Talk:Jakšto Street

Picture gallery

many thanks for your edits, which in my humble opinion definitely improve the article. I have taken the liberty of reverting one edit, namely the capture under the communist youth congress picture.

You see, content of every WP entry looks differently depending upon applications used (dedicated apps, PC browsers) and machines used (smartphone, PC, tablet, TV set); text is little problem, but usually the issue is with pictures, tables, lists, galleries etc. Whenever releasing an article, I test it on numerous devices, but it is close to impossible to ensure that on every single machine the content looks the way you want it to be.

The problem with your edit is that you have inserted a caption wider than the width of the picture it refers to. The result is that the table frame (for flexibility reasons I preferred to use table syntax than gallery syntax) gets extended to accomodate the capture (of course I could enforce a line break, but this would result in excessive horizontal blank space in captions in other frames within the table). The result of this, in turn, is 1) that there is blank space between picture edges and the frame, also in other frames; 2) that the table gets extended towards the right, which means that on some devices it does not fit on a screen and overflows towards the right.

To avoid the above and to accommodate your edit, I have changed the caption so that it refers to “communist youth”, but the link leads to the entry “Leninist Young Communist League of Lithuania”. Hope this is OK with you. Sure further corrections/improvements welcome.

regards, --Hh1718 (talk) 13:44, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Questions to Lokys dar Vienas

Hello, Lokys dar Vienas.

many thanks for your edits!

1.

It seems they are mostly about replacing straight links to articles in languages other than English with interlanguage links, which happened in 3 cases: these of 1) Mikhail Prozorov (Russian), 2) Adomas Jakštas and 3) Vaidilos Teatras (both Lithuanian).

However, I am not sure I follow your logic. You have not replaced straight links with interlanguage links in 11 other cases, namely: 1) Замковая, 2) Большая, 3) Островоротная, 4) Полесская железная дорога, 5) Сражения за Вильно (Russian), 6) Państwowe Gimnazjum im. Joachima Lelewela w Wilnie, 7) Przysposobienie Wojskowe, 8) Okręg Wilno Armii Krajowej (Polish), 9) Julius Christiansen (German), 10) Konstantinas Stašys, and 11) Juozas Rudzinskas (Lithuanian).

The result is that the article, which before your edits adhered to one single link format, now lost integrity and adheres to two different link formats. Was this your intention, please?

2.

Also, I have noticed that in one instance you changed Советская Литва to Sovetskaya Litva, but in another you left it as Советская Литва (with no transliteration).

First, I am not sure what the WP rule on names in Cyrillics is, and whether it is recommended to get them translated into Latin. Could you point me to any WP recommendations, please? Otherwise, could you advise your rationale, please?

Second, I am puzzled why in one case of Советская Литва you have transliterated, and in another you have not not. Actually, there also other cases of names in Cyrillics which you have left as in original, like 1) Замковая, 2) Большая, 3) Островоротная, 4) Гимназiя Прозоровой, and 5) Полесская железная дорога. Following your edits, the article has lost its integrity also in this sense, as some Russian names are transliterated, and some are not. Could you advise, please?

3.

You have also removed the link from the caption under the Prozorov picture. As far as I can tell, it is the WP policy to insert links in captions even in case the appropriate link is in the main body of the text already. Will you tell me your rationale, please?

Also, I have noticed you removed the link from the capture under the Prozorov picture, but you have left the links in captures under the pictures of 1) Jerzy Dąbrowski and 2) Adomas Jakštas (and these under 3) the Angarietis monument and 4) the SIS hq). This is another, already third type of damaged integrity, left following your edits. Grateful for some insights.

regards, --Hh1718 (talk) 15:34, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just make a quick look, basically showed you how to use interlanguage links and samples of Romanizatrion. I did leave some without interlanguage, but this is a bit of work, to find the correcponding article in other-language wikipedias. The rest do it yourself, I have a little interest in the subject. As for transliteration of Cyrillic, there is a well-established tradition, see Wikipedia:Romanization of Russian. I am not aware of any policy that wikilinks in the captions are obligatory. I do know just the opposite: do not wikilink the same term in places clos to each other. You ane me probably have to refresh the knowledge of the policy WP:OVERLINKING.Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 20:22, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lokys dar Vienas!

many thanks for your kind response.

I would summarise your comments as below:

1. why in few cases have you converted interlanguage linking to another convention, but in many others you have left the original link? Because using few samples I wanted to show you how to use interlanguage links
2. why in few cases have you Romanized some proper names, but in many others you have left the original Cyrillics? Because there is a well-established tradition of Romanizing
3. why in few cases have you removed links from some picture captions, but in many others you have left them as in the original? Because I am not aware of any policy re links in captions, while there is a policy on overlinking

I am afraid you have not answered questions 2) and 3), as your comments seem not to the point. However, I presume the answer you have provided as to 1) is applicable also elsewhere, please correct me if wrong. And the answer is: I have compromised the integrity of your article because I do not care about it, because this is too much work for me to get it all right, and because I have little interest in the subject. Do the rest yourself.

I am very grateful for your kind efforts to “show me”. You have raided my article, compromised its integrity by making selective editorial changes which consist of introducing optional, non-mandatory conventions, and you have concluded that cleaning up after you is a matter for me, because you do not care.

I must admit I am not entirely convinced by your rationale. Someone might even sense some brazen disregard in your comments, but surely I will not advance such premature conclusions. For the time being, I will revert to the status before you raiding this piece. Sure in case you want to introduce systematic editorial changes which stem from WP rules, I will be very grateful. As to WP rules on linking you pointed me to, please note that twice there are notes on useful links in captions.

regards, --Hh1718 (talk) 08:38, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]