Talk:Tacitus (emperor)

Requested move 11 April 2021

 * 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: Page moved. The was a suggestion to move the page to Emperor Tacitus but didn't gain support. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jerm (talk) 16:10, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Marcus Claudius Tacitus → Tacitus (emperor) – Most sources, such as Britannica refers to him simply as Tacitus, suggesting that that is his Wikipedia:COMMONNAME. 2601:241:300:B610:C072:E2FF:A43F:6722 (talk) 15:07, 11 April 2021 (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.
 * Support: Tacitus (emperor), rather than using the full name in the title as natural disambiguation, is more consistent with other emperors. Adumbrativus (talk) 18:15, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per the above. Egsan Bacon (talk) 20:22, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Move to Emperor Tacitus per WP:NATURALDISAMBIGUATION. It works for Queen Victoria. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:29, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per single-name convention and for consistency with (say) Probus (emperor). Using the full name might make it easy to confuse him with a common person. Disagree with the above proposal for Emperor Tacitus. Avilich (talk) 15:05, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

ambiguous
wikipedia page about Emperor Tacitus is certainly well sourced but is also unsufferably ambiguous about his life due to multiple sources that are cited by wikipedia editors contradict each other. my suggestion would be removing historia augusta as a source considering it's believed to be unreliable by modern historians Nedim Sancar (talk) 15:06, 25 September 2023 (UTC)