Talk:List of Georgian monarchs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Georgia (country) (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject History (Rated List-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History 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.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Konstantine II of Kartli[edit]

Why someone tries to present that as if the Kartli line more legitimate than Kaheti line? In the list it is specified that tsar Konstantin II (1478-1505) as though once was the king of all Georgia - it is a blunder! because last king of all Georgia was George VIII (1446-1476)who has been compelled to leave a throne of Georgia and to move in Kaheti. After that Georgia has collapsed on three kingdoms. The King Konstantine (Constantine) II never was the king of all Georgia !!! Therefore claims of a line of Kaheti more legitimate, than of a line of Kartli. Also it is necessary to notice that a line of kings of Kartli has stopped in 1919.--92.54.240.68 (talk) 12:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I moved this list for two reasons. (1) "in Britain and the Commonwealth, "Georgian" refers to the reigns from George I to George IV, therefore "Geogrian Kings" would simply be the kings during that time. (2), The King of Georgia, being a title, should have a capital K. Grutness|hello? Grutness.jpg 09:45, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This list has a David III reigning in 1155, yet according to the article on David the Builder (r. 1089-1125), he was David IV. So, how can a later king be only III? Should it be David V? - Nik42 07:31, 30 May 2005 (UTC)


I merged this page with the List of Kings of Iberia to make a better continuity. --Whaleyland 19:27, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

They need to be separated.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 03:07, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Why someone tries to present that as if the Kartli line more legitimate than Kaheti line? In the list it is specified that tsar Konstantin II (1478-1505) as though once was the king of all Georgia - it is a blunder! because last king of all Georgia was George VIII (1446-1476)who has been compelled to leave a throne of Georgia and to move in Kaheti. After that Georgia has collapsed on three kingdoms. The King Konstantine (Constantine) II never was the king of all Georgia !!! Therefore claims of a line of Kaheti more legitimate, than of a line of Kartli. Also it is necessary to notice that a line of kings of Kartli has stopped in 1919.--92.54.240.68 (talk) 14:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Annexation vs. Incorporation[edit]

Annexation in my opinion would be the proper term as it deals with specifically parcels of land, regions, or countries. Incorporation is a general definition which could describe a wide range of activities.

Sure. Furthermore, it occurred in violation of the previous Russo-Georgian treaty.[1]. --KoberTalk 13:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Princes[edit]

Please don't add princes onto the list of kings- the royal house was removed and therefore did not exist to have any monarchs. If you wish to include them, by all means create separate articles if they were indeed notable. Monsieurdl 14:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Table[edit]

I have started on the table of monarchs partially. If anyone could, please help finish it. I am a little busy with other stuff right now.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 01:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Corrections to text[edit]

Many errors in the use of English or violations of NPOV in the article need corrections: "Gruzinsky of Georgia" is redundant: "Gruzinsky" means "of Russia" "of Georgia" in Russian. "House" refers to the entire patrilineage, whereas a "branch" or "line" is a sub-division of a house. There is massive over-capitalization throughout the article: For example, in section titles, only the first word and proper nouns should be capitalized (e.g., "Royal Dynasty" is redundant in an article on "kings of Georgia", and neither "Royal" nor "Dynasty" nor "King" is a proper noun in English). The "Almanach de Saxe-Gotha" is a spurious website that often copies information incorrectly from other websites: it is not a reliable source. Correcting many errors of grammar, syntax or excessive usage. FactStraight (talk) 18:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

First of all, Gruzinsky doesn't mean "of Russia", it means "of Georgia". Second, why did you remove Royal on Principalities? All the 5 principalities were Royal not just sovereign as you wrote. I'm gonna edit that mistake down there. GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 19:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
I made a typo. You are right to correct my error, as all errors should be corrected. Thank you. FactStraight (talk) 21:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The whole article is cluttered and horrible looking now. How do you expect anyone to navigate through the list of Georgian kings when comtemporary rivals and claimants are included on the same list? You seem to want to include everything yet you don't even include the Imereti line after the 1500s. I should have never included the table in the first place. The original simple list made more sense. Also I agree the lists of princes and dukes need to be moved. This is a list of kings; look at the title, not a list of everyone in Georgia that held a title. The links to external pictures and useless footnotes need to move to their own articles and the information about pretenders and the royal house should be move to somewhere else too. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 07:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Georgian royal family today (inappropriate section moved here)[edit]

This has been moved to Monarchism in Georgia by User:GeorgianJorjadze. Here is what used to here [2].--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 03:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Splitting into many lists[edit]

What exactly are doing to List of Georgian monarchs? The list has become such a mess. You understand the difference between "the Kingdom of Georgia" and its successor states:Kartli, Imereti, and Kakheti, and a plain old Georgian kingdoms of a reigion within the present day country of Georgia right? The table you have right now makes it look like the Kingdom of Georgia and the line of the Kings of Georgia has been since 1120BC. There was a state within Georgia with a king in 1120BC. You are making this list about every monarchs who lived in Georgia or were of Georgian ethnicity, when most of these states are not even the same or interconnected. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 23:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be most wise to split this into multiple different lists with the appropriate states and titles with a mother list with links to the different lists like Lists of monarchs in the British Isles. At present this article looks like what Lists of monarchs in the British Isles would be if all the sublists were merged together.

I think List of Georgian monarchs should only include the kings after Bagrat III of Georgia of the united state and the three fragmented states (again only after Bagrat III and not those before so Kakheti would start in 1465 rather than 580, we won't leave the earlier kings out entirely because they already have lists of their own and we can have a see also link for them where the entire line kings can be listed). I stress the importance of Imereti (David VI Narin's state and the one from 1446 to 1810), Kartli and Kakheti and united Kartli-Kakheti being listed together alongside the united state. The table on this list would look like this. The master list should be called Lists of monarchs in Georgia and then we can have separate lists for the kings of Iberia, Colchis, Kakheti and even list any princes and dukes like you had on the article before. For those which creating a separate list might be unnecessary because it is too short and the article on the state has a good list already we can have a link created which redirects to the list on the page on the state. For example on the master list we will have a bullet to List of Kings of Diauehi (time range of existent) and have it redirect to Diauehi#List of Kings of Diauehi; I created the redirect to show the example. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 00:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

List of monarchs of Iberia is done. I just copied and paste from here and changed a few links. I don't know if the princes of Iberia should be separate from the kings of Iberia because they seem to be two different states. The Kingdom of Iberia seems like an ancient state while the Principate of Iberia judging from the texts and the categories on each princes' articles to be a more direct precursor to the united Kingdom of Georgia. Maybe they should be separated into List of kings of Iberia and List of princes of Iberia or the rulers of Principate of Iberia should remain on the Georgian monarch list ahead of the kings of the united state of Georgia. All I am certain of is that we should have a separate list for the ancient kings of Principate of Iberia. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 03:33, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Also I want to say that is not appropriate to have a section called House of Bagrationi because it is just replicating List of Bagrationi rulers of Georgia, the section on the Kings of Iberia is not even chronological and repeats individuals already mentioned (it is just listing titles that the Bagrationi used or ruled with like a royal house article), and also some individual that are subsection of it are not Bagrationi like some of the Gureli kings of Imereti.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 04:04, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

@The Emperor's New Spy: With all respect how would this help out this situation? It created even more mess. And what do you mean those aren't Georgian kingdoms? All of those kingdoms put in the list are not just some monarchies which were on the Georgian soil once but they are ethnic Georgian monarchies with Georgian monarchs. And Diauehi is the first of such. There is a big difference in wording here. All of those dynasties were ethno-linguistically Georgian. And why would you put Iberian kings to the other article? Iberians were also Georgians, spoke Georgian language, wrote in Georgian. I don't understand the need of creating such a mess even more bigger. I'd suggest to put it under one article and creating the table's as I've did yesterday instead of just listing the names of the monarchs. You've asked for discussion but you already changed all these here so why would you do that? There should be a discussion first. GeorgianJorjadze 07:24, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
My edits can be reverted if you want until we come to some consensus, I just been bold and trying to implement what I saw was best because I was bored with the waiting for reply. I understand what you are getting at with the definition of a "Georgian monarch" on "Georgian" soil within the bound of Georgian history, but I personally think it is too long of a list and covers too many different states, it is comparable to including all rulers of what became the modern state of Britain on one super list. Let me ask you a question so you can see how I view it. Would you think it is proper to move Kingdom of Georgia to Georgian Kingdoms and have all the contents we now have on Caucasian Iberia, Diauehi, Principate of Iberia, Colchis, Lazica, Kingdom of Imereti, Kingdom of Kartli, Kingdom of Imereti, Kingdom of Kakheti, Kingdom of Kartli-Kakheti and etc, placed on that super article and say it is correct because all those states shared the same language, area and history? That is what I see with this article right now. I thought you would agree with the split since it would allow you to list the dukes and princes that have been removed. I want to hear User:Kober's opinion as well. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 07:40, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
@The Emperor's New Spy: No I agree about the dukes and princes. As I remember you've cut them out from the article and also the part which was about Georgian royal family as well. I totally agreed with you on that step what you've did because there were no place for that. Georgian dukes and princes need another article with same format as well. But as for your question. I want to underline one simple fact here. History of Georgia is not just history of some land where some other people or some other monarchies existed and that it just happened by chance and now we are called Georgia and we should call everything Georgian. Georgian history is very complex and very rich in this regard and again I want to underline that Georgian history is inextricably connected with the history of Georgian people, as ethno-linguistic unity. So that is why I am saying that dividing the article into many other articles as if they were not Georgian monarchies is wrong. Starting from Diaeuhi ending with Kartli and Kakheti all of them are Georgian kingdoms who had Georgian kings, queens, princes, dukes. They spoke Georgian language, wrote in Georgian alphabet, and they were the ones who created that very history of Georgia. So again, I would like to suggest to put them back into article and start cleaning out other mess with sources, and creating the tables with better pictures etc. in them. As I've said it really needs to be cleaned but all of those monarchs and monarchies should stay under this article as they were Georgian ones in the sense what I've just explained above. GeorgianJorjadze 07:55, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
You are repeating everything I just said you are thinking. I am telling you I understand your viewpoint on this but I don't agree it is the best way to go about this on Wikipedia. The mess I see isn't the content of the list it is the size and scope of it. With your same reasoning, I can merge all the articles on historical monarchal states with people "that spoke Georgian language, wrote in Georgian alphabet, and...were the ones who created that very history of Georgia" into one giant mess call Georgian Kingdoms. You are trying tie multiple historical periods into one unit when there just wasn't any one single unit that existed starting from Diaeuhi and ending with Kartli and Kakheti. I agree with you there were multiple states with different rulers that were Georgians, spoke Georgian, wrote in Georgian and are part of Georgian history. Keyword multiple and different (Again, I am only arguing political difference). What you are writing now is a list of every monarchs in Georgian history. I also want to note that dukes and princes are monarchs too, so via the recent change in title from List of Kings of Georgia to List of Georgian monarchs, they fit your definition of a Georgian monarchs (one "that spoke Georgian language, wrote in Georgian alphabet, and...were the ones who created that very history of Georgia"). --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 08:20, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
@The Emperor's New Spy: No I am not saying that all those kingdoms should unite under one article. I am saying that as the article is about the monarchs then there is no point to divide them into their local naming as they all were Georgian monarchs. There were tones of Chinese monarchs with tones of their dynasties but they are united under major article which is about their monarchs only but do have their seperate articles about their dynasties and historical states, kingdoms etc. That is my point. Colchis, Iberia, Kartli etc. should be seperate with their own histories but all their monarchs should be united under Georgian one as they were the ones in fact so there is no point to dividing those. Again it creates even more mess. For example Colchian monarchs are not well-documented and some 5-6 names are known in history, same is about Diauhi so creating the articles just for 3 sentences? And it will be redirected which again loses its importance. Becomes messy, way more confusing for a foreign eye especially. So again suggest to bring back those lists back under this article and work on the better tables and cleaning out unnecesary infos from this article. Then the articles about princes and dukes can be created. They should have their own articles. GeorgianJorjadze 08:36, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
With few rulers, you redirect which is a perfect way to get exactly to the list. Again I don't think it is appropriate to group them together. Chinese dynasties believed they were either ruling or contending for the rule of the same state (the only civilized state in their mindset) each time they replaced each other or fall into disunity. I don't think the rulers of Kartli looked back and view their kingdom was the exact same state with just a dynastic change as Diauhi. You might as well changed this article to List of monarchs in the History of Georgia the way you are looking at it. Also since you saw List of rulers of China, I want to stressed that if you plan to add tables refrain from adding picture slot (at least on some of the sections like united Georhia) because too many Individuals here do not have any images or illustrations of themselves and a list looks as professional with or without images; some of the best feature list on Wikipedia have no images. And don't confuse readers by listing both David Narin's line and David Ulu's line on the same table as you have done before. It is getting late so I end with this. At this point I don't think we going to get anywhere with this argument because you are as stubborn as I am. So, yeah I don't know what to do for now. I guess you should hope your next reply can somehow change my mind. Also, I want to state, if you want you can revert my edits until we come to a consensus. I am honestly just stalling until User:Kober gives an opinion and hopefully he would agree with me and somehow talk you into seeing it my way.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 09:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
@The Emperor's New Spy: I want to state that I see you as an experienced and credible user on Wiki as I've seen your past edits and they are of highly quality contributions. But in this case I think we must try to somehow agree without dividing this article into many mini-articles of Georgian monarchs. This is not only about China. If you see and I am sure you've seen many monarch lists here most of them are united under their major monarchic article and are not divided into mini-articles as you've did. Same is for example on Persian kings. If we go this dividing way then we should create: Kings of Achaemenid Empire, Kings of Seleucid Empire, Kings of Parthian Empire, Kings of Sasanian Empire etc. They have their own articles as Kingdoms but they have one major article under Kings of Persia. Same should apply for Georgian monarchs. That is my point. I understand we both may be stubborn in this case but such division would make even more confusion and mess and will be way more difficult to navigate and to understand what the article is about. So better to be under one major article. We can create the dukes/princes article by its own. GeorgianJorjadze 09:41, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, I think The Emperor's New Spy's proposal makes sense and I don't quite understand why splitting the article into daughter lists puts the Georgianess of, say, the kings of Imereti, under question. It's a purely technical issue; overcrowded lists such as the List of Russian rulers are not well read. There are some relatively minor issues which needs to be addressed, but these can be settled through the consensus (e.g., to which list the kings of united Kartli-Kakheti belong). GeorgianJorjadze's concerns can be addressed by making a separate list of comparative chronology of the Georgian rulers after the tripartite division of the kingdom in the 15th century (something like this). It will also easily integrate the periods of brief reunifications. I've always been interested in creating such an entry, but it's very timeconsumming. --KoberTalk 12:40, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
At this stage the list looks like the Russian one if all the other Russian princes were included....Exactly Georgianess would be preserved in Lists of monarchs in Georgia and keeping the list effectively in one unit with each of them only a click away. Just look at how well it has worked for Lists of monarchs in the British Isles. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 16:16, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
@The Emperor's New Spy: @Kober: So you are dividing this article? georgianJORJADZE 16:25, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Please continue this part of the discussion here. The next section is for discussing how we should go about splitingt my proposed version further. I have reverted my edits until we can come to an agreement on splitting the list. Look at how nice I am. Again here is my proposed version and here is the master list Lists of monarchs in Georgia I made on the example of Lists of monarchs in the British Isles. I included dukes and princes of independent Georgian states because they are also monarchs. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 16:40, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
@The Emperor's New Spy: Well I still disagree. What would you do with article List of Bagrationi rulers of Georgia. If your proposed version would be done than that article will be totally the same copy of the List of Georgian monarchs article. What the point then. My compromise version with you would be if there will be 2 articles.
1) List of ancient Georgian monarchs or List of ancient kings of Georgia (Diauhi, Colchis, Iberia, Lazica included)
2) List of Georgian monarchs (only Bagrationis till 1810 till Russian annexation).
What would you say? georgianJORJADZE 16:49, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Maybe it is time to delete that one. I don't see why a non-chronological list of just Bagrationi kings of Iberia, Hereti, Kakheti, Abkhazia and Tao-Klarjeti should remain and the complete list of Iberian kings and princes be removed. I am sticking to my original suggestion, more like before. And don't remove the split template because other users may have an opinion and this isn't settled yet.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 21:07, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
I concur with your approach for handling this thus far. Unwieldy lists discourage readers: they count on Wikipedia to make it readable. Look how we handle Germany's monarchies. FactStraight (talk) 22:38, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
@The Emperor's New Spy: Can you please be more clear what do you suggest? The article needs to have the normal table and be cleaned with those pictures which are making a mess in the article but dividing the article into many mini-articles does not make any sense. georgianJORJADZE 23:03, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
The tables can be added either way. Dividing the article makes it more manageable. The links to all monarchs would be maintained on a master list. I am not sure what to include on this list yet as I stated before. I don't know if we should begin with Ancient Iberia or the Principate of Iberia or Bagrat III of Georgia. User:Kober and User:FactStraight have agreed that splitting is a good idea. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 23:57, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
This makes no sense. Monarchs of Diaokhi, Lazica and Colchis will have no their own articles. They will be just redirected which is way more confusing. There should be 1 or maximum 2 main articles as I've suggested. Diaokhi, colchis and Lazica monarchs will get less important if this article will be split into totally useless fake redirect article links.
I'd support split like this or let this article be the way it is now.
1) List of ancient Georgian monarchs (Diauhi, Colchis and Lazica)
2) List of Georgian monarchs (Iberia and all Bagrationis till 1810 till Russian annexation).
georgianJORJADZE 00:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
No because that leaves Hereti, Kakheti, Abkhazia and Tao-Klarjeti which I assume you want on List of Georgian monarchs. On no ground would I will agree to the inclusion of Hereti, Kakheti, Abkhazia and Tao-Klarjeti. As for the ancient list, each of those states had nothing in common other than that they are a part of Georgian ancient history which Iberia is part of too. No connection at all except the ridiculousness holding this one together. A majority of the kings listed on Lists of monarchs in the British Isles have no articles too and merely redirect to the article on the states. Not every wikipedia article on a kingdom has an alternative article listing all it's rulers and sometime there is no need for a separate list.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 00:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
All these monarchies were Georgian and they should be under this article. Monarchs starting from Diaokhi ending with Kartli-Kakheti should be in this article. British isles example can no be good in this case. I can bring many articles just like that which have all their monarchs in ONE article. So all monarchs should stay in this article. georgianJORJADZE 01:05, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Further division[edit]

I don't want us to get sidetrack here, so I spliting this part of my reply to User:Kober....Now my other questions are concerned with how we should continue to divide this article further. Because I question my splitting Iberia from here, should we A. have the two states of Iberia here or B. have one on a separate ancient list and the princes here or C. just begin with Bagrat III and only include the united kingdom, Imereti (David VI Narin's state and the one from 1446 to 1810), Kartli, Kakheti and Kartli-Kakheti or D. just divide into different states and periods. Going back to the list when I first saw it [3], it is so much much much more manageable then what we have now. One thing about it though, I don't really understand why everyone before Stephen III of Iberia is called a Prince of Iberia while after that during the rule of the Bagrationi you got rulers who start using the title of king of Iberia/Kartli and prince of Iberia/Kartli.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 16:16, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

@Kober: Should this list begin with Ancient Iberia or the Principate of Iberia or Bagrat III of Georgia?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 23:51, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
@The Emperor's New Spy: The Georgian kingship, abolished by the Persians in 580, was restored by Adarnase IV of Iberia in 888. Prior to that, the Bagratids were presiding princes, curopalates, etc. I think the split should be accomplished in the following way: (1) List of rulers of Colchis (incl. Lazica), (2) List of rulers of Caucasian Iberia (beginning with Parnavaz I of Iberia, through the presiding princes and Bagratid kings down to the unification by Bagrat III in 1008), (3) list of the kings of Georgia (from the unification to the division in 1490/1), (4) List of monarchs of Kakheti, (5)... Kartli, (6)...Imereti, + breakaway principalities. --KoberTalk 04:02, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
@Kober: That is more radical than what I proposed....I thought it would make sense to keep some of the kingdoms together. My suggestion are.
1. Something like this earlier version before User:GeorgianJorjadze started adding every monarchs in Georgian history to the list. With Ancient Iberia from Parnavaz I, the Principate, United Georgia, Kakheti, Kartli, and Imereti (including Narin's breakaway kingdom). The other kings, who I really don't care about, can either have seperate list created or be redirect to the lists that already exist on the page for the kingdoms. And all be listed on Lists of monarchs in Georgia.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 04:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
2. Or the main list can starts in 1008 and include just Georgia, Kakheti, Kartli, and Imereti while Iberia have its own list, already created here. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 04:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
I've added the dukes and princes. georgianJORJADZE 10:54, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
I going ahead with the proposal. I am tired of this civility. We are not going change each other 's mind. Two other users have expressed the need to split the list. I have posted on all wikiproject hoping to get someone else's opinion to be fair toward you, but no one has replied. You have been outvoted. Also I am readding the sources, introductions for each sections, and dates you deleted. If you want to push this further go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and appeal your case.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 01:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I am done! I am tired with dealing GeorgianJorjadze as he slowly ruin this article. I was hinting all along that article looked it best before you started editing. This article can just rot in hell.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 11:44, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have to agree with you. The article is a total mess and, from what I can see right now, without any chance of improvement in the nearest future. The intro says the article lists the Bagrationi rulers, while I see dozens of non-Bagratids in the list. Also, the highly "rounded" royal style in the intro cannot be applied to all the monarchs in the Georgian history and the patriarchate in Georgia appeared only in the 11th century. The article lists the kings of Imereti and states the Georgian monarchy ended in 1810 (the year of the Russian conquest of Imereti), but the infobox claims George XII, the last king of Kartli-Kakheti, was the last Georgian monarch. There are myriads of other issues, inaccuracies, inconsistencies and exaggerations, which cannot be settled without proper cooperation. I'm also withdrawing from this and related lists until they stop serving the only purpose of being the battleground.--KoberTalk 12:14, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

