Talk:Pharnavaz I of Iberia

Untitled

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

Untitled2

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)

Nice read!

Very interesting and informative. 168.156.99.48 (talk) 17:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Untitled3

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)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pharnavaz I of Iberia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: 3family6 (talk · contribs) 18:53, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

---

Writing errors

• Grammatical errors (Errors bolded):

In the "Reign" section:

• "Pharnavaz have introduced a military-administrative organization based on a network of regional governors or eristavi." - Change to "had"
• "Iberia had totally 7 eristavis... ." - should be "in total"
• "Back then the total population of the kingdom would have been, including foreign captives and the population of the tributary areas, about 600,000 which could raise a fairly big army not less than 100,000." - insert comma after 600,000.
• "Parnavaz is then reported to have embarked on social and cultural projects; he 'supervises two building projects." - change to "supervised"
• "He took a Dzurdzuk woman in marriage, in order to consolidate the alliance of Iberia with the Dzurdzuks, who helped him consolidate his reign against his unruly vassals,[30] while similarly he married his sister to a Sarmatian chief.[29]" - this needs to be broken up into different sentences
• "According to the Georgian royal annals he also created the Georgian script and made Georgian language an official language of the kingdom:[31]" - either change "Georgian language" to "Georgian" or else re-write as "... made the Georgian language... ."

The "Legacy" section":

• "The third and last Georgian royal Bagrationi dynasty claims descent directly from Pharnavaz.[39] During the monarchy in Georgia with the continuity of royalty all Georgian kings saw themselves as heirs to the Kingdom of Iberia, state which was founded by King Pharnavaz.[40]

There is King Pharnavaz's street, avenue and statue in Tbilisi. Streets are named after him in Batumi, Kutaisi, Khashuri, Gori, Gurjaani, Sachkhere, Zestaponi etc. Some schools, hotels etc. are named after him and about 500 Georgians bear his name.[41]" - This entire section needs to be re-written due to multiple grammatical errors. Also, use "such as" or "including" at the beginning of a sentence instead of using "etc."

• Merge "In film" section with "legacy"

  One sentence is not enough to justify this section as standalone, especially since the "Legacy" section is so small.

• Spell out small numbers:

• Iberia had... ...7 eristavis" - change to "seven"
• "The kingdom had 1 spaspet who was under the direct control of the royal power based in Inner Kartli." - change to "one"
• "Some schools, hotels etc. are named after him and about 500 Georgians bear his name." - change to "five hundred"

• One sentence paragraph:

• "The existence of a peculiar local form of Aramaic in pre-Christian Georgia has been archaeologically documented.[32]" - This is listed in the "reign" section. It needs to be merged into another paragraph, it cannot stand along per MOS:PARAGRAPHS guidelines.

• Point of ambiguity:

• "His son, Saurmag, became a successor to the throne.[35]" - were their other successors? If not, rewrite as "succeeded him to the throne." If there were other claimants, then that will need to be explained.

Referencing

The referencing is good, but I think the second paragraph in "Life" could use a few more citations.

Overall

Significant writing issues throughout the article. If those are fixed, this article should be able to go forward to good article status.--¿3family6 _contribs 18:53, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

@3family6:  Done. Jaqeli (talk) 19:29, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

@Jaqeli: The "Legacy" section still needs a rewrite. Also, after doing this review, I noticed that you are under a topic ban. I don't know whether this article falls within the scope of the ban or not. I requested comment from User:EdJohnston.--¿3family6 _contribs 20:37, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

@3family6: No it does not. This article is not under the TBAN so relax. What exactly is the problem of legacy section? Jaqeli (talk) 20:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

@Jaqeli: Forgive me for not taking your word for it, but I will wait for comment as to whether or not this falls under the ban. As for the "Legacy" section:

• "The third and last Georgian royal Bagrationi dynasty claims descent directly from Pharnavaz.[39]" - is it the third Bagrationi dynasty, or was the Bagrationi dynasty the third royal dynasty? I'm assuming the latter, in which case you can rewrite the sentence as "The third and last Georgian royal dynasty, the Bagrationi dynasty, claims descent directly from Pharnavaz" or "The Bagrationi dynasty, the third and last Georgian royal dynasty, claims descent directly from Pharnavaz."

• "During the monarchy in Georgia with the continuity of royalty all Georgian kings saw themselves as heirs to the Kingdom of Iberia, state which was founded by King Pharnavaz.[40]" - I honestly can barely even comprehend what this is trying to say. What does "the continuity of royalty" mean? This sentence needs a complete rewrite. I'd make a suggestion except I don't know that this is even saying. For the second half, "...heirs to the Kingdom of Iberia, state which was founded by King Pharnavaz", just remove the comma and "state", and that part will be correct. But the first half is barely comprehensible.

• "There is King Pharnavaz's street, avenue and statue in Tbilisi." - this needs an introduction, and the grammar is wrong. Add an introduction for the entire paragraph, and rewrite this sentence as something like "For instance, in Tbilisi there is a King Pharnavaz Street, Avenue, as well as a statue of Pharnavaz."

