Talk:Frederick the Great/Archive 4

Is the Story of Frederick II of Prussia's Life Really Just B Quality?
This is a request for a discussion to get a sense of consensus, and to see if there is a possible of a community effort.

Frederick II is clearly a major, controversial figure, and the history of this webpage clearly shows that. However, the page has 412 watchers, of which I'm willing to bet nearly 100 are active and vigilant. There seems to be a kind of entente, so the page also seems to have achieved a somewhat precarious stability that has done a fair job at this point of his limitations with his strengths. This article was last reviewed in 2006, and though there is lots of new information and excellent citations, it still has a feeling of a B quality article.

I think one major reason is the citations, which I've been working on. I've made a lot of changes. Hopefully, they are relatively uncontroversial. But, I think I'm now moving into more difficult terrain, and want to tread carefully, if at all.

My goal is to ensure that when at all possible, references can be checked. I think my procedure is pretty standard:
 * First, if there is an open, free or restricted but available access equivalent; and, I like to note the level of access when possible.
 * Then, it's material we can partially access to verify, like a page in a Google book or even a snippet view.
 * After that it's unlinked, but potentially accessible material like books and academic matter. This seems to be usual practice, but I like to minimize reliance on these sources because verification is difficult, usually requiring the privilege to access it.
 * Foreign language works with verifiable links. If they provide non-redundant information, they can be useful as an English reader could at verify the work and if not a speaker, could use available translation tools.

But, what's the consensus about the unlinked citations in French, German and Polish? Not only they are almost inaccessible, but even if accessed the non-speaker would be challenged to translate the physical text. If the citation matches the prose, many of them seem to make great points. I'm just unsure they serve as citations when the become almost impossible to verify, particularly to someone outside of the country or without access to above-average academic resources.

My thought is that cleaning up the citations for English readers would be step in improving the article's quality. And would lead to making the secondary material more accessible. Again, I'm not particularly interested at making major changes in the article's prose; even more so, I'm not interested in triggering an edit war. Is attempting to clean up the citations worthwhile, even if it means swapping out existing ones? Or, finding equivalent English-speaking sources, or at least, foreign-language sources with links to the content?

Does anyone else think this is a project worth tackling? If so, is anyone else interested in helping out? Or, is Frederick resting on such a fine balance of consensus that it's best to leave him- like his namesake Frederick Barbarossa- slumbering undisturbed beneath his mountain of bytes (136,000+)? How do other feel? Wtfiv (talk) 23:26, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * There are any number of excellent recent English-language biographies about this man; there shouldn't be any need to resort to foreign-language sources, though doubtless there are many very fine ones. If you put in the work to do this topic justice, then you're a hero. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 23:57, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I've done a first pass through the English language sources, trying to get as many accessible ones as I could find, templating the untemplated, linking the unlinked (when possible), and updating and archiving links what I could. Adding some new sources discovered along the way of trying to confirm. I'm going to start culling the foreign language sources. I'll try and find links to them. If I can find them, I'll keep them. but will cull out unlinked foreign sources, which may require changes to prose if its solely supported by only an unliked foreign language source. Here it goes...any help appreciated... Wtfiv (talk) 18:29, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Done with most foreign-language sources. Still a handful left. Also, I would like to move all references from lead to main text. Any concerns? Some linked foreign sources remain. My solution so far is to delete texts that require sustained reading in foreign language. (Can be put in further reading.) And to link and translate relevant texts making brief texts, unless text is on a webpage that can be machine translated in browser. That way non-speakers of language could verify source. This addresses issue in archives about some unlinked languages (e.g. French, German) being privileged over others (e.g., Polish). This solution may not work, but it attempts to provide equity and verifiability. One can't stop edit wars in the future, but if the article is going to get foreign language sources, at least there's a precedence for what stays and what goes. (Assuming, of course, this solution is even acceptable) Wtfiv (talk) 05:41, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I think I'm done with my major pass through the citations and some work on the prose (mainly reorganization for flow, reducing some duplications, rewording based on references, adding points made by references discovered during verification). I'm not sure if Frederick is ready beyond B quality yet, or not, but hopefully, these edits help him on his way. Wtfiv (talk) 01:06, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

The Reversions of Frederick the Great
I moved this discussion from Rjensen's talk page to here for two reasons. Just so my multiple edits don't disrupt somebody else's page, and second, I realize I'd like to get any other opinions as I move through the editing process of this article, which as I mentioned has many watchers.

I saw you reverted my own edits on my own work. All the links I removed were put in solely by me in the past couple of days (e.g., 21:37, 25 February 2021). I didn't take out anybody else's links. (In fact, all I've been doing is trying to linking uncited material.) I figured linking to archive.org's individual pages for items in copyright would just muck things up. The issue is not copyright, but link stability If you think keeping the convenience of the page links I put in is indeed worth the possibility of having them break later.

Right now archive.org's situation with borrowing is unstable. But when I saw the situation with Anderson's Crucible of War, which is no longer accessible, I stopped linking and researched why it disappeared. It's because the publisher or Anderson revoked archive.org's right to leave it. This made me realize that many of the links I created have a high risk of breaking. I figure that I'd go with the safe and stable ones for now: out of archive.org out of copyright (as well as Google links). However, readers can easily go to archive.org for now, "borrow" the book, and scroll to the page. If access is denied later, there's not broken links.

For now, I'll move forward on the proposed project outlined without unreverting your reversion of my edit which was effectively reverting my own previous edits. Let's discuss to decide which version is best for this article.

Also, if you think my editing of the article in the context of trying to clean up the citations are too intrusive, please let me know too. Thanks! Wtfiv (talk) 00:03, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


