The following discussion is an archived discussion 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 proposal was PAGE MOVED to Titus (Biblical) per discussion below. There remains a question of whether to move Titus to Titus (emperor), and that discussion is at Talk:Titus#Page move to Titus (emperor). -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to move this page because the Biblical Titus is more important than the Emperor Titus. Also, Titus does not meet the Biblical criteria to be an apostle. A man had to meet certain qualifications to be an apostle of Jesus Christ:

1. He must have seen the risen Christ (1 Cor. 9:1),
2. Fellowshipped with Him (Acts 1:21-22), and
3. He had to be chosen by the Lord (Eph. 4:11).

Captain Zyrain 18:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. It is not clear which of these is the primary use. Importance is not the determining factor. I suggest that we convert Titus to a dab page since there is also a movie with this name, and a publishing company. There are probably other uses as well. Apostle Titus can be moved to Titus (biblical). Vegaswikian 18:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That might not be such a bad idea. There is also a Titus County, Texas. Captain Zyrain 18:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is already a Titus (disambiguation). While there are a ton of links for the emperor, a good portion of those come from one template.Vegaswikian 19:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose this proposal but support Titus as a disambiguation page, i.e., moving Titus (disambiguation) to Titus and Titus to Titus Flavius Vespasianus or something else. — AjaxSmack 05:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that Titus (emperor) might be good. That seems to be the convention (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Roman_emperors ). There are several with that type of nomenclature, e.g. Constantine II (emperor), Decius (emperor), Honorius (emperor), etc. Captain Zyrain 11:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Titus (emperor) is probably the best choice and leave the various other flavors of his name as redirects to where ever the article is moved to. Vegaswikian 22:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose This is one of the absolutely most famous Roman emperors (siege of Jerusalem and all that). The nominator seems to have read too much biblical history to the detriment of general history.--Victor falk 13:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Nonetheless, the fact that Titus has a pastoral epistle written to and named after him makes him at least equally famous as Titus the emperor. Captain Zyrain 13:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry for my heathen ignorance, but I disagree. On the top of my head, I'd say the following emperors are more famous than Titus: Caesar. Augustus. Marcus Aurelius. Nero. Caligula. Hadrianus. Trajanus. Maybe you could argue if a couple more like Vespasianus are more or less famous than Titus, but you get the picture.--Victor falk 13:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• What about Tiberius and Claudius? I think I, Claudius made them pretty famous. I can't remember ever learning about emperor Titus in school, but then again that was Culpeper County Public Schools, so that's probably not saying much. They didn't teach about the Biblical Titus either, of course. Captain Zyrain 13:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The emperor is primary usage, chiefly because we know much more about him as a person, without conjecture. Since something like a quarter of all Roman males were named Titus, it's very common. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is that pretty much all the pages on Bible-related subjects have been watered down with phrases such as "It appears that..." or "One view is that..." Captain Zyrain 01:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Properly, unless the view is consensus; that Titus was a Gentile may be as close to consensus as we are likely to come for any deduction about the NT, but I believe it to be still disputable. Do find sources. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose the proposal in its current form, but I support AjaxSmack's above proposal in conjunction with the following comment. Make Titus a disambiguation page, and rename Titus to Titus (emperor), following the convention. De Guerre 01:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to closing admin. While there is strong opposition to the proposed rename, there does appear to be strong support for a different rename. That should shape the actions taken on closing this discussion. Vegaswikian 22:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additionally the nomination on the main page was changed on the main page at some point as a result, the many of the oppose opinions actually are support for the current wording. The nomination at the start of the process was for:

    Apostle Titus → Titus —(Discuss)— The Biblical Titus is more important than the Emperor Titus, and the Biblical Titus does not meet the Biblical criteria to be an apostle of Jesus Christ. Therefore, it seems appropriate to place it under the article name of Titus rather than Apostle Titus. Captain Zyrain 18:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Vegaswikian 18:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - There seems to be a related move discussion going on at Talk:Titus#Page move to Titus (emperor). -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: page moved. Andrewa (talk) 07:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Titus (biblical) → Saint Titus — Primarily for elegance. Srnec (talk) 21:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Support: seems reasonable per WP:PRECISION. –CWenger (^ • @) 01:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Much better title. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. More precise name. - Darwinek (talk) 14:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments:

• Comment was this person actually canonized, or is he like other early saints who are saints by tradition, but not saints elevated by the Church? 65.94.47.63 (talk) 06:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: the move fits with the title for Saint Timothy, but you may want to consider also moving Philemon (New Testament person) to Saint Philemon. I just wonder how many Protestants would get lost trying to find Titus unless you have a very strong redirect from the current "(biblical)" page. Aristophanes68 (talk) 16:50, 21 June 2011 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.