Talk:Abd al-Malik I (Samanid emir)

Requested move

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.

The result of the move request was: page moved. The proposed title is as given in reliable sources. There aren't any that use "Abdul Malik I of Samanid". DrKiernan (talk) 17:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Abdul Malik I of Samanid → 'Abd al-Malik I —. It's obvious that this article, and the other "of Samanid" articles in the same category, should be moved to get rid of "of Samanid". What's less obvious is where this should move to. Disambiguating the two Samanid 'Abd al-Maliks by patronymic is not possible as both are sons of fathers called Nuh. Presumably, to be consistent with 'Abd al-Malik II, this should go to 'Abd al-Malik I. But I'm not an expert, or even a dabbler in this field, and it could be that there is an obvious and better way to do things. I'm all ears. Angus McLellan (Talk) 03:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems that 'Abd is uncommon according to someone more expert than me, so please read this request as being to move to Abd al-Malik I. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose If it's not clear where else these articles should be moved to, then it's not obvious that they should be moved at all. "Joe X of Ruritania" is the normal Wikipedia naming convention for monarchs, there should be a definite presumption for adopting it. If "of Samanid" is an odd formulation, why not "of the Samanids" or "of the Samanid Empire"? PatGallacher (talk) 00:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• The "normal Wikipedia naming convention for monarchs"? That's the one that says "These following conventions apply to European monarchs since the fall of the Roman Empire"? The "normal Wikipedia naming convention" here should be deduceable from categories vaguely related to Category:Samanids, such as Category:Buyids and Category:Rulers of the Saffarid dynasty. The issue of how to represent "Abd al-Malik" is something else altogether and your comment doesn't address that. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:10, 1 March 2010 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Abd al-Malik I (Samanid emir)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 21:51, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I have done some copy editing. As usual, please flag up anything you don't like.

• I think that ghulam should point to ghilman.
• A non-GAN point: foreign words should use lang templates, not just italics.
• Introduce Fa'iq in both the lead and the article.
• "After the reign of Nuh I". Do you mean since the start of his reign? Or during it?

Oops, I meant since. Fixed it. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:06, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

• Could we be told who the Samanid were, where they were situated, and how long they had been an independent state?
• A little more on, well anything on, the ghulam/ghilman would be helpful.
• "who were their suzerain" Any chance of an in line explanation or different phrasing, so that readers other than thee or me will know what is meant without having to read another article?
• A brief summary of what a Qarmatian is?
• "His palace in Khurasan was soon afterwards raided by the ghulams, who threw the administration into a state of chaos." Should "who" be 'which'?

"Who" is correct. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:45, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

• "File:Abdal-MalikSamanidCoinHistoryofIran.jpg" needs a PD tag for the original coin.

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:58, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran - nudge! Gog the Mild (talk) 18:51, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Ah yes soz, I do plan to fix these issues at least by the end of next weekend. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:45, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh boi, I completely forgot this article existed. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:50, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I think that's about it, thoughts? --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:48, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

HistoryofIran, looks good to me - promoting. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:47, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Coin legend

What does the coin say, and what language is that, Persian or Arabic? Would it be possible to add an explanation? GPinkerton (talk) 11:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken the coinage of the Samanids only display their titulature, which is often the Arabic title of Amir, and in some rares cases the Persian title Shahanshah. Though that's just in general, unfortunately I don't possess sources that go into the depth of Samanid coinage more than that. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:52, 18 November 2020 (UTC)