Talk:Alexandra Feodorovna (Alix of Hesse)/Archive 1

misc

I made a mistake (see below) in renaming this page. Per Wiki convention, this should be the article's title but I am loathe to redirect again. Can someone help? Mowens35 19:26, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

PAGE RENAMED: PRINCESS ALIX OF HESSE Per Wiki conventions re birth name of an historic queen consort, this should be Princess Alix of Hesse or Princess Alix of Hesse and by Rhine. She was not born Alexandra so cannot be Alexandra of Hesse; she was born Alix (German corruption of her mother's name, Alice) and became Alexandra when she was renamed upon her marriage and adoption of the Russian Orthodox faith. Mowens35 18:51, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Should this be under Alexandra Romanov?Dictionary says : Ekaterinburg ,the former name. (Now Sverdlovsk )a city in western Siberia . After the Iron Curtain came done it might have change again, I don't know.(On websites I also see near Ural mountains mentioned). Either way it is in western Siberia. user:H.J.

---

Hey I didn't start that silliness! I'd have used Alexandra of Russia -- I THOUGHT that's what we had decided was the standard... Ekatarinaburg is indeed in Siberia. I'm also not sure whether the family was executed, murdered, or assassinated -- the political leadership of the time was still pretty fluid, and frankly, I'm fairly convinced that the soldiers responsible BELIEVED they were acting on government orders... JHK

---

JHK etc Somewhere between Alan Millar,Dmerrill and MichaelTinkler and JHK this "Romanova" got started by whoever writes "nee Dagmar" and it kept going . How do you want to name the wives of the Romanovs ? just by their first names ? Romanov or what ? To the other questions , read the websites , then you can remove them.

---

Well Romanova is the female version of Romanov - all the female members of the family used it

---

But Alexandra (Alix) was from Hesse before marrying Tsar Nicholas. So, in a way it is her title. Or it should be Alix of Hesse or Tsarina Alexandra Romanov.

because of her infetility ???? She had 5 children. Failure to produce lots of sons infertility.

How the hell did this page get here? Consorts are not supposed to have "Princess" in their articles. Personally, I think we need a new standard for queen consorts. The current one clearly doesn't work for someone like Alexandra. john k 02:54, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you had read the top of the page, you would see how this page got here. It was a mistake on my part but I cannot correct it without multiple redirects. I think the consort issue per Wiki works fine. We have disambiguation pages to help as well as links within articles that would reach Alix of Hesse and by Rhine without difficulty. Mowens35 10:28, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

The "princess" should be taken away from the title of this article. And, much better to name it as "Alexandra of Hesse" or "Alexandra Fedorovna of Hesse", because she was known as Alexandra the greatest part of her life. As Alexandra Fedorovna became her name a bit before her marriage, it is her pre-marital name. I vote preferably for Alexandra Fedorovna of Hesse and secondly for Alexandra of Hesse. I vote against the unpractical "of Hesse and by Rhine", which definitely shuld not be used in title of the article. 62.78.104.14 15:32, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

seems like 62.78.104.14 has a slight anti-royal touch. voting to keep current article name. she was a princess so what´s the problem? Masako, Crown Princess of Japan is listed as such, and not as Masako of Japan which would be just silly and disrespectful... Antares911 16:21, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Antares is totally wrong when trying to label me as anti-royal. But encyclopedic articles should be simple and objective, not sycophantic. The title "princess" in the article name is ridiculous.

Funny that Antares wants to be respectful to royals, but not to other editors who obviously have higher expertise than Antares. May I refer Antares as sycophant in the future?

Antares seems not to have grasped that Masako's pre-marital name was not "of Japan", whereas here we seek the practical pre-marital name for this empress.

Re-naming article

It seems like no one ever came to agreement on what this article should be called, yet everyone agreed it was at the wrong title. So I've moved it, pending agreement on a new title, to a title that at least observes wikipedia standards. Deb 09:11, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

When the renamer knew that there existed no consensus for the new name, what justified to move in that situation???~~

• I think Alexandra of Hesse is the best name. I don't think the "and by Rhine" is universaly used. Astrotrain 20:29, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

I regard the move by Deb as high-handed action, clearly without consensus, and sadly against any reasonable usage of the names of the subject. For those who are able and willing to read the talk page before any moves, there has long been a warning against the unpractical "of Hesse and by Rhine", which "definitely should not be used in title of the article". IMO to put "and by Rhine" is so useless and so burdening, approximately the same as adding everywhere "and Northern Ireland" when speaking about Elizabeth II. In an encyclopedia, headings are expected to be concise, and not dumping places where to put all the life story of the subject (all such can better be explained in the article itself). My opinion for the heading is Alexandra Fedorovna of Hesse. 217.140.193.123 01:01, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Marie Antoinette was Maria Antonia in childhood. Despite that, we use Marie Antoinette, as it is the clearly best known form of her name. Analogously, the subject here does not need to be "Alix" as it was used only in her youth, and in relatively private then, as before she became tsarina, she was not a high celebrity in the world. In her famous days, and for the biggest part of her life, she was generally known as "Alexandra Fedorovna". Which thus should be the form of her name used here in headings etc. And, due to disambig necessity (as there was at least another A.F.) she needs the territorial designation (pre-marital), i.e "of Hesse". I believe these are good enough grounds to define her heading. 217.140.193.123 01:18, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Can you not see that this is an impossible title for the article, consisting as it does of two completely disparate epithets that you have cobbled together? Deb 22:09, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

That's actually no argument, Deb. It's nothing more impossible than "Marie Antoinette of Austria". Your opposition apparently comes from emotional reaction, not from professionalism. Russian consorts need special solutions, as needs anyone who changed the form of name at some point of life.
Also, you should understand that consort naming, being based on pre-marital name, is always somewhat artificial. Created by historians etc, due to need of disambiguation.
You should think that in consort naming, the territorial designation is NOT any surname nor was in widespread use in the subject's lifetime - it is a disambig tool. "Alix of Hesse" was not something that was widely used of her, as she most certainly was "Alix von Hessen-Darmstadt" when child - but we do not use such German "surnames" of royal consorts, with all that "von".
Think from an international viewpoint, how was she thought/written in neighboring countries of Russia (and in Russia itself) when they needed to distinguish her from her father-in-law's grandmother, another empress A.F. THAT'S the basic reason behind consort naming anyway. 217.140.193.123 23:18, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Requested move

Alexandra Fyodorovna of Hesse back to Alix of Hesse. The present article title is untenable, and consensus has not been reached on anything better than this previous title. Deb 22:16, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

It was never called "Alix of Hesse"! The vote is misleading and manipulated despite my objections (unlawfully deleted from this talk page) mikka (t) 15:41, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Of course it was a misrepresentation. Such manipulation and habit seems to be the trademark. However, I hope the misrepresentation has now been corrected and pointed out to readers so clearly that it hopefuly does not affect the voting. Arrigo 07:37, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the diff http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexandra_of_Hesse&diff=19007353&oldid=17447170 tells very much of the story of the location of this article. In the not-so-distant past it was located at Alexandra of Hesse (her new self-taken first name and her pre-marital territorial designation combined - I am not aware whether this earlier was in any other place, or was Alexandra of Hesse the original location), but then a something-reputed user Mowens (who made also lots of other royalty attributions) decided to move it to the titled maiden name location "Princess Alix of Hesse", apparently without any vote, and afterwards a certain user Deb wanted to have a yet longer anglicized-German designation "+ by the Rhine" and moved it. 217.140.193.123 18:29, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

voting

this subsecton is transferred to the bottom of the page #Vote, in order to attract and encourage further votes.

Discussion

Add any additional comments

Any one who wants to add another move proposal is encouraged to do so. Philip Baird Shearer 20:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I think it might be best to hold the various move proposals indefinitely. Some of the opinions expressed are relevant to Russian consorts in general, and not to this specific example. There was some discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles) about exceptions for Russian consorts, but it never reached fruition. I have summarized that discussion in a subsection of that page here, and I think it would be better to settle the issue there, rather than go through a flurry of move proposals for each individual consort. (I should note that one of the possibilities would be to use "Empress X Y of Russia," and any necessary disambiguation, for the names of Russian consorts, which people have expressed a preference for here.) Choess 22:47, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

I find it a very bad practice to start a vote immediately after the first proposal. Normally polls should have a lag for a discusion, so that a reasonable opinion could be formed after all possibilities have been considered. Otherwise it looks like POV pushing rat race: the first is the best. I suggest a lag time of 2 days. Also, the vole deadline is not set. Shall the poll sit here infinitely and the page moved with each sway in the score? mikka (t) 20:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

That is not how an attempt to reach a consensus via WP:RM is done. It often turns out that one name is proposed and as the discussion develops another name which was not suggested at first becomes more popular. After all one is free to change one's vote at any time if a better name is proposed. with An example of where this is happening at the moment is Talk:First Nations of Canada. With Approval voting one is free to vote for a many or as few proposals as one likes and to vote tactically, all of which helps to build a consensus. Philip Baird Shearer 20:51, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

So it is clear here is a paragraph from the introduction on WP:RM

Approval voting is encouraged for page moves requested on this page. Requested moves may be actioned if there is a rough consensus (60% or more) supporting the moving of an article after five (5) days under discussion on the talk page of the article to be moved, or earlier at the discretion of an administrator. The time for discussion may be extended if a consensus has not emerged.

--Philip Baird Shearer 20:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

---

Copied the following from the page Wikipedia:Requested moves: (217.140.193.123 17:04, 20 July 2005 (UTC))

"Alexandra Fyodorovna of Hesse back to Alix of Hesse". The present article title is untenable, and consensus has not been reached on anything better than this previous title. Deb 22:16, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, Deb misrepresents the issue: the article has never been at Alix of Hesse and such address does not yet exist, thus it is not "back" to that. 217.140.193.123 15:38, 20 July 2005 (UTC) :And, the present title is not untenable - overall, being untenable is an opinionated allegation and does not have any place in proper representation of renaming need.

  The article has had 7 previous names, none of which are Alix of Hesse, the closest to that is Princess Alix of Hesse. I have protected the page against moves to try contain the mess. Thryduulf 16:43, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Deb: "Clearly the present title of this article is not acceptable, and it must be moved to a better alternative. Previous votes seem to have ended in stalemate, and I propose we revert to the earlier title, Alix of Hesse, which, whilst not ideal, is at least not counter to article naming standards (or Alix of Hesse and by Rhine as an alternative). Arrigo, who carried out the move to the present name, evidently has no understanding of these standards."

In my opinion, evidently Deb has no understanding of these standards. Arrigo 22:52, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia has a number of artificial rules in naming kings &c; since internationally there is an acute need of disambiguation. BTW Charlotte of Prussia looks just as ridiculous as Alix. mikka (t) 18:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Charlotte of Prussia follows standard consort namings internationally (eg, Blanche of Castile, Catherine of Aragon, Ingrid of Sweden etc). The name here is a bastardised hybrid that is out of step with historical naming and indeed elementary royal practice for consorts. It is so ridiculous it is mindboggling. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 19:08, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

But,f.Eire, Catherine of Aragon was originally Catalina of Aragon, and Blanche of Castile was originally Blanca of Castile. Why do you allow these a frenchification of the first name, but not to poor Charlotte her self-chosen russian version Alexandra Fedorovna of Prussia??Arrigo 07:40, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

---

The renaming which added "and by Rhine" to the heading is really inappropriate for encyclopedic purposes. Warning against such ridiculity was clearly readable by the renamer, and therefore I wonder what sort of motivation that person had when doing precisely that. To put "and by Rhine" is so useless and so burdening, approximately the same as adding everywhere "and Northern Ireland" when speaking about Elizabeth II. In an encyclopedia, headings are expected to be concise, and not dumping places where to put all the life story of the subject (all such can better be explained in the article itself). 217.140.193.123 07:29, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I am opposed to any move which results in Alexandra being back at "Alix." I'd prefer to see the patronymic spelled "Feodorovna." Beyond this, I'm open, but I agree with Choess that it'd be better to set a general standard for Russian consorts. As to the argument that "Alix of Hesse" and "Charlotte of Prussia" are somehow in line with other consort names, that simply isn't the case. Unlike "Catherine of Aragon," who was "Queen Catherine," "Dagmar of Denmark" was "Empress Marie," "Alix of Hesse and by Rhine" was "Empress Alexandra," and so forth. The change of given name is a substantively different issue from the question of whether we should use the maiden territorial designation. john k 04:18, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I think the decision-making with this present article has gone so far that the matter will be decided here. Most of Deb's allies (those who want Alix "back") have not contributed anything to the decision-making in the new discussion of general standard. It is always easier for less-knowledgeable to simply vote at one case, rather than give reasons. Arrigo 07:40, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

There are some other Wikipedias which have article about this subject. Three examples of such are located in ""Alexandra von Hessen-Darmstadt", "Alexandra de Hesse", and "Alexandra av Hessen". As these are using her post-conversion first name together with her maiden territorial designation (as was this English wikipedia when the subject was under Alexandra of Hesse), I must ask is all other world in wrong and a handful of persons here absolutely correct when they maintain that post-conversion first name cannot be together with maiden territorial designation and that such is untenable and that it is bastardised hybrid and that it is out of step and it is mindbogglingly ridiculous and that it counters naming standards and that it is misleading and that it is impossible. 217.140.193.123 18:18, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Sock puppetry

Arrigo: are you denying that the edits of 217.140.193.123 are yours? Choess 00:37, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Please avoid calling names. "Sock puppetry" refers to the case of multiple user names. IPs are not counted in votes, so writing from multiple IPs, apart from being technically beyound the user's control, is harmless. mikka (t) 18:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I think you may misunderstand. The 62.78.* account, while probably Arrigo (though I'm not certain; hence my question) predates his signing up for a username by several months, and I don't object to that. What I object to is his use of the (persistent, DSL) IP 217.140.193.123 (which he's had for some time) to make edits, use of that IP's Talk page as a sandbox, etc., when he concurrently has an actual, active account as Arrigo. This seems to me to fall within the bounds of sock puppetry but you may be of a different opinion. Choess 22:57, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

How about this?

Sophie Augusta Fredericka... Guess who this is - Catherine the Great! Let's make it Sophie Augusta Fredericka of Russia or something like that. KNewman 00:50, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Since Catherine the Great was an empress regnant as well as empress consort, the two cases are not analogous. Regardless, general opinions on the naming of Russian consorts are best directed here, where I am trying to stimulate a discussion on general rules. Choess 01:34, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Disapproval voting

Can I note my strong distaste for approval voting? I don't especially like any of the supposed options here, but I do strongly oppose any option that would have her listed under the name "Alix." She was not known as Alix, and it is ridiculous to locate her there. Her change of name was not directly related to her marriage (it was related to her conversion), and it is just absurdly kneejerk to force these articles on Russian consorts to completely unfamiliar names. john k 04:57, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

That's not quite true, John. It all depends what you mean by "known as". She was certainly known as Alix by many people (including Queen Victoria). She used to be at Alexandra of Hesse, but for some reason people didn't like that. Deb 17:22, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I have understood that Deb has condemned naming as Alexandra of Hesse (at least in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ANaming_conventions_%28names_and_titles%29&diff=19311432&oldid=19307263 Deb is saying so).

Evidently a misunderstanding on the part of the above anonymous user. Deb 21:38, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, I can understand your frustration. Approval voting is not identical with disapproval voting, BUT you can make your said preferences (sufficiently?) known in approval voting. In approval voting, a voter can vote several alternatives - all those the voter approves. This leaves those non-voted options "disapproved" by that voter's vote. If I understood correctly your desires, then, of the existing alternatives, you apparently "approve" Alexandra Fyodorovna of Hesse, Alexandra Fedorovna of Hesse, and Alexandra of Hesse (thus, these all are such you vote for in approval voting). And you seemingly want to disapprove "Alix of Hesse" and "Alix of Hesse and by Rhine" (which you then do not vote).217.140.193.123 09:22, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I'd prefer Empress Alexandra Feodorovna of Russia, or something similar - I'm not voting on this move, in any case, because I think we need a general policy for Russian Empresses. If Alexandra Feodorovna of Hesse were a choice, I might vote for that - "Feodorovna" is much more common than "Fyodorovna" or "Fedorovna," I think. Alexandra of Hesse seems potentially okay, but I don't especially like it. john k 21:22, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I think that this vote is going to decide the question, more general policies notwithstanding. This actually probably decides the direction of the future general policy... (I have seen this sorts of situations before, and precedential weight of a solved case has much weight in future practice - one of the reasons for it is that certain people lack ability to comprehened more abstract principles, but they deem themselves very entitled to decide cases - there actually might be differences in votes given by such persons, they probably do not understand the logic and contradiction between their votes). Perhaps unfortunate, but I think everyone should be prepared to that sort of precedential value. Arrigo 21:46, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Other encyclopedias and a single most primary consideration in naming policy (most commonly used English name)

From Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English):

"If you are talking about a person, country, town, movie or book, use the most commonly used English version of the name for the article (as you would find it in other encyclopedias)."

I checked several other encyclopedias:

In Britannica, the article is simply called Alexandra and goes:
Alexandra
Russian in full Aleksandra Fyodorovna, original name Alix, Princess (prinzessin) von Hesse-Darmstadt
born... died...
consort of the Russian emperor Nicholas II. Her misrule...

In Columbia Encyclopedia the article is called Alexandra Feodorovna and goes:
Alexandra Feodorovna
1872–1918, last Russian czarina, consort of Nicholas II; she was a Hessian princess and a granddaughter of Queen Victoria. Neurotic and superstitious, she...

Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia calls the article Alexandra Fyodorovna, Empress of Russia. The article goes like this:
Alexandra Fyodorovna, Empress of Russia
Alexandra Fyodorovna, b. June 6 (N.S.), 1872, was the consort of Nicholas II, the last tsar of Russia. She was the daughter of...

In Encyclopedia Americana the article is called Alexandra Fyodorovna, and goes like this:
Alexandra Fyodorovna
Alexandra Fyodorovna (1872-1918), the wife of Emperor Nicholas II of Russia. She was the daughter of...

And finally, Microsoft Encarta. I don't have a full access to it, but from limited free online version I conclude that it does not have a separate article for the tsarina. However, the search for Alexandra gives: Alexandra of Russia entry which consists of the lists of contexts and links to the articles she is mentioned as follows: Alexandra of Russia:
"marriage to Tsar Nicholas II of Russia" and
"damage to Tsar’s prestige" and
"execution with husband and children" all three in Nicholas's article;
"behaviors contributing to the Revolution" in Rasputin's article;
"identification of skeleton using mitochondrial DNA" in Mitochondria article;
"photograph of Tsar’s family" in "Russia’s Royal Family" article.

Just out of curiosity, I checked the 1911 Britannica. At that time EB didn't have a separate article on her, but in Nicholas' article, EB1911 mentions his being married to Alix of Hesse.

Now, of course different encyclopedia have different sets of rules on the articles names. But I beleive, everywhere there is something similar to WP's "Use the most commonly used English name" (which I interpret "Use the name most commonly used in the English language", because some foreign names are not English names, but English media do call foreigners somehow and these are the names we should choose among). The perpetual problem of all article naming disputes is the criteria, to use when choosing a name from the set of commonly used English names, i.e. what name of several to use and why. There were many fights about "best" or "several best" criteria. Advocates of Google test have their arguments, opponents have theirs. My opinion is that Google test is a valid criterion among others (not a single one) but it has a large statistical error and means anything only when {a) the difference is overwhelming, (b) the sampling is statistically significant, hardly the case for a princess, currently a relative obscure figure. For the similar reasons we can't make a meaningful media usage test. My favorite one is the LexisNexis test of what LN considers "[major papers]", because Google News or most other searches include many sources too unestablished for having a specific and consistent style policy. Therefore, we should pay attention to this "other encyclopedia test". None uses "Alix of Hesse", because none views it as a "commonly used name". To summarize, the "most commonly used English name" clause in the WP naming convention, should take precedence over other consideration, with the others stepping in only to choose among the several commonly used, or, for the totally obscure topics, to choose among several "unused". This excludes "Alix of Hesse" as the name of the article, while leaving it a valid name to use within the article in the context. --Irpen 17:35, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

That seems like a worthwhile piece of research. So in fact none of the encyclopedias use the title Alexandra Fyodorovna of Hesse or Alexandra Feodorovna of Hesse? Deb 08:16, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Encyclopedias which use the mere "Alexandra Fyodorovna" or "Alexandra Fyodorovna of Russia", pave way to disambiguation problem. This has been the question originally, and its solution is, as usually accepted, the pre-marital territorial designation. The usualness of that "pre-marital territorial designation" as used or most known name, has not been the criterion in when that rule has been adopted in Wikipedia and in earlier literature. Thus, logically it should not be the criterion in this case either. The royals anyway are prevalently known by their first name(s), and surnames + territorial designations are small appendixes (which could be even artificial). Arrigo 09:07, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I think you mean "criterion". Deb 09:11, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

This "research" doesn't answer what the best name for the article is, but it is clear that it is not "Alix of Hesse" because it is not a "the most commonly used English version of the name ... (as you would find it in other encyclopedias)." as per policy. --Irpen 05:39, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Wrong. You have quoted US-published encyclopædias. The US, uniquely, has a tendency to use native, not international, naming, because of the high numbers of emigrants from individual states who reside in the US and who incorporate their own naming naming into American naming traditions. (Hence efforts here by some US contributors to force the article on Milan to use Milano some time ago. Milano is sometimes used in the US. It is not used outside Italy and the US in English.)Alexandra Fyodorovna of Russia may be a variant beloved of US encyclopædias but it is not the version of the name used internationally. That is Alix of Hesse. Wikipedia is an international sourcebook, so simply because a version of a name is used in the native state and in the US does not mean that version is suitable for use here. But at least your research means we can bin the ludicrous Alexandra Fyodorovna of Hesse.

FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 05:53, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Those are the most respected encyclopedia in English, that's all. If their combined authority of not using Alix of Hesse as the article name (and not even mentioning this as a name in the text) is not convinsing, go argue to change the policy which says "... as you would find it in other encyclopedias", probably for a reason. After you succeed in changing the policy, we can return to the proposal to use Alix of Hesse contrary to what other encyclopedias use. On a side note, I agree that "A.F. of Hesse" may not be the best. Personally, I would move it to Alexandra Fyodorovna, but this is the issue for the separate discussion I am not about to carry right now. First of all, I would like to reach a consensus to put the Alix of Hesse to rest. Then we can discuss other names. --Irpen 06:10, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

A few facts to recall (with my comments italicized)

1. The subject of this article was born "Princess Alix of Hesse" in 1872.
2. She converted to Russian Orthodoxy in 1894 and was rechristened Alexandra Feodorovna (or Fyodorovna).
3. Although Alix has been used as a diminutive for Alexandra by royals (it was for Queen Alexandra, for instance), this is not the case here - the two names are separate, one her full, non-diminutive German birth-name, the other her post-conversion Russian name.
4. Alexandra Feodorovna married Emperor Nicholas II of Russia immediately after her conversion, and became Russian Empress.
5. She is not the only Empress Alexandra Feodorovna/Fyodorovna of Russia. She shares this name with her husband's great-grandmother, née Charlotte of Prussia.
6. When not referring specifically to her early life, she is normally referred to as Alexandra, and not Alix. Nicholas and Alexandra was a popular biography of she and her husband, which was made into a film, and most other works on her use the name Alexandra as her name. As Irpen has demonstrated, this is also true of other encyclopedias.
7. One of our naming policies says that we should use the most common name. It seems clear to me that for her given name, Alexandra is most common.
8. Another of our naming policies says that royal consorts ought to be identified by their pre-marriage territorial designation (for princesses), or their maiden name (for non-princesses). It seems clear to me that her pre-marriage territorial designation is "Hesse" or "Hesse and by Rhine."
9. This would suggest that, under current naming policy, she ought to be at Alexandra of Hesse.
10. This means that the other articles should be at Marie of Württemberg, Elisabeth of Baden, Alexandra of Prussia, Marie of Hesse, and Marie of Denmark.
11. The fact that these names are not very commonly used is neither here nor there, so long as we have odd article locations like Elisabeth of Bavaria. The very people arguing for the artficiality of this suggested solution are the ones who have been most strongly in favor of maintaining the "you have to use the maiden name" rule for all (other) articles on European royalty.
12. This is not to say that current naming policy is necessarily appropriate for Russian consorts. Most consorts, for instance Empress Marie, Nicholas II's mother, are best known by Given Name+Patronymic. Marie Feodorovna, not Marie. And so forth.
13. If we wish to include patronymics, we have two options: either create a somewhat artificial "Given Name+Patronymic+Pre-Marriage Territorial Designation" (Alexandra Fyodorovna of Hesse), or just go full on for the post-marriage title, and figure out some way to disambiguate between the two Marie Feodorovnas and the two Alexandra Feodorovnas.

Based on this recital, I'd like to suggest that Alix vs. Alexandra is a discussion which can be had completely separately from the arguments over patronymic and territorial designation. There is absolutely no reason to use Sophia Dorothea, Louise, Charlotte, Dagmar, and Alix as our article titles for women generally known as Marie, Elisabeth, Alexandra, Marie, and Alexandra, respectively. (I do not include Empress Marie Alexandrovna, who was Marie before her conversion). This issue ought to be settled once and for all. john k 08:08, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

• Also I oppose "Alix" in the heading of the article. Hope it can be abandoned and buried soonest. 217.140.193.123 10:55, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

John wrote: The fact that these names are not very commonly used is neither here nor there, so long as we have odd article locations like Elisabeth of Bavaria. The very people arguing for the artificiality of this suggested solution are the ones who have been most strongly in favor of maintaining the "you have to use the maiden name" rule for all (other) articles on European royalty. and that is true. (I suppose that the said strong "maidenists" will want Anne, Princess Royal to eventually go under Anne Mountbatten since that was Anne's name when she was born. After all, they have succeeded to make Maud of Wales here, despite of the fact that Maud was a daughter of a reigning monarch. And there is always Sophia Dorothea of Hanover. Why Electress Palatine is not yet under Elisabeth of Scotland is something I can only attribute to sad negligence of maidenists who otherwise have gone throughout and littered theirs everywhere. At least Louise of Orleans is under her birth name, although her father became king.) However, we have here those maidenists, a couple of very decisive persons who seem to want unconditionally that maiden name. And then we seem to have some sockpuppets or vassals who endorse what their great lady wants, perhaps not even reading. Thus, is it really realistic to expect that a consensus occurs to abandon "Alix" altogether? Should we waste time to try define that differences are actually deep regarding that detail? 217.140.193.123 10:55, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

• Maud of Wales was in fact the daughter of a reigning monarch, Edward VII of the United Kingdom, the reason she is listed as Maud of Wales is that her father was not king when she married Prince Carl of Denmark, and she then became Princess Carl/Maud of Denmark, until she became Queen Maud of Norway. I know, confusing, but that is what happened. I believe that having Alexandra under Alexandra of Hesse isn't right, since she was NEVER Alexandra of Hesse. She was born as Alix, Princess of Hesse and by Rhine, or Hesse-Darmstadt. There needs to be some sort of consensus on the listing of Russian consorts, as is/was going on. Personally I agree that, as with Mary of Teck and Alexandra of Denmark, she should be Alix of Hesse, or Alix of Hesse and by Rhine. Prsgoddess187 17:20, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

FOR THE RECORD

Contrary to the suggestions made above by User:Arrigo (or 217.140.193.123 or User:69.10.141.71 or whatever he is calling himself today), my sole interest in moving this article is to ensure that the standards of the English wikipedia are maintained. Over the past few years, many of us have laboured long and hard to establish helpful naming conventions and guidelines. This is not for our own benefit; it is intended to make wikipedia easier to use for the person who seeks to retrieve information from it. I have never said, or implied, that I would prefer not to use "Alexandra" as part of the title of this article. "Alexandra" is the English translation of "Alix", and in my opinion, either of these versions of the forename is acceptable, provided that it is used as part of a recognisable name. (In this I am of course completely in agreement with John Kenney.) This is the English wikipedia, and the standards adopted by the wikipedias of other languages are of necessity different in many respects. Simply because an article title is acceptable or preferable in another language does not make it the best choice for a title in the English wikipedia, and there are huge numbers of examples to illustrate this. I myself work regularly in the Welsh and French language wikipedias, both of which have different naming conventions. Sometimes I participate in debate on these conventions, but once they have been decided (usually by a combination of consensus and the expert knowledge of native speakers), I always abide by them. The reason I reject the present title and Arrigo’s alternative is because they are made-up names, meaningless in the outside world and worthless for information retrieval purposes. As Irpen’s research illustrates, they are never used in any other context. They therefore break the cardinal rule of wikipedia article naming: "Use the most common form of the name used in English", and this is why they should not be chosen. It may not always be clear what is the "most common form", but in this case it is very clear what it is not. Arrigo’s devotion to these alternatives appears to be based entirely on the fact that he made them up himself. This explains why he is so fixated with the matter that he has to waste his time formulating tirades against me and anyone else who thwarts him, when he could be spending his time more profitably in making useful contributions to this and other articles. Deb 17:56, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

You are sadly mistaken when imagining that "Alexandra" is the English translation of "Alix". Most of us of course jknow that the English translation of German Alix is Alice - as it actually was as namesake of Alice A.F. received that name. I will not use time to point out other mistakes and misrepresentations in the above tirade. 217.140.193.123 18:46, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[Note, this was written before I saw 217's post above, but enters only after an edit conflict] Alexandra is not the English translation of Alix, any more than it is the English translation of Charlotte, or Marie is the English translation of Dagmar. Alix is the German form of Alice. Alexandra was named after her mother, whose name was, guess what, Alice, and not Alexandra at all. Let me repeat myself: although other Alexandra's have used Alix as a nickname (Queen Alexandra, e.g. - I'm not sure if there are any other examples of this), in Empress Alexandra's case the names bear no relation beyond the coincidental. Alexandra (or Aleksandra, or whatever) was the name that Princess Alix of Hesse took upon her conversion to the Orthodox faith, just as her predecessor Princess Charlotte of Prussia took the same name, or her mother-in-law Princess Dagmar of Denmark took the name Marie/Maria. The fact that the two names are a bit similar looking perhaps influenced Alexandra in her choice of a new name, but the names are different names - neither one is a version of the other. At any rate, Deb, I wish you would address yourself to my suggestions - in particular, would the form ConversionName+Location, with no patronymic, be acceptable to you? john k 18:50, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

If you mean "Alexandra of Hesse", John, I've already voted for it above! Deb 21:12, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, if we try to find translations (which however is in vain, IMO, as such cannot realistically be used), the closest translation of Dagmar would be Margaret. The name Dagmar was invented or became to use for Margaret of Bohemia who married Valdemar II of Denmark and was not earlier in known use anywhere. In Scandinavian proto-language, it meant either shine of dawn or daughter of dawn ("mar" is really old and obsolete word and people are not very sure of its precise meaning). However, there is no need to translate all sorts of Danish Dagmars to Margarets in english. And yet more distant would be to use "Margarita Kristianovna" in Russian.
This brings me to mention one of the reasons why brides, starting from the future Catherine the Great, were induced to adopt a new name and patronymic: The German influence culminating to the time of regent Anna Leopoldovna was felt too damaging, and starting from Empress Elisabeth, russification was the norm. "Leopoldovna"-style half-German versions were not allowed any longer in imperial house. Elisabeth's chosen heir was not allowed to be "Peter Karlovich", or even more German (Karl Peter Ulrich), he took Peter Fedorovich as his romanov name. Catherine was not even allowed to keep her original "Sophia" as Peter the Great's big sister was in ban - otherwise we could have Empress Sophia the Great. 217.140.193.123 19:43, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Can the "Alix" in the title be put to rest now?

