Talk:Bidar Sultanate

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Removal of reference and referenced information[edit]

Would user:Gulejane45 care to explain why they continue to remove the Bosworth source and the information it supports? Their information "Azerbaijani Turk" is unsourced. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:34, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 5 May 2024[edit]

Bidar SultanateBarid Shahi dynasty – Bidar Sultanate is a PoV fabricated named, whereas Barid Shahi dynasty is more common per Ngram [1]. Note the fact that Ngram is not even available for Bidar Sultanate. Imperial[AFCND] 13:37, 5 May 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. ToadetteEdit! 15:20, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Oppose Not sure what you mean by "POV fabricated". Bidar sultanate is a pretty common name, and is certainly found in many books and often depicted on maps. Of course, norms vary by author/RS as to whether the Deccan sultanates are referred to by dynastic names or geographic names. Usually an author who picks one form and tends to go with the others. Unfortunately, here on Wikipedia it seems there is inconsistency in the titling of Deccan sultanates - we have Adil Shahi dynasty instead of "Bijapur sultanate, but but at the same time Ahmadnagar Sultanate rather than "Nizam Shahi dynasty". There is also Qutb Shahi dynasty instead of "Golconda sultanate" but then "Berar sultanate instead of "Imad Shahi sultanate". My preference is to go with the geographic names, as it tends to be more clearly more about the country, rather than the royal family, and lends itself better as an adjective used in relation to other features, like economy, culture, society, etc. Walrasiad (talk) 17:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose They are somewhat different things, so an Ngram comparison is not a killer argument. "Sultan of Bidar" certainly shows on Ngram, and where there is a sultan there must be a sultanate in my view. Johnbod (talk) 20:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]