Talk:Pharnavaz I

Template:Tmbox[[Category:Template:GA/Topic good articles|Pharnavaz I]] Template:Dyktalk Template:WikiProject banner shell

Untitled

Should this be at Farnavaz of Iberia? RickK 02:18, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Untitled2

I've been looking for the Georgian spelling of King Farnavaz/Pharnavaz for some time. Is anybody here able to prove it for me? I've also been looking for the Georgian spelling of Saint Mesrop/Mesrob. — Hippietrail 23:57, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Nice read!

Very interesting and informative. 168.156.99.48 (talk) 17:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Untitled3

რამეფრად წინ ისეთი რუკები წამოსწიეთ, სადაც აფხაზეთი საზღვრებს გარეთაა ნაჩვენები. ფუფ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.137.128.229 (talk) 23:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Source concerns

I have concerns over, Barbara A. West, Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Asia and Oceania. It appears Barbara A. West has a degree in social anthropology and no specialization in Georgians or the time period in question.[1] --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:59, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

William Henry Overall, The dictionary of chronology, or historical and statistical register, published 1870. This book is clearly out of date. Not sure different spelling(s) of his name are important to the article, unless mentioned in a more modern text, in which case the modern source should be used. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:09, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Barbara A. West, checks out. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Rename to Pharnabazus

Pharnavaz is a Georgian version of Pharnabazus. I suggest wiki to move it to Pharnabazus I. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.201.11.35 (talk) 17:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Really? Was not he Georgian? Is there really any source other than the Georgian chronicles alluding to him? --Kober^Talk 18:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Thing here isn't about him being Georgian or not. His name is derived from Pharnabazus. He was a Georgian, but his name wasn't. Wiki should move it to Pharnabazus I and his dynasty should be moved to Pharnabazid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.201.11.35 (talk) 18:10, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

This is not the reason for move. FYI, Pharnabazus is a Latinized form, not the original name. --Kober^Talk 18:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki has Latinized names for other Georgian kings, e.g. Pharasmanes, Saurmaces, Bacurius. Wiki should move this too accordingly.

Pharnavaz

Was Pharnavaz something like a god-king? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.86.168.157 (talk) 18:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Statue in Rome

Is it true that his statue was once in Rome? Heard Roman emperor put one for Iberian king. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.71.239.140 (talk) 04:34, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pharnavaz I of Iberia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081121010533/http://www.nplg.gov.ge/dlibrary/collect/0001/000032/Obrashenie_Gruzii.pdf to http://www.nplg.gov.ge/dlibrary/collect/0001/000032/Obrashenie_Gruzii.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:01, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Sources

Two books by Stephen Rapp are listed in the bibliography, but the various footnotes for Rapp don't tell us which of the two books is being cited where. Can someone help? SeoMac (talk) 05:33, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 13 April 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (non-admin closure) Simplexity22 (talk) 15:45, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

---

Pharnavaz I of Iberia → Template:No redirect – As most Georgia's kings had international and foreign derived names, Pharnavaz is Pharnabazus. Emperor of Emperors (talk) 07:17, 13 April 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. buidhe 11:14, 20 April 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. buidhe 12:03, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose WP:COMMONNAME seems to have been Pharnavaz looking at sources like Rapp and Toumanoff. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:36, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
• Tentative Oppose. It is true many sources use latinized version of the king, but Parnavaz is still most common and, furthermore, he is known exclusively from the Georgian sources. That's why Pharnabazus seems a bit artificial to me.--Kober^Talk 05:38, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 6 February 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. In this discussion the number of editors in support and opposition was roughly equal, but consensus is ascertained not by vote counting but by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy.

In support of this move editors cited WP:SOVEREIGN and WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT, while in opposition editors cited WP:COMMONNAME.

However, no evidence was presented in support of the opposers argument, and so I was forced to give it little weight when assessing the consensus in this discussion.