This is really a fine mess now. Another WP:BATTLEGROUND triggered by someone not here to write an encyclopedia. WP:LIST articles have to have a reason to exist. A List of kings of Georgia makes good sense, as the list is too long and would burden the kingdom of Georgia article unduly. Otoh, Diauehi has three known kings. Just mention them on that page, 1 Sien, 2 Asia, 3 Utupursi, and be donem there is no conceivable reason to make a list article from that. Also, if people would simply ignore the national mysticists and patriots around here instead of wasting time and space trying to "debate" people who cannot or do not want to debate, we could actually get something done for a change. Thank you. --dab (𒁳) 05:41, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

What now?[edit]

So the consensus seems to be that this list – and the cluster of associated lists, family trees, and articles, is a big, bad, mess. Fixing it seems at times out of reach, given the complexity of the subject and the various approaches of different contributors, but let's give it a try.

The list of lists lists 10 lists and family trees, many overlapping with each other, and built on divergent principles; the main list is still particularly cluttered, with some royals appearing twice and haphazard chronology. Some lists are based on (A) geographical/historical units (kingdoms), some on (B) dynasties (mostly the Bagration), although on the main list, both principles coexist.

Perhaps we should stick to (A) for lists, to (B) for family trees.

The problem with these is that as we go back in history, the exact family relationships between rulers becomes less certain, primary sources cannot be trusted and secondary modern sources offer various hypotheses rather than clear-cut solutions: building an NPOV family tree of Georgian rulers before the 10th century seems doomed to me. For an illustration of conflicts brought by such an endeavor, see Talk:Georgian monarchs family tree of Bagrationi dynasty‎. The family trees should in my opinion be more closely associated to the articles about the dynasties, either as a section or a stand-alone linked from the article – we would also have to source them correctly (if that's even possible) and change the terrible names some of them have. Maybe "Family tree of the Iberian Chosroids", "...of the Guaramids", etc., could work, . Family tree of ancient Georgian monarchs as it is now has absolutely no point, as it doubles a list with absolutely no regard to historical accuracy and sources in the purported family relations it depicts.

As for lists for each kingdom, as Dbachmann just said re. Diauehi, this is not useful as long as the amount of rulers is not too long: in such cases, a section in the article about the political entity seems perfectly enough to me. A good example would be Kingdom of Abkhazia#Rulers.

Regarding this main list, I think the best way to start fixing it is to focus on the unified kingdom and its successor states, that is from 1008 to the Russian annexation. For earlier periods, depending on how this goes, we could either integrate it in this list or develop one or more lists for pre-unification Georgian kingdoms, ancient kingdoms (mostly Iberia, as the others don't have so many historically sure rulers), etc. I think it would be premature to take a position on that question now. For 1008 and later, especially for periods of fragmentation, I think a good model to follow is List of Frankish kings, which splits into columns during periods of division. Looks a bit tough technically, but I could try myself at it unless some more competent user wants to try that first.

Anyway, sorry for the long post, and please discuss! Susuman77 (talk) 12:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

As a first step, I suggest to redirect the "fake" Family tree of ancient Georgian monarchs into List of Kings of Caucasian Iberia (merging this list with the Caucasian Iberia article has been proposed too, I have no strong opinion on that one. I've opened a discussion at Talk:List of Kings of Caucasian Iberia. Susuman77 (talk) 13:26, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

OK I've had fun building a table of Georgian (including Imereti, Kartli, Kakheti) monarchs from 1008 to 1810 in my sandbox, that I think could serve as a basis for this list. Tell me what you think of it, and if there's consensus, I'll integrate it here. We'll still have to deal with the pre-1008 period, but I hope this table could be considered a first improvement. Susuman77 (talk) 15:06, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Looks clear & straightforward. I suggest you proceed. FactStraight (talk) 05:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC)