Talk:Coat of arms of Lithuania

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Still article or gallery?[edit]

Didn't the article cross a certain limit where it starts to look too much like WP:GALLERY. What is the point of moving all the content of WP:COMMONS to a Wikipedia article? Some sections consist almost entirely of pictures. For example Poland, Austria, France, Latvia, Sweden etc. I see that @Pofka is working hard on adding more and more of the images, so I think it's proper time to discuss if we really need more of them? Or maybe we should remove some and replace them with text? Marcelus (talk) 20:51, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tbh, I would not add more pictures to the article as is. I would desire text to be added to these sections, but I really doubt that there would be anything written about why the Coat of arms of Lithuania exists on the "Cenotaph of Maria Christina in Vienna" and other cases. So perhaps there is no other way, really. It does not seem logical to me as to why a captured flag should be under 'Vytis in Sweden'. Sure, it's in a Swedish museum, but would we add 'Vytis in Japan' if Vytis is shown somewhere in a Japanese museum? I would be against that. I also intend to rearrange the coat of arms of locations into lists of some sort, because otherwise it just seems too much for my liking. Cukrakalnis (talk) 21:31, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this is kind of my point. Plus you have things like "Watch tower of Vytautas the Great in Kherson Oblast with the historical state flag of Lithuania", which it's clear that flag isn't part of the building, and it's possible it was raised only for the picture. It seems to me that it is possible to write why Maria Christina's tombstone has the PLC coat of arms (she was married to Albert Casimir, son of Augustus II), but is it necessary? Should one post a photo or write about every corner of the world where Vytis can be found? I suspect anywhere Lithuania has an embassy. Poland, Belarus, Ukraine, maybe Dresden, I can understand, but probably not much else. Marcelus (talk) 21:56, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think well-meaning Pofka produced a good deal of Original Research: I dont see any sources to confirm that there was Vytis in France, Germany, etc. Yes they look similar, but... Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 01:56, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adding relevant pictures to an article is not WP:OR. What you just said is preposterous.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 22:13, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have to demonstrate that the pictures are relevant, otherwise it is Original Research and WP:UNDUE. Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 17:42, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with @Lokys dar Vienas the pictures need to correspond with the text Marcelus (talk) 18:51, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lokys dar Vienas: Are you sure that there are no Coats of arms of Lithuania (Vytis) in France? See this article from Prancūzijos lietuvių bendruomenė (Lithuanian community in France). The coat of arms of Lithuania was installed in the clock (PHOTO) because of Henry III of France (who was Grand Duke of Lithuania). These coats of arms of Lithuania were installed by various people that were related with Lithuania and who often funded these buildings and other structures. Another example is the spread of the coat of arms of Lithuania in Germany which is related with Grand Dukes of Lithuania from the House of Wettin. -- Pofka (talk) 19:08, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Galleries are acceptable and widely used in articles which are about visual content. For example, see article Gothic architecture which include many galleries with tens of illustrations (at least over 100+ illustrations are in it). Coat of arms clearly is a visual content, so in order to demonstrate how the coat of arms of Lithuania evolved through the years and what type of designs of the coat of arms of Lithuania were used by various rulers of Lithuania, its institutions, army, nobles (etc...) it is not against the Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines to use galleries. It is impossible to describe architecture and its history exclusively by text. Same applies to coats of arms. Galleries are no less important than the text in articles about visual content. -- Pofka (talk) 18:56, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pofka you are missing the point here, galleries are ok, as far as they illustrate the text. You need to write why Vytis was present in France for example. Also some source would be nice, for example reliable source indication that College Stanislas indeed is using Vytis on its coat of arms. Marcelus (talk) 19:23, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcelus: They illustrate different centuries of history of the coat of arms of Lithuania which is also described in text and also the usage of the coat of arms of Lithuania in other countries. For example, coats of arms of Lithuania in Germany are obvious: they are included in the coats of arms of the Grand Dukes of Lithuania from the House of Wettin (e.g. 1, 2) while the Saxon milepost has its own article (I would agree to reduce the amount of this milepost in this article, probably we need only one or a few of these for linking with the primary dedicated article and the rest should go to the Saxon milepost article). These photos are linked with dedicated articles (e.g. Palais de la Cité) and that's where detailed information about buildings/structures is presented. Article about the coat of arms of Lithuania is not, for example, about French architecture and we are only interested in the fact that the structure/building has the coat of arms of Lithuania (otherwise it would be WP:UNDUE). By the way, Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue#Citing everything. -- Pofka (talk) 20:37, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No one expects a description of the architecture. But above all, there are too many photos. Besides, there should be information about why someone can find the coat of arms of Lithuania in the Palais de la Cite. With the source, of course. Even if it is obvious. Marcelus (talk) 21:00, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Pofka: Palais de la Cité is not the same as the blue sky for an average wikipedia reader. ...coats of arms of Lithuania in Germany are obvious... - It may be obvious for you, but not for an average reader: how they would know that Zwinger, Dresden has anything to do with Lithuanian dukes. Anyway, from your explanations, I suggest compromise solution: for the galleries add an intro line: "For the details of the usage of Vytis, see the articles linked in the image captions". Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 21:03, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article has enough information about the coat of arms of Lithuania, its history and an average user will clearly understand that these photos depict 1569+ dual coats of arms with the coats of arms of Lithuania and Poland (at the time there were no identical dual coats of arms in Europe, unlike various combinations of single/multiple eagles and lions). I agree with Lokys's suggestion to include explanations like "For the details of the usage of Vytis, see the articles linked in the image captions" or similar to ensure that this article will not become WP:UNDUEly long about architecture. -- Pofka (talk) 17:19, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FIXED: Since I previously added most of these illustrations to this article, I restructured the galleries and removed part of the illustrations, according to galleries examples at article Gothic architecture (no more than two lines of 150px heights illustrations in galleries) which is also about a visual content, so is a relevant example to this article. Assuming good faith, I haven't modified the gallery at disputed subsection about Belarus for the sake of WP:DRN and RFC. Let's ensure that in the future galleries in this article will not have more than two lines of illustrations. -- Pofka (talk) 14:09, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pofka, why are you adding more illustrations ([1]) to the article if we agreed that there is more than enough already? Seriously, we should limit the number Marcelus (talk) 20:57, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on Belarus Section of Coat of Arms of Lithuania[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
(non-admin closure) Seems like there is WP:CONSENSUS for using User:Marcelus/sandbox6. As I recognize this falls under WP:ARBEE and is a designated contentious topics if I erred in my decision feel free to let me know. -- Shadow of the Starlit Sky 04:12, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Which of the following sections should be used in the article, Coat of arms of Lithuania, with regard to the Belarussian coat of arms? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:22, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Please specify your choice in the Survey by selecting one letter indicating a section, or by selecting a first choice followed by a second choice. You may make a brief statement supporting your choice in the Survey. Do not respond to or comment on the statements of others in the Survey. The Discussion section is for discussion.

