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: Not moved. There is some strong support for this move, and perhaps even stronger support to move to some title other than the current or proposed, but it's not sufficient to overcome the much stronger opposition. I suggest a new RM using a multiple choice ranked survey to help determine if there is consensus to move to any other title. (non-admin closure) В²C ☎ 17:10, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Peter → Peter – From what I can see, this WP:PRIMARYTOPIC name request has not been tried yet. The list on preexisting Peter seems to support the idea of primary topic. In addition, this would be per WP:CONSISTENCY with this short name solution as seen in Primacy of Peter (recently renamed as such on Talk:Primacy of Peter). PPEMES (talk) 16:47, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly oppose move. Saint Peter is not the primary topic for "Peter"; the name Peter is the primary topic. O.N.R. ^(talk) 17:04, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Old Naval Rooftops: does that mean that "Saint" must be kept at all costs? In ictu oculi (talk) 06:44, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[See response to inquiry on ONR's user Talk page] In ictu oculi (talk) 21:32, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Old Naval Rooftops. JeBonSer ^{(talk | sign)} 14:02, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly oppose move. It's amazing how people can keep coming up with alternative doomed proposals here. Per all the many arguments in the earlier discussions linked at the top of the page. Johnbod (talk) 17:15, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Peter: the saint is not the first one who comes to mind. I'm surprised David is different. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:34, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but generally in history, it is Peter the Apostle who stands out as the main “Peter” rather than any other figure. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 19:22, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Auxilium; tu es petrus, et super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam. ——SerialNumber54129 18:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support of any move: Peter the Apostle, or per @Gerda Arendt: Peter (apostle) - Per consistency with RM result‎ @Amakuru: closed 20 May 2016 moving Talk:Primacy of Simon Peter to Talk:Primacy of Peter. Why not Primacy of Saint Peter? Because WP:RS sources don't use "Saint" with Peter. In the past we've seen massive WP:IDON'TLIKEIT local opposition to WP:COMMONNAME, WP:HONORIFIC and WP:NPOV in previous RMs, but this is an encyclopedia not a high church publication. Even Roman Catholic writers refer to "Peter" as "Peter" in running text. When the GBooks results for churches are excluded almost zero WP:RS sources exist for "Saint Peter". Try the "Peter denied" test this compared to this. Now having clicked these two links please those voting for "Saint" explain why WP:COMMONNAME, WP:HONORIFIC and WP:NPOV should all be ditched for a title that is Anti-WP:COMMONNAME, Anti-WP:HONORIFIC and Anti-WP:NPOV? Why must the normal titling basics of en.Wikipedia be reversed for this article? In ictu oculi (talk 19:30, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Peter the Apostle to comform to article names for the other apostles, Andrew the Apostle, John the Apostle, Philip the Apostle, Bartholomew the Apostle, Matthew the Apostle, Thomas the Apostle, Jude the Apostle, Paul the Apostle - Epinoia (talk) 20:15, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Peter the Apostle per above, as Epinoia shows this would adhere to site consistency. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:19, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for Peter the Apostle and King David in the other case. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:39, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose proposed move. No basis for making the saint the primary topic of "Peter" and like Gerda Arendt I'd question David as well. No opinion on any other move, though I note a move to Peter the Apostle has failed to find concensus in previous discussions. PC78 (talk) 23:36, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, either Peter the Apostle or just Peter. Peter the apostle is best per WP:CONSISTENCY. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 00:05, 18 May 2019 (UTC) updated — --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 00:06, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Note WP:CONSISTENCY is not a "major" guideline, and will always be trumped by WP:COMMONNAME, which is why Peter the Apostle has failed before - it just isn't the most common name, while for many/most other apostles it is. Johnbod (talk) 01:06, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is “John the Apostle” any more common, though? --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 01:35, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, but Saint John and John are no good - this has all been covered in sooooooo many previous discussions, which people should read before commenting. Links at head of page. John is not a good situation, given the John the Evangelist situation - two articles for what many still regard as a single figure. Johnbod (talk) 02:38, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- but according to MOS:SAINTS, "Saints go by their most common English name, minus the word "Saint"" - natural disambiguation is provided by "the Apostle" - Epinoia (talk) 01:42, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, normally, but by no means