Talk:Sinatruces of Parthia

	Biography portal 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 supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility.

Iran

	Iran portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Classical Greece and Rome Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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 — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:43, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

– More common variant, per prominent sources such as [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] HistoryofIran (talk) 12:27, 17 April 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. SITH (talk) 11:33, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Per nom. The Oxford Classical Dictionary[6] also uses "Sinatruces". - LouisAragon (talk) 13:24, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Why "Sinatruces" and "Sinatruces II" rather than "Sinatruces I" and "Sinatruces II"? Srnec (talk) 02:27, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.