Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Names of Lithuanian places in other languages


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 17:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Names of Lithuanian places in other languages

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Wikipedia is not a directory and not a dictionary and this list will probably never be comprehensive. All those various name should already be included in the particular articles and redirects and I see not point in listing them separately De728631 (talk) 15:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, a WP:DIRECTORY that is vague in definition (How many other languages? The horizontal width of the screen can only handle ~5, which ones make the cut?). jorgenev 16:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's those languages which have been spoken in the territory of what is now Lithuania (we're not listing the Japanese for Vilnius, for example). The page is a list of alternative local names (present or past) which, I agree, ought to be listed in the individual articles. Unfortunately in the past certain editors have tried to suppress this information by removing it from the articles (I won't go into why, though it's a motivated by a kind of nationalist sensitivity that seems to afflict Wikipedians of various nations). Once all the information is included in the individual articles, and we can be sure there isn't going to be another campaign to remove it, then I agree this page might be considered redundant. But until then we should keep it - there are plenty of similar lists around, and the information should not be destroyed just because it's imperfectly presented.--Kotniski (talk) 17:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And where do we draw the line? How far back do we go in time? By your logic we would need to include all the different placenames of all populated places in Lithuania that ever existed from probably back in the Dark Ages until today; which would make this list overly long and eventually senseless. And how are we going to be sure that there won't be any more editing campaigns to "clean" the individual articles? We can't ever be sure of that. It's the nature of Wikipedia that certain editors are biased and will unconstructively remove or change content and such edits with an agenda can be dealt with. But having a central register of names won't change the behaviour of those editors and we don't destroy information that can be presented where it really belongs, i.e. the articles. De728631 (talk) 17:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, if we delete this page before moving the information into the articles, then we will have destroyed the information. And no, of course we won't be including all the names back to the Dark Ages and beyond, only the recorded ones (which is presumably not much more than we have on this list already).--Kotniski (talk) 17:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Then where are the sources for the recorded names? I won't challenge them but so far there's only one single reference. And after all this is the English Wikipedia where the English rendering of placenames is the most relevant criterion. De728631 (talk) 18:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - essentially per Kotniski. I'll add that this list has been quite helpful to me personally when doing translation work from other Wikis, particularly since spelling in the sources can vary so much; this provides a useful benchmark. De728631, these names can be easily sourced (in fact in many cases some of them are actually the most common names used in English). Deleting this article would just result in a loss of encyclopedic information, but yes, the names should also be added to the articles themselves. Incidentally there are many articles like this, for example List of German exonyms for places in Latvia, List of German exonyms for places in Slovenia, List of German exonyms for places in the Czech Republic and List of German exonyms for places in Poland, which even has 6 blue linked (9 total) subpages, , , , , , as well as List of cities and towns in East Prussia.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Please don't confuse exonyms with this topic. The exonym lists are each based on a single language and any notable placename that appears over here should also be found in those lists (which doesn't make them any more useful in my eyes). And on a related note: why is there even a list of streetnames from Vilnius in this article and not e.g. from Kaunas or Klaipéda? Streets are generally non-notable unless they meet the criteria defined in Notability (streets, roads, and highways). So even if there are no other records of non-Lithuanian names of streets that is no reason to include the existing ones to Wikipedia. The more I think about it and the more I look into it the more I find this article to be totally arbitrary and mostly based on OR. De728631 (talk) 18:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why the distinction of exonyms is relevant here. Anyway, I agree that probably most of the streets don't belong in there - there might be a couple major ones that do - but that just requires article clean up, not deletion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If you prefer lists based on a single language, then the solution is surely to split this one into five separate pages, not to delete it? Though in this case I actually find it more helpful to keep a single table, e.g. so people can compare the German form with the Yiddish, Polish with Russian, etc.--Kotniski (talk) 23:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - I agree that streets should probably go and that the list should and could be cleaned up and sourced, but it is needed. Whenever I research something, translating placenames is one of the biggest challenges. Renata (talk) 19:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete and userfy until the information is properly stable on the individual pages. Matchups 01:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Kotniski's and Volunteer Marek's reasoning. Worthwhile presentation of information.--Arxiloxos (talk) 02:12, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Complies with WP:USEFUL - frankieMR (talk) 02:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, essentially per WP:NOTDIR. And WP:USEFUL is a poor argument since there are "so many useful things that do not belong in an encyclopedia"— Chris! c / t 04:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That it complies means that this is one of those things that do - frankieMR (talk) 04:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Frankiemr: And how do you think does it comply to WP:Useful? Why do you think that the article is in fact useful in its current form? De728631 (talk) 21:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per Kotniski and Volunteer Marek. WP:NOTDIR does not apply as this is not a "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics" or anything of the like and it is discriminate.--Oakshade (talk) 05:17, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Copy to Wiktionary seems like something Wiktionary should have, whether or not it exists on Wikipedia. 65.95.13.213 (talk) 06:21, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Does Wiktionary do place names? I wasn't aware that they did. But alternative toponyms are most certainly and very commonly presented here on Wikipedia - it would be going against extremely widespread practice to claim they don't - the only question is how best to present that information (and as already noted, having lists similar to this one is quite common practice).--Kotniski (talk) 08:35, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep I understand that for some people this article looks futile, but for me it is useful and interesting. It gathers a lot of information otherwise difficult to find individually elsewhere and also give a general view to the subject. Not to mention that adding different translations in other (historical or minority) languages in articles about places is often ostracized. I also don't like the idea of copying it to Wiktionary. I'd like it instead to have a written section about the historical and linguistic developement of the country in question. --Lindwurm (talk) 07:00, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per core WP policy WP:NOTDIR, M.K. (talk) 13:12, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see why WP:NOTDIR has any relevance to this. This isn't directory stuff.--Kotniski (talk) 14:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If it wasn't just a table listing different names (i.e. a directory) the article would include encylcopedic information like etymological analyses or reasons for the renaming of particular places from old name X to new name Y. Up to now it's just a simple and ill-defined table and the argument that it may be useful for research doesn't count even because WP is not meant to be a directory. De728631 (talk) 20:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It isn't meant to be a directory but it certainly is a work of reference. There is a clear encyclopedic rationale for inclusion on the table, the topic being the link between the different variations of the names, pertaining a limited set of regions which share a cultural and linguistic bond - frankieMR (talk) 20:47, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, no. In its current form the article is simply unencyclopedic because there is no explanation whatsoever for the different variations of the names nor does it say anything about the origins of the names in the respective languages, etc. And such analyses can't be done in a single article for dozens of placenames but are better off in the main article on the individual town. De728631 (talk) 21:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There are countless pages in Wikipedia that are just lists or tables (including many like this, of "exonyms" - if that's really the right term). I don't see any reason to single out this one for destruction.