Jump to content

Talk:Vilnius Castle Complex

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleVilnius Castle Complex was one of the Art and architecture good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 24, 2004Good article nomineeListed
February 14, 2007WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
February 22, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
November 24, 2009Good article reassessmentKept
October 5, 2012Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Name?

[edit]

I think the title should be really Vilnius Castles since there are 3 castles: upper, lower and kreivoji (btw, I am looking for a more proper translation for this one). Renata 19:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that name is right, cuz Vilnius Castle is a whole as such taking all in one. Maybe Complex as main? M.K. 19:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You mean Vilnius Castle Complex? Good enough. My only objection really is that there is no such thing as Vilniaus pilis, there are only Vilniaus pilys. Renata 19:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I am talking about Vilnius Castle Complex M.K.
Moved. Renata 20:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

btw why all centuries in wikipedia are writen in 9,5, form not in V, XIX?

'cause it's English :) I think using Roman numbers for centuries is (more or less) Lithuanian convention. Renata 20:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
bad habit M.K.
I know (been there, done that :]) Renata 20:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About Curved castle - it should have separate history part also, but there are only few facts on it; several sentences tops. Maybe merge cuz stub will spoil article? M.K.

and another note - upper castle as such is called gediminas castle not gediminas tower M.K.

No it's not. It's a popular shortcut, yes, but it is not Gediminas castle, it's upper castle. Gediminas have only the tower (more or less the only thing that's left from the castle). Renata 01:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not argue that Upper Castle term is bad or not scientific (I would not used in article if I thought so), but Gediminas Castle term refers to whole Upper Castle not only its tower. M.K. 07:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
not sure wheter still stub --Lokyz 15:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
it is not, I just did not manage to delete it cuz I watch BBC News. M.K. 16:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Bastille/basteja

[edit]

I am thinking – do we need write separate article on Vilnius Bastille Vilnius Fortress is better I think or it is enough to make separate section of Vilnius Castle Complex? I am personally leaning to write separate article on Vilnius Bastille and make it as main article and used it as I did with Cathedral within Castle Complex articale. What other editors thinks about it? M.K. 18:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is that basteja is not really connected to the 3 castles. It was build much later, away from the other castles. So I am not even sure it belongs to this article (it's not a castle, that's for sure). BTW, I really like the way it is translated here -> Vilnius Artillery Bastion. Or are we talking about two different things? Renata 00:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Artillery Bastion was a part of Vilnius Fortress (i do not know the proper term of this, ) Vilnius Fortress was built also near the Lower Castle, and damage it; probably it deserves separate article. M.K. 14:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rivers

[edit]

There needs to be something written about all the rivers: Vilnia, the one that's now underground. Because now the plan shows the territory completely surrounded by water, but there is nothing mentioned of that sort in the article. Renata 14:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I inserted some notes, but feel free to do more if you need to. BTW, is it worth to write in this articale about Vilnius Cathed. excavations - Barbora Rad. tomb as well as others? Do I need mention that the treasures were mured in walls? M.K. 14:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doing some grammatical edits - Novickas 16:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


Questions

[edit]

I'm having some problems with the arsenals. In re New Arsenal: the article mentioned that it was "established in one of the oldest castle buildings in the 18th century" but later in the same paragaph it states that "during the 16th century its tower featured a beacon that guided ships in the Neris river", an anachronism.

Re Old arsenal - it states that "In contrast to New arsenal, which was adopted for this need in 18 th. century, Old arsenal was already established in 15 th. century". Does that mean that the old arsenal had already been built by then? If so, what are the suggested date ranges for its creation?

Novickas 14:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Answers

[edit]

New Arsenal was adapted to Arsenal needs in 18 th century. It was adopted/established in one of the oldest castle buildings, which prior 18 th century was not used for Arsenal and only in 18 th century building was proclaimed as Aresnal. This old building (which in 18th became Arsenal), at least from 16 th century, had and beacon.

Old arsenal, as such, was used for arsenal needs in 15 th century, while New Arsenal only in 18 th. Old Arsenal of 15 th century disintegrated and undergone big reconstructions in 16 th. Is it a bit better explanation ? M.K. 14:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks Novickas 14:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem! M.K. 14:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA nom on hold

[edit]

This GA nomination is on hold for 7 days for these reasons: there should be no space between punctuation and a footnote, multiple footnotes should not have a space between them, and single years (ex 1327) do not get wikilinked. Let me know when you've fixed this.Discuss the architectural styles too.Rlevse 12:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I fixed space between punctuation and a footnote problem, I just a bit wondering - should I remove all links from the single dates? And could you be a bit specific about discussion on architectural styles, because article holds information on building transformation from one style to other. M.K. 12:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, rm all solo date wikilinks. More later. Rlevse 12:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Space between punctuation and a footnote problem - fixed
  • Single years problem - fixed

M.K. 12:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Architecture--oh yeah-;). Last tweak--wikilink wherever possible. In this article's case, every century has an article on wiki, so link them (first occurence only of course). For example, 10th century should be linked as 10th century. When you get this done, I'll make it GA. Rlevse 17:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
:) ok I will try M.K. 17:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. M.K. 18:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA attained, for further improvements, consider expanding what attractions and features exist in the modern day complex/museum/etc. Rlevse 23:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vilnius Fort(ress)

[edit]

Would references to Vilnius Fort or Vilnius Fortress be references to Vilnius Castle, or is there something else? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wilno

[edit]

The Polish name of this castle should be in lead, as it is used in English literature: [1], [2]. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very strange calling this "English Literature" :

