Talk:Subdivisions of the Polish–Lithuanian territories following the partitions

message: *Comment. Changed to what now? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  17:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: at this point the proposed title has been changed again

message: This article covers the period 1772-1918. It does not cover the administrative divisions of two main Polish states of the 19th century - administrative division of Duchy of Warsaw (1807-1815) and administrative division of Congress Poland (1815-1918).
Let me do the maths here, 1918 - 1815 - 1807 = 1806
So the article is only about the 1772-1806 period. Why all the other discussion, as yet unsourced?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is also about the administration of the territories from 1807 onward that were not under any - more or less nominal - Polish administration, but were under it before 1772-1795.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  23:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is this article about?! 

message: even Polish wikipedia does not go so far to call those lands Polish - there is a template called Ziemie I Rzeczypospolitej pod zaborami 1772-1807 - I think Rzeczypospolita in this case would be translated as Commonwealth or Res Publica. Correct me if I'm wrong.--Lokyz (talk) 03:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See Rzeczpospolita... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  20:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: From the article presented it seems I'm right.--Lokyz (talk) 20:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  22:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A sidenote 

message: I've added a move request template, per Lokyz's note that "Polish" is not the best descriptive term for the territory included. I capitalized Partitions to be in line with the title Partitions of Poland. —PētersV (talk) 00:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I see template was removed because I didn't post at WP:RM--but I read the move request rules and they were open to interpretation. Foiled again, but worth continuing the discussion... —PētersV (talk) 00:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you saying, that the article Louisiana Purchase should be renamed Administrative division of France after sale in North America? How about Administrative division of European states in North America after 1776? I can easily write a synthesis article like this That will include the British, Spanish, French and Russian empires--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't have hair that thin to split. An administrative division of territory and its creation through divisions is usually accomplished through the same legislative process--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Comment - trilingual people that do refer to themselves as Lithuanians not necessary are Polish. Or should we call 18th century (mostly) Francophonic German aristocracy as French? Another question - what year was the May 3rd Constitution adopted. Are you sure it was 1772? (I do not even ask whether it was still in act 1795). Several further question - whether Scottland had it's own army, treasury and foreign policy in United Kingdom, and newerminding this did it have a liberty to elect a monarch on it's own will, as it happen in case of Stephen Bathory.--Lokyz (talk) 20:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move to "Administrative division of Poland-Lithuania after Partitions" 

message: I would still like to remind those contributing here that the subject of the question is not the title, but the scope of the article and the lack of authoritative English language sources that suggest these territories ever were a subject/s of study worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Kingdom of Poland and Grand Duchy of Lithuania" yields 29 valid hits in English language on Google out of 55, and since the king of Poland was also the Grand Duke of Lithuania, it's the most exact translation from Latin "Regni Poloniae et Magni Ducatus Lithuaniae", which a title has many valid alternatives regarding the second part like "Magnique Ducatus Lithuaniae", without "et". So what about Administrative division of Kingdom of Poland and Grand Duchy of Lithuania? The name of the article Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth should be changed accordingly to the Kingdom of Poland and Grand Duchy of Lithuania, but it's the featured article, so I don't touch it right now. There many names of countries in English Wikipedia with "and" in the middle, for example: Papua and New Guinea or Trinidad and Tobago. Sounds a bell? greg park avenue (talk) 21:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You still forget "fomer".--Lokyz (talk) 21:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Former" is OK with me and even better than some one time commonwealths or part time republics in the meantime during partitions. greg park avenue (talk) 22:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Administrative division of Republic or the Crown of the Polish Kingdom and of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania territories after partitions]]

message: Apparently no consensus to change the title of the article to more proper one, except maybe "after" to "during" - anyone can do it without requesting RM procedure I guess. Few remarks: The name Most Serene Republic or the commonwealth of some sleepy towns as San Marino relates to the reign of the last Polish king Stanislaw August Poniatowski (1764-1795), not to the kindoms ruled previously by personalities such as the conqueror from Vienna John III Sobieski. After 1569 and before 1764, the country was called Regni Poloniae etc, the parliament was a joke because of Liberum Veto. Kings ruled the country, not parliament, they were just elected, as the Popes are by some enclave - no matter how long it takes, one must be elected - by a parliament, which was no good for nothing else. And as long as kings were kings, the country was strong. Poniatowski became the first and last shithead and instead of taking care of the country he took care of collecting arts leaving public affairs to the parliament, and liberating liberum veto, while the kingdom became a shitty republic, shitty, because they ain't got even a constitution. Even I am surprised it took as many as 33 years to take this Titinic (as for European standards) called Regni Poloniae, down to founder. James Cameron's took only two hours. Who signed all those three partition acts if not the parliament? If the liberum veto was still in use, those shameful acts would never take place. Am I right or wrong? I don't think anyone can challenge that. Do you think you can handle this? greg park avenue (talk) 23:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So per WP:UE We should stick to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth I think.--Lokyz (talk) 20:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, especially regarding historical names. They always sound better in English. greg park avenue (talk) 22:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary