Talk:Vakhtang II

Requested move 7 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. None of the oppose !votes are based in policy. Ignoring those, there is a solid consensus in favor of moving the pages. (closed by non-admin page mover) –  00:12, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

– WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT; WP:SOVEREIGN. An emperor ✖ 14:26, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Vakhtang II of Georgia → Vakhtang II
 * Vakhtang III of Georgia → Vakhtang III
 * Vakhtang IV of Georgia → Vakhtang IV
 * Vakhtang V of Kartli → Vakhtang V
 * Vakhtang VI of Kartli → Vakhtang VI


 * Support per nom – "of country" disambiguation not needed. Rosbif73 (talk) 09:42, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Procedural oppose. I don't understand why have four different multi-move RMs for Georgian monarchs going at the same time when the argument is identical in each. Srnec (talk) 02:19, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * To clarify, and for convenience: the three other RMs being referred to are Talk:Pharnavaz I of Iberia, Talk:David III of Tao, and Talk:George X of Kartli. Adumbrativus (talk) 08:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I see no procedural reason to oppose; it is perfectly reasonable to group such RMs into chunks that editors can reasonably assess on their merits, rather than bundling them all into one mega-RM with the risk of it being derailed by its scale. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:27, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose and agree with Srnec above. How is this any different from (say) the David III of Tao RM? ╠╣uw [ talk ] 17:46, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support per nom, which is policy-based. Regarding the procedural objection, there is no guideline that is being violated here. Let’s not start enforcing imaginary rules on our fellow editors, as well as not applying imaginary guidelines to our title decision-making. Every applicable policy and guideline is in line with this proposal, and none, none, justify opposing it. Enough with the JDLI opposes! Either present  policy-based objection or stop wasting everyone’s time. Please. —В²C ☎ 00:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * B2C: The JDLI claim is false, as I must assume you know. That you disagree with others' weighting and interpretation of criteria and policy is fine, but mischaracterizing them as mere JDLI does nothing to improve these discussions and I'd ask that you please desist. ╠╣uw [ talk ] 13:20, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, as established at Talk:Pharnavaz I of Iberia, your interpretation of policy as applied in at least these recent NCROY-related RMs is not reasonable. Just suspending “disambiguate only when necessary”, as Opposition favors here, opens up countless articles with stable titles now for title changes, and with far less guidance. A position not based in a reasonable interpretation of policy/guidelines is the epitome of JDLI. I call ‘em as I see ‘em. 🤷‍♂️ —В²C ☎ 20:08, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Outside of this sequence, there are no other monarchs named Vakhtang, so removing the "of [country]" is in line with the current guidance at WP:NCROY. I don't feel that the procedural argument against the move holds any water. It can be irritating when there are multiple simultaneous RMs with similar scope/rationale, and I would encourage the nominator to open such RMs sequentially rather than concurrently, but I don't believe this has any bearing on whether the underlying argument is valid or not. As Rosbif mentions above, I think it's perfectly valid to run RMs in narrowly focused chunks in order to avoid a WP:TRAINWRECK. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:29, 15 February 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.