--Kotniski (talk) 21:27, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I for one would love to single out all of the exonym lists for deletion. —Tamfang (talk) 06:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As you said such analysis is better done at the respective entries, but the point of this article is not to provide an analysis of the differences but instead to list those differences, in a manner that pieces of information that have an underlying relevant connection may be found next to each other, and not dispersed over a number of separate articles - frankieMR (talk) 21:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * An exonym is the name of a place in a foreign country in the language of another country (e.g "Copenhagen" in English is the exonym of the Danish "København") and personally I don't see any encyclopedic merit in those lists either; there's already been a mass deletion discussion for them with no consensus. At least though they are well-defined and also it doesn't make sense to list all existing names in languages of the world in the article for one specific location. In this case however there is a list that arbitrarily combines the various names of places in a single country which are not exonyms per definition so you can't really compare these types of lists. And such a list is better suited for Wiktionary than for this place. De728631 (talk) 21:54, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As I've already pointed out, these languages are not combined "arbitrarily" - they're languages which are or have been spoken locally, not just five randomly selected languages. And Wikipedia has much, much more information of this type than Wiktionary does (and I'm sure people wanting to know about places would be far more likely to consult an "encyclopedia" than a "dictionary"). --Kotniski (talk) 22:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Linking the names in response to geographical circumstances breaks a dictionary's scope because it provides an academic approach (namely, the interest to link those places in particular with those languages in particular, relying on cultural significance to discriminate) rather than a technical, definition-driven one - frankieMR (talk) 22:45, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not the languages I'm criticising, it's the apparently random selection of places in this list. Listing single neighbourhoods of Vilnius and Kaunas even if they have proper articles is on the verge of WP:Overcategorization. And why are there rivers but no names for prominent hills or lakes? And what is the academic benefit of linking the placenames to their geographical circumstances in a list? A list that consists solely of tables with names is still just a look-up table, directory-style. Doing this encyclopedically would need a proper article and even such an article would quickly become overly long and unfeasible. De728631 (talk) 23:13, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with and I share what I understand is a concern of the content being potentially indiscriminate. I am not familiar with the subject so to say where the line should be drawn, but certainly I don't think that everything that has been named in these places and languages should be included, and an editorial criteria must be applied by involved editors to resolve that. For what it concerns to the validity of the article, and in response to your second question, an academic benefit of having the names linked according to their geographical location could be, for instance, that a concerned researcher may have a reference table where to rely while looking for relevant literature, ever since the geographical and linguistic circumstances make it very possible for such literature to be readily available under a number of different denominations which are not necessarily obvious, even for the instructed. That intention, that exercise of discriminate presentation of content on a subject basis is what makes it encyclopedic, and I would dare to say that it also makes it unsuitable for a standard directory, which is meant to list facts with no other criteria but their mere definition - frankie (talk) 09:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And again you didn't get my point: I'm not questioning the linking of the various names, I am questioning the practice of linking those names in a simple table without any further explanation beyond "these are the names of places in LT in a number of different languages that have been spoken or are still spoken in the country". A reference table like that will still fail WP:NOTDIR because it is still just a naked list that only serves the purpose of presenting those very names. And that alone is not enough for an encyclopedia. Like I said above, an encyclopedia would go into details here, it would provide background information for each of the placenames like e.g. for how long was that name in Yiddish in use and which language version was first recorded in history, etc. De728631 (talk) 16:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe in the future it will, thus making the page even better. But we don't delete pages just because they're not the perfect encyclopedia article they might be. (If you get your way and the page is deleted, that will greatly reduce the chances of a good article coming out of it some day. Meanwhile some information is better than none.)--Kotniski (talk) 17:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's the point where we disagree. I do see the encyclopedic value of a look-up table when its components have been selected in response to an academic perspective of the subject, rather than just listing any potential item indiscriminately, which is what a directory would do. An extra analysis of the subject would be useful and welcome, although as said before this article might not be the best place to hold such analysis - frankie (talk) 19:38, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Quick note: if this does somehow get deleted (though I don't think it should) can someone userfiy it in my namespace so that I can add these names to their respective articles so that the information itself won't be lost?Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:37, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There's already a copy in my userspace: user:Kotniski/Names of Lithuanian places in other languages. I've also started adding some of the names to the relevant articles - hopefully we won't now get the mass reversions of such additions that we've suffered in the past.--Kotniski (talk) 20:52, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Week keep. It seems useful as are other articles in Category:Exonyms, but I'd like to see a better rationale for the encyclopedic value. Still, usefulness counts. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk 21:31, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What I've argued so far is actually all I got, and I concede that it isn't waterproof - frankie (talk) 22:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * A real life example: Look at any map of Europe from the 1920s and 1930s and you'll see a city in northeast Poland called "Wilno."  Here's an example.  Unless you had encyclopedic knowledge of the language variances of these place names, you might not have any idea this is referring to Vilnius, the capitol and largest city in Lithuania.  All maps, even English language ones, called it "Wilno" because Poland was the governing body of the city at that time and therefore it was designated the Polish name.  The transfer of cities and towns between nations were very contentious issues and knowing the official names at various times in history highlights those important issues.  This list is a very encyclopedic tool in the Lithuanian names alone.--Oakshade (talk) 00:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Then why doesn't the list tell us anything about the timelines or about which was the official name of which period? And for finding information on ancient placenames like Wilno we've got redirects. De728631 (talk) 18:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This list could give some kind of "timeline," but then again some contemporaries in fact refer to these places in their own language even if not internationally recognized as such, particularly in English (this is English Wikipedia so English readers would be the primary consideration). In Poland, Vilnius is still considered "Wilno."  The re-directs are nice, but the names in them are hidden from an overall presentation of this encyclopedic content.  That's where this article comes in. --Oakshade (talk) 19:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 03:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)




