This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms 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 collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Prussia, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.
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.
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]
The article states that she "...was painted [by Vigée Le Brun] shortly before her death". However Vigée Le Brun's own article contradicts this, stating "Catherine herself also agreed to sit for Vigée Le Brun, but she died the very next day".
I've amended the article using the source from Vigée Le Brun's article as I couldn't find any evidence that a painting of Catherine by her exists. Jupiterwaves (talk) 04:40, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, that portrait and many of it's copies stem from an original by Roslin. That one specifically was made by Rokotov was made to soften Catherine's features to her taste. I put this one, because it is an original. You might say every portait idealises their viewer, especially of monarchs, and that is mostly correct, though this image is not a copy, so that's why. Regokratus (talk) 19:38, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's like putting a portrait of Catherine the Great made today on the lead page, and then justifying it because that was a copy of an original. You would use the one that was actually painted with the subject posing for it. Regokratus (talk) 12:41, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Regokratus: Please make suggestions to the lead here (and the rationale behind them) first per WP:BRD. Yes, we could perhaps add a bit more detail about her early life but I am not sure why we need to mirror Queen Victoria's lead and how this is relevant. MOS:LEAD may also be useful for guidance. Mellk (talk) 08:37, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to mirror Queen Victoria's lead because she got the gold star and verification whatever. I noticed that the lead structure of hers is prevelant in many gold star articles, including her eldest son and her daughter in law. This isn't just in British royalty, like in Cleopatra's lead, it gives a roughly chronological page, so that is why I wanted to revamp it. The lead page is supposed to summarize roughly the person's biography, so that's why I revamped it. Regokratus (talk) 19:26, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not restore your preferred version of the lead until there is clear consensus for these changes. In my opinion you are removing too much information. Since you have brought up Cleopatra, the lead there is not this short. You are welcome to seek dispute resolution if you insist on restoring all of these changes. Mellk (talk) 10:16, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am disputing resolution, this lead page describes her reign, her lovers, and her territorial expansion, but not herself. It is her biography, not anything about her reign. And a short lead is good, and this isn't that short. Also, you picked Cleopatra, but look at Alexandra of Denmark, or Queen Victoria. If your problem with the lead is that it is too short, instead of reverting it, expand it to include more information about the Empress. Regokratus (talk) 19:29, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the article is barely biographical in the lead page, if at all, so I am adding more suitable information for it than redacting. This information in this lead page would be more fit if an article on her reign was made, not for her own biography. Regokratus (talk) 11:55, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned Cleopatra because you brought up Cleopatra. I do not mind you adding some details about her early life, but it is better to propose your changes here first. Mellk (talk) 11:58, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm currently on mobile and don't want to scroll forever to figure this out, but regular editors of this page should be aware of this r/askhistorians Reddit thread. Ed[talk][OMT]05:34, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
level-3 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
