Talk:Winter Palace/Archive 1

message: ----
this page needs help!! it should have more info and direct references. FuSballmehralsfutbol 00:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am thinking of considerably expanding this page but before I do has there been any discussion of a merge with Hermitage Museum. I'm not bothered either way but obviously I don't want to get this to FA level and then have a merge tag stuck on it. Giano (talk) 18:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If someone sticks this tag I will see to erase it. Shall we merge everything into St. Petersburg article? Each notable thing deserves its page. Wikipedia is not paper; you edited here long enough to know. The only thing you have to worry is to apply Wikipedia:Summary style to the two articles. `'Míkka>t 18:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

message: Should this page not be at "The Winter Palace", it des not spond coprrect without the definite article, especially as it is not named after a a place. Eg: People say "I went to Buckingham Palace" no one would ever say "I went to Winter palace". Giano (talk) 17:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My take is that readers who are used to Wikipedia's conventions will most likely enter Winter Palace, because "the Winter Palace" in Wikispeak sounds like a book or film title. Similarly National Gallery, though one would always visit the National Gallery. One could always ensure that The Winter Palace redirects here, leaving no reader behind. --Wetman (talk) 22:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I take your point, but all other books on the palace and chapters on the palace refer to "The Winter Palace" I think it would be nore correct to have the page with the definite article and the redirect and disambig without. Giano (talk) 23:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I'd lean toward leaving the article here, having the dab where Irpen suggests, and making "The Winter Palace" the redirect.  The isn't formally part of the title.  Russian doesn't even have the definite article in the language.  We have Kremlin, though one would always say the Kremlin; we also have Louvre although again I can't think of a way to use it in a sentence without saying the Louvre. --JayHenry (talk) 00:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title/name change

message: This page is currently being expanded here , it is far from finished, and much planned information is still not detailed there, but any comments on the talk page are welcome. Because it is a mammoth subject, it is going to have to have various sub-pages, all of which can be united under  :Category: Hermitage Museum. I think the Winter Palace page itself will end just after the Revolution, when it became part of the Hermitage Museum,  as the Hermitage page can pick up after that. Then, the individual room pages can then detail not only their history, but also their contents etc., as they are seen under The Hermitage name today.
The other question I have, is for the sake of consistency on the page, I suggest using only "Tsar and Tsaritsa" or "Emperor and Empress" (I know different rulers liked different titles) but, I think,  that would make the page too confusing - any thoughts on that?. please post on talk page anybthoughts. thanks. Giano (talk) 21:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The rewrite of this page is nearing completion, but in order to have the page comprehensive, but of readable size, many of the rooms have been split iff into seperate pages which will form :Category: Hermitage Museum If anyone would like to, help speed things up. and adopt a room, and write a page there is a selection here . Giano (talk) 06:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion 

message: I am very conscious writing this page that it is a very important subject to all those who lived and live in the former Russian Empire. I have been around Wikipedia long enough to know that those editors all have differing views on various events in Russian history. I have left off writing this page for that reason for a long time, in the hope one of the (here is the first problem - I was educated like many in the west to label them all "Russians" no matter where they come from) former citizens of the USSR would write it. 
What I'm trying to say, very badly, is that the Winter Palace, architecturally, is very repetitive in its design, you can see that by looking at it - it is huge but there is not a lot one can say about it beyond a few hundred words. Thus, there is not enough to make this into the page it deserves to be, without it also being a political history - the treasures should all be covered at the Hermitage page - I sounded out views on a merge and it was not wanted - so without immense details of the contents - we are left only with events and people, which is no problem if they are documented correctly.  I've taken this into user space, so that if I make a huge mistake, one of you can pop up on the talk page and say "Giano, you are a daft  bastard - what are you saying there?" also you may have ideas, knowledge of legends, stories, which I, and the rest of us in the west have never heard about, and hopefully lots of fotos - what I'm saying is, I don't want to tread on any toes, and if I make a mistake it is ignorance not an intent to offend, and this may happen because political events have to pertain directly to the palace, so it's always going to be a sketchy view, and I learnt my history from an American point of view - which may not co-incide with yours. Do you see what I'm trying to say? Basically.  I need some help here! - to keep this page completely NPOV. For example: I always thought it was the sick son that caused the Empress to withdraw, from just researching this I see she had spurned St Pete's before even her first daughter was born.  You're the guys with the knowledge.  I'm not sure as a page if it will work, but there is only one way to find out - You can swear at me, and put me right, but let's not let this get into mainspace with any huge mistakes or POV that will be fought over later.  Opinions please. Giano (talk) 19:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: top

