Talk:Žirmūnai

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleŽirmūnai was one of the Geography and places 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 14, 2006Good article nomineeListed
December 15, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
March 26, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 21, 2007Good article reassessmentKept
March 5, 2023Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Questions 11/29/06[edit]

Maybe we should divide the early history section in 3 parts, Zvejai, Tuskelenai, and Siaures miesteles? It's getting kind of long.

I just thought about the same today ;) Iulius 19:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Tuskulenai entry "... in order to service Vilnius Castles...". Service them in what way?

maybe to provide them with resources - food, timber maybe something else. Maybe supply would be better? Iulius 19:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Rimsky-Korsakov - was he closely related to the musician? If not I think we shouldn't link to that article.

Should not link Iulius 19:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The White Little Manor - the description seems a little strange in the original reference. Why is it listed under Tuskenelu apŽvalga if it had no connection to it? Maybe wanting to distance themselves from Tuskenai's history? At any rate I think the part of the sentence that goes "no connection to Tuskelenai" should go.

This 'manor' is so little that not worth much mention at all :D Iulius 19:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"in January 1991, the victims of the January Events could be accessed for a farewell at the Palace." This sounds a little strange to my American ear. Access usually implies use of some sort. If someone could provide a reference for this, I could maybe come up with something else.

The mention of unintentional irony (in the recent street namings paragraph) seems a little out of place for Wikipedia. The ordinary reader would need a lot of background in regional history to see any irony. It would look to this hypothetical reader like "Hey, these were Lithuanian military heroes; why not name streets after them?"

I agree Iulius 19:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Novickas 17:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC) PS much nicer info box picture

glad you liked the pictures. a longer article deserved more images and here they are.Iulius 19:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I'll remove the "irony" part, because most likely it was just a coincidence that Šiaurės Miestelis continues with that military "flavor". White Little Manor should stay, because 19th century buildings are very scarce in Žirmūnai. The bit about the "farewell" in the Sports Palace is due to my inability to translate the Lithuanian word "pašarvoti", i.e. to "display" a casket with the deceased so that the relatives etc might come up to stand in silence etc (the ref is http://whatson.delfi.lt/archive/article.php?id=10036631 , mentioned in the article).Juozas Rimas 20:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I read the reference but like you, having trouble phrasing it. Some idea will come. In the meantime, maybe we should just put it up for review, before the curve of diminishing returns begins to flatten. Clearly this process is asymptotic. But you, Juozas, should have the last word. BTW, apropos of changing "white little palace" to "little white palace", my sis, friends, and I have had a number of great discussions about the order of multiple adjectives in English - what IS the rule? Some say it goes from more general to more specific - little applies to more things than white does? No, everything material has a color; but little can apply to abstract things as well, so maybe the rule does apply here. What about didzulis, baisus vabalas? Does it follow the same rule? Such entertainment. Hope the edits were OK; the idea was to put them into a more chronological order. Novickas 15:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
The multiple adjectives must a be "language feeling" thing. As a side note, why do we write Žirmūnai Bridge but Žirmūnų Street? Does it "feel" okay in English? Juozas Rimas 21:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, it should be Žirmūnai street. Novickas 21:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I do not like removal of occupation part, Juozas, but for stability let it be for now. M.K. 22:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably it is time to press for GA, any objections? M.K. 17:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC) I think it's time. Novickas 17:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crime[edit]

Standard crime statistics, or at least the easiest ones to find, are expressed as crimes per 1,000 persons per year. So I'm thinking we should take out the December 2005 crime rate (not the number of crimes) so as not to compare apples and oranges. Novickas 16:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Another[edit]

Maybe contributors who improved this article, would like to do the same with Vilnius? It is a bit shame that so nice city has a not fully developed article. So I just wondering maybe you all try to work on it too. A? M.K. 09:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, creation and improvement of Žirmūmai proved to be an example of a matter of principle and a rare instance of successful and sought after Lithuanian collaboration on English wiki Iulius 10:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This idea sounds great to me. But somewhat daunting. The PL-LT wars almost made us lose Renata. (We might have gotten lucky with this article in the sense that it has not been derailed by controversy). The collaboration has been great, wish we could get together and celebrate, galbut kada nors (maybe sometime). In the meantime...let's encourage each other. Novickas 15:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Awesome! I thought it is not really possible: really obscure topic, no sources, just bits of details there and there... Great job! Sorry I could not chip in... Yes, on to Vilnius! Renata 00:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So Vilnius is next? Juozas are you with us? M.K. 18:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My activity regarding the Žirmūnai article is partly related to the fact that I have lived in the neighborhood since I was born. But this means I also lived in Vilnius all the time, so why not enhance the Vilnius article? :) However, Vilnius is such a HUGE topic... Juozas Rimas 12:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Much the same applies to me as well... Iulius 21:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So when we go to Vilnius? M.K. 22:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Am looking at Boston, Massachusetts, since it was a featured article, for ideas. A lot of the Vilnius talk page could be archived; M.K.? Novickas 13:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I did not understand the last part of your remark - Vilnius talk is archived already. Nevertheless all talk about Vilnius should go to its talk. M.K. 19:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent article[edit]

This is an excellent, comprehensive, well-written, informative and fascinating article. Well done to all involved!

GA On Hold[edit]

This article is on hold for the following reasons:

  1. Section headings should not repeat the title as according to WP:MSH.
  2. Please convert all bulleted lists into prose as according to Wikipedia:Embedded list.
  3. Per WP:MOS, avoid using words/phrases that indicate time periods relative to the current day. For example, recently might be terms that should be replaced with specific dates/times.
  4. If possible extend the first or add a fourth paragraph to bring the article to WP:LEAD.