It seems to me that while people disagree on many things here, the consensus is being formed that "Alix" in the title is a dead idea. If so, we can consentrate of discussion of choosing between different article titles that include Alexandra as a first word in the title, which leaves us with "A OR A. F. (possibly but not necessarily) of something". If we all agree on discarding "Alix", let's move to this discussion on which I have an opinion too, but I would not like to waste time arguing about this until we made this first small step. --Irpen 19:01, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that "Alexandra" was the name by which she was most commonly known and we should put that in the title. I prefer disambiguation, but "Alexandra of Hesse" would be acceptable if that's what it takes for a consensus. Choess 03:55, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

I wait, but not holding my breath, that all those partisans of Alix would accept. Of course it would be nice to have Alix recognized as dead idea, and I support. Arrigo 09:07, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

The forename has never been an issue for me. Since both "Alix" and "Alexandra" are used frequently to refer to her in English, either is acceptable. This was a red herring drawn across the path to distract us from the real issue of the naming of the article. Deb 18:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Should we take that as a confession: "This (apparently 'Alix of Hesse and by Rhine') was a red herring drawn across the path to distract us from the real issue of the naming of the article." 217.140.193.123 03:08, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

BTW, the article was at Alexandra of Hesse until the end of April, when Mowens35 moved it to Princess Alix of Hesse (which was clearly wrong - "Princess" does not go in titles for reigning consorts.) john k 22:34, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I think it should be moved back to Alexandra of Hesse (though I have heard her called Alix, never Alexandra. But heck, anything is better than the current nutty name on the article. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 22:59, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Since you said "heck, anything is better than the current", would you consent to putting her under Alexandra, Tsarina of Russia ?? (if not, why?) Arrigo 08:56, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, among other things, "Tsarina" is technically inaccurate...she was Empress of Russia. john k 07:41, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Naming of the article with "Alexandra..." being agreed

How about a simple "Alexandra Fyodorovna"? Logistical problems can be easily solved. Current "Alexandra Fyodorovna" article (which disambiguates between the two) could be moved to Alexandra Fyodorovna (disambiguation). At the top of a new "Alexandra Fyodorovna" article, a one line explanation with a link to another princess, similar to what we currently have at the top of Prince Charles' article, would also be in order. Such a solution of the logistical problem would be entirely appropriate, since whoever is looking for "Alexandra Fyodorovna" is far more likely to look for this one. But if the other one was being looked for, the link in the very first line would direct a reader to the appropriate article. I expect the idea itself (rather than solution of a logistical problem it may cause) to use "Alexandra Feodorvna" as compared to other "A or AF (of something)" names may find resistance, but please consider that of four very respected encyclopedias that have a separate article on her (see above, only Britannica uses "Alexandra" and the other three use "A.F.", two without anything else and the third one with "princess of Russia" see above. Again, I am bringing up those encyclopedias, despite unbderstanding perfectly that article naming policies may vary, simply because their usage of A.F. is a strong indication of what name is the most accepted in English. Someone observed that they are all American encyclopedia. I would be glad to consider other non-American English language encyclopedias if someone can find them and refer to them. The most fundamental naming rule of our naming article's policy "use the most commonly used" would take precedence over other conflicting conventions. Skipping "of ..." in the name of the article (of course this would be mentioned in the very first phrase) would prevent the title that some consider akward "Russian name of German place". Please consider this proposal. Thanks! --Irpen 00:10, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Alexandra Feodorovna or Alexandra Fyodorovna could presumably refer to many people besides the two Russian empresses of that name...it may also refer to other members of the Russian imperail family...where would you suggest that the other Empress Alexandra Feodorovna's article be put? Charlotte of Prussia remains intolerable... john k 02:27, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

You are right, there may be plenty of Alexandra Fyodorovnas, and not necessarily within the Russian imperial family. But those are never referred to as simply Aleksandra Fyodorvna. For example a decorated WW2 pilot Alekandra Fyodorovna Akimova, from the famous WW2 Night Witches regiment would get an article Alexandra Akimova without a paternal name at all.

The point is that there is only one notable person that's most commonly referred to by such name. Others are referred to differently. Where to put the other princess is a good question and I agree that Charlotte of Prussia is probably not the best. But she certainly should not go into "Alexandra Fyodorovna" entry, because that's not how she is most commonly referred in history works. We would need to do a separate research to find out how she is usually called. I understand the policy of consistency in naming consorts is importnat. But even more important is naming an article with the most commonly used name for the person, and for this one it would just be Alexandra Fyodorovna. If many would insist that she is also [[... of Hesse]], in spite of this looking akward, then fine, and the article will remain at Alexandra Fyodorovna of Hesse. I feel that simple Alexandra Fyodorovna would be best to use. --Irpen 03:22, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Basically possible to cause ambiguation, but all other people than royalty normally have a surname. Thus, usually only royalty would effecticely be known as "Alexandra Fedorovna" without any further designation. I am not aware of any other royal person with name "Alexandra Fedorovna" than these two tsarinas. Fedor Nikitich Romanov did not have any Alexandra among his daughters, Fedor IV did not have daughters, and Prince Fedor Alexandrovich of Russia had only Irina as his daughter. I know of no one other western bride (e.g of any grandduke) to assume that name. Any other possibilities?
As it is basically unrecommendable because of general disambiguation needs, and thus should not be adopted as any policy, however in this case "Alexandra Fedorovna" could be used for one of those two ladies, as there apparently is no relevant third one. I am not saying that I would much support that, though.
Charlotte of Prussia could be Alexandra Fedorovna of Prussia or Alexandra of Prussia (and, now, having suggested such, let's see some catfight erupt around that...we probably can trust Deb and Jtdirl to immediately come with their abhorrence.)217.140.193.123 03:31, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree that non-royal personages are not a terribly big concern, and I will take your word that there are no other Alexandra Feodorovnas besides the wives of the two Nicholases. Given the massive opposition which has been launched to Name+Patronymic+MaidenTerritorialDesignation, I don't think that will work. If this Alexandra is to be at Alexandra Fyodorovna, I think there's a certain awkwardness to having an article on another Empress of Russia called Alexandra Fyodorovna at Alexandra of Prussia. I would suggest a "parenthetical disambiguation by birth name" issue, which is awkward, but clear. Alexandra Fyodorovna (Charlotte of Prussia). Similarly, we could have Marie Fyodorovna for Nicholas II's mother, and Marie Fyodorovna (Sophia Dorothea of Württemberg) for Paul's consort. [Note: I still prefer the "Feodorovna" spelling, but I'm using "Fyodorovna" because that seems to be the principal spelling we've currently used. We can argue about spelling at some other point]. The other Empresses could be at Elisabeth Alexeevna and Marie Alexandrovna. Would that be tolerable? (Alternately, all the articles could be disambiguated, giving us also Alexandra Fyodorovna (Alix of Hesse and by Rhine) and Marie Fyodorovna (Dagmar of Denmark), but this seems unnecessarily complicated. john k 04:52, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Maria Alexandrovna will be a problem, since there is at least one imperial, Maria Alexandrovna of Russia. btw, what is the whim which somehow seems to make all Marias as "Marie" though that apparently has no support in translitteration practices. They were "Maria" 217.140.193.123 05:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

There is transliteration and there is translation. Presumably, Marie was taken from the French becaause by the late 19th century, English-speakers liked French. The usage seems to be somewhat inconsistent. I've normally seen Alexander III's empress as "Marie," but Orlando Figes's book on the French revolution calls her "Maria Fedorovna." It's not terrifically important, though. john k 17:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Re: propose move to Alexandra Fyodorovna (Alix of Hesse), my comment (opposing): I am not ready to approve this alternative. Parenthetical disambiguation is a mess. There are other alternatives in the vote which are better. Arrigo 09:24, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

How and whether to translate/transliterate, the most logical solution is to check first what version (translated or transliterated and in which particular way in either case) prevails in history texts and other relevant usage. As per the encyclopedia check, it is Alexandra Fyodorovna (not Aleksandra and not Fedorovna or Feodorovna). So, we should use this particular transliteration.

Coming back to the article's title, I think the "parenthetical disambiguation by birth name" that follows the adopted name offered by john k is an optimal solution. I don't see why Alexandra Fyodorovna (Charlotte of Prussia) is awkward, and it is clear indeed. Similar solution was used to disambiguates two church hierarchs both known as Patriarch Filaret, except this is "parenthetical disambiguation by secular name", and their articles are titled Patriarch Filaret (Feodor Romanov) and Patriarch Filaret (Mykhailo Denysenko). I find this solution optimal, elegant and devoid of any controversies. It should be followed by making/editing redirects and dab pages, but that's a doable issue. Let's see if anyone objects, and if this seems agreeable, let's start the vote over about moving this article from Alexandra Fyodorovna of Hesse to Alexandra Fyodorovna (Alix of Hesse). We can then handle how to make the lead of the article. Regards, --Irpen 01:11, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Er, don't necessarily disagree, but Alexandra Fyodorovna (Charlotte of Prussia) is the other Alexandra Fyodorovna. john k 01:14, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Of course, you are right. I corrected myself above before noticing your correction. And once we move this one, the other A.F. can be moved without voting by assuming consensus (neither move requires admin action anyway, but this one clearly requires voting to make sure solution is acceptable. Let's first wait for responses a bit). --Irpen 01:21, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

I added the two new alternatives to the vote above. Talk:Alexandra Fyodorovna of Hesse#Vote. Happy voting. 217.140.193.123 06:56, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Voting at this point is going to be a mess. Why don't we try to see if those of us actually discussing this can come to a consensus, and leave the extraordinarily messy vote alone as a monument to history? john k 07:23, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Because the voting is ongoing. There is a huge danger in trying to suppress a vote, into which people have invested. Which of the two procedures do you think seems more legitimate to outside observers - a vote with at least a dozen voters, or a bid for consensus made in a sidetrack discussion??
In multi-proposal vote, the mechanism basically takes care that if an alternative has potential for a consensus, it will eventually attract most votes. No one should fear to subject a proposition to ongoing vote, if that proposition has any potential. 217.140.193.123 07:37, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I've been bold and moved all the Russian Empress articles to the parenthetical location suggested above. Please commence stoning me to death. john k 23:01, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I tried that once and look what happened! Deb 11:00, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, we know that Deb attempted to push her own decision over others, without consensus. She actually confessed: "...carried out a move without consensus, and I had done so prior to that...for much the same reason as John. So yes, it was wrong...". There seems to exist certain bitterness from the part of Deb against those who have not complied to the alternative she personally has been proponent for in this question. (The problem can be seen as Deb, and possibly a few others, being not ready to comply with the right of others to vote according to their understanding and own opinion, not according to Deb's opinion.) This is quite funny, but also quite petty from Deb's and company's part. Thus, there is some justice in that Deb sees what may happen when she does a wrongful thing. Arrigo 21:48, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I must say, it's nice to see you making so much effort to improve your English by constantly amending your own comments. Keep it up and you may one day be able to pass for a native English speaker in some circles. Deb 08:33, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't know how Arrigo will take that comment, Deb, but some users might interpret it as a personal attack. Just be careful. Thryduulf 09:15, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, the above comment by Deb seems to me to be quite typical of Deb's behavioral pattern. She quite often snipes by an irrelevancy when there is nothing substantial she could argue. Steering the discussion to irrelevancy is one of the ways of the behavioral pattern of manipulation. Particularly in order to have the original issue forgotten or half-forgotten. Of course I take the comment by Deb as a personal attack. And, Hanlon's razor says that instead of malice, assume stupidity. Personal attacks are stupid. Arrigo 08:36, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

QED. Deb 17:46, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

First Line

Jtdirl - quit pretending that there's some sort of convention that supports your preferred opening when there isn't. There has never been a settled convention as to how to deal with this issue, and your continuous certainty and self-righteousness about this is becoming rather grating. john k 02:27, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Aarhg. Now we have The Great Battle of Styles (see also Lamest Edit Wars in Wikipedia) in this precious article. Hmph. This reminds me why it would almost be expedient to repel ALL styles from an objective encyclopedia... Regarding the recent (half a dozen?) reverts by Jtdirl and John, I must say that I favor somewhat that version John is proponent for. Perhaps the styles issue however deserves some further thought...
However, it is very clear to me that to use the Jtdirl version of a person who was PROMINENT because of being empress, and thus an Imperial Majesty, it is mindbogglingly stupid pompously ridiculous totally wacko less than recommendable to have the introduction of the article to highlight that she was also "grand ducal highness": Jrdirl pushes all the time the version "Her Grand Ducal Highness Princess Alix of Hesse and by Rhine (German: Victoria Alix Helene Luise Beatrice Prinzessin von Hessen und bei Rhein), 6 June 1872 - 17 July 1918), was Empress consort of Russia, the wife of Nicholas II of Russia|....". Bwahaha. On basis of that wonderful application of our styling masters' accomplishment, I would say that it would be useful for encyclopedic purposes to put all these high styles down through the Most Noble and Eminent Most Puissant and Most Serene Sewage Plughole. 217.140.193.123 03:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, lets also conduct the discussion at talk in a better style. Secondly, lets resolve the issue with an article name first and then deal with the text. Not that I would advocate protecting the article, but I would be willing to overlook for now the edits that I find disagreeable to reach a consensus on the name. We will never solve any argument unless we deal with one issue at a time, or even smaller steps (like agreeing not to use Alix first and then proceeding based on that). --Irpen 04:09, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Besides, the resolution of the naming question will have some bearing to the first line, as it is somewhat agreed that the article should begin with name, presumably the same name as the heading is. (and sometimes ignorant editors change headings on basis of what happens to be written in the first line...) 217.140.193.123 04:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

This is not true. The rule is that the title is the most commonly used name, but the first line is the full name. Thus, we have Robert Stewart, Viscount Castlereagh, but the first line say Robert Stewart, 2nd Marquess of Londonderry. The first line of Tony Blair begins Anthony Charles Lynton Blair. And so forth. john k 16:56, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh, then I had received slightly erroneous information... (I have seen headings changed due to first line, anyway). When you say "the full name", is there any convention about at which stage of life? highest? latest? or, if someone has two different full names, are both reported there? and in what order? what is enforceable policy there, and what is left to writer's taste? 217.140.193.123 17:09, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Normally, highest, except for living people, where it's current. For two full names, it becomes complicated, which is the issue here. The better known one is supposed to go first. john k 14:06, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

It is standard Wikipedia practice to follow a simple format with consorts.

Living consort articles start off with the question - who are they right now?

Dead consorts start at the beginning. So and so was x. They became y. Articles on royal consorts are generally written that way. So Catherine of Aragon like other articles starts with who she was, then say who she became, ie queen consort, "Queen Catherine, who was born Catherine of Aragon . . . " Ditto with other consorts. John seems to think that Russian consorts are somehow immune from that format. I do not see why. There is no reason why this article cannot, like other articles start in the format <style> <birth identity> {dates}, was a such and such princess who as Alexandra Fydorovna was the Empress Consort of Nicholas II. She is not a live consort so should not be treated as such in the manner in which the page is written. Using birth name/title first also allows the article to be written chronologically rather than to start at the end title, and then jump around between names. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 22:20, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

A consort who changed her (fore)name upon marriage is rather different from one who didn't. Let me add that your preferred terminology is odd. We don't say "Her Royal Highness Infanta Catherine of Aragon, who as Queen Catherine was Queen-consort to Henry VIII of England." I would add that I am uncertain why queen-consorts are to be treated differently from other married women, who are called by their married name if that is better known than their pre-marriage name. See Margaret Thatcher, for instance. john k 01:20, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

You know patiently well the difference, John. Stop clowning around with pointless arguments and comparisons you know very well are phoney. You were intimately involved in the debate that set the policy, and you were the one to supported the inclusion of styles in the first place. I argued against it and warned you of the endless edit wars that stupid policy would cause. It is a bit late now to start complaining about the use of styles you yourself championed, and to complain about the following of article and naming structures you yourself were directly involved in framing. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 02:33, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

As to styles - well, I'm getting to the point of saying to hell with it and moving over to opposing it. Cases like this are just annoying - Alexandra was an Imperial Majesty through marriage, so it makes absolutely no sense to begin the article by calling her a Grand Ducal Highness. At any rate, as to the difference, I'm not sure what you mean. Obviously, for article titles, we need to have a unique title, so a certain amount of fudging is necessary. But I don't see why the first line (which doesn't have to be unique) shouldn't follow the "highest title" rule. Peeresses are generally located under their married name. So are, well, most other women. People in general who've changed their names are generally referred to in the first reference by the name that they had for most of their adult life. What you are advocating is that monarchical consorts be the only exception to this. And I am completely unclear as to what the justification of this is. Now, in instances where as queen-consort, a lady was known by her premarriage name - Anne of Austria or Catherine of Aragon or Mary of Modena, or whoever, I have no problem with putting that name first (but note the anglicized/francized versions - their birth names were "Doña Ana de Austria, Infanta of Spain," "Infanta Doña Catalina d'Aragon," "Maria Beatrice d'Este, Princess of Modena," or whatever. We very distinctly do not put these titles first in articles, and there's absolutely no reason that we should. For cases of queen-consorts who are not normally referred to, while queen-consort, by a version of their premarriage name - Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon for instance, or Elisabeth of Bavaria - there is absolutely no reason that their birth name has to go first. Elizabeth (1900-2002), was Queen-Consort of George VI of the United Kingdom. She was born Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon Elisabeth (1837-1898) was Empress to Franz Joseph I of Austria. She was born Elizabeth Amalie Eugenie, Duchess in Bavaria..." This is all the more true for women who actually changed their name before becoming consort. The other way of doing it is incredibly awkward - why are we referring to an Empress as a duchess? Why are we referring to a queen as Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon? No other encyclopedia does this, and I can see no compelling reason for doing so. john k 07:21, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Apparently the two "first line" alternatives are NOW: John champions: "Empress Alexandra Fyodorovna of Russia, born Princess Alix of Hesse and by Rhine (German: Victoria Alix Helene Luise Beatrice Prinzessin von Hessen und bei Rhein), 6 June 1872 - 17 July 1918), was Empress consort of Russia, the wife of Tsar Nicholas II of Russia, the last Tsar.... " and
Jtdirl champions: "Princess Alix of Hesse and by Rhine (German: Victoria Alix Helene Luise Beatrice Prinzessin von Hessen und bei Rhein), 6 June 1872 - 17 July 1918), under the title Empress Alexandra Fyodorovna, was Empress consort of Russia. She was the wife of Tsar Nicholas II of Russia, the last Tsar....". At least the edit war has led to improvement of Jtdirl's version (e.g, the anathema-like grand ducal highness has now found a better place somewhere in the end of the article), and thus the Wikipedia process has shown its strengths. Although I have a slight preference for John's version yet, I have any extreme distaste for neither of those two versions. Therefore, I will observe with interest if that edit war happens to continue :) 217.140.193.123 06:40, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

BTW, I'm trying to open a proposal on this, and other matters at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies). john k 18:57, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

• For previous discussions, please see /Archive 1

Move to Alexandra Fyodorovna (Alix of Hesse)

I have reverted the page move as the vote is still on-going. The destination you moved it to has 0 support votes and 1 oppose votes. Consensus must be gained before a page move, not after it. Thryduulf 10:48, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

There is pretty clearly one supporting vote (unsigned, but probably from Jtdirl or Deb, given the content). Myself and Irpen have clearly also supported it, even if we haven't voted. And one isn't allowed to vote to oppose on approval voting. At any rate, the idea that the vote is ongoing is ridiculous. The vote is still on the page, but nobody has really been voting on it for some time, and there's also been lengthy discussion. Out of that discussion, it appeared to me, at least, that this suggestion was the one that had the greatest chance of getting consensus, so I decided to be bold and do it. In terms of it having no support, that is because it was only added as an option after most people had already voted. I don't see the value of holding everything hostage to a stagnant vote that was flawed to begin with. john k 14:33, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

There were flaws in the beginning of the vote, as Deb who originally formulated it, had made is a mess. However, the vote was gradually formulated a good one (=multi-proposal approval vote) and is fully valid. All alternatives are presented and are welcomig voters yet. The correct thing for proponents of "Alexandra Fyodorovna (Alix of Hesse)" is to go vote it and we'll see whether it collects more or less votes than other alternatives. The incorrect thing is for proponents of an alternative not to subject their alternative to vote, but to push it to use. Arrigo 21:40, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Stop blaming Deb for things she is not responsible for. The mess we have is largely your creation. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:45, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I have not blamed Deb for anything she is not responsible for. Arrigo 13:11, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

The problem with the vote is that it it is way up the page, and everybody already voted, and there's too many options. You seem to be the only one objecting to this format, in any event. john k 14:55, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Known use of Russian firstname+patronymic + Western territorial designation

I recalled that in 19th century, there lived certain "semi-imperial" families in Russia, such that were according to Pauline Law entitled to succeed to the imperial throne in case of male dynasts going extinct, and which had chosen to reside in Russia, being orthodox and enjoy property in Russia. First time I came across mentions of those families was years ago in memoirs of grand duke Alexander Mikhailovich. Now I checked in our university library some old Almanach de Gothas and some extant lists in Russian court/ bureaucracy calendars. And, surprise, such families were sometimes there. Those families were: Oldenburg, who were descended from grand duchess Catherine Pavlovna, sister of Alexander I; Mecklenburg-Strelitz who were descended from a daughter of sonless grand duke Michael Pavlovich of Russia; and Leuchtenberg who were descended from eldest daughter of Nicholas I.

