Talk:Ancestors of Nicholas II of Russia

An ahnentafel would be better

I'm sure a lot of work went into this article, but I think an ahnentafel would better represent the ancestors of Nicholas II. It could go back to say, 8 generations and include dates. It would be much, much more effective. Charles 19:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Why not 9 or 10 or 7? Kmorozov 05:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I said, "say 8 generations..." as an average sort of number. Back that far, there are 256 maximum ancestors in that generation. After that, it's 512, 1024, etc. The total number of people show would be (2^n) - 1, where n is the number of generations including Nicholas. N = 9 gives 511 slots to write about, which is a lot. Charles 06:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Be bold and make it Kmorozov 09:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, bigger is not always better. If you want to do 8 generations, Charles, I think that would be wonderful. They're certainly the more important generations in his gene pool (and more than I would ever trace back).  :) And it would most certainly be a huge improvement over the format that's now on the page (which is just not user-friendly at all). If you want to, you can link each of the ancestors in the 8th generation back to a new ahnentafel (don't worry if it's a red link) and leave the page all set up for additional generations if anyone feels like adding ahnentafeln for those. It wouldn't be nearly as hard to do then, since whoever wants to do it could just follow your format. But personally, I think 8 generations is plenty. Ancestry doesn't mean a whole lot going back more than 200 years or so. Agreed? --Mmounties (Talk) 04:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like something I'd gladly tackle :D Charles 05:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

If the article is not user-friendly (although I do not agree with it), please propose some new format. Simple reducing to several fixed generations is not acceptable because don't reflect the ancestral relations in its all complexity Kmorozov 05:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The article is strictly about his ancestors. An ahentafel would list his ancestors in an identifiable form and seperated into generations (grandparents, great-grandparents, etc.) Charles 05:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

An ahentafel is the other kind of info, like Ancestors of Queen Elizabeth II and Genealogy of the British Royal Family. They they can coexist in Wikipedia. Kmorozov 05:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course they can, but this form is just a mess. Charles 05:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Why??? This form is well-engineered and comfortable. Its allows to trace any lineage, direct male as well as direct female lines of the ancestry Kmorozov 05:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, Kmorozov, while it has an awful lot of information, the information is not presented to be easily digestable. People cannot, like with an Ahnentafel, get an easy visual orientation and navigation. You look at that thing and it is visually clear who's who. In the article in it's current format, while you have all the information, readers have to keep jumping around different places in the article, mostly off screen from where they start out, to get from mother to daughter. That greatly reduces the the usefulness of the page, as it too cumbersome for people to figure out what's what. Like I said, eight generations is probably a really good start for this. Now, mind you, I don't think we should loose any others, that we have information for, if they fall into a generation earlier than #8. I think we should link a page that lists them to the individual in the 8th generation that they are ancestors of. I just think there is a benefit to keeping the page structured and easily surveyed that is lost if we "clutter" up the page too much. (I know "clutter" is not a great word here, but I hope you know what I mean). It's a great page, and I can see that a lot of effort has gone into it. It just needs a structure that is easier navigated and absorbed by the reader.

--Mmounties (Talk) 06:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The article in its format is dynasty- and, therefore, male-oriented. In deed, tracing the female ancestry involves into the jumping (with the use of especially created templates for the navigation). But, IMHO, it is not the problem, because historically the male ancestry is more important. Kmorozov 06:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me if I disagree with you there. Never mind that you comment is also sexist. Just because you may attribute more importance to males, and that Russians perhaps did at Nicholas II. time, does not make relegating the females of the ancestry to second status right, or better for that matter. Fact is that both parents were needed then as they are now and their background and families often were of significant importance to what was going to happen in their childrens lives. The Ahnentafel format give an easy look at both sides. It does not require anyone to inconveniently jump around the page. It is therefore preferable over the format the article is currently in. --Mmounties (Talk) 07:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

As I said before, this article is dynasty-oriented. It is not sexism, but if we talk about Nicholas II of Russia, we talk about an Emperor of Russia, who was an Emperor because his father was an Emperor or succeed the other ruler of Russia. Moreover, if we we speak his mother, she was of Denmark because her father was King of Denmark. She was not of Hesse-Kassel like her own mother. And so on. The full list of great-great-great-great-great-great-great-parents of smb, where placed not interrelated peoples, randomly sorted, is useless. Kmorozov 07:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

This list itself is utterly useless, to be honest. It should be organized in an appropriate fashion (ahnentafel) with explainations before or after about the varying houses. Charles 08:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Male-line, but it's okay to post the male lines of female-line ancestors of Nicholas? Pick and choose, why don't you. Charles 08:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't see the point of this discussion. You are free to start any article what you like. Kmorozov 08:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Why could not this article been left in the format it was, and Charles (or any interested) started another, e.g Ahnentafel of Nicholas II of Russia ?? This entire "battle" above reminds why Wikipedia is NOT a genealogy site. If either of these altenatives are allowed to be here, why not both? Now someone had put a vast amount of work to one kind of presentation, then another came and almost zeroed it. At least that latter manner of doing things should not be appreciated in Wikipedia. Shilkanni 00:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The article is title Ancestors of Nicholas II of Russia, not a list of the ancestral houses of the entire Imperial house, which is what it was presented as. The previous format was a messy list with no indication as to descents, etc. Charles 00:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

1) If the title was incorrect, you could have tried to correct it... either moving, or asking for move.

2) the title was not incorrect in my view.

3) I checked that earlier structure and its main contents. They all ARE ancestors of Nicholas - and not of all the members of the R imp house.

4) there is nothing basically wrong to group ancestors in batches defined by e.g what domain they ruled, or to what agnate house they do belong to. It is just one way of presentation, useful for some purposes - as Ahnentafel is another, and suitable for certain other purposes.

5) this has been an example which shows that there is not always necessarily only one correct way of presentation. An editor who thinks so, makes destruction. No surprise. Shilkanni 01:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the previous format is that is is hardly exaustive (e.g. how far back do you go?), goes back further in some lines than in others and is largely irrelevant (as a far-off and distant ancestry is best left for genealogy sites). With an ahnentafel, each generation is presented in a format that IS exhaustive and when extended, can be done so easily and an in organised manner. The great-great- etc etc etc -great-grandparents of Nicholas II do not need to be listed here. Charles 01:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Nice work, Charles. This is a lot easier to review and understand than what was there before. This page now contains what its title implies. A couple of suggestions I have though. First, perhaps you can explain the entries where it says, for example, 46. = 40 (or something like that)? It isn't clear to me on first impression and therefore may not be clear to others as well. And secondly, regarding the content you removed (I know it's still there in the history), I agree in that it was not very useful as far as Nicholas's ancestry is concerned but we should definitely make sure that the articles are properly linked and listed on the pages for the individual houses (or perhaps on the House of Romanov page as it seems to relate that house to the other houses) so that the work that went into them (though really off the subject on this page) can still be leveraged and remains available from elsewhere in the encyclopedia, and when and if you go on to add the 6th generation, etc., as well. --Mmounties (Talk) 04:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, rather using "=", would "same as"/"same person as" work? I think omitting the names and including the number for duplicate /triplicate/etc ancestors is essential in showing where the ancestry converges. I will take the previous format as it was and create a subpage (and link it to this talk page). I don't think the previous format was good at all, as many of the houses/subhouses were designations applied by the page creator and it didn't include all of the possible lines of descent from each house. An easier way would be to state Nicholas' most recent ancestors in each house. Charles 16:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

name change?

Ancestry of a person has several possible ways of presentation. As has also "Genealogy" of that person. And there is, for example, the word pedigree .- but pedigrees can be presented in a couple different ways. I am not suggesting a name change, but one title to which the current content would correspond, is "Dynasties of ancestors of Nicholas II..". ObRoy 23:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)