Talk:Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth

Talk:Gdansk/Vote/discussion

Native names in the infobox

1) Currently, the native names in the infobox include the Latin name and the Polish name. If one includes only the official languages, then one should also include at least the Ruthenian name, as it was the officially recognised chancery language used in GDL for long time (until 1697?). If one includes all major languages spoken, then Lithuanian naming should also be added. The argument that all that information is available in the "Name" and "Languages" sections is insufficient, as the infobox makes the impression that it was a purely Polish state. An argument that Polish was more "prominent" is insufficient. Was Latin "prominent"? It was used in the diplomatic communication with the West, while Ruthenian was used in the communication with the East.

2) The Polish name used at that time was just "Rzeczpospolita". The addition "Obojga Narodów" is a modern one. If one argues that this is the common Polish usage today, then it is no more "native" but the modern usage in one of the successor states, and then the usage in all successor states must be included (Lithuanian, Belarusian, Ukrainian). --Off-shell (talk) 14:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

3) I removed the editorial comment that when western Europeans called the Commonwealth of Poland simply Poland, they were "applying the pars pro toto synecdoche. How is is possibily relevant in a article about the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth to note the particular figure of speech (really trope) invoked when shortening the name to Poland? It seems like an extraneous rhetorical analysis of one particular name. There are hundreds of figures of speech in this article, all of which could have the specific trope (metaphor, metonymy, synecdoche, hyperbole, etc.) used to form them named. It was an odd aside. In addition, a synecdoche is a figure of speech in which one substitutes the part for the whole, so referring the the "pars pro toto [part for whole, in Latin] synecdoche" is like say the "part for whole part for whole figure of speech"--which makes the out of place editorial gloss even odder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.48.186.169 (talk) 07:49, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I tried to add a Lithuanian and Ruthenian term. This has been reverted. As the Polish native name seems to be not contemporally, but a modern interpretation, better to leave it out altogether for the time being. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 06:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

This article is propolish vision of history. This country wasnot First Polish Republic. It was commonwealth/--Rapuha89 (talk) 10:52, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• "Obojga Narodów" is not a modern one

Union of Lublin Rzeczypospolity obojego narodu (text article I).

Sejm 1569 in act Unia Xięstwa Litewskiego z Koroną (Union Duchy of Lithuania with [Polish] Crown) : Rzeczypospolitey oboyga Narodu Volumina Legum 2 p. 189 f. 770 Pilot Pirx (talk) 10:44, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

The naming of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth nobility

Pamishelisz (talk) 15:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC) First time poster here, apologies if there's already a similar topic somewhere, but I really could not find it. To put it brief, I've noticed in many of the biographical sections of the nobility originating from the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth that the names in italics are often only written in Polish and that Lithuanian translations are missing. In turn, I have tried to insert the proper Lithuanian renditions of the names in italics and my actions have been reverted and I was acused of vandalism by suggesting that back then the Lithuanian language did not exist. We are mainly talking about GDL nobility who lived between late 17th to early 19th century.

I believe that this makes no sense. First and foremost there is ample evidence that the Lithuanian language was used in some GDL regions since the 13th century. Furthermore, The voivodeships with predominant ethnic Lithuanian populations - Vilnius, Trakai and Samogitia - remained almost wholly Lithuanian speaking, both colloquially and by the ruling nobility. Finally, the first Lithuanian book was already published in 1547.

So could please someone shed some light on this, because it totally makes no sense to argue that names should only be written in Polish and not also in Lithuanian, whilst supporting this claim by suggesting that at that time Lithuanian language did not exist.

But most of this nobility wasn't ethnic Lithuanian. With some exceptions (like the Radziwills) they were ethnically Ruthenian or Polish.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:43, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Seconded. It's fine to have Lithuanian names for Lithuanian nobility, but szlachta, or Polish-Lithuanian nobility, is a larger concept. See also Polish-Lithuanian identity. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll look into it. But what about the accusations of conducting acts of vandalism on the grounds that the Lithuanian language did not exist? Does it have any factual basis at all?Pamishelisz (talk) 17:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Since you didn't link to the relevant WP:DIFF, I don't have time to look where and when you might have accused of that. It's not vandalism, but in the past there were disruptive editors who specialized in inserting/removing Lithuanian/Polish names in various articles. Some old members who remember those trolls may be a bit over-reactive. I'd strongly encourage you to consider doing other types of edits than just inserting/removing Lithuanian/Polish names, if you want to develop good reputation in the community of editors who work on those subjects. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Broken footnotes

