Talk:Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna of Russia

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 Wikipedia: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.[1] 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia articles can be found at Wikipedia:Article titles. It is generally advisable to use the most common form of the name used in reliable sources in English... [emphasis in original]. And WP:COMMONNAME, the controlling policy, says "Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

FAR needed

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

Alexander Place refs

@DrKay While the primary sources claimed to be reproduced on alexanderplace.org may have been reputably published originally, there is no way to verify the content on the website itself; for example, the Anna Vyrubova memoir doesn't even mention where, when, or by whom it was originally published, or even whether it's a translation (and by whom). We don't know its copyright status either (what if it is a direct copy of a translation published much later?). These are serious concerns that apply to all the content on the website; if ancestry.com is considered unreliable even when it hosts photocopies of primary documents, why should we trust something manually reproduced in plaintext?? At the very least our citation should only include the website in the "via" field, although even then WP:SAYWHERE states So long as you are confident that you read a true and accurate copy so that might not be appropriate either. These refs should reflect the unreliability of the website or be removed. JoelleJay (talk) 07:38, 30 November 2021 (UTC)