When these objections are addressed feel free to contact me. Tarret 20:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, lets fix them. M.K. 23:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)P.S. Renata, why you stopped all sections needs prose style :)[reply]

Yes, I need some sleep :) Renata 12:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
C'mon - its daytime.. Iulius 12:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which time zone? :) Renata 06:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Made some adjustments, needs copy edit, badly needs! M.K. 13:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC) P.S.I am not sure about first or add a fourth paragraph[reply]

Thanks Novickas for copy edit. Renata you meaningly left bullets in Other educational institutions in Žirmūnai include? M.K. 16:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, not intentionally. I just finished it. So objection #1 - done, #2 - done, #3 - needs to be double checked, but I believe done, #4 - can someone write more in the lead? Renata 06:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other districts[edit]

This article is excellent. I know that those involved now want to move on to tidying up and improving the Vilnius article. After you've done that, perhaps you could consider editing the articles for the other districts/suburbs of Vilnius? It would be great if they were as detailed and well-written as this one.

And then after that perhaps other cities and towns of Lithuania.....?

It would be fantastic to make Wikipedia a detailed English-language source of info on Lithuania. Perhaps it could help promote the country and bring in more tourists?

Originally from the UK, I lived and worked in Vilnius for two years. I'm back in London now, but I'd be happy to help in any way I can.

--Terryc 09:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone's edits and especially copyedits are very welcome in Lithuania-related pages. Nice to see you around. Iulius 09:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Question re Soviet Urban Planning[edit]

In re The Ideal Communist City. This book is frequently cited but with different publication dates - some say "almost 40 years ago", some say "in the 1970s", one says "in the 1950s". Does anyone know enough Russian to find the actual Russian publication date? Novickas 20:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Added. It seems, though, that Žirmūnai were built earlier than the book was first published. But it's likely that the concept was "in the air" in Moscow University and Lithuanian architects were exposed to it directly. Juozas Rimas 21:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA Passed[edit]

Congratulations on this articles promotion. The following is a bot-generated suggestion to bring the article to FA-class.

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
  • Per Wikipedia:What is a featured article?, Images should have concise captions.
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 20 kilometre, use 20 kilometre, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 20 kilometre.
  • Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.
  • This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.
  • Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: honour (B) (American: honor), neighbour (B) (American: neighbor), meter (A) (British: metre), metre (B) (American: meter), organize (A) (British: organise), ization (A) (British: isation), program (A) (British: programme), programme (B) (American: program ).
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Tarret 21:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations for all of us who left a part of our hearts in this article, Juozas Rimas, Novickas, MK etc. Iulius 23:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I say don't stop: I don't think that the article is too far from becoming the first FA on Lithuania :) Renata 01:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hurray! Novickas 13:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Brutalism or Constructivism?[edit]

What about the architectural style of the will-some-day-be-destroyed Sports Palace. So far more sources claim in favour of Brutalism than Constructivism. Iulius 13:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about "the Palace of Concerts and Sports, described in architectural literature as a notable example of either Constructivism or Brutalism ". Allows the reader to decide. Novickas 13:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I need stronger ground support for Constructivism, as there are almost no sources to confirm it, compared to Brutalism, which is in fact quite evident if you look at it :) Besides, I find your suggestion a little too lenghty for this article. Iulius 15:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say neither :) Constructivism was 30-40 years before and brutalism is not quite like that. But I am not an expert in any way. Renata 15:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sending an email to my brother, who is an architect (see http://www.pulitzer.org/year/1999/criticism/works/day10/page1.html) although his opinion in an email wouldn't be source-able. It does seem more Brutalist. Also it seems to deserve its own article... Novickas 16:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Forgot to mention, the bro's opinion was that it didn't fit well into any category. Novickas 12:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thanks for support. However, there are tens of buildings in Vilnius more deserving articles of their own.Iulius 16:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can't argue with that. Just that it's referred to so often in this article. Novickas 18:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I think it's a matter of reference. There is one reference that it is constructivist, please add one or more for Brutalist (preferably online ref). What about the so-misleading "Vilnius Palace of Culture, Entertainment and Sports" - is it "functionalist" (one reference only too) or Brutalist? Don't forget Tėvynė cinema too: it is "Soviet historicism" in the reference and I couldn't find such style in Wikipedia. Juozas Rimas 20:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am pretty sure that this style should be somewhere under Stalinist architecture, colleagues lawyers ;) Iulius 21:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ideas for peer review[edit]

Proposed some ideas in the peer review article, may be some one would be willing to discuss the actions? Iulius 16:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am hoping that some outsider and uninvolved person (with fresh eyes) would comment on it. Like, does everything make sense? (it was written mostly by people who know the elderate inside-out) Is anything material missing? How's the prose? Etc. Minors stuff like brackets can be fixed quite easily. Renata 17:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
it is easy to fix but the agreement should come at first in order to keep from reverting back forth like neris river - river neris etc. Iulius 18:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

British vs US usage[edit]

User 213.52.162.226, per recent edits, thinks we should follow British usages in this article (e.g. River Neris vs. Neris River). The W. guidelines indicate that it should consistently go all one way or the other, any thoughts? Novickas 18:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I stand for english usage that means if we agree one of us could make it consistent in the article metres, centres, etc. Iulius 18:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Reference format[edit]

I just spent several hour converting references into proper format using {{cite web}}. Could someone with better knowledge of Polish and Russian covert refs #15, 16, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29? Thanks! Renata 09:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rural elderates?[edit]

Has anyone ever found information online on the population of Lithuania's rural elderates? We are hesitating whether Žirmūnai's the most populous of all the elderates or just city elderates. The rural elderates might be larger but 47K people (could be 60K now easily) in Žirmūnai are a lot for Lithuania in absolute terms as well. Juozas Rimas 09:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anything missing?[edit]

Do we need any more references in this article? Iulius 09:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We need, especially for crime section - first and third paragraphs. M.K. 10:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


FAC[edit]

Presumably the reviewer wants the history in the lead paragraphs shortened? Does anyone know of some FAC city neighborhood articles that we could look at? Novickas 12:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

As I understood the History section do not summarize the rest article history part. M.K. 12:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see. What is the little template for editing in progress on a section? Novickas 12:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
{{inuse}} M.K. 12:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you expand history summary a bit, as it is too small, in my view. M.K. 09:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Is there a hard and fast deadline on this FAC? Don't have much time just now...Novickas 23:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Around two weeks. One is almost gone. M.K. 08:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Later today. Novickas 13:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Interesting: a robot was sent to de-list it after six days. Citizendium. Novickas 22:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
It was among the FACs removed by User:Raul654. Gimmetrow 02:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you clarify how long FAC are running? At least for week? M.K. 08:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They run until Raul removes them. Standard is five-six days, but if there is a lot of discussion and the result isn't clear, they may stay two or three weeks. The oldest current FAC has been active over a month. When you resubmit this, be a bit more insistent on people striking objections when they are resolved. Gimmetrow 13:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, you see I thought that there is some time and I did not rush to make adjustment to all listed questions at one time, but instead step by step. And we solved one contributors User:Nichalp remarks and started to making other improvements, but it was interrupted by unexpected FAC closure...M.K. 16:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A fac is likely to be closed if there are no supports after 5 days. What I would suggest is to go over the objections, fix what you can, and resubmit to FAC in a week or whenever the issues are fixed. Gimmetrow 17:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for comprehensive explanations. M.K. 17:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Pass[edit]

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, Epbr123 11:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

pronunciation[edit]

I deleted the apparently nonsensical IPA. Anyone know for sure? kwami (talk) 07:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yes it is.--Lokyz (talk) 21:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is what? If there is a mid tone and a short vowel on the mu (which I find dubious, since Lithuanian ū is a long vowel) and a rising tone on the nai, which tone does the Žir have? (It would probably be easiest to give the Lithuanian transcription, with full diacritics, and we can convert to the IPA from there.) kwami (talk) 20:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious corrections[edit]

Armia Krajowa soldiers – who had been executed by the NKGB and MGB in the Vilnius' KGB Palace between 1944 and 1947. by user:Renata3 and who had been executed by the NKGB and MGB in the Vilnius' KGB Palace between 1944 and 1947 but also those who died fighting Polish Armia Krajowa soldiers. nu user:Jacurek is rather disturbing difference. A question - were there no AK soldiers burried after they surrendered and laid down the arms to the Red army in parade after the so called Operation Ostra Brama.--Lokyz (talk) 21:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I made a mistake. I restored that but the sentence needs to be rewritten because it is confusing.--Jacurek (talk) 22:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, what do the sources say exactly? Are these AK soldiers who were killed by the Soviets or AK soldiers who were killed by Nazis and Lithuanian collaborators? Or is it Lithuanians who died at the hands of AK? Or all three (in one of history's ironies)? It definitely is confusing as of now.radek (talk) 16:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you do not want AK burrial place mentioned, it is your choice. Although accusations without any knowledge of the situation makes me shrug my shoulders. Peace be with you.--Lokyz (talk) 16:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't make any accusations (where?). I was really just curious. If AK soldiers are buried there then that should be mentioned. If Lithuanians who fought against AK are buried there then that too should be mentioned. I'm only asking for clarification here, that's all. And also with you.radek (talk) 16:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A request[edit]

Would you please stop using my name in the edit summarries. It is considered as Uncivil. Regarding insane - indeed it is insane trying to apply a Polish name to the 1960 establishment. Consider this before attempting to put an inappropriate name here. If you still think it has a place here you might think a Lithuanian name for Nowa Huta.--Lokyz (talk) 15:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing insane about it if it has a substantial Polish minority. As far as I am aware Nowa Huta does not have a substantial Lithuanian minority, otherwise you'd be right. This is also first I heard that using someone's name in edit summaries is consider uncivil.radek (talk) 16:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed: then why didn't you put Moskwa or Waszyngton into apropriate articles? They sure have Polish minority.--Lokyz (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, neither Moscow nor Washington, DC, is 15% Polish. Maybe Chicago but as it happens Poles in Chicago spell it ... "Chicago" rather than Czikago.radek (talk) 16:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strange enough - Polish wikipedia spells them this way. As for your previous statement - there are a lot of things you haven't heard of, although they do exist.--Lokyz (talk) 17:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What, Polish wiki says that Poles spell "Chicago" "Czikago"? I don't think so [1]. Or that Polish wiki spells "Moscow" "Moskwa" and "Washington" "Waszyngton"? Of course it does, as these are the Polish names for these places (and it includes the English version). What's your point? As for my previous statement, is there a Wiki policy or guideline which says that it is uncivil to mention someone's name in an edit summary (which I guess would make every Undo edit uncivil)? Or did you just make it up? Can you link to a specific guideline please?radek (talk) 17:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not put your words into my mouth. I did not say a word about Chicago. Back at you - can you link to a specific guideline please that specifically insist putting Polish names into foreign cities lead? --Lokyz (talk) 17:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what was the point of pointing out that Polish wikipedia has article on "Moskwa" and "Waszyngton"? How is this at all relevant to the discussion? There's no need of a guideline here, to put relevant and informative versions of the name into the article. Now, are you going to explain how mentioning someone's name in an edit summary is uncivil or are you going to back off that empty accusation?radek (talk) 18:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Try putting Kijów to the apropriate article, and you'll learn the common view regarding Polish imperialism.--Lokyz (talk) 18:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<-- Are you going to answer any questions that were posed to you, or just keep changing subjects from one to another and city to city. Now, THAT may be considered by some as uncivil or at least not conducive to a good faith discussion. So to answer your question, this has nothing to do with imperialism, Polish or otherwise and the population of Poles in Kiev is only a third of one percent as opposed to close to fifteen percent here. Also, even if Kijow should be in Kiev but it's not there, doesn't say anything about what should be in here. Now, let me ask again: 1) What is the relevance of the fact that Polish Wiki has articles titled "Waszyngton" and "Moskwa" to this article? 2) Is there a particular guideline, or at least a specific reason, why you think that including an editor's name in an edit summary is uncivil or is this just your own 'seeing teddy bears'?radek (talk) 18:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another suggesion - try to put Kijów into the article, and you'll learn common policies. if you do not, consider your attempts to Polonize Lithuanian names as futile. No more comments.--Lokyz (talk) 18:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Or in other words, "No answer", just empty accusations and irrelevancies.radek (talk) 18:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, several of you have violated WP:3RR in this silly edit war. Keep it up and I'll block you for disrupting the article. If you cannot agree here, then ask for mediation. (Personally, I don't see why it's a problem to include the Polish or Russian, and the Polish is certainly not "dubious" as Lokyz claimed, but then I don't see why an English speaker would care about the Polish either, so either version seems acceptable to me.)

While we're here, if anyone knows what the "IPA" is supposed to be, it would be nice to get that cleaned up. With diacritics, is the city maybe " Žirmūnaĩ "? kwami (talk) 21:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a city, is a city district. The correct spelling is Žirmūnai, the ĩ seems like accented i, that is used only in philologic literature. Anyway the accent goes on ū.--Lokyz (talk) 13:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anybody violated 3RR here though Lokyz is pushing it.radek (talk) 22:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe not, but editors can be blocked for edit warring regardless. (I made a blanket threat because I didn't want to single anyone(s) out, and hopefully this won't continue.)
I think I understand the transcription now. It wasn't IPA at all. Evidently the ū is stressed, though I can't hear it in the sound file. Anyone know if that's a ú or a ũ? kwami (talk) 22:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is one editor (Lokyz) who has a problem to include Polish names in all articles about Lithuanian cities, that once were in Poland or had big Polish minority. In my opinion his actions are driven by some strange nationalistic motives I do not understand. P.S. We should give this article a rest (including Lokyz) because Kwamikagami is right about edit warring that is happening here.--Jacurek (talk) 22:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can certainly understand why Lithuanians might have nationalistic sensibilities. Poland has had a few more decades of independence, and is more ethnically homogeneous. But such sentiments have no place here. (And were these cities once in Poland, or was Poland once in Lithuania? Is there even any difference, back in the days before the nation state?) For US American cities, we sometimes supply the Spanish pronunciation if there is a large Latino population (also historically part of Spain and then Mexico), and giving the Polish for Lithuanian cities would seem analogous. But then, most English speakers (our audience) won't know the difference, and for those who are interested, the Polish interwiki is right there, in the left-hand column. Either way, it seems a pretty minor disagreement, and certainly not something that either "must" be there or "must" be deleted. But by analogy with Gdańsk, which includes German Danzig, we should probably keep it. kwami (talk) 00:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry that you stumbled into a middle of this nasty fight. Basically I agree with you 100% and part of my reasoning is same as with US cities with large Spanish speaking populations and ties to Spanish speaking countries, as well as the Gdansk/Danzig, or Wroclaw/Breslay. This suburb has both historical and present day ties (see my reply to MK below). Poland and Lithuania were once one country, more or less. By mutual choice, not conquest. The reason to include it is also straightforward - if someone is interested in the Polish minority in Lithuania but doesn't know exactly where to start they may end up here at some point and will learn something relevant. There's also no 'cost' to including it. Basically MK and Lokyz insist on removing anything that looks "Polish" from all Lithuanian related articles (unless it's something really negative) based on a nationalistic IDON'TLIKEIT. They are not representative of Wiki consensus and I seriously doubt they are even representative of typical Lithuanian opinion.radek (talk) 01:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree %100 with this comment.--Jacurek (talk) 04:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not intend to get involved into namecalling you just did. I have already presented my arguments - in 1960 Vilnius was not a part of Poland, the name is made up by removing Lithuanian ending so it's not unique Polish name. As for removal of Poland - I've already told you on the Lipka's talk page - where there is no Poland, it simply isn't and there is no need to find something that does not exist. And Poland and Lithuania were two nations, not one, at least the official name of PLC says it.
Also I would like to ask Jacurek to correct spelling of my nickname in his comments, because it seems like he's mocking me right now and a violation of WP:NPA.--Lokyz (talk) 12:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't call you any names. And those arguments weren't yours, they were MK's. But ok. I've also never said Poland and Lithuania were not two nations, I said they were one country (or one state if you prefer). You actually haven't given any arguments. You just brought up bunch of irrelevant stuff, like what the title of "Washington" article is on Polish wiki, made a bunch of empty and unfounded accusations of incivility, posted some stuff in Lithuanian on English wiki, and generally refused to engage in productive discussion.radek (talk) 03:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not mocking you, just made mistake. Thanks for pointing that out. As far as your previous comment, what is wrong with including a Polish name to towns, which historically were connected to Poland or Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth??????? This article is about a district of Vilnius and history of this place can be traced back 100's of years. You included some Lithuania names into the articles about towns, which are in Poland now, and I supported you.[[2]] What the h..l is going on here????? ... and stop telling me this B.S. that Žirmūnai was created by the Soviets, they just developed the place in the 60's but the Žirmūnai existed long before that.--Jacurek (talk) 15:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mistake is once, there are two another (mocking) mistakes left. And, btw connected in 14th century by what? Lithuanian dynasty?--Lokyz (talk) 16:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ohh..stop that nonsense acusations already, I told you that I made a mistake. Don't change the subject, focus on the problem and answer my question first.--Jacurek (talk) 20:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mistaken four times including edit summary and failed to fix three mistakes out of four? You must be kidding really mocking me. As a Christian I do not swear, and I do recommend to formulate your questios in a more civilised way. Peace may be with you.--Lokyz (talk) 03:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm telling you for the third time, I misspeleed your name by mistake so stop accusing me and stop CHANGING THE SUBJECT ... this way we are not going to get anywhere...--Jacurek (talk) 03:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not yell at me and consider fixing the last mistake just below. Thank you.--Lokyz (talk) 03:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Editing other user comments is rather uncivil, despite how calm I am. Is user:Jacurek and user:Radeksz related in some way?
