This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Afghanistan, a project to maintain and expand Afghanistan-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AfghanistanWikipedia:WikiProject AfghanistanTemplate:WikiProject AfghanistanAfghanistan
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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'?
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)[reply]