The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. Note that this will take some time to do. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 08:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pope Stephen X → Pope Stephen IX –

• Rationale: Pope Stephen IX was called Stephen IX during all his reign, signed his documents "Stephanus papa nonus", the name "Stephen IX" is written on his tomb and he is called "Stephen IX" on the Vatican's list of popes since the 1960s. I've asked for this move since 19 February 2006, but some think it's better to give two variants of the name into one title: Pope Stephen IX (or X). The discussion is now here: Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(names_and_titles)#Numbering_popes_called_Stephen. Švitrigaila 22:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support, because I asked for that move! :o) Švitrigaila 22:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. All the history argues for it. KonradWallenrod 06:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support.. Szopen 09:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Eminently sensible. logologist|Talk 15:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Aldux 16:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Radomil talk 20:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I supported this elsewhere, I support it here. Septentrionalis 22:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Add any additional comments

• Strong object to anything that would have two or more names in one (ex. Pope Stephen X or IX).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 03:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I think as rule there can't be more than one variant of a name in the title of an article. If more than one variant is possible, the title must chose only one and the others must be explained in the text itself and redirects must be used from alternative titles. If such alternative titles were admitted in the article's title itself, then we'd have to rename, for examples, Stepanakert into Stepanakert/Xankəndi, Tighina into Tighina/Bender/Bendery or 2003 invasion of Iraq into 2003 invasion/liberation of Iraq... Švitrigaila 17:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amen. logologist|Talk 05:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems as though one person on a mission, unable to secure agreement to his renaming proposition on the naming convention page, has chosen to take it to a more obscure forum - this page. The nomenclature of double-numbered Ppopes Stephen is well-established: personal feelings and official pronouncements about the second Pope Stephen are irrelevant, as the terminology is routinely used in historical literature, and is necessary to avoid ambiguity. Discussion about these matters, which involve more than "Pope Stephen X", belongs at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles). - Nunh-huh 22:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This approaches slander: WP:RM is hardly obscure. Septentrionalis 22:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, please. It's my opinion, stated as such and the obscure page is "Talk:Pope Stephen X". - Nunh-huh 23:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.