Talk:Franz Wilhelm Prinz von Preussen

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This person does not have any styles or titles, such things were abolished in germany in 1919 and in russia at the same time[edit]

He was never a "Royal" or "Imperial" "Highness", such things have not existed in Russia or Germany for nearly 100 years.Smeat75 (talk) 01:17, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Several reliable sources in different languages have been added to the article documenting the post-1919 attribution or use of Royal and/or Imperial Highness for Franz Wilhelm by experts in international titulature; his conversion at the time of marriage to the Russian Orthodox Church; his former position as dynastic consort to the heiress presumptive of the House of Romanov's claim to the former Imperial Russian throne; and his current, notable position as founder of the patriline through which that claim passes via Grand Duke George Mikailovich of Russia, Prince of Prussia. FactStraight (talk) 08:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Prince Franz Wilhelm of Prussia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:45, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

name is not a title[edit]

There has been no "Prince of Prussia", or in fact any German nobility, since the Weimar constitution of 1919. "Prinz von Preußen" is nothing but a surname, please do not translate it. -- Seelefant (talk) 18:50, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The current German naming law situation is one thing, the general understanding worldwide is another. The renaming is an absurdity, because anyone who doesn't speak German will neither understand nor look for the German name. One can be “more papal than the Pope,” but not more royal than a royal family. Equord (talk) 20:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 6 December 2022[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. To begin with, although WP:USEENGLISH was cited a lot in this discussion, I am minded to agree with SnowFire's assessment that we typically do not translate personal names – unless, of course, reliable sources overwhelmingly do that too. From the discussion, and the sources provided by both Seelefant and Surtsicna, that "overwhelmingly" bar is clearly not met – sources typically use "X, Prince of Prussia" or "X Prinz von Preussen", but not "X Prince of Prussia". As any Irish historian will tell you, sometimes a comma (or lack thereof) can be very important.

The more meaty discussion is in regards to WP:COMMONNAME as it applies to WP:NCROY. Both the princely title in pretence and the personal name are commonly used names – the princely title moreso – and which one we go with to is an argument as old as the encyclopedia itself.

Although clumsily argued, Seelefant does bring up one incredibly salient point that has come to the forefront as this RM progressed: the Reichsburger movement. In this context, it's less of a harmless discussion on an AltHist forum over who would be the German king if a butterfly flapped its wings differently, and more about whether we give undue weight to an extreme right-wing POV. Indeed, at Talk:Heinrich XIII Prinz Reuss earlier this month, the community by-and-large rejected the addition of the princely title, and the circumstances behind Prinz-Reuss' recent notability weighed heavily there.

WP:COMMONNAME allows us to use a less common name if a more common one is problematic. From assessing this discussion, I don't think anyone has adequately argued against the assertion that the princely title is problematic. Indeed, several editors take the view that it is problematic. It is from that that I ultimately conclude that the more preferable title when considering the COMMONNAME policy is the personal name.

Finally, on the esszet question: the preferred variant in this discussion is the modern-style "Preussen". (closed by non-admin page mover) Sceptre (talk) 21:50, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

– The Weimar Constitution of 1919 abolished in Article 109 any and all royal and aristocratic prerogatives, including titles. The words of the title were allowed to be retained as part of the family name, which is functionally just that - a regular, "bourgeois" surname that should not be translated, and not be put before the first name, title-style. These persons, born after 1919, are not, have never been, and will never be German princes, no more than a contemporary person carrying the name of "Müller" thereby retains the legal requirements to make and sell bread. Germany is a republic, not a constitutional monarchy. There are no German "princes" today, no matter what some people fancy to call themselves. This should be changed (edit: in accordance with WP:NCROY "do not use dissolved or defunct titles"), and out of respect for Germany's democratic constitution, so not to give the impression that Wikipedia is lending encyclopedic credence to aristocratic pretense. -- Seelefant (talk) 17:23, 6 December 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. BD2412 T 17:00, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:05, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because the reasoning is faulty and contrary to policy. Wikipedia is not here to respect any country's form of government, or religion, or convictions, etc. Wikipedia's article title policy (WP:AT) is based on the principle of using the common name. There is no requirement to use the subject's legal name. If this guy is most commonly called (in English) Prince Franz Wilhelm, then that is the article title per policy. Wikipedia follows the usage in reliable sources, same as with Queen Latifah or Emperor Norton, who are not actually queen or emperor. While we are at it, I should also note that Madonna is not actually Jesus's mother and Carrot Top is not actually a carrot. I hope to see an examination of usage in English-language reliable sources instead. Surtsicna (talk) 18:14, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, it has not been shown that (e.g.) "Prince Franz Wilhelm" is actually the common name of Franz Wilhelm Prinz von Preußen. I can't speak for English sources, but in reliable German sources (minus the tabloid press and aristocratic associations patting each other on the back) the "Prince" version is uncommon. Also an artist's chosen name is hardly the same thing as a family name styled in pretense of abolished royalty. -- Seelefant (talk) 18:46, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For starters, the sources cited in the article call him Prince Franz Wilhelm. Since you are the one proposing a change, it is expected that you should provide a reasoning for the change that is in line with the project's policy. I see no difference between one rich person going by a silly name and another rich person going by a silly name; the policy treats them the same. Surtsicna (talk) 19:40, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, let's look at the given sources!
