Talk:List of monuments and memorials to Wojtek

I agree with @Artemis Andromeda that it would be helpful to have a separate column for the name of the artists and I agree with @ArtemisiaGentileschiFan that there are important details missing in the abbreviated version of the table (the notes column is to short in Artemis' version). Is there a compromise we can work out here? ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 21:01, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

What important detail. Everything important is in the list. I moved it to specific collums, something tables are for. The only thing I removed is who founded the monument, couse that's not importnat for the list. Not to mention, I fixed dates, added sortable code, added streets, and more. You haven't even read my changes, just removed them couse, it's not your precious version. Also, how can you accuse me of eddit warring when you are the one removing edits to preserve your text, and I did only one edit since this article was published. I hate this saying but "you do not own the article". Also, the way you write lists is amatourist at best. You create huge walls of text, pick what should be included in them at seemingly random, and somehow call it "easier to navigate" than having that information is specific collums. Also, you removed photos I added. Artemis Andromeda (talk) 21:04, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

I'd like to specify that I reverted none of your edits, I'm just starting a conversation on the talk page about this, I saw the back and forth, checked some of the differences between the two versions and came here to discuss further... ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 21:10, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

yeah, sorry, this was targeted at Artemisia, as they reverted everything, and went as far as accuse me of edit warring, which this was clearly not. I was angry and thought she wrote the message, not you. Sorry you got cought in the crossfire. Having said that, I'm angry at the situation. What she wrote shouldn't even be considered publishble, and somehow, it's a standard for the article now, that apperently can't be touched without "starting an edit war". Artemis Andromeda (talk) 21:13, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

To be fair, you did mention the term edit war in your edit summary here which was before their edit which appears to have an edit summary replying to your edit summary. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:02, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

As said before, everything important, including almost all information Artemisia added, is in the list I wrote. Please, see this is how lits about memorials look. Longer walls of texst are for proper articles, not tabled lists. The only solution I accept it reverting to my version which is more professional and up to Wikipedia standards. Artemis Andromeda (talk) 21:14, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

When you say walls of text do you mean the lede? I just transcluded that from the lede of the main article on Wojtek (helps with attribution, keeping up to date and the like). I could move the translcusion tags around to tighten that up a bit. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 21:17, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

I mean huge "description" columns in the table. I moved the information to revelant smaller collumns. Artemis Andromeda (talk) 21:19, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

A few sentences of prose is not "walls of text". ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 21:38, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

For table, it is. Tables are not for prose in the first place. Artemis Andromeda (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

If "the only solution you accept" is the page being exactly like you want it with no compromise, you are not here to build a collaborative encyclopedia. You do not own this article, or any other article on this wiki. Move on and accept that you were wrong. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 21:48, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

You do not own it either. I tried to improve it, as one do on Wikipedia, and discussed why I think it's an improvement in edit comments. You are the one who deleted it twice, without anything other than "my version is better". Not very collaborative if you ask me. Artemis Andromeda (talk) 21:51, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

You tried to improve it and were reverted for being unhelpful. That is standard. You were the one that kept trying to force the page to fit your opinion. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 21:52, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Ok, and why is what you wrote, a standard to this page that we have to uphold? Again, WP:OWN Artemis Andromeda (talk) 21:54, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

It was the original page. You made a disruptive edit and were reverted. The onus is on you to argue for your version. See WP:BRD. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 21:57, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

@ScrubbedFalcon @ArtemisiaGentileschiFan:, please tell me what "imprtant details" are missing though. Couse I included everything reveland. Just in more consisted way, acing to what tables are for. I removed trivia, like who paid for monument or how much it weiths, cause that's not really important to this table. It can be mentioned in individal tables, but I don't see what it brings here. Artemis Andromeda (talk) 21:22, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

You removed important prose about the history of each item. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 21:37, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

I did not. I only removed who paid for their construction. I added back the stuff about what it commemorates. Artemis Andromeda (talk) 21:42, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Also, tables are not for prose. They are short informations lists. Want a prose? Write an article. Artemis Andromeda (talk) 21:42, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Also, if you want it, go and add it to new table. You cannot just demand article remains unchanged and revert everything other users add and change, cause the one you wrote was "perfect already" in your eyes or whatever. See WP:OWN Artemis Andromeda (talk) 21:44, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

