Sure they're subjective - they're rhetorical: I was arguing a case. I still think that the single arrival point (article to which all others direct) should be the most neutral. I believe that that, when dealing with periods in the past, should be assumed to be the title used in the subject's own time (necessarily adjusted for the English language, in an E Lang encyclopedia) - here, Philip the Tetrarch. The Herod Philips have to be there, because people will search for them. These pages should note that there is disagreement about the use of the name and that there is very little firm evidence surviving from that time, and then send the seeker to the historical name. If someone with more knowledge than my own adds a note to the effect that 'Theologians use ... and historians use ...', that would be a welcome addition. This means that all the terms would be in wikipedia; they would all be findable; and there would be a central page which would contain all relevant information, and I trust everything that any user of an encyclopedia might want. I don't want to MOVE any pages, just tidy up the way of finding them. I don't think this is as strong an advice as you do; more of a signpost (perhaps a better image than 'guide'?) In particular, I was astonished, when I began this, by the confusion over HP I & HP II. Evidence for the elder 'Philip' seems minimal.