  • I don't have a printed edition of Burke's Peerage at hand, but the online version sure does not list Germans among the "Royal families of Europe".
  • The Almanach de Gotha is even cited in its 1944, nazified ("arianized") version, yuck! So let's better look at its successors. One of them has none other sitting on their comittee than "Prince" and "Duke" Wilhelm of Prussia, and "of Mecklenburg"! Not a neutral source at all. The other successor is run by a registered association of (former) nobles with "Prince" Alfred v. Schönburg-Hartenstein as its president. This is pure self service and absolutely worthless to establish a "common name".
  • The English weblinks given are sparse and many are kind of iffy. I think most people will agree that sites like "constantinianorder.org", "imperialhouse.ru", "preussen.de", or "haus-preussen.de" are partisan and cannot establish a general use or "common name", the last one (archived) even referred to the late Michael von Preußen as "his royal highness" which is rather sketchy, legally speaking.
  • The Irish Times uses "Georg Friedrich Prinz von Preussen", sans the comma and with the "Prince" in the back where it belongs.
  • CNN explicitely mentions that "Prince of Prussia" is his legal surname, the mentioning of a "ceremonial title" is a private matter that has no basis in law.
  • "Der Spiegel" in its English edition also loses the comma and puts the Prince in the back.
  • The Guardian does the same, and explicitely mentions "it is considered to be part of his surname, not a title".
I have to say, the more I look into this, the more spurious your claim becomes. -- Seelefant (talk) 23:07, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not they are royal is of no consequence to what they are called in sources and hence what Wikipedia should call them; Prince is not royal either. The English-language media sources you have examined there are obviously not supportive of the proposed titles but of the present. Even the Irish Times uses the translated "Prince of Prussia" rather than "Prinz von Preussen", as you claim in your comment. The Spiegel article refers to Georg Friedrich exactly the same as our article: Georg Friedrich, Prince of Prussia. Therefore I fail to see how you think these make my point look spurious. Surtsicna (talk) 18:45, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'd rather the names changed to english versions, example "Francis William", "George Frederick", "William Charles", etc. GoodDay (talk) 19:16, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems a bit anglocentric and doesn’t accurately reflect what the individuals referred to themselves in their native languages. 170.76.231.175 (talk) 21:40, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As this is English-language Wikipedia. It would make sense to use english. GoodDay (talk) 22:42, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • support per WP:NCROY: Do not use hypothetical, dissolved or defunct titles, including pretenders (real or hypothetical), unless this is what the majority of reliable sources use, it doesn't help that the english language sources in these articles are a joke—blindlynx 21:55, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you care to explain how or why the likes of CNN, The Guardian, The Irish Times, and Der Spiegel are "a joke"? Surtsicna (talk) 18:46, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:USEENGLISH. This is honestly a ridiculous proposal. The Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't use non-English words and letters like "Preußen" in their titles for similar types of articles, nor do the other language versions of Wikipedia, so I see no reason why our article titles should either. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:12, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I would not be categorically opposed to an adaption of the spelling to English, ***provided*** it is shown to be common. However, "Prince" or "Prinz" is part of the surname and needs to go with the rest of the surname, not in front where it suggests a legal title that has not existed for more than a century.-- Seelefant (talk)
Seelefant, you have shown it to be common indeed. As it happens, I do not care whether it is in the front or in the back. It seems that a compromise is on the horizont. Surtsicna (talk) 19:04, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. If the majority of high-quality, independent RS use the legal names rather than the pretend translated names, we should follow this usage. I don't think the COMMONNAME was ever actually established for any of these subjects in the first place, and certainly not with the quality of sources needed for BLPs. In my interpretation of BLP/NOTNEWS, if a subject is well-covered in their native language but the only English sources reporting on them are tabloid/entertainment news (or non-independent PR), the good non-English sources should be preferred over the poor English ones; this should be no different for people's names. JoelleJay (talk) 00:05, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
JoelleJay, up above there is a discussion about usage in sources. CNN, The Guardian, the English version of Der Spiegel, and the Irish Times are cited. All use the translated "Prince of Prussia". Surtsicna (talk) 18:49, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those are just the sources in the article. There are other sources, like the New York Times, Art Newspaper, Foreign Policy, ArtNet, Inside Hook, and countless German ones that strictly call him "Prinz von Preussen". JoelleJay (talk) 22:57, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, all but one of those you cited call him "the prince" after introducing him as "Prinz von Preussen". There are also uncited sources calling Georg Friedrich Prince of Prussia, including Reuters, Financial Times, ABC News, The Times, The Daily Telegraph, and The Independent. The overall usage seems to be only slightly in favor of "Prince of Prussia" but the difference in quality of the sources is significant. Given that the coverage in English is extensive, it is reasonable (and in accordance with policy) to set aside the German sources, which obviously will use the German-language titlename. I have found two books discussing Georg Friedrich in some detail, one calling him Prince of Prussia and one calling him Prinz von Preußen instead. I have removed supposed royal titles from quite a few articles when they appeared to be uncommon (example) but this does not seem to be such a case. Surtsicna (talk) 01:16, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
NYT and InsideHook do not call him a "prince", and FP explicitly disclaims "prince" as a real title, but all that is irrelevant since this is only about his name. I recognize that there are English sources--perhaps even edging on a majority--that call him "GF, PoP" (although we can disregard the FT source as "opinion" (can't be used for BLPs), and ABC is a reprint of a Spiegel International piece (as we've already discussed that they use "Georg Friedrich Prince of Prussia")), but IMO when both a "translated" (Google appears to automatically translate any name that is followed by a capitalized title in a foreign language to "NAME[comma] translated title" in English despite no comma existing in the original, which might be the origin of some of these cases) and non-translated version of a name appear regularly in English media, we ought to observe the native form, especially if it relieves confusion over someone's legal position. JoelleJay (talk) 05:07, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would not rely on having the titlename in German to clarify to the readers that the subject is not actually a prince. Whatever the outcome of this discussion, this must be spelled out in the text very clearly. Besides, the preponderance of use of the translated "Prince of Prussia" makes it inevitable that it should be included in the lead in one form or another anyway. Surtsicna (talk) 07:26, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I think you know where I stand on emphasizing the status of defunct titles in article text ;) And of course, we should have the translation in the lead somewhere. JoelleJay (talk) 18:03, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per MOS:HONORIFIC and the above. BilledMammal (talk) 00:54, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The only thing that is relevant is what reliable English-language sources call them. Not personal preference. Not government preference. Not German law. Not "the impression that Wikipedia is lending encyclopedic credence to aristocratic pretense". Not WP:HONORIFIC (which has nothing to do with article titles). None of this is in the slightest bit relevant to naming conventions on English Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:53, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Those are not just funny names. They mean things to people. Have y'all heard of the Reichsbürger movement? [1] [2] -- Seelefant (talk) 09:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Utterly irrelevant. I would note that, personally, I am always in favour of using the native name for almost everything and think that WP:USEENGLISH is massively over-applied, but that's neither here nor there. What I certainly do not support (and have argued against many times) is any allegation that we must use a particular name because the law of a particular country decrees it. That's certainly not how English Wikipedia works. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:00, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the complete and utter lack of sources you have provided to support your claim that putting "Prince" in front indeed constitutes the "common name" of these people, and given your willful ignorance of my provided evidence to the contrary, I have to note that your whole argument boils down to a simple "because I say so"... which doesn't make your indifference to the laws of the country most of these people are from, live in, and may potentially affect with pretentious claims of aristocracy, look particularly good. -- Seelefant (talk) 10:33, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You will note, if you had bothered to actually read what I wrote before beginning your rant, that I have not expressed an opinion as to what the common names are or what the article titles should be! You probably need to properly read and digest other editors' comments before writing rubbish like this. And please stop waffling on about laws; as I have said, this is irrelevant and therefore a complete non-argument. The only argument that matters is WP:COMMONNAME. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:44, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll keep on "waffling" about what I believe to be relevant here, in particular WP:NCROY regarding "dissolved and defunct titles" - with or without your kind permission. -- Seelefant (talk) 14:08, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You expressed an opinion when you said "return to common name" while moving the pages back to their previous titles. Avilich (talk) 14:35, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Simply because the moves had not been discussed, as I pointed out on Seelefant's talkpage. And there has been strenuous opposition to these sorts of moves in the past. What my personal opinion is and what consensus is are two completely different things. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:11, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. WP:USEENGLISH. Shwcz (talk) 11:29, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (but move it instead to ... von Preussen, not Preußen) per NCROY and COMMONNAME. I don't feel strongly about having "Michael Prinz von Preußen" instead of "Michael, Prince of Prussia", but "Prince Michael of Prussia" is unsupported by any guideline or reliable source. Avilich (talk) 23:36, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment
    "Michael Prince of Prussia", etc. - fine with me per USEENGLISH and COMMONNAME, as per the sources listed above
    "Michael, Prince of Prussia", etc. - doesn't really match COMMONNAME as per the sources IMHO, and also might suggest a defunct title contrary to NCROY
    --Seelefant (talk) 18:33, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "Michael Prince of Prussia" without a comma is clearly not English! Either use the English version with a comma or the German version without. The hybrid is weird and unencyclopaedic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:37, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But the hybrid version is common in English-language sources. Of the sources cited above, the majority do not use it. Funnily enough, the one that does is an originally German newspaper. Since the argument for having Prince of Prussia instead of Prinz von Preußen is the WP:COMMONNAME policy, the comma can/should be dropped if it is not commonly used. Surtsicna (talk) 18:58, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Normally I support COMMONNAME, but I'm afraid I do not accept that usage of bad English by sources is a good reason for an encyclopaedia to use it, particularly not if that bad English is being used by a publication (even one in English) from a country where English is not the native language. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:46, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (although minorly prefer von Preussen on the diacritic), barring strong evidence of these as a "common name" (which nominator has indicated points the other way if anything). These people were all born after the German nobility was abolished, so they never had these as an actual recognized government title like calling them a Prince in English suggests. In fact, I'd be fine with getting rid of "Prinz von XYZ" as well if there were other common name terms, but that should probably be done on a case-by-case basis. SnowFire (talk) 18:29, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SnowFire, how has the nominator indicated that the proposed titles reflect common usage in English? Literally each English language source they cited calls these men "Prince of Prussia". Surtsicna (talk) 18:51, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sold by JoelleJay's comments above. More generally, I would tend to place a smaller emphasis on sources that are too directly tied to their status as nobility, and prefer neutral newspaper references to be used if possible. SnowFire (talk) 16:37, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is an unreasonable expectation given that their only claim to notability is their supposed status as nobility. Surtsicna (talk) 08:32, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another guideline worth considering is WP:SELFIDENTITY: "Use the term that is most commonly used by recent reliable sources. If it is unclear which is most used, use the term that the person or group uses." I do not think it is unclear that the in English the term Prince of Prussia is more common than Prinz von Preußen, but in any case Georg Friedrich self-identifies on his official website as "Georg Friedrich, Prince of Prussia". Surtsicna (talk) 01:24, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure if this is an explicit exception to ABOUTSELF, but I personally place more hesitance about invoking that when it's "claiming a government title" or at least looking like that. Queen Latifah doesn't claim to be queen of anywhere. The Prussian nobility, meanwhile, is real-if-since-abolished. It is perhaps more obvious with more grandiose extinct titles, like if a descendent of Napoleon self-identified as "Emperor of France" in their communications - we wouldn't necessarily stick that in the article title without an overwhelming COMMONNAME case. SnowFire (talk) 16:37, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The suggestion that the purpose and meaning of WP:SELFIDENTITY is to support the fake pretentions for defunct royal titles is nothing more or less then an abuse and perversion of our guidelines.-- Seelefant (talk) 11:36, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose per WP:USEENGLISH. —usernamekiran (talk) 06:41, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. NO evidence that the proposed names are the WP:COMMONNAME in English sources. Indeed, Seelefant's sources above indicate that they are generally referred to by English titles.