Jump to content

Talk:Ibrahim

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Previous discussion

[edit]

There may be previous discussion of this topic at the page Talk:Islamic view of Abraham. The page Ibrahim was a redirect to Islamic view of Abraham until December of 2007. Brilliant Pebble (talk) 21:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning

[edit]

Doesn't Ibrahim ابراهيم‎ also translate to merciful father (الأب رحيم) ?

Requested move 2011

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved: tending towards "move", & no replies in 10 days. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Ibrahim (disambiguation) → Ibrahim – "Ibrahim" is a hugely common Arabic name and thus the user who decided to bunch up the stuff that was on "Ibrahim (disambiguation)" to "Ibrahim" and then move "Ibrahim" to "Ibrahim (disambiguation)" was wrong. There was no discussion before the poor move. "Ibrahim"'s primary topic is not to redirect to "Abraham". The setup before was better with the hatnote at the top of "Ibrahim" linking to "Ibrahim (disambiguation)". John Cengiz talk 14:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a strong view on whether there is a primary topic, or ,if there is, what it should be. However, your explanation is confusing. On the one hand, you are proposing moving this page to Ibrahim, thus saying that there is no primary topic. On the other hand, you say The setup before was better with the hatnote at the top of "Ibrahim" linking to "Ibrahim (disambiguation)", implying that there should be a primary topic. Could you clarify what you mean, please? --NSH001 (talk) 15:22, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
note: I was not the editor who did what you described, but I did "bunch up" the names into a separate anthroponymy article, Ibrahim (name). This was, in my view, essential, otherwise the dab page would have become unmanageable. The final sentence of your proposal seems to be implying that Ibrahim (name) is the primary topic, and should be moved to Ibrahim. Is that what you really mean? --NSH001 (talk) 15:22, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. NSH001, what you did was fine, considering the circumstances, it was the user before you who moved the page who should of thought first. The name (previous topic) is the primary topic. The content on "Ibrahim (name)" used to be at "Ibrahim" so just moving that would lose all the old history.
Another point, "Abraham" is a rarely used old English name, whereas "Ibrahim" is a very common Arabic, Turkish, Persian, etc name of all ages, people going to the "Ibrahim" page are more likely looking for people with the name, rather than a fairytale story, try searching "site:en.wikipedia.org ibrahim". John Cengiz talk 16:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With so many people having the name, do you really think readers would look one of them up using just the single name "Ibrahim"? Powers T 13:24, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I do, many Turkish footballers for example are known by their first name, in this case "Ibrahim", and many other cultures do this too. And of course "Ibrahim" as a surname (which there are many) would be a common search term also for those known more commonly by the surname. John Cengiz talk 23:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support return of the dab page to the base name long enough to merge its history with the split to the name page. The content from Ibrahim (name) should end up at the base name (as the primary topic), and the content (and history) now in Ibrahim (disambiguation) should be split off from the name article. I volunteer to handle the history merges and splits if consensus agrees. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:08, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to clarify

[edit]

Sorry for the delay in responding (I'm mostly only available at weekends for the time being). Clarification is needed, because User:John Cengiz has proposed one course of action, but appears to be arguing in favour of a different solution.

Primary topic

See WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. This sets out the criteria to be used in determining the primary topic, which in turn determines whether a page move or moves is/are required, and if so, which one(s). Editors supporting a particular primary topic should demonstrate how that topic satisfies the criteria given there.

Possible primary topics

1. Redirect to Abraham. This is the current situation. In favour: Abraham is a major figure in three important religions - Christianity, Islam, and Judaism (often referred to as "the Abrahamic religions"). No change required.

1a. A variant of this is to redirect Ibrahim to Islamic views on Abraham (the dab page remains where it is). In favour: "Ibrahim" is the Arabic name for Abraham, so readers using this term may be more interested in the Islamic views on Abraham. Note that this article is in many ways a parallel version of Abraham, but written from an Islamic perspective.

2. Ibrahim (name) is the primary topic. This is the option that User:John Cengiz appears to arguing in favour of. Ibrahim (name) would be moved to Ibrahim, and a hatnote added pointing to this dab page (which remains where it is). In favour: see John's arguments above.

3. No primary topic. This is the course in John's formal move request above. According to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, it's the correct choice if there is no obvious topic "much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined—to be the subject being sought when a reader enters that ambiguous term in the Search box".