• "Streets are named after him in Batumi, Kutaisi, Khashuri, Gori, Gurjaani, Sachkhere, Zestaponi etc. Some schools, hotels etc. are named after him and about 500 Georgians bear his name.[41]" - Perhaps reword as "Also, there are streets named after Pharnavaz in Batumi, Kutaisi, Khashuri, Gori, Gurjaani, Sachkhere, Zestaponi and others. Some buildings, including schools and hotels, also bear his name, as well as about five hundred Georgians."--¿3family6 _contribs 21:03, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

@3family6:  Done Jaqeli (talk) 21:15, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

@Jaqeli: The info about streets, buildings, and other namesakes needs an introductory sentence. Right now it starts of with "For instance...", but fails to explain what the examples are instances of.

Once this is addressed, the only thing preventing this article from going forward is the issue of your topic ban and whether it applies here.--¿3family6 _contribs 21:28, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

@3family6:  Done Again, it's been more than 4 months now my TBAN is in action and I know where I should edit and where not so relax. This article is not under that ban. Jaqeli (talk) 21:33, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Everything looks in order now, so if @Sandstein: confirms that this article is outside the scope of your ban, I will happily promote it to Good Article.--¿3family6 _contribs 21:38, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Jaqeli's contributions to this article, Pharnavaz I of Iberia, violate Jaqeli's topic ban from topics that relate to both Armenia and Georgia. This applies to this article because it is about an ancient Georgian king and it contains the text "in the early Armenian histories as (..) and P'arazean (Primary History of Armenia 14;" and "the resurgent Orontids of Armenia". In enforcement of the topic ban, Jaqeli is blocked for two weeks. I have no opinion about the quality of the article.  Sandstein  06:29, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I am approving this article for GA, although Jaqeli CANNOT claim credit for it until their topic ban is lifted, if and when that happens.--¿3family6 _contribs 18:33, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Source concerns

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.[1] --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:59, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

William Henry Overall, The dictionary of chronology, or historical and statistical register, published 1870. This book is clearly out of date. Not sure different spelling(s) of his name are important to the article, unless mentioned in a more modern text, in which case the modern source should be used. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:09, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Barbara A. West, checks out. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Rename to Pharnabazus

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)

Really? Was not he Georgian? Is there really any source other than the Georgian chronicles alluding to him? --Kober^Talk 18:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Thing here isn't about him being Georgian or not. His name is derived from Pharnabazus. He was a Georgian, but his name wasn't. Wiki should move it to Pharnabazus I and his dynasty should be moved to Pharnabazid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.201.11.35 (talk) 18:10, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

This is not the reason for move. FYI, Pharnabazus is a Latinized form, not the original name. --Kober^Talk 18:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki has Latinized names for other Georgian kings, e.g. Pharasmanes, Saurmaces, Bacurius. Wiki should move this too accordingly.

Pharnavaz

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

Statue in Rome

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)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:01, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Sources

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)

Requested move 13 April 2020

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: Not moved. (non-admin closure) Simplexity22 (talk) 15:45, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

---

Pharnavaz I of Iberia → Pharnabazus I of Iberia – As most Georgia's kings had international and foreign derived names, Pharnavaz is Pharnabazus. Emperor of Emperors (talk) 07:17, 13 April 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. buidhe 11:14, 20 April 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. buidhe 12:03, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose WP:COMMONNAME seems to have been Pharnavaz looking at sources like Rapp and Toumanoff. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:36, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
• Tentative Oppose. It is true many sources use latinized version of the king, but Parnavaz is still most common and, furthermore, he is known exclusively from the Georgian sources. That's why Pharnabazus seems a bit artificial to me.--Kober^Talk 05:38, 30 April 2020 (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.

Requested move 6 February 2024

• Pharnavaz I of Iberia → Pharnavaz I
• Sauromaces I of Iberia → Sauromaces I
• Mirian I of Iberia → Mirian I
• Pharnajom of Iberia → Pharnajom
• Artoces of Iberia → Artoces
• Pharnavaz II of Iberia → Pharnavaz II
• Mirian II of Iberia → Mirian II
• Pharasmanes I of Iberia → Pharasmanes I
• Mihrdat I of Iberia → Mihrdat I
• Amazasp I of Iberia → Amazasp I
• Pharasmanes II of Iberia → Pharasmanes II
• Ghadam of Iberia → Ghadam
• Pharasmanes III of Iberia → Pharasmanes III
• Amazasp II of Iberia → Amazasp II
• Rev I of Iberia → Rev I
• Bacurius I of Iberia → Bacurius I
• Mihrdat II of Iberia → Mihrdat II
• Aspacures I of Iberia → Aspacures I
• Mirian III of Iberia → Mirian III
• Sauromaces II of Iberia → Sauromaces II
• Aspacures II of Iberia → Aspacures II
• Mihrdat III of Iberia → Mihrdat III
• Aspacures III of Iberia → Aspacures III
• Pharasmanes IV of Iberia → Pharasmanes IV
• Mihrdat IV of Iberia → Mihrdat IV
• Mihrdat V of Iberia → Mihrdat V
• Vakhtang I of Iberia → Vakhtang I
• Bacurius II of Iberia → Bacurius II
• Pharasmanes V of Iberia → Pharasmanes V
• Pharasmanes VI of Iberia → Pharasmanes VI
• Bacurius III of Iberia → Bacurius III

– WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT; WP:SOVEREIGN. An emperor ✖ 07:18, 6 February 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BD2412 T 19:26, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support per nom – "of country" disambiguation not needed for primary redirects. Rosbif73 (talk) 10:59, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
• Procedural oppose. I don't understand why we have four different multi-move RMs for Georgian monarchs going at the same time when the argument is identical in each. This would be better done, say, on a project talk page, where we could debate the pros and cons of a coherent system (like in the old days). Looking at these titles raises lots of questions beyond what the RM is asking, which appears to be based on nothing other than existing redirect targets. I am not necessarily opposed to these moves in principle. Srnec (talk) 02:22, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• Oppose I quote my comments at Talk:David III of Tao. I continue to support pre-emptive disambiguation. Also, some of these aren't even the sole meaning of this title (although they may be the primary topic). Consensus can change, see WP:CCC. Pre-emptive disambiguation remains a contested issue, as this discussion suggests, and removing it has not been applied consistently across Wikipedia (there are other examples). PatGallacher (talk) 21:07, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. I agree with those above: it's a repetitive mess having several simultaneous RMs on such similar groups of monarchs. I already shared my rationale in the others and I don't feel like doing more copy/pastes. ╠╣uw [talk] 17:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

  It doesn’t matter. You haven’t presented a reasonable policy-based argument at any of these other RMs either. — В²C ☎ 00:12, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

  Since that's a gross mischaracterization, I'll post the summary once more for the benefit of any onlookers.

  To be clear, B2C, opposition appeals to WP:AT just as support does, but with a different weighting of WP:CRITERIA than yours. Per policy, we're instructed to use titles that prioritize the interests of our readers rather than the specialized interest of editors, and per policy we're instructed to use titles that are recognizable to those familiar with (but not necessarily experts in) the area. Supporters like myself contend that removing the country does not serve readers' interests (nowhere have supporters shown otherwise) and that the inclusion of the country best meets the recognizability criterion.

  Per policy we're also encouraged to find titles that fit an "encyclopedic register", and check other reputable encyclopedias for comparison. Britannica articles, e.g. Charles XI, include a clarifier with the title. (The monarchs listed in this RM are less well known, to the point that Britannica does not seem to have articles on them, which further suggests the importance of retaining the country as a valuable clarifier.)

  Also, some supporters have wrongly suggested that if there's a more concise and unambiguous form of a title then that is necessarily the form we must use, but that's not the case, and policy nowhere asserts it. All things being equal, such a form is indeed preferred, but not if a longer form better meets our criteria. Hence US, UK, 103rd Congress, Rockies, DTs, Bothell, Pacific, AI, and innumerable other concise forms that properly redirect to longer or more descriptive ones.

  You have a different take on criteria and policy, clearly, and that's fine. However, insisting in every post that opposition is mere JDLI when it's not is tendentious and doesn't make these discussions better, so please desist. Cheers, ╠╣uw [talk] 13:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

  That’s not reasonable policy basis because it’s based on an unreasonable interpretation of what WP:RECOGNIZABILITY means.

  • If Pharnavaz I of Iberia is preferable to Pharnavaz I because it is “more helpful to readers”, then Pharnavaz I of Iberia (Georgian Kingdom) is preferable to Pharnavaz I of Iberia because it is ”more helpful” still. Whenever there are two choices A and A B your interpretation picks the more helpful one, A B. That seems reasonable. But there is always a more helpful A B C, and an even more helpful A B C D, ad infinitum.
  • The staggering implications of your interpretation are to require changing almost every title on WP to make each “more helpful” without any guidance whatsoever on how helpful is helpful enough. That’s unreasonable.

  В²C ☎ 14:40, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• Support all which have unambiguous name/ordinal combination, per WP:NCROY. Bensci54 (talk) 18:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support per nom which is policy-based. Opposers have WP:JDLI objections but no policy-based arguments and no rebuttals to the policies/guidelines that Support is based upon. Slam dunk regardless of the numbers. —В²C ☎ 00:08, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support. The new wording of NCROY, and primary topic arguments, mandate us to make this move. The opposers are objecting to the whole concept of the guideline, which should be taken up elsewhere, there is nothing specific about this individual case that should prevent a move.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:16, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

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

• Oppose per WP:COMMONAME. These figures must be WP:RECOGNIZABLE. There is no indication any of these are a person, much less a monarch. There is no English source and zero hits in searches for "Pharnabaz I" without "king" or "Iberia". Ditto for the others. Walrasiad (talk) 09:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per other reasons given. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 22:36, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

I've requested closure for this at Wikipedia:Closure requests. Natg 19 (talk) 21:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per PatGallacher. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 02:39, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
• STRONG oppose as per the reasons given above. We need some way for them to be disambiguated. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 23:33, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Therealscorp1an please don't vote twice. An emperor ✖ 13:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)