Talk:Campinas

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Campinas article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Brazil: Geography High‑importance

	Brazil portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brazil, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brazil and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrazilWikipedia:WikiProject BrazilTemplate:WikiProject BrazilBrazil articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Geography of Brazil task force (assessed as High-importance).

Cities

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles

Untitled

Help to improve articles related to Brazil in Simple English Wikipedia. If you are not fluent in English, that is the right place.

There is an interesting article on air and water pollution in Campinas dated year 2001. It contradicts somewhat the claim that Campinas' environment is free of toxins. Are there any Campineiros out there who could verify this? Thanks. http://revistapesquisa.fapesp.br/?art=215&bd=1&pg=1&lg=en

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Vivaldi4Stagioni (talk • contribs) 07:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article contributed by Renato M.E. Sabbatini, PhD: http://www.sabbatini.com/renato

Image: 'DSCN1511-Campinas-SP-Brazil.JPG' contributed by TravelingFool

This article is well researched and has tons of information. I noticed one mistake: the annual per capita income of the citizens cannot possibly by 2,700 dollars a year. A number must be missing, perhaps the "1".

I think the article could be more objective without mentioning the names of every town in the metropolitan area, every city twinned with Campinas, and every district in the city. Are these names really essential for an encyclopedia article? The city twinning section, the metropolitan region of Campinas, and the administrative districts sections could either be eliminated all together or summarized in a brief paragraph. Most of this information is not relevant for the average reader and useless since there are no articles written on these names.

vogensen@portcult.com

As one of the main contributors, I thank you for your suggestions. I agree with you that many details are unnecessary and we will shortly find time to edit out some contributions by other eager "campineiros" who love the city and are willing to make this article its most complete guide which can be found in English, bar none. Now. for the detail of per capita income, it is correct, unfortunately. This highlights the tremendous differences in wealth. Therefore, I wrote a new section explaining this. Suffices to say that the lawful minimum income in Brazil is US$ 150 per month!!! --R.Sabbatini 02:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. Yes, the new info does make the article more interesting. That figure of the per capita income still seems very low when you consider the wealth of Campinas though I am well aware of the huge differences between rich and poor. If I were you I would eliminate the twinning section,the metropolitan district names and the administrative district names. The average reader is more interested in the human aspect of the city. At least that is my opinion. All in all you did a good job and should be proud. vogensen@portcult.com

Renato, I found this statistic about GNP percapita from Nationmaster: $8,016.64 per person for all of Brazil. The source is the CIA Handbook 2002. I think it is the GNP based on buying parity. Another stat from http://www.latinbusinesschronicle.com/statistics/gdp/percapita.htm gives 4,297 for 2005. In another site: http://www.latin-focus.com/latinfocus/countries/latam/latgdppc.htm the figure is 3,500 for 2004. All give different numbers but I still think yours are too low. Since Campinas is one of the richest cities in Brazil it must have a higher per capital income than what you give, which would be true of Teresina. --R. Vogensen 15:50, 15 December 2005

Thanks again. The figure you mention is PPP (Purchase Power Parity). Please see the table I have added to Brazil main article. I don't know the PPP figure for Campinas, so I didn't put it there, but is probably around 9,000 USD, which makes then sense. --R.Sabbatini 10:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

About the twinning section, I liked that. I lived in campinas for about 20 years, never knew those things and found it very interesting. The other sections are also a good start point for people looking for other cities around campinas and I think we should leave it. It is not that big that is really making trouble. --T.Bartolomei 01:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wikify

I removed the {{wikify}} tag. I do not know why it was there in the first place. Jon513 11:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because if the history section _→AzaToth 11:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what about it? the wikify tag says that the article has to be brought in line with the Wikipedia:Guide to layout. That is

An introductory section.
wikilinks where appropriate
section and subsection
images and templates as appropriate
and a Standard appendices if necessary.

The article needs cleanup, but not wikification (is that a word?). Jon513 14:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article Too Partial

Wow! This article is full of uncited claims, usually claiming that the has the highest/the better/the most... All this looks like boosterism and ufanism. According to Wikipedia's rules, all claims should be able to be confirmed, and the article collaborators should respect the "No Original Research" principle of Wikipedia. This looks like a tourist guide, there were even information about hotels. This is not a tourist guide, it's an encyclopedia, and should be kept that way.

