Talk:Muhammad I of the Eretnids

Feedback from New Page Review process
I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Thanks for the article!.

&maltese; SunDawn &maltese;    (contact)   08:16, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 15 June 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: moved to Muhammad I of the Eretnids. While the level of enthusiasm for this title was admittedly tepid, it appears to have been viewed as acceptable by all participants, who found it to be a clear and unambiguous option. No prejudice to future RMs on this topic. (closed by non-admin page mover) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 19:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Ghiyath al-Din Muhammad I → Ghiyath al-Din Muhammad (Eretnid) – Current title is confusing. There was no "Ghiyath al-Din Muhammad II". He is just Muhammad I of the Eretnids. There was a Muhammad II, but he wasn't a Ghiyath al-Din. Srnec (talk) 18:11, 15 June 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 20:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC) 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.
 * Oppose the proposed new title. The current title and the regnal number are from Bosworth's New Islamic Dynasties: A Chronological and Genealogical Manual page 234. We've had a prior discussion here. There is no other non-ambiguous title used in the sources. I don't also favor the usage of parentheses here since it is uncommon for royalty articles and is not based on the relevant guidelines. If there should be a move, I believe we should keep the regnal number (as Muhammad II Chelebi won't make sense otherwise). My suggestion would be "Muhammad I of Eretna" or "Muhammad I of the Eretnids". Aintabli (talk) 18:55, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that this is what Bosworth calls him. He lists him as "Muhammad I b. Eretna, Ghiyath al-Din". In the context of a list, it is clear that he is Muhammad I of his dynasty. He is not "Ghiyath al-Din Muhammad I". The article titles are not part of lists. They have to stand alone and currently I don't think the meaning of the title is clear. I would be okay with Ghiyath al-Din Muhammad I ibn Eretna of Ghiyath al-Din Muhammad ibn Eretna as alternatives. "Muhammad I of the Eretnids" is acceptable, but I think somewhat unusual in form. Srnec (talk) 19:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I believe that adding "son of" (ibn), significantly deviates from the general convention followed, and so it is something I would steer away from when there is an alternative. I would be okay with "Muhammad I of the Eretnids" instead. Aintabli (talk) 23:52, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * One more option: Although this is not something I have realized sooner and thus not have added to any of the articles on Eretnid royalty, the realm Eretnids ruled over was apparently still known as Rum: ... Solely for the purpose of disambiguation, instead of "the Eretnids", it can be "Rum" (thus "Muhammad I of Rum"), which could be historically more accurate. I think this would be less "unusual in form". What would be your opinion on this? Aintabli (talk) 21:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC)