Talk:Warsaw

Hello! This is to let editors know that File:Plac Konstytucji Warsaw 2022 aerial.jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for August 27, 2024. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2024-08-27. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! — Amakuru (talk) 09:41, 18 August 2024 (UTC) Reply

The first and major citation for the History of Warsaw page seems to be defunct.

1. "Warsaw's history". www.e-warsaw.pl. Retrieved 2008年07月24日.

Janeinak (talk) 15:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC) Reply

@Chick Pea Corea: - Could you please explain why are you engaging in deliberate edit warring, disruptive editing and bad faith on various pages, notably Łódź and Warsaw? It seems like deliberate malicious behaviour in some form for which you were warned and blocked in the past. I am posting this message here as I would also like to hear the opinions of other users on the current collage which took a while to assemble. I am open to ideas. Merangs (talk) 00:43, 27 March 2025 (UTC) Reply

What? You changed the long-standing collage in Warsaw. I tried reverting the bold edit and make you discuss this here first. Did I do something wrong? I'm guided by good faith, see also WP:AGF Chick Pea Corea (talk) 00:44, 27 March 2025 (UTC) Reply

Not exactly - you are not reverting to the original, but making personal additions from the previous one and engaging in an edit war. Is that untrue? Could you please list the disadvantages of this collage over the other? The current presents greater diversity of places and image compatibility (similar styling). Merangs (talk) 00:48, 27 March 2025 (UTC) Reply

I'm against placing the Palace of Culture as the 1st image. Previously the whole skyline was 1st and that was good. I kept your updated picture of the skyline though. Also the Main Square picture from the previous infobox was really good. Chick Pea Corea (talk) 00:54, 27 March 2025 (UTC) Reply

The previous image of the skyline was of very poor quality and cropped. Moreover, the current skyline image also illustrates Warsaw's largest public-use square. Why are you 'against' the Palace of Culture being included as an architectural place of interest and, indeed a controversial, but still the symbol of the city? The previous image/panorama of the old marketplace was good, but it does not fit with the general ensemble of images due to its size and colouring. I was thinking of placing that panorama in the Old Town Market Place article. Merangs (talk) 01:04, 27 March 2025 (UTC) Reply

Or the first image could be the Royal Castle. I've no idea why the Palace of Culture should be highlighted at #1 when it's already present in the skyline image. And also, it's thus basically a redundancy. Chick Pea Corea (talk) 01:06, 27 March 2025 (UTC) Reply

It can be second, would that suffice? I have placed this particular image because it is narrow and fits well with the skyline due to colour and time of day. The Royal Castle image fits well with the Old Town and G. Theatre below. That is my only reasoning. Merangs (talk) 01:08, 27 March 2025 (UTC) Reply

How about Varso Tower instead of the PKiN Chick Pea Corea (talk) 01:14, 27 March 2025 (UTC) Reply

Done. Merangs (talk) 01:41, 27 March 2025 (UTC) Reply

Hi yall, I don't really understand why the collage was change in the first place. In my opinion the previous one was much better. It was way more clear and included most significant landmarks with nice photos. The current one is my opinion to big and too much detailed with too many photos included. And some of those photos really don't show anything recognisible, like for the Ujazdów Avenue or the Old Town Market Square only showing some randomly cropped houses, while the previously used photo shown the whole square with the syrenka etc. Also the photo for Wilanów Palace is worse, showing from an angle some unidentified portion of the building while the previous shown the main facade up front. Please consiter returning to the previous setup. Antoni12345 (talk) 17:17, 27 March 2025 (UTC) Reply

Strongly disagree. Current ensemble is more diverse, updated, and the photos are of supreme quality. Previous images were more focused on the Old Town. Ujazdów Avenue is significant enough. Merangs (talk) 18:27, 27 March 2025 (UTC) Reply

I still think that this edit of your edit:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Warsaw&oldid=1282532850 (diff)

Produced the best of both worlds. Chick Pea Corea (talk) 02:21, 28 March 2025 (UTC) Reply

I have just committed an edit:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Warsaw&oldid=1282716068 (diff)

The prevalent Wiki style calls for 1 panoramic image for Row 1, now I've found what irked me previously. Chick Pea Corea (talk) 05:29, 28 March 2025 (UTC) Reply

I believe no further disruptive edits are required. The collage now looks great, with all the images being stylistically compatible. Merangs (talk) 10:00, 28 March 2025 (UTC) Reply

Define "disruptive" and "stylistically compatible." Naturally you'll encounter a disruption if your edits cause a backlash. Which then have to be discussed at Talk.

