David III of Tao was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
On 9 February 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved from David III of Tao to David III. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
I passed the article on the GA nomination, after correcting some language. Congratulation! Eixo 15:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Gamarjoba Kober! I really appreciate your work on David III. Just a few minor remarks: 1) There is good reason to believe that the Byzantine court title of kuropalates was already bestowed on David in 978, and that he was granted the title again in ca. 990, after it had been taken away from him because of his support of Bardas Phocas during the second rebellion against Emperor Basil II. 2) David father was Adarnase Kuropalates (958-961), and not Bagrat, eristavt eristavi, as accidentally stated by you. The latter was David’s older brother. 3) David did not inherit the eristavt eristavi-title from Bragrat; already in 961 he bore the Byzantine court title of a magistros. 4) The cross you are displaying on the web-page is not a personal, but a processional silver cross. It was made by the goldsmith Asat (inscription on lower arm) due to a commission by David Kuropalates. Keep on the good work! Best wishes, User:Sofie.
Hey Sofie, thank a lot for your remarks. I'm very happy to have a chance to make proper corrections as the article is a Good Article nominee. Thanks again. -- Kober 09:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. Although I have passed this as acceptable, I think that it does need some work doing to it and it might not qualify under current guidelines if submitted at GAN today. I think the prose is somewhat unusual and should be thoroughly copyedited. I would also like to see more sources, especially in the Issues of succession section. I expect that more could probably be found to say about this man, and without further information this article would never make FA. Finally it might be an idea for someone familiar to create some pages for the various persons mentioned but not linked in he article; this would help provide greater context to King David. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, Jackyd101 ( talk) 15:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
Significant uncited material—nearly half of the ~1250 words in the body are in completely uncited paragraphs—which fails GA criterion 2b). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 22:54, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus, with the exception of David III, for which there was an affirmative consensus to not move. There were a number of arguments on both sides, some of which were weighty and some not. Most notably, on the opposing side, 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); however, the somewhat related argument that the proposed titles were less recognizable was valid and weighty under policy. On the supporting side, a number of editors cited WP:NCROY, which does not actually apply to Georgian monarchs (being Asian), and although a compelling case can be made that it should, given that Georgian monarchs used essentially the same naming conventions as Europeans, and this would be more consistent, the guideline would need to be amended to reflect this before it would be binding here. However, as supporters noted, the proposed names are more concise, and Born2cycle made a plausible argument that that they are also the common names, but the matter is not as straightforward as it would seem when just considering the Ngrams. Overall, because WP:CRITERIA is a balancing test that requires an editorial decision in cases without prescriptive guidelines, the supporters failed to overcome the large opposition to proposed titles despite their arguments having better grounding in policy. ( non-admin closure) — Compassionate727 ( T· C) 14:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
– WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT; WP:SOVEREIGN. An emperor ✖ 00:39, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
"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)
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)
Greetings User:Compassionate727. How come you just recently moved Edward V of England → Edward V and Edward IV of England → Edward IV per WP:SOVEREIGN criteria, yet stating no consensus on Georgian monarchs and calling them Asian? An emperor ✖ 07:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Most of the conventions below are intended to apply to medieval and modern European rulers and nobility, since in these civilizations the same given names are often shared between countries, so some disambiguation is often required, and disambiguation by territory is convenient.To the extent that David is part of that European namestock, there's no reason not to apply WP:SOVEREIGN – and in any case, NCROY goes on to say
Elsewhere, territorial designations are usually unnecessary in article titles.Rosbif73 ( talk) 07:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
David III of Tao was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
On 9 February 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved from David III of Tao to David III. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
I passed the article on the GA nomination, after correcting some language. Congratulation! Eixo 15:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Gamarjoba Kober! I really appreciate your work on David III. Just a few minor remarks: 1) There is good reason to believe that the Byzantine court title of kuropalates was already bestowed on David in 978, and that he was granted the title again in ca. 990, after it had been taken away from him because of his support of Bardas Phocas during the second rebellion against Emperor Basil II. 2) David father was Adarnase Kuropalates (958-961), and not Bagrat, eristavt eristavi, as accidentally stated by you. The latter was David’s older brother. 3) David did not inherit the eristavt eristavi-title from Bragrat; already in 961 he bore the Byzantine court title of a magistros. 4) The cross you are displaying on the web-page is not a personal, but a processional silver cross. It was made by the goldsmith Asat (inscription on lower arm) due to a commission by David Kuropalates. Keep on the good work! Best wishes, User:Sofie.
Hey Sofie, thank a lot for your remarks. I'm very happy to have a chance to make proper corrections as the article is a Good Article nominee. Thanks again. -- Kober 09:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. Although I have passed this as acceptable, I think that it does need some work doing to it and it might not qualify under current guidelines if submitted at GAN today. I think the prose is somewhat unusual and should be thoroughly copyedited. I would also like to see more sources, especially in the Issues of succession section. I expect that more could probably be found to say about this man, and without further information this article would never make FA. Finally it might be an idea for someone familiar to create some pages for the various persons mentioned but not linked in he article; this would help provide greater context to King David. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, Jackyd101 ( talk) 15:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
Significant uncited material—nearly half of the ~1250 words in the body are in completely uncited paragraphs—which fails GA criterion 2b). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 22:54, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus, with the exception of David III, for which there was an affirmative consensus to not move. There were a number of arguments on both sides, some of which were weighty and some not. Most notably, on the opposing side, 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); however, the somewhat related argument that the proposed titles were less recognizable was valid and weighty under policy. On the supporting side, a number of editors cited WP:NCROY, which does not actually apply to Georgian monarchs (being Asian), and although a compelling case can be made that it should, given that Georgian monarchs used essentially the same naming conventions as Europeans, and this would be more consistent, the guideline would need to be amended to reflect this before it would be binding here. However, as supporters noted, the proposed names are more concise, and Born2cycle made a plausible argument that that they are also the common names, but the matter is not as straightforward as it would seem when just considering the Ngrams. Overall, because WP:CRITERIA is a balancing test that requires an editorial decision in cases without prescriptive guidelines, the supporters failed to overcome the large opposition to proposed titles despite their arguments having better grounding in policy. ( non-admin closure) — Compassionate727 ( T· C) 14:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
– WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT; WP:SOVEREIGN. An emperor ✖ 00:39, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
"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)
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)
Greetings User:Compassionate727. How come you just recently moved Edward V of England → Edward V and Edward IV of England → Edward IV per WP:SOVEREIGN criteria, yet stating no consensus on Georgian monarchs and calling them Asian? An emperor ✖ 07:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Most of the conventions below are intended to apply to medieval and modern European rulers and nobility, since in these civilizations the same given names are often shared between countries, so some disambiguation is often required, and disambiguation by territory is convenient.To the extent that David is part of that European namestock, there's no reason not to apply WP:SOVEREIGN – and in any case, NCROY goes on to say
Elsewhere, territorial designations are usually unnecessary in article titles.Rosbif73 ( talk) 07:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)