Talk:Šnipiškės

as dar karta klausiu kokio velnio tie lenkiski pavadinimai cia kisami? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vycius 2 (talk • contribs) 12:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

removal

It appears that some editors cite WP:Undue in place of I don't like it which probably better describes their reasons. What exactly is undue about this [1]?

names

I was hoping that a lot of this unnecessary back and forth would be settled after the 3O on Birze, [2]. If you want to write a separate section and move the Polish and Yiddish names of the place there that's fine. But until such a section exists, and given the preponderance of usage of "Śnipiszki" and "Schnipishok" in the English language sources those names stay in the lead. And please don't cite "Undue" in edit summaries where clearly the reason for removal is "I don't like it".radek (talk) 17:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:CITE still exists, and I did not see any citation. This is English Wikipedia, right? Care to cite any English writers? or should we do Varšuva in the lead, not mentioning the not resolved Cracow issue (since there is Warsaw and Moscow). Best regards.--Lokyz (talk) 18:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Sigh*. Alright:

Snipsikes: [3] - 69 hits including German and Lithuanian lang sources.

Šnipiškės: [4] - 1 hit in English (33 total, 32 of them in Lithuanian)

Snipiszki: [5] - 193 hits (a few German, Polish or French lang)

Śnipiszki: [6] - 254 hits, though a lot of them in Polish. Eliminating those we probably get the 193 hits for Snipiszki.

Schnipishok: [7] - 2 hits

Remember that the name has to be used in 10% of English language sources. Snipiszki, or Śnipiszki clearly qualify (in fact probably used in more than half the sources). Schnipishok probably doesn't so it's fine if it's removed.radek (talk) 19:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Sigh* exactly - let me cite: "1 hit in English". Think about it.--Lokyz (talk) 22:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't understand what point you're trying to make. Care to elaborate?radek (talk) 22:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Radeksz, let me speak for myself. Anyone else can elaborate on their own position. For starters, kindly understand that my objection to these inclusions is WP:Undue, not IDON'TLIKEIT. That has been, and will continue to be my position. What the Polish name is, or was, for this neighborhood in Lithuania's capital on English Wikipedia is undue no matter how you slice your google hits. What the nazi name for Lodz used to be (Litzmannstadt), also doesn't belong in the WP:Lede of that article per UNDUE as well. At least on English Wikipedia. Regardless of mind games being played with google hits. Furthermore, usually a link to Polish or Italian WP is available for those "many" readers who "absolutely" need to know the name of the geographical toponym in those respective languages. You might spend your time more usefully making such links where they are lacking. Provocation: "When another user is having trouble due to editing conflicts or a dispute with another user it is inappropriate to provoke them as it is predictable that the situation will escalate. Provocation by an experienced and sophisticated user is especially inappropriate." Btw, didn't we have this discussion at the Talk:Jena where I believe you took the position that "Iena" belonged it the lead of the Jena article? Dr. Dan (talk) 02:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion on the matter is not really important here (nor is mine). What is important here is the relevant Wikipedia guideline. This is already explained in some detail over at the Birze talk page: [8], where a similar dispute took place and where we got an outside, uninvolved, editor to provide a third opinion. This outside editor agreed that in cases where the alternative name is used in at least 10% of the English language sources (and Litzmannstadt is NOT used in 10% of English language sources) the alternative name should be included or a separate section including the name added (which you or Lokyz are free to do). Hence "Undue" is not applicable here. Wikipedia naming conventions are. Especially since more than 50% of English lang sources use Snipiszki.

Also, I have no idea why you bring up provocation here. Is it because I asked Lokyz a straightforward, simple, question? Is that kind of thing not allowed or something? What are you talking about?

But. Speaking of provocation, let me remind you, Dr. Dan, that Poland and Lithuania both voluntarily formed a powerful united state for several centuries. On the other hand, the Nazis invaded Poland, killed 5million+ Poles, destroyed much of the country and culture and committed horrible crimes. So please, don't compare Poles to Nazis. I am sure you are intelligent enough to realize that that is extremely offensive. For the sake of AGF I'm going to assume that that is not your intention here in fact.radek (talk) 19:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Radeksz, it is not my intention to compare Poles to Nazis. Where did you get that idea? That would be as absurd as comparing the Holocaust to the Pinsk massacre, or the pre-war foreign policy of Germany to the Poles making their 1938 Polish ultimatum to Lithuania. It would be as absurd as comparing the Polish invasion of Český Těšín, into a prostate Czechoslovakia, to what FDR called Mussolini's "Stab in the Back" after the Italian invasion of France, in June of 1940. I too " am sure you are intelligent enough to realize that that would be extremely offensive". Let's not bring Godwin's Law into this strange argument that the Poliosh geographical toponym of a "neighborhood" in Vilnius belongs in the lead of this article. While I agree with you that " Poland and Lithuania both voluntarily formed a powerful united state for several centuries", that union has been non-existent for over 200 years. Partially because many of the people who were part of that entity like Belarusians, Lithuanians, Ukrainians, and others, found the historical association with Poland to be lacking merit and worthwhile to resurrect. Can you blame them for not wishing to be part of it again? I do think that the Lithuanian dictator of Poland, Pilsudski, failed to understand this, and why his dream of Miedzymorze was ultimately unsuccessful. Perhaps it was the Liberum veto mentality, maybe it was the mentality that some repeatedly have to deal with here on Wikipedia concerning history or politics. I can't say for sure, but I do know that however you want to juggle "google hits" and so forth, that placing Polish language toponyms in the leads of the neighborhoods of Vilnius is undue and trivial per WP:Undue, and definitely a provocation. There has to be something better and more useful that you could do with your time for the project. Dr. Dan (talk) 20:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion on the matter is not really important here (nor is mine). What is important here is the relevant Wikipedia guideline. This is already explained in some detail over at the Birze talk page: [9], where a similar dispute took place and where we got an outside, uninvolved, editor to provide a third opinion.radek (talk) 20:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Radeksz our opinions are secondary regarding the matter. So back to the "guidelines". Please clarify the terms of the debate - Google Book Search only? Because a lot of universities and institutes are not on Gbooks but are still reliable sources. Please post the number of Gbook hits in English on Snipiszki. I only see five. Dr. Dan (talk) 00:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about, there are at least six hits right there on the first page: "Profiles of a lost world", "The last days of the Jerusalem of Lithuania", "Jewish resistance in Nazi-occupied Eastern Europe", "Underground, the story of a people", "A dreambook for our time", "In the hurricane of war".radek (talk) 16:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

What am "I" talking about? What are "you" talking about? I see five hits over your entire diorama. You tell us that you see six hits on the first page. I see WP:Undue written all over the place in your attempt to twist Wikipedia policy to suit your POV. Is it your desire to place the Polish language toponym for this non-Polish city's neighborhoods because you are interested in complying with WP's "guidelines", to increase the reader's knowledge of the Polish language on English Wikipedia, or because you want the readers of English Wikipedia to think somehow that Poland has some fantastic claim to the capital of Lithuania? This provocation is so undue that you should be ashamed of yourself. Dr. Dan (talk) 19:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Europa Tower.Vilnius.Lithuania.JPG Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Europa Tower.Vilnius.Lithuania.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Europa Tower.Vilnius.Lithuania.JPG) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

• Šnipiškės 2.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:37, 3 October 2022 (UTC)