 * Keep - The main points I get from the above discussion are:

- (PRO) that the article contains useful, factual information of real value to some readers, and

- (CON) that the content should be better sourced and the coverage should be more consistent.

IMO the PRO trumps the CON. If we were to delete all Wikipedia articles that should be better sourced, a significant chunk of Wikipedia would be gone. An article such as this one, being geographical & historical & multi-lingual, cannot be easy to edit. Gradual quality improvement can happen but not rapid transformation. Patience is required. Also the content is going to accumulate gradually so consistent coverage across the board is a pipedream. IMO. Wanderer57 (talk) 20:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - violates WP:NOT; only argument for retention is the to-be-avoided "it's useful to me", which is listed among the arguments to avoid! -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  21:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * As already mentioned, this information is not the sort of thing you'd find in a "directory". And I can't understand the mentality of people who think "it's useful" is an argument to avoid - what's Wikipedia for if not to be useful?--Kotniski (talk) 21:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * many useful things do not belong in an encyclopedia and are excluded.... A list of all the phone numbers in New York would be useful, but is not included because Wikipedia is not a directory (we have Yellowikis for that). A page simply defining the word useful would be useful, but is not included because Wikipedia is not a dictionary (we have Wiktionary for that). A guide to the best restaurants in Paris would be useful but is not included because Wikipedia is not a travel guide (there is a Wikitravel for that). -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  21:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi OrangeMike: I was not making an "it's useful to me" argument.  I'm unlikely to ever personally use the information.
 * Here is the beginning of the first pillar of Wikipedia. See Five pillars.
 * "Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. It incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers."
 * The article in question fits reasonably well under the second sentence. Wanderer57 (talk) 22:12, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per Wanderer57. WP:NOTDIR seems to be used as an argument in everything that seems vaguely list-like. In this case, these are tables with genuine information being presented in addition to the list. You would not exactly find this information in a dictionary, nor in a travel guide, an etymological dictionary, or even in the respective articles of the places themselves. To put it in another way: you can not transplant the information presented here in any other wikiprojects or merged into an existing article. Nor can the list be transformed into a category, where most lists should be (but not all, I would argue). The aggregation of information itself is educational, the structure it is presented in should not be used as a basis for determining encyclopedic content.--  Obsidi ♠ nSoul  13:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. On the whole I think this is a useful article and not a directory, but a collection of information of use to anyone interested in Lithuania and its history. There's nothing indiscriminate about it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.