This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Saudi Arabia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Saudi Arabia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Saudi ArabiaWikipedia:WikiProject Saudi ArabiaTemplate:WikiProject Saudi ArabiaSaudi Arabia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
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. This discussion has been twice closed, and twice reopened and relisted. The support !votes brought up WP:CONSISTENCY, presumably intended to be WP:CONSISTENT, while the oppose !vote referenced WP:COMMONNAME. While the common name is important, the other WP:CRITERIA, of which consistency is one, must also be considered. In this particular case, no actual evidence was provided to suggest that the proposed names are any less common than the current names, nor was it suggested or proved that the proposed names. would harm WP:RECOGNIZABILITY. Thus I find the consistency argument to be stronger and there to be a consensus to move these articles. (closed by non-admin page mover) estar8806 (talk) ★01:33, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that one naming format is common for these seven people and another one is common for Ibn Saud's other 70+ children? In that case you are more than welcome to open an RM that covers all of them. The result of several RMs that covered only a limited number of pages has been a total mess and a violation of WP:TITLECON. I see no reason why these seven pages should be treated differently. Keivan.fTalk18:26, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Keivan.f: why should I file an RM to reverse hundreds of undiscussed moves, when the move discussions that have actually addressed the core issues at heart have concluded with the correct WP:CONCISE and WP:COMMONNAME variants? Why don't you actually check the data properly and provide some real evidence rather than just blindly starting an RM based on a false consistency. WP:AT requires us to be use the names used predominantly in sources. — Amakuru (talk) 19:14, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There have been some RMs, yes, but again moving a page without an RM is not necessarily controversial. And those RMs did not even cover many of the pages listed here. Many of these pages were created under their current title, so your argument about "false consistency" is moot. It should be either "[Name] bin/bint [Name]" or "[Name] bin/bint [Name] Al Saud" for all of them, so everyone better make up their mind. We cannot be cherry picking only with a handful of pages which is exactly what happened at the those past RMs and now we have this mess. With regards to evidence, as a sample, Ngrams do not provide any results for Luluwah bint Abdulaziz or Luluwah bint Abdulaziz Al Saud and Google results for both variants are very close 1, 2 (and we cannot rely that much on that either per WP:GOOGLETEST). Keivan.fTalk20:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Raydann: So you're basically gonna relist this discussion for eternity until the user who opposed gets his way? Am I right? Also, for the record, their argument on your talk page that consistency in titles is not a policy is categorically false; consistency is part of WP:CRITERIA which is a policy. Keivan.fTalk18:10, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if it seems that way. I don't have any personal opinion in this move so I relisted it as per request. Relisting will only gather more community input which will be beneficial. Hopefully this will be the last one. ❯❯❯ Raydann(Talk)18:23, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
