Talk:David III of Tao

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, with the exception of David III, which there was an affirmative consensus to not move. Although the opposers outnumbered the supporters nearly 2:1, they failed to muster policy-based arguments against the move. The mere assertion that the proposed titles were not an improvement was not weighty, nor was the argument that they would introduce ambiguity (except in the case of David III). Several editors argued that the names would be less recognizable to the average reader, which may be true, but WP:CRITERIA only demands that titles be recognizable to those familiar with the subject area, and nobody compellingly argued (or even attempted to) that the new titles would not be recognizable to such persons. Meanwhile, the supporters correctly argued that the proposed titles would be more concise.

A brief discussion about which names are more common was inconclusive. Supporters' invocation of WP:SOVEREIGN was perhaps suggestive but not governing: it explicitly only applies to European monarchs, and although an argument could be made that applying this guideline to Georgian monarchs, which share the standard European naming conventions, would be more consistent, to find those stipulations controlling here would amount to an expansion of their scope and require an RfC; the guideline itself only recommends, not mandates, that WP:SOVEREIGN apply by analogy to similar cases outside Europe.

Overall, despite the proposed titles being unpopular, those opposing them failed to refute the supporters' core contention that they better satisfy WP:CRITERIA or to muster any other policy-based opposition to them. I therefore find a consensus to move. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I originally closed this discussion as no consensus. It was then pointed out to me that I had misinterpreted the recognizability criterion. After a few days, I reassessed the discussion and found the foregoing. The original closure may be seen here. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• David III of Tao → David III
• David IV of Georgia → David IV
• David V of Georgia → David V
• David VI of Georgia → David VI
• David VII of Georgia → David VII
• David VIII of Georgia → David VIII
• David IX of Georgia → David IX
• David X of Kartli → David X
• David XI of Kartli → David XI

– WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT; WP:SOVEREIGN. An emperor ✖ 00:39, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings  // Timothy :: talk , PatGallacher, Dimadick, ╠╣uw, Srnec! Thank you for voting. Per WP:NCP, WP:CONCISE, WP:PTOPIC, WP:TITLEDAB, WP:NCROY alongside others clearly grants a move and it is absolutely unnecesary to include longer country/state naming. Regards, An emperor ✖ 05:31, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Middle Ages has been notified of this discussion. Векочел (talk) 11:18, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Georgia (country) has been notified of this discussion. Векочел (talk) 11:18, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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) 18:23, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PatGallacher Just responded at Talk:Pharnavaz I of Iberia. With all respect, the opposition to non-ambigous PT article makes no sense at all. Regards, An emperor ✖ 23:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: per WP:PRECISE, Article titles should unambiguously define the topic of the article, this proposed change will make the article titles more ambiguous; unless there is a good reason for this change the article titles should not be changed.  // Timothy :: talk  01:25, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This proposal will make these titles ambiguous with what other article titles, exactly? —В²C ☎ 22:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

В²C Exactly! Just addressed with them at Talk:Pharnavaz I of Iberia, I really do not see how is their opposition reasonable. An emperor ✖ 23:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose 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). PatGallacher (talk) 05:35, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom – "of country" disambiguation is not needed as these are all primary topics. - Rosbif73
• Oppose I agree with PatGallacher. Dimadick (talk) 15:06, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per the above. As WP:CRITERIA directs, "the choice of article titles should put the interests of readers before those of editors, and those of a general audience before those of specialists." I see nothing to suggest that removing the clarifier improves the experience for our readers. ╠╣uw [talk] 16:41, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose David III. There's an emperor of Ethiopia named David III, but his article is at Dawit III. As for the rest, I see no benefit, but see my comments at Talk:Pharnavaz I of Iberia. —Srnec (talk) 02:29, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Srnec, do you support moving other articles? Please if you may clarify your vote? Regards, An emperor ✖ 23:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see no problem in need of fixing, so I guess I oppose them all. I would have no objection to making the dab page primary for all up to David V. Srnec (talk) 00:01, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (Primary Topic is established via longstanding PRIMARYREDIRECTs for each of these), WP:COMMONNAME (ngrams), WP:PRECISE (unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that) and WP:SOVEREIGN (Only use a territorial designation (e.g. country) when disambiguation is needed). The dearth of policy-based arguments, or any strong arguments, from Opposition here, is equally important. In a recent SOVEREIGN-related RM with 8 oppose !votes as weak as the ones here, the closer found consensus in favor of just 3 supporters and this decision was endorsed at MR. Argument quality as based in policy/guidelines is what matters; not the counts. —В²C ☎ 08:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re the common name claim, I don't see evidence for it. Searching for "David III" returns almost nothing but the loom, and eliminating the loom still doesn't show our David but lots of others like David III Ryckaert. We ultimately have to include the country (separately) just to make him show up in the results at all, and when he does those results are heavy with "David III of Tao" usage, as the search affirms. A similar search limited to Google Books is no different, with the search showing “David III of Tao” frequently. ╠╣uw [talk] 15:11, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support all but David III per Srnec. Besides David III, none of the opposers have provided any evidence the other monarchs are potentially ambiguous, which is the test set forth in WP:NCROY. If indeed the remaining Davids are unambiguous, there is no policy or guideline based reason for them not to be moved. Bensci54 (talk) 18:05, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  David III has been a PRIMARYREDIRECT to this article since 2011. Even if one considers there to be an ambiguity with Dawit III (I don’t), primary topic here is established. So ambiguity is not a policy-based reason to oppose this proposal. — В²C ☎ 22:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  WP is not RS, so the existence of a redirect establishes nothing. Srnec (talk) 01:00, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, In this case, removing the country from the title does not improve WP:RECOGNISABILITY. To the average reader, the names "David III, David VI, David VIII" etc. are unintelligible, conveying too little information. Bearing that in mind, I would support a move to the Georgian version of their name "Davit" since that is more recognisable and helps identify these Davids as sovereigns of Georgia. Davit [number] of Georgia/Tao/Kartli would be the ideal form. UmbrellaTheLeef (talk) 23:09, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  For example, if you search just "David VIII" on Google, you get many pages about Edward VIII of the United Kingdom, David Lloyd George, and David Starkey. The Georgian king never shows up at all. These monarchs are clearly not recognisable enough for the average reader to recognise them by just their name + number alone. UmbrellaTheLeef (talk) 23:28, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support all except David III: As pointed out by Bensci54, clearly all rulers named David >=IV were of Georgia (or Kartli), so the disambiguator is definitely not needed in accordance with WP:NCROY. I don't strictly oppose the move of David III, but I wanted to put my support for the rest as it is warranted by the guidelines. Aintabli (talk) 23:06, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  we can move David III of Tao to David III Kuropalates 188.73.235.232 (talk) 13:43, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If the moves go through, I would support that as a superior alternative. Srnec (talk) 00:01, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment - Using cognomens and the name + regnal number has no basis in policy. UmbrellaTheLeef (talk) 16:13, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support all per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT, and WP:NCROY. Векочел (talk) 11:18, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Introduces unnecessary ambiguity for the WP:READER. ——Serial Number 54129 11:27, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per the reasons given above. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 22:36, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Oppose per SN54129. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 02:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Additional Comment. The bottom line is this: There is policy basis to move. If it is moved, there would be no policy basis to move it back. Generally, if there is policy basis for A→B, and no policy basis for B→A, the article should be at B. I call this the Yogurt Principle because for a contentious eight years closers found no consensus for a Yoghurt→Yogurt move, but once it was moved, it has been stable at Yogurt for over ten years now because there is no policy basis to move it back. Let's not stretch this conflict out for eight years, please. There may not be a clear local consensus to move, but since policy supports this move, and especially since there is no policy basis for the reverse, there is clearly community consensus to move here, which is what matters most. --В²C ☎ 05:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, B2C: opposition stems from our explicit policy obligations under WP:AT to seek the best balance of WP:CRITERIA, to use commonly recognizable names consistent with reliable sources, to fit an encyclopedic register, and (critically) to favor titles that best serve our general readership. It's not apparent that removing the country from the listed titles better meets any of these policy obligations. ╠╣uw [talk] 14:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You’ve made my point. You can argue, vaguely, against the current A→B proposal, but you can’t provide any policy basis for a hypothetical B→A move after this article is moved. —В²C ☎ 17:57, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just did. Whether a proposed title or an actual one, the same objections apply, as do the policies from which they stem. ╠╣uw [talk] 20:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't be an objection if you were arguing to move David III → David III of Tao. The objection to such a proposal would be that the subject of David III is the primary topic for its title, it's more CONCISE than the proposed title, it meets recognizable ("The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize"), it's the most common name for this subject, and of course it's the title indicated by WP:SOVEREIGN. What would the policy basis be in support of such a move? --В²C ☎ 05:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The ones already shared. You say that the base name without any clarifier is the common form, is recognizable to our readers, etc., and while you're welcome to that view it simply hasn't been shown to be so — and indeed I see good reason to think that it's not so, per everything above. I'm not sure why you think these and other policy-based concerns would simply disappear, but regardless it's probably best to just let it rest and await closure. ╠╣uw [talk] 11:58, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If recognizable to our readers was a policy requirement of our titles, myriads would have to be changed. I hit SPECIAL:RANDOM ten times and got these: Kilternan Stakes, Cafetaleros de Chiapas Premier, Cynodon plectostachyus, British Dental Association, El Juicio (The Judgement), Wayne Raney, The Dying Sun, The Saint Takes Over, Mačiuliškės, and Anatoliy Solomin. Frankly, none of these meet your standard for recognizability. I don’t recognize any of them, though I can figure out which are people and presume the dental association is a dental association. However, they are all recognizable to someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area, which is what policy requires. Arguing a title must meet what you imagine policy to be is not a policy-based argument. My purpose is to ensure the closer is aware of the policy-vacuity of the oppose position here. — В²C ☎ 20:52, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The recognizability criterion is what I was referring to. From what's been shown here, I simply don't see that the proposed title meets it, or is the common name, or is encyclopedic, or is in the interests of our "general audience" — all of which are policy obligations. You have a different view, and that's fine. Please show similar consideration. ╠╣uw [talk] 21:17, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• STRONG Oppose as per the reasons given above. We need some way to disambiguate them. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 23:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Why must they disambiguated? The proposed titles are all unique or primary redirects to the corresponding articles. We do not uses unnecessarily disambiguated titles for other articles in this situation. --В²C ☎ 02:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

