Talk:Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth

  1. Home
  2. Wiki
Former featured articlePolish–Lithuanian Commonwealth is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 11, 2005.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 10, 2005Featured article candidatePromoted
July 3, 2009Featured article reviewDemoted
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on October 24, 2013, October 24, 2016, and October 24, 2021.
Current status: Former featured article

Lithuanian Name

[edit]

I would like to request that the name should be listed in Lithuanian, alongside Polish and Latin, in the infobox. One of the realms of the entity was literally the "Grand Duchy of Lithuania", so I think it's distasteful that the name in Lithuanian is not included.

According to the Lithuanian Wikipedia, the name in Lithuanian (although the name to match the one the infobox in English uses) would be Lenkijos karalystė ir Lietuvos Didžioji Kunigaikštystė. StrawWord298944 (talk) 06:05, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@StrawWord298944: – I think the reason behind it is the fact that Lithuanian (spoken by a small minority then) did not have an official status in the Commonwealth after 1569, as per the first paragraph. Ruthenian, which was largely spoken in the Grand Duchy, didn't either after the 17th century. In any case, the modern Lithuanian name for the state is included in the footnote, in first sentence. Merangs (talk) 18:03, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar

[edit]

The grammar in this article is pretty bad but it's locked to editing. Can a native English speaker please go over the article? 78.136.162.215 (talk) 19:06, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give some examples? It is quite a long article. Mellk (talk) 19:10, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Old Warsaw as capital

[edit]

Hello. I'm wondering sometimes. From the early 15th century (around 1410s) to 1791, the city of Warsaw, technically did not exist in administrative sence. Instead, it was divided into towns of Old Warsaw (now Old Town), and New Warsaw (New Town), plus numerous suburbs. It was only incorporated into one large city in 1791 (and even then de facto enactment of the law was delayed to 1794). As such, I'm wondering, if maybe Infobox should list Old Warsaw as a capital from 1596 to 1791. Could I ask what all of you thing about it? Artemis Andromeda (talk) 02:46, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Artemis Andromeda: Personally, I would not since both Warsaw and Old Warsaw are correct, and interchangeable. Instead, I would mention this somewhere in the body of the page i.e. "the capital was moved to Warsaw, with Old Warsaw acting as the country's administrative centre" or something similar. Moreover, the Old Warsaw article is quite poor. This is my personal take on the matter. Merangs (talk) 12:44, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would keep it as it is TBH. You are correct, but since "Warsaw" isn't strictly incorrect as a label I would leave it, and follow the suggestion Merangs gave if such isn't already in the article's body. Ashoburn (talk) 19:38, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History tags for Poland and Lithuania

[edit]

user:Sbaio you are bias in your approach, for example if the Holy Roman Empire article has a History of Germany tag and the Swedish Empire has a History of Sweden tag then why all of a sudden similar tags for Poland and Lithuania are not appropriate for this page or take up too much space in your view? Same could be said for those articles, thus such claims make your view selective and arbitrary. The Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth was the earlier form and extension of Polish and Lithuanian statehood, when the Kingdom of Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania merged. Please respect the precedent set on other Wikipedia pages, as this is what I'm basing my edit on here. PJK 1993 (talk) 07:44, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is definitely no bias and there is no precedent, because such templates should be added to pages like History of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth (1569–1648) where there is not much content. Main page has infobox, which takes a large portion of page, images, etc. So stop claiming about some precedent if you do not know what you are talking about. – sbaio 14:47, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
user:Sbaio and user:Merangs, why is it fine for such tags to be present on the Swedish Empire and Holy Roman Empire pages but not here on the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth page? You make up a series of excuses and act all indignant, yet none of that holds up the merit test. You are simply blocking a legitimate addition; thats's also found on similar pages. No legitimate rational, just baseless blocking, each time a different excuse just to hold up the addition. --PJK 1993 (talk) 15:35, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why I am tagged to this discussion. Merangs (talk) 15:38, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because you left a message on my talk page after this edit dispute so apparently you are in on the action.--PJK 1993 (talk) 15:41, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, didn't even see these edits. The message was generic, but was a response to your particular comments while editing the Poznań page. Try again with the false accusations, which only work to your disbenefit. Merangs (talk) 15:45, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well in that case please write what article you are writing in reference to. I'm not a mindreader when a few days later you write about an edit. I'll continue on you talk page. --PJK 1993 (talk) 15:53, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ask again user:Sbaio, please explain why is it ok for the History tags to be included in the Swedish Empire and Holy Roman Empire pages but not on the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth page? You still did not provide a valid explanation why it fine for such tags to be placed in those articles but its not ok for such a tag to be placed in the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth.

Questions to your two objections:

Would this be the reason for your opposition to my edit Wikipedia:I just don't like it? Also, since you raised this point and said "In addition, I am far well informed about the history of Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth so so not start lecturing me about it." can you elaborate on this? --PJK 1993 (talk) 16:57, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:MULTI and keep discussion in one place. In addition, I already wrote why such tags are not good in main pages. If you can not understand that then I am afraid this is not a place for you as there are policies and guidelines, but it seems that you are ignoring them. Accusing me of WP:JDL does not help your case either. – sbaio 17:02, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
user:Sbaio I would like to ask you legitimate questions on this issue. Why do you not remove such tags from the other articles, but you are making a stand just on the Poland-Lithuania article? Also, I'm looking over other similar articles and I see lots of such tags. If I go into the Swedish Empire and Holy Roman Empire pages and remove the History tags and get reverted can I use your justifications and they will be accepted? Finally, can you provide me a link to those policies and guidelines. --PJK 1993 (talk) 17:16, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Admin here, called in to look at some edit-warring. This should be a really straightforward one for editors to solve without needing any real discussion: we put navigational templates, like the ones currently at issue, on articles that are linked in the navigation template. If this article is linked in the sidebar, as a general principle, the sidebar should be on this page. If not, it shouldn't. Please see WP:NAVBOX. And please, both of you, treat each other with more patience and respect. -- asilvering (talk) 01:41, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering: There are no links to this at {{History of Poland}} and {{History of Lithuania}} to this page. These navboxes instead have links to History of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth (1569–1648), History of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth (1648–1764) and History of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth (1648–1764). I tried to explain it to other editor (I could have been clearer about it), but that editor is ignoring it and making accusations of WP:JDL and similar. – sbaio 03:27, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sbaio: if you open the "Topics" menu in the History of Poland tab you will find a link to "Statehood" where Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth is referenced, also on the History of Lithuania tab under the "Middle Ages" tab you will find a direct link to "Grand Duchy of Lithuania", so in both cases as Asilvering mentioned there are relevant links on both Poland and Lithuania tabs. --PJK 1993 (talk) 05:41, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PJK 1993, I did not say there are relevant links on either of those templates. I said that we place navigational templates on the articles that are linked in the templates themselves. "Statehood" is not a link to Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Grand Duchy of Lithuania is not Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth either. We're talking about the exact article titles. -- asilvering (talk) 06:01, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering: is this tag ok it has the exact link and this article is part of that series Polish statehood. Link to tag:[1]? --PJK 1993 (talk) 06:08, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are links to histories of Lithuania and Poland at Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth#See also so stop with the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT attitude. I will once again remind that navigational box does not have to be placed in the page just because it exists. It has a purpose, but it does not have to break the page as in this instance – the infobox is large in this page so placing the proposed navigational boxes make it hard for readers and editors. And read WP:TPYES for once as it clearly says Avoid repeating your posts: Your fellow editors can read your prior posts, so repeating them wastes time and space and may be considered bludgeoning the discussion., and you have repeated the same thing for about 4 times. – sbaio 06:25, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It matches the principle I've described, yes. Whether all those entries belong on that template, I can't say. It looks unnecessarily bloated to me, so I suspect editors working in this topic area might object, and try to start removing items from it. -- asilvering (talk) 06:26, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sbaio: you are full of it, everything is an excuse just so you don't accept a Poland tag. First you wrote as your objection "[Polish-Lithuania] is also history of several other countries so no" then you wrote "this just pollutes the text for no reason" then you jumped on asilvering's tag explanation and now its "Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point" Stop stonwalling the addition, everything is an excuse for you. The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was an earlier form of Polish statehood so this second tag is appropriate.--PJK 1993 (talk) 06:37, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

[edit]

Should the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth article include a Polish Statehood template Template:Polish_statehood? PJK 1993 (talk) 11:53, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

YES Placing such templates of various type in other history articles is a common practice. Pages like Holy Roman Empire, Swedish Empire, First French Empire, etc. have them. Not sure why it's so vigorously opposed here. PJK 1993 (talk) 11:53, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]