4. Something else.

--NSH001 (talk) 21:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

This section for discussion of the above options. --NSH001 (talk) 21:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think, IMHO, that the 1st option is the only way around (which is your current condition). Arab Jews, Christians and Muslims call the biblical figure Ibrahim in Arabic, so that's notable enough to be redirected to the English spelling of Abraham (which includes all faiths). Beautiful work, NSH001. ~ AdvertAdam talk 04:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is this correct? I thought that some of Arabic OT names in the Van Dyke Bible do not follow the Quran spelling? Ibrahim may do, I'm just checking. If Christian Arabs also use Ibrahim then the rationale for a redirect to the main subject of Ibrahim/Abraham rather than Islamic views on Abraham makes more sense. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 2nd option appears to be the correct one, reflecting what "should have" happened in June: the disambiguation page should have been split off to its own page leaving the name article at the base name (since no move request was made then). AdvertAdam: "notable enough" is not the criterion; the question is, what is a reader most likely searching for when they enter "Ibrahim" in the search box and hit "Go"? Many, many notable-enough topics are entries on disambiguation pages; it's not a question of notability. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:08, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the option 2. For a commonly held given name, the primary topic will generally be the name itself. The page on the name generally lists notable people having this name, so someone looking for a person will find it there. A hatnote will take them to a disambig page if they are looking for a meaning unrelated to use as a person's name. bd2412 T 16:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 3. No primary topic. It's puzzling to me why Ibrahim alone would be thought to have the name as the primary topic, while names that are equally common such as Rachel, Adam, Jacob, and Sarah do not. Powers T 22:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps the biblical reference shouldn't be the primary topic in those cases as well. Regardless of all that, the correct analogy of Rachel et al is with Abraham where the biblical Abraham is the primary topic. Ibrahim, on the other hand, is, in the English speaking world anyway, more, or at the least equally, likely to be an Arabic name than it is to be a reference to the biblical Abraham. --rgpk (comment) 22:55, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    In the English-speaking world, the name is correspondingly less popular, so it seems like a wash to me. Powers T 02:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Request for comment on making "Islamic view of Abraham" the primary topic.

[edit]

The article i want to move to "Ibrahim" is Islamic view of Abraham. As Islamic view of Abraham depicting the Prophet Ibrahim in Islam so i believe the name of the page should also be depicting the way it is spelled and understood in Islam. While the "Islamic view of Abraham" would be treated as a redirect to the page Ibrahim and Page Ibrahim should be move to Ibrahim (disambiguation). As the Prophet Ibrahim is a prominent figure in Islam therefore majority of the places and names of person are named after Him as also show in disambiguation page. So i believe the primary topic should be Islamic view of Abraham and the disambiguation page Ibrahim should be moved to Ibrahim (disambiguation). Please provide your opinion regarding the move with justification whether positive or negative. -- Ibrahim ebi (talk) 09:19, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You might get more participation in the discussion if you frame this as a multipage requested move. older ≠ wiser 12:19, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A requested move would be best. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 22:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Requested move has been filed as advice. -- Ibrahim ebi (talk) 03:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Islamic views on Abraham which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 03:13, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Abraham in Islam which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 14:58, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested move 2013

