Talk:Euthymius the Athonite

Untitled
This article seems useful, but contains a lot of peacock language, hence the cleanup tag. LostCause1979 05:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Article name
Gbooks hits: Bold move.--Z oupan 17:39, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "Euthymius the Athonite" (30)
 * "Euthymius of Athos" (12)

Similar but not copied source
The article predates the entry in the 2015 Historical Dictionary of Georgia, despite what looks like excessively close paraphrasing. It's unclear if there's a backward copy, or if both have a common ancestor. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 06:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 19 August 2022

 * 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 to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 09:18, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Euthymius the Athonite → Euthymius the Iberian – His contemporaneous name per fresco from Mount Athos saying "Ivir" (Iberian). An emperor /// Ave 16:57, 19 August 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:37, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The requested move has been implemented. Florificapis (talk) 15:16, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Florificapis I have reverted the move. Please do not unilaterally move the page that is still under discussion. – robertsky (talk) 15:56, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Florificapis Thank you but we should wait for the voting results. You may vote kindly if you want. Thank you User:Robertsky for timely RV. Regards, An emperor /// Ave 18:33, 21 August 2022 (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.
 * The current title is far more common in RS than the proposed. I have no strong opinion, but the nom's rationale is not really based on how we do things. Srnec (talk) 16:00, 20 August 2022 (UTC)