A fact from Pharnavaz I appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the Did you know column on 31 July 2014 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a
WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to
writing systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by
the project page and/or leave a query at
the project’s talk page.Writing systemsWikipedia:WikiProject Writing systemsTemplate:WikiProject Writing systemsWriting system articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Georgia (country), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Georgia and
Georgians on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Georgia (country)Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia (country)Template:WikiProject Georgia (country)Georgia (country) articles
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)
"Pharnavaz have introduced a military-administrative organization based on a network of regional governors or eristavi." - Change to "had"
"Iberia had totally 7 eristavis... ." - should be "in total"
"Back then the total population of the kingdom would have been, including foreign captives and the population of the tributary areas, about 600,000 which could raise a fairly big army not less than 100,000." - insert comma after 600,000.
"Parnavaz is then reported to have embarked on social and cultural projects; he 'supervises two building projects." - change to "supervised"
"He took a Dzurdzuk woman in marriage, in order to consolidate the alliance of Iberia with the Dzurdzuks, who helped him consolidate his reign against his unruly vassals,[30] while similarly he married his sister to a Sarmatian chief.[29]" - this needs to be broken up into different sentences
"According to the Georgian royal annals he also created the Georgian script and made Georgian language an official language of the kingdom:[31]" - either change "Georgian language" to "Georgian" or else re-write as "... made the Georgian language... ."
The "Legacy" section":
"The third and last Georgian royal Bagrationi dynasty claims descent directly from Pharnavaz.[39] During the monarchy in Georgia with the continuity of royalty all Georgian kings saw themselves as heirs to the Kingdom of Iberia, state which was founded by King Pharnavaz.[40]
There is King Pharnavaz's street, avenue and statue in Tbilisi. Streets are named after him in Batumi, Kutaisi, Khashuri, Gori, Gurjaani, Sachkhere, Zestaponi etc. Some schools, hotels etc. are named after him and about 500 Georgians bear his name.[41]" - This entire section needs to be re-written due to multiple grammatical errors. Also, use "such as" or "including" at the beginning of a sentence instead of using "etc."
Merge "In film" section with "legacy"
One sentence is not enough to justify this section as standalone, especially since the "Legacy" section is so small.
Spell out small numbers:
Iberia had... ...7 eristavis" - change to "seven"
"The kingdom had 1 spaspet who was under the direct control of the royal power based in Inner Kartli." - change to "one"
"Some schools, hotels etc. are named after him and about 500 Georgians bear his name." - change to "five hundred"
One sentence paragraph:
"The existence of a peculiar local form of Aramaic in pre-Christian Georgia has been archaeologically documented.[32]" - This is listed in the "reign" section. It needs to be merged into another paragraph, it cannot stand along per
MOS:PARAGRAPHS guidelines.
Point of ambiguity:
"His son, Saurmag, became a successor to the throne.[35]" - were their other successors? If not, rewrite as "succeeded him to the throne." If there were other claimants, then that will need to be explained.
Referencing
The referencing is good, but I think the second paragraph in "Life" could use a few more citations.
@
Jaqeli: The "Legacy" section still needs a rewrite. Also, after doing this review, I noticed that you are under a topic ban. I don't know whether this article falls within the scope of the ban or not. I requested comment from
User:EdJohnston.--
¿3family6contribs20:37, 13 June 2014 (UTC)reply
@
Jaqeli: Forgive me for not taking your word for it, but I will wait for comment as to whether or not this falls under the ban. As for the "Legacy" section:
"The third and last Georgian royal Bagrationi dynasty claims descent directly from Pharnavaz.[39]" - is it the third Bagrationi dynasty, or was the Bagrationi dynasty the third royal dynasty? I'm assuming the latter, in which case you can rewrite the sentence as "The third and last Georgian royal dynasty, the Bagrationi dynasty, claims descent directly from Pharnavaz" or "The Bagrationi dynasty, the third and last Georgian royal dynasty, claims descent directly from Pharnavaz."
"During the monarchy in Georgia with the continuity of royalty all Georgian kings saw themselves as heirs to the Kingdom of Iberia, state which was founded by King Pharnavaz.[40]" - I honestly can barely even comprehend what this is trying to say. What does "the continuity of royalty" mean? This sentence needs a complete rewrite. I'd make a suggestion except I don't know that this is even saying. For the second half, "...heirs to the Kingdom of Iberia, state which was founded by King Pharnavaz", just remove the comma and "state", and that part will be correct. But the first half is barely comprehensible.
"There is King Pharnavaz's street, avenue and statue in Tbilisi." - this needs an introduction, and the grammar is wrong. Add an introduction for the entire paragraph, and rewrite this sentence as something like "For instance, in Tbilisi there is a King Pharnavaz Street, Avenue, as well as a statue of Pharnavaz."
"Streets are named after him in Batumi, Kutaisi, Khashuri, Gori, Gurjaani, Sachkhere, Zestaponi etc. Some schools, hotels etc. are named after him and about 500 Georgians bear his name.[41]" - Perhaps reword as "Also, there are streets named after Pharnavaz in Batumi, Kutaisi, Khashuri, Gori, Gurjaani, Sachkhere, Zestaponi and others. Some buildings, including schools and hotels, also bear his name, as well as about five hundred Georgians."--
¿3family6contribs21:03, 13 June 2014 (UTC)reply
@
Jaqeli: The info about streets, buildings, and other namesakes needs an introductory sentence. Right now it starts of with "For instance...", but fails to explain what the examples are instances of.
Once this is addressed, the only thing preventing this article from going forward is the issue of your topic ban and whether it applies here.--
¿3family6contribs21:28, 13 June 2014 (UTC)reply
@
3family6: Done Again, it's been more than 4 months now my TBAN is in action and I know where I should edit and where not so relax. This article is not under that ban.
Jaqeli (
talk)
21:33, 13 June 2014 (UTC)reply
Jaqeli's contributions to this article,
Pharnavaz I of Iberia, violate Jaqeli's topic ban from topics that relate to both Armenia and Georgia. This applies to this article because it is about an ancient Georgian king and it contains the text "in the early Armenian histories as (..) and P'arazean (Primary History of Armenia 14;" and "the resurgent Orontids of Armenia". In enforcement of the topic ban, Jaqeli is blocked for two weeks. I have no opinion about the quality of the article. Sandstein 06:29, 14 June 2014 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.
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)reply
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.
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.--
KoberTalk05:38, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
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.
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.
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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[
talk00:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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[
talk17:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)reply
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[
talk13:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC)reply
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.
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[
talk15:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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 ::
talk07:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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.