www.worldfuturecouncil.org/the_councillors.html to http://www.worldfuturecouncil.org/the_councillors.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100715154838/http://national.soccerhall.org/Monthly%20Column/MC.May.2005.htm to http://national.soccerhall.org/Monthly%20Column/MC.May.2005.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110430085242/http://unifenas.br/ to http://www.unifenas.br/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080112074058/http://www.eabh.com.br/eng/home.html to http://www.eabh.com.br/eng/home.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090104143756/http://www.what-they-say.com/Belo-Horizonte-1.html to http://www.what-they-say.com/Belo-Horizonte-1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080229075950/http://www.webbusca.com.br/pagam/guia_belo_horizonte.htm to http://www.webbusca.com.br/pagam/guia_belo_horizonte.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100612233103/http://www.worldfuturecouncil.org/future_policy_award_film_en.html to http://www.worldfuturecouncil.org/future_policy_award_film_en.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100326124244/http://www.comidadibuteco.com.br/home.php?i=1 to http://www.comidadibuteco.com.br/home.php?i=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:36, 17 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

This is a short article and needs to be expanded or merged. Skingo12 (talk) 21:31, 18 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Merging to the city seems like too big a jump; I recommend a merge to the club section on the grounds, where there is already discussion of the stadium: Cruzeiro Esporte Clube#Grounds and facilities. Klbrain (talk) 18:05, 12 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Oppose - This stadium is notable for its own. The article just need to be expanded.--SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 06:36, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Closing, given the uncontested objections and no support for an alternative proposal. Klbrain (talk) 10:58, 29 December 2021 (UTC)Reply