I have reverted the undiscussed move of this page to its previous, stable location because I do not agree with the move or the rationale given for it. The proper names and titles of members of the Bagrationi dynasty are controversial, and should not be moved without prior consensus, in the absence of which please initiate a move request on the relevant article talk page. FactStraight (talk) 07:10, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Would you stop your behavior? Her father, grandfather, brother articles none of them have "Prince" in the title of the article and nor should she have any. And there is nothing controversial about it as we agreed they were tavadi. Jaqeli (talk) 11:40, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Either way such moves need to be discussed, which is what the problem here is since you've been known to edit controversially. I support the current title but not for the same reason. I support it for its consistency since the absense of the Prince/Princess in the article's title seems to fall in line with all Geogrian dynasts of the House of Bagrationi including the Bagration-Gruzinsky branch born after Russian annexation, which seems appropriate since the Georgian nobility was absorbed into the Russian nobility afterward and like the Rurikid princes should just show their names.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 22:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
The fact that these edits and moves consistently distort English Wikipedia to reflect a partisan POV demoting the status of the Mukhranis should be addressed, but the only matter relevant in this thread is that a unilateral move was reverted with notification that a move request would be necessary because the move is disputed. Instead, a unilateral move was again initiated, which is disruptive editing. Undoing and preventing that disruption is what's called for here. FactStraight (talk) 03:35, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Stop your blatant WP:Advocacy. Do you even follow your statements? You've agreed that Mukhranians are Tavadi and you still continue to edit war and try to make a nobility into a royalty. No one is "demoting the status of the Mukhranis" as they are a nobility and not a royalty line. You misunderstand the word "Prince" methinks. I'll explain you one more time.
Tavadi by all definition cannot be a royalty and it is an established fact in Georgia and cannot be disputed. One cannot be a nobility and royalty at the same time. Kutsna Amirejibi, Garsevan Chavchavadze, Givi Amilakhvari, David Guramishvili etc. they also were "Princes" but none of them were claiming they were royalty. Stop manipulating the word "Prince" and "Princess" and stop forging the Georgian history. It is an established fact that the Mukhranians were a nobility and you've been told about it already. They were princes like those Georgians above listed and all of them had the title tavadi which is a title of a nobility princes not of the royal princes. Jaqeli (talk) 10:21, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
The argument is about policy right now and User:FactStraight makes an important point that you must make a move request because your change is being disputed. To quote User:FactStraight, "the only matter relevant in this thread is that a unilateral move was reverted with notification that a move request would be necessary because the move is disputed. Instead, a unilateral move was again initiated, which is disruptive editing. Undoing and preventing that disruption is what's called for here."--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 07:31, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
I repeat. There is nothing controversial and disputed about this lady. His father, grandfather or brother none of them have word "Prince" in the title of the article and nor should she have any. Her status as a tavadi is an established fact and all articles should be in harmony with each other. Her status was no different from his brother or father and Wikipedia cannot advocate for titles they wanted for themselves to be known for. So please stop beating the air. Jaqeli (talk) 11:37, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
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. Xoloz (talk) 19:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Oppose. She is primarily known as the consort of Grand Duke Vladimir of Russia, and only secondarily as a member of the Bagration dynasty. Still, no one disputes that her family historically held the princely prefix in monarchical Georgia and Imperial Russia, and that it is commonly used not only for her, but for her father and brother -- whatever Wikipedia calls them. If she is denied that prefix, she will be the only woman born into an historically titled family who married a Romanov that is denied that title on Wikipedia, which would thereby make her unique in a way that looks inexplicably punitive or minimising. I have seen no source in English which withholds from her either her spouse's grandducal title (which English Wikipedia does not accord to any consorts of Romanov pretenders, i.e., Princess Victoria Melita of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, Princess Marie of Saxe-Weimar or Prince Franz Wilhelm of Prussia) although both who have died did so after Russia abolished its monarchy): Leonida is given the prefix "Princess" prior to her marriage to Vladimir Romanov in, among other highly reputable sources, Burke’s Royal Families of the World, volume 2 on page 297; in Queen Victoria's Descendants on pages 82, 89, 152; in The Descendants of King George I of Great Britain on page 575, and in every obit in English I've seen on the woman. In fact, in what English source is she ever referred to using neither "Grand Duchess" or "Princess"? Consistency with the titling of members of her birth family rather than with those of her marital family has never been of primary importance in naming articles, and here it would constitute undue emphasis while creating inconsistency with our many other articles on the wives of Romanovs -- with whom she is most closely identified and affiliation with whom is what makes her notable. FactStraight (talk) 04:39, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Oppose As it is the title she was born with, be it noble or royal is another discussion that can be included in the article if need be.18.104.22.168 (talk) 02:42, 22 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.