 * THanks for all your hard work on this article. The links to archive.org are appropriate.  Some of them may disappear--but even so they are very useful esp for students at university and advanced high school level for they give access those people will otherwise not know about. They will make Wikipedia more valuable.--in this case for the hundreds of thousands of people (mostly students I guess) who use Frederick article -- it gets 2000+ hits every day. (and also helps the editors who work this page --about 80 are active right now.) As for Fred Anderson one of his books is still on archive = https://archive.org/details/peoplesarmymassa00ande so perhaps the publisher was complaining. Rjensen (talk) 09:59, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response! My idea originally was precisely what you pointed out: access.  I like making  material as easily available and verifiable as possible, and also notating what is available via the addition of access links to encourage readers to dig further into the secondary sources and see how they inform the main article.  We'll let the links stand, then, and hopefully others will check in to do maintenance now and then. Wtfiv (talk) 16:48, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello all! I've been reading this section of the talk page and seeing a ton of interest in Frederick the Great and improving the article is very inspiring. I agree tremendously with that secondary sources that continue further reading are rather important. Certainly they should be accessible. After all, reading one article is never a way to understand a figure completely. I've also noticed that some sections of the article sound more like an essay as opposed to a proper article. While the article hasn't been reviewed in nearly 15 years. I think its fair to say it needs major work in tone (which I am already working on) and citation. Just today I caught a dead citation that had a very dubious claim. I really think that we can fix this article to at least a GA status in due time. This article is clearly written by people dedicated to the life and times of the Old Fritz. That's great! But it needs cleaning, especially when it comes to not apotheosizing Frederick. Let me know if there's anything I can help with, this article has a lot of potential. It just needs attention. Chariotsacha (talk) 18:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I saw your change, and agree! There's a number of those odd moments in the article that could use being cleaned up. My goal has focused mainly on working with the citations. Since I'm doing so many changes, I've been cautious about addressing the major content issues in detail. My hope was the increased verifiability of the citations would encourage some of the more seasoned editors to carefully craft the existing content to make sure the well-cited points shine. As I've gotten to know this article, there's a lot of good material here, but it needs more polishing. As it is, if feels like it is on its way to an A, but if enough people pitch in, the GA status seems possible. I'd just say, keep on thoughtfully editing!   Wtfiv (talk) 19:27, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Moving References?
The multiple references in this article make it a bit clunky to edit and to track all the references. Separating the references may make the article a bit more transparent and easier to edit. Would it be okay to move the references into a list, or is the consensus to leave them as is? Wtfiv (talk) 21:17, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you're suggesting; separating the references from what? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:51, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that...I meant pulling the references out of the text and putting them into their own reflist so that the text looks cleaner and easier to edit. It also allows the references to be more easily tracked as well. Pretty much, the references that aren't in the bibliography would be organized like the items in the bibliography (but in their own list) when editing text. Only  entries would be in the editable text in the body of the article. It wouldn't require a substantial change the sfn or efn templates.. Wtfiv (talk) 22:27, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that we remove inline citations? Sorry if I'm mistaken. I don't quite understand what you are getting at. Chariotsacha (talk) 22:38, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what I mean...that was probably easier...remove the inline citations as they clog up the prose and are hard to track. That is, if there is a consensus that this is okay. Wtfiv (talk) 22:47, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * In my opinion inline citations are incredibly important to quickly verify claims, or if someone wishes to read the source itself. Furthermore, there are quite a few sources that are used that are used for incredibly minor/specific claims that are best suited for inline, rather than general reference. I think both can work to a degree, but for small sources that may only assist one sentence claims, they'll get drowned out. Chariotsacha (talk) 22:57, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This is one of those places where having fluency in wikispeak may be useful; I'm sure there is a wikiword for what I'm suggesting. I don't intend to remove any actual references from the article, just move them out of the text and into a reference section so they aren't clogging up the prose. Like now, it would remain hybrid to the reader with both sfn and entries. It wouldn't change how the article looked to the reader. From a reader's perspective, they shouldn't even notice I did the edit.  For editors, there'd now be two different reflists, one for the sfn (bibliographies) and one for the, which readers wouldn't directly see.    The focus is ease of editing the main text and all changes would only be seen by editors.   It's mainly to help editors see the prose and reference more clearly and also to help someone in edit mode see the citations a bit easier. Wtfiv (talk) 23:09, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * My Wikispeak is rusty too! I understand you don't want to remove any actual references, and you want to put them into a general reference but I still think it might be difficult for readers who want to quickly look further into a claim to have to plough through a list of references instead of just being able to quickly click the citation. Perhaps could you provide a visual example of what you're looking for? Or a Wikipedia article which has done it already?Chariotsacha (talk) 00:01, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * ,, and anyone else interested. To demonstrate what I'm suggesting, I implemented a fairly decent draft of my proposal, then reverted it. It can be found here: Implemented draft of proposal  I think it came out pretty cleanly and reflects what I mean: From the reader's perspective, it should look identical to the previous edit; from an editor's perspective citations are moved to a reflist. The demonstration was a learning process, as I found a few more reference issues in setting it up. Would this be too disruptive?  It wouldn't prohibit others from adding more items in the text, but maintenance should be easier if citations are all grouped in one place. Also if maintenance falls off, the editable version looks cleaner and easier to track.  Also, I think a bit of further clean up (e.g., alphabetization of references; moving refn template items to citations) would be useful. However, if we should just stick with the current format of the references, that's fine too. Wtfiv (talk) 00:22, 27 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I checked out your proposal draft. If this is what you plan to do I think it's perfectly suitable. I had a completely different impression of what you were doing initially, but judging by your draft I honestly prefer your idea. I was concerned with disrupting readers ability to find citations quickly. However according to your draft it seems like it does not have any noticeable changes except in the editor. However the changes here I love; It makes the editor more digestible and I don't see really any noticeable problems with it. Alphabetization shouldn't be too much of a pain at all really. In fact if the consensus is that your idea is suitable I'll gladly help with alphabetization. All in all, I like your proposal now that I've seen it. Chariotsacha (talk) 16:06, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Sounds good! I'll implement the change in a couple of hours if nobody else weighs in with concerns.  Think the changes will ease both editing and reference maintenance. Wtfiv (talk) 20:30, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

The References of Frederick the Great
I've just finished an attempt to add accessible (linked to sources) citations for almost every major claim made, while respecting the core structure of the article as it has evolved over the years. I did remove sentences for which citations could not be found, modified many sentences to align with the citations, and substantially changed a few sections I found were problematic (i.e., narrative flow or claims did not back the consensus of sources I used). I also tried to annotate the reason for most major changes in the history so concerned editors know why a change was made and frequently used multiple sources to reduce reliance on one biographer. Thanks to any watchers of this article who were actually tracking the changes. I appreciate your patience and, to those of you who offered it, your help. Hopefully, the overall changes have made this article a bit stronger. Wtfiv (talk) 08:16, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your work on the article! The references section has some errors: some citations are cited in short form but the long form isn't given in the bibliography, while the citations is a mix of short and long form citations (many editors prefer to use WP:SFN style, but any one is ok as long as it's consistent). By using User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors.js you can find and fix these errors. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  05:45, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

The Length of Frederick the Great
I very much appreciate your edits that shorten the material. I think every edit you made improved the article! (I've been relatively conservative on cutting material from other editors) But I do have a few further questions, if you have the chance to answer them. I'll gladly fix the references, but when I started the edited, I found the article in short and long mode. This is the nature of this article having so many editors, I think. So, I divided the references into sfn where the work is multiply referenced across many different pages multiple times, and long form when the citation is a single reference, either a book with a page number or a journal. If the issues with the sfns are fixed, are you okay with this hybrid model?

You also put the "very long" tag in the article. I can definitely see that. You mentioned that creating an article on the sexuality of Frederick the Great may be a one way to shorten it. Some of the material could be moved over there, though I think it'd be up to other editors to clean it up.