  • The nazi kultur in Poland‎ - Page 117 by Poland. Ministerstwo Informacji (Polish Ministry of Information) - History - 1945 - 220 pages.
  • This one's a nice example too: Acta Poloniae historica‎ - Page 180 by Instytut Historii (Polska Akademia Nauk) - History - 1995
  • And another: Skarb litewski za pierwszych dwu Wazów, 1587-1648: 1587-1648‎ - Page 115 by Anna Filipczak-Kocur - Lithuania - 1994 - 144 pages
  • Plus: Poland and Its Curiosities: (a Tourists' Guide)‎ by Mieczysław Orłowicz - History - 1927 - 118 pages [ "Sorry, this page's content is restricted" ] Too bad it's restricted, a 1927 Polish Tourist Guide might be enjoyable reading. Dr. Dan (talk) 01:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge History of Poland.radek (talk) 02:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Radek, since you neglected to mention that the Cambridge History of Poland mentions Wilno on three seperate entries (all on the same page, pg. 272), in the second set of examples, it's only fair to point this out. And let's face it, Mieczysław Orłowicz's 1927, "Polish Tourist Guide," is probably a better example to prove your point. Dr. Dan (talk) 20:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC) Dr. Dan (talk) 20:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? Who said anything about Orlowicz?radek (talk) 21:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.K. aka P.P, that's who. Dr. Dan (talk) 21:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, Piotrus linked to a google books search. You cherry picked it.radek (talk) 22:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does questioning whether or not the 1927 Polish "Tourist Guide" is a reason to include, or not to include, the Polish geographic description "Zespół Zamkowy w Wilnie," in the lead of this article an issue about "cherry picking", or is something else going on, Radeksz? Dr. Dan (talk) 23:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is the "Tourist Guide" the only source that Google search turned up? And I'm wondering myself what exactly is going on here. As if somehow adding ZZwW into the article 'pollutes' it. What exactly is the rational for excluding it?radek (talk) 23:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously the tourist guide was felt to be a necessary supportive source. The rationale for excluding it is WP:Undue (in spite of the "tourist guide"). Perhaps if I find a Lithuanian tourist guide concerning Wawel Castle you'll help me put its Lithuanian name in the lead of that article too. I'm sure I can find some newspaper articles (Lithuanian tygodniks) to back me up. Besides it was the Royal seat of the Jagiellons. Or does such a quid pro quo strike you as unfair? Dr. Dan (talk) 01:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Felt by whom? You're the one who brought it up, cherry picked from the Google source. If you find a number of English sources which use the Lithuanian name of Wawel Castle, then I would support the inclusion of it in the relevant article. I have trouble understanding why you would think that I would think this 'unfair'. It's not like I'd get offended just because a Lithuanian phrase occurs in a Poland-related article. I think you're basing your erronous assumptions on the attitudes of the wrong editors.radek (talk) 01:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Felt by P.P.. Dr. Dan (talk) 01:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no, since Piotrus linked to an ENTIRE google search, not that particular work. BTW, "Vavelio pilis" yields 23 hits in GB, none of them in English. "Vavelio Castle" does not match any documents. Even then, if you go and put "Vavelio Pilis" in Wawel Castle, I, personally would not remove it. That's the difference here, see?radek (talk) 01:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Actually, yes, and as impressive as the ENTIRE google search might strike you as, I suspect that the Jan Dlugosz (didn't incude it, but Dlugosz has got to be the most convincing example to include the Polish translation into English WP ) entry, was a translation from Latin into Polish into English. Or did he write it in English because I'm pretty sure the original was not written in Polish? Dr. Dan (talk) 02:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, we've apparantly arrived at that "further discussion is completely pointless" point that all our discussions wind up at.radek (talk) 02:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto, Radeksz, ditto. Dr. Dan (talk) 02:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

[edit]
This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Vilnius Castle Complex/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Starting GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria

[edit]
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    I have placed a few citation needed tags, where statements are unsupported. Ref #11 is not a WP:RS. Green tickY
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Just a few minor concerns with referencing. The prose is fair but verges on the clumsy at time,. I made a few copy-edits, but you may wish to cast another eye over it. It could stand improvement. On hold for seven days, major contributors and projects will be notified. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC) Green tickY[reply]

:::Allow me a week or so for the improvements. Thanks, M.K. (talk) 11:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC) [reply]

OK, I'll check back next Monday. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Much improved, I am happy for this to keep its GA status. One minor point - there is a tendency to over-use the term complex. I fixed one instance in the lead. It can be difficult to find a suitable term, but group of buildings, site, compound, structures are possible alternatives, though care needs to be taken to assses which is best for each instance. Congratulations on an interesting artcile. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References needed

[edit]

There are several places within the article that need references; as such this article does not seem to meet GA standards. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to start a reassessment. Jezhotwells (talk)

GA Reassessment

[edit]
This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Vilnius Castle Complex/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

The primary problem with this article is insufficient citations; there are outstanding citation needed tags. At least two references need page needed templates. Titles of Lithuanian references should be translated into English. I am afraid that if those issues are not addressed, the article cannot lay a claim to a modern GA standard. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Status check on the reassessment? AIRcorn (talk) 03:25, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No action from anyone, I am afraid I have no recourse but to fail this one. I'll go on and delist this. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Vilnius Castle Complex. 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) 15:25, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

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) 15:06, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

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) 15:38, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vilnius_Castle_Complex&oldid=1256789658"