Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:31, 28 November 2021

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna of Russia article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 3 months

	Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna of Russia is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
[REDACTED]	This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 17, 2013, and on July 17, 2018.
Article milestones Date Process Result December 13, 2006 WikiProject peer review Reviewed December 29, 2006 Good article nominee Listed February 24, 2007 Featured article candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Royalty and Nobility This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility (assessed as Mid-importance). This article has had a peer review which is now archived. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Russia: History / Religion High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Misplaced Pages. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the history of Russia task force. This article is supported by the religion in Russia task force. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Christianity: Saints / Eastern O. Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Saints (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy (assessed as Mid-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Women's History Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on August 23, 2012.

Daily page views Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. Updates on reimplementing the Graph extension, which will be known as the Chart extension, can be found on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.

The problem in this article

The problem in this article is with names / titles? Quote: "daughter of Tsar Nicholas II, the last sovereign of Imperial Russia, and his wife, Tsarina Alexandra Feodorovna." 1) The name of the Russian tsar was Nikolai, not Nicholas; 2) The title of his wife was not Tsarina; 3) The word Царина did not and does not exist in the Russian language (as an exception - it may be a last name). The Russian tsars called the tsar's wife "Царица" (in Russian). Transcription in English: Tsaritsa. Where 1st and 2nd letters are the same with 5th and 6th. Avedon (talk) 16:31, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Country (Russia) in this period was called "Российская Империя", - in English should be called "Russian Empire" (like British Empire) or "Rossiiskaya Imperiya" or may be "Empire of Russia". But not "Imperial Russia" - "Имперская Россия". In Russian - Имперская, Императорская, Империалистическая - different words Avedon (talk) 22:25, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

"Anastasia's title is most precisely translated as "Grand Princess". "Grand Duchess"". Her title was called "Великая княжна", where word княжна (knyazhna) something like a princess. Also in Russian княжна (knyazhna) - it means diminutive word from knyaginya (Princess). It means: young or little girl - daughter of knuaz or duke or tsar. From 0yo to marriage. )) Avedon (talk) 23:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I do not understand why you are suffering under the delusion that this article is written in Russian. It is not. It is written in English. Hence the "en." at the beginning of the URL. 1) In English, the last Russian Tsar is called Nicholas, 2) Tsarina is the standard English word for the wife of a tsar, 3) Imperial Russia and Russian Empire are simply different stylistic choices - they have the exact same meaning, 4) Grand Duchess is the normal English form of the title borne by Anastasia.

I understand everything and do not suffer from anything. 1). Proper names are not translated, but transliterated. For instance: Николай Гоголь - Nikolai Gogol. And the tsar was called the same Name: Николай - Nikolai. Not Николас - Nicolas. You're understand? More: Nikolai Vavilov and finally we look here People having the single name Nikolai. 2) The names of the status of persons of the tsar, royal and so on kind are usually not translated. Why does the article wrote "Tsar" (царь), but not "King", and here in the same time wrote "Grand Duchess"? Somewhere here the logic is lost. Sad but true. And you are hinting to me that I am a Russian idiot who confused EN.Misplaced Pages.org and RU.Misplaced Pages.org. I don't care what will be in this article - even a picture of a bear in an earflap with a balalaika and vodka. Mistakes in English Wiki a'nt my problems. Good luck! PS: Romanization of Cyrillic letters https://i.imgur.com/C09JLsM.png Avedon (talk) 21:32, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

These aren't mistakes. They are standard English usage. Sometimes English usage translates names and titles. Sometimes English usage transliterates names and titles. There is usually no underlying pattern, you just have to learn which instances use which approach. --Khajidha (talk) 00:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Nicknames

