Talk:Tautiška giesmė

Infobox
Why don't you have one? --andreasegde 21:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The infobox was one of the last things I thought of when the article was expanded by me. If you want to include one, you are welcome to. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I have moved the recording to the infobox and have split some long paragraphs. --andreasegde 09:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That's fine. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 13:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

GA Review
I removed this sentence:

Unfortunately, the anthem was booed at by Scottish fans at Hampden Park in 2007.

Because it seemed out of place and a little random. I'm not sure where in the article it could go.


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Additional notes:

I'd like a little more about the soviet anthem if this is going to FA. It might be good to explicitly reference the copyright-free status of the anthem's translation (It could come back to bite you if you don't.) However, on the whole, a good, well-written article. Passed. Adam Cuerden talk 12:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That sentence you removed had nothing important; it was outside of Lithuania and anthems are booed all of the time. I am trying to find more about the Soviet anthem, but I been assured by Lithuanian editors that all information was added. As for adding that template, hmm...that seems to be a first. But glad you liked it. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, not that TEMPLATE, obviously. Just hidden text or a footnote making it clear that it's out of copyright and why. That template, as one of the official commons statements regarding copyright, is useful to summarise the legal position.
 * As for the Soviet anthem - just giving the name would be a start. Adam Cuerden talk 18:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Tautiška giesmė. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071013062357/http://members.efn.org/~valdas/kudirka.html to http://members.efn.org/~valdas/kudirka.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071102184607/http://neris.mii.lt/prezidentai/aktas1.html to http://neris.mii.lt/prezidentai/aktas1.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070813185243/http://www2.omnitel.net/ramunas/Lietuva/lt_emblem_anthem.shtml to http://www2.omnitel.net/ramunas/Lietuva/lt_emblem_anthem.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071027065946/http://www.patogupirkti.lt/BooksExtracts/5430045330.htm to http://www.patogupirkti.lt/BooksExtracts/5430045330.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928005313/http://skelbimas.lt/istatymai/valstybes_himno_istatymas.htm to http://skelbimas.lt/istatymai/valstybes_himno_istatymas.htm

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) 01:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Fun Fact
The anthem was used in Lithuanian SSR as the anthem from 1944-1950. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Respublika Narodnaya (talk • contribs) 04:53, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Picture problem
On what basis did you delete my picture? --Jeromi Mikhael (talk) 15:35, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I saw your posts at the Teahouse and ANI. This is just a guess, but what I think Ke an meant was that the event was not important enough to the general article to have a photo, in addition to being mentioned in the text. The article already had quite a few pictures, and was looking a bit cluttered; as you can see, Ke an has also deleted another pic as well ( and used the same word, significant when they did).
 * I think its an improvement. The article looks better now, with fewer pictures. Curdle (talk) 12:11, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Image was clearly a Cherrypicking curiosity which was not helping for the main article understanding. Removed other random choice picture as well. -- Ke an (talk) 12:36, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, no one would believe that the anthem has been the anthem of Lithuanian SSR for 6 years. I add the picture to prove it. I am learing more about the usage of the anthem in the Lithuanian SSR, so maybe the picture would appear again in a new section. I just found a new article containing about the issue that cited some sources, so maybe that would help resolve the dispute. In maximum of 5 days the new information will be put on the article.


 * Thanks for your suggestions, Ke an. Hope that pleases you! Thanks for an invaluable learning about the etiquettes in Wikipedia!


 * P.S.I hope that this dispute is resolved.


 * P.S.Check out who made the partiture.Jeromi Mikhael (talk) 13:11, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

GA status
@user:CASSIOPEIA Can you explain this edit? There is a process to demote recognized Good Articles (WP:GAR), it's not enough to change the article rating in Wikiproject assessment. I am not disagreeing that the article does not meet the GA status, but if you want to demote the article, you need to go through the process so that the article is consistently removed from every GA-related list. Renata (talk) 16:47, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * As per the assessment criteria, I think it is not a GA grade, however, I did said might be other editors disagree with my assessment. I am not an interest editor for this page. Should you want to revert my assessment, kindly go ahead. Thank you.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 17:39, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Unpublished sources
Hi, Jeromi Mikhael. Can you please cite published sources instead of archives (e.g. Lithuanian Special Archives, f. 17635, ap. 1, b. 15, l. 101)? If the information has not been published, you are verging on original research which is prohibited on Wikipedia. See also: Published and more broadly Verifiability. Thanks, Renata (talk) 18:41, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * According to, an unpublished source is any source that has not been made available to the public in some form. The Lithuanian Special Archives is a collection of the archives of the Lithuanian history. The LSA is available to the public.The citation itself was made available thanks to this document. So, the thing wasn't even an WP:OR.--Jeromi Mikhael (talk) 23:54, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If you are reading and using info from this document, then you need to cite that document. Citing archival document implies that you are actually going into the Lithuanian Special Archives and reading the documents yourself, when you are actually relying on Maciūnas' work and interpretation of those documents. Don't cite primary sources cited by the work you are using or sources you haven't seen - cite the secondary work you are using. See also: WP:SAYWHERE. Renata (talk) 01:50, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info.--Jeromi Mikhael (talk) 03:11, 31 July 2018 (UTC)