Talk:Warren, Michigan

I note the following edit is in this article:

Re: File:Warrencenter.JPG ... using fixed image sizes works great - if everyone has the same screen resolution and moniotor sizes. In reality; different people have different hardware ... resulting in what's "too small" for one user, appearing to take up a large chuck of screen space for another. That is why the "my preferences" settings exist, so that each user can have an image size that works ideally for their hardware. Forcing an image size bypasses those custom settings, forcing an image size regardless of the hardware that the user has. WP:MOS states that "As a rule, images should not be set to another size (that is, one that overrides the default)." Variation from the default should generally onl;y be used for a select set of scenarios:

• Images with aspect ratios that are extreme or that otherwise distort or obscure the image
• Detailed maps, diagrams, or charts
• Images containing a lot of detail, if the detail is important to the article
• Images in which a small region is relevant, but cropping to that region would reduce the coherence of the image
• Lead images, which should usually be no larger than 300 pixels

However, none of those scenarios apply to this image. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a lot of detail to this image. Is the detail important to the article? I suppose that's subjective. The default size makes the image small and the details hard to see, so it almost becomes useless. While image size might not matter for something like this: this particular image is one of a street scene, and at default size the scene just isn't visible clearly. That seems important, doesn't it?Makedonski (talk) 03:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe if I understood the concern better ... can you clarify which aspects of the image you consider hard to see at the default size? At default, I can see the kids and the fountain. To me, the only part that's hard to see is the farmer's market in the background - which isn't the primary subject of the image, nor related to the section which contains the image "Culture and recreation". --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 13:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Clarification - at default size, I can see the main fountain area - but the one closer to the camera to the far right of the image is almost invisible at default ... but since you can only see the arm of someone using that one anyway, I don't think it's a loss to the understanding of the article to not have a clear view of that one. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, the farmer's market is important I think; it's emphasized in Warren and was one of the principal points advertised about this new development near city hall, which was meant to create a downtownish feel. I also suppose it's a matter of style - scenes with a lot of detail don't come out well if they're a small size.Makedonski (talk) 14:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The market may be locally important; but it doesn't appears to be notable in any way that I can discern. I looked closer at the market in the image, and I don't see anything that would make it important to an article that's written for worldwide audiences.

But, I think we're getting dead-locked now. We need a third party to review, as neither of us seems to be making progress on convincing the other. There are a few options spelled out in the dispute resolution process - I think that WP:THIRD would be the most appropriate; but if you prefer WP:RFC or one of the other means, we could go that route instead. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Historically Warren was an agricultural community. My mother grew up on a farm in the 1920s at Ryan and Chicago Roads (the farmhouse is still there, just west of the Union cemetery). Macomb County was rich farm land. Of course, Warren blossomed into the 3rd (maybe now 4th) largest city in Michigan in the interim, particularly beginning about 1960. But the farmer's market is both a harbinger of a putative "downtown" and more urban feel, and an echo of Warren's past. The lack of any kind of central or community area has been an important deficit to the city for many years. I only say these things to shed light on your dispute, not to suggest a particular solution. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:12, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I am aware many Hmong people have moved to Warren. I'm just trying to find out where they are in terms of school districts...

Possible clues:

1. There are student counts per language from this State of Michigan document: "Sec 41 Counts" (Archive) - Agency counts by agency language:

• Warren Woods School District: 10+96 Hmong-speaking students (according to the chart) = 106
• Van Dyke Public Schools: 47 Hmong-speaking students
• Fitzgerald Public Schools: 1 Hmong-speaking student, and this page shows a teacher, staff member, or another adult dressed in Hmong clothing (Archive)

I need to know more about this chart, since I don't know what "Sec 41" means.

2. Locations of Hmong churches: http://www.cityofwarren.org/index.php/religious-designations - http://www.webcitation.org/6Zp78Cmrp

• Detroit Hmong Alliance Church: 11488 Jackson Warren 48089 - according to the census map this is in the Van Dyke School District
• Warren Hmong Alliance Church: 30301 Gloede Warren 48088 - according to the census map this is in the Warren Woods School District

If/when I determine which school districts have the most Hmong, I can ask for any Hmong-speaking Wikipedians to write articles in Hmong about them.

WhisperToMe (talk) 16:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

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

• Flag of Macomb County, Michigan.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:39, 20 August 2022 (UTC)