"Other family nicknames for Anastasia were "Malenkaya", meaning "little (one)" in Russian, or "Shvybzik", meaning "merry little one" or "little mischief" in German. Anastasia's pet dog (which died in 1915) first had this name. Anastasia started signing herself as Shvybzik or "Shvybz" during the First World War." 1) "Malenkaya", meaning "a little" in Russian, in that case meaning "the little girl". Words "Shvybzik" or Shvybzik or "Shvybz" - do not exist in Russian or German. This means that they do not exist at all, despite some "authoritative" sources like Rappaport. PS: In Russian there is a colloquial slang word "Shibzdik" and have Jewish origin. Avedon (talk) 21:56, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Already resolved at Talk:Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna of Russia/Archive 2#Life and childhood. DrKay (talk) 04:54, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I didn't notice that in that discussion. Just in case, a quote (in Russian): "Четвертую дочь Анастасию дома звали «маленькой», «Настаськой», «Настей». Как свидетельствовал генерал М. К. Дитерихс, участвовавший в расследовании убийства царской семьи: «Великая княжна Анастасия Николаевна, несмотря на свои семнадцать лет, была ещё совершенным ребёнком. Такое впечатление она производила главным образом своей внешностью и своим весёлым характером. Она была низенькая, очень плотная, — «кубышка», как дразнили её сёстры». Анастасия, как и все Романовы, очень любила животных. Ее первая собака была шпиц по имени Швыбзик. Кстати, также называли и ее за подвижность и шаловливость - «швыбзиком»." Sources in Russian: Игорь Викторович Зимин. Взрослый мир императорских резиденций. Вторая четверть XIX – начало XX в.; Буксгевден С. Венценосная мученица. Жизнь и трагедия Александры Федоровны, Императрицы всероссийской. М., 2006. С. 249 Avedon (talk) 01:33, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

1. Kurth (1983), p. 309
2. Rappaport (2008), p. 82
3. Rappaport (2014), p. 103

Requested move 8 July 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) Celia Homeford (talk) 13:56, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna of Russia → Anastasia Nikolaevna – According to MOS:HONORIFIC, honorific prefixes should not be included in the article title -- with certain specific exceptions. In the case, the relevant exception is something called "royals with a substantive title". According to Ulwencreutz's The Royal Families in Europe VI, "grand duke" is a translation of the "post-medieval courtesy title Velikiy Knjaz (literally: grand prince)." That is to say, this title was traditional for members of the imperial family. As there was not a grant to her as an individual, it cannot be considered substantive. The word "duke" is an oddity of translation as there is typically no duchy involved. 99to99 (talk) 05:47, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I checked on what other reference works are doing. Encyclopedia of Russian History says "Romanova, Anastasia Nikolayevna" while Encyclopedia of World Biography says "Anastasia Nicholaievna Romanov. Columbia Encyclopedia says "Anastasia", as does Collins English Dictionary. In short, no one else is using either "grand duchess" or "of Russia," the two points at issue in this RM. 99to99 (talk) 01:47, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. I think the relevant part of the naming convention is Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)#Other royals. DrKay (talk) 07:31, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I see. But even though you have found a clause in the guideline to support it, I still think it is a bad title. The proposed form is certainly more common in the RS, as you can see here. I had to drop off the "of Russia" thing to do the ngram. The title as it is doesn't get any Google Book hits at all. 99to99 (talk) 08:08, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment That is a title, not an honorific like “her majesty,” so I think the Other royals rule 1 probably applies. The articles about her three sisters should be added to this move request, for consistency. —Michael Z. 15:44, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

The guideline calls it an "honorific prefix," so that's the terminology I used: "In general, honorific prefixes—styles and honorifics in front of a name—in Misplaced Pages's own voice should not be included, but may be discussed in the article." 99to99 (talk) 00:23, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Can you quote or describe the exact guideline that describes “grand duchess” as an honourific prefix? MOS:HON describes how to honourifics and styles in the text. WP:NCNOB#Other royals is about using titles in article titles, and that page barely mentions honourifics (as “courtesy titles.”. —Michael Z. 02:53, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

This subject is far too notable to be treated as an "other royal." Here is WP:TITLE: "Other encyclopedias are among the sources that may be helpful in deciding what titles are in an encyclopedic register, as well as what names are most frequently used." You can see what other reference works call her in the second paragraph I wrote above. 99to99 (talk) 03:41, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

The classification in WP:NCNOB is not defined by notability. Royal categories are sovereigns, consorts of sovereigns, royals with a substantive title, and other royals. She’s not in the first three, so as a royal she is in the third. The general guideline WP:COMMONNAME that you cite says nothing to imply that a title should be used because the subject is “far too notable” either. —Michael Z. 17:58, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

TITLE is a "policy" whereas NCNOB is a mere "guideline." You think "Other royals" should override the five WP:CRITERIA? Although this is a highly notable subject, there not a single hit on GBooks to support the current title. 99to99 (talk) 20:41, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

• I'm opposed to the suggested move because it makes the subject of the article less clear. Anastasia Nikolaevna could be singer or football goalie, I would have no idea of what the article is about if I saw it in a list and so on.

