Wikipedia

Talk:Thessaloniki/Archive 5

< Talk:Thessaloniki
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Community Tech bot in topic A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Infobox picture - a more comprehensive picture is needed

Latest comment: 7 years ago43 comments6 people in discussion

Hello. May I ask why the White Tower is the sole picture in the Infobox for Thessaloniki? It is strange that a symbol of the city's Ottoman past, a landmark known for being used during the Ottoman period for incarceration and torture and a place where many people died, to be the sole picture for a significant city of that level.

As far as I know, Thessalonica is a metropolis of almost 800.000 citizens, and one of Europe's oldest but continously-inhabited cities, with a very rich and diverse history spanning 2.300 years and is blessed with lots of landmarks and monuments from various historical periods.

Thessalonica was an important commercial and administrative center already since the Hellenistic and Roman periods, and even served as the co-reigning capital of the Byzantine Empire. Now it is the third largest economic and educational center after Athens and Istanbul. I can't help but wonder how a significant cultural city isn't given a more comprehensive collection of pictures in the infobox. A collection of pictures that reflects its rich heritage and prominence.

I'm fully aware that the White Tower is today the most notable landmark of the city in the same sense the Parthenon is for Athens, or the Colosseum for Rome, or the Big Ben for London, or the Eiffel Tower for Paris, etc. However, this insistence in displaying only a PARTICULAR landmark and nothing more, despite it being a prominent city in the region, and one of the most important historical, logistical and cultural centers in Southeastern Europe, can not be justified.

This has bothered me a lot. I looked to the issue in depth and I have conducted some research on the Wikipedia, just to see if this strange case of "One-Picture policy" is adopted for other cities and metropolises in Europe, America and the world. Checked cities that are not capitals, but still are too significant for them to be represented in their infobox with mere single pictures. And so, I have discovered that they display more comprehensive collections of pictures in their infoboxes. All of them except Thessalonica. Here are their links for everyone's convenience:

Turkey's Istanbul, Italy's Milan, France's Marseille, USA's New York and Los Angeles, United Kingdom's Manchester, Germany's Hamburg, Spain's Barcelona, and Portugal's Porto. Notice how all these metropolises or cities are either the largest, or second largest cities in their respective countries, and yet every one of them has multiple pictures on their infobox.

I went a step further and checked even some of the smaller (but still significant) cities and towns in Southeastern Europe, such as Serbia's Novi Sad, Bulgaria's Plovdiv, Albania's Durres and Cypru's Limassol, and in my surprise, even these got comprehensive image collections on their infoboxes! I fail to understand why Thessalonica's infobox has to stick with a mere picture of a former Ottoman Prison and ignore its Roman, Byzantine and modern landmarks. I am aware of the past consensus, I read the talk archives, but, to be honest this is very problematic.

I shall clarify that I am not asking for the removal or replacement of the White Tower. We should keep the White Tower in the infobox picture, but we should expand it to include other notable landmarks as well. What do you say? Some suggestions by me include: the Arch of Galerius and Rotunda, the Thessaloniki Concert Hall, the Thessaloniki Science Center and Technology Museum, the OTE Tower, among others. But of course, if anyone here has any better suggestions, feel free to share them here. Any? -- SILENTRESIDENT 01:27, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

SilentResident - You could always create a picture collage like they have on London which IMHO would be better - If the area has more than one notable landmark then they should be highlighted as a picture collage if that makes sense, I don't see why that shouldn't happen so go for it, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 02:10, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Davey2010 - Good point! Thanks. I am aware that the cities of the United Kingdom have such beautiful and comprehensive collections of pictures and I always wanted the same for the Greek cities... Of course, availability of landmarks/buildings/places/monuments is not the problem here; Thessalonica is a very rich city when it comes to featuring places of interest. Just, the previous editorial consensus opposed this idea and preferred a single landmark (White Tower only) instead. And I remember that any past attempts towards that proposed direction have been reverted... -- SILENTRESIDENT 02:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

For the record, I remain opposed to the collage thing and very much prefer a good, esthetically interesting photograph of a single, well-known and representative landmark, the way Wikipedia articles used to have them in the good old days. Collages provide very little real information, tend to take up far too much space (pushing the actual, informative parts of the infobox below the screen), and reduce the visual landmarks of a place to the esthetics of a cheap picture postcard. Collages are a recent fad and nothing more; I find it intensely annoying to find people arguing for them on the basis of a mere "other articles are doing it, so we should be doing it too", or even that naive "more-is-better" logic of "if other places have many pictures, this place deserves more pictures too". What a braindead argument. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:46, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