Another may be moving some of the material on the First Partition of Poland to the First Partition of Poland article. The problem there is that this material, which is interesting and cited, is disproportionately focused on Prussia, and the existing article has a good article rating, that I wouldn't want to disrupt. Any suggestions? The two sections on the War of Austrian Succession and Seven Years War seem long at first glance, but seem less so once they are seen as an abstract of six hefty articles from the perspective of Frederick's life: Silesian Wars First Silesian War Second Silesian War] Third Silesian War War of Austrian Succession Seven Years' War that are already a condensation. What do you think? Finally, do you (or any of the other editors and watchers) have other suggestions on sections that could use cutting? Thanks again for all you've done with the article. Wtfiv (talk) 06:28, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , You're welcome! I'm glad my edits are appreciated.
 * I put the long tag because the article is currently 11880 words, and it's usually best practice to try to keep it at no more than 10,000 words. Splitting the sexuality section to its own article similar to others in Category:Sexuality of individuals would help with that. Keep in mind that "good article" doesn't mean "perfect article", so if you can improve an article rated "good", such as First Partition of Poland, by moving or adding content don't hesitate to do so. I do think the "wars" section could be tightened somewhat by a closer focus on Frederick's role in them.
 * The citation style you describe isn't an issue as long as it's done consistently and there aren't errors in the references. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  06:55, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Excellent! Thanks so much.  I had already started using Trappist's script, so I very much appreciate learning about that tool as well!  Wtfiv (talk) 07:11, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The citation style you describe isn't an issue as long as it's done consistently and there aren't errors in the references. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  06:55, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Excellent! Thanks so much.  I had already started using Trappist's script, so I very much appreciate learning about that tool as well!  Wtfiv (talk) 07:11, 18 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Good call when it comes to length! The article is a bit lengthy. I think we should be a little more gradual in our approach here rather than purging sections into sub articles, as that's often a little daunting for readers. Lets first see how much we can shorten what's already here. (The sexuality section could potentially be transferred into it's own article with a coherent paragraph remaining in this article. But the partitions are far more tricky as they are without a doubt one of his most significant accomplishments.) I personally enjoy shortening articles so I can give a crack on shortening the partitions section & sexual orientation section. If I (or anyone else for that matter) find it impossible to shorten for whatever reason, you have my full support in sub articles! Chariotsacha (talk) 16:00, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think the article should have a section called "sexual orientation", but possibly some of the material in the new article could go into a personal life section. In my opinion, shortening should go along with creating sub-articles per WP:PRESERVE so that well-sourced content removed from this article is still available for our readers. It's better to have a top-level article that is concise with additional details available for those who want them in sub articles. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  19:27, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I am unsure about the sexuality section's viability as well. However it could warrant it's own sub article as it's an important (and controversial) part of his legacy. As far as I'm concerned there's enough information that could be on it's own article page without being too much trouble. If you and perhaps agree I'd certainly just go ahead and make it, and integrate the old section into personal life. As for the partitions I am seeing what I can do with condensing that section in particular. Plenty of the information there is already on it's own dedicated article so in that case WP:PRESERVE should not be an issue, it's just a matter of what information applies to Frederick more vs the partitions. Chariotsacha (talk) 19:42, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I see that the sexuality of Frederick the Great was already made by you and that the sexuality section was removed. Well done! I must remember to check these things prior to discussion. Chariotsacha (talk) 19:47, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * With respect to the First Partition of Poland, I thinking a possible strategy may be to create an article called Prussia and the First Partition of Poland. This would allow a full article focused on Frederick's perspective.  The article could then be linked as a "Main Article" (or subarticle) in both this article and in the First Partition of Poland article, and would allow the references and issues addressed in this article to remain, as Frederick's own political goals were quite different than Russia or Austria-Hungary.  Then, remaining  section in this article could be reduced to a couple of paragraphs that summarize the major points (e.g., geopolitical and economic goals, dispossession of indigenous Poles, Frederick's enlightenment outlook and attitude towards Polish culture).  Most of this could be done with the standard Frederick biography sfn references, allowing the more specialized references to reside in the subarticle. Would that solution work? Wtfiv (talk) 20:02, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , Isn't that topic covered at Prussian Partition? (t &#183; c)  buidhe  20:08, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Certainly agree with cutting the section, but I frankly do not think an article that alone talks about Frederick the Great's influence in the partition is warranted. Also, it's also kind of already been done. The article Prussian Partition is noticeably small and we could simply move the specialized sources (and their information) to this article.Chariotsacha (talk) 20:13, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing out the Prussian Partition, I didn't know it existed! It's an ideal location. I copied a lot of the material from  This article's Partition of Poland section directly the Prussian Partition, (modifying it a bit to integrate it, and leaving it easy to revert.) I think the material gives interested editors the opportunity to develop the article in more depth, and it feels more comfortable to me that the interesting information dug out by previous editors and the supporting citations remain available. So, if you want to take a shot at getting that beast of a section down to a couple of paragraphs, it should be good to go. (And I think the standard sfn references could cover the majority of the citation.  So, please condense away!  I think it'll get the article down to a point where we could take the "too long" banner back off. (At least I hope so!) Wtfiv (talk) 07:27, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I went ahead and started the condensing, mostly in regards to cutting content found in the Prussian Partition subarticle, I am aiming for it to be only 4 paragraphs maximum. I have a question for consensus though: is it really necessary to discuss the secret alliance between Russia and Prussia? It is barely a prelude. I want to keep it but if we really want to shorten this thing it may need to be canned from this article and moved to the Prussian Partition article. My most recent edit is my solution to this, so please tell me what you think. Chariotsacha (talk) 14:39, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Nice work. It looks pretty good as is. I'm going to remove the "too long" tag. There's no doubt more shortening can be done, though. Wtfiv (talk) 15:12, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * We have now got it down to 10101 words, which is probably sufficient for GA criteria. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  21:19, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for helping us get past this hurdle of editing. And as a plus, the Jetzt gibt es poster is a really nice touch, in my opinion. It's the ideal of what images do: emphasizing a point in a way clearer than words and in a way that connects to the other images. Wtfiv (talk) 01:57, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! I uploaded that image to Commons a while back and am glad that it's useful. There are some other posters in the same series with quotes from Frederick, see the Commons category. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  02:30, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I am concerned about the way this has been resolved. Spinning out a separate article on Frederick's sexuality leaves the main article very threadbare. It is only mentioned slightly in one or perhaps two places - easily missed. I'm worried this is "sidelining" an issue that I'm sure causes embarrassment or discomfort to many people! Having a separate article is fine - I don't have a problem with that - if it's a case of finding ways to shorten the article. But I would want to see a more substantive paragraph on the issue of sexuality in the main article. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 00:21, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry for not getting back to this more promptly Contaldo80, the 25th was my birthday, I understand your concern. However we've aptly provided a link to the 'Sexuality of Frederick the great' article and mentioned it in the introduction (something which is not commonly done for gay historical figures) and his early life section. These are the spots his sexuality truly matters in the article and to an extent the grand scheme of his career. I of course don't want to sideline this important part of the Kings life, but it shouldn't take the same precedent as say his campaigns or administration. I am certainly willing though to add greater mention to his sexuality in the Katte affair section as that was another suspected homosexual relationship. Tell me what you think! Chariotsacha (talk) 00:53, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * First things, first: Happy birthday Chariotsacha!
 * When the section on the sexuality of Frederick the Great was moved, I was primarily concerned with saving all the content that had been created on Frederick's sexuality, as well as ensuring the citations remained intact. (And, as I put in the talk pages over there, I still think it'd be great to see an editor adopt the Sexuality of Frederick the Great and turn into a top-notch one as well. I think the raw material is there.) That said, as I've gotten used to the change, and I really do think that the article current keeps its focus on Frederick's significance, role, and formation as monarch.
 * However, I think Contaldo80 raises an important point. As Chariotsacha points out, Frederick's sexuality is explicitly mentioned in the lead. But it does seem to me that, his sexuality is not directly addressed in the main article. Rather, the approach is indirect in that it describes two affairs. I like Chariotsacha's suggestions as they would strengthen the point about the affairs, but I think something more direct is needed.
 * Here's my suggestion to address this. It seems to me that all that is needed is to add a new first sentence in the second paragraph of the Crown Prince section that directly and pointedly make the point.  Something similar to the first sentence in the "sexuality article" that just states point blank what Frederick's sexuality was. (A variation on It is almost certain that Prussian monarch Frederick the Great was primarily homosexual, and that his sexual orientation was central to his life.)  Then, it could be backed by the Blanning citation in the first sentence of the Sexuality of Frederick the Great article, which is the key modern source for this topic.  This moves the point into the foreground in an explicit and hard-to-miss location, and more strongly supports the lead statement in the main article and the remainder of the next two paragraphs address the evidence for this point from Frederick's younger years. It firmly makes the point without going into detail on the subtopic. Does this sound like it would work? If this suggestion seems reasonable, it'd be great if one of you (or another editor) could give it a try. The tricky part is editing the prose to ensure a smooth transition between the preceding paragraph and the remainder of what follows.  Wtfiv (talk) 03:20, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your birthday wishes Wtfiv! I agree with your additional sentence 100%, as its nice and direct, but I also do think I will add a passing remark about the fact the Katte affair possibly being of homosexual nature aswell, it wont damage length too terribly and seems like a detail that would really solidify the section and wouldn't cause article whiplash if you read Katte's article. Which clearly brings up these speculations. Chariotsacha (talk) 03:30, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you took it on Chariotsacha! From my view, these changes appear to address the concern and keep the narrative. What do you think, Contaldo80?

The Language of Frederick the Great
Hello all, as mentioned in the G.A. review we need to settle on using British English or American English, I am in favour of British English for the article as it's an article concerning Europe rather than the Americas, I need consensus from the other editors here though before diving in and changing the whole article into British spelling conventions, I am particularly interested in what Wtfiv and Buidhe think as they have been onboard this Frederick the Great revamp for a while. But of course, any consensus is welcome, let it be known though I am for British English.Chariotsacha (talk) 14:37, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , I don't think this article has strong MOS:TIES to any English speaking country. It would be OK if it had been written in AmE, but it wasn't. The current article spelling is clearly British English and it should stay that way per MOS:RETAIN. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  18:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I have no preference one way or the other. I'm grateful though, that you are willing to jump in and standardize the article! Wtfiv (talk) 18:14, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , Alright! Seems settled and I already did my first corrections, I will continue to change things to British English as needed. Thanks all. It seems that  has already run a script which should already correct most of them, so I don't think there's anymore American English to remove. Only thing the algorithim seemed to have missed was "center" vs "centre" which I did in my first correction. Chariotsacha (talk) 18:47, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , Alright! Seems settled and I already did my first corrections, I will continue to change things to British English as needed. Thanks all. It seems that  has already run a script which should already correct most of them, so I don't think there's anymore American English to remove. Only thing the algorithim seemed to have missed was "center" vs "centre" which I did in my first correction. Chariotsacha (talk) 18:47, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Frederick the Featured?
If editors are good with the changes, I'd like to take Tim Riley's, the GA reviewer's, suggestion one step further: is Frederick II ready for a featured article review? If not, what do we have to do? Can we do it?Wtfiv (talk) 02:23, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Moving headings: Military Theory and its relation to Policy; Moving Military Theory further back in the article
Thinking about this article in terms of its potential as a featured article, I'd like to make two other possible changes:
 * I think the first is non-controversial. I'd like to make Military Theory its own second-level heading, as military theory is not a policy.
 * The second is more controversial. Frederick's reputation is very much tied to the military, but I feel that in terms of the logic of the article's presentation that administrative policies should follow from one's reign. (Although Frederick's reign was significantly impacted by his wars.) If this makes sense, the discussion of military would should follow administrative policy, which would put it after the Berlin academy but before Later Years and Death.  Any concerns about this move? Wtfiv (talk) 19:09, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I've made both changes mentioned above. The move required some modification of the images. Also, it left a dead space image-wise in policies, so I moved Camphausen's image to accompany administrative policies (It looks like Frederick is being stern, even though the image is a draft for an equestrian portrait.) At "Religion", I  added an image of St. Hedwig's Cathedral. The photograph adds visual variety to the paintings, and I think emphasizes without words, aspects of Frederick's religious policies. I also did some minor fixes that probably should've been done in a separate edit. (formatting quotes in the sfn translations) The move of making military theory can easily be reverted if the consensus is not for it, but I'd request a discussion first before reverting. Wtfiv (talk) 01:14, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Consistent References
I'm tempted to clean up the citations and sources as per the suggestion of our GA Reviewer Tom Riley. If I do, I'll be doing it piecemeal as it is a lot of work. (A few references at a time.) So for a while it will continue to look mixed. I'll keep the citations and references intact, but if anything, the Reference section will appear even more inconsistent until it gets near the end of the project. If anyone has concerns, please let me know Wtfiv (talk) 21:25, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Removed Further Reading
I'm also going through Further reading and deleting items  Please feel free to put these back if you feel they are essential.

These two were deleted because they appear cover the same ground that the myriad accessible citations that in are in the article.
 * Eyck, Erich. "Frederick the Great". History Today (Oct 1954) 4#10 pp. 651–659.
 * * Horn, D.B. Frederick the Great and the Rise of Prussia (Harper & Row, 1969).

The following two were deleted because they are not accessible and appear more on military theory as influenced by Frederick rather than Frederick's biography itself.
 * Palmer, R.R. "Frederick the Great, Guibert, Bulow", in Peter Paret et al. eds. Makers of Modern Strategy from Machiavelli to the Nuclear Age (2010) ch 6
 * * Telp, Claus. The evolution of operational art, 1740–1813: from Frederick the Great to Napoleon (Routledge, 2004)

I didn't delete Frederick the Great and His Officials and Frederick the Great of Prussia: Absolutism and Administration as their focus on Frederick on how Frederick functioned as an administrator may add insight about Frederick's management of Prussia beyond the article. After integrating Haworth 1904, Rose 1914, and Oleskiewicz 2012 into the article as citations,, and moving Oleskiewicz's score and recordings up, the last two items that now have a strikethrough also did not appear to add much to the many references this article already has.

This then left the German language works as the remaining items in "Further reading". But there may be editors committed to German language sources, so for now I only hid the text pending any discussions or concerns. I don't feel strongly one way or another. But, as can be seen, I lean toward leaving them out as it isn't clear they add much to English readers. If it the consensus is to keep them, they'll just need a properly labeled subsection. Either way, I figured it should be left open to discussion before making a final decision. Wtfiv (talk) 06:41, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I deleted the hidden text with the German language "Further Reading" items today. Wtfiv (talk) 02:08, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Editing Frederick's Works
Changed the items in this section. I tried to keep the editors' choices, but removed works already cited in text. Also chose selected works in English. The first four of the Posthumous Works. Volumes 1-4 are all his memoirs, which together can be considered his History of my Times, his professional autobiography.

I added Volume 5 of Posthumous Works to give a sense of Frederick as a philosopher and satirist.

I also created links to his collected works and political correspondence to the excellent database at the via Universitätsbibliothek Trier. (By the way, the site is a bit of a hassle to navigate, but once a volume is selected, just click "text" in the upper right menu and its ready to read.)

I wanted to link to a sample of his poetry, as it was listed by an editor. Unfortunately, I couldn't find a selection of a decent translations. (If anybody know of one, maybe we could add it?). However, his poetry is available in the original French in five of the volumes of his linked collected works:
 * Vols. 10-11 Works of a San Souci Philosopher, which catch some of the best of Frederick's enlightenment persona
 * Vols. 12-14 Other collected poetry

I think that these- in addition to the works already cited in the article give a good sense of Frederick the author. Wtfiv (talk) 17:26, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Summary of recent changes
The conversion of the references to sfn format is complete: the sea of blue has arrived. Though I'm sure there's more to be done, and changes from multiple editors will be forthcoming. Here's the results I'm seeing from this round of edits. I marked the availability of fully accessible sources in a way I hope is consistent. I know that marking source availability is controversial, but I feel it serves the readers' and Wikipedia's interest in making material as accurate, verifiable, and accessible as possible. As always, I thank those who helped out! Wtfiv (talk) 19:44, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * All "ref" citations are now "sfn" citations.
 * As many page numbers in sfn now have a link that gets as near the source material as possible. (excluding the many likely edit errors!)
 * Sources are sorted by type. I created a special source section for Frederick's work, and those of contemporaries who knew him. They could all be moved to books, if that is the preference. I did think if we kept his works as citations then people who knew him, like Wilhelmine, de Catt, and de Valori should stand out there, as their perspective is first hand and often quite interesting.
 * All items presented as resources (e.g., Works of Frederick) are linked to freely accessible sites.
 * Most citation page numbers are verifiable: If I counted correctly, only 6 of the 291 citations cannot be at least partially verified by clicking. (For articles, readers will have to scroll to the pages, and I'm sure there are errors in there.) In other words, only about 2% of the citations cannot be verified by a casually interested reader.
 * Over half the sources are available to read in full: If I counted correctly, 85 of 142 sources are linked and available to be read or browsed in full (either free free access, open access, limited access via registration(archive.org and JSTOR) and article view limits (JSTOR).  If the count is correct, 60% of the sources are available to Wikipedia viewers for further reading.

Featured Article Nomination
I've made most of the changes I mentioned in the above two second-level sections. I'm nominating this as a Featured Article. Let's see what happens! Wtfiv (talk) 18:11, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Once the nomination is reviewed I'll gladly assist in implementing the inevitable changes our reviewer gives. Thanks for nominating this Wtfiv! Chariotsacha (talk) 15:11, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much  I appreciated it!  I have a feeling I'm going to need help and your help has been invaluable! Wtfiv (talk) 04:40, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Changes
(Personal attack removed Wham2001 (talk) 07:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)) The opening sentence is just bad and does not reflect his creative personality. She did not see West Prussia is a better link in the lead than Royal Prussia. The difference between king in and king of is not well explained. Kingdom's wealth sounds like a fairy tale and it is better to use finances. The words however and Prussia are repeated all the time. (French people was a bad link and does not explain anything.) She deleted Königs Wusterhausen. What was not referenced is not untrue: as a child he did not want to play with tin soldiers, but rather with his older sister; on his birthday, he didn't get a rocking horse, but a regiment or a cannon as a present. The transverse flute seems to be new to her, etc. which means she does not the story of his youth and Berlin or Potsdam very well. As an Enlightened person, Frederick believed in free will, not the other way around, but he could not escape some Calvinist influences. That is what usually happens. I checked only two sections, but I suppose the article is full with unprecise information. Good luck.Taksen (talk) 05:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You made many changes, I didn't change them all, but here is why most were reverted:
 * The points you added to the beginning of the lead are all addressed later in the lead. You mentioned:
 * military leader. This is in the second part of the lead and two sections of the article (75% of reign and 100% of Military Theory are devoted to his military accomplishments.
 * poet, philosopher and writer. These all fall under writing, but each is taken up in full. The second paragraph of the lead mentions his role in philosophy and in music.  Both his interest and accomplishments as a philosopher and writer are given as links and his work even has its own section in the sources.  Readers can see his writing for himself. The one place where I'd agree that there isn't enough said is about Frederick as poet.  Unfortunately, because he wrote in French and there are few translations out there, this aspect of his work has not been well addressed.  I certainly think a few sentences with accessible citations in the arts section of the article would be great.  And once it was established, it'd be stronger in the lead.
 * composer. Definitely.  The lead further mentions his interest in music, and there is a section devoted to his musical accomplishments.  There are two articles on his flute playing, access to his actual music and its scores.  I deleted "Baroque" because the specificity wasn't needed in the lead.
 * He was a legendary...monarch was a problem for two reasons. If you read the talk, "legendary" comes across as MOS:PUFFERY. Some editors do not feel he is legendary. Frederick II's accomplishments in this article allows each person to determine how legendary Frederick is for her or himself.
 * I agree that French people was a bad link. Your removing it was a good call.
 * I recognize that "wealth" may not be the best word either, but the link to "treasure" didn't work either, as per note in edit. But "finances" is a good word, if you prefer that.  Keep in mind that Frederick William I also built up the military, which is a form of wealth greater than just finances.  But if you think it is better, changing "wealth" to "finances" would probably go unchallenged.
 * The discussion of Frederick's childhood may be correct, but they are not supported by accessible citations, were not specific, and were not integrated into the context of the article where they were placed.
 * It's clear Frederick's family was required to stay at Königs Wusterhausen, but that point does not really affect the major point that in his early life he was raised with his mother and sister. If you would like to mention that he stayed at Wusterhausen, please cite an accessible source and integrate it into the text. Perhaps something like, although he stayed at his father's manor at Königs Wusterhausen during summers.  Then, if you could, go through one of the sources, like Asprey, MacDonogh, or even Kugler for citation with page numbers.
 * The reference to the transverse flute was reverted for two reasons. First, Frederick's playing the transverse flute is mentioned and linked in the Art and Education.  The other reason is that although two of the three sources cited (Kugler and MacDonogh) emphasize Frederick's attachment to the flute, the third reference, Ritter, mentions that he also collected musical scores. And, his love of music beyond personal musicianship is seen in his compositions and patronage, all of which are mentioned in Art and Education. (As I'm sure you know, he also was involved in the construction of the Berlin State Opera, and was involved in opera himself.  These are all mentioned in Art and Education.
 * The point about predestination comes directly from the citation, and has been with the article long before I came to it.  MacDonogh's point seems to be that Frederick II's attitude had a sense of destiny, which points toward a sense that his fate was preordained. However, if it needs to be modified, certainly additional accessible citations that make a different point would be the case.
 * West Prussia was reverted to Polish Prussia because West Prussia was the name the province was known after once it had been assimilated into the Prussian kingdom. Before the First Partition it was known as Royal or Polish Prussia, as is supported by the citations.  If you compare the two articles, you'll see the difference.  The West Prussia article focuses on the assimilated area after 1772, the Royal Prussia article focuses on its autonomous status before being annexed. Royal Prussia was also known as Polish Prussia.  The latter name was used because the "Royal" in Royal Prussia could be confused with the Prussian Royalty, whereas Royal Prussia referred to the Polish Crown.  Polish Prussia removes this confusion.
 * Finally, you point out the excess of "Howevers". I agree that the article has too many.  The article is currently undergoing a "Featured Article" review and one of the reviewers agreed with you.  You may have seen an edit mentioning that these have been reduced.  There are now only five, and two are in quotes.  With respect to the use of "Prussia", there may be a point there.  But there was no German state at that time, and the state under discussion is the Kingdom of Prussia.  I suppose we could mix it up with Brandenburg-Prussia, but that is a more recent coinage. Frederick II was just "King of Prussia".

Of course, the article is always open to edits and improvement. I'm just not sure the ones you made accomplished that goal. If other editors feel otherwise, they'll probably let us know. Wtfiv (talk) 08:16, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Reply
I made only a few changes and stick to my opening sentence. What is there is boring, not attractive at all. You wrote all these things are mentioned later on, but the lead should somehow reflect was comes later. His father thought he was feminine, did not like French language and the flute and his hair cut. It should be explained more in detail. Frederick's conflict could be important for many adolescents, look here. "Ich kann keinen effeminirten (verweichlichten) Kerl leiden, der sich schämt, nicht reiten und schießen kann, ... seine Haare wie ein Narr sich frisieret ... Zu anderen recht hoffärtig, recht bauernstolz ist, mit keinem Menschen spricht ... und mit dem Gesichte Grimassen macht, als wenn er ein Narr wäre, und in nichts meinen Willen tut, als mit der Force dazu angehalten; nichts aus Liebe, und er alles dazu nichts Lust hat, als seinem eigenen Kopfe folgen, sonsten alles nichts nütze ist." According to MacDonogh this happened on 11 September 1728.

(In translation:) I can't stand an effeminate fellow who is ashamed, can't ride and can't shoot, ... styles his hair like a fool ... is quite arrogant towards others, quite proud of his peasantry, does not speak to anyone ... and makes faces as if he were a fool, and does not do my will in anything, but is urged to do so by force; nothing out of love, and he has no desire to do anything but follow his own head, otherwise everything is useless. Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

Not every sentence needs a ref, and those details explain better why he was in conflict with his father. I will not change anything here.Taksen (talk) 09:30, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Taksen I will disregard your blatant attack earlier, (however that has sullied your input) and suggest that you read the introduction on other F.A. article's on Wikipedia, paticularily Cleopatra. There is little use of strong adjectives and even for heavy puffery anywhere in the article, hence why it is in the first place a featured article, as it encourages neutrality and a fair view of the figure. What you wrote about Frederick in your opening line sounded more along the lines of someone presenting a fictional character. What's in the intro is sufficient and presents an accurate view of Frederick. If you wish to add details be my guest, but we musn't apotheosize figures of history: no matter how awesome they are. Chariotsacha (talk) 14:42, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I appreciate with your points, which unlike mine, got to the nub of the issue. Especially, since the article is in the midst of a Featured Article review.
 * As per your comments above, I added two of the details you mentioned, but needed citations and integration. One adds Königs Wusterhausen; the other mentions that Frederick Wilhelm found Frederick's interests effeminate. Both are now cited by accessible English-language sources, and one includes a partial translation of a statement attributed to Frederick Wilhelm. Wtfiv (talk) 22:11, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

For now, I reverted two of your three changes. I here's my reason:
 * This article is an overview. The example you gave is a particular detail or illustration of a particular time. (As an aside, one of my favorite biographies is Kugler precisely because it is full of the kind of details you have emphasized) For example, the ban on travelling wasn't categorical (e.g., the perspective-altering trip to Dresden in 1728).  If there is a summative point that you feel needs to be made about Frederick's rearing that these anecdotes are seeking to make, discuss it. Perhaps the point could be made and support it with accessible citations that follow the sfn format.
 * The point on predestination was reverted too. There is no question that this one is more arguable.  However, the consensus of the authors who tackle this issue is that he kept this sense of predestination, though it became less religious and more philosophical.  I added two more citations of authors used as main sources in this article, so that there are three altogether: MacDonogh (2000), Ritter (1936), and Fraser (2001). The relevant text for each is linked by a single click, so please look at their claims to evaluate them.
 * In contrast, The German-language work by Oster, 2015, which is is not available to verify online, seems to be describing an episode from Frederick's life as well. Is it perhaps during the Katte/Küstrin episode. Is it? Two of the other frequently used sources in this article- Asprey (1986) and Mitford (1970)- both address Frederick's predestination in the context of the Katte/Küstrin episode. (Asprey on pp.77-78; Mitford on pp 37-38). Both discuss how Frederick recanted. But they go on to suggest that it was most likely a way to get back into King Frederick Wilhelm's good graces, and even Frederick Wilhelm was skeptical.  Asprey is the least skeptical of the authors who I found directly tackle the topic about Frederick's change of belief, but he does qualify it in an interesting way. He does equate the renunciation with a potential change of heart about his present situation; Mitford, along the lines of Ritter, argues that the renunciation was superficial as his later philosophical perspectives- guided by the philosophes- were predominantly deterministic. Again, please take a look. All of these sources can be read directly via the links in the references.
 * Again, if anybody else has their opinion on either of these, please jump in. Wtfiv (talk) 02:13, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I am not so interested in this style which means problems all the time and with someone who does not have a profile. Are you a lawyer? Taksen (talk) 04:53, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Taksen I am once again pardoning you for being condescending, but profile creation is not mandatory on Wikipedia and Wtfiv has brought up important points which you seem to have no rebuttal that isn't just blatant dismissal. Please read what other editors have to say, as this is a collaborative effort, Wtfiv has been one of the driving editors behind Frederick becoming a good article, and her points are worth as much consideration as anyother.Chariotsacha (talk) 15:21, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

The respectful letter to his father from 11 September 1728 was probably written in or after the visit to Dresden, where Frederick met Quantz and was satisfied to see another country.Taksen (talk) 05:57, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

The self-portrait of Frederick Wilhelm I was removed. Though interesting for his own biography, it would best go- if anywhere- in his own article. There was a long discussion about the photographs in this article. It is in the archives: Discussion on the images in Frederick II article. Wtfiv (talk) 07:23, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

The respectful letter to his father from 11 September 1728 was written after the visit to Dresden (during carnival likely in February), where Frederick had met Quantz and was satisfied to see another country. According to Mitford Frederick made in better impression than his father. At the end of the year Frederick made plans to flee from his father.Taksen (talk) 05:57, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Duhan seems to have been appointed in 1720. When the father discovered Frederick was learning Latin, he ordered Duhan and Frederick to study theology. (During meals the only conversation possible.) The court preacher Andreä was sacked in 1725; the same year as the marriage proposals by his mother.


 * Two more recently added anecdotes regarding Quantz were deleted. The first one made it sound like the episode with Quantz lead to Frederick's flight. Similarly, the mention of meeting Quantz preceding the statement of patronage of the arts is out of context.  You also gave more context to Quantz, a point added (and cited) that he was Frederick's occasional music teacher in his adolescence. Wtfiv (talk) 17:00, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Repeated alteration of lead section content regarding sexuality
IP user : Please stop altering the wording of the lead section's discussion of Frederick's sexuality. The current wording reflects the consensus of many editors, who have attempted to accurately represent the scholarly consensus on this topic. If you feel that a different phrasing would better summarize what is known about this issue, a good place to propose your idea would be in the actively ongoing featured article candidacy page for this article, where all the details of its wording are being examined by many editors. Please discuss this matter before making any further changes. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 20:15, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Merged Tomb of Frederick the Great
As per banner, I merged the article "Tomb of Frederick the Great" and created a redirect for the "tomb" article. It looks like a transfer from German Wikipedia in 2006, and editing is light. The last one was last year adding the point about potatoes being put on the grave. I added one additional piece that was in the "tomb" article, and not here: the quote from Frederick II's will. It's now sourced in a footnote. Added a source on the potatoes on the grave, too. Wtfiv (talk) 22:54, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Deleted point about Frederick's reign being the longest
Deleted the phrase He was the longest reigning monarch of the House of Hohenzollern. During the final reviews of the Today's Featured Article Review, it was pointed out that Carol I of Romania is the longest reigning Hohenzollern, reigning two years longer than Frederick. We would add it back with the qualification Brandenburg-Prussia branch of the House of Hohenzollern, but that feels a bit clunky. And, we'd have to look for a source and find the right place to put it in the main text. My feeling is to keep it off. Frederick II still has a lot that he accomplished beyond reign longevity. Wtfiv (talk) 21:51, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep it off, for the sake of brevity there is no need to state that he was the longest ruling of any house. Chariotsacha (talk) 22:02, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Suggested reading
Hello, I saw the addition of suggested readings. I think this may need a conversation, so I used WP:BRD. Does addition of another section which risks growing larger over time improvement the article, given that we just got this article to featured article status. I think it'd be good for interested editors to discuss if we need suggested readings. Suggested readings can be useful, but I also find the section problematic for the following reasons: I'm not sure what the specialized topics add to the global article's focus. Again, it seems to me that if they are valuable they could be integrated into the specific issue within the article, combined with an attempt at making the citation verifiable. This strategy also implicitly provides a rationale why these works are worthwhile as further reading. It may indeed be a good way to go, but I think we need to discuss first.Wtfiv (talk) 06:34, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Suggested reading sections open up opportunities for large lists of items that seem more to advance individual agendas than issues related to the book. I'm not saying this is the case here, but sources that are directly and verifiably integrated as citations allow the citations to speak for the relevance of the source.
 * The article already has 149 sources, most of which are accessible, and most of which provide a lot of further reading.
 * In this particular case, two of the works were already given in in the sources. Putting them here would be redundant.
 * I'm trying to add links to important scholarship. Sticking them in the main text will upset editors who have worked on getting feature status. My goal is to help student in university and advanced secondary schools who are writing class papers on this important topic --the 149 footnoted sources are full of very minor items that will waste student time (many just verify small points and have little info on Frederick.) Rjensen (talk) 19:34, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems that the list is more of a selection of what may be resources. In addition, others have been mentioned as well.  Suggested reading always has that sense of the arbitrary.  For example, one of further readings seems focused on CPE Bach and Frederick.  Great material, I'm sure and good for a reference to an article on Frederick and music and maybe it could add a point to the section on music, but it isn't clear why it would be further reading.  And students in the advanced schools would still have to get access to copies when it isn't even clear why the work is further reading. And, as mentioned, I don't think highlighting a source as further reading is clear.
 * I think the Clark and Storring articles illustrate the problem well. I like both Clark's book and Storring's article. Clark has a great writing style, IMO. But Clark is really describing Prussia as a whole, Frederick is a major walk-on character and symbol for a much bigger story. Storring is the opposite. It is really arguing about military science, the core of his dissertation thesis is that Frederick's "innovations" were extensions of the French innovations of the previous generation, but this small point on one aspect of Frederick is explicitly mentioned in the article.
 * I'd imagine that Blanning, Asprey, MacDonogh or Fraser- all easily accessed biographies focused on Frederick make better "Further Reading". (I'm using these only to serve as an example of the problematic of "Further Reading". Let's see what other editors think... Wtfiv (talk) 21:50, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I think in terms of readers (esp students), not merely in terms of Frederick. If they are really interested in music of 18c Germany, then political biographies are not helpful. Rjensen (talk) 01:15, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * We have the same goals, I think. My objective was to make every source a potential "further reading" resource.  Over 80% are accessible to people without an academic relationship.  And, the citation functions as an annotation for why the citation is useful and where it fits in.  The only hurdle to the reader/students, is that they actually have to read the article and track the citation, or scan the sources.  But when it comes to Frederick, suggested reading could get huge. And "suggested reading" is one of those sections that can be added to arbitrarily. I've seen them expand to include   self-published book, quasi-vanity press books, tangential articles that serve to highlight the link to an author in a week that looks very much more like self-promotion. (That's not true in your case, but it does open up the door for later additions.) Many are not obtainable except through purchase or a university-quality interlibrary loan. That's why I think tying it to a citation, keeping it in sources, and making it verifiable is so important.
 * By the way, while we are talking. I'm glad you insisted we kept the currency issue in the article.  It's a bit complex, but fascinating. And I think we were able to smoothly integrate it and  could pull it together to make the sources to make it work.  And I'm also appreciative for an early revert you did.  It encouraged me to keep working to make as many citations as possible linkable. It's made this article stronger, though the side effect is that the underlying philosophy has brought our conversation here.  As I edit other articles, I'm finding this verifiability is critical. Most citations are good ones, but a great deal don't reflect the point made in the article's text. And most suggested reading sections seem quite arbitrary and often less than helpful. (Only rarely do I find a source I can verify, and when I do access it, it's not always clear it is a reliable or relevant source.)
 * Beyond this article, the role of "Suggested Reading" seems to me to be a good conversation for the larger Wikipedia community, too. Wtfiv (talk) 17:46, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * very well said. I differ on one point. Casual readers --who spend a minute or two on this article looking for basic facts--comprise the majority of "hits." However it's mostly the serious students who plan to do further reading.  Many tens of millions of them have access (through campus libraries) to scholarly resources and their needs should get the priority in "further reading" in my opinion.  Rjensen (talk) 18:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Isn't the hallmark of a serious student one who would use the in-text references for further research? And unlike a book, most of these are made convenient via linked access. [User:Wtfiv|Wtfiv]] (talk) 20:37, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * in this case the student has no choice in the matter--and most of the cites would be dead ends in terms of good undergraduate-level topics. That is they have NOT been selected with students in mind and many have only brief comments on Frederick. Rjensen (talk) 02:40, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I agree regarding these references, as I know most of them well. There's no doubt the degree of coverage varies, but a great deal of the references in this article go into great detail, and better yet. provide outstanding references in their own right. The best can be identified by their titles. These sources would be a rich trove for undergraduates, and better yet- the advanced secondary students who wouldn't be able to access these otherwise. Wtfiv (talk) 07:18, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I suggest the best way to help students sis to have a "further reading" section -- it should certainly include selected duplicate titles from the Sources section. "The best can be identified by their titles" is not true for students doing their first historical papers. Rjensen (talk) 18:43, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I feel the sources is the best "Further Reading". I'm sure the ones you choose are one's you felt were ideal, but I still feel "Further Reading" sections tend to open up the door to arbitrary choices and the insertion of self-promotion. Thus, they become unhelpful. That's what I've seen in my edits: particularly for articles that loose their good article and featured article status over time. I'm certainly uncomfortable gatekeeping the further reading.  The best that could occur is a consensus discussion that each item is indeed worthy.  On the other hand, The  readings have proven themselves by being useful as sources.  And, again, they can be accessed for verification.  There rarely is a systematic reason for inclusion. Thus, these sections can be misleading for such students you are thinking of.  Particularly if it just gets them to go for some poorly sourced work.  It'd be great if others would weigh in here.  Wtfiv (talk) 18:53, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Portrait crop
Not trying to rub salt into old wounds, but after viewing the uncropped version of Ziesenis' portrait of Frederick article I can't help but feel that using it rather than the cropped version would do Frederick more justice. We see full body paintings in quite a few articles such as Frederick William I of Prussia, so I was thinking Frederick the Great would be no different, any thoughts? Chariotsacha (talk) 19:11, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Until Buidhe put this portrait up, I didn't know it existed. Having gotten used to it, it has some advantages and seems like a good portrait. Besides being the sole portrait from life, it has a more enlightenment feel. (Maybe because it is lighter?). I'd say the one advantage of the cropped portrait is that is more similar to what is expected for the Infobox portrait which is usually a face portrait. Also, I worry that another picture change will encourage another round of photo swapping.  All that said, if there is a change to the full portrait, I'm good with it. As long as other editors are, that is. Wtfiv (talk) 16:31, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll add the portrait and undo it so you can take a peek, I think it would be very dapper! Chariotsacha (talk)

17:04, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

He does look dapper. Going back to the Great Elector, the preference for the image of Prussian ruling nobles in the infobox is a Wikipedia toss up. Though face-focused portraits dominate once photography takes over: My main concern is if you choose the more full-body portrait it would lead to another edit flurry with the Graf and Camphausen face-focused works rotating in? Hopefully, other editors will weigh in too. (Maybe you can ping some of the more active editors for their opinion?) In lieu of any strong opinions about which version to use, I'll trust your judgement.Wtfiv (talk) 00:06, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Frederick William, Frederick I, Frederick William I, and Frederick William III include the body.
 * Frederick William II, Frederick William IV (photo), William I (photo), Frederick III (photo),Wilhelm II (photo) are all more face-focused.
 * You put the Ziesenis portrait into the infobox, and I continue to think it was a great move for so many reasons. (Personally, it becomes a kind of guide for my editing: Being the sole portrait from life, it keeps the question "How does this edit reflect his life as record, as opposed to his image as projected?)  However, Chariotsacha had the interesting idea that Ziesenis's uncropped portrait may be a better main portrait than the cropped. Figuring we're in the midst of an FA review anyway, this may be the point to make the change.  If it passes...which is uncertain, of course...whichever image is there will become more of a standard.  You picked the cropped originally and your strong editing really got helped the success of the Good Article review, so I'd like your thoughts on the issue if you have the time. Either way, I'm sure other editors here will maintain the stability of what is chosen. Thank you so much! Wtfiv (talk) 15:13, 16 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I think the uncropped version is more fitting for the infobox. It gives Frederick more justice. Orson12345 (talk) 23:11, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Katte image
Hi, Peleio Aquiles added another image to the file. It is was an image of Hans Hermann von Katte. There are already a lot of images on this page, all directly related to Frederick II. I'm not sure why an image of Katte should be in the article rather than someone like Voltaire, who had a much more in-depth relationship with Frederick, or his brother Henry, who was his intimate. For now, the image has been removed pending discussion. The Katte image is still available to people who click the Katte link. but if it needs to in this article too, it may need to be discussed. Wtfiv (talk) 16:36, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * In many other pages pictures of people close to the subject are used, why not this one? This is one of the only large biographical entries that I can think of where *none* of the pictures inserted are of friends, love interests, and so forth, and all depict *only* the subject. And that was what I was trying to remedy by including Katte's picture. And I don't think it's fair to fret over this ONE addition. Is the subject of Frederick's relationship with Katte by itself uncomfortable to you? — Peleio Aquiles (talk) 17:48, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * We've tended to have alot of problems over images in this article so thats likely why we are having the discussion here, as there have been a myriad of image changes. I'll drop my two-cents for the sake of consensus, I think the portrait itself is fine but it may be cluttering- we do not have one of Peter Karl Christoph von Keith as he is a small part of his life for this reason, but there is still one present in his own article. Wtfiv's point about Voltaire/Henry I also agree with- this article is about Frederick, it does not need imagery of all the intimiate men of his life- although this may be a very interesting addition for his sexuality article. As for Katte, although I do like more images, nor do I care much for the nature of Fredericks bedroom life, it does feel rather disruptive and I think it should remain off the article. Chariotsacha (talk) 18:06, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the article is at the saturation point for images, and, if I were to add one more, this one wouldn't be at the top of my list. It's well meant, but I don't think it's an improvement. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:59, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Frederick and Quantz
The section dealing with his musical endeavors needs some cleaning up. It even directly contradicts info in the Quantz article, calling Quantz his "music tutor in his youth," however:

The Queen of Prussia was impressed and wanted to hire him for her son. Though August II refused, he allowed Quantz to travel to Berlin and Bayreuth twice a year. [From the Quantz article]

Two lessons a year hardly makes him his music tutor, and besides what is more important is Quantz joining Frederick II's court in 1741 as composer, flute teacher, and flute maker and staying until his death over 30 years later. Somehow that is glossed over.

It also means that C.P.E. Bach's and Quantz' tenures overlapped at court for over 25 years, and it seems a shame we have no comments about how the two extremely renowned musicians and composers worked and collaborated together, or if they didn't get along. It would be similar to if Liszt and Paganini were both hired by the Austrian Emperor in their day, both great advancers of their respective techniques, and famous all over Europe.

I hope someone will decide to look this up, but in the meantime I'm considering editing the note about Quantz to "occasional music tutor in his youth, and later court composer, flute teacher, and flute maker." Deliusfan (talk) 00:22, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The original statement matched the cited sources, but you are right, Quantz could only make occasional visits and couldn't be the primary instructor. So, I updated the statement, which still aligns with the citations, and added a clause about Quantz becoming Frederick's court composer supported by a citation from Reilly's introduction. I think an entire article Frederick's court could be written.  Not only did he have an overlap of highly talented musicians, but as the Menzel painting illustrates, he also had extremely renown French intellectuals, such as Voltaire, Algoretti, and d'Argens who sometimes collaborated and often didn't get along. Wtfiv (talk) 18:24, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Well done, that is much clearer. And I do hope as well that an article on Frederick's court can be written; he clearly is a Renaissance man cut from the same cloth as France's Louis XIV; what Louis did for ballet and opera as an aspiring dancer, himself, Frederick did for instrumental music and literature. Deliusfan (talk) 23:55, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Portrait
Why isn't this portrait used? Contemporaries found it to resemble him the most. For this reason it is the most used one in other Wikipedia editions as well, including the German Wikipedia. Synotia (talk) 10:32, 2 December 2022 (UTC)


 * The Graff portrait of Frederick in his later years (nearly 70 years old) is used in the article around the time when Frederick was that age. But the consensus was that Ziesenis portrait best represents Frederick during the most active phase of his life.  It is painted from life, and represents Frederick at mid-life (around 50 years old) during one of the key moments in the middle of his reign, the point that the Seven Years War had come to an end.  The Graff portrait might have been the best representation of him as an older man, but, as mentioned, the Ziesenis, which was painted from life, represents the younger man at about the time he successfully concluded the war with the Treaty of Hubertusburg.
 * For a history of the discussion, see archived discussion. as well as its follow-up at the top of this talk page Wtfiv (talk) 16:27, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Following up, here's the article on the 1763 Portrait of Frederick II of Prussia, the painted study, that the painting was derived from. Frederick sat for it during three days in June, four months after the treaty established his place as a European power. Wtfiv (talk) 16:48, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Fake Portraits
, the new section you added "Fake Portraits" moves away from discussing the life of Frederick the Great, which is the focus of this article, so I reverted it. The information is interesting the section you added "Fake Portraits" was interesting, but it mand discusses representations of Frederick, not his life. It seems like it could go better into a new spin-off article on how he has been represented or memorialized. Wtfiv (talk) 07:14, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I have now created a new article on the Portraits of Frederick the Great. Kunst-Theodor (talk) 03:15, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Kunst-Theodor, I added a "See also link" for the article. Wtfiv (talk) 16:40, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