message: I have absolutely no idea how to upload photos from Flickr, but I've been hunting through there to see if there are useful interior images that already have appropriate copyright status. I'll stick links to anything I dig up here, with notations on the copyright statements. 
http://www.flickr.com/photos/maggiew/2127226614/ - Creative commons/Attribution. Nice shot of (I think) the private park entrance.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ndalls/525007825/ - old photos, CC-by-SA. This link might be useful for a lot of places, from the look of it.  
http://www.flickr.com/photos/metalchris/1422659096/in/set-72157602102560785/ - CC-SA but noncommercial, some good shots, maybe worth twisting an arm. 
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tims/485497547/in/photostream/ - All rights reserved, but again some good interior shots the photog might be persuaded to switch to CC-by-SA for.  
I'll keep my eyes open for anything else.  Risker (talk) 20:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, the throne one we already have (it was never Pete the Great's - he was dead long before it was built), I'm not sure if we can upload the others - the courtyard one, would be good because I'm currently ading a landscape plan, exactly from where that was taken, to the already uploaded plan, and working on a sub page for the palace gardens which can redirect, there are not many gardens, so it will only be a couple of hundred words and a couple of 19th century plans I have, thanks Risker - this has the makings of a half decent page. Giano (talk) 00:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Garden photo uploaded here: :Image:Winter_Palace_Garden_Entrance.jpg. Another new talent for me.  Let me know if you are interested in any of those old photos for this or any other project you're working on, they have to go directly to Commons, but it was a very straightforward upload. Risker (talk) 23:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hunting through Flickr 

message: Peter the Great: His Life and World (Knopf, 1980) by Robert K. Massie, ISBN 0-394-50032-6  Taken from the St. Petersburg article, I assume it is valid.  You can copy and paste it in. Doesn't have a page number, though; I'll see if I can get one. Risker (talk) 20:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ref as requested 

message: It has not always been green-and-white. Colchicum (talk) 10:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been green-and-white since 1946 only. Colchicum (talk) 10:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The age is far from finished. It will al be in there eventually, it was red from 1837 to 1917 and has changed many times. Giano (talk) 11:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "the green-and-white palace"

message: * The lead sentence: was the official residence of the Russian tsars. Between when and when?
* Again from the opening para: the late 1730s and 19th century ...when in the 19th c?
* Once the symbol of imperial power, it's storming in 1917 made it a symbol of the Russian Revolution. Have no idea what is meant here. What is storming (I know what the word means but no context is provided to this point), why was it once a great symbol, why did it loose that status (as 'once' implies), why did it regain that status.
* the palace was the backdrop for the Bloody Sunday massacre? Backdrop? or setting
I apologise if these seem intemperate, blunt or brief; I've been eating a lot of icecream and now have a tooth-ace. Ceoil sláinte 23:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Serves you right! I've addresses some of your points. The lead is supposed to be a summary, you have to read on for it to be fully explained,eg: for the storming section see here . Giano (talk) 06:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Would Image:WinterPalaceNevaSide.jpg be a better lead image? You can see tourists in the current pic. Ceoil sláinte 06:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

