Talk:Purna Das Baul Samrat

Requested move

The following is a closed 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 moved per WP:HONORIFICS. --regentspark (comment) 19:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Purna Das Baul Samrat → Purna Das Baul – Samrat honorific! Tito Dutta (talk) 23:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. No evidence supporting the move, and the rationale is so inadequate that it should probably be speedily closed, but it's a bit late for that now. Please link to policies etc to which you appeal, and provide at least a claim of the facts that make the policy etc relevant, preferably even some evidence. In this case MOS:HONORIFIC does not ban honorifics (as the rationale would seem to imply), instead it reads in part The inclusion of some honorific prefixes and styles is controversial... and Where an honorific is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found without it, it should be included. The article lead reads in part popularly known as Purna Das Baul Samrat. Andrewa (talk) 00:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL --Tito Dutta (talk) 08:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

While I'm quite happy to check any evidence that you give, I've no intention of doing the research for you. No change of vote. Andrewa (talk) 09:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually it should be an uncontroversial move! Samrat is a Bengali honorific means "King". So move request is similar to "Lord Jesus Christ" → "Jesus Christ"! Here are few pages which use the requested title! --Tito Dutta (talk) 09:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Disagree that there's any useful parallel with Lord Jesus Christ, there are many reasons for not adding the Lord which don't apply here. Your opinion that it should be an uncontroversial move is not particularly relevant I'm afraid. If we accepted this form or argument we would be in a real mess, as we often have people form such opinions some on one side of an issue and some on the other. Nor are five links using the name good evidence of anything relevant. Please read WP:AT and, if you can frame a valid case in terms of this policy, I'm sure you'll get a hearing. And I hope, not otherwise. No change of vote. Andrewa (talk) 11:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

It should be an uncontroversial move, if you know about the subject or the language (i.e. Bengali)! But, I don't move articles directly and could not understand why the article creator used such an honorific in the title!--Tito Dutta (talk) 18:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

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.