I agree, some things appear to be bogus like the Socio-Economic conditions paragraph. What does it even mean?? Where are the figures even coming from? They don't even make sense.RioDevez (talk) 15:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted most of a paragraph about shopping malls that made little or no sense ("together two malls are one of the country's biggest..." are they biggest if you count two malls as one??) Also to list Dom Pedro as one of the biggest in the country is very misleading: most of it simply sprawls over a single level, so the ground surface makes it sound bigger than it is (even at this, it is dwarfed by, say, Ribeirao Preto). As Dom Pedro is not even a particularly state-of-the-art mall by Brazilian standards, highlighting it so much it did indeed sound like tourism promotion. If anything, its accessibility (being on the outskirts of the city but accessible both from within the city and from neighbouring cities) might be worth mentioning.Parzivalamfortas (talk) 23:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Classes?

What is meant by "The classes A and B help move the local economy ..."? Is this supposed to be upper and middle class or ...? If so the terminology should be corrected, otherwise it needs clarification. 203.25.1.208 (talk) 02:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nome da cidade em inglês

A tradução para o inglês oferecida aqui para o nome da cidade parece distorcer o sentido original da visão que os primeiros exploradores europeus tiveram. Eles se referiam a "pequenos campos", na verdade, clareiras, no meio da densa mata. Assim, "meadows" ou "glades" dão uma idéia mais exata de "campinas". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.232.250.164 (talk) 16:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proper names To clarify: Some of the English translations offered here distort the meanings. Apart from the one quoted above (that the first European explorers referred to "small fields" or clearings in a dense forest. Thus, "meadows" or "glades" give a more accurate idea of "plains"), there are a number of places that have been translated into meaningless gibberish. Unless a translated name is broadly recognised and accepted, it is better, I think, to use the local names for places of interest (otherwise no-one can find them). Google translate used for large sections of text that are then cut and pasted by well-meaning contributors needs to be used with care. Taken to extreme, there would be no recognisable places (eg "campinas" itself would translate as "meadows", making a mockery of the Wiki page).Parzivalamfortas (talk) 12:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

climate

This section tries to duplicate, unfortunately in exceedingly poor English syntax, data which is readily and more accessibly dsiplayed on the chart. I have corrected a few of the main blunders (probably originally made during an automatic translation and inserted well-meaningly by someone), yet could the text of this section not simply be deleted, letting the coloured chart speak for itself and perhaps adding a very short summary?Parzivalamfortas (talk) 12:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the first paragraph of this section, which hopefully should improve the article quality, adding an explanation that Campinas lies at the transition between tropical and subtropical climates. However I did not delete nor review the remaining paragraphs. Notice: In Brazil, the climate of Campinas is typically classified as 'tropical de altitude'. However most authors in the English language do not distinguish between 'tropical de altitude' and subtropical, classifying 'tropical de altitude' climates as subtropical climates. Maaf (talk) 18:21, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did a test and overlaid the Köppen climate map for São Paulo atop another map depicting its municipalities and Campinas, and it shows the city as having a Cfa climate(as opposed to Aw) bordering a Cwa type climate. Link to both maps used for the overlay test: São Paulo (state)#/media/File:São Paulo Köppen.svg, Campinas#/media/File:SaoPaulo Municip Campinas.svg. Since the article is in English, I recommend sticking with English conventions so as to not cause confusion, or at least add a footnote. SamuelBF (talk) 02:30, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Economy Section

Curently, the Economy section makes the statement that,"the average per capita income of little more than US$17,700," but then adds that, "If re-evaluated in terms of PPP (Purchasing Power Parity), Campinas' average income looks better (roughly 12,300 USD per year)." As written, these two statements are hard to reconcile: how is US$12,300 better that US$17,700?

Near the beginning of the section, there is a sentence that reads: "The paper highlights the high-tech industries and metallurgical park, considered the capital of Silicon Valley Sterling." It is unclear what this means. Any thoughts about clarifying this? 74.75.117.1 (talk) 14:17, 1 June 2016 (UTC)JPSilva, 1 June 2016[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Campinas. 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:

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) 21:35, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]