I enjoy your edits and hope you enjoy mine - we're doing good work. Note that in your edit the caption "Prudential" breaks into 2 unseemly lines: Prudenti-al. I fixed that just now. Chick Pea Corea (talk) 10:31, 28 March 2025 (UTC) Reply

My edits never caused major backlashes before and I will keep reverting what I strongly disagree with (along with discussion). I have also trimmed the Prudential caption. Captions are not as important as long as there is a link. The size of the collage was much too large. Merangs (talk) 10:43, 28 March 2025 (UTC) Reply

@Merangs: You've reverted edits made from IP adress, claiming taht there is consensus on the talk page. There is not. I opose your changes with the reasoning mentioned previously, and strongly stand with the collage version you've just reverted (whoever made it), as in my opinion it is the most suitable. PLEASE DO NOT CLAIM CONSENSUS. — Antoni12345 (talk) 15:43, 8 April 2025 (UTC) Reply

@Antoni12345@Merangs I haven't participated in the discussion, although I just saw the tag and wanted to chime in to express my support for the current collage layout. It would be great to remove the tag. Are there are any people strongly opposed? Per Exemplum 23:34, 13 April 2025 (UTC) Reply

@Per exemplum: - I can revert to the original or seek official consensus with user voting. I am willing to discuss any further changes that are needed, but I did not expect that a seemingly constructive change in infobox imagery could have sparked such opinions, views and, frankly, negative emotions. All I did was diversify the locations and made sure that all images are compatible with each other stylistically. Merangs (talk) 23:41, 13 April 2025 (UTC) Reply

@Merangs Yeah, I am having trouble understanding what's so controversial about this layout. It is a thoughtful selection. Unless others have serious reservations--and can articulate the controversy--I vote to remove the tag and keep as is. Per Exemplum 00:19, 14 April 2025 (UTC) Reply

Well, it was @Moxy and Pppery: who added the {{toomanyimages }} tag, so it's them you should ask for exact reasons, but in my understanding the tag addresses the excesive ilustrations in article's body not the construction of the collage in the infobox.

As to the collage, I still insist on returning to this revision, where the old town main square is represented with much better image showing its full scope (File:Market Square Warsaw (22594p) (cropped).jpg) rather than some random cropped section of houses (File:2021 Warszawa Rynek Starego Miasta, północny fragment strony Kołłątaja.jpg). That revision also utilises less photos, and by using single large image at the bottom it creates nice conclusion and border for the collage. And I agree that the Ujazdowskie Avenue is an notable street in the city, but first of all, there are many more streets that we could add then as they also are "notable", and secondly the chosen photo (File:Kamienica Al. Róż 2 w Warszawie 2021.jpg) showing a single building on the street (which is not imiediately recognisable) does not represent the street's scenery thoroughly. And this is also an issue for me with the old town market square image—that we have much better one thouroghly showing the landscape of the square, and in my understanding these kind of photos we should use in the encyclopedia—the ones that thouroghly ilustrate the matter, and exclude those which do not provide enough relevant visual information (the Ujazdowskie Avenue one). — Antoni12345 (talk) 16:49, 14 April 2025 (UTC) Reply

@Antoni12345: – The panoramic Old Town Square image you insist on was placed in the landmarks section instead. The smaller collage image is suitable because it is of the same style as the adjoining other photographs (most taken on the same day). I do not see a problem here. The infobox and collage are a 'summary' anyway; not every tenement on the square must be exposed. With Ujazdów Avenue, I agree that another image could be placed as an alternative, but under the condition that it is compatible with the other images in terms of style and colour. I am open to suggestions. Merangs (talk) 21:24, 14 April 2025 (UTC) Reply

Have multiple image problems. More then 100 images - thus many cant load page MOS:ACCIM....squishing of text in-between images WP: Sandwich, and mass gallery spam WP:Gallery Moxy 🍁 17:04, 14 April 2025 (UTC) Reply

@Moxy: – I agree and this will be taken care of. Feel free to contribute as well. Merangs (talk) 21:24, 14 April 2025 (UTC) Reply

I took a pretty liberal approach and removed a bunch of images that were either redundant or excessive. It's an easy revert, if needed, but I think it looks much cleaner. What do others think? Per Exemplum 11:06, 16 April 2025 (UTC) Reply

Getting better..... but let's give an example ...we have the rail section that has two paragraphs (that could easily be one paragraph) that consists of eight images. Normally a section of four or five paragraphs have one or two images at most. This is generally why we wrote the rule about undue weight WP:Undue. An example of an fa article can be seen at Winnipeg.... Note how it doesn't look like a kids picture book but rather an academic presentation. Moxy 🍁 17:33, 16 April 2025 (UTC) Reply

I think some important images were removed and chronologically misplaced between paragraphs. I would simply cut the galleries in the whole article. Also, do we know why individual images on this page are suddenly larger than the standard size without px input? Merangs (talk) 22:51, 16 April 2025 (UTC) Reply

The redirect Jews in Warsaw has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 5 §Ethnic group redirects until a consensus is reached. Place Clichy (talk) 12:02, 5 January 2026 (UTC) Reply

@Merangs: Please see disclaimer <--! CAUTION: The images in the collage have been deliberately selected for visual and aspectual balance. DO NOT make changes unless there is talk page consensus to do so. --> ~2026-20046-43 (talk) 22:05, 31 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

Thanks for noticing. I am aware you are one of the blocked users. Please outline the disadvantages of the new collage over the current. Merangs (talk) 22:50, 31 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

I never had an account here and rarely edit so you're confusing me for someone else.

Current skyline pic is newer. The city is in the foreground instead of the river. And you're adding a whole new verse of images bloating the ifnobox. Just dont think ur edit is good, sorry, it screws everything up visually. I agree with the disclaimer: "deliberately selected for visual and aspectual balance." It;s perfect as is ~2026-20046-43 (talk) 12:39, 1 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

Fair enough, thanks. Merangs (talk) 17:39, 2 April 2026 (UTC) Reply