Talk:Pharnavaz I

message: Should this be at Farnavaz of Iberia? RickK 02:18, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 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)
thread_title: Untitled2

message: Very interesting and informative. 168.156.99.48 (talk) 17:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Nice read!

message: რამეფრად წინ ისეთი რუკები წამოსწიეთ, სადაც აფხაზეთი საზღვრებს გარეთაა ნაჩვენები. ფუფ!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.137.128.229 (talk) 23:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled3

message: 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. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:59, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Barbara A. West, checks out. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source concerns 

message: Pharnavaz is a Georgian version of Pharnabazus. I suggest wiki to move it to Pharnabazus I.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.201.11.35 (talk) 17:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? Was not he Georgian? Is there really any source other than the Georgian chronicles alluding to him? --KoberTalk 18:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

text: This is not the reason for move. FYI, Pharnabazus is a Latinized form, not the original name. --KoberTalk 18:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename to Pharnabazus 

message: Was Pharnavaz something like a god-king?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.86.168.157 (talk) 18:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pharnavaz 

message: Is it true that his statue was once in Rome? Heard Roman emperor put one for Iberian king.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.71.239.140 (talk) 04:34, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statue in Rome  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081121010533/http://www.nplg.gov.ge/dlibrary/collect/0001/000032/Obrashenie_Gruzii.pdf to http://www.nplg.gov.ge/dlibrary/collect/0001/000032/Obrashenie_Gruzii.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:01, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title: Sources

message: :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. 
In support of this move editors cited WP:SOVEREIGN and WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT, while in opposition editors cited WP:COMMONNAME.
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.
As such, I find a consensus to move. However, should consensus on WP:SOVEREIGN change within the next few months to again support pre-emptive disambiguation then these moves should be reverted. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 17:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Srnec, PatGallacher, Huwmanbeing, with all respect, how in the world are your voting rationale a legitimate opposition? None of these above-listed articles of kings have ambiguous titles and they all meet both WP:COMMONNAME/CONCISE etc. An emperor ✖ 23:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 [talk] 00:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

text: To clarify, and for convenience: the three other RMs being referred to are Talk:David III of Tao#Requested move 9 February 2024, Talk:Vakhtang II of Georgia#Requested move 7 February 2024, and Talk:George X of Kartli#Requested move 6 February 2024. Adumbrativus (talk) 08:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 [talk] 15:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Relisting comment: Relisting for clearer consensus. BD2412 T 19:26, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

text: Note: WikiProject Writing systems, WikiProject Royalty and Nobility, WikiProject Biography, and WikiProject Georgia (country) have been notified of this discussion. RodRabelo7 (talk) 00:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

text: I've requested closure for this at Wikipedia:Closure requests. Natg 19 (talk) 21:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Therealscorp1an please don't vote twice. An emperor ✖ 13:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

text: Support unambiguous names, this wouldn't even be an issue if they were monarchs of Thailand or China.  Killuminator (talk) 21:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Requested move 6 February 2024