Talk:Sophie, Princess of Prussia

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: not moved. (non-admin closure) ~SS49~ {talk} 12:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie, Princess of Prussia → ? – Per discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sophie, Princess of Prussia, this article should be renamed, since the Prussian royal family no longer exists DannyS712 (talk) 04:22, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - in English she gives her name (or title as she may not of taken her husbands legal surname) as we have it [1]. - dwc lr (talk) 06:37, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I sympathize with those who pointed out in the AfD discussion that Prussia no longer exists, and therefore there isn't any state for her to be a 'Princess' of and so on. However, this is the name under which she is represented in the sources that support her biographical article remaining here. Sure, it may be possible to use her pre-marital name Princess Sophie von Isenburg, or even just call her Sophie von Isenburg, but I don't think this would be a satisfactory reflection of her representation by sources. The fact is, she calls herself the Princess of Prussia, and is referred to as such by sources. I'd support something in the lead section pointing out to any casual readers that Prussia is not a existing entity over which her family rules. Having said all that, the WP policy seems to be fairly clear on this matter - don't use defunct titles.
  talk) 07:55, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• That naming convention was added recently with no consensus as far I can see. As you rightly say she calls herself the Princess of Prussia, sources support that usage as is common for deposed royals. The trouble when we move away from sources we engage in Orginal Research, speculating on what someone’s “legal surname” is which as I see it would not be acceptable in a BLP. dwc lr (talk) 08:07, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for letting me know the policy was added without consensus. On balance I think changing the name creates more problems than it solves.
  talk) 08:25, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Oppose. Per the above discussion, but I would support adding something to the lead section making clear that Princess Sophie is not a member of a ruling royal family, and that Prussia is no more, as this is not currently obvious to someone having a casual glance at the article.
  talk) 08:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose. This would appear to be her commonly used name. It is not our job to impose a name on someone. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:18, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I can neither support nor oppose a move to a title that has not been suggested. From what I can see, the present title reflects her
  common name, so it is supported by policy. That this title is poppycock should be made clear in the article. Surtsicna (talk) 15:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:4360:ECD5:5A16:D439:448C (talk) 17:09, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose move per
  WP:COMMONNAME. As far as I can see, all that really needs to be done here is to rewrite the lead to include a direct link to Prussia. That article makes it plainly clear that the nation hasn't existed since 1947. Ejgreen77 (talk) 06:52, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose
  WP:COMMONAME. I hope we aren't trying to impose a name on someone simply because some people dislike hers. Atchom (talk) 03:17, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]