text: I tried that (in preview) last night, it is the wrong shape, it could stand alone as a centre pic at the top of the page (see Blenheim Palace) but the MOS people would not like it, and I'm not sure I do either - all the images have to be played about with sooner rather than later, I love the St George's Hall painting and photo comparassion, but soon someone will say one has to be in the Duma section, and I ought to show another rooms, 2 of the same room when space is limited is daft. I'm away for the rest of today, but will play with the images tonight or when I have finished writing the final 2 sections, there will be more space then to play with. Giano (talk) 07:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If I may butt in, the intro picture is really not that appropriate, as it shows a lot of sky, monumental column and Palace Square, but not really much palace. There must be a better one somewhere. Oh and my humblest compliments, it's an amazing article. Kosebamse (talk) 07:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it is a horrible lead image, but as the curent fund to send Husond,  with his secret camera, to St Petersburg stands at 0.5 Euros, it appears that is the best we are going to get. Giano (talk) 18:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I had a look on Flickr - I couldn't find anything outstanding which was freely licensed, but is :Image:Winter Palace, Hermitage Museum.jpg any use? Alas it still has some tourists getting in the way, but at least it shows more palace than sky, and it shows the style of the main facade in more detail. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 19:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, nice try...but.....the problem is the place is just too bloody long for most people's cameras. It also has to be the world's most repetative buildings, I'm sure someone could computer generate the main facade and know one would know the difference - of course, i would never suggest or condone anyone doing that......... Giano (talk) 20:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hee hee. I did think of suggesting that someone do this to the annoying tourists, but it's beyond my meagre Photoshop skills, as is the computer generated facade thing alas. Cheers anyway, Iain99Balderdash and piffle 20:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it wishful thinking on my part, or is this  image free? Giano (talk) 21:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow! This  rhis is the one! Giano (talk) 21:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

text: (Outdent) Tagged as All Rights reserved I'm afraid . The photographer is reasonably active, so I could ask nicely and see if he's be willing to release it under a free license. Some more free ones to consider in the meantime are  and  (they can easily be cropped and straightened). Iain99Balderdash and piffle 21:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The last one is good - is that free to use? Giano (talk) 22:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup - I'll upload it now, then have a play on Photoshop. Give me a few minutes. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 22:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK - the original photo's here, there's a cropped version here, and there's one where I've had a quick play with the colour and lighting here (someone with more skill at such things might be able to do a better job of this than me). Hope this helps! Iain99Balderdash and piffle 22:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

text: That is a terrific improvement - thnk you very much indeed. Giano (talk) 17:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Questions

message: :Re: Brumfield, William Craft. (1993). A History of Russian Architecture. New York: Cambridge University Press. No answers.com is not acceptable; but have you seen this video lecture. An hour and 10 minutes, no less. I'm sure it could be used as a source. Ceoil sláinte 02:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is I use nNo answers.com? remind me. I;m sre it wil be something i can check without sitting through 70 minutes of tedium. Giano (talk) 17:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Here - all good stuff, but really needs a better source, not sure this is acceptable. If you can get through the tedioum of the fat guy with the wig in the opening 10 minutes all is fine. I watched it from start to finish, Giano II, I hope you are not pretending about liking this buildings stuff! Ceoil sláinte 17:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Source

message: I've seen the colour versionof this :Image:PtheGspalace.jpg floating about on one of the foreign Wikipedias now I can't find it , I thought it was somewhere on the Rusian, but now I can't find it, anyone know where it is? Giano (talk) 19:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm... it doesn't seem to be on any of the foreign language articles linked from the current page. Looking at some old revisions of the Russian article, it looks like it used to contain quite a few images which are now deleted on that Wikipedia (see here for example, especially the gallery towards the bottom. As I don't know any Russian I can't tell why they were deleted, or whether one of them was likely to be the one you're looking for. Sorry. :-( Iain99Balderdash and piffle 20:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks - don't worry I have found it - now in place. Giano (talk) 21:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help 

message: Aurora's shot was most probably blank, so I don't think that the Aurora began her bombardment of the great Neva facade is a fair description of the situation. The damage caused by live shells would certainly be much more lasting. Furthermore, the 1917 events have been mythologized to such an extent that more sources are needed, not only Explorations in St. Petersburg and Guardian (which are certainly not the best references we could have). I am not entirely happy with In truth, the storming of the Winter palace was... (was there any?). Per WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, Wikipedians are not in a position to decide where the thruth lies. We should fairly represent all significant views found in reliable sources. Colchicum (talk) 13:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The ref used  says quite clearly that shots were fired, but actually I thought I had written that the guns were trained not fired, I see I was not concentrating and wrote fired. so we will leave it as trained to allow for the benefit of the doubt. I would noyt worry too much about "in truth" the page is going through its 100th re-write, and will probably have a 100 more before it foes into mainspace. Giano (talk) 14:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The information provided in the cited "Guardian" article is highly questionable.  Several inescapable facts make many of the article's statements obviously incorrect. 1) The "Aurora" was moored below the last bridge on the Neva, slightly more than one mile downstream from the Winter Palace. 2) From that location the Winter Palace can barely be seen.  3) The "Aurora" could not be seen from inside the palace due to the intervening Admiralty building.  4) The "Aurora" was said to be moored bow facing upstream and in this position only its large caliber single barrel bow gun could have been trained in the direction of the palace.  Further, the only operative gun in the Peter and Paul Fortress was the one used for the blank shot which has been fired at noon since the time of Peter the Great.  In 1917 the fortress was not an operational gun/cannon fortified bastion.  If this much of fairly simple and simply confirmable information is incorrect, the correctness of the entire balance of the "Guardian" published account of the "Storming of the Winter Palace" is in serious doubt.Moryak (talk) 13:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aurora 

message: * Second image in "The last Tsars (1855–1905)": Suggest determining exactly who "watshername" is, and adding it to the caption. I note the article on Alexis I identifies two consorts, so I'll leave you to figure out which one is depicted. 
*Peter the Great's Winter Palace (1711–1753): A diplomat of the time who described the city as "a heap of villages linked together"... - you note that you were looking for a reference for these quotes.  
*Peter the Great's Winter Palace (1711–1753): Clarify where Trezzini fits in the order of the building of different WPs. 
*Anna (1730–1740):  Clarify where Rastrelli fits in the order of the building of different WPs (he is said to be building the fourth WP). 
More to come tomorrow.  Risker (talk) 05:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Copy editing notes

message: *Egyptian Collection of the Hermitage Museum. Colchicum (talk) 21:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. As a side note, to avoid confusion, could you please clarify in the articles you create that the rooms in question are located on the first floor? There are many interesting things on the ground and 2nd floor as well. Colchicum (talk) 16:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possibly a subpage 

message: I want to thank both Bishonen and Risker for their really long and laborious copyedits - I know how boring a job it can be. Could an Admin now phase this into mainspace? I think the history has to be blended somehow - God know's how. I think it needs to be there now, so that others can spot any remaining errors etc. One plan needs to be redrawn sometime, but it's not urgent. Perhaps this talk page can be archived too, so we can start afresh. If anyone moans about the two pages I am still working on in userspace linking to the page, I will put them into mainspace too as "underconstruction.". Thanks to you all Alex for helping to identify the rooms and his additions, Ian, and especially JayHenry for animating (or whatever its called) the plan, and all the many others who helped out. Thanks a bunch.  Right, we need this show on the road, so do we have an Admin with the patience to do it Giano (talk) 08:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Note from Giano

message: Section "The last Tsars (1855–1905)" says: "Fortunately for the Romanovs, a guest arriving from Berlin was delayed, and for the first time in years dinner was held."
What does "held" mean here, dinner was delayed? It is confusing, as held has many meanings. My first impression was "dinner was served" / "dinner was conducted" / "dinner took place". Jay (talk) 12:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It means dinner was delayed, I'll change it, but "held" is a common enough term when talking of delaying a meal I would have thought. I assume the term comes from "withheld" or "held up" Giano (talk) 17:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "Held" for "delayed" may not be appropriate for a meal, probably. Got some responses at the Language ref desk. Jay (talk) 07:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and you have one from me too . Giano (talk) 12:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  dinner was held? 

