Talk:Flavius Theodosius

Requested move 7 May 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: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 13:34, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

---

Flavius Theodosius (disambiguation) → Flavius Theodosius – no primary topic: two emperors of this name, plus other people whom it could also plausibly refer to Avilich (talk) 01:43, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink).  — Amakuru (talk) 06:07, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

More evidence, as requested. "Flavius" was an extremely common status marker in late antiquity, it was and is uncommon to refer to someone as such (it's hard to explain, I had hoped to avoid this altogether, but an inadequate explanation appears here). The formulation "Flavius [...]" is always ambiguous when multiple people are involved, regardless of how well known one individual is. I've seen it used more often for Theodosius I's father, count Theodosius, than the emperor himself. Avilich (talk) 11:41, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - this needs a discussion I think, as doesn't seem Uncontroversial. Theodosius I gets 3x the page views of Theodosius II,[1] and is also known as "Theodosius the Great", suggesting he's of higher long-term significance, one of the WP:PTOPIC indicators.  — Amakuru (talk) 06:07, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• ...well, I wasn't expecting this. But raw page views have no bearing on this, only whether or not 'Flavius Theodosius' is more likely to be applied for one of them specially. Avilich (talk) 11:09, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

  You can't say the page views have no bearing, because they indicate which of the "two emperors of this name" readers are more interested in. The purpose of this discussion is to determine the primary topic for the term "Flavius Theodosius", and unless there's some evidence that the second one is more often referred to by that title than the first one, then the page views are an accurate measure.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:19, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

  Addressing the specific question of primary topic for Flavius Theodosius, I've looked at regular search results and book search results, and although the second Theodosius appears a few times in the results, the vast majority are for the first. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:26, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

  • It is more popular for Theodosius I for the same reason the article "Theodosius I" has a higher traffic, but that's no evidence that "Flavius Theodosius" is to be applied for him specifically. The term is inherently ambiguous, and raw numbers of traffic are "are not considered absolute determining factors, due to unreliability, potential bias, and other reasons" (WP:DPT). Anyway, I gave some more arguments above. Avilich (talk) 11:46, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support per nomination. Although Theodosius the Great and his son Theodosius the Younger are indisputably notable among those named Theodosius, their entries give no indication that they were prominently known as Flavius Theodosius, thus suggesting that the standalone form "Flavius Theodosius" has no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 09:59, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

  Again, as per above, that is a logical fallacy. Even if they're both only occasionally known as "Flavius Theodosius", there can easily still be a primary topic for that term. A move away from the status quo has been proposed here, and it would be useful to have at least some evidence as to why the proposer thinks it is merited.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:19, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

  • There's nothing fallacious about what he said. There's no evidence "Flavius Theodosius" refers unambiguously, in the eyes of someone unfamiliar with the topic, to Theodosius I. Search results alone are inherently unreliable according to the guidelines you yourself cited. Avilich (talk) 14:04, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support per nom. No primary topic for this particular term. It's irrelevant that one is more famous than the others under a different name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:53, 10 May 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.