To be honest, a slightly increased infobox length is not a concern for me, especially on articles about cities. Big cities naturally have lengthier infoboxes than small towns and villages, due to containing more information, and this is unavoidable. Don't you think? If Thessalonica was a mere small village or a little town, a single but aesthetically interesting photo for it couldn't be a problem; it could in fact be nice thing. Most small villages and towns in Greece have a single photo anyways, usually a panoramic one. Example of this are the towns of Ioannina, Florina, and Kastoria. But here, we are talking not about a mere small village or town. We are talking about a modern metropolis of Southeastern Europe which spans the entire end of the Thermaic Gulf and its infobox is only displayiong a... former prison tower (!) and nothing more. Not even a panoramic photo of that city. Nothing more than just a prison by the sea. Frankly, this isn't very representative photo, Future Perfect. Like how Davey2010 has suggested, if the city has more than one notable landmark, we can make a nice and beautiful collage and use London as an example for its creation. It is time for Thessalonica to get its own collage, in line with what was done for all the other cities and metropolises in the world, such as Florence, Venice, Hague, Philadelphia, Frankfurt and Hamburg, for obvious reasons. Thessalonica can't be an exception to this. -- SILENTRESIDENT 12:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
If you'd simply acknowledged that this is ultimately a mere matter of taste, we could peacefully agree to disagree – you prefer a collage, I prefer a single photograph, we've both said why, now let's see what others think. Fine. But as long as you are spouting "arguments" of the kind of "Thessalonica can't be an exception!" and "we have to do it the same way it's done in other articles!", you'll find me vehemently contradicting you. These arguments, are simply false, wrong-headed and unacceptable. On Wikipedia, "other articles are following fad XYZ, so we have to follow fad XYZ too" is never, ever a valid argument. Also, stop obsessing about the fact that the tower was a former prison. Like it or not, it is the single best-known and most popular visual landmark of the city. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:32, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Of course you can have your own opinion on this, and I respect that. But to say that my argument is "other articles are following fad XYZ, so we have to follow fad XYZ too" shows that you have not understood the reason I am referring to other metropolises in Europe and the world. I am not referring to London or Paris just for the sake of copy-patterning their infoboxes to Thessalonica. I am talking about the reasons behind the need to use collages in articles about big metropolises. Like I mentioned above: Thessalonica's reasons to use collages, is no different from the reasons that led the editors to do the same to the other cities in Wikipedia: given the city's rice cultural and historical diversity, many landmarks and architectures, a mere Ottoman prison is by no means a comprehensive picture for portraying the entire metropolis on its infobox. Period. The other metropolises in Wikipedia use Collages, not because it "is ultimately a mere matter of taste" as you have claimed, but because it is ultimately a matter of necessity. Like I said above, if we want to make a good collage, there are examples of how this was done in other articles. I am looking at the Wikimedia Commons for some nice pictures of Thessalonica's landmarks and monuments that can be used in a possible collage alongside the White Tower and I could like to hear more opinions on this in meantime. -- SILENTRESIDENT 12:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
No, it's ot a matter of "necessity", neither here nor on any of those other articles, and never has been; it's a matter of fashion, and nothing else. End of discussion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Personally I prefer collages as it shows more landmarks than just one, One can say they believe one landmark is more notable than another and then in a few years someone else could say it and thus constantly change the image although as far I know that's never happened, but yeah I simply prefer them as they obviously show more than one landmark,
SilentResident It might be a better idea if you converted this to an RFC as just on its own I don't think you'll get many comments at all, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 13:32, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Future Perfect, you are saying that this is a matter of fashion. OK. Les have a look on what Fashion is:
Fashion is a popular style or practice, especially in clothing, footwear, accessories, makeup, body, or furniture. Fashion is a distinctive and often constant trend in the style in which a person dresses. It is the prevailing styles in behaviour and the newest creations of textile designers. Because the more technical term costume is regularly linked to the term "fashion", the use of the former has been relegated to special senses like fancy dress or masquerade wear, while "fashion" generally means clothing, including the study of it. Although aspects of fashion can be feminine or masculine, some trends are androgynous.
Let us see what the prevailing style is for the infoboxes about cities and metropolises in Wikipedia. What do we see? Collages from New York City to Tokyo, from Vienna to Antalya, from Venice to Nicosia, from Saint Petersburg to Rio de Janeiro. If you want to speak of fashion, then you should acknowledge that the collages are in fact the fashion. :) -- SILENTRESIDENT 13:36, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I think a collage is a good idea. I would suggest the following for the collage (not necessarily in this order): The waterfront, White Tower, one of the paleochristian monuments (e.g. St. Demetrios, or the Rotunda), Helexpo center, and perhaps Ladadika. I think the key would be to keep it at 4-5 images max. The problem with many collages is that they try to cram too many images in one collage, with the result being an awful collage of 7-8 tiny images. But as long as wee keep the number of images reasonable, I don't see a problem. Khirurg (talk) 18:27, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually that's an excellent idea, Khirurg! I find this a good suggestion. This way, the impact to the infobox should be minimal, and keep it from being overcluttered. -- SILENTRESIDENT 19:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Done! it took me five full hours to complete a London-styled fully interactable collage of Thessaloniki pictures. Not only the understanding of the coding was very time-consuming, but the lack of good pictures on Wikimedia Commons, restricted the available options for a good and aesthetically beautiful collage. But finally, it is done, using Adobe Photoshop CS6. Here we go. You can mouse-over the collage's pictures and a tooltip will pop up with the place's name. Furthermore, clicking any of the collage's pictures, will send you to the corresponding article. As a matter of fact, Thessalonica is the first Greek city to ever get a fully interactable collage! Athens's collage will be upgraded to become interactable if I have some energy later. Enjoy! And please tell me what do you think about this work thus far? -- SILENTRESIDENT 10:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
And congratulations, from now on I can no longer see where Thessaloniki is when I load the page, because your new collage has pushed the first useful element of the infobox, the locator map, off the screen. Great work. People keep saying that the purpose of infoboxes is to provide the most useful information at a glance. Now you managed to make it provide any useful information only at the third glance, after scrolling around with the mouse. What a fantastic improvement of the article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:58, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
That's nitpicking... :( All the metropolitan articles in Europe are like that, my dear but I don't remember you complaining about having to scroll down abit to find Istanbul's or Athens's locations on their respective articles, do I? Or even Tirana where you came recently to correct a numerical mistake of mine. It it bothers you too much, then buy a bigger Computer monitor and... voila! Your problem is solved. -- SILENTRESIDENT 11:15, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Khirurg, Davey2010, the collage is done. What do you think of it? Like Khirurg has suggested, picked some of the city's most historically representative or well-known places from Wikimedia Commons; the Hagios Demetrios, which is one of the most notable churches from the city's byzantine past, the White Tower which is the most notable landmark from the city's ottoman past, and some notable places from the modern era too, such as the Aristotelous Square which is the second most well-known place of Thessalonica after the White Tower, the Thessaloniki International Exhibition Center which many Greeks and foreigners visit annually, and the Thessaloniki Concert Hall, a characteristic landmark of the city's cultural life. For a more comprehensive collage. -- SILENTRESIDENT 16:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Edit: Khirurg mentioned of HELEXPO but I never found any articles under that name, so I assumed he meant Thessaloniki International Exhibition Center. But now just realized that he in fact meant Thessaloniki International Trade Fair and thus, I corrected the mistake. Picture does not need an update as both areas coincide. -- SILENTRESIDENT 18:07, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
A total of 4-5 pictures is fine for the infobox. The current selection of the landmarks appears good to me.Alexikoua (talk) 19:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Dear people, thank you very much, I am very glad we found a nice selection of pictures for Thessalonica's collage! May I seek your experience and invaluable advises for a similar problem I am having in the article of Athens? The Athens collage has been rightfully removed today due to violations of Wikimedia's rules and therefore, I gotta update the beautiful Athens collage it by replacing one of its photos which is problematic and violated the said rules. If can you make some suggestions for notable Athens landmarks to replace the problematic photo, please feel free to give us some suggestions like you did for Thessalonica. Discussion at: Talk:Athens#Suggested_photos_for_replacing_the_non-FoP_image_from_Athen.27s_Collage. As for the dynamic-interactable collage of Thessalonica, it is not hard to adjust or modify by yourself the clickable parts of it - I have provided some info on how to read and understand the X (horizontal) and Y (vertical), counted in pixels form, proportions of the clickable areas in case a need to modify it ever arises in the future. I hope that helps. -- SILENTRESIDENT 20:30, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Even if the current collage could be improved on, I have seen a lot of worse examples than this one, so if there is a consensus for having a collage, it could well be a starting point for a discussion. But please hold your horses a bit. The current consensus from 2011 is not to have a collage, as SilentResident also has observed. Until that consensus is changed, the collage should not be in the article, but should instead be discussed thoroughly in the talk page. 34 hours of discussion with four participants is not a new consensus. Davey2010 has suggested to start a RfC, and I totally agree. I suggest that the collage is removed from the article for the time being and that a RfC is opened. Then the community can decide if there is to be a collage, and if so, whether the currently proposed collage is what the community wants.

