Talk:Claim of the biblical descent of the Bagrationi dynasty

Old requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. Jenks24 (talk) 13:49, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Claim of the biblical descent of the Bagrationi dynasty → ? – Any suggestion from others. The title should make it clear that the article deals with the alleged/claimed/mythic/legendary genealogy. The current title and the "Biblical claim of the Bagrationi dynasty" won't work. --Relisted. Armbrust The Homunculus 08:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC) --The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 02:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Legend of the Bagrationi dynasty's biblical descent? walk victor falktalk 10:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Current name is just fine thus can/should stay. I don't see anything wrong with the title. Jaqeli (talk) 19:18, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It is a ponderous and circumlocutionary title and "claim" is a word that is frowned upon per WP:WTA, which applies in this case as it is vague on whether the claim is serious or not. walk victor falktalk 03:44, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If you look closely you'll see that the claim is very serious. Jaqeli (talk) 13:15, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Current title is a mouthful but seems accurate - "claim" works because it's false yet something that was taken seriously at one point.  SnowFire (talk) 14:07, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Jenks24 (talk) 12:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Claim of the biblical descent of the Bagrationi dynasty → Origin of the Bagrationi dynasty – Previous RM failed due to lack of an obvious alternative title. This change would bring the page into line with the other half-dozen "Origin of the _______ dynasty" pages on Wikipedia and would frame the subject in a more neutral/encyclopedic manner. erachima talk 18:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support, as the current title makes the dynasty seem like a fable and over-emphasizes unprobable allegations about the family's divine connections at the expense of its very real, ancient history. FactStraight (talk) 21:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Fits the naming model used in other origin type articles. The proposed title is also far more concise.--Labattblueboy (talk) 05:44, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose I hate the current title but the topic of the article is not the Origin of the Bagrationi dynasty since actual theories or knowledge of the true origin of the family is not discussed just the claim of Davidic descent. There is also already Origin of the Bagratid dynasties, which would make this confusing. --The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 06:09, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I am suggesting that the scope of the article be shifted somewhat significantly. --erachima talk 16:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It's fine to suggest but it would be better to actually commit yourself personally to such an endeavor because (no offense) I found that users who make these kind of comments are all talks. The main expander is User:Kober, below, and he opposed the move also because the main scope of the article is the Davidic descent. I would go with Davidic descent of the Bagrationi dynasty or Blblical descent of the Bagrationi dynasty rather than the suggested title. Either way we seem to all dislike the "claim of" part--The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 09:06, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You're correct that if it comes down to an argument I'll leave it to the local editors, but your disagreement on scope isn't with me personally, it's with GA Criteria #3. The page as written takes a very nebulous subtopic as its scope, and both sides of that are going to be an uphill battle on review. --erachima talk 09:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I just don't see a problem with the scope of this article. It is a subtopic of a larger topic, but we can't expect all articles to follow GA Criteria. If the progress of writing a comprehensive article on the topic of Origin of the Bagrationi dynasty was already in progress/finished then that would be a different case. The article now goes into a lot of details about this subtopic of Davidic descent the discussion of literatures and use throughout history, which would be inappropriate to include in one dealing with the historical origin of the dynasty also. Logically it makes more sense to keep this a subarticle and hope for the future expansion of Origin of the Bagratid dynasties where the finish work would include a section with a paragraph and link to the topic of this article. --The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 09:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Per The Emperor&#39;s New Spy. I do agree that the article should be renamed but I cannot think of a better title right now.--KoberTalk 11:07, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Per argument laid out by Labattblueboy. Olivia Winfield (talk) 05:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose given the existence of Origin of the Bagratid dynasties. It sounds like what this is really proposing is merging those two articles - but I can see the merit in having 2 short articles, 1 on the mythic claim, and 1 on the actual origin, so I'm not really a fan of a merge either.  Short, well-referenced articles are okay! SnowFire (talk) 16:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.