According to those works of reference, there existed gentlemen such as "Alexander Yurievich, Duke of Leuchtenberg, Prince Romanovsky" (1881-1942) and "Sergei Yurievich of Leuchtenberg, Prince Romanovsky" (1890-1974); Prince Peter Yurievich of Oldenburg (1812-81), HIH Prince Alexander Petrovich of Oldenburg (father-in-law of Nicholas II's youngest sister), and Prince Mihail Yurievich of Mecklenburg-Strelitz (1863-1934). The most relevant finding however is the existence of Princess Alexandra Petrovna of Oldenburg (b 1838 in St.Petersburg, d 1900 in Kiev), born and lived apparently as orthodox and was known as Alexandra Petrovna, was granddaughter of that grand duchess Catherine Pavlovna, and when married, in 1856, to Grand duke Nicholas Nicolaievich, third son of Nicholas I, was well known as "Princess Alexandra Petrovna of Oldenburg" - and in later genealogical representations was presented as "Alexandra Petrovna of Oldenburg". 217.140.193.123 00:22, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Next stage of voting

At the moment we seem to have consensus that the article needs to be moved. However, we do not have consensus about where to move it. (I'm getting a sense of déjà vu here...) My suggestion is that we have a further vote, where people can only vote for one alternative, either Alexandra of Hesse or Alix of Hesse, and that we limit the time allowed for voting. Views, please. Deb 21:13, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Please do not imagine things. There is no clear consensus for moving. And, sadly for you, you are not allowed to restrict people to vote only those alternatives you want. 217.140.193.123 21:25, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

only when oppose votes are allowed, the consensus name could be seen. Not necessarily the name with the highest number of support votes, but the least opposed name (if the number of support votes is also reasonably high) would be a consensus version. There is nothing we can do with the old voting but discard it. And we should agree on the format of the new vote before starting it. That is, I urge all parties not to start a new vote all of a sudden before we reach a consensus on its format. --Irpen 21:42, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

I see. Well, that's what I'm trying to do by making a proposal and asking for other people's opinions. What is your proposal for a new voting format? Deb 22:00, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Basically, the multi-propose Approval Voting we recently used, is designed precisely for that. Approve an alternative means approval, no vote to an alternative means oppose. The result gives that or those alternatives which have highest net voter number, just as Irpen wishes with "approve & oppose". The only basic structural weakness of Approval Voting (if voters are honest) actually is that it is not designed to register priority order of a voter and thus not whether an individual approve vote is strong or weak. But even this can be made by enlightened voters, they just need to write "weak approve" or "strong approve" when voting for any alternative - and the interpretation will be the task of the interpreter. However, what happened with the (yet ongoing) vote is not due to weaknesses of the voting system, but due to the problem that our subject is difficult to name in a generally accepted way. She simply is difficult. There are reasonable, sufficiently-well-founded arguments her to be placed under headings which almost all make some to oppose. And thus the vote splits. This being the basic situation, NO VOTING SYSTEM will ever cure it - unless using "violence". Of course a voting system could be designed which favors something and violates some others, and thus a decision will be made - against half of the population who are then totally pissed at. Such voting systems were used by dictators, by oligarchs, etc.
Personally, I am somewhat puzzled why not a higher number of people came and put their (perhaps secondary, or label "weak") approval to "Alexandra of Hesse" - but that is the result of the will of those voters. 217.140.193.123 22:41, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Approval voting does not show disapproval, because it cannot distinguish between opposition and indifference. I am indifferent to most of the proposals above, but I am opposed to some of them. Unfortunately, the only way I can distinguish between these is to vote for the options which I am indifferent to. But why should the choices have to be in this range? Furthermore, it is genuinely impossible to tell who opposes what option, because in addition to the difference between opposition and indifference, there's the fact that a vast number of people simply don't care about this vote at all. To say that not voting for an option is opposing it is simply absurd - approval voting very clearly does not allow for force of opposition as a means to decide what the option should be. In a system which is supposed to be designed towards finding consensus, and not towards majority rule, it seems to me that figuring out what the most disliked options are is perhaps more important than finding out what the most liked one is. At any rate, at present there are simply too many options, many with similar levels of support, and no real way to figure out what the one with the most real support is. Given the number of issues at hand, what we need is a vote that is structured around the basic issues under dispute - Alexandra vs. Alix; Hesse vs. Russia (or nothing); the word "Empress" or not; Patronymic or not; Hesse or Hesse & by Rhine. Settling each of these issues ought to settle the issue in a way that is not haphazard and confusing. That said, I continue to support the parenthetical form to which I moved all the other Russian Empress articles, because it includes both of the important names that we have been disputing - both the consort name (Alexandra Fyodorovna) and the birth name (Alix of Hesse/Alix of Hesse and by Rhine) find their place here, and it's not incredibly awkward. If nobody besides Arrigo opposes that form, I don't see why we can't just settle on it. I'd also note my general distaste for the "Alexandra of Hesse" form, which seems to be vying for the "least strongly opposed" category. At least "Alexandra Fyodorovna of Hesse" proclaims itself as a weird bastard form, so there can be no confusion. "Alexandra of Hesse" is also a weird bastard form, it just doesn't look like one (just think of Maria of Denmark). That's perhaps more dangerousjohn k 05:55, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Moving all articles as per John was a bold move that I would not dare, but I support the idea in full. As well as solving the problem stage by stage. In fact it already worked. Riddance of Alix as the first word seemed to have been agreed. Anyway, I do not know yet how to organize the voting, but parenthical disambiguation is a clear and working solution. As I said above, it is already used by consensus (See Patriarch Filaret). --Irpen 06:17, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Whilst I can see your point, I think that the idea of voting on specific words, eg. "Alexandra" vs "Alix", is rather dangerous, as it might well result in a hybrid that means nothing to anybody. I wouldn't be able to give a clear vote on any of the alternatives you suggest, because I am happy with any one of them in context. It's when you put them together in an artificial way that the problems really begin. For example, I haven't got a problem with the patronymic, but to put it with "of Hesse" is just ludicrous.

I support the above rationale.Lethiere 04:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Likewise, I'm happy with either "Alix" (her real name) or "Alexandra" (which, regardless of what was said above, is the English version of her name, even though it's not a direct translation). And so on. Deb 17:17, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah. I can see a result "Victoria Alix Feodorovna of the Rhine-Russia, Grand Ducal Highness the Tsaritsa" from a bunch of nice rounds of voting, component by component. Then I can see Jtdirl come screaming bloody murder (not that it would much differ from the present). 217.140.193.123 08:42, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Naming of Grand Duchesses: I observed that the nobility-worker Majtlav has moved a certain grand duchess from Princess Alexandra of Greece (where I had left her) to another location. After which, I would love to put her under heading "Alexandra Yurievna of Greece" Arrigo 00:47, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Move?

It seems like Alexandra of Hesse has the most weight behind it with no opposition. However, if this is not the case I'll probably sticker this one with a "no consensus" template for now.... Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 00:27, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

There clearly was no consensus yet. --Irpen 01:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

OK - thanks. I'll close the RFM request :). Refile when there is a consensus please :) - Take care :)! Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 14:40, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Time to archive?

I happened to come across this article by way of Category:Requested moves. Would anyone object to portions of this discussion being archived? Also, what is the status regarding the renaming of this article? Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Not related to the great name controversy...

I found an inconsistancy in this article which appears in several articles related to the family of Nicholas II. When the remains of the family were found, two children were missing. One was Alexi, the other either Maria or Anastasia. This article mentions the missing child twice, once as "presumed to be Maria" and once as "presumed to be Anastasia". I don't have enough background on this subject to make a judgement either way, but I think that something consistant needs to be used. Maybe just say "either Anastasia or Maria"? What do you all think? Sieve

I certainly agree, although I think Anastasia is missing, since the body under the coffin which says 'Anastasia' measures 5'7 inches despite the fact that Anastasia was the shortest of her sisters.

More alternatives

What about a generic Alexandra Fyodorovna of Russia or Alexandra Fyodorovna Romanova? Maybe it's the most technically incorrect and artifical of them all, but the least confusing (at least to a Russian ear).

(sarcasm mode on) I guess didn't have a SSN, right? Would make an ideal non-ambiguous name... (sarcasm mode off). --DmitryKo 20:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

How about Empress Alexandra of Russia (1872-1918), or Empress Alexandra Fyodorovna of Russia (1872-1918), that would solve the conflict with the other Empress Alexandra of Russia (1798-1860)? "Alexandra of Russia" would imply she was ruler, like "Catherine of Russia". Also a combination of her russian name + Hesse would be historically simply incorrect. She is either "Princess Alix of Hesse and Rhine" or "Empress Alexandra of Russia", but noth both... Gryffindor 13:18, 2 October 2005 (UTC)