Talk:Bidar Sultanate

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History 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.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

India: History Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup.

Former countries

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles

On 5 May 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to Barid Shahi dynasty. The result of the discussion was not moved.

Removal of reference and referenced information

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

The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 15:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bidar Sultanate → Barid 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. Toadette^Edit! 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]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.