message: Excuse me for my terrible English at first). Great article. Only thing that seems disturbing to me as russian speaking person (and maybe so in many western sourses) is constant use of word Tsar/Tsarina for russian monarchs after Peter the Great. I understand it may be common practice in English, but in Russian it's relatively rare form in this particular case - something patriarchal and "for home use only". Anyway such formula as "Tsar and autocrate of all the Russias" is by all means an historical nonsense (after 1721), for in this case word Emperor was always in place of Ts. 
With all due respect, --Sartorio (talk) 22:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not at all certain that is the case in English; do you have any sources which would give this information, or is this from your personal experience (which unfortunately may not hold true for English speaking countries)? KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 23:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

text: the article you link states "replaced in 1721 by imperator, but remained in common usage until 1917" which would tend to support you for the official, but not the vulgar, title used. We tend to use the most common term, per our Manual of Style, so Tsar would still be preferred for this article. I'm going to defer this to Giano - thank you again for your input. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 23:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: According to all the reference books used various Tsars, Emperors and their consorts alternated their titles at whim depending on personal preference. Tsar was certainly the well referenced preference of Nicholas II. As far as I am aware the Tsar was also Autocrat of all the Russias. I am prepeared to be corrected, but from the various reference books used for writig this page, that is my understanding. I went with the use of Tsar overall as that is the most commonly used term in English, and to chop and change with each reign would confuse the less well versed reader.  Giano  18:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

text: Both Hughes and Massie give Peter I his full official title once or twice, but if I recall correctly, almost exclusively refer to him as simply "Tsar" in their normal writing and very rarely mention "Autocrat", even after they get to the post-1721 years. I think we should simply refer to the Russian leader as just "Tsar". NW (Talk) 23:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

text: *I don't mind which term is used, but I do think their needs to be consistency to avoid confusion. Interesting about Peter I; I thought I had read somewhere that he was the Tsar who rejected the term and introduced "Emperor" to appear more western. I think the full and formal titles need to be mentioned just once, in the lead and then afterwards  as just Tsar or Empreror (or f form) whichever is decided - actually weren't they King of Finand and Grand Dukes of Somewhere too? I must look it up.Giacomo Returned  07:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: *For specifically the times after 1721, Massie seems to alternate between the two. Here are all mentions of the royal family's titles in a about a ten page span of Peter the Great (the time span is 1722–1723). "Elsewhere, the Russian Emperor and Empress were received as honored guests" (825); "The Empress copied her husband" (826); "Eventually, the Tsar and Sultan amicably settled the matter..." (827); "In 1732, Empress Anne, tired of the constant drain on her resources..." (827); [New Chapter: 63] "In June 1723, the entire court—including even the Tsaritsa Praksovaya, now suffering intensely from her gout..." (829); "There the Emperor boarded the little vessel, now flying the imperial standard" (829); "The ladies remained, and the young Princesses Anne and Elizabeth stayed to pass around glasses of Hungarian wine." (830); "This was the last great party for the Tsaritsa Praskovaya, who died soon after." (830); "The Emperor went often in winter, when he could travel across the lake by sledge..." (830); "Immediately after the signing of the Peace of Nystad and his own proclamation as emperor, he broached the subject to Paris. The French minister in Petersberg, Campredon, added his own enthusiastic endorsement, 'To put the Tsaritsa entirely in our interest, it would be desirable to assure a marriage between the younger daughter of the Tsar, who is very amiable and has a pretty figure, and some French prince who could easily and surely, through the power of the Tsar, be made King of Poland.'" (831); "Although [Augustus of Saxony] and Peter were now neither friends nor allies, the Emperor had no intention of actually pushing Augustus off the throne." (831); "...instead of becoming Queen of Poland, [Peter's daughter Elizabeth] remained at home to rule as Empress of Russia for twenty-one years." (832)Of course, earlier in the book (pre-1721) Peter is Peter is always referred to by name or by "Tsar".I think we should use simply "Tsar" for pre-1721 and "Emperor" for post-1721 and use a footnote to explain the changeover the first time Emperor is mentioned. NW (Talk) 19:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

