Talk:Rio de Janeiro

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured article candidateRio de Janeiro is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
On this day... Article milestones
January 29, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
October 26, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
March 29, 2012Good article nomineeNot listed
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on March 1, 2008, March 1, 2010, March 1, 2012, March 1, 2013, and March 1, 2015.
Current status: Former featured article candidate

Human Development[edit]

Perdoem-me mas falarei em português, ma seção chamada "Human Development" estão sendo comparados dados do antigo IDH, dos bairro que foi o de 2000, com o novo, de 2010 dos países, então até parece que os moradores da favela vivem melhor do que no restante do país 0,751, quando o do Brasil é de 0,699, aguardo a correção. Obrigado —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think this is the best we can do, since the last PNUD research about the HDI of Rio de Janeiro's neighborhoods refers to year 2000... Anyway, even if we consider Brazil's HDI of year 2000 (, that was 0.757, slums' inhabitants in Rio do have a life quality equal to Brazilians' average. (MMaselli) 22 August 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I added state and national numbers from 2000 to that section. -- Beland (talk) 18:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Incorrect figures[edit]

The following two sentences both link to citations, but by basic math they can't both be correct.

"Although the city clearly ranks among the world's major metropolises, three fifth of its inhabitants live in neighbourhoods known as favelas (shanty towns), where housing is not regulated.[159] In the favelas, 95% of the population are poor, compared to 40% in the general population.[160]"

If 95% of favela inhabitants are poor and 60% of the general population of Rio lives in favelas, then at least 57% of the general population is poor. Someone who knows more than me could find corrected numbers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:3401:0:81C3:91D5:68FD:11EF (talk) 22:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's obvious that the information of 3/5 is totally insane and untruth.

Transportation information[edit]

Some of this information seem to be a bit old and outdated. Specially when it comes to taxis -- it's been YEARS since radio taxi was more expensive than other yellow taxis. And, of course, they now ARE mostly yellow even when they are radio taxis. Not to mention, flag 2 starts at 9pm not 11pm.

Its a wiki, so you can update it yourself :).-- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the Transportation section needs to be rewritten. It sounds like a tour brochure or something, and I don't really want to do it cause I've never been there before. Naru12333 —Preceding undated comment added 21:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Hmm, now there is no information about taxis at all. -- Beland (talk) 23:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Temperature chart[edit]

Can we move the temperature chart into a template and semi-protect it? It seems like there is an endless series of reverts of the temperature data being incorrect. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First let's see if just using the template will help. Here's the template: {{Climate chart for Rio de Janeiro}}, and I've subbed it in the article. If problems continue, then we should be able to get it protected or semi-protected.
 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  08:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're very welcome, Eraserhead! Please feel free to improve the template if you like.
 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  09:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are you sure about the values in the temperature chart? There seems to be large differences between this one and the one in portuguese language (and other languages as well). Can someone dig into this? Luca Paschini (talk) 20:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rio de Janeiro has more than 250 km of train[edit]

I want to inform that Rio de Janeiro city has more than 250 km of train (which is not connected with metro) which is very
important from daily commuting, especially to bring people from the west zone (Bangu, Madureira, Santa Cruz and other neighbors) to
downtown. To arrive to the Olympic stadium (João Avelange Stadium) you must use train! This is not informed on the page.
The webpage of the train company (named supervia) is

In Popular Culture[edit]

Could an "In Popular Culture" section be added? I think there have been multiple movies that have taken place here. For example, two recent movies - Rio and Fast Five - take place here. I'm not sure what the criteria is for adding such a section is, but I thought I'd suggest it. Alphius 02:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More information about tourism in Rio[edit]


Rio de Janeiro is the most awarded destination by World Travel Awards in the south american category, like de best destination.[1]

Gay Destination[edit]

Rio de Janeiro is one of the most revered gay destinations in the world. The city was named the best gay destination of the world in 2009 and the world's sexiest gay destination in 2010 by[2] Rio de Janeiro was also considered the gay capital of Latin America by Lonely Planet magazine.[3] In 2011, Rio's State Government organised the largest gay wedding in the world.[4] (talk) 18:32, 16 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  1. ^ "WORLD TRAVEL AWARDS". 2011. Retrieved February 11, 2010.
  2. ^ "RIO DE JANEIRO FAST FACTS". 2010. Retrieved July 11, 2011.
  3. ^ "Top gay-friendly destinations". October 22, 2010. Retrieved February 11, 2010. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help)
  4. ^ "Rio de Janeiro aims to become world capital of gay tourism". October 22, 2010. Retrieved July 11, 2011.


I really think this article needs a gallery. It seems like users add their own pictures of the neighbourhoods they live in and that's just annoying. The Botafogo picture, by the way, does not depict Botafogo in a clear way. Jgsodre —Preceding undated comment added 20:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC).Reply[reply]

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 18:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA and should have a full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 18:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unfortunately, I am going to fail this article's nomination for GA status. The most serious issue is the sourcing, but there are also quite a few other problems:

  • There is a significant amount of unsourced information. Some of it is marked with citation needed tags, much of it is not. Statistics, opinions, quotes, etc. need references. This is the biggest issue with the article, and it will take the longest to fix.
  • 19 (!!) dead links, see here, some (but not all) of them marked.
  • Quite a few probably unreliable references (These are examples, found during a quick look. The number of dead links and the missing information in many refs makes it much more difficult to check reference reliability.):
    • #13 - Where is Rio de Janeiro?
    • #35 - TravelBlog
    • #46 - Portuguese in Brazil and Rio
    • #106 -
    • #121 - Flickr
  • Many refs need additional information. All web refs should include a title, publisher and access date at the very least, and an indication of the language that they are in if it is not English. Books found on Google books should be formatted as books, not websites published by Google.
  • Other ref issues (again, examples):
    • #58 - Barsa Planeta Ltda - doesn't go where it's supposed to.
    • #105 - Correio Web. - doesn't go where it's supposed to.
  • Road transport - This is not a map service. We shouldn't give directions, as the last three sentences of this section do.
  • Notable cariocas - NO sources!! What is the criteria for inclusion in this list?
  • The prose needs some serious work. Sentences like "A history of the Brazilian Academy of Letters is linked to the Royal Cabinet, since the five solemn." and "own by Tamarion Johnson" make no sense. I also found several pieces of unsourced POV writing - "the place to be" - in a quick look.
  • Links to five disambiguation pages: Carnaval, Resende, São Gonçalo, Cidade de Deus, Flag of Rio de Janeiro.
  • Standardize to one variety of English - there is both neighbor and neighbour, for instance, as well as both meter and metre.
  • Text should not be sandwiched between two images, or between an infobox and an image. This happens in several places throughout the article.

Overall, this article is quite a ways from good article status. I would suggest the nominator (who, as far as I can see, has made no edits to the article) work on this article with an eye towards proper and complete sourcing, serviceable prose, and basic MOS compliance. Although the article is in decent shape for one on a city of this size, it still needs quite a bit of work before it meets the good article criteria. If you have any questions, please let me know, Dana boomer (talk) 23:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rio de Janeiro World Heritage[edit]

Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: Rio de Janeiro entered on the UNESCO World Heritage List. Besides the statue of Jesus Christ the Savior on Corcovado and Copacabana beach, UNESCO mentioned as attractions also the highest peaks of the mountains in the park Tijuca where a magnificent view of Guanabara Bay. (talk) 19:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Municipal Population[edit]

Where is the 6,323,037 number coming from for the municipal population in the infobox? Later in the article in the demographcis section is says that the municipal population was recorded at 5,940,224 for the IGBE 2010 Census. Is the 6,323,037 a 2011 or 2012 estimate? If so, that needs to be shown in the infobox, because it is still reading that this is the population that was found in the 2010 Census, which simply isn't the case. --Criticalthinker (talk) 06:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anyone? Does no one know why the population in the infbox differs from the population listed in the Demographics sub-section? --Criticalthinker (talk) 05:09, 1 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Amount of stupidity: 100%[edit]

The race table is OK, but why have the percentages totalled up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:44, 21 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Photo Captions[edit]

I can't logically match the 7 captions to the 7 photos, except for the first and the last one. If I read "from the top, left to right," I see: Christ statue, Bridge, Skyline with sailboat, Stadium, Cable Car, Beach walkway, City from the mountain. Would someone please have a look? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbackstrom (talkcontribs) 13:50, 15 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Government section needed[edit]

One tidbit to add to the basic coverage of who is in charge, how they are chosen, political parties, is that Rio now has a municipal control center built by IBM: [1] -- Beland (talk) 18:43, 1 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, there's no crime in Rio?[edit]

What PR group promoting tourism to Rio has done an insanely good job of preventing this page from having any mention of Rio's horrendous constant warfare in the favelas, where life is cheap? Seriously, someone with more knowledge of this situation than me, please fix this. The truth hurts sometimes, but it's better than denial.