But since we've got a RM open, let me suggest that instead the move be Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna of Russia → just Anastasia (and then the existing Anastasia → Anastasia (name) or something). This works because Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna of Russia is really really famous.

WP:Article Title is a policy, thus tends to trump other rules (such as conventions for aristocrats specifically) and it lays out the Five Virtues of article titles: Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Conciseness, and Consistency (see link for details).

Anastasia is very famous as a mononym. The films, the books, the references... they all use just "Anastasia" and you're assumed to know who is meant. Her pic is front and center in the article Anastasia because of course. There are 20 other Anastasia's listed in that article (apparently it's not a super common name), and they are all pretty obscure -- a synchronized swimmer, a voice actor, an 11th century Hungarian royal, a Youtuber, a handball player, and so on. I'm confident that more people who come to the page Anastatia are looking for our Anastasia than all those others put together. Whether enough for our girl to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is hard to know, but consider: most (not all) people looking for say Anastasia Gorbenko know her full name and will go there. I would think that by far people searching on just the string "Anastasia" are looking for the tragic Grand Duchess. So, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the string "Anastasia", I'm pretty sure.

That (if accepted) is kind of case closed, but let's see how this conforms to the Five Virtues:Recognizability is improved. Mick Jagger didn't sing "Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna of Russia screamed in vain" because he knew he didn't need to for people to know whom he was talking about. Adding "Nikolaevna" in particular just obscures and confuses. Naturalness, it's pretty clear "Anastasia" is how she is commonly denoted in the English-speaking world, same as "Madonna" for Madonna for Maddonna Ciccone and "Cher" for Cher Bono and so on. The proposed mononymic title would be less precise but a whole lot more concise. Consistency, I don't know... we do sometimes use mononyms for articles on royals (e.g. Henry VIII rather than King Henry VIII of England. Usually not, but disambiguation is often required, thus John II of France, because there are other John II's, ditto for Willams and Pauls and so on. But there is Henry VIII, Count of Waldeck and others; the English kings is clearly considered the primary topic for the string "Henry VIII". Well ditto for Anastasia. So on consistency, I'm not sure.

"Anastasia (Grand Duchess)" or "Anastasia of Russia" would be less concise but more precise and probably more recognizable, altho less natural and (I guess) less consistent. If you don't like just "Anastasia" maybe something like that woule be a compromise to improve the present unwieldy and obscure title. Herostratus (talk) 18:08, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I am certainly fine with "Anastasia." 99to99 (talk) 01:47, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Hmmm, this google ngram compares the strings "anastasia", "grand duchess anastasia", and "anastasia nikolaevna". "Anastasia" alone is used orders or magnitude over the other two. Granted, a very good number of these are surely about the 1956 film, or the Slash song, or Anastasia Island, or Albert Anastasia, or Anastasia Yankova, etc etc etc, so it doesn't prove anything. But still. IMO it's not much, but maybe a small data point in favor of just "Anastasia" as a title, depending on your guess of what it shows. Herostratus (talk) 04:35, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:NCROY which states "where they have no substantive title, use the form '{title} {name} of {country}'." Richiepip (talk) 03:04, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but the second paragraph of that page opens with "General policy on the naming of Misplaced Pages articles can be found at Misplaced Pages:Article titles. It is generally advisable to use the most common form of the name used in reliable sources in English... . And WP:COMMONNAME, the controlling policy, says "Misplaced Pages does not necessarily use the subject's 'official' name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)..."

Also, like all guidelines, it says it is "best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". If you're ever going to have exceptions, Anastasia would be eligible you'd think.

So you saw the Ngram above, let's look at google. Googling "Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna of Russia", looking at the results in order (discounting Misplaced Pages and mirrors), and going by the name used in the title or at first introduction, let's see...

