Talk:Vienna

Austro-Bavarian
Is the Austro-Bavarian Wean really needed. Noone here would ever refer to the city as that. It´s just pointless information that clutters up the start. Surely it would be better placed somewhere else in the article? EulersNumberIsGreat (talk) 18:33, 28 September 2023 (UTC)


 * noone in Vienna would refer to the city as "Wean" in Austro-Bavarian? Are you possibly German or so? 212.183.53.74 (talk) 06:54, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Weatherboxes
@Moxy @PAper GOL The article has 3 weatherboxes; which I assume Moxy finds excessive. PAper GOL has brought back one of the boxes, but not both of them. I certainly get why 3 boxes seem like too much, however there is a detail that makes Vienna special here; it borders 3 different climate zones. These zone calculations are based on WP:CALC from the weatherboxes themselves and therefore need the weather boxes to be there. This could be circumvented by having a Climate of Vienna page, and changing the climate section here to WP:SUMMARY (essentially the Istanbul/Climate of Istanbul treatment). Another solution is to let the urban station remain, while we change the climate type to simply humid subtropical (or humid temperate climate if the RfC on Talk:Köppen climate classification is successful). Uness232 (talk) 16:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)


 * You're right. We can go in details in a separate article and leave this article in a summary, the sources for these tables can provide even more information about the weather(e.g. stormy days, snow cover)
 * For classification, though, it would be Cfa only in the urban area.PAper GOL (talk) 16:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes need an article to dump this raw data into. As prose text is preferred overly detailed statistical charts and diagrams such as economic trends, weather boxes, historical population charts, and past elections results, etc, should be reserved for main sub articles on the topic as per WP:DETAIL as outlined at WP:NOTSTATS. Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 16:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I see. So we can move on with a chart or two(the older one I added can be removed) in this article and go in full details in its sub-article (As it is the case for Budapest or major spanish cities), or turn the box into plain text, with no need to create any sub-articles.PAper GOL (talk) 17:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes sub articles is best...that said only country articles do this well because they have well developed sub articles. That said many FA city articles use Template:Climate chart with the mass charts on sub pages. Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 17:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm gonna create a draft for it. It will take a while to make it ready for submissionPAper GOL (talk) 17:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with most of the points being made, but I do want to clarify my positions on a few things.
 * @Moxy I think Template:Climate chart is not all that useful and obscures important detail; I prefer simplified weatherboxes with links to more detail on the subpage (see Istanbul).
 * As for classification @PAper GOL, it's pretty standard practice to prioritize urban stations, especially when they better represent the city climate. This is not an article on the region of Austria that Vienna is a part of, but Vienna itself. If there needs to be one weatherbox of station data remaining on the main article, that should be the Innere Stadt one, not Hohe Warte. This only affects what we can say about climate classes if we do not create a subpage however, and I assume we are; so disregard what I said about the classification. Uness232 (talk) 18:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Oxford Comma
Some lists on this page use the Oxford comma, some don't. We need to decide on one or the other. I propose getting rid of them, as they're mostly used in lists of people and buildings where they're not necessary. EulersNumberIsGreat (talk) 11:43, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Photo Collage
Hi, are you serious that this photo: is representative for Vienna as first photo? There is in fact nothing to see on it. Tibesti1 (talk) 17:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)


 * The reason that I changed the original one is because:
 * 1, the (first) picture was too gloomy,
 * 2, the resolution was not high,
 * 3, as the configuration of such is 1/3/3, the first one should be longer enough to avoid making the infobox too redundant
 * Also, it did show the downtown Vienna, Belvedere, and St. Stephen's Cathedral on the left.
 * Moreover, when you put your mouse on the link of Vienna in another article, it is not the first picture to appear, due to its length.
 * Finally, if you think it's not well-rounded enough, we can try this one? Donaucity from Danube River to Northnorthwest - Vienna-.jpg At least I think we should not keep the original one. Vitsuha (talk) 17:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No on that one, the typical Vienna is not visible either. I know that the first photo sometimes doesn't appear as preview, however, it remains the first photo of the photo collage, and i got the impression that you chose the new one just because you couldn't find a better one. The original first photo seems to be the only existing photo that shows at least to some point the old silhouette of Vienna, which should include the cathedral. And anyway i don't find it good of you to just alter my photo collage which was stable since December. Tibesti1 (talk) 18:02, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I would say it depends on every person's opinion, I do think the photo collage you made previous contains too many photos. I think the one for Los_Angeles is just enough. But if you insist you can just revert my edit and I'm fine with it. Vitsuha (talk) 18:12, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think so cause the collage doesn't really represent LA in its abundance, but i understand that some people think so. I think it depends on the beauty of the photos and in my collage practically every photo was beautiful. At Miami there are even 12 photos. I don't know if you are really interested in Vienna, but perhaps you find a long photo showing the old skyline of the city, i didn't like the first photo very much either, but couldn't find a better one. Greetings. Tibesti1 (talk) 18:22, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The original didn't meet basic quality criteria. I just changed and rearranged the images to ensure they're somehow representative, especially the first one which now provides an partial areal view that is useful for depicting a city. I think that Belvedere isn't that irrelevant as well, which is why I made it appear a little larger and removed one of the two pictures depicting Hofburg. –Tobias (talk) 07:36, 11 June 2024 (UTC)