Talk:David and Bathsheba (film)

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved as requested; David and Bathsheba is now a redirect to Bathsheba. bd2412 T 19:19, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

David and Bathsheba → David and Bathsheba (film) – I think the film is so minimally important relative to the figures involved that this namespace should describe or link to the actual relationship (a la Adam and Eve, Castor and Pollux, etc.) and only provide a link to the film article. — Llywelyn II   04:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - It's a well known film but all the same, out of context the film wouldn't come to mind seeing David and Bathsheba. If moved the old title should become a dab between David and the film. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:05, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I would've thought that relationship would be enough for a standalone article; either I'm wrong or that section is just underdeveloped (or maybe there are WP:UNDUE concerns?). --BDD (talk) 19:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose, at least until the point that there's a competing article on the Biblical subject. It doesn't seem that readers will be well served by either a redirect to that underdeveloped section of the David article, or by creating a dab page that would contain only one actual article plus the redirect to the underdeveloped section.--Cúchullain t/ c 14:32, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I basically came here to say the same thing; what do you think of Bathsheba? --BDD (talk) 22:52, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Support. I think that readers are not well-served when the article title implies greater notoriety for its subject than is actually the case. Srnec (talk) 19:30, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Conditional support. I'm only comfortable with this move if David and Bathsheba becomes a redirect to Bathsheba, the article with the most description of their relationship. Otherwise, the logical conclusion of this move would be a hatnote at David, which I would not support. --BDD (talk) 22:52, 6 September 2013 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.