Talk:Daniel von Sachsen

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 Daniel von Sachsen. This is an incredibly messy RM and whilst this might seem like the Judgment of Solomon-esque close, from the discussion, I believe it's the best option.

As {{u|SnowFire}} points out, Daniel takes a somewhat dim view on the idea of hereditary rulership, notwithstanding the dispute over who should be head of the family. Whilst not conclusive, I would be hesitant to adorn someone with princely titles when they want to distance themselves from the titles. That reason alone suggests a move away, if we can find an acceptable alternative.

Additionally, the considerations from the Franz Wilhelm RM still apply and whilst various formulations may be common, in a post-coup-attempt environment, one has to take into account whether the most common names are problematic. I don't think anyone rebutted the idea that they are. It's a judgment call by each RM closer (hence why the Bernhard RM closed differently), but mine falls on the "probably a bit too problematic" scale.

Of the non-princely names, my impression is that Daniel von Sachsen seems to be the least problematic. It's also commonly used enough (albeit sometimes with "Prinz" affixed) such that it's an acceptable enough article title. (closed by non-admin page mover) Sceptre (talk) 19:50, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Daniel, Margrave of Meissen → Daniel Prinz von Sachsen – I belive, all arguments for or against a move are already listed here: Talk:Franz_Wilhelm_Prinz_von_Preussen#Requested_move_6_December_2022. I prefered this short version of his name as it is used in some of the sources. If anyone may have additional arguments, I'm looking foreward to exchange. Theoreticalmawi (talk) 13:21, 18 January 2023 (UTC)— Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 03:50, 29 January 2023 (UTC) — Relisted. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 11:09, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Oppose Per my reasoning on Talk:Bernhard, Margrave of Baden#Requested move 18 January 2023. I'm also pinging the other commenters on that RM as these are very similar and have the same proposer. @WikaKhan @AviationEnzo Estar8806 (talk) 01:41, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Estar8806 there is literally not one reliable source calling him Daniel, Margrave of Meissen with or sans comma or the german form Daniel Markgraf von Meißen. Beside the normal mess with former german nobility, there is the case of the disputed headship of the house of Saxony. See Alexander, Prince of Saxony who also is not called Margrave of Meissen. These are two additional points compared to the Baden case. Obviously I was to convinced that the point in the RM is strong enough, so I spared the other points. As this are my first RMs, I am still learning. --Theoreticalmawi (talk) 11:47, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Alexander is not an agnate of the House of Saxony like Daniel is. He could not inherit the title Margrave of Meissen because of this. Estar8806 (talk) 18:35, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Estar8806 there are different views on this matter. Some they, Alexander is entitled to be Margrave, some say Daniel is, some say, none of both is. (In Daniels line is at least one morganatic marriage) I will not take a side in this argument and so should Wikipedia WP:NPOV. The best way to stay neutral is to use, what the most reliable sources use, and as mentioned before, none use Margrave of Meissen in any variant. Please stop pressing your views on the fictional german nobility over the facts. --Theoreticalmawi (talk) 21:30, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I am not pressing any of my views over your purported facts. My only intent is to prevent you from continued disruptive editing for changes you Estar8806 (talk) 22:12, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Estar8806 You are the one, who wants "Margrave of Meissen" as title, despite there is not one single source for this claim. Therefore, once again, I ask you politly to either provide sources or to accept the facts that this individual is no "Margrave of Meissen". --Theoreticalmawi (talk) 22:28, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

There are hardly any sources referring the subject of article in the last few years. What are we to assume he has died?

But I will admit you are correct in the dispute over the title. So, I would consider supporting a move to Daniel, Prince of Saxony to match the other claimant, Alexander. Estar8806 (talk) 23:25, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Estar8806 I didn't assume he died. You, of course, can assume whatever you like. but please keep your assumptions out of articles. Everything in an article has to be a verifiable statement. I thank you for your proposal, but as I can't see that Daniel, Prince of Saxony is somehow sourced (I invite you to prove me wrong in this point if I am) this wouldn't be a appropriate name per WP:V. Maybe, to keep consistency, the mentioned article should be reviewed if the article name is chosen well. --Theoreticalmawi (talk) 14:08, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I never assumed he died. I simply said that there is not a single source out of the last few years saying he exists, let alone what his title should be. Sometimes there are just not sources for anything.

We could also revert back to the title of the article prior to April 2022, simply Prince Daniel of Saxony? There is at least one (albeit unreliable) source [1] referring to him as such.