I have not formed a strong conviction either way so far. But as for the arguments given above, the one about "all other cities have collages" is not valid. It reminds me of a former discussion about galleries of notable people in ethnic group infoboxes. Virtually all ethnic groups had such galleries, mostly because "all other similar articles have them". When the matter was discussed (for more than a month), it turned out to be a strong consensus aginst such galleries. And for certain: It is not "a matter of necessity". --T*U (talk) 20:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

As you may have noticed above, I didn't call a RfC by myself, as certainly the discussion at no point was stalled. I just asked if people could like the idea for a aesthetically beautiful collage and this appears that they liked it and didn't mind replacing the tower's photo with a more comprehensive collection of city picture, with the mere exception of Future Perfect at Sunrise. Thats all. But if you want a RfC, feel free to call it.
I shall note that the other editors here who did agreed to having a collage for Thessalonica, did not agreed on the grounds that the city must have a collage just for the sake of having a collage, nor they agreed on the grounds that this must be done because other cities did the same. If you read their statements above, you can clearly see that they have never stated such things. After all, my proposal wasn't made on the ground that the city must copy the other metropolitan cities in Wikipedia, but on the grounds that this city should be better reflected and represented more comprehensively. To help people understand on how this was done, I pointed out to what was the best practice for other cities in Wikipedia: An infobox welcoming the readers with a more comprehensive photo of the city than just this photo here: File:Thessaloniki White Tower and promanade.png which shows only a tower and some trees. Sure, the tower is perhaps the city's most known landmark. But the question here is: where is Thessalonica? No houses in that picture, no panoramic view of the city, no other landmarks are shown either. Basically, nothing about the city, which this article is for. Frankly, this tower photo fits better in the White tower's landmark infobox than in Thessalonica's city infobox. Just common sense. So yes, if you ask me, a comprehensive collection of pics was needed for Thessalonica. Following the suggestions of fellow Wikipedians here, the White Tower was kept in the city collage, but readers now can also see more of the city. And, from what I have read in the other editor's comments, they liked the idea. -- SILENTRESIDENT 22:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
About arguments: I have not weighted your arguments, just stated that your "other cities" argument and the "matter of necessity" statement are not valid. But this is only my second concern. My prime concern is the procedure. After two editors had supported the idea of a collage and one editor had opposed, you found that you could override the long time consensus, even if one of the supporters actually asked you to start a RfC to get more input. I find your unilateral "decision", your unwillingness to discuss it properly through a RfC, and the "if you want a RfC" remark rather arrogant.Stricken with apologies Wikipedia is based on consensus, and as proposer of a change, it is your call to make sure that there is a consensus before implementing your proposal. --T*U (talk) 05:37, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Strictly speaking you are correct, however, there is such a thing as weak or passive consensus. Not everything needs to be decided formally with lengthy discussions involving multiple users, RfCs, etc...Here it is quite clear that no one opposes the collage so vociferously as to revert. Regarding the collage itself, I think the White Tower pic is not good (overexposed), and the previous pic taken from the water was better. I also don't think the pic of the expo center at night is particularly good (I just see some lights in the darkness). In my opinion one of Thessaloniki's greatest assets is its waterfront, and I would propose replacing the expo-at-night pic with one of the waterfront. 07:10, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
TU-nor, "'After two editors had supported the idea of a collage and one editor had opposed, you found that you could override the long time consensus'" Hmmm unless I am mistaken, actually, it is three+one editors who liked the idea, not 2... That makes total of four editors. Me (always supportive of it, even in the past), Khirurg, Davey2010, and, later, Alexikoua. Listen, if you really believe it was bad move of mine to move with the majority consent of 4 editors, then dear TU go ahead, revert my edits, call RfC or whatever. I am not here to violate any rules, nor to go into lengthy arguments about imaginary non-consensuses and it is a matter of fact that most of us here supported this. But to call me "arrogant" on top of all that, is too much. Just too much. Please retract this.
Khirurg, I could gladly replace the International Fair picture very quickly and modifying the code's links are very very easy to do. But I have the impression the collage should be reverted, as it appears I am now being accused that I am the "arrogant" here, who acted "without consensus" despite the statements by the majority of editors indicating the opposite of what TU-nor claims   --SILENTRESIDENT 11:18, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
1) At the time you inserted the collage, there were just 2 supporters (one of those suggesting a RfC). 2) Even now, with 3 to one, plus myself leaning slightly towards oppose, I think the input is far too small to r#Question linkevoke an earlier consensus, but I will not revert nor start an RfC. 3) My impression may have been wrong, so I will strike out the comment you find offending. Perhaps you in return could stop calling me "dear"? 4) Since it now seems the collage will stay, I will be back with some comments about the collage. For now just that I agree with Khirurg's comments. --T*U (talk) 11:48, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
"Dear" is a friendly form of address, which otherwise should be "Sir/Lady", but since the late is way too formal for my tastes and especially after an incident, I am not too fond of using it anymore (it happened that in some forums, I was addressing someone as "mister" until I figured out that this "mister" was just 8 years old kid... with an impressive talent in typing without doing any syntax errors that could have revealed sooner his young age to me - Embarrassing!). Since that awkward accident, the "Dear" is used instead.   But if you do not like it, I do not know what else could I address you with? The "His Holiness" is for my Patriarch, the "His Beatitude" is for my Archbishop, the "Dear mister/Dear mistress" for the people when in my office, and "His/Her Honourable" for the Mayor. As you see, no offense or ill-intentions. But as you wish.
So, if you pardon me, mister TU-nor, back to our subject, I strongly support the -good- collages for Greek cities and I really believe that wining your consent on this, is in the best of my interests (I am planning to be WP:BOLD on improving the articles of Athens and Thessalonica and see them getting at least a Good Article status like how it was done in Macedonia (ancient kingdom) (Pericles of Athens's tireless work is very inspiring towards that direction), but will need a lot of work and help from all directions. As I do not know how to begin this big task, I am checking example Good Articles such as London which can be very useful in understanding what needs to be done for a city article to be good. An good article needs to cover each subject well with all the necessary information present in each section, have citations, have beautiful and useful pictures that relate to it and have no copyright issues, and I will work on it. Thus far did the collages for Thessalonica and Athens, plus the infobox expansion of Athens, and soon to move towards the main bodies). and in that direction, I will work and do whatever is needed. So for the moment you are agreeing with Khirurg about the White Tower and Waterfront? I will do as Khirurg has suggested, and if you have other pictures in your mind, I will be more than happy to hear about them.   --SILENTRESIDENT 13:00, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
KhirurgTU-nor:
Problem: Expo Center at night   Resolved (replaced with EXPO's tower picture (daylight))
Problem: Waterfront not present   Resolved (added Panoramic Waterfront picture)
Problem: White Tower picture not good   Resolved (replaced with Promenade Water Tower picture)
New collage with the above problems addressed: link(DELETED) --SILENTRESIDENT 14:19, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
I promised to give some more comments to the collage. In the meantime, there is now also a new suggested collage, so my comments will also concern itself with that one.
It is very difficult to make a good collage. Apart from the fact that each picture must have good qualities (which is difficult enough), the combined effect also has to be well balanced and give a good overall result.
The original version had in my opinion a very good balance with the top and bottom picture almost same size and no more than five pictures. The combined effect of the pictures was perhaps a bit too much on the brownish-yellowish-honeycoloured side, which I do not find typical for Thessaloniki. That could be improved by changing some of the elements. The new collage, however, has lost the balance completely. The bottom picture is replaced by two pictures of different height, so the whole collage looks lopsided, and the different size of all the new elements gives a slightly chaotic impression. Towers and lots of sky on the left side and heavy buildings on the right side strengthens the lopsidedness. Also the "White Tower" is strangely spearheaded by the OTE Tower. And after supporters of collage have suggested four–five pics as a maximum, we are now up to six. The three new elements are fine, but the overall result is not.
One suggestion concerning either version: The Concert Hall and Ajos Dimitrios could change place to avoid having the dark water just above the light blue sky. That would also give a better direction for the perspective lines, avoiding that the church falls too much to the back and out of the picture.
Finally a comment about the top picture: I was wondering where in Thessaloniki this round building is, until I understood that it is a panoramic picture with "false" curvature. I am not so sure that it is a good idea to have a picture that does not look like the real thing. --T*U (talk) 21:00, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
The Megaron, white tower, and waterfront pics are good. I agree with TU-nor regarding the Aristotelous plaza pic, and also the color balance on that one is off (too red). I think Aristotelous plaza is an important landmark and highly photogenic, but another pic is needed. The OTE tower pic could be removed to restore balance. The Agios Dimitrios pic is not good (too cropped). It should be replaced with either another pic of Agios Dimitrios (e.r this is a good pic [1], if a bit old - note the guy chilling in the baptisery), or a pic of some other paleo-christian monument (Rotunda comes to mind). Khirurg (talk) 21:55, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
TU-nor: I agree with anything you have said, and it is a fact that I the second collage wasn't good because the photos chosen for it were selected due to your and Khirurg's recommendations and due to the limited options for alternate pictures in Wikimedia Commons. While the first collage's photos were picked with the criteria of matching color tones, gamma, and balanced sizes, the second collage's photos were not chosen with the same criteria the first collage's photos were, because Wikicommons doesn't have many alternatives to these beautiful photos.
So, visual criteria (i.e. similar tints, similar feeling, etc) can not match always with the options available for certain places in Wikimedia Commons.
Well, how about this? Not as reddish as the first collage, but more balanced and stylized than the second.
It was very difficult to find matching pictures from WikiCommons. Very difficult. New collage: link --SILENTRESIDENT 14:19, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Khirurg, TU-nor, if can you find me a horizontally-wide photo that can serve as replacement for the 180o-angle Aristotelous Plaza photo, then let me know because I can't find any... All the photos of Aristotelous Square on Wikimedia Commons are very rectangular in size, and not befitting the big bottom bar of the Collage without overstretching the photo's horizontal size. --SILENTRESIDENT 23:29, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Also, Khirurg, I have replaced already the Agios Dimitrios with one that focuses on the churche's facade. Let me know if you find it good. It is not as reddish as the previous church photo. --SILENTRESIDENT 23:53, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Collage looks much better now, although I think the previous waterfront pic was better (more water, less pavement). For Aristotelous, would this one work [2] if we cropped the lower third? It's all pavement anyway. The Agios Dimitrios pic still isn't ideal, but better than the previous one. What about this one [3]? Khirurg (talk) 05:24, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Sure, here we go! link --SILENTRESIDENT 07:22, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

