. This was a fruitful discussion and the outcome is as per AirshipJungleman29's final summary. Several redirects were discussed, and there will be impact on most of them.
However, only one, Chingisid was tagged for the RfD, and as closer, I'll modify only this. I did not want to tag the rest and push the close by another week, for a discussion that has been dormant for almost a month. {{ping|AirshipJungleman29|Nederlandse Leeuw}} please modify the others accordingly as per what was decided. Jay 💬 12:43, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Which articles should these redirects point to? The current situation is inconsistent and confusing.
- Chingisid redirects to Borjigin#Genghisids (section does not exist anymore)
- Chingissid redirects to Borjigin#Genghisids (section does not exist anymore)
- Chinggisid redirects to Borjigin#Genghisids (section does not exist anymore)
- Chinggisids redirects to Borjigin#Genghisids (section does not exist anymore)
- Chingissids does not exist yet.
- Chinggissids does not exist yet.
- Genghisids redirects to Borjigin#Genghisids (section does not exist anymore)
- Genghisid redirects to Descent from Genghis Khan
- Chingizid redirects to Descent from Genghis Khan
- Family tree of Genghis Khan redirects to Descent from Genghis Khan.
- Jochid redirects to Jochi, but Jochids redirects to Descent from Genghis Khan. (Jochid Ulus redirects to Golden Horde, that seems fine).
Personally, I am in favour of redirecting them all to Descent from Genghis Khan, as a Chingis(s)id / Ghenghisid is, strictly speaking, a descendant from Genghis Khan, not an earlier Borjigin, while Genghis Khan himself was obviously not a Chingis(s)id / Ghenghisid, but a Borjigin only. Redirecting to a section always risks link rot anyway, as section titles often change or they are rearranged, while Descent from Genghis Khan as a whole will presumably always be dedicated to this very subject. Thoughts? NLeeuw (talk) 12:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
:PS: Not sure if I formatted this RfD correctly; I rarely do these. Do I need to tag all redirects in question? NLeeuw (talk) 12:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
:*Section redirects are useful in taking the reader straight to the relevent part of a large article. A link from Genghisids to Borjigin can confuse the reader, since the Borjigin article does mention Genghisids in the lead. Link rot can be reduced by linking to an anchor rather than a section name, e.g. {{tlp|anchor|Genghisids}}. An editor is likely to preserve the anchor. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
::@Nederlandse Leeuw if you meant to nominate all of them, then no. if you want to nominate multiple redirects at once, you could try this mass xfd tool. then again, it doesn't matter much, since anyone could just do whatever is deemed necessary with them after this is closed (except deleting, that's an admin thing) cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 16:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- See [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chingisid&oldid=246868935 this version of the Chingisid article]. The broadest meaning of the term is "to do with Ghengis Khan", and could mean "descended from Ghengis" but could have various other meanings depending on context. Possibly the solution would be to pick the spelling used in the largest number of articles and make it a disambiguation page pointing to Descent from Genghis Khan, Yassa, Khanate and Golden Horde. Point the other spellings to the disambiguation page. Links can then be cleaned up to point to the page that discusses the intended meaning. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- :A disamb page might indeed be the best solution here. What do others think? NLeeuw (talk) 14:19, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- I've been intending to create a new article on the Chinggisid dynasty for some time. If others are amenable, I can get started in the next couple of days. The first nine redirects can then target that. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- Pages that refer to Chinggisid dynasty should link to it directly. But the disambiguation page would also list Descent from Genghis Khan, the Chingisid principle (Yassa golden lineage), Chingisid states (Khanates), Chingisid people (e.g. Golden Horde) and Chingizid (moth). The various forms of Chingisid should redirect to the disambiguation page. A page that included a link to, e.g., Chingizid would be flagged for clarification. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- Of course, if the dynasty is the dominant meaning of the term (I don't think it is, may be wrong), the forms of Chingisid would redirect to Chinggisid dynasty, which would have a hatnote {{tlp|Otheruses|Chinggisid (disambiguation)}}, and Chinggisid (disambiguation) would list the other meanings. We need a list of all pages that use some variant of the word, with or without a link, showing what they mean by it. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:24, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- :I don't think "Chingisid dynasty" as such makes much sense. There are competing definitions of what a "dynasty" even is; a series of hereditary monarchs who each sat on the throne, excluding all their relatives who didn't? The entire family of that series of hereditary monarchs? The "state" or "empire" governed by them? Etc. See the discussions about Rurikid dynasty and :category:Rurik dynasty, where we ended up renaming them to just Rurikids and :Category:Rurikids. Similarly, see the recent scholarly work of Raffensperger & Ostrowski 2023, The Ruling Families of Rus, where the whole concept of a dynasty is heavily criticised as an outdated and ambigious concept that erases lots of people from history who didn't sit on the throne, despite wielding significant political or otherwise power and influence for sometimes decades. (Note: they also discuss 'house', 'clan' and 'family', and end up choosing 'family', as can be seen in the title.) If there is to be a new article, separate from the existing ones on Borjigin and Descent from Genghis Khan, I strongly recommend that the title be {{xt|Chingisids}}, and to omit a word like 'dynasty'. NLeeuw (talk) 20:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- ::PS: But really, I think such an article might easily become a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of the existing articles, so let's make sure it would have added value separate from what we've already got, or integrate such contents into our existing articles. My question here is just to make consistent redirects. NLeeuw (talk) 20:54, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- :::I strongly disagree. The term "Chinggisids" has strong independent notability as distinct from the Borjigin. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- :::I may start an Index of articles related to Ghengis Khan, including redirects. I suspect there is a fair amount of forking. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:27, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
