Talk:Grand Duchess Tatiana Nikolaevna of Russia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleGrand Duchess Tatiana Nikolaevna of Russia has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 3, 2007WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
January 28, 2007Good article nomineeListed
March 30, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
March 2, 2008Good article reassessmentKept
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 17, 2017, and July 17, 2020.
Current status: Good article

Ekaterinburg[edit]

Okay, I replaced 'executed' with 'murdered' because I *strongly* believe that the massacre in Ekaterinburg was just that. A murder. Use of the word 'execution' would imply that due legal process was followed. It wasn't. If Tatiana had been convicted of some crime following a trial you could use the word 'executed'. But those circumstances do not apply here. In the editing history I see it used to say 'assassinated' at one time, I could live with that. Why on earth was it changed from the fairly reasonable 'assassinated' to the inaccurate and misleading 'executed' in the first place? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luornuviolet (talk • contribs) 17:07, 6 February 2005

Agreed. Asassinated or Murdered are the better terms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.150.52 (talk) 18:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Spelling Of Ekaterinburg[edit]

I was just wondering if it would be ok if I changes the spelling of 'Ekaterinburg' to Yekaterinburg as that is the traditional spelling and she did die there in 1918, when the spelling with a 'Y' was still in use. Also I have a shelf full of books that say she was murdered/executed in Yekaterinburg. Sorry if this affends anyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.49.115.233 (talk) 18:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article looks really BAD[edit]

This article looks like total crap -the photos are arranged in a very sloppy way. --Mrlopez2681 04:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the photos have been removed. Rearrange them if you think you can improve on the layout. --Bookworm857158367 07:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tatiana's birthdate[edit]

In 1900, the Old Style calender fell behind another day, so Tatiana's birthday is more accurately celebrated on the 11th of June. Clockworkgirl21 08:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As Tatiana was born in 1897,when the calendar was 12 days behind-not 13, the 10thjeanne (talk) 14:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC) June birthdate is correct so the 11th June date should be deleted.Tatiana's rectified date of birth is 10 June 1897-all documents and books say this.[reply]

Yes, the new-style date of birth is 10 June 1897, but there is now a remark in this wikipedia entry saying that her birthday was celebrated on new-style June 11 in 1900 and later. This is because when the new-style (i.e. Gregorian) calendar reached March 1, 1900, it became 13 (not 12) days ahead of the old-style (Julian) calendar, and we are here dealing with a person who was living when that change happened. Her birthday would still have been celebrated on old-style May 29, because old-style calendar was still used at that time in Russia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 14:43, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Sweeps[edit]

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. Although I have passed this article, I do have one significant problem which I feel the article's main contributors should address. The first paragraph is very messy with no narrative flow, instead appearing as an unconnected list of facts. This should be arranged into some sort of order, preferably chronologically. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, Jackyd101 (talk) 18:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article is very good;accurately describes the character and appearance of Tatiana.Just one suggestion-it needs more photos.There are some beautiful photographs of Tatiana available,jeanne (talk) 14:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)they should be added here.[reply]

Fiction[edit]

I added information about Carolly Erickson's new novel, The Tsarina's Daughter, of which Tatiana is the protagonist. It has received several reviews (not all that positive, admittedly). I put this in a fiction category just below the non-fiction "Books" section, and the information was removed. I would like to ask why. Many people interested in royals are also interested in fictional treatments of their lives. Quite a few Wiki biography articles include sections on fiction (or other popular culture venues) in which the subjects appear. I'm a professional historian, with PhD, and I have no objection to including interesting historical fiction in a Wiki article, given that Wiki articles are not addressed to serious scholars like me and my colleagues but rather to a more general and popular audience. Perhaps someone would like to explain the removal?Lolliapaulina51 (talk) 23:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's likely too trivial to include in the article. The Romanovs were main characters in a variety of other novels. Do we include them all? Anastasia is better known and the myth is so widely known that she seems like a different case. I wrote much of the Tatiana article and decided NOT to include the Erickson reference or any of the others I knew of for those reasons. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 23:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Bookworm, but you are evidently not the person who removed the reference. I'd like to hear from that person. Moreover, there are not THAT many fictional treatments of the individual daughters of Nicholas II. I know of none in which the protagonist is Olga or Marie, for example. The very fact that a recent novel deals with Tatiana, rather than Anastasia, is noteworthy. However, as a scholar, I'm willing to entertain any and all serious explanations for not including Erickson's novel in a "Fiction" section.Lolliapaulina51 (talk) 22:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was the person who removed the reference. I don't think it belongs in the article for the reasons listed above. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 00:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I don't consider that you offered serious reasons. Your explanation was quite brief and suggested that you simply made a personal decision, not one based on the actual existence of a vast number of fictional treatments of the lives of each of the four daughters of Nicholas II. Please be more specific and scholarly regarding this long list of novels and offer some titles. If there are a great many, and I've simply missed them all, then, of course, I will concede that there's no point in listing every one in the article. However, since I know of no other novel in which Tatiana is the protagonist (or in which Olga or Marie is the protagonist), I still feel that mentioning Erickson's very recently-published book is worthwhile; it is unique, whether or not it is of high litertary quality, and "quality" doesn't seem to be a criterion for mention on a Wiki site. Moreover, I do not consider Anastasia to be utterly sui generis, so I don't feel that there is any solid reason why the sites for Tatiana, Olga, and Marie should not also include one or two fictional treatments, if and when they actually exist. In fact, the Wiki sites for many royals include sections for popular culture and fiction, as a quick check will demonstrate. Please note that this article does not simply belong to you and that other people can and should add information that they feel may be of interest to readers.Lolliapaulina51 (talk) 03:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia and popular culture sections are generally discouraged in Wikipedia articles, despite their inclusion in so many articles, which is why I avoided including the fictional references when this article went through its "good article" review. I suppose you're right that an "In Fiction" section might be appropriate, if well written, though I'd rather not see just a single paragraph devoted to the Erickson reference. The Anastasia article lists a number of the books and movies that were made based on the Anastasia myth and its impact on the culture. Some of them also apply to Tatiana. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 13:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Close-up of Tatiana[edit]