A. – Retain the existing section, Coat_of_arms_of_Lithuania#Belarus

B. – Use User:Pofka/sandbox/CoA of Lithuania: Belarus.

C. – Use User:Marcelus/sandbox6.

D. – Other (Please specify)

Survey[edit]

B. Better than A, because B shortens A and retains the main points, which are relevant to the article. B is better than C, because C erases too much information and ignores other Wikipedians' previous additions to A, as the section is entirely rewritten and core information that was there previously is ignored and removed.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 19:47, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
C Both new versions have their strong and weak points. Major points: B has a bloated text about 1st Belarusian Regiment, which may be found in the latter article. On the other hand, B misses the WWII usage, which was the major argument by Lukashenka bought by Belarusians. The rest is nitpicking which may be resolved by subsequent editing. I am pretty much sure, major info absent in C can be added, only without excess bloating and wikipedian's editorializing , such as "exceptional popularity" (they were always popular among belarusian urban youth), "However, Lukashenko still signed decrees", etc. Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 01:16, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
C. My suggestion, so I will write briefly why I think it's better than others. The section should be under WP:SCOPE, i.e. describe briefly the history of the use of Vytis/Pahonia and similar coats of arms in Belarus. First of all, the adoption of the Lithuanian coat of arms as the national emblem of Belarusians in 1918 and its subsequent use. The section should not descibe in detail topics that are already described in other articles. The article is built on the basis of a combination of text and gallery of pictures in each sections that iullstrate the content, so the text must be concise, but also address the most important topics. Of course, this does not mean that the text cannot be expanded within a reasonable limit. Note: the proposal does not include pictures, they can be added later (the gallery should not change much compared to the current one).Marcelus (talk) 09:08, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
C This version is more neutral. While I often support more lenghty, detailed version, I feel that excessive details about the 1st Belarusian Regiment and mistreatment of its soldiers are undue and non-neutral. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:26, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
B. I support my own suggestion because it improves the current version of the disputed subsection but keeps the main information which is related with the coat of arms of Lithuania (or D if administrator who will close this RFC will trim/improve the current version of this disputed subsection himself according to the Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines). Suggestion C is invalid because it requires to completely remove (censor) multiple online WP:NPOV WP:RS (e.g. Encyclopædia Britannica) and content based on it which Marcelus and Piotrus personally do not like and then to replace such encyclopedic content with other content based on non-online sources like by Jerzy Grzybowski or Per Anders Rudling which are non-WP:VERIFIABLE or are considerably more difficult to be verified (so it is not possible to easily check such content if it contains WP:OR WP:HOAXes and its creator Marcelus was recently blocked twice for aggressively pushing his point of view through edit warring).
I would like to remind that this dispute started with complains that this subsection allegedly contains off-topic content and that it violate WP:UNDUE (see: earlier RFC in this talk page above and WP:DRN discussion) and now it seems like a WP:POVPUSH of a completely different content through RFC when revert-warring attempts to remove it did not succeed (see edits of Marcelus: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and Piotrus: 1; both of them recently exchanged their e-mails through Polish Wikipedia). Polish users (undoubtedly Marcelus and Piotrus) requests to remove Polish Army's repressions of Lithuanian-Belarusian symbolism does not seem like WP:NPOV and WP:Assume good faith. Hopefully, this will also be evaluated by other voters and by an administrator who will subsequently close this RFC. -- Pofka (talk) 16:32, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
C. The current version and version B make a big deal of the supposed lack of political sovereignty of the Belarusians. Even if it were universally accepted truth, I'm not sure it's relevant for this article. Version B has a long aside about the 1st Belarusian regiment. If it was the first time the Vytis/Pogonia was used by Belarusians in the modern history, then this should be stated explicitly, and one sentence would be sufficient. Alaexis¿question? 13:51, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