After digging the Commons for hours (I dont mind getting tired for Wikipedia, I really want to give my best on this task and get it done), and trying to figure out how to make the landmarks in the collage look even more balanced (more than in the first collage ever), and bearing in mind the phrase "simpler is better", I took a bold step to make the collage much more simpler and contain less pictures than before. So, made the following changes:

  • Reduced total number of pictures to just 4 (down from 5).
  • Removed completely the Aristotle Square.
  • Moved the White Tower to the top of the collage to be more prominent, similarly how the Acropolis is on top for Athens collage.
  • Added a great-looking aerial view of the entire city, like in Athens collage...
  • Saint Demetrius Church's problematic red gamma has been adjusted slightly to make it less reddish as before.
  • Picture of Saint Demetrious with the dozens of red tree pots, reverted to picture to the one that shows the beautiful gardens (street view (less red color this way) )

The outcome of 5th Collage: link

For your convenience and easier comparison, I gathered all the collages here:

  • 1st collage link
  • 2nd collage (DELETED)
  • 3rd collage link
  • 4th collage link
  • Alt. 4th collage link (swapped top and bottom places)
  • 5th collage link

Let me know if you like any of them. --SILENTRESIDENT 10:56, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I have already commented on the 1st and 2nd collage. I guess the 3rd is not really an option, just a step on the way to the 4th, which is much better. The greatest problem with the 4th is all the water on top of the White Tower, and this is fixed by swopping the top and bottom like in the "Alt. 4th". Good balance, quite good pictures. Too bad it is fake... The bottom picture of the seafront is stretched beyond recognition. Just take a look at the cars. I am sorry, but we cannot have American 1950s-type cars and fat, short people representing Thessaloniki.
Then comes the 5th, which is a great step backwards. Gone is the nice Aristotle Square picture. Also gone is the waterfront, replaced by an arial photo of ... what? It is not "like in the Athens collage". In Athens you can see the Acropolis, the Vouli/Parlament and the Olympeion. In Thessaloniki you can see ... a city from above. I think only the local inhabitants of Kalamaria will recognize the view.
The overall distribution of sizes is OK, but all the three top pictures have their perspective lines going down and right, so the total impression is that everything is leaning.
And then the top picture. Picturing the White Tower in landscape format is problematic, but it might work. But not by stretching the picture in the horizontal direction. The tower is not very slim at it is. Making it lower and broader does not help. Fake again.
As I have said before, it is very difficult to make a good collage. The absolute only one that might work, is "Alt. 4th", but then it would have to be with another seafront picture. No alternative reality, please. If that can not be found, I suggest going back to the original single picture until a better collage can be found/made. It is OK to be in favor of collages, but the collage has to improve the page. So far I have not seen that. --T*U (talk) 12:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Wikicommons has many waterfront pictures, as you can see for yourself: link. Taking upon the 4th collage from above and experimenting with various beautiful waterfront pictures that are horizontally wide and do not need stretching to fit properly in, the following new collages resulted:
(note: they had eventually to be cropped in order to fit properly to the narrow bottom part of the collage; that could have been avoided with some photo stretching however, but since you are so staunchly against photo stretching, cropping was the only way to fit them)
Let me know if any of them are good, or if a particular picture from Commons has catched your eye.--SILENTRESIDENT 13:39, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
In my opinion, 4-1 and 4-2 are acceptable, 4-3 is not (far too much sky and sea). I would prefer 4-2, since that picture has more interest than just house facades, but let us hear what others say. About stretching: I am not "staunchly against photo stretching"; some % of stretching can sometimes make wonders, but when the motive is visibly distorted, it is too much. --T*U (talk) 14:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Mr. TU-nor, you made me happy. Personally, for me, the 4-2 is the best of the three collages but I was unsure if you will find it good too. I shall note: not only the waterfront picture of collage 4-2 is well balanced, has great quality and it contains no blur, but more importantly - the picture is licensed and contains no copyright violations and can be used under the condition that it is attributed (as usual), so it is unlikely that this photo will ever be challenged at Wiki Commons. It can be found here: (link)
EDIT: My apologies, I forgot Khirurg's suggestion for the Agios Demetrios. So I made an alternate collage, which is same as 4-2, but with Khirurg's suggestion and named it 4-2A. 4-2A can be seen at: (link).
@ Khirurg, Davey2010, Alexikoua, what are your positions on Collage 4-2 (link) or 4-2A (link)? Could either of them make a good picture for the article of Thessaloniki? I could have asked Future Perfect at Sunrise too, but he has made more clear than ever that collages are not his style and that I wouldn't count on him. --SILENTRESIDENT 16:03, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Personally, I am fine with both, although I am leaning more towards 4-2A. Khirurg, your suggestion for Agios Demetrios is a really nice one. --SILENTRESIDENT 16:36, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
I prefer 4-2. (By the way, that Agios Dimitrios-picture was also Khirurg's suggestion, after the one in 4-2A.) --T*U (talk) 17:18, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
I'd also go with 4-2, although 4-2A is ok with me, as is 4-1. They're all good. Excellent work! Khirurg (talk) 18:03, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
I could like to hear Davey and Alex's opinions too to make sure the collage 4-2 is good for everyone and there are no problems or objections about it before replacing the Collage 1 with this one on Commons. I hope to get a response from them soon. --SILENTRESIDENT 10:57, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Dear Davey and Alexikoua, I take it that there are no objections from your part on collage 4-2. It has now been updated on the article itself and it looks much better already. Let me know if there is anything else about it. --SILENTRESIDENT 08:45, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Thessaloniki GA Status

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Thessaloniki, a 1-million city whose history spans thousands of years and has seen so many different time periods, is a very interesting place from many perspectives: cultural, historical, religious, political and more. Getting a good article in Wikipedia is going to be a challenge. While I am motivated to contribute towards it getting a GA status, I am unsure for the extend of problems it is facing and how far it is from that goal. Looking into the archives here in the Talk, it came to my notice that there were similar attempts in the past, all of which were unfruitful. Currently the article is a Former good article nominee, a status it gained since the 2012 assessment failure. I could just resume from there, and prioritize problems pointed at the past. But it appears to me that 5 years later the article may not have exactly the same problems it did in 2012 and that any renewed GA preparation and nomination efforts will have to start anew. Anyone who could like to share some thoughts on this, or make some suggestions on what sections the biggest problems are found? The history section? Or perhaps the population section? --SILENTRESIDENT 12:02, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Everyone feel free to post here your suggestions/feedback on what can be improved on the article. If you think there is a particular problem, don't hesitate to share it. I am thinking to wrap up abit the text in various sections in the article to be more compact, and add some minor details in other parts where they feel not just appropriate but helpful. Also I spotted some areas which lack citations, will try get sources for them. --SILENTRESIDENT 19:10, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Notables

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Just dropping a note for Wikipedians that are more knowledgeable on the issue to check if this person is notable. --GGT (talk) 21:52, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Amazing! It has been there since an IP entered it in 2012, and no-one seem to have noticed. Almost five years of "fame". Good catch. --T*U (talk) 07:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Thessaloniki. 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) 16:11, 21 May 2017 (UTC)


Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 30 external links on Thessaloniki. 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) 22:37, 20 November 2017 (UTC)


Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Thessaloniki. 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) 01:47, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

The Nazis

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Who were the Nazis? They had names and functions. Götz Aly Hitler's Beneficiaries: Plunder, Racial War, and the Nazi Welfare State decribes the economic reason of the Holocaust in Th. and names of German officials.Xx236 (talk) 09:13, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Freel free to add names and references. --Philly boy92 (talk) 13:32, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Image Selection

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I suggest that there should be better images representing Byzantine era and Ottoman architecture at this article also for the Metropolitan Church of Saint Gregory Palamas, designed by Ernst Ziller there is a higher quality image showcasing the façade of the Cathedral that i consider to be more appropriate.Thank you and excuse me for mentioning something that might not be important.AlbusTheWhite (talk) 01:53, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Can you make a table with the images you have an issue with versus the images you want them replaced with? There are already lots of images in the article and I don't think we need to add more of them. How this was done previously for the Thessaloniki article is we made a gallery of shortlisted images and then voted on which ones should go where. --Philly boy92 (talk) 03:58, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have removed the gallery. There is no reason for the image gallery to be in the article. It is an indescriminate collection of Thessaloniki-related images, and there is a link to the Wikimedia Commons page on Thessaloniki at the bottom. The gallery is in violation of Wikipedia image use policies, and in particular Wikipedia:GALLERY and What Wikipedia is not. To quote WP:GALLERY: One rule of thumb to consider: if, due to its content, such a gallery would only lend itself to a title along the lines of "Gallery" or "Images of [insert article title]", as opposed to a more descriptive title, the gallery should either be revamped or moved to the Commons. --Michail (blah) 20:16, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Infobox UNESCO World Heritage Site

Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I suggest that we should add an infobox stating Thessaloniki's status as a UNESCO World Heritage Site similar to the ones of Toledo,Venice and Aleppo. AlbusTheWhite (talk) 19:28, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Thessaloniki is not a World Heritage site, 15 separate buildings/structures within it are. In the cases of Toledo, Venice, and Aleppo, the city is a World Heritage site. --Michail (blah) 19:35, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Well you are right but at the architecture section of the article it is worth mentioning/having an infobox recognizing the importance of those 15 structures to World culture.(See Naples) AlbusTheWhite (talk) 19:58, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
The architecture section of this article is a mess, I don't think what it's missing is an infobox. There is a section called "Paleochristian and Byzantine monuments (UNESCO)", that's pretty obvious. It's also mentioned in the lead and throughout the article, on image captions for example. --Michail (blah) 20:15, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
All right, Thanks for the response AlbusTheWhite (talk) 20:29, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:20, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Urban population per census 2001 and 2011

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The urban population is now listed as 788,952. The Law which defines the urban area of Thessaloniki (1561/1985) says that the urban area is made up of the (1985) municipalities of Ampelokipoi, Eleftherio-Neo Kordelio, Evosmos, Kalamaria, Menemeni, Neapoli, Polichni, Pylaia, Stavroupoli, Sykies, Triandria, and the communities of Agios Pavlos, Nea Efkarpia, and Panorama. Given this, the current population from the 2011 census should be 824,676. Broken down it is: Thessaloniki (325,182), Kalamaria (91,518), Neapoli–Sykies (84,741), Pavlos Melas (99,245), Kordelio–Evosmos (101,753), Ampelokipoi–Menemeni (52,127), and the municipal units of Pylaia and Panorama (34,625 and 17,444; part of the municipality of Pylaia–Chortiatis). In 2001 it would have been 794,330. The University of Thessaloniki also includes Panorama in the urban area of Thessaloniki, as does the old Thessaloniki prefecture. Am I missing something? --Michail (blah) 20:44, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Name

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The UNESCO site linked uses the name Thessalonika. (-a ending). It seems odd that either UNESCO is wrong or the name is never mentioned in the section on etymology. Any locals care to clear up my confusion? (I came here because I always thought it was Thessalonika). --Philipwhiuk (talk) 22:39, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Thessalonica is the Latin translation of the ancient Greek Θεσσαλονίκη (Thessaloníkē, modern pronunciation Thessaloníki). --Michail (blah) 00:19, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

The article is a mess

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article is too large and messy. The prose in the article is 186 kB, almost twice as big as the guidelines for article sizes. Over the years the article has been overburdened with information that is of little relevance or sometimes not even verifiable - such as the huge architecture section. The article is in urgent need of a massive cleanup! --Michail (blah) 15:14, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Demographics chart in the Ottoman period section

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

In section 2.3 (History.Ottoman period) there is a graph that user @Greco22: deleted with the edit summary "(→‎Ottoman period: not correct map. Greeks were not majority)". Here is a link to the chart in question.
If I understand Greco22's comment, they deleted this graph because they interpreted it as claiming Greeks were always a majority of the population of Thessaloniki, I believe they are reading the graph such that if we look at 1800 we find approximately 60,000 Greeks; 50,000 Turks; 20,000 Jews. If this is the case then I believe there has been a misunderstanding in what the graph shows. As far as I can tell this is a stacked line graph meaning that if we look at 1800 the graph actually tells us there were approximately 10,000 Greeks; 30,000 Turks; 10,000 Jews. Now, there is no source listed for the data depicted by the figure, which may be reason enough to delete the graph, but comparing it to the cited numbers in the article and to some academically sourced numbers I just found online it seems like the figure is pretty accurate.
Maybe we still want to delete it? I don't feel strongly one way or another but I thought I would bring it back since the reason for its deletion seems to have been a misunderstanding.Skoulikomirmigotripa (talk) 20:56, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree it's evidently meant as a stacked chart. As for sourcing, following the file description of the French file from which ours was adapted, it appears it's modelled after a print source here: [4]. This would seem quite an acceptable source, as far as I can see, but of course it should be mentioned as such, both on the file description and in the article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:43, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

yep, you are right. the chart is a bit confusing. I had to recheck it Greco22 (talk) 04:31, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:08, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Thessaloniki/Archive_5&oldid=1232761412"