text: No! Nicholas II was adamant that he was Tsar not Emperor, I would prefer Tsar throughout or Emperor throughout, it's one or the other  - and the footnote explainig. Giacomo Returned  20:36, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: *It would appear (according to our article on Nicholas II here)  that the full title was: " Emperor and Autocrat of all the Russias, of Moscow, Kiev, Vladimir, Novgorod, Tsar of Kazan, Tsar of Astrakhan, King of Poland, Tsar of Siberia, Tsar of Tauric Chersonesos, Tsar of Georgia, Lord of Pskov, and Grand Duke of Smolensk, Lithuania, Volhynia, Podolia, and Finland, Prince of Estonia, Livonia, Courland and Semigalia, Samogitia, Belostok, Karelia, of Tver, Yugra, Perm, Vyatka, Bulgaria, and other territories; Lord and Grand Duke of Nizhny Novgorod, Chernigov; Sovereign of Ryazan, Polotsk, Rostov, Yaroslavl, Beloozero, Udoria, Obdoria, Kondia, Vitebsk, Mstislav, and all the northern territories; and Sovereign of Iveria, Kartalinia, and the Kabardinian lands and Armenian territories; Hereditary Lord and Ruler of the Cherkass and Mountain Princes and others; Lord of Turkestan, Heir of Norway, Duke of Schleswig-Holstein, Stormarn, Dithmarschen, Oldenburg. In light of that, I don't care what you decide, but it has to be one consistent title (with a footnote explaining), but  I do prefer Tsar because that is the most generaly understood and used  term. 20:45, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: *Interesting; I didn't know that fact about Nicholas II (not that my knowledge of Russian history is extensive at all). Well, I personally don't mind either way. Not only don't historians seem to care about which is used, neither do our articles—the use of both is very common and non-standardized throughout the encyclopedia, even in individual articles. NW (Talk) 20:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

text: Nick 2 was very keen on all things old Rusian and liked to be known as "Tsar.", hence the last big party at the Winter Palace when he, Alexandra and the whole family dressed in ancient robes. However, as an aside to defeat my own arguement (why do i do this?) I own some letters from Queen Alexandra of England in which she continually and persistantly refers to her sister and brother in law as the Emperor and Empress; and later the children of Nick 2 as the Emperor's children. So who knows? But I do think we need one consistent title througout. - it's at time like this one needs User:Ghirlandajo who would know the answer. Giacomo Returned  21:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Queen Alexandra of the United Kingdom, of course. GoodDay (talk) 02:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

text:  I don't think it really matters. Emperor was the official style; but Tsar was used in everyday speech. P.S. For the ball, check 1903 Ball in the Winter Palace. --Ghirla-трёп- 18:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Tsar" after 1721 

message: I do not understand why people are against an infobox in this article.  I have joined the discussion on this issue at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive 85#Infoboxes.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR)  13:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: In this case, the lead image needs to be quite large to give architectural and contextual (size) details. Placing it in an infobox does not allow for this. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It has always been a wise and unwritten rule that info boxes are left to the discretion of the primary authors (in this case, me). I don't like them, they add nothing and distract much. If something is that important it can/should be in the lead. If other people want them on pages of which they are primary editors, then that is fine by me too. traditionally, they tend not to beused on achitectural pages, and many bios. I agree that they do lend themselves to mathmatical and scientific pages.Giacomo Returned  16:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I can't let that stand: Infoboxes are almost unknown on mathematics pages. At some point someone created an infobox for a class of mathematics articles, but WikiProject Mathematics had a consensus against that. See also Logarithm, which is currently at FAC without an infobox. Hans Adler 16:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

text: Surely you don't imagine that I have ever looked at a mathematics page, I was merely thinking of the dull tables in my school text books which save me the bother of reading the page properly. Giacomo Returned  16:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

text: I think its great that a nuclear physicist appreciates fine art and architecture. Not just me then who always got a headache from maths books.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox. 

message: Great article, exquisite, in the middle of preparing for GA nomination. A few things, in particular the State museum source. Do you mean the website or information actually obtained from the museum? If website it should be filled out with url, title and publisher. If they are indeed from the same source then all of the separate State Museum reference need to be united in a single a,b,c,d etc notes to the same source. Ah I see, many of sources are obtained from the sub pages of this site. We'll need to find the exact pages and urls and link sources to difference pages in difference references with titles. I'll look into this later.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As I have told you; I have no interest in raising this to GA or anything else. Giacomo Returned  12:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

text: You appear to be already doing so. Giacomo Returned  12:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Please take out the google book links, use of them is highly controversial. Please also format the notes and references the same way that the remainder of the article has been formatted (basic MOS rule is that references/notes should continue to be formatted in the way initially started). Risker (talk) 14:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If the books have ISBNs, those are sufficient for looking up the books online -- you don't need to link to Google Books directly. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:43, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

text: Since years ago; I remember being corrected on it before I had any Good/Featured credits. This being a free and open source project, there is a definite predilection to avoiding unnecessary links to commercial entities. (Indeed, I'm still kind of surprised that all the people worried about accidentally revealing their IP addresses will gladly click on all the google links at AfD, where their activities are harvested and used to develop a personal profile.)  Risker (talk) 18:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The matter of linking to Google Books was discussed at length a few months ago at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/Archive 29#Google books and Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/Archive 29#Linking to Google Books pages. It appears to me that the consensus of the discussion (second link) was in favor of allowing links. Also see User:Uncle G/On common Google Books mistakes. --Orlady (talk) 19:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Also discussed at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive47#Question about inline citations which was a bit earlier than the RfC and Uncle G's page, fwiw. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

text: Of course allowing Google Books links is not the same as allowing random editors to take over a well-kept article that intentionally doesn't have them and introduce them there. It's the same principle as with infoboxes and basically the same idea as with WP:ENGVAR. Hans Adler 19:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

text: You need to understand that writing a great article involves far more than just following a formula that ticks certain boxes. You also need to understand that this is a great article – it is insightful, engaging, and endlessly informative. It matters not a jot whether it has GA or FA markers at the top of it; most people who read it can appreciate the skill that has gone into creating the article as it is. If you cannot appreciate that, then I feel pity for you, because a lack of aesthetic appreciation is a terrible affliction. Modifying this article to meet some perception of what makes a "good article" is not a improvement – it's a desecration, and that's why you're receiving so much negative commentary from other editors. Please stop and think about it: it's really not about you; it's all about preserving the quality of this article. I'm sorry to hear that you feel you've lost several hours of work. Just consider the hundreds of hours of work that Giano put into bringing it to its current form – researching the background, checking with other editors, finding just the right word and turn of phrase. Then ask yourself how pleased you would be if it was your labour of love that was being hacked at, turning bright imagery into leaden prose. I'd strongly recommend you apply your undoubted talents of referencing to clearing our unsourced BLP backlog, or expanding the hundreds of thousands of stubs that are crying out for sourcing, but please, please, please, don't turn this into a time-sink and fight. We could all be engaged in doing far more productive things with our time. --RexxS (talk) 00:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: Can I just explain the point of this article and why I say it is unfinished, even though it seems nothing much is happening here. This not so much intended to be a page, but an introduction to "Template:The Winter Palace" which links all the rooms and associated pages(see the bottom of each page); this is far from finished and won't be for a long time. If you click on the interactive plan, you can see that, there are a lot of empty links to important parts of the palace.
It's too big and important a building to have a comprehensive single article - anyone reviewing this page as a single entity would be quite justified in saying, why are the current exhibits in room X not mentioned, or the painter of the ceiling in room Y, but if you click on the plan and go to comprehensive page on a room or a wing then that answers the question; you have to remember this building is actually the Hermitage Museum (a page currently far from comprehensive), it has always been my intention that the articles on the rooms would bridge the gap between the two pages and unite old and new. I would be thrilled to bits to see people "adopt" a room, hopefully that will happen one day. This has always been the intention, and is spelt out on this very page here up above somewhere .
If you look at this page Neva Enfilade of the Winter Palace (which I have done as much as I am able to) you can see it needs now explaiing what is displayed in the rooms today; they are the 3 largest on the palazzo - why not raise that to GA? - it would take some work; there is this, Malachite Room of the Winter Palace one of the most historically important rooms, yet it needs piles more work and research, it could even be a GA or FA itself - so much happened there. I am currently working on User:Giano/The Private Rooms of the Winter Palace an area full of importance and interest, but I am one man and I am not obsessed with the place; I have other interests I am doing it in my time. 
If others want to adopt rooms I am delighted, but until all major areas of this monumental palace are covered properly, this page cannot be finished as it will have gaping holes. This is what I started with  and perhaps it would have beennest to keep this in user spave until the whole thing was ready, but I considered anything to be better than that on such an important subject, but believe me until I say it is finished it will not be ready for reviewing – I know every one of its flaws far better than any others, and that is not WP-OWN, that is the truth. 
Either Wikipedia wants a proper superior coverage of this subject or it does not, if not, then people may as well go and look at the Hermitage Website. I am currently working on a new 3D plan to rival theirs (which is not that marvellous) The one we have incidentally is what my English architect friends call “on the piss” and that is seriously because Rastrelli drew it that way (perhaps it is slightly off north or on the piss himself – I don't know). Rather than say this is a “Good Article” we should be saying we need the best coverage of the subject. So instead of talking here, why not adopt a room – There also needs to be a page The Winter Palace during war and revolution 1914-1920 - perhaps the military history people would like to look at that one, and this one too they could do amazing things with that page - we could allocate pages to spread the talent more evenly; this is not WP-OWN its an effort to make the subject complete. Giacomo Returned  17:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: For sure it would be great to cover the palace in such detail. Given that it has what 1500 rooms? it has massive potential, tens of rooms if not more are undoubtedly notable and as farfetched as it might seem probably some of the main doors and architectural pieces of it too!. A good idea might be to identify those components which are most important and missing first and then to branch out or indeed develop a 3D plan if that is your preferred method. I agree with Dr. Mies its topics like this which always have high potential on wikipedia and the chance to provide special coverage. Goodness knows that many of the rooms aside from their coverage in books on architecture and art are mentioned in many history books and one could piece together a fascinating history at least for some of the major rooms or sections...♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: *Well it's not very hard to work out which rooms need further development, just click on the rooms of the existing plan below and you may or may not get taken to a ne page, I think I have written about a dozen so far and all could do with expansion; it can even say how they are used as part of the Hermitage Giacomo Returned  17:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Why I say this page is not finished

