- 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
– Per WP:TITLECON. Barring the siblings that were kings (namely Saud, Faisal, Khalid, Fahd, Abdullah, and Salman) and the ones that were crown princes (namely Sultan bin Abdulaziz, Nayef bin Abdulaziz, and Muqrin bin Abdulaziz), i.e. the most famous ones, all the other pages on Ibn Saud's children have the surname/house name "Al Saud" included in their titles: Turki I bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, Nasser bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, Saad bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, Sara bint Abdulaziz Al Saud, Mansour bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, Bandar bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, Musa'id bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, Abdul Muhsin bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, Mishaal bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, Qumash bint Abdulaziz Al Saud, Seeta bint Abdulaziz Al Saud, Abdul Rahman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, Mutaib bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, Mishari bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, Badr bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, Turki II bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, Nawwaf bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, Fawwaz bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, Majid bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, Thamir bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, Mamdouh bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, Sattam bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, Ahmed bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, Abdul Majeed bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, Hathloul bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, Mashour bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, Hamoud bin Abdulaziz Al Saud. Moving these seven pages will make their titles consistent with over 25 pages on Saudi Arabian princesses and over 100 pages on Saudi Arabian princes. Keivan.fTalk 07:55, 30 January 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 17:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. ❯❯❯ Raydann(Talk) 17:24, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
- Note: WikiProject Saudi Arabia has been notified of this discussion. Векочел (talk) 22:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
- Note: WikiProject Women's History has been notified of this discussion. Векочел (talk) 22:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
- Support. Seems logical. 2601:249:9301:D570:A8DA:4E39:EB5A:7321 (talk) 00:40, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
- Support per WP:CONSISTENCY. Векочел (talk) 22:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
- Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME — Amakuru (talk) 13:51, 10 February 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.fTalk 18:26, 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.fTalk 20:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
- Relisting comment: Previously closed, the discussion is being relisted for further discussion after a follow up at User_talk:Robertsky#Al_Saud. – robertsky (talk) 17:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
- Strong support, per WP:CONSISTENCY. FYI, the names without Al Saud are not their common names. --Egeymi (talk) 18:43, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
- Relisting comment: Previously closed, the discussion is being relisted for further discussion after a follow up at User_talk:Raydann#Al_Saud. ❯❯❯ Raydann(Talk) 17:24, 23 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.fTalk 18:10, 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.