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:51, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Resolution attempt. Most opposition to the move as first suggested is based on WP:USEENGLISH and WP:COMMONNAME, with sources suggesting the anglicized variants are common. I will respect that. However, WP:NCROY demands not to use "dissolved or defunct" titles. The non-partisan, reliable sources given, such as The Guardian or CNN, do suggest that it is common to write "Prince" as part of the legal surname, and not place it in front as if it still were a legal title. Some even do explicitely quote the German law and constitution mandating this change of title to surname. Therefore, I'm content with Franz Wilhelm Prince of Prussia; Wilhelm Karl Prince of Prussia; Michael Prince of Prussia; Oscar Prince of Prussia (as opposed to his grandfather Prince Oscar of Prussia, who was born in the monarchy, and thus was in fact a prince); and will leave alone Georg Friedrich, Prince of Prussia and Eduard, Prince of Anhalt although the comma is not ideal and may suggest a title in contradiction to WP:NCROY -- Seelefant (talk) 12:47, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Faced with repeated reverts on this topic, the latest of which also purged the redirects, I will state again: labeling these people as faux "princes" is: in violation of WP:NCROY "dissolved or defunct titles"; in violation of WP:COMMONNAME according to the credible sources presented; in contradiction to what's in these people's passports; and in contempt for Germany's democratic constitution and its laws. Most of the opinions expressed here against the original proposal refer to using anglicized names. Opinions that prefer keeping "Prince" in front of the names are in violation of several guidelines, in conflict with all credible facts and sources outside of self-serving aristocratic circles, and therefore, in my opinion, are not eligible to be considered as part of a consensus. --Seelefant (talk) 16:45, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you would be wise to focus on the WP:COMMONNAME portion of your argument - if there is any to be made. The WP:NCROY argument is voided by "unless this is what the majority of reliable sources use"; this is because WP:NCROY, being a guideline, cannot contradict WP:COMMONNAME, which is a policy. The rest is just fluff; Wikipedia is not one bit obligated to pay heed to passports or Germany's laws. Surtsicna (talk) 17:13, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Seelefant, just a comment as a page mover. I am not sure what's the norm on dewiki when it comes to requested move discussions, but this is the second time I have observed a primarily dewiki editor executing page moves before the closure of a Requested move discussion in a week (first instance being at Talk:Heinrich_Reuss#Requested_move_7_December_2022). There is a process for Requested Move discussions, in which involved editors are actively discouraged from closing the discussions they are participating in, as well as making unilateral moves before the closure of the discussions (see the messaging on the article banner). The reversion of your moves by an admin here a couple of hours ago was done in accordance to this. – robertsky (talk) 01:37, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, noted. Dewiki indeed has significantly fewer, and less formal procedures than this. I'm just immensely frustrated by being stuck here in a status quo, where half of the opposing arguments revolve around German vs. anglicized names, which isn't even my main point, and some editors stubbornly claiming that a move should not occur due to WP:COMMONNAME, which I think very obviously flies in the face of what the given sources are saying - at least those that are not part of a ridiculous aristocratic circle-jerk. -- Seelefant (talk) 11:10, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:USEENGLISH. As an English reader, who incidentally has learned it as his second language, I would initially struggle to some degree to figure out what "Preußen" refers to or how it's correctly pronounced. If a change in format is necessary per the concerns raised about these people's actual status, I think it can be done using English words. Thus, instead of "Oskar Prinz von Preußen" we could have "Oscar, Prince of Prussia". Keivan.fTalk 21:06, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Keivan.f Why would you need to translate a last name into English? We don't do that for, e.g., "Mirza"; why would it make any more sense for the surname of "Prinz von Preussen"? JoelleJay (talk) 22:49, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @JoelleJay I would never suggest 'translating' a surname, but are we sure about the so-called surname/title being "Prinz von Preussen"? It was already mentioned here at the beginning that, for example, this article from two years ago on CNN states that Georg Friedrich's ceremonial title and legal surname is "Prince of Prussia". English sources are going back and forth between "Prince of Prussia" and "Prinz von Preussen", and since this is English Wikipedia we should give preference to the English alternative, especially since there are many sources leaning towards using the translated version. And if some people are worried about the impression it might give with regards to their status, I think the matter should be clarified in their