This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia'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 within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. 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
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 Wikipedia. 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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesFormer countries
This article is within the scope of the Women in Religion WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of women in religion. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Women in ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject Women in ReligionTemplate:WikiProject Women in ReligionWomen in Religion
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
This page is affected by the Gdańsk (Danzig) Vote. The following rules apply in the case of disputes:
For Gdańsk, use the name Danzig between 1308 and 1945
For Gdańsk, use the name Gdańsk before 1308 and after 1945
In biographies of clearly German persons, the name should be used in the form Danzig (Gdańsk) and later Danzig exclusively
In biographies of clearly Polish persons, the name should be used in the form Gdańsk (Danzig) and later Gdańsk exclusively.
For Gdansk and other locations that share a history between Germany and Poland, the first reference of one name in an article should also include a reference to other names, e.g. Danzig (now Gdańsk, Poland) or Gdańsk (Danzig). An English language reference that primarily uses this name should be provided on the talk page if a dispute arises.
Reverts to conform with community consensus are excluded from the three-revert rule (3RR). Only the place names can be reverted exempt from the 3RR according to the outcome of this vote, additional changes fall again under the 3RR. Please use descriptive edit summaries.
The detailed vote results and the vote itself can be found on Talk:Gdansk/Vote. This vote has ended; please do not vote anymore. Comments and discussions can be added to Talk:Gdansk/Vote/discussion anytime. This template {{Gdansk-Vote-Notice}} can be added on the talk page of affected articles if necessary.
This entry is riddled with opinion and large sections of it have no underlying source material. Needs to be flagged as problematic and re-written 193.119.103.214 (talk) 00:20, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The section on Catherine's policy toward Serfs reads like a bad high school history essay, or something translated by Google from another language. Its repetitive, overly wordy and yet somehow still unclear. Three consecutive sentences begin with the word "however." Its unclear what the passage means when it discusses the serfs wanting to replace Catherine with the "true" empress, and contradictory in that it begins saying that serfs viewed her positively then ends by saying she was viewed negatively. 2603:7000:8303:E89B:9925:C36B:90A6:FD64 (talk) 03:31, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This sentence (citation 86) is poorly written: It entered into a contract with the Italian teacher-choreographer Filippo Becari, who must was “the most capable of dancing” children to learn “to dance with all possible precision and to show themselves publicly in all pantomime ballets”. 89.240.42.140 (talk) 22:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Walter Tau made a series of clearly deleterious changes to article lead in the past year, including splitting out stub paragraphs, adding an inappropriate level of detail for the lead, and removing serial commas purely on the basis of their personal opinions. I've undone them. I do not have the energy to fight with them about their changes if they're going to act similarly to our previous interactions, so I'm posting this here so others can see it and maybe talk to them. Please consult the linked policies. Remsense ‥ 论19:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is important to note opinions of “ others” have become fact of Wikipedia using citations from clearly biased sources to back “ rumours.” Even within the body of the contiguous post i.e. Catherine the Great is full of problems, the very statement that “ rumours” are counted is not laudable at the least. This post has numerous “talks” regarding of being problematic plus disparaging an entire Nation based on a biased book reference of non validated historical relevance. Catherine the Great is wholly a problematic post for years. Wikipedia in its desire to proffer free speech sacrifices quality and reliability. Free speech used to disparage or cause harm is not Constitutionally protected. The Author appears uneducated, or as an old woman sipping tea “ gossiping” with others about others, hardly a note worthy Catherine the Great rendition. However, the “ harm “ would be debated by so called literate creators or posters of same litany. It is best to forward Catherine the Great post to the Russian Embassy for review, as it is an attack upon the culture of the Russian people, and is not constructive nor qualitative in content in many points questioned by others as seen in previous talks. Wanting to appear intellectual at the expense of civil responsibility is not “ intellect.” The Catherine the Great post should be classified as “ gossip.” MariaJordanaGuevara (talk) 18:10, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
level-3 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
