Talk:Esma Sultan (daughter of Ahmed III)

Requested move 1 May 2022

 * 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)  casualdejekyll  19:20, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Esma Sultan (daughter of Ahmed III) → Esma Sultan (born 1726) – We should try to avoid marking women as belonging to men. (This move applies to all similarly titled articles, but this is the talk page I'm putting it on because it's the title I initially saw that allowed me to propose this move. Please avoid voting "Oppose per consistency with other titles of sultans' daughters".) Georgia guy (talk) 20:04, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose move, for the same reasons I opposed the Anne Hathaway request five months ago, requested by the same person with the same rationale. There is no policy-based argument to move away from the current titles.  O.N.R.  (talk) 22:16, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per O.N.R. Indeed, WP:Other stuff exists, as depicted in examples submitted for the Anne Hathaway RM. Moreover, non-descriptive parenthetical qualifiers such as those proposed for Anne Hathaway (16th century), Anne Hathaway (died 1623) or Esma Sultan (born 1726) should be only considered as a last resort. Since subject is described in the lead sentence as "an Ottoman princess, daughter of Sultan Ahmed III and his consort Hanife Kadın", a more-intuitive proposed qualifier might be Esma Sultan (Ottoman princess). —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:47, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Roman Spinner, I don't see an ONR page in the Wikipedia project namespace. Georgia guy (talk) 23:16, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Georgia guy, I regret the confusion regarding the meaning of "O.N.R." I meant User:O.N.R. who submitted the vote immediately above mine. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 23:24, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

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.
 * I agree with the sentiment that we should avoid marking women as belonging to men, but I don't agree that's what the current title does. We have a large number of similar titles for articles on men that reference their parents as well, e.g. Constantine (son of Basil I), Arruns Tarquinius (son of Tarquin the Proud), Süleyman Pasha (son of Orhan), Şehzade Bayezid (son of Ahmed I), Jean Monet (son of Claude Monet), Bernard (son of Charles the Fat), Ptolemy Philadelphus (son of Cleopatra), etc. (There are dozens more at the least.) A better argument might be that the subjects of articles should be notable for something other than their parentage, but in that case we should be able to come up with a better disambiguator than the year of birth. Dekimasu よ! 08:26, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose and note that (as noted above) this is at least the second attempt by nom to make this a principle for articles on women (but apparently not for those on men), the first having been rejected not just by consensus but unanimously. Perhaps we need an explicit guideline wp:Wikipedia is not politically correct or perhaps wp:soap already covers it. Andrewa (talk) 17:48, 9 May 2022 (UTC)