@Pofka, let's focus on the article and voting? I'm sure that if you present convincing arguments your proposition will gather many votes, there is no point in focusing on me, I'm not your "opponent".Marcelus (talk) 17:18, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is worth to explain the dispute for other participants and possible subsequent violations of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. -- Pofka (talk) 17:22, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's your choice. But I don't see any reason for that if it's simple voting between several choices, that we agreed on before. Marcelus (talk) 17:29, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The final evaluation (decision) according to the Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines will most likely be stated by an administrator (as it was in the previous WP:DRNs I participated), so voting is only part of the WP:DRN process. Evaluation by a neutral administrator is clearly necessary here to ensure a valid long-term WP:CONS. -- Pofka (talk) 17:54, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I said it's your choice to make it WP:PERSONAL. Marcelus (talk) 18:02, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will just repeat your early personal justifications to remove content in this disputed subsection: "Plus some additional badmouthing of Poland (...) It's completely off-topic. Basically, the whole Belarusian part should be rewritten" (your edit) and "the article is suppose to be about history of coat of arms, not an excuse to spread anti-Polish propaganda" (your edit). You sure this is WP:NPOV editing? It is nothing wrong to point out how this dispute started and evolved. That's why this dispute clearly requires evaluation by a neutral administrator. -- Pofka (talk) 10:44, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I hope that neutral administrator will take a look at it Marcelus (talk) 10:52, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: Just an important notice that user Marcelus (author of suggestion C) was recently sanctioned at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement (see: HERE) for disruptive activity in this and related topics (see: administrator statement). -- Pofka (talk) 20:05, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we need more votes here? Because we can inform some wikiprojects (Poland, Lithuania etc.)Marcelus (talk) 09:12, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Belated reply: while I think there's a consensus for C based on the votes above, notifying all relevant WikiProject is, IMHO, a best practice. That said, in theory, they've already been notified (assuming editors pay attention to "Article Alerts" tool, i.e. have it watchlisted). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:27, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: There are two recently confirmed relevant WP:CONS that Category:Belarusian rulers (see: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 February 27#Category:Belarusian rulers) and article List of rulers of Belarus (see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of rulers of Belarus) must be deleted and they were implemented. The main arguments were that statehood of Belarus did not exist until the 20th century and that these territories were ruled by other countries (e.g. Lithuania, Russia, etc.) which cannot be described as Belarusian statehood and its rulers were not Belarusians. Same standards clearly apply to state-level coat of arms, thus the coat of arms of Lithuania (1366–present) is as much Belarusian as the coat of arms of Russian Empire is Belarusian. So I disagree that argument "version B make a big deal of the supposed lack of political sovereignty of the Belarusians" is suitable here as it attempts to deny multiple WP:CONS in Wikipedia and real historical facts (that are also presented in suggestion B and the current version of the subsection with references to Encyclopedia Britannica). Artificial nationalistic history about pre-20th century Belarusian statehood/coat of arms should not be invented and spread outside of article Belarusian nationalism. This RFC should be eventually examined by a neutral administrator to ensure WP:NPOV decision. @Robert McClenon: can you invite a neutral administrator to have a look at this RFC and possibly close it? -- Pofka (talk) 20:16, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't quite understand. Do you want to undermine the opinions of people who advocated a different version than yours? On what basis?
    If you are referring to the opinion of @Alaexis it would be appropriate to name him so that he can address your allegations. Marcelus (talk) 20:33, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pofka @Marcelus Mind if I close this RFC (non admin closure)? I think this RFC has been open for too long. -- Shadow of the Starlit Sky 21:18, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Shadow of the Starlit Sky - You don't need permission from the principals to close an RFC. If you are ready to close the RFC, go ahead and close it. I will caution you that it may be contentious, as well as being a contentious topic. I will thank you for closing it, and one of the principals will probably thank you for closing it. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:47, 3 May 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.

