- 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: no agreement for this move Kotniski (talk) 11:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maurice (Bishop of London) → Maurice (bishop) — broader dab, per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (clergy) — no other bishop is called only Maurice, so this article is the primary (sole) topic for Maurice (bishop) DBD 00:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Comment Wikipedia:Naming conventions (clergy) actually states For prelates where only a forename is available, it is not the business of Wikipedia to invent surnames. There are a number of natural disambiguating methods. For example if the prelate is strongly associated with a particular see or place, then "of {place}" may be used, as with Augustine of Canterbury or Clement of Dunblane. Shouldn't it therefore be Maurice of London? Skinsmoke (talk) 14:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- There are, in fact, other bishops called "Maurice": see Maurice Taylor (bishop) and Peter Maurice (bishop). None of those are called simply "Maurice", but I don't think it can do harm to be a little more precise. Ucucha 10:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Christopher Tyerman used 'Maurice of London', in Who's Who in Early Medieval England, 1066-1272, Shepheard-Walwyn, 1996. PurpleHz (talk) 13:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Handbook of British Chronology, however, uses just plain Maurice. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- He is the only bishop who is simply Maurice, therefore, by the custom of using the broadest dab possible, he should be at Maurice (bishop) DBD 00:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[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.