I see that you have deleted the close-up of Tatiana. The article has no close-ups of her at the moment. Surely it would have been better to have deleted the full-length version instead. By the way, you are doing an excellent job at creating articles on Russian nobles. Do you happen to know Tatiana Botkina's exact birthdate? --jeanne (talk) 08:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's essentially the same picture as the one above of her sitting on the dock. I was the one who cropped it to make the close-up, but it's an artificially created picture, too. It just seems to make more sense to use the original picture from the Beinecke collection. I'd also just added the picture taken in 1918 at Tobolsk with Olga and her mother, found in the Alix of Hesse article, so it seemed like there were too many pictures. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 15:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More fiction[edit]

Please note that Wiki articles are used by a wide cross-section of the public and that we cannot know, in advance, precisely what a user may be seeking. Providing comprehensive information, including fiction and popular-culture references, particularly in biographical articles, is useful to users. Discouraging information about such references is unproductive, since they may ultimately lead a reader to undertake research in factual, non-fiction sources. However, that is an issue that I should take up with someone other with you. As for your statement that the many Anastasia references also "apply" to Tatiana, I repeat: I know of no other novel in which Tatiana is the protagonist, not merely a "supporting player," subordinated to the Anastasia legend. That is why I added the Erickson reference. I will politely refrain from adding the reference again, but I'd like you think carefully about your views. If I, a PhD and scholar in a historical field, have no problem with such references, then I have to wonder why you do?Lolliapaulina51 (talk) 23:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you've mentioned that you're a PhD and a historian several times now. I'm a newspaper reporter with a history minor and a shelf full of books both serious and fictitious about the Romanovs. I attempted to make this article well-referenced, comprehensive, and serious. At the time it was reviewed, I was told that trivia sections were generally discouraged. If you feel you can add to the article with the Erickson reference, go ahead, but I'd rather not see a single paragraph. If you're going to add in pop culture references, add the others in which Tatiana or the Romanovs are mentioned. Tatiana is also the only Romanov daughter mentioned by name in a fictional work by John Lescroart called Rasputin's Revenge, though it isn't a particularly serious work. I believe she was also mentioned in Danielle Steele's book "Zoya" as a friend of the fictional character. I know I've read other such works written in the past 30 years or so. You likely know of others and can make it flow with the rest of the article. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 05:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to learn that you have a problem with people who have spent years becoming professional historians. As the daughter and godddaughter of journalists, I have the greatest possible respect for that profession, but I don't feel that a "minor" in history is the equivalent of being a historian. And, of course, we all own large personal libraries on subjects that interest us; that's standard. I will work on a fiction section, but I have to laugh at Steele's "Zoya." I'm not familiar with Steele, I must admit, but a little research indicates that this is a romance novel that involves an entirely fictional protagonist, apparently using historical characters as secondary background. Fiction sections on Wiki biographical articles should list only novels that feature the article subjects as main characters. An excellent example is Anya Seton's "Katherine," in which the protagonist is Katherine Swynford.Lolliapaulina51 (talk) 00:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly do not have a problem with historians and I think it would be entirely appropriate for you to create a user page identifying yourself and giving your credentials, if you intend to be a frequent contributor. I've covered K-12 education and area colleges and universities for going on 15 years. I also have family members who are university professors, college instructors or who work in other fields that require doctorates. It seems appropriate to tell you my background since you have outlined yours. I know a fair amount about this particular topic because it is one of my particular interests. "Zoya" is a trashy romance novel; "Rasputin's Revenge" is a thriller. I originally left both out when I was working on this article because I recognized that neither was serious. I also left out Erickson's book because a trivia or popular culture section seemed to be discouraged. But I suppose it is a matter of opinion what is a "serious" enough work to merit mention in a general reference, online encyclopedia written by all and sundry. If it is a popular reference, maybe it SHOULD include all of the references in romances and thrillers as well as in the more serious treatments of the topic. The one thing I don't want to see is a pop culture section with a point by point, unreferenced list. Ideally, I think Wikipedia should serve as a general reference that will point users to more serious references. It should not be used as a primary source or the FINAL source for any high school or college student. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 12:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of Tatiana[edit]

