" 
 ::::In my view, these kinds of things have to occur by consensus or not at all. There's just no numerical way to determine ""most common,"" and while my mere impression is that ancient historians and classicists of the last 30 years do not call him ""Julian the Apostate"" as if that's his name, and that this is a holdover from more Christian-centric days, you can't ""prove"" it and it's a waste of everybody's time to attempt to do so. Numerically, you'll get a lot of hits because even if a scholar doesn't call him ""Julian the Apostate,"" the tradition of that name must be explained in any extended treatment of Julian. My chief argument against ""Julian the Apostate"" as ""most common"" is that ""apostate"" itself is an uncommon word: if you grab 50 people at your local mall and ask them if they've heard of either ""Julian the Apostate"" or ""the Emperor Julian,"" you'll probably get a stronger glint of recognition with the ""Emperor"" phrase, simply because most people know what a Roman emperor is and not what an ""apostate"" is. As far as I know, Julian is the only emperor who's identified with a title not part of his official nomenclature. Since ""Julian the Apostate"" would of course redirect here, I don't see the value of WP promulgating a tendentious nickname instead of following our usual naming policy as outlined in WP:ROMANS. There are, however, people who feel very strongly that we should perpetuate ""the Apostate"" for reasons that are unclear to me, but valid to them.   "