My edits were not "perfect already", but your edits made the page much worse and you kept trying to force them through without consideration for others. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 21:46, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

I did dicussed it with you on discord. Your solution was "don't edit my article" and blocking me. And I added back stuff you complained about being removed like who they commemorated. You cannot claim I had no consideration. Also, you are not considered to my edits, like the fact I added locations like streets, I fixed dates to European format, and added code in the table, so they can be sortable, I changed a few pictures and added one, and added a few other info I found like some artists who made them. Also you removed the entire section about streets named after Wojtek. Who's inconsidered in this scenario. Artemis Andromeda (talk) 21:50, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

I never told you not edit the article and I never said it was "my article". I also did not block you. You are taking this personally but it's not personal. You just made unhelpful edits and were reverted, as is standard. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 21:54, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

1. I do not take it personally, I don't care about what you think about me or this situation. Just pointing out the hypocrysy in what you are saying. Also, please show me other articles with your "standard". This is not a standard for articles about monuments or public arts, or list. You just made it up and think it's good enouth. Artemis Andromeda (talk) 21:57, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

What "standard", including information in prose? How about, just off the top of my head, List of books bound in human skin, which is a featured list. Good lists are supposed to include information. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 21:59, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Reverting everything I add, calling it edit warring, and sending me message threepeating me with ban, sounds awfully much like telling me to not edit it. Or can I only edit it if I comply with your vision for how the article should be? Artemis Andromeda (talk) 22:00, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

I didn't tell you not to edit. I told you to stop your unhelpful and disruptive edits. There's an obvious difference there. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 22:02, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Are u able to actually list what's so imprtant that was removed from in my version? Please, give me the list, instead the vague "important prose was lost". Artemis Andromeda (talk) 21:46, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

~@ArtemisiaGentileschiFan still waiting for some points why what you wrote is better and what important stuff was lost with my edits. So far, it's just back and fourth of "mine's better". So please tell me and convince us why your version is better, with some acuall points and arguments. Artemis Andromeda (talk) 22:02, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

You removed about 2,000 bytes with your edits and removed most of the information about most of the statues. For example, you removed "A wooden statue of Wojtek was installed at the Poznań New Zoo to commemorate its bear sanctuary. It was donated by Krystyna Wieczorek, a writer of a book about Wojtek, and it was created by Mariusz Jaśkowski." and replaced it with "Wooden statue". This is obviously disruptful and unhelpful. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 22:06, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

1. Ok, I missed the part about the bear sanctuary. I don't see the need to write about that it was donated by Wieczoerk. 2. It's bloody obvious it was the first statue. It's first on the list by dates. As I said, I don't see adding information about who doanted it iportant, and definetly not just so the liked page can be de-orphaned. Artemis Andromeda (talk) 22:10, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

You did not write "the statue might not exist anymore" You wrote "it's in bad shape. Also, might is OR and speculative at best. Artemis Andromeda (talk) 22:11, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

I didn't mention any of that. It was ScrubbedFalcon that said those things. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 22:14, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

ok, sorry then Artemis Andromeda (talk) 22:18, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

bytes does no equal quality or useful information. Also, I just shortened your text, changing full sentences to short descriptions. Again, table should not contain an article prose. Artemis Andromeda (talk) 22:20, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Since when should a table not contain sentences? Has that ever been a rule? Because there are multiple featured lists that use sentences. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 22:21, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

For example (non-exhaustive list):

• The first statue of Wojtek was in London
• The wooden statue on the former RAF base may not exist anymore (rotting in 2019)
• I think quite a bit of the paragraph about the statue in Zagan is notable enough for inclusion in the list
• The link to Wojtek Memorial Trust is good for the statue in Edinburgh (that page is close to being an orphan)
• etc.

