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) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 17:17, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edgar the Peaceful → Edgar, King of England – The name Edgar the Peaceful is rarely if ever used in reliable sources, which should be the basis of article titles. I have checked the indexes of some 30 academic books on the period, and none have Edgar the Peaceful. One has Edgar Pacificus and one Edgar the Peaceable. Some show him as just "king" which is obviously not suitable as the title.

Eight show him as "Edgar, king of the English": Morris, The Anglo-Saxons; Barrow ed., Myth, Rulership, Church and Charters; Scragg ed., Edgar, king of the English; Charles-Edwards, Wales and the Britons; Marafioti, The King's Body; Naismith, Early Medieval Britain; Roach, Kingship and Consent; Wormald, Making of English Law.

Eleven show him as king of England: Winterbottom and Lapidge, The Early Lives of St Dunstan; Brooks ed., St Oswald; Crick ed., A Social History of England; Cooper, Monk-Bishops; Campbell, Anglo-Saxon State; Barker ed., St Wulfsige; Yorke, Wessex in the Early Middle Ages; Foot, Æthelstan; Hart, Danelaw; Higham and Ryan, The Anglo-Saxon World; (as Eadgar) Blair, The Church in Anglo-Saxon Society.

Either of these would be fine, but England is slightly more popular and simpler for readers. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:31, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Consistent with Wikipedia:Article titles and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility). DrKay (talk) 12:00, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question - in the style guide that u/DrKay linked to, it seems to recommend "Edgar of England"? Otherwise support. Fredlesaltique (talk) 13:08, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nvm it should be "Edgar, King of England" (sorry can't edit comment on mobile) Fredlesaltique (talk) 13:10, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support; could probably have been a technical request tbh. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:25, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Not a single other pre-Conquest king has "King of England" in the title, currently. Is the nickname (or the alternative, 'Peaceable') really so bad that we have to introduce this inconsistency? Srnec (talk) 15:56, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The criterion for titles of monarchs in all periods is usage by reliable sources, not consistency. Thus we have Stephen, King of England and Æthelberht, King of Wessex, but not "king of" for most other kings because they were usually distinguished in other ways. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:40, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think usage by reliable sources has anything to do with why we have "John, King of England" and "Henry III of England". I think WP:TITLECON and WP:NATURALDIS are relevant policies here. To me, rarely if ever is an exaggeration, although the more common form is 'peaceable'. When the titles of monarchs in a line of succession bounce around between conventions (numeral, nickname, comma-based dab, parenthetical dab, etc.), the reader is left scratching his head trying to figure out the reason. Srnec (talk) 21:38, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You say that "rarely if ever" is an exaggeration, but you do not cite examples. As I said above, in a sample of 30 reliable sources, I did not find one which used Edgar the Peaceful. If readers come to the article through a popular source which does use the term, a redirect will take them to the correct article. Both peaceful and peaceable are translations of his byname pacificus, and as Marc Morris argues (Anglo-Saxons, p. 306), both translations are misleading as he was very quick to use violence when he was crossed; a better one would be peacemaker, someone who preserved the peace by savage punishments.

On your other point, it would be a very unusual reader who gave any thought to the titles in a line of succession, let alone scratched their head about it. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:49, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator has shown that "Edgar the Peaceful" is an obscure name, something that WP:NATURALDIS specifically says should not be used. The style guide at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) says that "When there is no ordinal, the formats John of Bohemia and Joanna of Castile or Stephen, King of England and Anne, Queen of Great Britain are used." If someone now or in the future shows that "Edgar the Peaceful" is the name most commonly used in reliable sources then the title can be changed back, and I would support it. But the nominator has made a good case for why "Edgar, King of England" is best by citing reliable sources. Fredlesaltique (talk) 23:55, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The World Almanac uses Edgar the Peaceful (which is why I've known him this way since childhood). So no, not obscure. Srnec (talk) 02:42, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom rationale. Even if some sources like the World almanac mentioned above by Srnec do indeed use "Edgar the Peaceful", this does not compare to the huge amount of scholarly sources listed above which do not. If "Edgar the Peaceful" was indeed the most common and appropriate name, it would be blatantly more present than it is in relevant literature. Aza24 (talk) 04:54, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]