В²C, it seems that Therealscorp1an has voted twice as well. An emperor ✖ 02:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, I did not realise. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 04:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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: Procedurally closed while the related RfC resolves. A number of users felt that the question was not ripe while the larger issue was being actively debated on a much broader scale, and I don't see much harm in letting it play out first. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:24, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David III of Tao → David III – Per consistency; NCROY; SOVEREIGN; PRIMARYRED. An emperor ✖ 20:00, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Middle Ages, WikiProject Politics, WikiProject Biography/Politics and government, WikiProject Georgia (country), and WikiProject Royalty and Nobility have been notified of this discussion. Векочел (talk) 07:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Might I suggest that you withdraw this RM until the current RfC reaches a conclusion? Rosbif73 (talk) 20:41, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Not the primary topic. Searching "David III" on Google Scholar, I get more hits for David III Ryckaert. Srnec (talk) 01:43, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose and recommend withdrawal. Not only did we just have an RM that resulted in moving the Georgian Davids to their current titles, we're also in the midst of an RFC to clarify the recommended naming conventions for all such articles, so debating this request while that larger debate is still ongoing seems highly unproductive. ╠╣uw [talk] 12:08, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support or restore DAB either way the current situation is incorrect. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• comment why are you requesting this in the middle of an RfC that directly effects what the result should be?—blindlynx 16:46, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]