WP:SPLITTING of the article[edit]

I feel that currently the article is too big, it is almost 200kb, a large part of the articles are out of WP:SCOPE. For example, almost the entire section Emblems of Lithuania's rulers (before 1400) could be split off into smaller articles, such as Pečat coins, and only a few sentences summarizing the moved content could be left in this article. After all, the topic of the article is Pahonia/Vytis. Marcelus (talk) 19:19, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This makes sense per WP:SUMMARY. Anyone can create new artcles (which could be in the worst case subjec to AfD) and remove content from the main article if it is present in the clearly linked subarticle (again, this can be challenged per WP:BRD if anyone is unhappy). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 April 2023[edit]

In 'Related and similar coats of arms' under 'Belarus' in the final sentence of the first paragraph after the words 'Grand Duchy of Lithuania' and before the words 'Belarusian state', omit 'was a', and substitute 'is a predecessor to the'. notadev (talk) 04:49, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Tollens (talk) 06:16, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Belarus section changes[edit]

@+JMJ+, I never claimed that my proposal is unchangeable, nonetheless it should be discussed in order to avoid edit waring. I just encouraged you to use WP:BRD cycle here, so please self-revert and discuss your proposition on a talk page. Please also be aware that you changed content supported by the reference (Rudling, 2014, p. 87-88). Marcelus (talk) 14:53, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What you said was inaccurate because my change was not against the consensus, as it was never stated that no changes could be done later to adjust the section, so, you were wrong to restore the previous version on the basis of that imperfect reasoning, according to which only that one version you created a year ago must remain without changes. I checked the reference and it matches the content of the sentence at the end of which it is, because the relevant part from the book states "the Pahonia, “the chase,” a stylized image of an armed knight on a white stallion against a red background". In fact, it suffices to only state page 87 instead of pages 87-88. +JMJ+ (talk) 16:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I cannot agree. The consensus was to accept a very specific wording, your change disrupted this consensus. You changed the tenor of the sentence calling Pahonia the "Belarusian version of the coat of arms of Lithuania," while the original sentence was about emphasizing that the two emerging countries in parallel adapted similar emblems referring to the tradition of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. And this is actually supported by Rudling. Your change does not provide any additional information, because it repeats what was said (Thus, Belarusian nationalists who claimed that the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was part of a Belarusian statehood tradition adopted Lithuania's coat of arms as the Belarusian national emblem during the period of national revival in 1918.)
I hope you are able to justify why this change is intended, how it improves the article.Marcelus (talk) 20:42, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are reading more into the consensus than was actually written for everyone to understand and it seems to me like you're overinterpreting without a solid grounding. A few pages later, the referenced book, on page 89, even states that "the Pahonia was nearly identical to the coat of arms of the newly proclaimed Lithuanian state." They are the same coat of arms, which is the reason why there was consensus for several articles to be joined into this one article about the Coat of arms of Lithuania, as they are all only slightly different versions. A clear improvement of my change was that the most important parts of the sentence were guarded while taking away 100 bytes from the total size of this very sizeable article. In my view, the previous version was too verbose and now that you mention it, it seems to me that it was not adding anything too substantial that was not mentioned or at least alluded to before if I am not mistaken.--+JMJ+ (talk) 21:13, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Previous version clearly separated coat of arms of the Belarusian Republic, from the coat of arms of Lithuania, while not denying their common roots. Your change obscures the distinction. This is an obvious harm to the article. Since you are not giving any reason other than saving bytes, I think you should just restore the previous version of the text at this point.Marcelus (talk) 21:40, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But I gave a reason beyond saving bytes.--+JMJ+ (talk) 23:08, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Coat_of_arms_of_Lithuania&oldid=1212260288"