Talk:Alexandra Feodorovna (Charlotte of Prussia)

Untitled
the article says: Nikolai (i.e, son of Charlotte of Prussia) married Charlotte of Prussia! It is either an error or a call for disambiguation/ renaming. mikka (t) 18:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Corrected it. Her son Nicholas married a princess of Oldenburg (who actually lived in Russia already in childhood) - a granddaughter of Nicholas I's sister Catherine. Someone had probably made an error, perhaps due to the fact that both Paul I and Nicholas I had by name and birth order an identical series of sons: Alexander, Constantin, Nicholas and Michael. Arrigo 21:08, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

IMO those parenthetical disambiguations are messy. As this "Alexandra Fedorovna (Charlotte of Prussia)" is already very close to Alexandra Fedorovna of Prussia, please move this to that heading. Unnecessary to use parentheses when one word, "Prussia", instead, makes the same. 217.140.193.123 16:52, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I find the present title acceptable, and preferable to that suggested above by an anonymous user. Deb 17:53, 30 July 2005 (UTC)


 * The correct way for this title is "Charlotte of Prussia (Alexandra Fyodorovna)". Having her birth name in front and the name she accepted in Russia in parentheses. Popov 2000

Requested move
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)


 * 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)

Approval summary
''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)
 * As there were two Russian Empresses with the name Alexandra Fyodorovna (Feodorovna), I support this choice. Prsgoddess187 15:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Alexandra Fyodorovna

 * See below. Septentrionalis 03:16, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Alexandra Fyodorovna (Charlotte of Prussia)

 * 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)
 * support this name. She is notable as Russian Emperess under the name of Alexandra Fyodorovna, and we need parenthesis to distinguish her from the other emperess. Obviously we need redirects and fors to make search for the article easier. abakharev 00:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Alexandra Fyodorovna of Prussia

 * I prefer this alternative. It conforms with the NC. Arrigo 17:28, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Other
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)

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

Discussion
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)
 * I vote for Alexandra Feodorovna (Nicholas I's wife), with no mention of Prussia at all. --Ghirlandajo 06:03, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I wrote the article about Alexandra Feodorovna (Charlotte of Prussia). I worked really hard on it. There is little information about her and I had to read three books and search many more to do the research. I appreciate the interest you have in the article, but I am sadly surprised about you disliked for the order of the pictures. I looked for them, and uploaded them for the wikipedia. They were placed in cronological order. I amn open to hear your point of view, so please get in touch to my user page Miguelemejia. I chaged they way you set the picture because I found my original distribution, a better one.

I wrote the article about Alexandra Feodorovna (Charlotte of Prussia). I worked really hard on it. There is little information about her and I had to read three books and search many more to do the research. I appreciate the interest you have in the article, but I am sadly surprised about you disliked for the order of the pictures. I looked for them, and uploaded them for the wikipedia. They were placed in cronological order. I amn open to hear your point of view, so please get in touch to my user page Miguelemejia. I chaged they way you set the picture because I found my original distribution, a better one.

Photos
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)

Photos Discussion
I wrote the article about Alexandra Feodorovna (Charlotte of Prussia). I worked really hard on it. There is little information about her and I had to read three books and search many more to do the research. I appreciate the interest Mrlopez2681had in the article, but I am sadly surprised about his disliked for the order of the pictures. I looked for them, and uploaded them for the wikipedia. They were placed in cronological order. I am open to hear different points of view, so please get in touch to my user page .Miguelemejia. I chaged they way Mrlopez2681 set the picture because I found my original distribution, a better one, being the author of the article I think I have a good saying on the matter. I find discouraging when, instead of expand or make real contributions to articles, people just seems to changed things closer to their personal liking. At the end is just subjectivity.

Miguelemejia

Miguelemejia

What is the deal
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)

Timing of Nicholas' affairs
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)

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