Maybe we should run a check for sock puppets--Lokyz (talk) 03:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<-- Actually, what you should do is file a case over at Sockpuppet investigations [3]. Be sure to really articulate your suspicions, the reasons for them and the evidence you've accumulated. If you're not gonna do it, then please don't make these empty threats and insulting insinuations. Actually, let me ask this clearly: Are you suggesting that I am Jacurek's sock puppet or vice versa? If not then I want you to categorically state that your above suggestion was just a (ill considered) joke and was not meant to be taken seriously. Seriously, accusing editors of suck puppetry for no reason at all, is not cool.radek (talk) 04:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please be sure that I did accuse anyone, before going into personal attacks There's a meatpuppetry that is uncool also. It was just an example about cool and vice versa, nothing personal and most probably not related with editing other user's comments.
So, you weren't suggesting that I am a sock puppet, right? But now you're suggesting I am a meat puppet, yes? Ok, what exactly leads you to believe that I was canvassed here? Again, please provide the evidence you have for yet another (third by my count) empty accusation.radek (talk) 05:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A question - since the title is disputed, what proposed title would be?--Lokyz (talk) 05:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The title should be "Žirmūnai" as it is now. Nobody is disputing the title. Nobody has proposed changing the title. Nobody has mentioned the title at all. You know that the discussion is not about that. Is this yet another, (I lost count which) attempt to derail the discussion onto something irrelevant? radek (talk) 05:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please tell the audience why did you split my comment in two inserting your words inbetween lines of my comment and once again putting your words into my mouth?--Lokyz (talk) 05:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then would you please consider removing an inappropriate tag? or at least explain what is so not-neutral in current article?--Lokyz (talk) 05:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is hopeless...Lokyz is just trolling here now in my opinion, there is nothing we can do anymore. This is THE END from my part as far as him on this talk page. Ciao for now!--Jacurek (talk) 06:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, me, editing Jacurek's comment, is UNCIVIL, to YOU? Is Jacurek complaining? I simply edited it to end this completely unnecessary drama.radek (talk) 04:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lokyz, are you going to keep talking about yourself and other people or you will focus on the problem we have here? If not, I'm out of here because this is waste of time.--Jacurek (talk) 03:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, when someone doesn't have any REAL arguments, a common tactic is to derail the discussion onto irrelevant topics and obfuscate by making false and empty charges of incivility.radek (talk) 04:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Both of you per WP:BURDEN should convince community that such "info" is needed, relevant and necessary. So far I saw only irrelevant personal related comments without any substance, sorry such "arguments" like "city which belonged to Poland for hundreds of years" don't impress me at all. M.K. (talk) 09:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As one of three principle editors, who contributed to the development of this article, I see no reason for the PL name inclusion. a)It is not a "city" and has nothing to do with "Poland" as it was established in 1960s. b) no single English source were presented to show usage of this name in the EN academic sources, while this is still English wiki. d) wikipedia is not dictionary as well. Besides in the first place there was no consensus to include this piece. Therefore out. M.K. (talk) 00:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
MK, you keep bestowing this title "principle editor" on yourself on various articles but there is no such thing. Wikipedia is "an encyclopedia that anyone can edit", even if your usurpations had a modicum of truth behind them. See [4]. Also whether this is a "city" or a "town" is irrelevant. This ... area ... is obviously connected to Poland in two important ways (which Kwami speculates about above): 1) it is part of Vilnius, which is connected to Poland and 2) it has a substantial Polish speaking minority (15%). There is no consensus now to remove it.radek (talk) 01:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Civility is the must. First of all Vilnius is not "connected" to Poland, as city is within State of Lithuania. Second, the time then Poland occupied and annexed Vilnius between 1922 and 1939, there was no Žirmūnai. As Žirmūnai was created by Soviets in 60s. Third, New York City has a lot of Hispanic speaking people and other notable minorities, but non of them usurping the lead. Fourth, taking into commiseration that Polish render of the name is translation of Lithuanian one, rather then complete different name, I agree with Lokyz that such marginal name falls withing concept of WP:UNDUE. M.K. (talk) 10:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, Vilnius is connected to Poland historically and through the fact that it has a large Polish speaking minority. What you means is that Vilnius is currently not politically connected to Poland - but of course it's not and no one's saying it is or that it should be. But that is irrelevant. As for New York, I'd support putting in a Spanish name in the lead (or actually having a separate name section) except for the fact that as with Chicago and "Czikago" most Latina/os (btw, the term "Hispanic" is considered offensive by some) refer to the place as New York (except with a Spanish accent) rather then Neuvo Yorko or something. The statement that the Polish version is just translation is your own POV and is unsupported by sources.radek (talk) 18:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A ya, it is connected to Spain, Germany, Norway and etc as well. Regarding "Hispanic" perhaps it is offensive to some, likewise perhaps it is offensive to some to be called "Polish". But I am confident that people will find the way to Oxford English dictionary for the explanation [5]. M.K. (talk) 09:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are so wrong M.K.... history of the place can be traced back to 14 centaury..I don't even want to talk about it today...anyway, welcome to edit warring club because consensus has not been yet reached and you just reverted our edits. So far 3 editors say it should be kept and you and of course Lokyz that not. Thank you for your "good faith" contribution.--Jacurek (talk) 01:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I was operating under the assumption that everyone here was aware that the name "Zyrmuny" predates the official establishment of this suburb but perhaps not. So here it is, the name predates this official establishment.radek (talk) 03:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any sources to support this allegation? English language preffered.--Lokyz (talk) 05:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POV tag[edit]

