Talk:Warsaw

History of Warsaw

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

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

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

Collage

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

I still think that this edit of your edit:

#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)

I have just committed an edit:

#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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

@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)

@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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

"Jews in Warsaw" listed at Redirects for discussion

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)

Image

Proposed Image #1

Proposed Image #2

@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)

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)

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)

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

Can the attached images be considered as replacement for the first picture in the infobox (#1 and #2)? Merangs (talk) 19:22, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Infobox images and their captions

Hello. I want to bring out an issue regarding the infobox. I have noticed, that for a long time, there's been going on an what approaches an edit war between me and another user, where they keep changing the captions under the images to simplistic and vague descriptions like "Theater", "Market Place", or abbreviating the titles, for example PKiN to the Palace of the Culture and Science, to made up acronyms or Ch. for Church and Prud. for Prudencial. I disagree with this approach. Firstly, Warsaw is massive city that obviously have more than one theatre or market place, while also, those are not the proper names of those buildings. I'm also completely against abbreviating the names of building to made up abbreviations, and also do not think PKiN should be used on English Wikipedia, simply, because it's a Polish acronym which won't neither be understood nor logical to English speakers (nor to Polish people from outside Warsaw I assume). I assume the only reason the user insists on making it so the lines of text are short and "nice looking", but infobox is to convey accurate information, and it can more than handle a bit of a longer caption under the image, and I would personally argue that weird acronyms and undescriptive captions are more unaesthetic anyway. So, can we get to consensus here, potentially agree to keep full names under the images? Thank you for your attention. Artemis Andromeda (talk) 14:05, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

I will also say, I noticed the same issue going on for other cities, I assume with the same editor. Artemis Andromeda (talk) 14:06, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Oppose This was established by @Merangs and apparently supported by several editors since. I think I approve of the version by Merangs. The captions fitting within a single line look better. PolishPatriotPL (talk) 00:01, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

I agree that the current (short) captions are less than useful. Having them fit on a single line is not a good reason to use abbreviations that no one will understand, like "Ch." and "Prudent." and even "PKiN". And the generic captions "Castle" and "Theater" are ridiculous. The caption should identify what the photo depicts.

I took a look at some Featured Articles about cities to compare against. In Bristol, Canberra, Cleveland, George Town, Penang, Hamilton, Ontario, Manchester, Minneapolis, and Winnipeg, the captions on the infobox gallery are all full proper nouns that uniquely identify the places depicted in the photo. Some of them wrap onto two lines, but that does no harm.

Another option is the one taken by Hillsboro, Oregon, Kent, Ohio, and Trafford, where the captions are all gathered together at the bottom of the gallery, with a "from top left" direction or something like that. This would be my second choice. But using incomprehensible abbreviations simply for visual appeal is a disservice to our readers and is not an acceptable option. CodeTalker (talk) 02:26, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

PKiN is an official acronym of the Palace of Culture & I doubt anyone has a problem deciphering what "Holy Cross Ch." means PolishPatriotPL (talk) 04:30, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

PKiN is an official acronym

I'm sure it is. What percentage of the readers of the English Wikipedia do you think know that, or have even heard of the Palace of Culture? I'd be surprised if it's as high as 1%.

I doubt anyone has a problem deciphering what "Holy Cross Ch." means

Holy Cross Church? Holy Cross Chapel? Holy Cross Chancel? Holy Cross Choir? Holy Cross Chapter? Holy Cross Chalcidicum? Encyclopedia readers generally aren't reading articles because they want to play guessing games. What's wrong with just writing the full word? CodeTalker (talk) 05:36, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

New estimate of inhabitants within city limits - 2.071 million

Since the figure currently presented is an estimate itself, shouldn't it be superseded by this fresher estimate? The count stands for 31 December 2025 and was released in April I think. PolishPatriotPL (talk) 00:03, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Oh wait I made a typo. I looked it up and it's 2.075 million. PolishPatriotPL (talk) 00:07, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Duplicate discussion here. FromCzech (talk) 04:13, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Benzion Netanyahu

Is Benzion Netanyahu notable enough to be mentioned in the Notable people section? I guess the reason he is here is because he is a father of Natanyahu. But is it really so important he gets mentioned here out of hundreds of other Varsovians? If it was Natanyahu himself, it would be a different case, but currently, it's just being related to a more famous person. Also, the enry as of now is completely unsourced. I would personally vote to remove it. Also, maybe the section itself should be reworked into a bullet list of the most important entries from the article List of people from Warsaw? Artemis Andromeda (talk) 12:57, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

To be fair, I would remove the section entirely. Many city articles have links to a separate category page where they list people. Merangs (talk) 13:21, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

@Merangs I think that would be a good solution. I was confused seeing in the first place. Artemis Andromeda (talk) 21:01, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

he was from Warsaw and I will add it back until the day of judgement. Do not start a editing war ~2026-46861-81 (talk) 01:36, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-46861-81 As have been millions of other people, not all of them need to be listed on the main article. Also, you can't remove discussions you don't like. If you do it again I will report you to the administration. Same goes for if you add Natanyahu to the article again without consensus being reached here. Artemis Andromeda (talk) 19:49, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-48490-53 same goes to this IP adress, which I'm certain is the same person. Artemis Andromeda (talk) 19:51, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

~2026-48490-53 has been blocked too. This one person is operating under multiple accounts and is very passionate about adding Benzion Netanyahu and his son to now also List of Polish people. @Acroterion, since you were involved in the first situation, maybe an IP block is best here? Fortek67 (talk) 19:51, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

I would support removing the Notable people section, just leaving a link to the List article. Other articles about large cities, like Paris, London, Mumbai, Chicago, and Los Angeles, do not contain a Notable people section. As it stands today, the section in this article is a very eclectic mix of people without any clear criteria for inclusion. There are some very famous people like Maria Curie (4.5 million Google hits) and Frédéric Chopin (8 million ghits), along with much less well known people like Wojciech Fangor (177,000 ghits) and Nathan Alterman (200 ghits!). CodeTalker (talk) 21:29, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

@CodeTalker I would say how important/how much impact someone had doesn't corollate with how famous someone is, and how many hits someone got on the internet is flaud metric. But I agree, the article doesn't need the entire section here. Artemis Andromeda (talk) 19:55, 6 September 2026 (UTC)