In addition to separating out a column for the artist I actually also agree with you on the extra column for location in addition to the city (although having so many columns makes the images very small, maybe we can fix that somehow). ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 22:04, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

They are larger than they should anyway (lists will usually use 100px). You are supposed to click on an immage to see full graphic. Artemis Andromeda (talk) 22:12, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Also, thank you, I'm happy to hear some attempts at resolving this situation. Artemis Andromeda (talk) 23:07, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Would you support my version to be restored? Also, I know images are small, but table lists primary are to provide information in accessible way, not to show nice pictures. Also, I don't really think it's too long. It's fairly standard length for this type of article. Artemis Andromeda (talk) 23:42, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

3O Response: Procedural decline, more than two people are involved in the dispute. Use other forms of Dispute resolution. InfernoHues (talk) 22:06, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

The list Artemisia is currently trying to force has to much information. It really seems she is trying to create several mini articles with all the information she can find. Among things she calls necessary is background information such as what city the sculptor was from, or what people paid for the construction of the monument. And while it's information that can be included in a separate article for a particular sculpture, I do not see a point adding to the table. Tables are meant to have basic information about the subjects, in this case sculptures, such as whare is it, artist who made it, when was it unveiled. There's additional column "notes" for miscellaneous information, and that's where I put all other things, like material of the sculpture, and what it commemorated when applicable. I do not see why my proposition isn't a better solution. Also, I would like to point out, this is how other list of monuments look. Here are some of the examples picked at random: List of monuments and memorials removed during the George Floyd protests, List of monuments and memorials to Michael Jackson, List of public art in Dublin. Additionally, her version currently is not sortable, has dates in American M/D/Y format when all monuments are in Europe and dedicated to a creature from Polish military. And some of information she insists on is self-explanatory such as "first monument" and "first monument in Poland", which are obvious, since the entries are arranged by date, ergo, for example, the first monument will be the first on the list. Also, I would like to point out, that when my edits were removed, some of information I added such as streets, photos, authors, etcs was also removed. I also tried to add section about streets named after Wojtek since that's also a form of memorial, but it was removed for not reason (other than that my edits were removed indiscriminately). Also, I would question if some of the entires are notable to be here, such us some random wooden carving someone just made and put in front of their house. Artemis Andromeda (talk) 00:33, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Each entry has between one and three sentences. That is not "too much information" or "several mini articles". It is a very small amount of basic and necessary information. Also, each entry does not need to be independently notable because this is a list. Move on. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 00:43, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Things still have to be notable. I can draw Wojtek on a wall of a building right now, call it a memorial. Would it be on this list then? There's such as thing as over inclusivity. Also, why won't you move on? Artemis Andromeda (talk) 00:47, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

The criteria is coverage in a source. A random drawing on a wall wouldn't have any citations. And I have moved on, I'm only responding because you keep trying to argue. There is no reason for you to keep doing this, you have failed to actually make any good reason to change the page. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 00:49, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Again, you do not own the page. You are not the authority on what is a "good reason". I would say the same about everything you stated so far. Artemis Andromeda (talk) 00:52, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

The onus falls upon you since you are the one trying to rewrite the page. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 00:54, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, this is not how it works. Your version is not the default just because it's older. And blocking the change because you don't like it is in every way against the spirit of Wikipedia. Artemis Andromeda (talk) 00:59, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

That is quite literally how it works. You may want to read WP:BRD. The cycle is that one person makes a bold edit (you in this case), somebody reverts (me in this case), and then the first person needs to get a consensus before continuing. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 01:05, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Well consensus so far is 1 for you, 1 for me, and 1 leading towards me. So, essentially 1 vs 2. Ergo, my version so far comes on the top. Artemis Andromeda (talk) 01:08, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

You can't just make up fake votes and pretend to "win". You're behaving really immaturely and you need to move on. You have been obsessively arguing in circles for hours and you even tried to start an arbitration request. Just accept that you're wrong and go do something helpful on the wiki instead of whatever this is. It's embarrassing and childish. Unless you have any actual new good points to make, stop responding, because you keep going in circles. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 01:14, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Agreeing with ArtemisiaGentileschiFan in that this is a 1-1-1 situation and not a 1-2 situation. (Technically, 1-1-2 given my response in the RfC below.) --Super Goku V (talk) 11:20, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

I listed my points, and I very clearly stated why I stand by them. You on the other hand, really just keep saying your version was better and keep arguing everything you added needs to say. Also, you haven't even engaged with what ScrubbedFalcon said, nor acknowledged what they said about my points. You just trying to end this discussion without reaching any consensus or really even any compromise. I already compromised on my part. Artemis Andromeda (talk) 01:19, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

You said "The only solution I accept it reverting to my version". I think you're projecting. You need to WP:DROPTHESTICK. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 01:21, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

I got angry. I'm only human. Artemis Andromeda (talk) 01:53, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

It's obvious that you've been angry, you've been arguing in circles for hours. That's why you need to move on. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 02:00, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Please, take a look at literally any of the link I included. Do they have several sentences in the tables? Artemis Andromeda (talk) 00:49, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

I would like to point out that I attempted to edit the article, without removing or changing what Artemisia was against, and keeping her formatting, and still had all my edits again indiscriminately reverted, 4th time mind you. Artemis Andromeda (talk) 12:28, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

You created an edit conflict while I was editing. I had added a column like you wanted. It undid your edit because of the edit conflict. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 12:33, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

About your accusation now. I did not remove enything. I made a mistake and I think a section or two got cut, but I'm fixing it now. You are imposible to work with. I'm trying to edit this. If section already for example says, a monument is placed on this street, you do not need to add to description again. Artemis Andromeda (talk) 12:50, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Also, why the heck do description needs information like "marble was mined in this town", "the artists was from Gdansk", "the monument wegiths 400 kg". What does it bring to this article? Just becouse you have that info, does not mean it has to be included. Artemis Andromeda (talk) 12:55, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

I suggest that even if exact date is available, year of installation is enough info for the article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:02, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Should the tables be formatted in accordance to what user ArtemisiaGentileschiFan used, or what user Artemis Andromeda proposes. Artemis Andromeda (talk) 00:47, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

For context, what I proposed is now in previous edits, but you can also see it in my sandbox here. Artemis Andromeda (talk) 00:50, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Option C: A mix of the two formats. I have bad RfC concerns, but I am going to let those concerns slide for now. To specifically address the RfC, I would say a mixture of the two would be better based off of these two edits: (1353205728 and 1353201774) The former's "Details" column fits the bill as it is well detailed to me while the latter makes sure to include the precise location and the creator when known. I feel that it would be best for readers to have a fusion here where we have the wording based on the Details column while splitting off the author and location to their own columns plus noting the cases where we have a separate article. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:14, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Ah, I overlooked addressing the "Streets and squares" section. I would agree with inclusion for that section. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:30, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for answer. I would like to note, I did not remove most of the details in my version, but rather made it more consise and move it to sepere sections. I only removed information about who paid for them/who proposed them. I'm all for mix of formats, but I still maintain, original author put to much info into detail section, that can be consisted and moved to other parts. Regardless, thank you for you input, and I hope this can be included moving forward. :) Artemis Andromeda (talk) 11:39, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Option C: Supporting a mixed format. Few table column title change could be to use "Sculptor" instead of "Artist" and "Unveiling" for "Installation date". NicoR8 (talk) 12:12, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Comment: An RfC is not what is needed to resolve the underlying issues here @Artemis Andromeda, and I think it would be wise to try deescalating things. For that reason, if I were to say something about the RfC itself, I'm inclined to go for Option C to insist that this is resolved not by a side "winning" at an RfC but rather by editors being reasonable and working with each other. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 19:28, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

+1 ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 19:43, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Does the source really say he's the artist? I'm using google translate, which doesn't, but that's not always right. I also wonder if is the droid we're looking for. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:56, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

no he is not the artist Artemis Andromeda (talk) 15:18, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

I think a simple date is adequate. I don't think we need the {date and age}} template. Rublamb (talk) 15:30, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Sorting by years makes sense. Sorting by country could, but there are only a few countries and it's sorted by town anyway. Sorting the notes makes little sense, as they're not formatted in a way that the first word conveys systematic information.

If there's no benefit to reformat a list in table form, then the list could be is best left as a list.

If there's some benefit in presenting some of the information in table form, then we should consider making both a list for presenting the items, and a table for presenting the sortable information. Having both information in a list and in a table also helps for usability.

The notes column may indicate that the table has been used to summarize the information in it (say to remove trivia) instead of being used to present information more clearly. Selbstporträt (talk) 14:15, 11 June 2026 (UTC)