Grand 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. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
This article looks like total crap -the photos are arranged in a very sloppy way. --Mrlopez2681 04:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
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.
|
Last edited at 20:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 16:35, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:53, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
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)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:39, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)