Talk:Emirate of Granada/Archive 1

Merge proposal
Propose merging Nasrid dynasty into Emirate of Granada.

For all practical purposes, these are the same topic, and this WP:SPLIT isn't necessary for full coverage of the topic. I think we should consider whether the current WP:OVERLAP between both articles just makes editing and reading about the topic more complicated. For consideration: Cheers, R Prazeres (talk) 05:05, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) The two topics essentially overlap completely. The Nasrid dynasty rose with the emirate, fell with the emirate, and no other dynasty ruled the emirate. The Nasrids don't really feature in history before or after this period. So everything that is covered or could be covered at Nasrid dynasty can easily be covered here, if it isn't already.
 * 2) Neither article is long enough to require a split for WP:LENGTH purposes. Once the overlap is taken into account, there isn't even that much material to merge. Also, as the references on this topic admit, there isn't actually a wealth of information on the Nasrid family compared to other dynasties, so I doubt the situation would change in the foreseeable future.
 * 3) It's very common for reliable references to use the term "Nasrid" in referring to the emirate or to the period of the emirate more generally, not just to the dynasty narrowly (e.g., , , , , , etc). In certain contexts, like the history of al-Andalus or art/architecture, it's practically essential to do so for the sake of clarity. Thus, it's slightly annoying, as an editor, and slightly confusing, as a reader, for "Nasrid" and its variants to redirect to a different article with lesser scope. Readers can easily end up at one article when really they're looking for information that's in the other.
 * 4) *For comparison, note that most historical Muslim dynasties and states are covered by one main article, rather than two; e.g. Almoravid dynasty, Almohad Caliphate, Ayyubid dynasty, Marinid Sultanate, Hafsid dynasty, etc (compare also the example of Chinese history, traditionally divided into dynastic periods). Some exceptions, like Umayyad dynasty, are justified because the dynasty is far more documented and is a more complex topic. Others, like Taifa of Seville vs Abbadid dynasty, suffer the same overlap problem.
 * Comment In principle, I don't see a problem with having an article on the ruling dynasty and an article on their state. We have Ottoman Empire and Ottoman dynasty, for example. Is it just not a case of making sure the text of the two articels conforms to their respective scopes? DeCausa (talk) 07:24, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Actually, having looked over the two articles they are reasonably distinct with this article being the general history and the other focussing on the individual dynasts and family origins. I think all that really needs to be done to remove any overlap is take out the list of sultans in this article. DeCausa (talk) 07:59, 28 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment: Just to clarify (if needed), what I meant by WP:OVERLAP is not strictly the overlap in the current content of the articles (though there is a lot of that too), but the overlap in the topics themselves. (Nasrid dynasty being a subtopic of Emirate of Granada.) So the main question is: does the topic benefit by having its scope split across two articles instead of one? R Prazeres (talk) 19:14, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I would say per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE that's how Wikipedia is intended to be structured. DeCausa (talk) 19:25, 28 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose. These are clearly separate topics.  The state and people are not synonymous with their leaders, no matter how much the leaders might like to insist they are (and "Great Man" theory of history historians).  And for all the examples where the state is at "XYZ dynasty", there are equally as many - usually more - that separate the two, even when only one dynasty ever ruled. This topic is basically the equivalent of "List of leaders of (STATE)" in a monarchical system.  I could see the argument for truly short-lived dynasties - Qin dynasty is both the common name of the state, and there'd also be no point in a separate article on Qin Shi Huang's family since only two members ruled it - but there were lots of Nasrid rulers, so a separate article makes sense.  (And if there's concerns about duplication, that might possibly be an argument to refactor the Nasrid Dynasty article to be more clearly a "list" article with links to the Emirate of Granada article for details, but eh, I think it's fine as is.)  SnowFire (talk) 15:40, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify again, I'm proposing merging into Emirate of Granada as the main topic, not into Nasrid dynasty (your comment seems to assume the latter). I'm not suggesting the dynasty is the paramount definition, I'm suggesting there isn't much to say about it other than what we'd already say at Emirate of Granada. R Prazeres (talk) 16:19, 9 August 2023 (UTC)