Talk:Rhescuporis III
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
 | On 7 March 2026, it was proposed that this article be moved to Rhescuporis II (III). The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
Title Should be Changed to "Rhescuporis II"
The title of this page should be changed to Rhescuporis II. In An Introduction to the History and Coinage of the Kingdom of the Bosporus, David MacDonald writes, “Rhescuporis I is sometimes called Rhescuporis II. This stems from the theory that Aspurgus adopted the name Rhescuporis, which in turn depends upon the resolution of the monogram on certain coins of Aspurgus. That monogram can, like most other monograms, be resolved in many ways, and it is now generally accepted that Aspurgus did not adopt the name Rhescuporis.” [p.69] Unless there is other scholarship I am unfamiliar with, this remains true today. Calling this king Rhescuporis III rests on the now obsolete numbering system. The page for Rhescuporis I (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiberius_Julius_Rhescuporis_I) already follows this correct numbering system. Rhescuporis I above is the first Bosporan King we reliably know ruled under this name, and the king on this page is the second. Similarly, the subsequent Bosporan Kings named Rhescuporis should also see their numbering revised and reduced by 1. Rhescuporis IV should become Rhescuporis III, V should become IV, and VI should become V. T Clvrc (talk) 05:12, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
- @T Clvrc: Yes. I wonder, though, if we shouldn't use the form "Rhescuporis I (II)", "Rhescuporis II (III)", etc. in order to have unique titles. MacDonald uses these forms as needed. What do you think? If you agree, I will make the moves. Srnec (talk) 18:36, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
- I feel like that may be a bit messy? I’d make the titles just Rhescuporis I, II, III, etc.. and then within the text of each article use the parentheses form, and maybe a sentence specifying the naming conflict? Also if the alternative naming isn’t accepted it would be best to stop giving credence to it. ~2025-32223-47 (talk) 03:32, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
- @T Clvrc: Well, Rhescuporis I and Rhescuporis II are ambiguous. If we make our current Rhescuporis V into Rhescuporis IV, all the internal links will be wrong. We can fix them manually, of course, but that doesn't keep links correct in the future. Even if the idea that Aspurgus was also called Rhescuporis is no longer given credence, that doesn't mean that the old numbering isn't still used by scholars who didn't get the memo.
As for how we treat ambiguous Bosporan kings now, we are not consistent. We have Mithridates II of the Bosporus and the slightly different Eumelus of Bosporus. We also have full names, e.g., Tiberius Julius Cotys II. —Srnec (talk) 19:42, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
- @T Clvrc: Well, Rhescuporis I and Rhescuporis II are ambiguous. If we make our current Rhescuporis V into Rhescuporis IV, all the internal links will be wrong. We can fix them manually, of course, but that doesn't keep links correct in the future. Even if the idea that Aspurgus was also called Rhescuporis is no longer given credence, that doesn't mean that the old numbering isn't still used by scholars who didn't get the memo.
Requested move 7 March 2026
- 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: no consensus. After three relists there remains no consensus, although I do see a rough consensus against using the old numbering in parenthesis. Editors who wish to propose updating the numbering without the parenthesis should feel free to do so at any time. (non-admin closure) BilledMammal (talk) 00:21, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
- Rhescuporis III → Rhescuporis II (III)
- Tiberius Julius Rhescuporis IV → Rhescuporis III (IV)
- Rhescuporis V → Rhescuporis IV (V)
- Rhescuporis VI → Rhescuporis V (VI)
- Tiberius Julius Rhescuporis I → Rhescuporis I (II)
– See talk page section above. Our articles (except for Rhescuporis I) currently use the old numbering of Bosporan kings named Rhescuporis. It is proposed to move them to the new numbering as the main title but with the old numbering in brackets. This is done, e.g., by David MacDonald in An Introduction to the History and Coinage of the Kingdom of the Bosporus. The main article for the different numbers can then be dab pages (as Rhescuporis I and Rhescuporis II already are). Although a little clunky, I think this is the best way to assure that internal links get corrected and that readers see what is going on. T Clvrc objected to it, however, hence the RM. Srnec (talk) 19:36, 7 March 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 21:55, 14 March 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. ASUKITE 13:50, 23 March 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. HundredVisionsAndRevisions (talk) 16:43, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose: I don't think this is compatible with WP:NCROY or WP:NCDAB. Bait30 Talk 2 me pls? 03:50, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- Move to updated numbering of Bosporan kings named Rhescuporis and use hatnotes. NCROY and NCDAB concerns raised by Bait30 aside, the parenthetical titles that nom proposes confused me and will probably confuse readers unfamiliar with the topic area. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 17:39, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- Note: WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome and WikiProject Royalty and Nobility have been notified of this discussion. ASUKITE 13:50, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
- Relisting comment: Second relist as we are still lacking in participation / definitive outcome is unclear ASUKITE 13:50, 23 March 2026 (UTC)