Talk:Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth

Old Warsaw as capital

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)

@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)

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)

History tags for Poland and Lithuania

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)

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)

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)

Not sure why I am tagged to this discussion. Merangs (talk) 15:38, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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:

• Both the Swedish Empire and Holy Roman Empire includ histories of several countries, so why the issue on the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth page?
• Why those tags do not "pollute" (to use your word) those pages, but a History tag would "pollute" the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth page?

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

@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)

@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)

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

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)

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)

@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)

RfC

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

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)

poland lithuanian commonwealth

why arent we actually talking about how rzechpospolita was oppressing, enslaving and massacring ukrainians at that time...? ☠️ ~2025-43039-37 (talk) 16:02, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

There is already some detail about polonization, but you are going to have to be more specific when it comes to claims of an entire ethnic group being oppressed, enslaved and massacred. Mellk (talk) 12:31, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

The Official Name and nature of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

It is customary to have the last official name be the name shown in the infobox, not a name that was sporadically used by foreign countries in diplomacy in the 16th century. Apart from that, in many other languages and until recently in the english wikipedia the PLC was described as a "real union" existing from 1569 to 1795. That is wrong, because the real union was abolished in 1791 by the May Constitution and transformed the state into a unitary state with a Republican character and an elective monarch, albeit with candidates only from one dynasty. It's also wrong and ignorant to describe the Commonwealth before 1791 as a "parliamentary monarchy." a name used for the system in the UK. It was a renaissance Republic with an elected head of state, much like Venice, which was a classical Republic. I think this should be fixed too. Yes, it did become a parliamentary monarchy, arguably in 1791, but before that, no. Jastrząb Żmudzki (talk) 18:37, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

I wish I could contribute on the name point, but it is one that I do not personally understand well enough. If there is an authority which states with certainty what the name became after 1791 or 1792 I would probably support the change if that is indeed how Wikipedia usually treats those names. I do not believe that the constitution, which you cited, makes any provision on this matter aside from referring to the state as the commonwealth (republic) in passing.

I disagree with your point about not referring to it as a parliamentary monarchy, and this is not a name used exclusively for the UK. It possessed every characteristic of a monarchy other that the method of selection being elective and not hereditary (even then, in countries such as the UK parliament is able to alter the line of succession, which alludes, to me, that the method of selection is not central to the definition). Your edit even mentions that the head of state is a monarch, which I think inherently makes it a monarchy. It was also parliamentary as the Sejm was the supreme organ. I will note that the UK and the PLC were very similar constitutionally, so perhaps that is why you may believe that this is what the name is usually used for.

That being said I think that I understand your aversion to the term, but I just don’t see how removing the reference to ‘parliamentary’ would be conducive, given the important of the Sejm to the Commonwealth.

I do not disagree that it was a republic (and as an aside I do not think that by calling it a monarchy you cannot call it a republic - especially as it does this itself), and this could perhaps be reflected in the description, but I think this must be coupled with referring to it as a monarchy at the same time, as it possesses both characteristics (perhaps republican parliamentary monarchy? it’s a bit odd but the constitution was quite odd)

Whilst we are on this topic and you mentioned changes in 1791, I disagree with the current description which says it became a constitutional monarchy between 1791 and 1792. The Commonwealth had a constitution prior to 1791, just not a codified one, and this position is very similar to the modern day UK. I do not believe that this part is coherent, and should accordingly be removed. notadev (talk) 02:38, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Taking a look at the nature of the Commonwealth and its proudly republican name and character, I'd say it more resembles a classical republic, or a republic like Novgorod that also had a "monarch" a Grand Prince as its head of state. Still, it was a Republic.

One thing is for sure, the current name is a travesty. Long and noone ever reffered to the state as that. Jastrząb Żmudzki (talk) 23:53, 21 June 2026 (UTC)