Talk:Mir Ahmad Shah Rizwani

I don't understand why the article is titled "Mir Ahmad Shah" rather than "Mir Ahmad Shah Rizwani". (I say this as someone who knows next to nothing about the conventions for personal names in Afghanistan.) I see sources that name him as "Mir Ahmad Shah Rizwani" and "Rizwani" for short, as does the article text. I don't see anything that indicates his commonly recognizable name as "Mir Ahmad Shah", which would lead to this as article title. Could MatthewVanitas or another editor please enlighten me on this point? Thanks. – Wdchk (talk) 01:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Surnames in the European sense aren't a big thing in Afghanistan, and a lot of what are used as surnames are sort of like descriptors (generally "From XYZ town/county") or descriptions of tribal affiliation rather than fixed inherited surnames in the same sense. And a ton of Afghans have literally only a first name, per convention.

Hello Wdchk, I don't have any objection to adding Rizwani to the title, since it's not at all wrong, though I do note that plenty of sources on Google books just refer to him as "Mir Ahmad Shah". Take a look on gBooks with the boolean "mir ahmad shah" general and you'll see many examples. But no objection to a move either. MatthewVanitas (talk) 12:51, 3 July 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks for the info. If both variants are equally valid, I am content to leave as-is for now. On the one hand, there is a case to be made for using the shorter name, for simplicity. On the other hand, if we are treating "Rizwani" in the article text as though it were a Western-style surname, even if it isn't really, somebody might feel it is more logical to have it in the title. Either way, the variant we don't pick will be a redirect to the one we do, and personally I don't have a strong opinion that would indicate a page move at this time. Anybody else can come along later and add to this discussion if they wish.
In conclusion, I have redirected Mir Ahmad Shah Rizwani to this article. That redirect was originally created (inadvertently?) as a loop back to itself. – Wdchk (talk) 01:23, 8 July 2015 (UTC) [reply ]