Talk:Alexander Karađorđević, Prince of Serbia/Archive 1

Title
Removing the "Prince of Serbia" title from the article name because the information can be found within the article. Moving the article to Aleksandar Kara&. - Ghidra99 21:02, 13 September 2005 (UTC)


 * This is wrong because you're missing the disambiguation element – see Alexander Karadjordjevic – and the nobility naming convention. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   21:52, 13 September 2005 (UTC)


 * For all intents and purposes, I'm following the naming conventions as established by the Obrenovi& dynasty. It makes more since to numerically number each Aleksandar Karađorđević in the course of their rule through Serbian history, i.e. Prince Aleksandar should be Aleksandar Karađorđević I, King Aleksandar should be Aleksandar Karađorđević II, etc. Look at Alexander of Serbia for a more thorough disambiguation of the Aleksandars of Serbia. It also disspells any confusion between the Aleksandars of the Obrenovi&#263; and Karađorđević families. If you want, I'll add a disambiguation link to the article, if you think people will be easily confused. - Ghidra99 22:15, 13 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Heh, you're quoting Alexander of Serbia as an example to me, the person who wrote that page? :))
 * Please disambiguate back this prince, and have all four spellings (Aleksandar Karadjordjevic, Aleksandar Karađorđević, Alexander Karadjordjevic, Alexander Karađorđević) point to the disambiguation page. In former Yugoslavia, by far the most popular Aleksandar Karađorđević was the King, so it's confusing to have the 19th century prince as the primary meaning. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   09:55, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I think this will be a good solution: move this page to Aleksandar Kara&, redirect Aleksandar Kara& to Alexander Karadjordjevic, move Alexander I of Yugoslavia to Aleksandar Kara&, and move Crown Prince Alexander of Yugoslavia to Aleksandar Kara&. This will distinguish not only a numerical sequence for these rulers, but also clear up and create a consistent naming convention among the rulers of each dynasty. Redirecting people to the list of Aleksandar Kara&#273;or&#273;evi&#263;es is a good first step, but the consistency needs to go further, no? Let me know what you think. - Ghidra99 17:16, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't be particularly opposed to that simple scheme, but unfortunately John Kenney and others would probably beat you over the head with the naming conventions :) which state that royalty has to be called "name ordinal of realm". Please see Talk:Alexander I of Yugoslavia for details. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   14:02, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Heh, I've had my run-ins with Mr. Kenney. I think he and others are completely wrong with the "name ordinal of realm" convention. What matters is what they were actually called in reality. Using that convention is a very American-centric thing to do (for some reason, it's hard for Americans to remember rulers without ordinals). I'm willing to break the convention if you'll back me up on it. If it works for the Obrenovi&#263; dynasty, it can surely work for the Kara&#273;or&#273;evi&#263; dynasty. I think if we clarify the disambiguation page a bit more (like your article Alexander of Serbia) they'll have few objections and less ground to change it because it works better in the scheme of Wikipedia. - Ghidra99 15:05, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Wow, people complaining about me! Very fun.  At any rate, I want to complain about the absurd romanization used here, which no English language histories ever acually use.  I also want to note that nobody calls King Alexander I "Alexander Kara&#273;or&#273;evi&#263 III" or any variant thereof.  Absurd. john k (talk) 17:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I think there should be some references for this article. For example, it says "His peaceful life was agitated by the accusation of providing the weapons and money for the conspiracy in Prince Mihailo Obrenović’s assassination. He was deeply hurt by the verdict for a deed he had never committed. Dynastic struggles became more severe and it was only then that Prince Aleksandar took part in them. He detested the thought of the hideous deed that was imputed to him by his opponents and fought with all his strength to bring another Karađorđević to the throne." I am not arguing whether this is true or not, but it sounds like it could be contentious and I would to like see external evidence. Cliff.challenger (talk) 20:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)