As such, I find a consensus to move. However, should consensus on WP:SOVEREIGN change within the next few months to again support pre-emptive disambiguation then these moves should be reverted. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 17:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

---

• Pharnavaz I of Iberia → Template:No redirect
• Sauromaces I of Iberia → Template:No redirect
• Mirian I of Iberia → Template:No redirect
• Pharnajom of Iberia → Template:No redirect
• Artoces of Iberia → Template:No redirect
• Pharnavaz II of Iberia → Template:No redirect
• Mirian II of Iberia → Template:No redirect
• Pharasmanes I of Iberia → Template:No redirect
• Mihrdat I of Iberia → Template:No redirect
• Amazasp I of Iberia → Template:No redirect
• Pharasmanes II of Iberia → Template:No redirect
• Ghadam of Iberia → Template:No redirect
• Pharasmanes III of Iberia → Template:No redirect
• Amazasp II of Iberia → Template:No redirect
• Rev I of Iberia → Template:No redirect
• Bacurius I of Iberia → Template:No redirect
• Mihrdat II of Iberia → Template:No redirect
• Aspacures I of Iberia → Template:No redirect
• Mirian III of Iberia → Template:No redirect
• Sauromaces II of Iberia → Template:No redirect
• Aspacures II of Iberia → Template:No redirect
• Mihrdat III of Iberia → Template:No redirect
• Aspacures III of Iberia → Template:No redirect
• Pharasmanes IV of Iberia → Template:No redirect
• Mihrdat IV of Iberia → Template:No redirect
• Mihrdat V of Iberia → Template:No redirect
• Vakhtang I of Iberia → Template:No redirect
• Bacurius II of Iberia → Template:No redirect
• Pharasmanes V of Iberia → Template:No redirect
• Pharasmanes VI of Iberia → Template:No redirect
• Bacurius III of Iberia → Template:No redirect

– WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT; WP:SOVEREIGN. An emperor ✖ 07:18, 6 February 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BD2412 T 19:26, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support per nomTemplate:Snd"of country" disambiguation not needed for primary redirects. Rosbif73 (talk) 10:59, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
• Procedural oppose. I don't understand why we have four different multi-move RMs for Georgian monarchs going at the same time when the argument is identical in each. This would be better done, say, on a project talk page, where we could debate the pros and cons of a coherent system (like in the old days). Looking at these titles raises lots of questions beyond what the RM is asking, which appears to be based on nothing other than existing redirect targets. I am not necessarily opposed to these moves in principle. Srnec (talk) 02:22, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Greetings Srnec! Is it against the rules to nominate and differentiate the RMs? Not all articles of monarchs fall under WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT; WP:SOVEREIGN. Can you please elaborate what do you mean by "raises lots of questions"? Regards, An emperor ✖ 05:38, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Why is Rev I included but not Rev II? Who else isn't here? Why do we combine Latinized forms like Bacurius and Aspacures alongside Mihrdat, Pharnavaz and Ghadam? Those kinds of questions. Srnec (talk) 05:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Srnec, thank you for Rev II. He should be in this list as well. You are saying in your statement that you don't necessarily oppose the move in principle but, you voted "oppose"? What exactly is the rationale for opposing this RM specifically? Regards, An emperor ✖ 06:05, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I think I have explained my position. To expand upon it, I have no idea what the appropriate title is for any of these fellows. The actual forms proposed are not consistent. Maybe that's because the literature isn't, but maybe it's because these articles are neglected or out of date. The forms proposed are not the names in Rapp's The Sasanian World through Georgian Eyes. For example he has P'arsman II and Mirdat I. Srnec (talk) 21:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Srnec, PatGallacher, Huwmanbeing, with all respect, how in the world are your voting rationale a legitimate opposition? None of these above-listed articles of kings have ambiguous titles and they all meet both WP:COMMONNAME/CONCISE etc. An emperor ✖ 23:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Because a title isn't necessarily a good title (let alone the best title) just because it's concise and unambiguous. Consider for example US, UK, Obama, Cézanne, 103rd Congress, DTs, Bothell, AI, and innumerable others: eminently concise and unambiguous but not the titles we use, nor likely the ones we'll ever use. Per policy we aim for titles that best balance all WP:CRITERIA, that are in an "encyclopedic register", and that best serve the interests of our readers — and sometimes that's best achieved with a less-than-maximally-concise form. I would contend that this is one of those cases. ╠╣uw [talk] 00:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