Please take a look into "References" section. Quite a few broken references. I have never learned this fancy syntax. Whoever knows the ropes, please fix. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Urbanization

I understand the suspicion which underlies this edit but please use sources rather than just removing the information on the basis of personal feelings/opinions. 20% urbanization rate for PLC at the beginning of 17th century is not unreasonable. Lithuania, which was the more sparsely populated part, had an urbanization rate of about 15%. "The Crown" was higher so together it could have been 20%. Keep in mind that the PLC underwent a urbanization boom in the 16th century. Of course it went through a process of de-population and de-urbanization starting from about mid 17th century, so that by 1680 or so it was probably less urban than it was at the beginning of 1500's.

50% for Netherlands is also not unreasonable. It's a bit high for Italy except in certain regions (and Italy too underwent de-urbanization during this period).Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Ruthenian language

Ruthenian was official in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania until 1696 and therefore is a regional language. Both Polish and Latin were used throughout the country. Ruthenian, Lithuanian and other languages like Hebrew were recognized but to a certain extent and area.

Oliszydlowski (TALK) 14:23, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

"Ruthenia" is just latin word for Russian. Before Lithuania was consumed by Poland as PCL , its full official title was "Great Kingdom of Lithania, Samogitia and Russia". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.1.149.220 (talk) 01:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Edit Warring

OK. I do not know, nor do I especially care what the ongoing edit war is about. But It needs to stop. I have fully protected the page for 2 days. That should be enough time to sort this out. If the problem persists after that I will consider other measure, not excluding blocks. If one or more participants are editing from IP addresses I can easily protect the page to put a stop to that. So settle the content dispute here. Please remember that there are multiple avenues available for resolving disputes. See WP:DR for suggestions. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:39, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Changing the picture of the map.

I see that the image that's used for this article is the borders of it in 1714. I'd like to propose we change it to its borders around 1619-1621 when it was at it's greatest extent. If we could get it with the same design of the current picture with it highlighted in green, that'd be better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ICommandeth (talk • contribs) 16:29, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

There is already a map from 1618 at Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth#Administrative divisions. In addition, if we were to change to the proposed timeframe map then a person with a good knowledge of how to create or edit SVG files is needed. – Sabbatino (talk) 08:36, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Would it be hard to get someone to edit the picture? I imagine it wouldn't. Also the picture you mention doesn't show other countries from the time and is a bit lopsided. – ICommandeth 15:32, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

3 May Constitution

First in Europe ? The French Revolution began two years earlier. It included a new non-autocratic constitution. Without deeper knowledge of this constitution, I can just assume that inspiration came from France. Also - wasn't the reason for Ukraine's inclusion to Russia in 1654, based on a fear of a return of the Catholics ? Boeing720 (talk) 01:09, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

It was actually the second in Europe, after the 1755 Corsican Constitution, which was the first Constitution to be titled as such, whereas the 3 May wasn't even titled as Constitution, unlike the first French Republic Constitution approved just a few months later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.181.82.4 (talk) 14:46, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Relevant or not ?

@Oliszydlowski: I'm sorry, but I really cannot see how the only Tsar in foreign captivity ever and the conquest of Moscow in 1610-12 isn't of relevance. Personally I think that's the most well-known part of Polish-Lithuanian history. Also, when reading this lead, one gets the impression of this empire as some kind of very nice humanitarian power. Which I really doubt existed anywhere in Europe during the very warious or bellicose 17th century. Without having any specific source in my head or at hand right now, I would still also argue that there indeed were huge conflicts between the Catholics and the Orthodox. Perhaps not to compare with the Thirty Years' War or the Crusades but still. The Catholic vs Orthodox issues eventually lead to Ukraine's inclusion to Russia in 1654, as the Orthodox population were afraid of Catholic return. (Whilst the common people in those days usually were less patriotic, if compared to the times from around the 1848 revolutions and later. Commoners were not educated, illiterate and had enough trouble of their own). The year 1654 combined with Ukraine is still today of significance as Communist Nikita Khrushchev (who was born in Russia, but close to Ukraine and had Ukranian parents) in 1954 gave Crimea away, from Russia to Ukraine as a "300 birthday present" etc. And how relevant is the 3 of May constitution really ? I mean the idea must have come from the French 1789 revolution ? And we must not cherry pick nor use a non global perspective. That goes equally also for, for instance the Swedish Empire and each and every nation, historical or present. Boeing720 (talk) 03:32, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

I do not doubt the things you are saying. You misunderstood me. I am just highlighting that this sort of extensive information does not belong in the lead, especially the first paragraph, where everything is short and summarized (eg data, size, location). Basics. This information is added within the body of the article, within history section. That is the foundation of an introduction to every article or essay. Oliszydlowski, 06:32, 6 October 2018 (UTC).

Capital of Poland - Warsaw since 1569, although Cracow never got over it

Hi, This article is incorrect. The capital of Poland was moved by king Sigismund III Vasa from Cracow to Poland in 1596 and it remained the capital of Poland since that time, through the end of the last partition in 1795, when Poland regained independence in 1918 and until the present time.

Whoever is editing this may not be aware that there has been perpetual feud between Warsaw and Cracow ever since the capital was moved to Warsaw, for over four centuries. Some people from Cracow refer to Warsaw as a "village" to this very day! The article that is linked to the footnote 2 referring to Warsaw as a "tiny village" is a Wayback Machine article does not exist on the current page of UJ. It was not a "tiny village" with a castle, expanding city and the site of the Polish Congress (Sejm).

The capital of Poland should be changed to "Cracow (or Krakow) until 1596 and Warsaw (or Warszawa) since 1596." Otherwise, this article is laughable and I cannot take Wikipedia seriously any longer. You can take any history book or historical documents available (except for few written by people from Cracow that hate Warsaw), and the capital will ALWAYS be Warsaw, in books written in 1700s, 1800s, 1900s and 2000s. This should be edited on all pages!

Also, Vilnius or Wilno was the capital of Lithuania. It was NEVER a capital of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. I do not know why someone added it here.

Thank you for fixing these errors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isabella2178 (talk • contribs) 14:39, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Gallery

Oliszydlowski, what is the point of that gallery? Just to show random stuff from the Commonwealth? I could understand if some of the pictures went under the art section, but this is just pointless, and in fact Wikipedia discourages the use of random galleries if they do not have a specific purpose.

This shows that you haven't fully analyzed the article. All images are referenced in the body eg (Pic 13, 14 etc.) in different sections, for instance in the Culture section. Personal opinions about whether a gallery belongs here is out of the question as the images are a reference to the provided information. In order to remove the gallery you need to restructure the whole article. Oliszydlowski (talk) 14:49, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Exactly my point, if you have to sit and figure this out it's not very practical, at least the individual galleries should be at the end of each section, I've never seen such a format on other pages, its very impractical. --E-960 (talk) 15:22, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I see more reasons to keep the gallery than to delete it. All images inclined are worthy of mentioning and highlight every field or aspect of the former PLC. Oliszydlowski (talk) 15:36, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

• sorry guys just realize there's an ongoing chat..... the gallery link format does not work in mobile view and should be removed|fixed as soon as possible for excess ability concerns.--Moxy 🍁 17:20, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Reference to the US Constitution should be removed

There is a parenthetical reference to the U.S. Constitution that should be removed - first, because it is not relevant; second, because it is wrong.

The U.S. Constitution was the world's 20th written constitution; not the first. It wasn't even the first American Constitution, but the written constitutions of all 13 states and the Commonwealth of Vermont (1777-1791) pre-dated it, along with the first U.S. federal constitution. New Hampshire even had *two* written constitutions before the U.S. Constitution was written! So that parenthetical reference in the text of the article should be removed. 2601:645:C300:3950:484C:AD81:B236:10D1 (talk) 16:20, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

This statement is supported by references. Ruslik_Zero 18:26, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Representation in Fiction

I disagree that this addition is trivial. The remembrance of things past is of an import, especially in present-day central Europe of the politics of remembrance. The cited authors aspire to show the multicultural and multiethnic character of Poland-Lithuania, instead of claiming it for this or that modern nation-state. You reverted my reverting without discussion. I added the above explanation to my original reverting. Hyrdlak (talk) 15:05, 17 October 2019 (UTC)Hyrdlak

First Polish Republic

@LordParsifal, Oliszydlowski, and KIENGIR: Discuss the matter here instead of edit warring. I want to also add that LordParsifal has already made three reverts in the last 24 hours so he is already on the brink of breaking the WP:3RR policy. – Sabbatino (talk) 08:13, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@Sabbatino:,

Thank you for your intervention (however, regarding me, you know very well one edit is not EW hence I advised the talk for the other parties as well).

LordParsifal, contrary to your argumentation, talk is needed because of WP policies, after a few reverts back and forth, moreover regardless of it's presence in book or i.e. some RS, as well we have to make it clear it was not a contemporary term.(KIENGIR (talk) 14:03, 27 January 2020 (UTC))

I did not meant that you were edit warring. I wrote it that way so that everyone in this back and forth cycle would take notice. I also issued a warning to LordParsifal for edit warring (he ignored your advice and just reverted), because he is already at 3RR. – Sabbatino (talk) 14:32, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Can we change the Royal Banner of the Commonwealth.

The one in use is the 1605 version, which was the banner in use by the Vasa dynasty when they ruled Poland. Too much often I see people on the internet use this banner to represent the Commonwealth though all manner of time which is historically inaccurate. I encourage the use of of a banner not featuring the vasa arms, along side a version featuring it. I also ask for adding a section explaining why this banner is was not in use in the 1790s for example. KoziPLUS (talk) 00:21, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

The current banner is well documented by the Stockholm Roll (Rolka sztokholmska) from the period. Other banners of similar kind are mostly the imaginary creation of Wikimedia users. The caption clearly tells the year the banner/flag was used, but I'll clarify it further as you do have a point. Merangs (talk) 07:39, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be historically the most accurate to perhaps just use the flag with the Polish eagle and the Lithuanian Vytis (aka. Pogoń in Polish) without any dynastic symbols like those of the Saxon dynasty, the Vasas, etc.? After all, that flag would be valid for the whole time the bi-federation existed, unlike those which contain any dynastic symbols. --Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 10:05, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Is there such a flag on Wikimedia which is evidently sourced and visible on accounts from the period? Merangs (talk) 10:55, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Not as of now, there seems to be none. --Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 11:17, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Many of them are visually "nice" but imaginary sadly. Merangs (talk) 14:23, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2021

The word FORMERLY is incorrectly spelt as formally, which has a completely different meaning.

Kind regards

John Jackson 2A00:23C6:F485:F000:755F:3131:CEFF:79D9 (talk) 07:44, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. All uses of formally seem fine. Which one are you talking about? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:20, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2022

Change the greatest extent map to this one: https://imgur.com/a/LNyu6sb The picture above can be edited if the quality is bad, i did all i could to draw borders as good as i can. The map portrays Polish-Swedish union from 1592-1599 and its greatest extent at 1596 with moldovian vassal state because of Jan Zamoyski's raid on Moldavia.

sources and links to wikipedia articles proving the changes i try to make aren't false: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish%E2%80%93Swedish_union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cecora_(1595) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Suceava_(1595) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ieremia_Movil%C4%83 M4SOPMODII (talk) 17:06, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Also, the map would need to be uploaded to Wikipedia or Commons. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:16, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I have uploaded the map to wikimedia commons: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1st_Polish_Commonwealth_at_its_greatest_extent.png

also since the discussion has been established already is it possible to reach the consensus here about editing the map or not, we talk about big chunk of territory and some people might find it too extreme or controversial so i would like to hear opinions about it or map change propositions. M4SOPMODII (talk) 17:38, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Diarchy?

According to the Wikipedia definitions offered of Diarchy, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was not a diarchy. It should have that category removed. What is the consensus about this? --Po Mieczu (talk) 21:03, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth at greatest extent map

Hello i made this section to discuss change of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth map of greatest extent to this one: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1st_Polish_Commonwealth_at_its_greatest_extent.png The picture above can be edited if the quality is bad, i did all i could to draw borders as good as i can. The map portrays Polish-Swedish union from 1592-1599 and its greatest extent at 1596 with moldovian vassal state because of Jan Zamoyski's raid on Moldavia. I am here to establish consensus of editing the map or not and eventual changes to it. sources and links to wikipedia articles proving the changes i try to make aren't false: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish%E2%80%93Swedish_union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cecora_(1595) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Suceava_(1595) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ieremia_Movil%C4%83 — Preceding unsigned comment added by M4SOPMODII (talk • contribs) 15:14, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Official Name

