Talk:Constans (consul 414)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved. Note this is the name that the article started at. Any additional moves should be discussed on the talk page and a consensus obtained before any additional moves. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Constans (Roman consul) → Constans (consul 414) — The common practice is to disambiguate Roman consuls with the year they held the consulate. --TakenakaN (talk) 16:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, the common practice is to disambiguate, first of all, by the full name. Since none of the emperors is called Flavius Constans, that should be the article title. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "Flavius" is an honorific name, almost a title. You do not use the name Constantine Augustus, do you? --TakenakaN (talk) 01:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's still a nomen, even among late antique imperials; whether, by classical standards, any of them belonged to the gens Flavia is another question.
 * More to the point, the proposed change lacks the advantages prefered by our WP:naming convention: it's not short, it adds no precision, it's not consistent with the treatment of other consuls, it's hard to link to, and it's no more recognizable. (Constantine Augustus would be less recognizable and longer than Constantine, and therefore also fails this test. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It is consistent with other consuls, have you checked? Furthemore, we write Libius Severus, not Flavius Libius Severus, Petronius Maximus, not Flavius Petronius Maximus, Honorius (emperor), not Flavius Honorius, Valens, not Flavius Julius Valens, and so on. So, the name should be Constans, not Flavius Constans, and should be disambiguated with the common form "(consul YEAR)". --TakenakaN (talk) 10:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Neutral  Weak Oppose   Oppose  The disambig. text seems appropriate as it is. Consul 414 means nothing to a random reader.--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It might mean nothing, but it is the standard approach, and it is not a smart think to make an exception for this article alone. Please, could you be so kind to acknowledge this? --TakenakaN (talk) 01:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I had a look and your right the subject areas method appears to be primarily oriented towards including the year for those that are BC. However, it war far less common for those that are AD. Only consul 1 and consul 3 were not created by the nominator in the last week. In fact, before 5 January, it was far more common to see (consul) as the disambiguator for articles containing consul disambiguation in the AD, as demonstrated by; Lucius Valerius Maximus Basilius (consul), Abundantius (consul), Lucius Vipstanus Messalla (consul). So I'd rather see:
 * Constans (Roman consul) → Constans (consul) neutral.
 * Anatolius (consul 440) → Anatolius (consul)
 * Varanes (consul 410) → Varanes (consul) removed. (shares name with other consul)
 * Iohannes (consul 456) → Varanes (consul) removed. (shares name with other consul)
 * I have to agree with Pmanderson that WP:NAME, specifically WP:PRECISION, that over-precision should be avoided. I would support in the inclusion of the year for consuls of the same name, nut I haven't seen that to be the case yet.--Labattblueboy (talk) 22:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You did not check well. These are links I did non create in the last week, as you unfairly accuse me of doing: Marcus Aemilius Lepidus (consul 6), Marcus Furius Camillus (consul of 8 AD), Publius Cornelius Dolabella (consul 10), Manius Aemilius Lepidus (consul 11 CE), Gaius Asinius Pollio (consul AD 23), Lucius Calpurnius Piso (consul 27), Gnaeus Domitius Ahenobarbus (consul 32), Titus Flavius Sabinus (consul 47), Marcus Valerius Messala Corvinus (consul 58), Titus Flavius Sabinus (consul 69), Titus Flavius Sabinus (consul 82), Manius Acilius Glabrio (consul 91).
 * Apart this, you are considering two separate cases for BC and AD, but you fail to explain while a rule you hold valid should be valid in one case and not in the other. --TakenakaN (talk) 12:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I did my best to catch as many as I could, working off the List of Roman consuls. Admittedly, I did not see your listed examples. I went through the list and found that they all appear to be legitimate disambiguations. the consistency in nomenclature may be lacking but they are all individuals who share the same name with other consuls, for which there are articles. On this basis the method of using the year as consul for disambiguation appears proper, as its done out of necessity. Anatolius (consul 440) does not appear to be in the same boat, at least I was not able to find any articles concerning consuls who shared the same name. I am however revising my perspective on Constans (Roman consul). Although I don't see any issue with the current disambiguation, it appears to be clear enough, Constans and Constans II were both consuls, so on that basis you may have a point. I would however like to emphasize that WP:PRECISION notes that over-precision should generally be avoided. Thus including the year of consul should generally be avoided and only done so when necessary, not simply out of habit or perceived common practice.--Labattblueboy (talk) 05:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment FYI, changing the disambig. page links before the move discussion is complete is bad form.--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: FYI, expressing yourself in a clearer way would be a better thing, if you mean to be understood. --TakenakaN (talk) 01:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Excuse me. It is commonly accepted that changing links while a requested move process is ongoing is dishonest as editors use such information for evaluating which name is most appropriate. Your tone is unwelcome. --Labattblueboy (talk) 21:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If you don't like my tone, check yours before, as I rewrote exactly your words. Thanks for the clarifications. However, must stress that I did not change the page moving it from a version without the year to one with the year, as you seem to indicate, but I simply added the new page in the version I assumed to be the correct one. Accusing me of "dishonesty" for such act should be considered bad faith, according to me; "your tone is unwelcome", as someone said.--TakenakaN (talk) 12:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Touche, my comments went a bit too far. My apologies, I should have assume good faith.--Labattblueboy (talk) 05:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. The current title is undesirable, as the emperor Constans was also a consul. The proposed title is apparently consistent with other relevant articles (Category:Imperial Roman consuls and Category:Roman Republican consuls), but I would not oppose a move to Flavius Constans as PMAnderson proposes. Ucucha 11:58, 12 January 2010 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.