, I see that material on the portraits was put into the article even though a new article was created to address the issue there. I removed the new information again for now. When readying this for featured article status, information about likenesses do not seem appropriate about an article centered on Frederick's life. I will ping others who helped work on this article to get it to Featured Article status. Perhaps they can weigh in on whether information about Frederick's portraits are appropriate to this article: ,,,. And, of course, the perspective of any other interested editors is welcome! Wtfiv (talk) 02:03, 8 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello all!
 * Portraits is worthy to be its own article in a similar vein to the sexuality article. Since the main Frederick article is already quite large in size and had to be split before it was deemed F.A.,
 * I do like the information about the portraits. Quite a few other figures have articles dedicated to their likeness and portraits for the very reason of article size. That said, it seems to have been linked just as a 'see also' and I think that's a bit underselling it. I may have missed it linked in the article, but if its not- I'd like to see it linked somewhere as I find many Wikipedia readers prefer to 'click around' the article instead of checking the 'related articles' 'see also' etc. Chariotsacha (talk) 15:46, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * My brief addition does not discuss the portraits in detail, as does the other, more detailed article. The short addition here only makes it clear that the portraits used as illustrations to the main article do not represent the real appearance of Frederick. This is important information pertaining to the life of the Prussian king. Without this notice the uninformed reader of the main article may get the impression that the idealized portraits show the true facial features of Frederick the Great. Kunst-Theodor (talk) 16:51, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Kunst-Theodore and, thanks for weighing in!  Having an in-text link to  Frederick's portraits sounds okay. But I think it is best to keep it minimal as the focus of the article is on what Frederick did. I'd suggest a single sentence, which can be cited using Krsymanski, mentioning that his portraits have been idealized, and the mention of portraits can then be linked to the portrait article.  My thought is the sentence should go in the legacy, which addresses how he is represented after his death. as the Arts and Education section focuses on Frederick's program to improve arts and education, not on how he is represented in art. Wtfiv (talk) 16:44, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I could not find a good place to put it that didn't feel like blatant shoehorning, so I attached a link to a caption of one of the romantic portraits of Frederick by Camphausen. I think this should work, but if others prefer an in-article link I can try again! Chariotsacha (talk) 21:29, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I think this is a great solution for adding an in-text link. It's in a relavent place, and doesn't move the text off track.  I modified it just a bit. (and fixed a reference a bit.) Wtfiv (talk) 05:18, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not sure if that’s a good idea. Many readers might now think that the other portraits illustrating the article are not idealized and show Frederick's facial features quite correctly. The same note should therefore be attached to the captions of all portraits, or a suitable place for an in-article link should be found. Kunst-Theodor (talk) 19:05, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I have now added the notice to the caption of the first illustration showing the portrait by Ziesenis in the info box. What is your opinion? Kunst-Theodor (talk) 19:33, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry I undid your edit before reading this talk page message, poor manners on my end! I thought I had this page watched.
 * I'm not totally opposed to that, but I think your caption felt very shoehorned and like hyperbole. Maybe get some others to weigh in, but I'm satisfied with the caption that's next to Camphausen. I noted your concern about the other portraits not being seen as 'idealized' but I think that's overthinking a bit. After all, when they read the caption on Camphausen that leads them to your article, they'll read on the portraits article that "almost all portraits of Frederick were idealized" and are likely capable to make the assumption that applies to the portraits in this article as well. Chariotsacha (talk) 21:03, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * As Chariotsacha pointed out, I think Camphausen is the perfect place for the caption, since his painting is clearly an idealization in all ways.. The much beloved Graff portrait would be another candidate for the caption and link. Though Graff was a contemporary, he only observed Frederick from life once, and that was at a distance. The story behind others, such as Ziesenis, Pesne, and Therbusch is more complicated since they did observe and draw Frederick directly, but the had to work within the constraints of allowable court portraiture. (Therbusch's relationship to Frederick is even a bit more complicated.) Wtfiv (talk) 22:07, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I do agree too, that only one of the images should have the caption. When readers click the link, they'll learn more. Wtfiv (talk) 22:13, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the link in that place won't be noticed by very many readers. Furthermore, the link text (“One of many ...”) suggests that only one of the idealized portraits is shown in the article, namely that by Camphausen, and the other images represent Frederick’s true features. That’s why the notice should be added to the caption of the first image at the beginning of the article. Kunst-Theodor (talk) 02:32, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The link shouldn't be in the infobox portrait. I think the Graff portrait would be the great if you don't like the Camphausen. Many people think the Graff is the perfect portrait of Frederick and it is very popular. If they saw the Graff mentioned as idealized, they'd click out of curiousity and go to the article.  I'll move it there. Wtfiv (talk) 05:44, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, I left note on the "Portraits" talk page about the questionable nature of Graff's portrait. Wtfiv (talk) 06:33, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I do not agree. The notice added to the caption of the portrait by Graff comes much too late on the article page. The reader may think that the portraits by Ziesenis, Pesne, Therbusch and Camphausen shown earlier on the page do represent the true facial features of Frederick. If all portraits are idealized the notice must be added to the caption of the first image in order that the uninformed reader is properly informed from the beginning. How about showing the well-known portrait by Graff (including the short notice) in the info box? Kunst-Theodor (talk) 16:53, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Infoxbox image has already been thoroughly discussed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Frederick_the_Great/Archive_3#Photo_changed
 * And here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Frederick_the_Great#Portrait_crop
 * Having it in the infobox seems a bit haphazard and forcing the issue. I'm confident that readers will extrapolate from your article that it applies to Ziesenis as well. Idealised portraits are not vital to Frederick and are unwarranted in the infobox. People who are thoroughly interested will go to your article but for most its not a pressing matter. Chariotsacha (talk) 17:49, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * There is still the problem that the notice added to the caption of the portrait by Graff comes much too late. It should appear earlier on the article page. Otherwise the information will not be noticed by many readers. Kunst-Theodor (talk) 18:01, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure. It's location in the article is appropriate.  The clicks will come because Graff's portrait is the most popular and considered his masterpiece.  I have no doubt people will be piqued. Wtfiv (talk) 20:21, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * To my mind, for most readers this reference will go unnoticed. A short sentence in the info box or somewhere in the text would be better. Kunst-Theodor (talk) 21:29, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It still seems to me that the Graff picture is most appropriate and is more visible than a lot of the other information in the article that's interesting. I'm not sure the goal is maximize clicks, but to provide further information available to those readers who are interested. To my knowledge, most almost all portraits of aristocracy are idealized, so its not something unusual. Its just providing a bit more detail for the interested reader. Wtfiv (talk) 21:55, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm still not satisfied and took a look at how the same problem is handled in other Wikipedia articles:
 * The featured article on Odaenathus has a section on “Name, family and appearance” which deals with alleged portraits of the king and includes a reference to the other article on Portraits of Odaenathus.
 * The featured article on William Shakespeare contains a brief subsection on “Portraiture” referring to the main article: Portraits of Shakespeare.
 * The text of the featured article on Elizabeth I includes some notes on her portraits, although there is another article dealing with Portraiture of Elizabeth I. The main article on the queen says, for instance: “As Elizabeth aged her image gradually changed. She was portrayed as Belphoebe or Astraea, and after the Armada, as Gloriana, the eternally youthful Faerie Queene of Edmund Spenser's poem. … Her painted portraits became less realistic and more a set of enigmatic icons that made her look much younger than she was.”
 * The featured article on Vincent van Gogh includes subsections on “Portraits” and “Self-portraits” including much text, although there are references to the other articles: Portraits by Vincent van Gogh and Portraits of Vincent van Gogh.
 * The good article on Rembrandt has a subsection on his Self-portraits showing several images and referring to the other article on Self-portraits by Rembrandt.
 * The article on Johann Sebastian Bach didn’t include a link to Portraits of Johann Sebastian Bach at all. I have added a “See also” section.

Query: For what reason has my short addition to the Architecture and the fine arts section been removed? As you can see from the examples above, most other featured Wikipedia articles on famous people include brief information on the portraits, even if there are main articles on the portraits. What’s so different with this article on Frederick the Great that the following five additional sentences have been removed:
 * However, unlike other rulers, the king did not commission representations of himself. The official portraits of Frederick as shown on this page were more or less freely invented by the artists, as the king refused to sit for portraits because he was convinced that he was extremely ugly. Most of these fake portraits depict his face with a classically straightened nose and in an embellished, idealized way. It is not possible to deduce from such representations what the king actually looked like. Only the death mask gives an idea of his actual appearance. See also Portraits of Frederick the Great

Furthermore, it may even be asked whether the Ziesenis portrait in the info box should be replaced by an image of the death mask. Kunst-Theodor (talk) 18:11, 16 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure the cited cases are similar here. In the case of Odaenathus and Shakespeare, there is a discussion there because it is not clear that images related to these historical characters is based on the historical evidence. Van Gogh and Rembrandt are discussing the self-portraits in the context of their work, which is relevant. The closest example here is the idealizations of Elizabeth, but that focuses more on her she changed her representations of power over time, which is key to her role of being a successful monarch.
 * I think that the addition moves away from the focus on Frederick's contributions to architecture and fine arts, and shifts the focus to Frederick's appearance, which is addressed in the link. I hope others who helped bring this article to featured article status can weigh in with their perspective. Wtfiv (talk) 02:33, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

"Inheritance" section map template
Greetings and felicitations. I don't know what I did that broke it, but I seem to have made a negative in the change "Frederick the Great" section map template. Does anyone have any idea what the problem is? — DocWatson42 (talk) 11:18, 18 April 2023 (UTC)