:The Crimean Giray dynasty was referred to as the "Genghisids". Genghisid/Chinggisid literally means Borjigin dynasty. Descent from Genghis Khan is irrelevant in this context, and I don't even know why this article exists. Should be merged. "Chingisid dynasty" doesn't exist. Only two words should be redirected Chinggisids and Genghisids. Beshogur (talk) 21:14, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
::Perhaps, but similarly, lots of people were referred to, or referred to themselves, as "Romans", and yet histiographical convention names a great number of them "Byzantines", for example. We could theoretically always merge everything, but we'll soon end up with articles that are WP:TOOLONG (e.g. List of Roman emperors should imo have been split, because it's way too long to navigate comfortably, and we already had List of Byzantine emperors.) Although I made a plea for not splitting off a new articles named Chingisids above if there was no obvious need, I think we shouldn't underestimate the value of splitting up articles either. NLeeuw (talk) 04:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
::I agree that Descent from Genghis Khan is a very odd article that should probably be redirected, but Chinggisid is distinct from the wider Borjigin term primarily because it was descent from Genghis, not general membership of the Borjigin, that legitimised rule in the post-Mongol world. See discussion in e.g. May 2017. While the Borjigin altan urugh (golden family) included the descendants of Genghis's brothers and of his children by concubines such as Kolgen, they were not eligible for rulership because they were not Chinggisid. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Alright, I think I see a solution. I will expand Chinggisids until it is reasonably complete; Borjigin needs also a little bit of expansion and a lot of rewriting to match current scholarship (many of its sources are half a century old and vastly out of date).{{pb}}Meanwhile, Descent from Genghis Khan should be renamed and refocused onto the matter of genetic descent from Genghis—i.e. the numerous papers that have been released after the "16 million descendants" article from 2003.{{pb}}All redirects seem fairly self-explanatory then, except for Jochid/Jochids which should probably redirect to Golden Horde, and Family tree of Genghis Khan which would probably work best as a redirect to Chinggisids, if I can figure out how the family tree thing works. Thanks for bringing matter up, NLeeuw. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:03, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
::::Sounds good! Yes, I suppose renaming Descent from Genghis Khan to Genetic descent from Genghis Khan or something works better. Chinggisids can then fully focus on the reigning families of the late Middle Ages descended from Genghis or married into that family. NLeeuw (talk) 16:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::PS: I would recommend doing a search query in reliable sources to check for the WP:COMMONNAME. We better prevent endless disputes about how to spel "Chingisids" (I don't care which, but we need to pick one). NLeeuw (talk) 16:13, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::The current spelling (Chinggisids) is favoured in most reliable sources that I can see, including all cited so far in the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::[https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Chingisids%2Cchinggisids%2Cchingissids%2Cchinggissids%2Cgenghisids%2Cgenghissids&year_start=1950&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=6&case_insensitive=true Ngrams] appears to overwhelmingly agree. I'm a bit surprised; I'm not that familiar with the double g spelling. Halperin 1987, which I use a lot for reference, has single g, single s, and some of his sources are single g, double s, but apparently they are in the minority. Ngrams shows the double g, single s spelling quickly gaining ground from the 1990s onwards. Seems like you've chosen the right title, so I guess that settles it. {{Wink}} NLeeuw (talk) 22:19, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
:
{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:21, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- Proposal I think we already reached agreement, but let's make it clear.
- Redirect no. #4 has been turned into stand-alone article Chinggisids, which is good. (Thanks to AirshipJungleman29!).
- Redirects no. #1, #2, #3, #7, #8 and #9 should all redirect to Chinggisids.
- If anyone ever created no. #5 or #6, they should redirect to Chinggisids as well.
- Redirects no. #10 and no. #11 can remain unchanged.
- A requested move (RM) for Descent from Genghis Khan could be discussed on Talk:Descent from Genghis Khan if the current title is found to be inadequate. AirshipJungleman29 could initiate such an RM if they please.
:: This seems to be the outcome of the discussion above, but we haven't yet formally agreed that we are going to resolve the question this way, so let's make it official. NLeeuw (talk) 11:31, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
:*Support. As above, Chinggisids is the COMMONNAME for the new destination, and it has sufficient independent notability to exist as a distinct article. That resolves most of the confusion with the transliterations. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:34, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
:The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).