Additionally, a quick search for the proposed title comes up with roughly equal numbers for the proposed title and "Prinz Daniel von Saschen". And with WP:USEENGLISH, that comes to Prince Daniel of Saxony. Estar8806 (talk) 17:17, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Estar8806 Thank you for your proposal. I appreciate that you both argue on unreliable english sources and reliable german sources. Per WP:ENGLISH if there is no established english use (and one unreliable source alone does not establish anything), the german established use is to be considered. Per WP:NCROY we should use the hypothetical title if it is used by a majority of sources. Having roughly 50/50 does not constitute a majority, therefore we should prefer the name version untill either the relation changes or an english use is established.--Theoreticalmawi (talk) 23:01, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I will be the first to admit that perhaps this should never have been moved from Prince Daniel of Saxony, no sources supported the move here.

But, I cannot find any sources to support a move to the proposed title. I will support a move back because there are no sources supporting a move, past or future. Estar8806 (talk) 23:50, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Estar8806 Reliable german sources can be found [2] [3]. It is an established use in the reliable german sources which we should adhere to as long as no english use is estabilished per WP:ENGLISH. --Theoreticalmawi (talk) 09:09, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

• Support, there have been absolutely and without exception no "German princes", "margraves", and whatnot, since the Weimar Constitution went into effect on August 14, 1919. "Markgraf von Baden" is not a title, but a surname, and as such should not be translated. -- Seelefant (talk) 00:12, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

  How can it be a surname when it literally translates to "Margrave of Baden"? Also, this is not in regard to Bernhard, Margrave of Baden. Keep the topic on Daniel, Margrave of Meissen. AviationEnzo (talk) 02:04, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

  @AviationEnzo in the discussion on Bernhard, Margrave of Baden you are participating in, I explained how the former titles, in german law, became surnames. This is how it became a surname. Theoreticalmawi (talk) 08:35, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

• Oppose proposed title makes no sense 1) not a legal name, legal name is Prinz von Sachsen Herzog zu Sachsen 2) most common way of referring to him I can see appears to actually be Prinz Daniel von Sachsen. So I would support a move to Prince Daniel of Saxony to help English readers on the English language enclyopedia. WikaKhan (talk) 14:21, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

  I Refer to my reply at Talk:Bernhard,_Margrave_of_Baden#Requested_move_18_January_2023. If you can prove you point that "Prinz Daniel of Sachsen" is clearly more common than "Daniel Prinz of Sachsen" I would agree on "Prince Daniel of Saxony". To me it appeared the other way round, but I don't mind beeing corrected if I assessed it wrong. Theoreticalmawi (talk) 16:56, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

• 2nd Relist note: see good arguments above with no consensus as yet. What is needed is more participation, more time or both. Hope consensus can be achieved. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 11:09, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
• Support per arguments in previous RM. Someone born in 1975 never was a margrave. [4] is a source showing similar usage, so we're not making this title up. There need to be much stronger COMMONNAME arguments to use Margrave as a term of address than what the refences appear to support. More generally, the subject himself does not appear to wish to adorn himself in hereditary titles per the article of him standing down from attempting to become King of Poland. If he doesn't think he's a Margrave, why is English Wikipedia forcing the title on him? SnowFire (talk) 23:21, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

  @Snowfire - The source you cited refers to the subject as “Prinz Daniel von Saschen” which translates to “Prince Daniel of Saxony”, preferable due to WP:ENGLISH. Would you be amendable to this title? Estar8806 (talk) 01:56, 11 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Proposal for compromise I still uphold, that we should use, whatever is WP:COMMONNAME. I don't know why I didn't consult google to check the incidency of uses. The results I got:

"Daniel Prinz von Sachsen" : 784

"Prinz Daniel von Sachsen" : 822

"Daniel von Sachsen" -"Prinz Daniel von Sachsen": 64.100

I also tried different english versions where I got very few, at least very few reliable, sources.

Therfore Daniel von Sachsen is the commonname. As this clearly is a name, not a title, it doesn't seem fit to be translated. The whole messy situation with names and titles should be explained shortly in the first paragraph and if necessary more detailed later in the article and with redirects to catch any sensible search to find this individual. Theoreticalmawi (talk) 11:19, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Theoreticamawi Would hits for "Daniel von Saschen" not simply include results "Prinz Daniel von Saschen". I fully concur with the nom in that there is no support for the title "Daniel, Margrave of Meissen". But, I also don’t see consensus to move the page elsewhere. Therefore I would propose that the page be returned to Prince Daniel of Saxony, the last stable page. Estar8806 (talk) 14:39, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Estar8806 I explicitly mentioned that the search phrase excluded any mention of "Prinz Daniel von Sachsen". Thank you to ask me to clarify this.

I am tired of your moves to escape WP:COMMONNAME. As consensus is not only about the numbers but also about the argument (WP:COMMONNAME is a much broader consensus in the Wikipedia community than the few voices on this talk page). Therefore, to stay inside the consensus build by this community, there is no other argument than to stay inside WP:COMMONNAME. I accept this wherever I am not consent with an article title. Please do me the favour to accept this, too.

There can be arguments to deviate from WP:COMMONNAME but if any of your arguments is strong enough to do this, is not for me to evaluate. But if you bring arguments, you should somehow argue why we should deviate from WP:COMMONNAME. What is wrong with the common name?

If you want to discuss WP:COMMONNAME in general, this isn't the place, you should do it directly on that talk page. --Theoreticalmawi (talk) 21:56, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Theoreticalmawi Thank you for clarifying, I assumed that was what you had meant, but I was not sure.

Nevertheless, I'm not going to get into this again. But, I am ignoring WP:COMMONNAME because it does not apply in every case. Further, from my research, "Prinz Daniel von Saschen" had slightly more hits than "Daniel von Saschen", likely resulting from different geographic location. Estar8806 (talk) 00:52, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Estar8806 Or more likely because it is "Sachsen", not "Saschen".

As mentioned above, there can be good reasons to not use a common name. But this good reasons need to be laid out. "It does not apply in every case." is not a good reason. Why do you want to use a name different from the common name? Theoreticalmawi (talk) 08:14, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Theoreticalmawi My bad. I was typing that quickly. Nonetheless, I oppose the idea of following what is supposedly the WP:COMMONNAME, it is inaccurate first of all "von Saschen" is not the subject's surname but a territorial designation used prefaced by a Princely title. Diana, Princess of Wales could be "Princess Diana", a common name for her, but that is inaccurate. Estar8806 (talk) 00:07, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Estar8806

If you want to discuss WP:COMMONNAME and the basic guidelines on article names, please do it at the appropriate talk page.

To use a common name is the broad consensus in this community and whoever closes this discussion should consider this on determining consensus.

Of course there are always reasons to not follow the common name in particular cases. But your reasons are ostensible.

First of all, the full legal name of this man is "Daniel Prinz von Sachsen, Herzog zu Sachsen". If you want to argue with a legal name, even though the use of the legal name is discouraged in favour of the common name, argue towards this name. If you prefer yourself another name, which is not the legal name, using "that is not the legal name" as argument looks very odd

In Germany it is common practice to shorten such a long name to a more concise form. Compare for Hermann Otto Solms, following his legal name is Hermann Otto Prinz zu Solms-Hohensolms-Lich, but as the legal name is barely used, the common name is clearly preferred. The concise form is in fact used as it is the surname, not as a territorial designation at all.

I just want to mention, that since the Constitution of 1919, titles of nobility in Germany are abolished and this article of the 1919 constitution was continued in the Grundgesetz. therefore he is, legally, no "Prince Daniel". The only foundation to use "Prince Daniel of Saxony" as article name would therefore be WP:COMMONNAME if it would be the the common name. But what is the common name can anyone verify by themselves by copy&paste my search terms laid out above.

Last of all: Lady Di is a very bad choosen example: She legally was Diana, Princess of Wales, while this individual only is "Daniel Prinz von Sachsen, Herzog zu Sachsen". Furthermore "Princess Diana" is not really WP:PRECISE, as there could be very easily be another princess called Diana in the world. As far as I know only the "Prinz von Sachsen, Herzog zu Sachsen" family is using "von Sachsen" as a surname, therefore "Daniel von Sachsen" is as precise as using the full name. Theoreticalmawi (talk) 08:11, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Note to Closer The nominator of the RM (@Theoreticalmawi) sought out the opinion of one other editor (@Seelefant) on German Wikipedia [5], in a section which has since been deleted (the second deleted section on the link provided). This could be potential WP:VOTESTACKING as nom cited a prior RM proposed by the aforementioned editor whom they notified. Estar8806 (talk) 14:44, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply