Talk:Grand Duchy of Lithuania

Archives

• /Archive

Language

The article was obviously not written by a native speaker of English. Needs editing for style and idiomatic usage.

This is because article undergoing major expansion, then I will have all text i will seek for copy/edit. M.K. 11:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Vytaut The Great was creating Duchy of Lithuania. the dominant culture of The Great Duchy of Lithuania was belorusian and the belorusian language being the state tonge.

it's a total crap...belorussian nation was artificialy created 400 years later...even Minsk is built on the river Nemiga which WITHOUT ANY CHANGES in Lithuanian language means 'insomnia' (Minsk by itself is Lithuanian name meaning the place of goods' exchange)...and the slavonic language used was old Bulgarian language and not nowadays Belarus language, however this language was ONLY ONE OF THREE STATE OFFICE LANGUAGES WHICH CAME FROM PROVOSLAV'S RELIGION AFTER INCORPORATION OF UKRAINE and was used TOGETHER WITH LATIN LANGUAGE WHICH WAS SPOKEN ONLY BY FEW IN THE STATE (these two languages were used because of our neighbours' religion - latin for comunication with catholics and west europe and bulgars' language for comunicating with provoslavs) and the real GDL language was Lithuanian language even in Smolensk which in Lithuanian language means the sandy place (Smelynskas; sand=smelis)

infobox

Renata, what's wrong with infobox user Kresy did?--Happydrink 18:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

the biggest problem that info box is a bit too big and article is undergoing major edits. M.K. 18:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

While the infobox seemed to contain some errors, or at least information that should be discussed here, I certainly support addition of infoboxes. Country infoboxes of that size are commonly used in such articles (vide Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, for example), and many articles on wiki undergo major edits - I don't see how infobox interferes with them.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

infobox (one form or another) will be introduce in fully cleaned article. Mistakes in previous ver. are oblivious. M.K. 19:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Because every "fact" there is disputed and to make it NPOV you will have to put tons of footnotes and comments and explanations. Infobox is good only when info is not disputed and contested. Renata 19:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Renata's edit precluded me from correcting pro-Polish POV in the infobox. The correct version is to the right. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 19:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Just to show how many problems there are in this "infobox":

• Title: Вялі́кае Кня́ства Літо́ўскае - WTF?
• Image: to put modern Lithuanian COA on a banner and to image that was GDL banner is simply ridicilous.
• Official language - WTF? There was no official language. Show me a decrete saying "xxxx language is going to be official in GDL"
• Established church - WTF? Again, show me a decrete.
• Capital - disputes go a long way about Voruta, Kernave, Trakai, Vilnius, etc.
• Independence - 11th century? WTF? Earliest version I know is 1180's, then choose among these dates: 1236, 1253, 1316. Also don't forget the version that Kreva Act started the union with Poland. Renata 19:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Plus the map type is not proper for box. M.K. 20:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

And I expect M.K. to claim that the supreme ruler was King rather than Grand Duke, no? --Ghirla ^-трёп- 19:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

We should not forget about Algirdas title Basileus too. M.K. 20:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC) BTW, Ghirlandajo, maybe you have some nice pictures of Smolensk walls? It will be handy in article.

Yes I do, but it will take some time to upload them. I am busy as it is. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 21:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

No, need to rush, Saga of Smolensk is not started, yet. M.K. 22:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)p.s. but give a note when you have it in wiki.

• • Well, I'd still like to see the infobox with some information, as it is recommended by MoS, but I'll leave it up to editors working on the article to decide when and what information is needed. Eventually we will have to have it, there is no doubt about it.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  06:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Claims of lineage

The information removed here is not totally nonsense, although it was not well-put. I am not sure about the claims of Poland, but claims that GDL was a progenitor of Belarus exist and were made by some quite prominent historians (see eg. Dovnar-Zapolsky). Also, that the GDL was also called to a degree "Russian" is not a rare hypothesis, see eg. Kostomarov. I am not sure the way it was put is the best, but we've got to incorporate this info in some form. --Irpen 18:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Failed GA

Since it had been on the list for a while, I took it upon myself to review this one. A lot of work obviously went into it. Unfortunately I must fail it.

The main reason, as noted above, is the rough edges on the translation, in the form of missing articles: "State lapsed into years of internal fights"; "Union with Kingdom of Poland did not prevent territorial losses of the state ...". But I also see lots of stubby paragraphs, sloppy layout (the quote boxes create a lot of whitespace) and some departures from standard Wikipedia practices (have we ever had a huge timeline box at the beginning of an article?). The intro is far too long, and as far as length goes (and in this article, it goes a lot), I think the history section at least could be spun off (it takes up most of an article that's supposed to be about a country). It was a whole bunch of these things that led to this result.

Obvioulsy, as usual, it can be fixed up and renominated. Daniel Case 06:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC) It is not clear why historical names of dukes are present in Smogitian language, that even have not been a part of Litwa ( for example Mundaugas ) . Addind -as ending looks to all dukes names is very funny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisouczyk (talk • contribs) 20:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)