Talk:Vilnius Castle Complex

message: I am thinking – do we need write separate article on Vilnius Bastille Vilnius Fortress is better I think  or it is enough to make separate section of Vilnius Castle Complex? I am personally leaning to write separate article on Vilnius Bastille  and make it as main article and used it as I did with Cathedral within Castle Complex articale. What other editors thinks about it?  M.K. 18:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing is that basteja is not really connected to the 3 castles. It was build much later, away from the other castles. So I am not even sure it belongs to this article (it's not a castle, that's for sure). BTW, I really like the way it is translated here -> Vilnius Artillery Bastion. Or are we talking about two different things? Renata 00:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Artillery Bastion was a part of Vilnius Fortress (i do not know the proper term of this, ) Vilnius Fortress was built also near the Lower Castle, and damage it; probably it deserves separate article.  M.K. 14:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bastille/basteja

message: There needs to be something written about all the rivers: Vilnia, the one that's now underground. Because now the plan shows the territory completely surrounded by water, but there is nothing mentioned of that sort in the article. Renata 14:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I inserted some notes, but feel free to do more if you need to. BTW, is it worth to write in this articale about Vilnius Cathed. excavations - Barbora Rad. tomb as well as others? Do I need mention that the treasures were mured  in walls? M.K. 14:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rivers

message: I'm having some problems with the arsenals. In re New Arsenal: the article mentioned that it was "established in one of the oldest castle buildings in the 18th century" but later in the same paragaph it states that  "during the 16th century its tower featured a beacon that guided ships in the Neris river", an anachronism.
Re Old arsenal - it states that "In contrast to New arsenal, which was adopted for this need in 18 th. century, Old arsenal was already established in 15 th. century". Does that mean that the old arsenal had already been built by then? If so, what are the suggested date ranges for its creation?
Novickas 14:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Questions

message: New Arsenal was adapted to Arsenal needs in 18 th century. It was adopted/established in one of the oldest castle buildings, which prior 18 th century was not used for Arsenal and only in 18 th century building was proclaimed as Aresnal. This old building (which in 18th became Arsenal), at least from 16 th century, had and beacon. 
Old arsenal, as such, was used for arsenal needs in 15 th century, while New Arsenal only in 18 th. Old Arsenal of 15 th century disintegrated and undergone big reconstructions in 16 th.  Is it a bit better explanation ? M.K. 14:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem! M.K. 14:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Answers

message: This GA nomination is on hold for 7 days for these reasons: there should be no space between punctuation and a footnote, multiple footnotes should not have a space between them, and single years (ex 1327) do not get wikilinked. Let me know when you've fixed this.Discuss the architectural styles too.Rlevse 12:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello, I fixed space between punctuation and a footnote problem, I just a bit wondering - should I remove all links from the single dates? And could you be a bit specific about discussion on architectural styles, because article holds information on building transformation from one style to other. M.K. 12:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, rm all solo date wikilinks. More later. Rlevse 12:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ) ok I will try M.K. 17:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: GA attained, for further improvements, consider expanding what attractions and features exist in the modern day complex/museum/etc. Rlevse 23:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA nom on hold

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

message: The Polish name of this castle should be in lead, as it is used in English literature: , . --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  19:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Radek, since you neglected to mention that the Cambridge History of Poland mentions Wilno on three seperate entries (all on the same page, pg. 272), in the second set of examples, it's only fair to point this out. And let's face it, Mieczysław Orłowicz's 1927, "Polish Tourist Guide," is probably a better example to prove your point. Dr. Dan (talk) 20:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you talking about? Who said anything about Orlowicz?radek (talk) 21:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: P.K. aka P.P, that's who. Dr. Dan (talk) 21:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Piotrus linked to a google books search. You cherry picked it.radek (talk) 22:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

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

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

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Vilnius Castle Complex. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://ldmuziejus.mch.mii.lt/muziejusirpadaliniai/Tdarsenalas.en.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090227144156/http://db.stat.gov.lt/dnn/dgins/HOME/VISITINGVILNIUS/tabid/76/Default.aspx to http://db.stat.gov.lt/dnn/dgins/HOME/VISITINGVILNIUS/tabid/76/Default.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930035915/http://paulius.vkt.lt/pilis/files/pilis.swf to http://paulius.vkt.lt/pilis/files/pilis.swf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:25, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:06, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:38, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion