Talk:Sinatruces of Parthia
Appearance
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Requested move 17 April 2019
[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 per rough consensus — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:43, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
– More common variant, per prominent sources such as [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] HistoryofIran (talk) 12:27, 17 April 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. SITH (talk) 11:33, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support - Per nom. The Oxford Classical Dictionary[6] also uses "Sinatruces". - LouisAragon (talk) 13:24, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose - Don't know that it makes much difference, but I'd never even heard of the "i" variant before this. Seems a needless hypercorrection. There's already a redirect, so no one's going to not find the page. BPK (talk) 13:46, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- If it doesn't make much of a difference then why are you opposing? The 'Sinatruces' variant is simply the prevalent spelling amongst scholars nowadays - no offense, but there's not really much weigh in your "i haven't heard of it" argument. Even if there is a redirect, we still use the most common spelling per the rules. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:55, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- I'm opposed to needless hypercorrection. I'm pretty well-read, and I'm not convinced the "i" variant is prevalent. If you invite comment, you get comment. BPK (talk) 15:05, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- But it's not needless, also if numerous prominent sources aren't enough to convince you, then I dunno what is going to. Whatever floats your boat I guess. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:15, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- Jstor search: "Sanatruces Parthian" gets 12 hits, "Sinatruces Parthian" gets 73. Google.books search: "Sanatruces Parthian" gets 686 hits, "Sinatruces Parthian" gets 1,240.
- Its not even close. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:42, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- Your position may well prevail. We've all registered our opinions. I explained mine when questioned. Not really interested in an endless discussion—or a pile-on. I'm content to await the consensus. So should you. BPK (talk) 17:13, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- And you are very welcome to come with your opinion, I'm not criticizing you for it or trying to have a long discussion, it's just that it would be more understandable/easier if you were more thorough in your argument. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:21, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- Your position may well prevail. We've all registered our opinions. I explained mine when questioned. Not really interested in an endless discussion—or a pile-on. I'm content to await the consensus. So should you. BPK (talk) 17:13, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- But it's not needless, also if numerous prominent sources aren't enough to convince you, then I dunno what is going to. Whatever floats your boat I guess. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:15, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- I'm opposed to needless hypercorrection. I'm pretty well-read, and I'm not convinced the "i" variant is prevalent. If you invite comment, you get comment. BPK (talk) 15:05, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- If it doesn't make much of a difference then why are you opposing? The 'Sinatruces' variant is simply the prevalent spelling amongst scholars nowadays - no offense, but there's not really much weigh in your "i haven't heard of it" argument. Even if there is a redirect, we still use the most common spelling per the rules. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:55, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- Why "Sinatruces" and "Sinatruces II" rather than "Sinatruces I" and "Sinatruces II"? Srnec (talk) 02:27, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
- That could also work, it's just that sources generally refer him as "Sinatruces" instead of "Sinatruces I". --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:38, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Categories:
- Start-Class biography articles
- Start-Class biography (royalty) articles
- Unknown-importance biography (royalty) articles
- Royalty work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- Start-Class Iran articles
- Unknown-importance Iran articles
- WikiProject Iran articles
- Start-Class Classical Greece and Rome articles
- Low-importance Classical Greece and Rome articles
- All WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome pages