Can anyone explain what is wrong with the neutrality or was the tag added just out of thin air?--Lokyz (talk) 06:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Name in Russian[edit]

(LOKYZ ! THIS IS TO MUCH YOU REMOVED THIS COMMENT. I'M WARNING YOU NOW. Reinserting my original question removed by Lokyz below.)

Should Russian name be also included here? I'm not sure about it but since there is the biggest Russian minority living in Žirmūnai and since the Russians developed Žirmūnai in the 1960's maybe it should be there?--Jacurek (talk) 23:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Either Russian or Belorussian could be included here, but we can leave that to Russian or Belorussian editors.radek (talk) 23:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If your comment was lost during subsequent edits, assume good faith and reinsert it rather, then start writing in CAPs (which is considered as shouting) and issuing pointless "warnings", which are nothing more then battlefield creation. M.K. (talk) 15:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My comment was not just lost. It was removed by Lokyz[[6]] and this was vandalism--Jacurek (talk) 23:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, so Jacurek mistakenly mispells Lokyz's name and it's all hell and end of the world because he's being uncivil, but somebody removes Jacurek's comment and it's all "assume good faith and get over it"???? Gimme a break. To continue to assume something in the face of overwhelming and repeated evidence to the contrary is the very definition of stupidity. From the wiki guideline itself:
MK, *"An exhortation to "Assume Good Faith" can itself be seen as a breach of this very tenet, since it fails to assume the assumption of good faith if the perceived assumption of bad faith is not clear-cut."
MK,*"Making accusations of bad faith can be inflammatory and hence these accusations may be unhelpful in a dispute. It can be seen as a personal attack if bad faith motives are alleged without clear evidence that others' editing is actually in bad faith. The result is often accusations of bad faith on your part, which tends to create a nasty cycle."
and finally
Lokyz, *"This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence."radek (talk) 17:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would you please sign your comments and stop using caps?--Lokyz (talk) 14:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should Russian name be also included here and if not, why? I may post this question on the Russian board to get more feedback. I think that since they developed the area and have substantial minority there, the Russian name should be next to the Polish one.--Jacurek (talk) 00:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New section, just because[edit]

Me: the name predates this official establishment. Lokyz:Any sources to support this allegation? English language preffered.--Lokyz (talk) 05:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The fact that a Belorusian village of the same name has existed since the 18th century (see Karol Podczaszyński) should be proof enough that the names predates the official establishment.radek (talk) 17:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now, since I've answered yet another one of your questions, would you mind answering at least, I dunno, three?... is that too much... make it two then, of mine:

  • What is the relevance of the fact that Polish Wikipedia has articles entitled "Waszyngton" and "Moskwa" to this debate?
  • What does Kiev, which has less than one third of one percent(.33%) of a Polish minority, as opposed to Zyrmuny, which has close to fifteen percent (15%), have to do with this debate?
  • What exactly is considered uncivil about using someone's name in an edit summary or where is this mentioned in a Wiki guideline?

I'm not letting you off the hook here - it's impossible to have a good faith, productive discussion if one side refuses to engage and answer questions and instead responds with only new questions and new empty accusations. I got to give some credit to MK here, at least he's trying to address the issue.radek (talk) 17:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another new section, for clarity's sake[edit]

A ya, it is connected to Spain, Germany, Norway and etc as well. Regarding "Hispanic" perhaps it is offensive to some, likewise perhaps it is offensive to some to be called "Polish". But I am confident that people will find the way to Oxford dictionary for the explanation [5]. M.K. (talk) 09:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

You're not seriously arguing that Vilnius' connection to Spain (or Germany, or Norway) is the same as Vilnius' connection to Poland? That would be quite something. As for Hispanic, Oxford dictionary also has other terms in it which are also now considered offensive. The fact that it hasn't caught up with the fact that many Latino/as do consider it offensive (most of them DON'T come from Hispaniola after all and have no connection to Spain) doesn't change that they do. And nobody's calling anyone Polish that doesn't want to be called that. Apparently some do want to forcibly "Lithuanize" the Poles that live in Lithuania though.radek (talk) 17:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for inclusion[edit]

MK: Both of you per WP:BURDEN should convince community that such "info" is needed, relevant and necessary. So far I saw only irrelevant personal related comments without any substance

If you had read the discussion carefully you'd seen that I've provided much more info and arguments other than "irrelevant personal related comments without any substance" (which appears to be Lokyz' specialty). But to reiterate and summarize: The other-language name should be included if EITHER (not both) of these reasons are satisfied:

  • the place has a substantial other-language ethnic minority residing there. We can bicker over what "substantial" means but that's a separate issue and in any case, 15% definietly fits the bill (If we were to have a cut off I'd go with something like 5% or less which is a lot)
  • the place has substantial historical and cultural ties to other-language country or speakers. So if famous other-language person were born in the place, if historically it had a very ("very">"substantial") large community of other-language speakers, if the place spend a lot ("a lot" about equal to "very" qualitatively) time as part of another state (Note on this last one, PLC is an obvious exceptions and some of these issues need to be dealt with differently).

Now, Zyrmuny satisfies BOTH of these criteria. The first because it has an almost 15% Polish minority. And the second because it is part of Vilnius which has very strong ties to Polish history and culture. Additionally - even though I consider this a bit of a red herring - the name predates the Soviet development. So in fact, the BURDEN is met twice over, double! As either one of these reasons should be sufficient. Now, I'm not gonna assume bad faith here and suggest that you just brought up WP:BURDEN to throw up a road block and that no matter what arguments are presented you will insist that it hasn't been met - but just wanted to make sure the possibility of someone somewhere acting in this way is on the table.

And yes, I would apply roughly the same criteria for Lithuanian names in Polish cities. And these criteria are consistent with how we deal with Breslau in Wroclaw and similar issues in Polish/German towns. So why should Poland/Lithuania be an exception?radek (talk) 17:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, why should Poland/Lithuania be an exception?? Detailed explanation will be greatly appreciated.--Jacurek (talk) 23:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest that the above "BOTH" criteria are rather irrelevant without major consideration: Prevalence in English usage (since it is English wikipedia, after all, and translations are one mouse click away). Clarification: in the case of e.g., Wrocław/Breslau the German name of a now Polish city has so a significant historical prominence that in can be seen in numerous English-language texts.

Second counter-argument: if we were talking about this old village of Zirmunai, it would make sense to use both historical names, regardless English usage. But in the case of district there is no historical usage: in Vilnuis it was in use only in Soviet times.

Finally, a remark about Russian term: IMO for an English reader it is rather useless: no significant usage is seen in google, but for the sake of redirect I'd rather add it, so that someone reading some translation of an old Russian text could find Zhirmunai in wikipedia. - Altenmann >t 01:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, for places like this, neither Zirmunai nor Zyrmuny is likely to be prevalent in English language media. I guess a third criteria should be added to the two above: "if a particular other language name is prevalent in English language publications". However, I see that as more of an argument of what the article title should be (or of related articles) rather than what names should go in the lead. I'm not sure how using both in the name of the village makes sense, but not using both here makes sense or is consistent.
One counter argument to the counter argument is always going to be "why not?", except a nationalistic-motivated IDON'TLIKE IT. It's not like it eats up valuable bytes or something. The only exception here I see is the situation where a long list of other-language names can clutter up the lead, but that just means there should be a separate section.
Now to the other argument - that "translations are a click away". First, I'm an English speaker, though bilingual. And when trying to start the article on Zhirmuny it was a major PAIN figuring out what the name was in Belorussian. Basically, inter-wiki links help ONLY IF you already know what you're looking for. But the purpose of the Encyclopedia is to provide information that is not known a priori - if this article had the Belorussian name in it previously it would've been a cinch to find info on it. Of course I was just looking for it for Wiki purposes, but many English speakers may be interested in knowing other language names for other purposes - for travel purposes, ethnographic purposes etc. Given the large Polish minority that exists in this place, including the Polish name is by no means undue. To restate - interwiki only helps if you know something already. Including other lang names in the lead is to help folks who don't know already.radek (talk) 02:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, argumentation for the inclusion of the irrelevant names was already disproved by others in several cases already. Just few brief repetition:

  • It was already showed with New York City, Chicago (can be listed dozen other examples) cases that "minority" issues is not the main factor for inclusion names in different languages. "Argumentation" that Žirmūnai is not prevailing in English publication can be dismissed without any doubt just looking in google search, which yields English scientific studies like [7]. ( yet no single English academic material was presented with PL name)
  • So called "substantial historical and cultural ties" is just another example to find "ties" there are non. Soviet-build micro-district in 1960s hardly know for its ties with Poland. Using such "logic" every single building, living department like "Krivių namai" (2005) should have and PL names, because it has "substantial historical and cultural ties".
  • Wikiepdia specifically notes that it isn't a dictionary. Personally I see not only attempt to build one. Inclusion such marginal "names" as Polish one, is straight forward WP:UNDUE.
  • Example with Breslau is irrelevant here. M.K. (talk) 10:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, no it hasn't.
  • What does NY City or Chicago have to do with anything? Do Poles constitute 15% of population in NY? Do they spell Chicago "Czikago"? No? Why do I have to repeat myself?
  • The fact that Zirmunai is used in English publication is an argument for what this article's title should be, not for what goes in its lead.
  • Substantial historical and cultural ties exist because this micro district is part of the city that has substantial and cultural ties AND 15% of the population is Polish speaking - i.e. 15% of its inhabitants, if not more, call it Zyrmuny,
  • Yes, WP is not a dictionary but it is an encyclopedia meant to provide information, as inclusion of other-lang names does. Under your blanket interpretation of the statement "WP isn't a dictionary" we should remove other language names under all circumstance - is this what you believe?
  • Of course example with Wroclaw (Breslau) (I've been politely spelling it Vilnius through out this here) is relevant. An assertion is not an argument. Just because you say "is irrelevant" does not magically make it irrelevant. Why is it irrelevant? Same issue, same thing. I.e. relevant.radek (talk) 13:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rephrasing your won words - just because you say, that you find "cultural ties" does not magically make it relevant. M.K. (talk) 15:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you really arguing that there are no cultural ties between Vilnius and Poland? Should I take that as good faith?radek (talk) 17:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The featured article New York City doesn't have its Spanish name in the lead, even tho 24% of its population speak Spanish at home [8] and Latinos are an important part of its cultural history. Novickas (talk) 13:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe it should then.radek (talk) 14:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What N.Y city which was ALWAYS in multicultural America has to do with this anyway ?!? Bad example... What about Suwałki? --Jacurek (talk) 14:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is just an example, and can be change with dozen other ones. Those were used just to illustrate, that WP does not consider population makeup as main argument for the inclusion of non-English names. M.K. (talk) 15:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is just an example and it is only a single example. In fact, if anything it's is the exception to the rule. Quite often, population makeup IS an argument for inclusion of non-English names, for example Mureş_County. BTW, I never said it was the MAIN argument, I said it was ONE OF the arguments. Because, you know, there are several. BTW^2 note that Novickas below at least implicitly acknowledges that this place has cultural ties with Poland, whereas your statement up above just seems to be denying reality.radek (talk) 17:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You cite substantial and cultural ties with Poland and a 15% Polish-speaking minority as reasons to include the alternate name in the lead - these are also true of NYC and its Latino population. It would be hard to find a higher-profile instance where an alternate name in the lead would be appropriate, but apparently the decision was made to exclude it there. Novickas (talk) 14:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First, according to the New York article you refer to, 13.61%, not 24% speak Spanish. Second, if someone wanted to add "Neuva York" to the article, I'd support them. Based on these same arguments as above. I also suspect that opposition to such an addition would be motivated by much the same motives as here - chauvinism.radek (talk) 14:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see 13.61% in the article, but if it's there, it should be corrected - the above link is from the US Census, 2005-2007 estimates.Novickas (talk) 16:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the reason I mentioned it was so it could be corrected. It's at the end of the "Racial and ancestral makeup section". Anyways, this basically shows that even though featured, that article is pretty outdated.radek (talk) 17:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, NY doesn't have as strong historical ties as some other cities which should have Spanish names included in their articles. Like San Diego, Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Francisco........radek (talk) 17:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that you will find any support form the community with such "arguments" as "chauvinism". M.K. (talk) 15:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From community maybe. From some others, probably not.radek (talk) 17:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Forget N.Y.C., how about something closer home.. like Suwalki, Augustów, Orzysz, Olecko, Puńsk, Sejny, Wiżajny, Lizdejki and countless others ? Should we go ahead and remove Lithuanian spelling there because is irrelevant?--Jacurek (talk) 15:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody prevents you from trying to do so. M.K. (talk) 15:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Um, no. That's false as well. Unless that "trying" in that sentence is meant rhetorically (as in "you can try but we won't let you"). Lokyz has certainly tried preventing it: [9], [10]. So not "nobody" but "Lokyz". And some other Lithuanian editors. For clarity's sake, let me reemphasize that I think those names belong in those articles. Just like Zyrmuny belongs in this one.radek (talk) 17:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well...removing Lithuanian spelling would be wrong and so it is not to include Polish and maybe Russian here.--Jacurek (talk) 15:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

lang-other|[edit]

It seems like both Altenmann and M.K. are suggesting that the criteria for whether to include other names should be based on whether or not English literature uses a given name, past or present. Is this considered a sufficient condition for inclusion?radek (talk) 18:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Add: Since the point of protecting the article is to give editors involved in a dispute a chance to come to an agreement or at least to fully discussed the issues under dispute, I would like to encourage/request the editors who object to other language names in this article to fully articulate their position in a detailed, precise manner (as I have done with my view above), or at least answer the question I posed right above.radek (talk) 21:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have the following arguments against:
  • 1) Polish Zirmuny is not an autochtonous/original Polish name for the district compared to Plac Broni, Rybaki, Pioromont, Tuskuljany, Losiowka, etc. Its is a mere 1960s' literal translation/adaptation of its official title.
  • 2) The name Zyrmuny for the district did not exist during any of the time of joint or Polish rule of the region. It was applied during the USSR times and on.
  • 3) The Polish minority is no longer the most significant in Žirmūnai and is only second to Russian today.
  • 4) No English sources refer to the district in its Polish adaptation of the name.
  • 5) Žirmūnai is and has been the only official title thereof.Iulius (talk) 08:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Iulius. But I was more asking what would be sufficient to include other language names rather than what would be sufficient to exclude them in this particular instance. So this is a more general question which I'm asking because this seems to be a perennial conflict. Or another way to think about it is what kind of evidence or facts would be enough to change your mind here? But since you addressed the particular topic let me just say that

  • 1) is wrong - it's not a translation from Polish. The name comes from the Belorussian village which predates this settlement. To know which language translated which you'd have to go back to 15th century or earlier. In any case it's not true that the Polish name was invented out of nowhere in the 1960's.
  • 2) I think this is a legitimate argument and I'm still considering it. Basically I see it as an argument for the article title (which is not disputed) rather than for which names to include or exclude in the lead. For me, it is out weighted by the fact that it is essentially costless to include a name or two. If the answer to my original question can be provided and clarified I might change my mind on this, if that is persuasive.
  • 3) That's an argument for including other names not excluding this one. Probably, both the Belorussian and the Polish names should be included. What matters is not the relative ranking of the minorities but whether or not they are significant enough in number.
  • 4) There's a lot references to Zyrmuny, the village, which this district was named after. However this is the very reason I asked the question above. IF there were English sources, would it be ok to include it? Would you change your mind?
  • 5) Again, an argument for the article title. Official title of Warsaw is Warszawa yet still it is under Warsaw (as it should be).radek (talk) 04:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war again... or spelling ban enforcement?[edit]

....and why exactly some people are trying to enforce "a ban" on Polish or Russian spelling of Lithuanian cities and suburbs after so many argument against such a behaviour?? What is so special about Lithuanian cities as oppose to all others? I have to be missing someting here...

Reminder - per Wikipedia:LEAD#Usage_in_first_sentence, alternate names in 1st sentence should reflect consensus. Novickas (talk) 02:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If by consensus you mean "unanimity" then I don't see that in the guideline. Also per Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#Alternate_names "Nevertheless, other names, especially those used significantly often (say, 10% of the time or more) in the available English literature on a place, past or present, should be mentioned in the article, as encyclopedic information."radek (talk) 06:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

10% rule - much firmer criterion. Altho Google is not very good at distinguishing EN pages, it's what we have to work with.

350 English pages for Žirmūnai -wikipedia -wikimedia -wapedia -viswiki.com -answers.com. [11]. So using this rule, we'd have to find about 35 pages for Zyrmuny that don't refer to the town in Belarus.

87 English pages for Zyrmuny -wikipedia -answers.com.[12] There were 9 result pages, 10 results on each page. I checked the first entry on each page, and all but one applied to the village in Belarus.

  • [13], Lida District Home page.
  • [14]. Minsk-Terespol.
  • [15] is a positive, "from village Zyrmuny (Wilno)."
  • [16] - Zyrmuny, Belarus.
  • An expired Ebay listing - can't post it here due to spam rules. Reads "Poland Lithuania Wilno ZYRMUNY"
  • [17] - Towns in 'Belarus' beginning with 'Z'.
  • [18] - Cities in Hrodzyenskaya Voblasts - Z.
  • [19] - Alphabetical listing of Cities in Belarus.
  • [20] - townhouses for sale; click on Zyrmuny and you go to a Real Estate for sale in Belarus page.

So far, there's one EN page that refers to this district as Zyrmuny. Novickas (talk) 16:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Žirmūnai. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Žirmūnai. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Žirmūnai. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 04:37, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on Žirmūnai. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 21:55, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Žirmūnai. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 20:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment[edit]

Žirmūnai[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Delisted. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:05, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This 2010 listing is significantly out of date. There are no sources from the 2010s onwards, and the demographics section relies entirely on the 2001 census (there have been two since then). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:36, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delist Tagged the article, spectacularly fails criteria 2 and 3. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 01:56, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. poorly sourced and outdated (Demographics talks about 2001). And even the first sentences are strange and ambiguous Žirmūnai is the most populous administrative division (elderate) in Vilnius. It is also a neighbourhood in the Lithuanian capital city Vilnius, encompassing the city district of the same name. Artem.G (talk) 15:53, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Žirmūnai&oldid=1212367859"