The previous photograph of Tatiana used in the intro box is much better than the latest one, as the latter just shows her in profile. This is only my opinion. What do other editors think?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article needs a close-up photo of Tatiana.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The current photo in use is appropriate. I don't think it needs to be changed. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 18:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox photo is fine. I meant another photo, a close-up, somewhere in the article.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The photos that are there are fine and are close enough. Another one is not needed. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 00:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No harm done, I was just offering a suggestion.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Americanised spellings for a European person?[edit]

Seeing as we are using the British style of dating for this European person, I think it looks incongruous to use American spelling in the article.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling is a matter of preference, usually due to the editors. I'm American so I used Americanized spellings when I did a lot of editing on the Romanov articles a couple of years ago. Someone changed the birthdate around to British style on the Tatiana article but I'd probably change that back as well. Most of the other Romanov articles currently use American English. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 12:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There probably should be a discussion about whether to use American or British English on all of the Romanov articles. If we change it to British English on one we should change it on all and have a consistent style throughout. Anyone else want to chime in? --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 12:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we really should let other editors have their input here. I for one support British dates and spelling for all the Romanov articles seeing as they are a European royal dynasty and most Europeans (when they write in English) use British spelling and dating styles. But if there's consensus to use American, I'll go with the flow. Comments?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Grand Duchess Tatiana Nikolaevna of Russia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Grand Duchess Tatiana Nikolaevna of Russia/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Short, but well written and refrenced. Some paragraphs are stubby, and would benifit with being expanded or merged. The bio could be broken further into two or three sections. I foud the opening sentence and the godparents para confusing and difficult to follow. + Ceoil 15:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Great work over the last few days. + Ceoil 20:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 20:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 16:35, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Grand Duchess Tatiana Nikolaevna of Russia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:53, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Forensic picture[edit]

The "forensic facial reconstruction" picture is to me very disturbing when I read the article. I don't think it's relevant either, think it's trivia. I'm removing it. Emellertid (talk) 23:04, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your edit. It is relevant to that section of the article. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 02:02, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How is it relevant what a dead person with many good photos looks like when you reconstruct her skull with a computer? Reconstruction is good when you find an unknown skull, but doing the sculls of the Romanov daughters, that I find speculative. Or skall we have their DNA pictures too, that were used? That would be more relevant than a reconstruction that isn't mentioned in the article. Not just that, as I said it's very disturbing. I'm new as Emellertid but I have edied ca 200 articles as an IP, so I'm not completely new. Emellertid (talk) 03:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
it's relevant to that portion of the article, as it illustrates what methods of identification were used. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 10:43, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Grand Duchess Tatiana Nikolaevna of Russia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:39, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Tatania" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Tatania. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 11#Tatania until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:50, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive photos, references to appearance[edit]

One or more recent editors on this article has added an excessive number of photos that clutter the article and placed an excessive number of references to the physical appearance of the subject. The article badly needs to be edited. 13:23, 30 March 2022 (UTC)Bookworm857158367 (talk)

Photos[edit]

Hello, fellow editors. In my opinion, the Fabergé portrait shows Tatiana's face more clearly and makes her features standout while the current one has her face half-covered by the shadow. I also propose not to have consecutive photos that are from the same year (for example, the first 2 photos we see are both from 1914 so I propose putting one from 1910 while moving the one from 1914 down the article). Please share your thoughts on this. Minephases (talk) 10:54, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to reply for issues. Minephases (talk) 16:26, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on photos used in article[edit]

This RFC is in response to the above section, lack of discussion, and the subsequent edits and reverts. Please discuss potential changes with links to the photos in question.WP:WEAKSILENCE EmilySarah99 (talk) 13:49, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with the original arrangement of photos. EmilySarah99 (talk) 13:49, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The choice of photos over the past few months seems to have been geared mainly towards what individual editors think look good as do the excessive quotes about the physical appearance and marriage prospects of the Grand Duchess Tatiana. I did restore the 1914 official portrait in the info box. Aside from that, I’d say the lauout should not be overly cluttered and the photos should be arranged chronologically by year instead of as they currently are. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 17:40, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

  • Comment This isn't the right forum for a RFC. There's basically no discussion above so this fails per WP:RFCBEFORE. I didn't remove the RFC tag from this, but there needs to be a brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue or this needs to be closed. Nemov (talk) 16:03, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Nemov is correct. There at the very least needs to be a brief natural question or proposal. We're not mind readers. TarnishedPathtalk 01:35, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Grand_Duchess_Tatiana_Nikolaevna_of_Russia&oldid=1211614585"