Talk:Alexandra Feodorovna (Charlotte of Prussia)

message: The disambig parenthesis make for a horrible title. I don't care what the exact title needs to be, as long as the parenthesis is done away with. --Apostrophe 19:09, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that some change is necessary, but this is the wrong format: There is no concrete proposal to support, and I expect full and frank discussion of the two obvious ones. Therefore I take the liberty of changing to approval summary Septentrionalis 03:16, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: Please state which of the following options you can approve of, and an optional one sentence summary. Feel free to add additional choices. This is a summary, not a replacement, of the discussion which follows. Changes of approval as a result of discussion are welcome, but should be indicated by striking out  approvals, rather than removing them.  
===Charlotte of Prussia===
* The naming conventions, as they stand, support this. Septentrionalis 03:16, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Approval summary

message: * The naming conventions, as they stand, support this. Septentrionalis 03:16, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Charlotte of Prussia

message: * See below. Septentrionalis 03:16, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Alexandra Fyodorovna

message: *support this name. There is nothing wrong with parentheses. See also, talk:Alexandra Fyodorovna of Hesse that should be moved to Alexandra Fyodorovna (Alix of Hesse). Similar parenthical dab is used at Patriarch Filaret. This is the best solution IMO. --Irpen 23:09, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Alexandra Fyodorovna (Charlotte of Prussia)

message: *I prefer this alternative. It conforms with the NC. Arrigo 17:28, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Alexandra Fyodorovna of Prussia

message: This is all a huge mess. The current way cannot really stand. The problem with "Alexandra Fyodorovna" is that there were two in the history of Russia. "Alexandra of Prussia" is totally misleading. How about
* Empress Alexandra of Russia (1798-1860) or
* Empress Alexandra Fyodorovna (1798-1860) or
* Empress Alexandra Fyodorovna of Russia (1798-1860)
or Alexandra Fyodorovna, Empress of Russia
could this be a solution? Gryffindor 10:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Other

message: It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 01:26, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Discision

message: This is a difficult case. Like Catherine the Great, the Empress was not, and is not, particularly notable under the name she had before she came to Russia. (How many articles on Prussian princesses do we have?) I am open to persuasion. Septentrionalis 03:16, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I vote for Alexandra Feodorovna (Nicholas I's wife), with no mention of Prussia at all. --Ghirlandajo 06:03, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: I re-arranged the photos about a week ago, which looked far better.Miguelemejia changed them back for no apparent reason to the way they were arranged before, which looks horrible. 
--Mrlopez2681 01:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Photos

message: On Jan. 13 I added an infobox and did a copy-edit, as well as added a new photo which I put into a gallery with two others so the article wouldnt look cluttered. I didnt change the text but merely made it make sense - whoever wrote the text created some passages that sounded funny (for example - "Princess Charlotte with her whole family had to flee to East Prussia, where they look for the protection of Tsar Alexander I of Russia."
The changes I made to Miguelemejia's photo arrangement weren't based on my own "personal preferences", rather just trying to make the article look better a little better. For example, the middle photo of the Empress and her children had a line going through it due to the level 2 headline and its position on the left. I changed the headline to 1.1 to get rid of this line, and then went ahead and made all of the other headlines 1.1 so the article would look OK. But user Miguelemejia went back in and put the headlines back to level 2, and thus the ridiculous looking line came back in full force. I went ahead and re-positioned the photo to the right. Since the photo was now on the right, I lowered it a bit so that the article would look balanced. He said the photos were in chronological order, but there was really no way of knowing this. Interestingly, the user accused me of changing things for my own personal preference, even though he was going in and changing it back to his original edit, which was obviously his own preference.
User: Miguelemejia has repeatedly gone in for no good reason and changed these edits, as well as a few made by others. It seems to me that he or she is reverting back to his or her own edits simply because of some personal affection for them, and not taking into account other people's contributions.
--Mrlopez2681 04:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the deal 

message: The page on Nicholas (without listing sources) disagrees with the assertion that Nicholas had no mistresses until his wife's illness after twenty five years of marriage. This article agrees with that assertion and gives a source. Lincoln, The Romanovs, p. 418. So which is it? Marfinan (talk) 18:33, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timing of Nicholas' affairs 

message: Wait, so did Elizabeth Nikolaevna just never exist? Grand Duchess Winter (talk) 03:45, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elizabeth Nikolaevna