Talk:Rustam Mirza Safavi

Name

• You may want to use Template:translit for the relevant foreign terms such as Rōtastakhm.
  • Done
• Please use pp instead of p in Template:sfn if you're citing multiple pages. Aintabli (talk) 02:29, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Fixed every instance throughout the article

Background

• I would remove "the"s from section titles unless they have a specific purpose.
  • Done
• It might also be worth keeping the spelling consistent as here it's spelled "Bahrami", whereas elsewhere it's "Bahramid". Aintabli (talk) 02:35, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Bahramid is used only in 'Bahramid Empire' and that is because it is a term penned by the original source
    • I was actually going to comment that it's not encyclopedic or neutral to use a term coined by a single source (if I'm getting it correctly) as the section title, so unless the "Bahramid Empire" is not a metaphor of some sort and was actually a concept sources concur on, it would better be removed (or else I would remove the quotes). Regardless, I would still address the Bahrami-Bahramid discrepancy. Considering that in "Safavid" the "-id" suffix is used, I prefer Bahramid over Bahrami. With that said, I would also argue that "Bahrami" may not be needed as part of the section title, because Safavid is descriptive enough, but that's your call. Aintabli (talk) 23:58, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

    Changed the title to 'Conquests in Khorasan'. Am I understanding correctly that you are proposing to replace every instance of Bahrami with Bahramid? Both Liesbeth (2015) and Ibanez (2024), who is explicitly following Liesbeth's foundation, refer to the family as the Bahrami Safavids or the Bahramis. Amir Ghandi (talk) 06:00, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

    Interesting... If "Bahrami" and "Bahrami Safavid" are terms/spellings established in the sources, then that slightly changes things. You can use either Bahrami or Bahramid, my main point is though to stick to one of those spellings throughout the article. So, if "Bahrami Safavid" is a common occurrence among the sources, then I would be okay with replacing instances of "Bahramid" with "Bahrami" unless there is a peculiar difference in their meaning; it's just that both shouldn't be used at least within this article, inferring from MOS:CONSISTENT. It's similar to mixing British and American spellings in one article, just causes inconsistency. Aintabli (talk) 18:59, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

    @Aintabli Alright. Changed to "Bahrami empire" Amir Ghandi (talk) 09:51, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Regional agitator

• So sorry for the stalled review, but I can dedicate more time to Wikipedia at this point. Per my prior GAN experience and according to one advice from Cplakidas, I believe adding regnal intervals through Template:Reign could be helpful, and that is the case for some figures like Akbar. But we could be more consistent and also include when Abdullah Khan II reigned. Aintabli (talk) 20:53, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Sources

The sources all appear to be reliable. My only concern with the citations is that they could be more consistent with the ISSN and ISBNs. Almost all contain OCLCs, but some lack ISSNs or ISBNs which should exist. No need to add anything for special citation templates. Aintabli (talk) 20:53, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Images

• All the images are good to go as they are faithful photographic representations of public domain. Aintabli (talk) 20:58, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
• A well-sourced map showing the Mughal Empire with the aforementioned places shown could be helpful to the reader. We currently only have a map of Safavid Iran, which is somewhat helpful when it comes to his background, but given he was active in Mughal India, such a map might be considered necessary. Aintabli (talk) 21:07, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

  @Aintabli Hello. I'm really for the late response, but I thought the review had failed? Look Here Amir Ghandi (talk) 14:55, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

  Hi @Amir Ghandi, I didn't fail the article myself; it was marked as such by Bgsu98 as the review appeared to have stalled, but in my opinion, the better course of action would be to contact the reviewer and the nominator. Since I am the reviewer, the message was sent on behalf of myself but not proactively. I am willing to continue the review, because there's no reason for failing it. I also noticed the message about the protests on your talk page, and I'm very sorry that you are affected by the current situation in Iran. Let me know if you want me to discontinue the review, but I am also willing to make some of the changes I amended above and pass the article. Aintabli (talk) 09:12, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

• @Aintabli: Amir Ghandi last edited Wikipedia in February. I think this is OK to close as abandoned. Amir can open a new nomination when they return and the above concerns are resolved. Z1720 (talk) 01:44, 30 April 2026 (UTC)