I'm guessing because of the upcoming 2016 Olympics, the page has been sanitised/kept touristy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StevenoC (talkcontribs) 10:45, 7 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

- Hi, you're right. It's very strange this page don't talk about the crimes in Rio. I live in Brazil and I know that it's not true; everytime people die in Rio by crimes. Rio is not the most security city in the world, and it needs to be edited in this page. (talk) 07:34, 12 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's a problem for the whole Latin America. For L A standards, it's a "safe" place, but not for western standarts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Every other article on cities talk about crime, why not this one? I'm very disappointed if Wikimedia is sanitizing this article. Biglulu (talk) 11:15, 3 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It appears the section on Crime was removed back in 2012 by a user with a total of 3 edits: The section should definitely be reinstated under "Urban Challenges". I also find it interesting that there are no longer any pictures of the favelas on this page at all, considering Rio De Jainero is *widely* known for these slums and they still exist to this day. The word "Crime" is not even mentioned a single time in the entire article; something is definitely not right. -- (talk) 17:52, 14 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I look forward to a section on crimes committed by Olympic athletes. With a breakdown by country of origin perhaps... (talk) 04:51, 19 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Library number inaccuracy[edit]

A couple of issues here. First, under the section "Culture and contemporary life", there is the statement: " Biblioteca Nacional (National Library), the seventh largest library in the world with collections totalling more than 9 million items". Only two sections later in "Literature", there is the statement: "The Biblioteca Nacional (National Library of Brazil) ranks as the eighth largest library in the world." And while these are contradictory statements in the same article, they're also both wrong. Please refer to List of largest libraries. Rio doesn't appear in the top 20 (Rio barely has 1/2 the number of 20th place). Either correct and update or remove the line. Thanks.Keithh (talk) 23:08, 9 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I went ahead and corrected the article text by removing the ranking numbers and simply describing it as "one of the largest". Keithh (talk) 17:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Neighborhood map needed[edit]

The best I could find is presumably not free, and is a little hard to read, but this is the general idea: [2] -- Beland (talk) 17:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Like these? Hack (talk) 01:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What is missing from the recently created city timeline article? Please add relevant content. Contributions welcome. Thank you. -- M2545 (talk) 16:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weather boxes[edit]

Not sure why we would add so many weather boxes. I assume people many not be aware of the nightmare they cause in mobile view ...thus why most articles limit them. Plus some great prose here...thus again no need for 4,5,6 weather templates.--Moxy 🍁 01:56, 27 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Totally agree, having too many clutters up the page. --Devokewater (talk) 19:34, 31 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The first sentence is a bit clumsy[edit]

The first sentence currently reads:

Rio de Janeiro, or simply Rio, is anchor to the Rio de Janeiro metropolitan area and the second-most populous municipality in Brazil and the sixth-most populous in the Americas.

Two issues with this sentence:

  • "anchor to" is awkward. Also, all major cities are "anchor to" their own metropolitan area, so this tells us very little.
  • Why is it called "a municipality" instead of "a city"?

I propose simplifying to:

Rio de Janeiro, or simply Rio, is the second-most populous city in Brazil and the sixth-most populous in the Americas.

Thoughts? If there is no resistance I'll make the change in a few days.

Done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can we talk about this article calling Portugal's colonization of Brazil "raising it to the dignity of a kingdom"?[edit]

This phrasing seems about 30 years out of date. I realize it's probably derived from some formal royal language practice, but it really does not have great overtones. You can look at other Wikipedia articles like Colonial Brazil and read about how this 'raising their dignity' involved war and mass enslavement.

2600:1702:D90:C8E0:1812:D4E3:59CF:9125 (talk) 03:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think you're confused about what the event refers to. The Kingdom was established in 1808 after João VI fled Portugal due to Napoleon's invasion and arrived in Rio, centuries after the place had been conquered, making it the new home to the court of the United Kingdom of Portugal, Brazil and the Algarves. It marked the end of Brazil's status as a colony, as it had been since 1532, and the development of new independent bureaucratic, scientific and cultural institutions, essentially elevating Rio de Janeiro into the position of a European royal capital.

The language seems fine. War and slavery did continue to happen, but it wasn't new, and in fact, would increase after Brazil became independent until Pedro II's coronation, with the adoption of the parliamentary system in 1847 and the gradual abolition of slavery between 1850 and 1888. VVVBoldrini (talk) 16:09, 16 February 2022 (BRT)

Colonizing Country/Capitals[edit]

Hey, so there's a sentence in the intro ("This is one of the few instances in history that the capital of a colonizing country officially shifted to a city in one of its colonies"). I'm pretty sure that this is the only instance in modern history where a colonizing country has shifted its de jure capital to one of its colonies. I'm assuming that this is modern colonialism because the use of "colonizing country" implies the existence of a more-or-less modern nation-state so differentiating the movements of the ancient Roman capital outside Italy. Should it be changed to "This is the only instance in modern history that the capital of a colonizing country officially shifted to a city in one of its colonies"? Can someone think of any other examples from modern history? (excluding things like governments-in-exile because the de jure capital doesn't shift there). Lorrielorrelson15 (talk) 17:00, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]