Talk:Asaf Jahi dynasty

Reference

can somebody help me to put reference!— Preceding unsigned comment added by  89.160.26.223 (talk • contribs) 09.36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Merge with Nizams of Hyderabad?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To not merge given the lack of consensus and stale discussion. Klbrain (talk) 11:00, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

---

Should this page be merged with Nizams of Hyderabad? Both contain almost the same material.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadescurve (talk • contribs) 14.08, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I think there is a case for merger, alternatively we can move this page to List of Nizams of Hyderabad and remove the corresponding list section in Nizams of Hyderabad. I would prefer the latter as the list article can sustain itself and the title will be consistent with the main article. Asaf Jahi dynasty can then be redirected to Nizams of Hyderabad. -- Ab207 (talk) 07:12, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• Contrary to the nom's assertion that Both contain almost the same material, there is in fact very little overlap between these pages: 'Nizam of Hyderabad' is a title, bound up with the history of Hyderabad state, while the Asaf Jahi dynasty is an Indian noble house, which both pre-and post-dates the period the title was held. The most obvious item of overlap is the List of Nizams/Asaf Jahi Rulers section, which I note was added here by the nominator in August 2018. If this had not been added (or was reverted now) there wouldn’t be much of a case, which makes me wonder what’s going on here. Moving that section to a List page (and trimming the one on the Nizams page) has some merit, but I would disagree with this merge proposal as it stands. Moonraker12 (talk) 13:59, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support there is a lot of overlap in content, and while the Nizams and Asaf Jahi dynasty are somewhat different as the user above mentioned, I don't think that prevents them from being treated in the same article. Cheers, Fredlesaltique (talk) 02:03, 8 March 2021 (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.