Talk:David and Bathsheba (film)

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Christian films task force.
	This article is supported by the War films task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Christianity Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Judaism

	Judaism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Requested move[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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#Bathsheba and Uriah the Hittite and the film. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:05, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I basically came here to say the same thing; what do you think of Bathsheba? --BDD (talk) 22:52, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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#Bathsheba and Uriah the Hittite, which I would not support. --BDD (talk) 22:52, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.