respective articles (as long as it's not WP:OR or WP:SYNTHESIS). Because most people would see the article and based on the person's ancestry draw the conclusion that they are actually royal or something, regardless of whether we use "Prince" or "Prinz". We could also use the English alternatives, but without a comma (even though that's not my personal preference), indicating that it's a surname. Because that's what this whole discussion is about to a degree. That people should not think they are actual princes. Keivan.fTalk 23:29, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "Prinz von Preussen/Preußen" is the surname, the title is defunct and not legally recognized so there is no reason for it to be translated (CNN is merely describing what the defunct title used to translate as, there's no way they meant Georg Friedrich's legal surname is the English "Prince of Prussia"). The EU style guide for English translation advises Personal names should retain their original accents, e.g. Cañete, Malmström, Šefčovič. The German ß may, however, be replaced with ss and if the name is essentially a proper name... leave it in the original form. Germany's international broadcaster Deutsche Welle also says But a century ago, the Weimar Constitution determined that all those hereditary titles should be abolished, allowing members of the former nobility to only keep traces of it in their surnames. Therefore, to be exact, since his family name is Prinz von Thurn und Taxis, we shouldn't even be translating the word "prince" — just like anyone else's family name isn't translated into other languages (incidentally, they call Georg Friedrich "Georg Friedrich von Preussen", without the "Prinz"). One of the problems is that Google is poor at recognizing when a word is actually a (sur)name (particularly in German where capitalization isn't a privilege of proper nouns), but does recognize phrases like "X von Y", which it is apparently programmed to always interpret as a title; this leads it to translate anything with that semantic structure into an English title (including introducing a comma where there was none in the original). The same issues plague translations into other languages, leading to journalists accidentally calling Camilla "bunk-bed" in Catalan. English news media are also certainly influenced by what we use on Wikipedia; and yet despite the odds, there are still plenty of English sources that use the native surname for Georg Friedrich, so in my opinion the English translation does not have the overwhelming majority necessary to meet COMMONNAME and override NCROY. JoelleJay (talk) 05:33, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:USEENGLISH. YorkshireExpat (talk) 20:48, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @YorkshireExpat, do you believe we should translate every surname into English? JoelleJay (talk) 23:46, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @JoelleJay, I think @Keivan.f covers it adequately above. At least some things we translate to English. Other Wikipedias feel it appropriate to translate names to their languages, which I don't mind at all. The letter(?) ß doesn't exist on my keyboard, so I don't really feel that it could be English (although I'm not an expert here, so happy to corrected on that point). YorkshireExpat (talk) 08:20, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree about the ß, but that doesn't mean we can't use "Preussen", which is used as much in the English press as the translation is (and is accepted in the EU English style guide). That other wikipedias have translations of places (or even of people's names) does not mean en.wp does or should translate surnames (let alone introduce punctuation denoting a noble title). And NCROY is quite clear that the case for COMMONNAME needs to be overwhelming to override our guidance on defunct titles, which has certainly not been demonstrated. JoelleJay (talk) 17:05, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've decided to rescind my vote. YorkshireExpat (talk) 22:11, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose France Wilhelm Prince of Prussia which is the version used at the start of the article. PatGallacher (talk) 17:19, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on the !votes that have cited WP:USEENGLISH. I agree that USEENGLISH would apply if we were merely switching the title "Prince" / "Prinz" around, but then WP:NCROY would apply as well and note that these people are not actually princes. However, since this is literally a last name, USEENGLISH should not apply - if there's a Danish person with a last name of Møller, we don't translate it to "Miller" (e.g. Michael Møller not Michael Miller). It'd be people of renaming people with the English Prince (surname) to Prinz in German Wikipedia. The only valid rationale to keep these names as is is if there's an English-language COMMONNAME argument, IMO - USEENGLISH shouldn't apply. SnowFire (talk) 05:10, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Nom selectively and misleadingly quotes WP:NCROY, it does indeed say Do not use hypothetical, dissolved or defunct titles as they state, but continues unless this is what the majority of reliable sources use. (Such a qualification, which essentially negates the provision, would not be allowed in many parliaments and similar meetings, but it's what we have here.) Andrewa (talk) 21:45, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Franz_Wilhelm_Prinz_von_Preussen&oldid=1220441762"