To clarify, and for convenience: the three other RMs being referred to are Talk:David III of Tao#Requested move 9 February 2024, Talk:Vakhtang II of Georgia#Requested move 7 February 2024, and Talk:George X of Kartli#Requested move 6 February 2024. Adumbrativus (talk) 08:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose I quote my comments at Talk:David III of Tao. I continue to support pre-emptive disambiguation. Also, some of these aren't even the sole meaning of this title (although they may be the primary topic). Consensus can change, see WP:CCC. Pre-emptive disambiguation remains a contested issue, as this discussion suggests, and removing it has not been applied consistently across Wikipedia (there are other examples). PatGallacher (talk) 21:07, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. I agree with those above: it's a repetitive mess having several simultaneous RMs on such similar groups of monarchs. I already shared my rationale in the others and I don't feel like doing more copy/pastes. ╠╣uw [talk] 17:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

  It doesn’t matter. You haven’t presented a reasonable policy-based argument at any of these other RMs either. — В²C ☎ 00:12, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

  Since that's a gross mischaracterization, I'll post the summary once more for the benefit of any onlookers.

  To be clear, B2C, opposition appeals to WP:AT just as support does, but with a different weighting of WP:CRITERIA than yours. Per policy, we're instructed to use titles that prioritize the interests of our readers rather than the specialized interest of editors, and per policy we're instructed to use titles that are recognizable to those familiar with (but not necessarily experts in) the area. Supporters like myself contend that removing the country does not serve readers' interests (nowhere have supporters shown otherwise) and that the inclusion of the country best meets the recognizability criterion.

  Per policy we're also encouraged to find titles that fit an "encyclopedic register", and check other reputable encyclopedias for comparison. Britannica articles, e.g. Charles XI, include a clarifier with the title. (The monarchs listed in this RM are less well known, to the point that Britannica does not seem to have articles on them, which further suggests the importance of retaining the country as a valuable clarifier.)

  Also, some supporters have wrongly suggested that if there's a more concise and unambiguous form of a title then that is necessarily the form we must use, but that's not the case, and policy nowhere asserts it. All things being equal, such a form is indeed preferred, but not if a longer form better meets our criteria. Hence US, UK, 103rd Congress, Rockies, DTs, Bothell, Pacific, AI, and innumerable other concise forms that properly redirect to longer or more descriptive ones.

  You have a different take on criteria and policy, clearly, and that's fine. However, insisting in every post that opposition is mere JDLI when it's not is tendentious and doesn't make these discussions better, so please desist. Cheers, ╠╣uw [talk] 13:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

  That’s not reasonable policy basis because it’s based on an unreasonable interpretation of what WP:RECOGNIZABILITY means.

  • If Pharnavaz I of Iberia is preferable to Pharnavaz I because it is “more helpful to readers”, then Pharnavaz I of Iberia (Georgian Kingdom) is preferable to Pharnavaz I of Iberia because it is ”more helpful” still. Whenever there are two choices A and A B your interpretation picks the more helpful one, A B. That seems reasonable. But there is always a more helpful A B C, and an even more helpful A B C D, ad infinitum.
  • The staggering implications of your interpretation are to require changing almost every title on WP to make each “more helpful” without any guidance whatsoever on how helpful is helpful enough. That’s unreasonable.