Hello fellow editor @Merangs, I recently noticed you reverted one my edits and not intending to editwar, I opened this discussion. I request you to please look at Template:Infobox country. It says that the conventional_long_name parameter must have the "Formal or official full name of the country in English" and the native_name parameter must have the "Country's name (usually full name) in its official/defacto language(s), hence in italics (double quotemarks)". The name in the box should not correspond with the article title, which is the common name. The name in the box should be the formal/official full name of the country, while the native name should be rendering of that full name in the official language(s) of the state. PadFoot2008 (talk) 08:07, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks for the clarification. I am ok with the change then, though the infobox will be long. Merangs (talk) 10:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Your welcome. PadFoot2008 (talk) 03:39, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

"Density of urban network" map

The caption and legend of this image, File:The density of the urban network per voivodeship of Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth ca. 1650 (Eng).png, do not sufficiently explain what is meant by "density of the urban network". It apparently is not the same thing as population density, as the unit is not something like population/km², but just km². My best guess is that maybe it's like the inverse of population density (how much area per person), but then I don't understand how the values could possibly be so high. Maybe it isn't about population density per se and is just about the "urban network", like the number of towns and roads or something. Also, where did the data for this map come from? Was there a census around 1650? The file description does little to clarify any of these matters. 70.181.1.68 (talk) 23:34, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Imposed Polonisation and Catholicism

First, the link to the reference (Brittanica) is broken.

Second, that fragment in Brittanica does not back up the claim it is supposed to back up.

Third, generally Polonization in the Commonwealth is believed to have been voluntary. I imagine that some point could be made about cases when it was done forcefully but I don't think it's right to simply say that "Poland [...] imposed Polonization". Maybe these instances (if they do exist) should be mentioned here as a side note, I'm not sure, people smarter than me should know what to do.

Fourth, assuming that it's okay to say that Catholicism was imposed (again, I believe more often conversions were voluntary), why are we blaming just Poland? Lithuanians were Catholic as well, so they should share this supposed blame (unless of course there is a specific source backing up this claim). Ponewor (talk) 08:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

There are great articles and books on these topics. Overall, it was more voluntary among the upper classes and imposed on serfs and local populations, hence the uprisings in the east. Alfred J. Rieber in his book titled The Struggle for the Eurasian Borderlands: From the Rise of Early Modern Empires to the End of the First World War stated that it was the Polish government responsible for Catholicising and Polonising local populaces in large parts of the Commonwealth that led to resistance from [some] minorities. This was accelerated when Polish and Lithuanian magnates expanded their holdings in the Eastern Borderland regions and followed this trend. See pages 159 and 160 for more detail. Simultaneously, Lithuanian gentry and nobles (eg. Radziwills) adopted Polish culture more voluntarily according to Lithuania: Stepping Westward by Thomas Lane, page 24 and others. There are countless sources that support this. I will amend the article for a more neutral outlook, but the general context present on the page is nonetheless correct. Merangs (talk) 23:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

What does Rieber even mean by Polish government? King that was a ruler of both Poland and Lithuania? Or sejm? Isn't it just an unfortunate case of pars pro toto, where he actually meant Commonwealthian? Ponewor (talk) 02:56, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Rieber doesn't say that the "Polish government" (or anyone else for that matter) imposed polonization on peasants or other local populations. There was no governmental imposition of the Polish language or culture on peasants/serfs in the PLC, and the polonization of nobles seems to have been largely voluntary (see for example: Lane et al. - p. xxiv, Magocsi – p. 157, I can provide quotes if the pages are unavailable) or at least it wasn't enforced by the government. He does write about the imposition of serfdom (not polonization) by magnates and the worsening conditions of peasants, and also how the Greek Catholic church was opposed and resented by the Orthodox. (p. 160) The creation of the Uniate Church only added to the socioeconomic tensions between the Polish/Polonised Catholic magnates and the Orthodox Ruthenian population - there were multiple factors contributing to the uprisings in Ukraine.

The Union of Brest could indeed be described as an "imposition of Catholicism," so this part is probably correct, and that's also the only place where Rieber talks about the role of the "Polish government" (at one point: "The Polish government denounced the Orthodox spokesmen as fanatical heretics and opposition to the Uniat Church as criminal"), but he also describes it primarily as the church and szlachta initiative. (e.g. "the decisive initiative leading to the Union of Brest was taken by the Orthodox bishops of the eastern borderlands of the Commonwealth"). Hedviberit (talk) 00:07, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Can we avoid Britannica as a source in general; it is not a reliable site. Moreover, the claim that Polonisation (especially among lower classes) was entirely voluntary is not fully supported and seems like bias; largely is cited so it may remain as that was the trend, hence I suggest changing it to "Polonisation was largely voluntary, but Catholicism was imposed across the vast realm [...]". It is noteworthy that Polonisation often came with Catholicisation and the Catholic faith was at times brutally enforced during the Counter-Reformation period in some parts of the Commonwealth. As such, one does not exclude the other. Merangs (talk) 16:50, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I amended the unsupported fragment according to the sources available to me and replaced Britannica. Hedviberit (talk) 03:01, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Clutter

@Guccee, sorry! I had meant to link WP:LEADLANG and had double-checked the shortcut but forgot to change it in my edit summary. Under no circumstances do we need to include a French translation for a name in this article, for crying out loud.

Also, I assume you didn't mean to undo my changes to the infobox that bring it closer to compliance with WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Remsense诉 14:04, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I think you've confused me with another user. Forgive me for undoing your edit related to the infobox, I didn't do it on purpose. It seems to me that a French name could still be useful, but e.g. Catalan does not make any sense. Heroldicas (talk) 14:16, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Can we agree that the infobox with certain nowrap templates/inputs is excessively enlarged. If line breaks (i.e. "< br >") are not to be utilised, can we seek an alternative so that the box's width is not almost one third of the page?

Now I'm confused! I ensured that the width was not affected by making use of forced wrapping and non-breaking spaces, and it was reverted again regardless. Even though the practice is ubiquitous on Wikipedia, line breaks have a semantic meaning and should not be used when not intending to break up the content. It's confused and bad for accessibility. Remsense诉 23:07, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Revert?

Hello @Sbaio. I noticed you reverted one of my recent edits to this page, so I opened this section to discuss it with you. Since you didn't provide an edit summary, could you tell me why you reverted my edit? I just moved the official languages from common languages parameter to the official languages parameter as is the case in other articles like Russian Empire and German Empire. PadFoot (talk) 17:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

@PadFoot2008: Everything is discussed at Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth#Languages so there is no need to split into different parameters (this particular section lists about five "officially recognised" languages). I did not leave an edit summary, because I accidentally pressed the "Enter" button so it was too late to write it. – sbaio 17:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

@Sbaio, but I still don't see why must the official languages parameter should be removed by you. There is a need here as common languages parameter should not be used to list official languages. The official languages parameter should be used here. If you wish all the five languages can be added or any other change you want there. PadFoot (talk) 17:55, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Should also mention that it's the job of the infobox to summarise important information from the article. The reader should have to scroll through the entire article just to know the official language(s). PadFoot (talk) 13:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

You ought to reconsider your attitude, because you are starting an edit war (you also have a final warning for that on your talk page). In addition, Template:Infobox country quite clearly says that common languages parameter should be used for former countries. – sbaio 13:38, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

@Sbaio, it never says that you are not allowed to use the official languages parameter. The documentation is outdated. Compare the example given for German Empire and the real article about the same. And you still refuse to provide a plausible reason for reverting. It would be helpful if you were to give your actual problem rather than beating around the bush. Besides I should also mention that you are also editwarring. PadFoot (talk) 13:50, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

You are not supposed to restore your version when you are reverted for the first time (WP:BRD). I tend to stick to what template's documentation says. If you think that it is outdated then propose your changes on its talk page and see where it goes. In addition, your decision to omit German and Ruthenian languages from official list is rather strange. – sbaio 13:55, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

@Sbaio, you should have mentioned earlier that you wanted German and Ruthenian to be included. Besides BRD is an optional essay and there are numerous alternatives and exceptions provided as well. PadFoot (talk) 13:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the most recent edit, I'd like to point out that "officially recognised" does not mean a language has been recognised as official or state/administrative. Actually, it denotes the formal acceptance of the use of that language within a territory or country, for example the use of the Armenian language by the Armenian minority in the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. Throughout the existence of Poland–Lithuania until the very end (1795) only two languages were deemed co-official and all written documents were published in these languages - Polish and Latin. Ruthenian lost that status in the 17th century. Merangs (talk) 22:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Merangs, if that's the case then I am restoring my original edit. PadFoot (talk) 02:30, 6 July 2024 (UTC)