message: Unless someone can find the name of the person who is purportedly giving this eyewitness account and can prove that he actually was there, all of the comments attributed to this source should be REMOVED as coming from a questionable source.  Post Soviet historical research has debunked the "tumultuous" and heroic story of the "storming" of the Winter Palace.  It simply did not happen as Soviet revolutionary hagiography had long depicted it.Федоров (talk) 22:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't see how the name of the reporter would alter anything. The reference is to an article in The Guardian dated 27 December 1917, and it carries the usual authority we accord to quality newspapers. We rely on the editorial oversight to make the source reliable. Now if you are saying that there are other reliable sources that contradict that account then we should be reporting both views and attributing them. But I feel it is a mistake to view a respected British newspaper of 1917 as part of "Soviet revolutionary hagiography". YMMV. --RexxS (talk) 00:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Such a ref is fine, but it should probably carry the date of original publication (Thursday 27 December 1917) in case the website ever disspears and someone wants to chck with the original copy. The reported does not seem to be supporting "Soviet revolutionary hagiography" anyway.  Giacomo Returned  07:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Footnote 77

message: Note, after 1721, it was Emperor. PS: Don't forget the female rulers - Empress. GoodDay (talk) 07:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you GoodDay please see  on this page above. Giacomo Returned  07:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ya gotta mention the change. Anyways, just a reminder folks. GoodDay (talk) 07:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emperor/Empress 

message: This section contains an overabundance of political commentary totally irrelevant to the subject of the Winter Palace.  Most of the political history description should be removed and only information directly relevant to the Winter Palace building should be retained.Moryak (talk) 20:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Just read the top of this page  (1st post on 27 March 2008) then make the page the the way that you like it because I am sick to death of Wikipedia and its petty people, and its petty squables. People who cannot be bothered to write the page or do the research suddenly know exactly how it should be. If you canot see that the Winter Palace and its history are more than just a few bricks then just change it, I wash my hands of it and this project too because nothing ever changes for the better and all the articles just go eventually into a decline. life's too short. Giacomo Returned 21:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

text: There is no denying that every article is bound to decline sooner or later, if one doesn't keep an eye on it day and night. That's quite frustrating. When I want to read a Wikipedia article, I pick up its version from 2006 and 2007, because in most cases it is more useful and readable than the current one. --Ghirla-трёп- 08:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Fall of the House of Romanov