always - see last comment just above. You only quote the start: "Saints go by their most common English name, minus the word "Saint", if such a title is available and the saint is the primary topic for that name" - and then it goes on for quite a while. Johnbod (talk) 02:38, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- ps - to maintain neutral point of view, the honorific Saint should not be used in the article title as not everyone regards Peter as a saint - Epinoia (talk) 02:32, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wow - nobody ever thought of that before!!!! See previous comment. Johnbod (talk) 02:39, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnbod: - we can do without the condescending sarcasm - remember to assume good faith and treat other editors with respect and civility - Epinoia (talk) 02:58, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• And here's a ngram from one of the old discussions. Johnbod (talk) 02:55, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But you know that's an ngram that includes place names and buildings, which I believe that you yourself posted, if I recall correctly, so why link that rather than a "Peter and Jesus" ngram where "Saint Peter and Jesus" gets zero results? Why not use an ngram excluding place names and buildings when we can do so? In ictu oculi (talk) 17:52, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as it fails to meet either criterion of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 03:11, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So why not move Thomas the Apostle or Bartholomew the Apostle to “Saint Thomas” or “Saint Bartholomew the Apostle”? This isn’t an all Catholic wiki. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 17:23, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. If not th current, then next best is Simon Peter. [1]. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:23, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the title as proposed is obviously not going to work @PPEMES:. How the history of this article works is someone issues an RM to move from the completely ludicrous (in en.wp terms) "Saint Peter", and those wanting to fix it then disagree about the options, and User:Johnbod, good faith assumed, then gets to keep it at "Saint". It really needs to go to RFC to stop flouting almost every naming convention we have. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:40, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"almost", apart of course from WP:COMMONNAME, the most important naming convention of all! All of these have exceptions and wriggle-room, which come into play in difficult cases. This was already an long-running saga before I ever started commenting, in fact reading old discussions is a rather melancholy ubi sunt experience. Fwiw, I think the plain "Peter" would be the best alternative to the current name, which I still prefer. Johnbod (talk) 17:17, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But "Saint Peter" is ***NOT*** the WP:COMMONNAME for Peter the apostle, this has been demonstrated clearly - as in the St Peter ngrams below. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:48, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per common name and keep as is. Changed my opinion after reading the former RM and saw the 'Saint Peter' n-grams (even if the basilica, square, and other uses are counted in the n-grams this still adds to the universal common name). Randy Kryn (talk) 10:08, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Randy Kryn: you realize that those n-grams are for buildings not for Peter himself, so why not exclude them? In ictu oculi (talk) 17:36, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Peter denied Christ" = zero for "Saint Peter". ngrams for "Peter walked on water", again zero for "Saint Peter". "Peter and Jesus" again zero for "Saint Peter", "Peter was Jesus'", again zero for Saint Peter and now look at this. So Randy, given that we can exclude buildings why not do so? Why not use ngrams to identify what the WP:COMMONNAME is? In ictu oculi (talk) 17:46, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those n-grams are most certainly not "for buildings", but they do include buildings etc., and why shouldn't they? I notice that, having supported "Peter the Apostle" above, you wisely aren't including that in your n-grams. Btw, I don't think you are doing these properly, I'm seeing zero results for both terms in some, & the %s are at homeopathic levels. Johnbod (talk) 17:54, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously “Peter the Apostle” isn’t commonly used but then neither is “Thomas the Apostle,” “Bartholomew the Apostle,” etc. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 18:09, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod, those n-grams most certainly are "for buildings" then. Re. "and why shouldn't they?" because this is an RM for the individual Peter the fisherman. Not for St Peters Cathedral. Why should the names of cathedrals be counted in an article which is not about cathedrals. "Saint Peter and Jesus" gets 867 GBook results vs "Peter and Jesus" gets 128,000 GBook results, yes the current "Saint" title is at homeopathic levels, less than 1%. The whole reason for removing "Saint" is that the 1% is not the WP:COMMONNAME and the 99% without "Saint" is the WP:COMMONNAME. How can you argue that a reading of 1% is WP:COMMONNAME and the 99% is not? I've never seen anything like the resistance to WP:COMMONNAME in any article. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:18, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The whole argument of me and many others (in previous discussions) is that Saint Peter is the appropriate WP:COMMONNAME title for the article - everyone knows who is meant. That he is not constantly called "Saint Peter" in running text on biblical or theological topics is neither here nor there. Nor is he called "Peter the Apostle", which you supported above. Johnbod (talk) 20:51, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So do you think the term "Peter the Apostle" would confuse people? --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 22:52, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure who the "many other (in previous discussions)" are, because in all previous discussions these ngrams of buildings not ngrams of the fisherman kept being cited and WP:COMMONNAME was actually ignored. What that guideline says is Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the five criteria listed above. With the examples given:

People

• Bill Clinton (not: William Jefferson Clinton)
• Bono (not: Paul Hewson)
• Diocletian (not: Gaius Aurelius Valerius Diocletianus Augustus)

Each of those fits "(as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)", yet here you are opposing GBook results on a scale of 99-1 : per "Saint Peter and Jesus" gets 867 GBook results vs "Peter and Jesus" gets 128,000 GBook results. Are you going to at least concede that "Saint Peter" is not the WP:COMMONNAME in those 128,000 GBook results?? In ictu oculi (talk) 05:46, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - fulfils both aspects of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. This is most likely what people are looking for - this page receives 10 times as many page views as Peter (given name). It is the simplest title, and avoids the slightly Catholic POV of the current title. StAnselm (talk) 11:12, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Who searches on internet the name Peter instead of saint Peter? There are many Peters on Wikipedia, when searching for Peter it will be difficult to find. The articles must have the name as this or that person is known. Rafaelosornio (talk) 13:55, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Few non-Catholics would go online and do a web search for "Saint Peter." --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 14:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic or not: when I do a web search for Peter, the first proposal is Saint eter on Wikipedia, - no reason to move to make that happen. --

There are hundreds of Peters on Wikipedia, who look for "Peter" to refer to saint Peter? No one. Rafaelosornio (talk) 14:48, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are not hundreds of Peters only on Wikipedia. The topic of this discussion regards if there are in fact any more than one at all, considering that all other Peters tend to be disambiguated one way or the other, with family names, etc. PPEMES (talk) 15:50, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What other people called "Peter" are remotely as well-known as the original Peter? --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 16:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The gospels call Peter Peter, or Simon Peter, not Saint Peter. When looking for the apostle Peter, I'd search for exactly that: Peter apostle. Besides, or actually even before: WP:HONORIFIC tells us to avoid religious titles. India-related pages are quite strict in this, though not always (see, for example, Swami Vivekananda). Saint Peter can redirect to "Peter (apostle)", or to Simon Petrus. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:09, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Right, in fact, the Bible doesn't use the word "saints" very much, and when it does, it never refers to Peter or Paul by those names. But this is no place for religious discussion; rather, I agree with your points. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 19:47, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose A minor character from the New Testament is not more important than Peter the Great and other historical monarchs, who actually had a historical impact. I would support however a rename to "Peter the Apostle", "Simon Peter" or "Cephas" in order to remove the inappropriate honorific "Saint" from the title. Dimadick (talk) 08:54, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly minor! And I note that the Czar was named after the apostle. StAnselm (talk) 09:11, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dimadick: I wouldn't say minor, but I think Peter the Great is a good example of a well-known person called "Peter." --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 14:14, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• To keep clear what the vote counts are: an outright oppose has 10 votes, a general support for move or support for "Peter the Apostle" has 5 votes (including Dimadick's vote), 2 for a move to "Peter", and one in Latin which I don't understand. However, so far those in support of a move to "Peter the Apostle" have been much more in the discussion that those who oppose any more. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 14:17, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

.......the sensible solution here would be a speedy 7 day close, no relist (which will only prolong the agony), and immediately progress an RM to Paul the Apostle consistency, and get the damn article at a title that corresponds to the (see above) 99% of GBook uses without "Saint". In ictu oculi (talk) 22:39, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peter the Apostle has already failed five times, and rightly so. Btw, Paul the Apostle is just as crazy and even more against WP:COMMONNAME. Johnbod (talk) 22:49, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then you've nothing to risk by letting it fail a sixth time. Your solo support for "Saint" can be respected, but since this time the GBook evidence with the churches and squares removed has been presented, why don't you stand back and let that case be heard. It won't be the end of the world if those expressing opposition to your wish and support for consistency with the other apostle articles are allowed to discuss it. Close and new RM now please. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:54, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we should have a seven day close and then change our target to "Peter the Apostle" in a new vote; however, if several votes come in supporting "Peter" (like the vote by Slithytoad, we should not close the discussion. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 01:24, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, per MOS:HONORIFIC. This is a question regarding the use of honorifics, so PRIMARYTOPIC isn't relevant. If it isn't King David or President Lincoln, why would it be Saint Peter? Slithytoad (talk) 01:21, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If MOS:HONORIFIC is a reason to move, note that "Peter" is also an honorific/epitaph, and that the next best name is the subjects name, Simon Peter. Simon the rock. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:44, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But per WP:COMMONNAME "Peter" needs to be included. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 01:48, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does "Simon Peter]] not satisfy that requirement. Simon Peter contains "Peter". It is the subjects COMMONNAME, always used in introduction, the nickname used thereafter, and it happens to be the name of the subject. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:53, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to Simon Peter; sorry, I thought you were in support of a page move to "Simon" or something of that nature, which didn't make sense. I'd say that Simon Peter is approximately equally reasonable to "Peter the Apostle." It may well be the better choice, the more I think about it. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 01:55, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• On the side of support move are the guidelines/policies NPOV, MOS:HONORIFIC, MOS:SAINTS, WP:CONSISTENCY, and WP:COMMONNAME; vs. to some extent WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. On which side are there more guidelines and policies? --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 01:51, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is VAGUEWAVE. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:54, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind, that's an essay, though; my point is different here: that, matching head-to-head the policies each side is using as an argument, there are more that match the support of a page move than match the opposition to that move. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 01:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose making the saint primary topic; the name is very common and at least as important. No opinion on what the ideal title of the saint article should be, other than not taking over "Peter". -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:00, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Peter, support Peter the Apostle. T8612 (talk) 19:51, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Peter, support Peter the Apostle. --Nillurcheier (talk) 07:18, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the accumulation of supports for "Peter the Apostle", suspect a close and new RM will still be needed because of the mess. Just a word to the "Simon Peter" proposer above, that's going to fly like a lead balloon due to WP:COMMONNAME, it has to be a "Peter"-based solution. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:19, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to close tomorrow, after one week? --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 14:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Famous as he may be, St Peter is not the primary topic for this immensely common name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:46, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And even if he were, it would not be a good title for the article. Shorter is not necessarily better. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:04, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose move. Per Old Naval Rooftops comment. JeBonSer ^{(talk | sign)} 14:02, 23 May 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.

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: Not moved. While the nominator makes an interesting case and there is certainly more discussion to be had, this appears to be the sixth requested move discussion and the overwhelming consensus is that the WP:COMMONNAME is Saint Peter. The nominator can, of course, file an RFC requesting the community's clarification about whether WP:NPOVTITLE should override WP:COMMONNAME. (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 08:30, 31 May 2019 (UTC) Edit: "not moved" shall be taken to mean "consensus to not move" per request for clarification on my talk page. SITH (talk) 11:06, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Peter → ? – WP:NPOV states that we should take a neutral point of view, and unfortunately "Saint Peter" is an example of pro-Catholic bias on Wikipedia. Similarly, MOS:SAINTS states that the word "Saint" shouldn't be included in the name of an individual considered by the Roman Catholic Church to be a saint. Accordingly, (also per suggestions above) a new move request is being made where a few options are necessary: those are "Peter the Apostle," "Simon Peter," "Peter," or "oppose moving the page." To ensure a fair system, the numbers can be assigned as follows: "Peter the Apostle — 1," "Simon Peter — 2," "Peter — 3," and "oppose — 4." Then, when you vote, you can add your highest preference first, followed by second highest, third highest, and then last, like this: 1, 2, 3, 4. My "vote" is 1, 2, 3, 4. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 03:31, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per common and most familiar name. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:36, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you had to pick your order of preference for the three move options, what would it be? --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 03:43, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Rather than pick, here is a 1800-2008 n-gram which shows 'Saint Peter' preferred to 'Simon Peter and, last and apparently least, Peter the Apostle. In previous RM's it's been said that names like Saint Peter's Basilica and Saint Peter's Square would affect things like n-grams. So here's the n-gram with 'Saint Peter's' and 'St. Peter's' factored in (click on the blue button). Randy Kryn (talk) 04:10, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Peter the Apostle (1) for consistency with other articles: Andrew the Apostle, Bartholomew the Apostle, John the Apostle, Matthew the Apostle, Philip the Apostle, Thomas the Apostle. Peter is the only article on one of the twelve apostles with "saint"; obviously it can't stay like this. Oppose other propositions (2, 3, 4). T8612 (talk) 09:48, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are Luke the Evangelist, Mark the Evangelist too. Johnbod (talk) 13:24, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. By far his commonest and most recognised name. Not just Catholic. Used by many Christian churches. And given he's only notable for being a Christian saint, the proposal makes no sense. This whole debate is painfully pointless and PC, tying ourselves in knots trying to find an alternative name for someone who is commonly known to everyone by the name we already have. It's the sort of thing that just makes Wikipedia look ridiculous. And no, I'm not a Christian. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:23, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying we should rename the other "XXX the apostle" articles ? T8612 (talk) 10:43, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we probably should. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:47, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Peter the Apostle (1) per neutrality, uniqueness, and consistency with similar articles (e.g. Paul the Apostle. StAnselm (talk) 10:28, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. This is the SIXTH time this has been proposed (including "Peter (apostle)"), and it has always failed, as it will again. As has been abundantly demonstrated in previous discussions, Saint Peter is by far the most common, and is used by many denominations, as well as in effectively secular contexts such as cartoons about the Pearly Gates etc. Precisely because of the lack of a good alternative, it is even used in naming churches etc by Reformed denominations who don't really recognise "saints". User_talk:SelfieCity just reveals his own POV bias by talking of the current name as "an example of pro-Catholic bias on Wikipedia"! We have other "Saint" titles, like Saint Patrick, where it is the best alternative, as here. Not all the apostles are so titled: there's Luke the Evangelist, Mark the Evangelist, and Matthew the Apostle should certainly be changed to be consistent with these (John is a tricky case, with two articles). Consistency is nice, but not the most important principle here. I'd urge people (including the supporters above) to actually read previous debates, listed at the top of the page. There's no need to change this. Johnbod (talk) 13:24, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- the article Apostles does not list Luke or Mark as apostles, so their articles are titled Luke the Evangelist and Mark the Evangelist - Matthew and John are listed as apostles, so their articles are titled Matthew the Apostle and John the Apostle - Epinoia (talk) 17:20, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, and Speedy close as way too soon after the previous close, especially after the hopelessness of the several previous RMs. There would seem to be more of a problem here with MOSSAINT than with this article’s title. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:35, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Nominator's claim that "MOS:SAINTS states that the word "Saint" shouldn't be included in the name of an individual considered by the Roman Catholic Church to be a saint" is false, or at best, an extreme oversimplification. Relevant quote from MOS:SAINTS:

  Saints go by their most common English name, minus the word "Saint", if such a title is available and the saint is the primary topic for that name. If the base name (for example, "Timothy") requires disambiguation due to lack of primary topic for the saint, natural disambiguation has been preferred at Wikipedia. This leads to titles like Saint Timothy and Matthew the Apostle. As the word "Saint" can lead to controversy (depending on who considers whom to be a saint) and possible non-neutrality, other forms of natural disambiguation are typically preferred, all other things being equal.

  Colin M (talk) 13:39, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, do you want me, in my move request, to replace my "oversimplification" with the whole mouthful you've presented above? --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 13:53, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SelfieCity: Maybe you could go from "MOS:SAINTS states that the word "Saint" shouldn't be included in the name of an individual considered by the Roman Catholic Church to be a saint" to something like "MOS:SAINTS recommends avoiding the word "Saint" in titles when other forms of natural disambiguation are available" or "MOS:SAINTS warns that the word "Saint" may be seen as non-neutral in some cases". Colin M (talk) 14:55, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The WP:COMMONNAME is clearly Saint Peter, and the previous RM was arguably a consensus not to move anyway, not nearly enough support to say that some move must be made.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:55, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The man is commonly referred to as Saint Peter, often abbreviated to St Peter, and rarely as anything else. While "Peter, the Apostle" is correct, it isn't used. Seems to me that the WP:COMMONNAME guideline is the best and only approach to resolving this issue. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:07, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It seems we have a conflict between WP:COMMONNAME and MOS:SAINTS and WP:CONSISTENCY. Question is which rule is the most important? I would not be against keeping Saint Peter, but then we have to rename the other apostles. This is not just about Peter. T8612 (talk) 15:42, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Saint Peter is the name most universally known, if doesn't matter if the word "saint" is in it. I will give an example, the article of Lady Gaga should be called "Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta" or as it is universally known "Lady Gaga"? Rafaelosornio (talk) 15:48, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- this is different as Lady Gaga is a stage-name she has adopted for herself, not an honorific imposed by others - see MOS:NICKNAME - Epinoia (talk) 16:18, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support move to "Peter the Apostle" (1) to conform to article names for the other apostles, Andrew the Apostle, John the Apostle, Philip the Apostle, Bartholomew the Apostle, Matthew the Apostle, Thomas the Apostle, Jude the Apostle, Paul the Apostle - as per WP:NPOV and MOS:SAINTS to remove religious bias - oppose "Peter" (3) and oppose leaving the article name as it is - Epinoia (talk) 16:12, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• 1 > 4 > 2 > 3. It's hard to find usage statistics since "Saint Peter" is ambiguous (e.g. St. Peter, Minnesota), so the fact that "Saint Peter" gets more Google hits than "Peter the Apostle" doesn't mean much. Looking at other factors, Peter the Apostle is WP:CONSISTENT with the naming of the other apostles. 3 is definitely out for me, as I don't think he is the primary topic of "Peter". 2 is relatively obscure compared to "Saint Peter" or "Peter the Apostle" and is not necessary when we have good alternatives. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:46, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This ranked vote as nominated is fundamentally flawed, and ranked votes in general are not compatible with consensus decision making by discussion. Your revert of the entirely appropriate speedy close was WP:INVOLVED. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:09, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• OK, the discussion was reopened? --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 17:51, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose move per common sense, WP:COMMONNAME, and Randy Kryn's n-gram comparison. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:43, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose being fluent in the vocabulary of all major branches of Christianity and also having done a fair amount of discussing the secular study of Christianity, I have not once met a single person who didn't understand who Saint Peter was who would have better understood the others. Yes, this is anecdotal, but in cases like this where you have a figure where the main difference is whether or not one branch of Christianity likes the honourifics that another branch of Christianity gives a person, the question is Of all the options, which one would people of all different backgrounds? essentially COMMONNAME but with a more common sense understanding.
  While there is an NPOV argument to be made, I don't think it outweighs the fact that even those who for religious reasons avoid the title Saint would recognize who you were talking about. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:15, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. We've been over this discussion many times. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 12:11, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose As noted previously, the proposing users have misrepresented MOS:SAINTS (which is also only a style guide, and not a policy). This is a clear example of WP:COMMONNAME. This can also hardly be characterised as an example of "pro-Catholic bias" per NPOV. Peter is venerated as a "saint" not only in the Roman Catholic Church, but also in all Orthodox and Eastern Churches, in the Anglican communion, and in most mainline (especially Lutheran and Reformed) protestant churches. This reeks of Evangelical POV-pushing. Endymion.12 (talk) 21:56, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support move: Peter the Apostle reason, consistency, formality, and the colloquial "Saint Peter" can still be prominent in the lede.-ApexUnderground (talk) 19:13, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, in fact, Oppose and Speedy Close per SNOW. We just had this discussion. Why are we doing this again? Continually reopening these discussions until you get your way is not appropriate. Also, saying Wikipedia has a "pro-Catholic bias" does nothing but reveal your own biases. Rockstonetalk to me! 19:29, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: per WP:COMMONNAME, as stated by Rockstone35 and Johnbod. (If I may opine for a moment, this discussion was opened far too soon after the closure of the last one. I do hope we're not to be browbeaten into accepting a change.) —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 22:35, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Since my previous close of this discussion was inappropriately reverted, I've now opened a discussion at WP:ANI. Calidum 18:35, 25 May 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.