  В²C ☎ 14:40, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

You’re still wrongly assuming that drawing the line any higher than where you draw it means the line must be endlessly high. That's absurd and not at all what opponents assert. Good titling is about finding the best balance of all the relevant factors and criteria, including things like recognizability, reader benefit, etc. That adding the country helps achieve an optimal balance in no way means that adding everything plus the kitchen sink would achieve it. ╠╣uw [talk] 15:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

No. That’s inherent to your interpretation. You offer no indication of where the line is to be drawn. There is always an argument to be made that “A B” is “more helpful” than “A”, and is still “concise”. At best, every title is subject to change and debate. Not everyone knows Paris is in France; it would be more helpful at Paris, France, which is no less concise than Paris, Texas. I bet I can use your interpretation to argue for a new title for any randomly chosen article on WP (thus any article on WP). Try me. —В²C ☎ 15:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

You are misinterpreting Huw's position, which does not state that more information in a title is always helpful. Certainly, if that were true, you could propose an expanded title for every article. So could I. It would be trivial. But that is not what Huw has said. WP:OVERPRECISION gives plenty of examples of intentionally overprecise titles that are allowed. It even cites WP:NCROY as a guideline that might mandate them. In my opinion, precision and concision usually pull in opposite directions. London, England is certainly more precise than London, but that level of precision is rarely needed, unless you live near London, Ontario. It would be the opposite of helpful to tell readers that they need to say "London, England" to be understood. I do not agree that cases like Isabella II or Nicholas II are comparable. You generally do need to somehow mention Spain or Russia if it isn't already clear by context. In that way, they are even less clear than, say, Picasso or Hitler. Yet we persist in using first names in such cases. Srnec (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

You offer a more nuanced position than Huw. Nevertheless, you’re missing the point about biographies. We use first names in those cases because community consensus is that a full name (first + last) is the more COMMONNAME than is just the last name for most people, and Picasso and Hitler are not exceptions. There is also consensus that including “of country” is not the more COMMONNAME for royalty. В²C ☎ 07:44, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support all which have unambiguous name/ordinal combination, per WP:NCROY. Bensci54 (talk) 18:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support per nom which is policy-based. Opposers have WP:JDLI objections but no policy-based arguments and no rebuttals to the policies/guidelines that Support is based upon. Slam dunk regardless of the numbers. —В²C ☎ 00:08, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support. The new wording of NCROY, and primary topic arguments, mandate us to make this move. The opposers are objecting to the whole concept of the guideline, which should be taken up elsewhere, there is nothing specific about this individual case that should prevent a move.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:16, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Relisting for clearer consensus. BD2412 T 19:26, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONAME. These figures must be WP:RECOGNIZABLE. There is no indication any of these are a person, much less a monarch. There is no English source and zero hits in searches for "Pharnabaz I" without "king" or "Iberia". Ditto for the others. Walrasiad (talk) 09:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per other reasons given. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 22:36, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Writing systems, WikiProject Royalty and Nobility, WikiProject Biography, and WikiProject Georgia (country) have been notified of this discussion. RodRabelo7 (talk) 00:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I've requested closure for this at Wikipedia:Closure requests. Natg 19 (talk) 21:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per PatGallacher. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 02:39, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
• Template:Strike

Therealscorp1an please don't vote twice. An emperor ✖ 13:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support. WP:NCROY is clear that we don't use the country name unless it's needed for disambiguation. A local consensus cannot override this. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 14:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Support unambiguous names, this wouldn't even be an issue if they were monarchs of Thailand or China. Killuminator (talk) 21:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: For how long should we keep this RM open? It is month of May already. An emperor ✖ 20:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONAME. Article titles need to reflect the common name in English, meet WP:PRECISE, and be unambiguous. The above changes do not reflect the common name, and make the article title more ambiguous.  // Timothy :: talk  07:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose per Walrasiad and common sense. While these monarchs are notable, they are not remotely prominent enough in the Anglophone world for the proposal to be helpful. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 10:14, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.