This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: National / African / Middle East / Medieval / Early Muslim This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Associated task forces: /  National militaries task force African military history task force Middle Eastern military history task force Medieval warfare task force (c. 500 – c. 1500) Early Muslim military history task force (c. 600 – c. 1600)

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Nice work

North8000 (talk) 22:17, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rustamid Crisis (873-874) → Rustamid crisis – Date ranges should not use hyphens. In this case, the date range also appears unnecessary. I also see no evidence that "crisis" needs to be uppercased. Google Advanced Search only finds four web pages with the phrase "Rustamid Crisis" (uppercase or lowercase), and all of them are from Wikipedia, so this seems to be a descriptive title, not a proper name supported by sources. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 05:58, 6 December 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 08:08, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support unless someone finds something better, e.g. Rustamid succession crisis. Dicklyon (talk) 16:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That suggestion seems good. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral on lowercasing and support removing the date range. Plus an added Comment, remember that this is a local RM and not a reason to move any other 'Crisis' pages which would be controversial with a capital C (although there likely aren't many uppercased). Seems an obscure enough page to test the theory as an aside. There was a good RM at Cuban Missile Crisis many moons ago which correctly uppercased the event's name. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:25, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Noted. But on the Cuban missile crisis, I think it was the previous (first) RM discussion that had it right. It's still barely up to 60% capped in sources, in spite of the extrapolated trend that was relied on last time around. Dicklyon (talk) 17:21, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Lowercase since we have no source-based evidence of the real world consistently treating this as a proper name by capitalizing it. This is a rare descriptive phrase; the term does not appear even once in GScholar search [1], and only three times (without the usage in context, including letter case, visible in any of them) in a GBooks search [2]. A "name" no one actually uses can't be said, for any encyclopedic purpose, to be a proper name. WP defaults to lower-case any time there is doubt, and lack of sources using this term is extreme doubt. It's likely this page should move to some other title entirely. This is clearly an attempt at a WP:NDESC title, but "crisis" is not necessarily a neutral enough term. There appear to be enough sources cited that this would survive AfD, if all those source actually check out. But only one of them is in English, and it does not use the term "Rustamid crisis", capitalized or not.

  Secondarily: Yes, we have no need of by-year-range disambiguation here, since there is nothing to disambiguate from. The present title thus fails both WP:DAB and WP:CONCISE. It is not the purpose of our article titles to impart educational information like when an event occurred; a date is only included to distinguish two+ topics vying for the same title. Third: If there arose an actual need to do that disambiguation, it's correct that it would be "(873–874)" with an en dash, per MOS:DATE. Fourth: I don't strenously object to "Rustamid succession crisis" but it's less WP:CONCISE than "Rustamid crisis". But perhaps the argument is that the latter isn't quite WP:PRECISE enough. Maybe the Rustamids also had a water crisis and a plague crisis and whatever.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:22, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Per SMcC. Clearly a WP:NDESC with no evidence this should be capitalised per WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS. Per WP:OVERPRECISION, the dates are unnecessary. I don't strenously object to "Rustamid succession crisis" either. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support No-brainer. Tony (talk) 04:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC). And I like the proposal for "Rustamid succession crisis". Tony (talk) 07:14, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. If it is a descriptive title, then Rustamid crisis of 873–874 is the way to go (or perhaps "Rustamid succession crisis"). We cannot decide, when titles are of our own invention, that this was the Rustamid crisis. Srnec (talk) 21:05, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: Rustamid succession crisis or Rustamid crisis ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 08:08, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rustamid succession crisis is more clear. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:43, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rustamid succession crisis gets my vote, too. Dicklyon (talk) 05:47, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Randy Kryn, SMcCandlish, Cinderella157, and Tony1: help us choose between two options. Dicklyon (talk) 05:50, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Rustamid succession crisis. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:59, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]