Talk:Madrid

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

Add new text under old text. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Start a new topic Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 12 months

	Madrid was a Geography and places good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result March 7, 2007 Peer review Reviewed September 12, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Cities: Core / National capitals 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 This article is on the project's core list. This article is supported by the project's national capital taskforce. Spain Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain 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.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article contains a translation of Madrid from es.wikipedia.

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

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

Also, the Arabic name and its transcription differ:

• مجريػ not مجريط
• Mayrit not majrīṭ

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But you have not stated why it is not representative. Tetuán and Chamberí have more population together than Carabanchel, by the way, while being denser than both Carabanchel and Centro, by the way.--Asqueladd (talk) 13:10, 22 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

But then again, I don't the the lack of representativeness. The new panorama does not depict a centrality (neither the Puerta del Sol nor the Alcalá / Princesa-Gran Vía Axis are represented). I would prefer a panorama putting the city in context (river, cornice, mountains) with physical features, but not necessarily it is about representativeness but about providing geographical context.--Asqueladd (talk) 13:22, 22 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

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

I am neutral on the panorama (and utterly unpersuaded about the case of non-representativeness), but proceed with the new one and let's find out if it sticks (I remain skeptical about the stability of the set). No issue with the other one.--Asqueladd (talk) 13:29, 22 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

@~2026-30324-88 @Asqueladd I disagree with changing the panoramic photo because the new suggestion shows only a small part of the city and omits the main skyscrapers of Madrid’s skyline. Chronus (talk) 08:19, 23 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Also fine.--Asqueladd (talk) 08:24, 23 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

I agree with your new panoramic, but please don't change the other images. Léopold Favre (talk) 08:57, 23 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

I agree with adding the CTBA, as it is a major financial district and represents Madrid’s more modern side. I am somewhat less convinced about giving Torrespaña more visibility than CTBA, but adding yet another image to an already complete collage just to include the Gates of Europe seems unnecessary. Léopold Favre (talk) 09:36, 23 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

To say that the set was bound to be unstable is an understatement. And we are just a few hours in. I do not agree with giving visibility to the CTBA in isolation. I do not agree with the redundant neoclassicism either. I do not think the current set is an improvement.--Asqueladd (talk) 10:16, 23 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

There is literally no image that shows Neoclassicism. The closest one would be Gran Vía, which is mostly Beaux-Arts architecture, and the Royal Palace, which is Classicism proper with Baroque.

Let’s recap. There are 7 images:

• Do we agree on the current skyline? Yes.
• Do we agree on including Plaza Mayor? Yes.
• Do we agree on Puerta de Alcalá? Yes.
• Do we agree on Fountain AND Palace of Cibeles?: Yes, you said it earlier.
• Do we agree on Gran Vía? Yes, although there are two possible images: one with the Schweppes building and another with the Metropolis building.
• Do we agree on CTBA? Yes, but it seems you want Torrespaña to appear in front of CTBA.
• Do we agree on the Royal Palace and La Almudena? Yes.
• Do we agree on an extra image? No.

Léopold Favre (talk) 10:45, 23 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Léopold Favre "But please don't change the other images"?! You only created your account literally yesterday, while these images have been part of the article for years, long before your edits here. I'm the one asking that the long-standing images remain unchanged. Besides, do you have any sense of proportion? I don’t think so, since some of the square images appear quite small. Please, stop engaging in edit wars, respect WP:STATUSQUO and only make new changes when there is consensus. Thanks! Chronus (talk) 23:44, 23 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

1- "Besides, do you have any sense of proportion? I don’t think so."

What was the purpose of writing such an inflammatory and unnecessary language? Were you having a bad day in Brazil? I think so.

2- Edit war? What are you even talking about? My only revert in this whole matter was a single partial revert, while you are precisely the only one here who has made a full revert, lmao

3- You changed and even added extra random images without consensus. In fact, although you have now backed down, you have also changed long-standing stable images, such as the image of the Royal Palace with the Almudena. Check your own edits.

I never addressed you in a rude manner, and I have always tried to find some common ground here, I created this thread in that sense. Next time, take a breath before typing, and touch some grass. Thanks! Léopold Favre (talk) 05:39, 24 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

"Were you having a bad day in Brazil? I think so. Next time, take a breath before typing, and touch some grass." Spare me your taunts. This is a serious discussion. "Edit war? What are you even talking about? My only revert in this whole matter was a single partial revert, while you are precisely the only one here who has made a full revert, lmao." That is simply not true ([1], [2], [3]). Furthermore, as you yourself said, the image of the Royal Palace and the Cathedral was kept and the few changes and additions I made were intended to help us reach an agreement. However, I don’t see any problem with reverting to the version from before your edits (the WP:STATUSQUO). Finally, thanks but I have no use for your advices. We don't need to change the images in this entry just because the Spanish-language version has different images. I still disagree with your suggestions. Chronus (talk) 07:31, 24 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

1- The three edits you mention are not evidence of edit warring. I don't know who you think you're fooling, lmao. The first one is the partial revert toward your preferred version that I already mentioned, and the other two are minor caption wording changes over my previous edits.

2- You carried out a full revert of my edit, not to preserve the status quo, but in order to subsequently make numerous changes without consensus: you replaced the established image of the Royal Palace/Almudena with a new image ([4]), you also changed the established Gran Vía image with a new one ([5]), and even you added an extra random 8th image featuring the Gate of Europe towers ([6]). If I did edit warring, you did it even further.

3- And... What suggestions against it are you even talking at this point? If you had read my subsequent messages (you did not), you would know that I have nothing against the current version (with maybe the exception of the fountain thing). But sure, take your time.

4- No, this is not a serious discussion because you are not serious. It is not normal for an "experienced" user to start discussions in such an inflammatory manner as you did. In fact, after a quick look at your Talk page, it seems to be quite common for you to respond to other users in a rude and hostile way.

5- I am not going to respond/read you any further. Have a chamomile tea on me. Léopold Favre (talk) 12:28, 24 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

I think it is obvious we should discuss over the stable version. You wanted to change the panorama. Well, Chronus has somewhat valid issues with it. But then they revamped it as well? Well... By neoclassical I mean that sector of Gran Vía (neoclassical and eclectic), the Palace (fully neoclassical) and the Cathedral (a fully neoclassical exterior) and the eclectic (yet creating a similar effect as the former with such rendering) Palacio de Comunicaciones. I also think that the current choice of depicting the Palacio Real and the Almudena in a full row allows for choosing a similar picture putting them in context with the river Manzanares (any view from the Teleférico permits this, ideally with the naturalised river after 2015 rather than with the stagnant dead river before). In a nutshell, something like this: [7] (also featuring San Francisco el Grande). Hence actually depicting the physical location of what you can may rejoice in calling the "historical centre" in relation to the river and the height gradient/scarp/cornice). We can of course develop concepts and terminology in the body with sources (such as this one).--Asqueladd (talk) 16:03, 24 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

The Almudena's exterior façade is the only truly "neoclassical" element here.^[1] The Royal Palace is better described as classicising late Baroque, rather than neoclassical.^[2] Gran Vía is mostly eclectic and historicist, with Art Deco and rationalist buildings.^[3] The Palacio de Comunicaciones, for its part, is a form of monumental eclecticism, incorporating Neo-Plateresque, Modernist, Art Deco and Vienna Secession elements.^[4] So this is not really a case of excessive neoclassicism.

As for the other point, I prefer the current stable image: it is cleaner, the Palace and the Almudena are much more visible, and we have already a very complete city panorama (you can see the historic centre, the modern sky-crappers and the 1980-style residential buildings). In general, I think the current collage is good enough. Léopold Favre (talk) 17:29, 24 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

All three are neoclassical (and provide a flat palette). You are grasping at straws there. The current top panorama does not depict the historic centre but the neigborhood of Universidad (not that I worry too much about that, but it is baffling that you used the same argument against the previous panorama and in favour of the current one, while none of the top panoramas actually depict the city centre). The main pro of the proposed bottom panorama is not that it depicts the city centre (which it actually does), the main pro is that it depicts the city in relation with the physical environment it was built on, which is something paramount if you ask me. And, after all, as per source above [8] [the aforementioned view conforms and] iconic landscape. [considering] this Madrid case (The natural and historic values of Madrid Cornisa) as an excellent example of view points in the urban landscapes.--Asqueladd (talk) 17:59, 24 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Is it against Wikipedia’s rules to reply calmly and without tendentious commentary? What exactly am I supposed to be " grasping at straws" about? Jesus Christ… I have literally provided reliable sources specifying exactly what kind of architecture each building/area belongs to. If you automatically assume that anything white and "pretty" is "neoclassical", fine, but it is not.

You are right about it being the Universidad district, and not the city centre; that was my mistake. Even so, I still think it is an acceptable panorama, even if it is not perfect to my taste, because it shows buildings of all kinds in Madrid, from historic architecture to residential blocks and skyscrapers.

The proposed bottom panorama, as I said, seems worse to me because it dilutes the view of the Palace and the Cathedral too much, which are elements I consider more important and known. We already have one city panorama, we do not need two, btw. Léopold Favre (talk) 18:26, 24 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

if you automatically assume that anything white and "pretty" is "neoclassical", fine, but it is not The fugly (not "pretty") cathedral IS neoclassical. The palace IS neoclassical. That part of Gran Vía is quite neoclassical. And yes, depicting the same white palette is a misrepresentation of the city. We do not need one, two, or three panoramas. What I am arguing is that we DO need to depict the city in relation with its physical environment. In addition, the view of the Madrid cornice from the right bank of the Manzanares is the sight par excellence used to represent the urban panorama of Madrid since the early modern period (basically since panoramas are a thing). And no, currently we don't have a panorama focusing on the city centre, which is something that you were concerned about. "it dilutes the view of the Palace and the Cathedral too much" very little cost (losing a bit of detail for two buildings) for so much gain (still representing them while also putting the old town core in relation to the escarp of the Manzanares over which the town was founded on the 9th century together with the town's historical water stream), which also happens to be depicts a similar skyline as the historical panorama par excellence of Madrid.--Asqueladd (talk) 08:52, 30 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Asqueladd I totally Disagree. The image of the Cathedral and the Palace was already here many months before this troll started this discussion. Furthermore, the buildings themselves are far more iconic than a poor panoramic view of the area where they are located. Finally, there was never any consensus to keep that image in the article, and you were the only editor who defended it. If it is to remain this way, let us revert to the WP:STATUSQUO of May 20, before the troll altered the article. Chronus (talk) 01:52, 11 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

There are many images, but the reader can't picture where the city is located. In a solipsistic way, the city stands in the void. Prometheically, it must be the first city that has been able to effectively secede from its surroundings. Disagree whatever you want in your strongest terms, that's just the way it is.--Asqueladd (talk) 06:20, 11 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Information. The account Léopold Favre (talk · contribs) has been blocked as a sockpuppet.--Asqueladd (talk) 11:32, 12 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

The brandmark has been changed (in fact, the one here dates back to 2004 and it has been changed twice after that).

The new one is here https://identidad.madrid.es/ should it be changed? ~2026-34693-72 (talk) 08:18, 12 June 2026 (UTC)Reply