1. Britannica: "Duchess Anastastia"
2. Britannica (another part): "Anastasia" (this is the actual article)
3. Biography.com: "Anastasia Romanov"
4. Town & Country magazine: "Anastasia Romanov"
5. Salone Prive: "Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna of Russia"
6. History.com: "Anastasia Romanov"
7. Thoughtco.com: "Anastasia Romanov"
8. Russia Beyond: "Grand Duchess Anastasia"
9. Getty Images: "grand duchess anastasia nikolaevna of russia"
10. Russiapedia: "Anastasia Romanova"
11. Instagram via Pinterest: "Династия Романовых" and "Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna of Russia"
12. Pinterest again: "Anastasia"
13. Haaretz.com: "Russia's Grand Duchess Anastasia Romanov"
14. Alamy (images): "Grand Duchess Anastasia"

That's the end of the the second page. Results are all over the place. This is the order google gives, seems odd, I don't know why sites like Town & Country are so high. I see that FWIW Britannica's article is titled just "Anastasia" and opens with "Anastasia, Russian in full Anastasiya Nikolayevna..." So, that's good enough for Britannica...

Looks like "Anastasia Romanov" is popular but that is actually wrong, technically, I think? In that royals don't technically have family names? Elizabeth is not "Elizabeth Windsor". But Anastasia is in the Romanov family and dynaste, and "Anastasia Romanov" is a reasonable way of shortening "Anastasia who was a princess of the Romanov Dynasty" or whatever, I suppose.

Googling in books, we get "Anastasia: The Last Grand Duchess" (title), "Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna of Russia 55 Success Facts" (title, but whatever this thing is it looks sketchy, it might be a Misplaced Pages mirror), "Grand Duchess Anastasia Romanov" (title, kids book I think), "The Resurrection of the Romanovs: Anastasia, Anna Anderson, and the World's Greatest Royal Mystery" (title), in "The Last of the Romanovs", in the text we get just "Anastasia" mostly and at first use, but you're expected to know who she is and and he does use "Anastasia Nikolaevna" to introduce her bio... "Anastasia: The Life of Anna Anderson" (title), "I Was Anastasia" (title, it's a novel)... book results also seem to be coming up in unexpected order. Google Ngram on "Anastasia Romanov" shows little usage.

Hmm tough one. Using WP:AT rules it might be that "Anastasia Romanov" would certainly be in the running. It contains more info than just "Anastasia" (more precise) but is still pretty short (concise), seems used a lot in sources (recognizable, natural). It's not consistent though, and it's technically wrong to the extent that matters (which is not much, things are named by what people call them not what they "should" call them, per WP:COMMMONAME).

All in all I still think "Anastasia" alone is maybe best, but "Anastasia Romanov" is a close second I guess. Herostratus (talk) 04:53, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:NCROY. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:53, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Good grief. Talking to walls much? I request that comments by parrots not be considered to be serious. Maybe I'm wrong, but at least address the issue. It's not a vote and I call on the closer to consider that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herostratus (talk • contribs)

I'm sure they will discard any !votes that warrant it. But that's their call not ours. Andrewa (talk) 00:10, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

When we state "per whatever" we are saying we agree with the guideline and do not consider there needs to be a change. "Parroting" would actually be repeating the guideline in full and would therefore be utterly pointless. Editors have no need to justify why they agree with established guidelines, precedent and consensus, since they are just that (i.e. established). It is therefore entirely addressing the issue and does not merit the borderline insulting response that it got. A reading (or rereading) of WP:CIVIL would be nice. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:16, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose’ Royalty articles always use the titles and there are certainly many notable people called Anastasia. It is fine as it is. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 22:32, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Oof, just shoot me Herostratus (talk) 22:12, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

See above re consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:52, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

FAR needed

Article has considerable uncited text and uses an inconsistent citation format. (t · c) buidhe 00:31, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages featured articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page twice
• All unassessed articles
• FA-Class biography articles
• FA-Class biography (royalty) articles
• Mid-importance biography (royalty) articles
• Royalty work group articles
• Old requests for Biography peer review
• WikiProject Biography articles
• FA-Class Russia articles
• High-importance Russia articles
• High-importance FA-Class Russia articles
• FA-Class Russia (history) articles
• History of Russia task force articles
• FA-Class Russia (religion) articles
• Religion in Russia task force articles
• WikiProject Russia articles
• FA-Class Christianity articles
• Low-importance Christianity articles
• FA-Class Saints articles
• Low-importance Saints articles
• WikiProject Saints articles
• FA-Class Eastern Orthodoxy articles
• Mid-importance Eastern Orthodoxy articles
• WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy articles
• WikiProject Christianity articles
• FA-Class Women's History articles
• Mid-importance Women's History articles
• All WikiProject Women-related pages
• WikiProject Women's History articles
• Selected anniversaries (August 2012)