Talk:Sinatruces of Parthia

Requested move 17 April 2019

 * 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 &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:43, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

– More common variant, per prominent sources such as     HistoryofIran (talk) 12:27, 17 April 2019 (UTC) --Relisting.   SITH   (talk)   11:33, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Sanatruces of Parthia → Sinatruces of Parthia
 * Sanatruces II of Parthia → Sinatruces II of Parthia
 * Support - Per nom. The Oxford Classical Dictionary 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)


 * 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.