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: withdrawn. – Fayenatic London 11:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Ibrahim → Ibrahim (disambiguation) – Ibrahim is primary topic for prophet Ibrahim, hence Ibrahim to be first moved to the disambiguation page Ibrahim (disambiguation) and then to change Ibrahim to be a redirect to the page on the prophet Abraham in Islam. --Relisted Tyrol5 [Talk] 02:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC) Md iet (talk) 08:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
Detailed evidence provided below.--Md iet (talk) 06:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think we should talk about whether or not it is the primary topic first so lets talk about the Statistics.
1. Ibrahim (horse) here 54 times approx ; The article is also not cited.
2. Ibrahim prize here 63 times approx
3. Ibrahim (sura) here 190 times approx
4. Islamic views on Abraham here 1368 times approx
5. Abraham in Islam here 1143 times approx
6. Ibrahim (name) [1] 481 times approx
Although the following two does not fall in the category but lets take them too
5. Ibrahimzai here 25 times approx
6. Ibrahima here 47 times approx
So if we pick the bigger chunk of the traffic we will figure out that it goes to Prophet Ibrahim or Abraham in Islam and i think i don't need to explain that Ibrahim is the Arabic name of the prophet Abraham as i have explained it earlier at Talk:Abraham in Islam. And the Ibrahim (sura) in the Quran is also named after Him. So the most likely hood is prophet Ibrahim in this case. -- Ibrahim ebi (talk) 15:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see that more people looking at the article "Islamic views on Abraham" than "Ibrahim (horse)" is evidence that Islamic views on Abraham is the primary topic for Ibrahim. Saying that there are more page views on an article that has not got Ibrahim in the name is evidence that that article is the primary topic for Ibrahim is an illogical statement. You might just as well state that the the primary topic of Ibrahim is Dreadnought. In any case, there are and always have been lots of people called Ibrahim. Nobody would claim that the footballer Ibrahim Afellay is the primary topic in the English language for Ibrahim - but the article on him gets a lot of page views.
  • Ibrahim (horse) has been viewed 111 times in 201201.
  • Islamic views on Abraham has been viewed 6045 times in 201201.
  • Dreadnought has been viewed 30214 times in 201201.
  • Ibrahim Afellay has been viewed 30910 times in 201201.
Incidentally, when you are quoting page view statistics, please quote for whole months, and quote for a period before the current dispute.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Evidence: Wiki redirect Ibrahim to the following article in total and page view statics (of last 30 days) definitely indicate that in last one month how many maximum person tried to got information through title 'Ibrahim'

Total traffic via Ibrahim -[2] - 6340 times

All other traffic article via Ibrahim (except of Abraham in Islam/Abraham) :

Ibrahim_(horse)- [3] 194 times

Ibrahim prize-[4] 471 times

Ibrahim_(sura)- [5] -762

Ibrahim_(name)- [6]- 1867

Ibrahim el Awal- [7]-321

Ibrahimzai -[8] -111

Ibrahima- [9] -209

"Ibrahim", a song by David_Friedman_(percussionist) -[10]- 286

= 4221

Although there can be direct traffic to all above article, 4221 can be taken as max. possible traffic via title Ibrahim. Hence minimum traffic gone via title Ibrahim to left out topics Abraham in Islam and Abraham is = Total 6340- Others 4221(max)= 2119(Min).

As both Abraham in Islam and Abraham are prime topic for one person prophet Ibrahim hence traffic 2119 via title Ibrahim is many times high then individual personalities about 70-80all combined covered via Ibrahim (name) and total traffic is only 1867 still less than 2119 for single personality. Average traffic is 1867/70= 25, if we take max of 200 then also Prophet Ibrahim traffic is 10 times higher than any other famous personality via title Ibrahim and definitely Ibrahim deserve to be prime topic for prophet Ibrahim.

Hope this calculation and method is acceptable evidence from Wiki itself to prove, if any more suggestion welcome.--Md iet (talk) 08:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone through the pages listed on this page in January 2012 and December 2012, and tabulated the page view statistics for each of them for January 2011 and 2012, and the last three complete months (October-December 2012) to produce a fair comparison.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article Listed
Ibrahim
01 Jan 12 		Listed
Ibrahim
31 Dec 12 		January
2011 		January
2012 		October
2012 		November
2012 		December
2012 		Notes
Ibrahim No No 8591 5580 7900 8819 7475
Ibrahim_(disambiguation) No No 315 48 45 56 82 Ibrahim was called this 8 June 2011 - 23 September 2011
Abraham Yes Yes 120931 121340 149592 135024 120837
Ibrahim (name) Yes Yes 0 1268 2015 1874 1903 Created July 2011
Ibrahim (horse) Yes Yes 123 111 223 197 203
Ibrahim (sura) Yes Yes 593 686 895 772 791
Ibrahim prize Yes Yes 81 210 294 239 220
"Ibrahim", a song by David Friedman (percussionist) Yes Yes 209 278 312 333 318
Islamic views on Abraham Yes Yes 0 6045 15833 11561 9476 Abraham in Islam was called this from 2 April 2011 to 3 January 2013
Islamic view of Abraham No No 7737 3855 8034 3826 3075 Abraham in Islam was called this until 2 April 2011
Abraham in Islam No No 0 4 0 0 148 Called Islamic view of Abraham until 2 April 2011, then Islamic views on Abraham until 3 January 2013
Ibrāhīm No No 66 29 31 47 70 Redirect page.
Ebrahim Yes No 465 242 195 171 197 Changed into a redirect page to Ibrahim (name), 30 November 2011.
Removed from being listed on Ibrahim on 20 January 2012.
Ibrahima Yes Yes 249 285 254 232 246
Ibrahimzai No Yes 8 4 147 168 137 Created February 2012

Discussion

[edit]
Any additional comments:
Hope evidence provided above is sufficient please.--Md iet (talk) 08:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Intent is same as clarified by older, and made clear in the request please.--Md iet (talk) 07:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The request is completely clear. There is no need to restart.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose. I do not think that the evidence supports the claim that Abraham in Islam/Islamic views on Abraham is the primary topic for Ibrahim. The proposers claim that article traffic statistics show that the majority of people who look at the current Ibrahim article, use this to navigate to the article currently called Abraham is Islam. The basis for this claim is that they looked at article traffic for the articles mentioned on the Ibrahim page and deducted the traffic for some of the articles and claimed that the the remainder probably went to Abraham is Islam. But when you look at data for completed months (tabulated above), you can see that the Abraham article gets more than ten times as much traffic as the article they claim is the primary topic. By their logic, Ibrahim should be a redirect to Abraham. But Ibrahim is a common name. It makes more sense to have the page as a disambiguation-type page as now.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Toddy1, thanks for efforts made by you for in depth survey.
Main question to us is who is prime owner for Ibrahim? Now your survey also proves that main Traffic from Ibrahim moves to either of Article Abraham or Abraham in Islam which are meant for a single person, hence this single person is prime person to claim ownership for traffic from Ibrahim and prophet Ibrahim is the single person whose article can be prime topic for name Ibrahim.
Now the second question is whether Abraham is to be prime topic or Abraham in Islam to be prime topic?
The simple answer is the topic which has more traffic amongst Abraham and Abraham in Islam through Ibrahim. Although Abraham get more than ten times overall traffic than Abraham in Islam as pointed out by you, but it is not the overall traffic which is important but here the traffic which passes via Ibrahim is important. Abraham is general English word and hence it has all major traffic through word ‘Abraham’ and cannot be linked with ‘Ibrahim’ as general English people do not know word ‘Ibrahim’ as every one of us claim. But Abraham in Islam is linked with Islam and in Islam Abraham is known as 'Ibrahim' hence it is obvious that major traffic must have come from ‘Ibrahim’ and Abraham in Islam is answer to be prime topic for Ibrahim.
Hope most will agree to my logic and any suggestion is welcome.--Md iet (talk) 11:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, unless someone can show how many click on the various options from the disambiguation page. I expect that many page views of Abraham in Islam (and other prophets) result from readers clicking from other articles using the templates {{Prophets in the Quran}} & {{Quranic people}}, rather than doing a search and then arriving via the disambiguation page. Moreover, we do not know how many Muslims use Wikipedia, as opposed to Christian Arabs who might also be searching for "Ibrahim" but wanting the main page Abraham rather than Abraham in Islam.
This nomination is part of a campaign to secure redirects from Arabic names of various prophets in Islam; see talk:Abraham in Islam for previous attempts. IMHO this is a poor use of time. Many of the pages about the prophets, or other pages under {{WP Islam}}, are of very poor quality; they are tagged as needing re-writing, better sources or both. I suggest that Muslim editors would do well to concentrate on improving the articles, rather than spending time arguing over redirects and page names. From time to time I have improved some of them myself, so it's discouraging to come across active Muslim editors who do not see this as a priority. – Fayenatic London 21:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above survey done by me is on how many click on the various options from the disambiguation page ‘Ibrahim’ only. The all page views of Abraham in Islam (and other prophets) result from readers clicking from other articles using the templates {{Prophets in the Quran}} & {{Quranic people}} etc. is not counted in the survey. The calculation result specifically shows minimum traffic via Ibrahim to article of prophet Ibrahim only.
There is ample possibility of search via 'Ibrahim' as there is majority of English knowing (may not be speaking) Muslim who know Ibrahim by only that name, whereas there is little possibility that Christian (Arab) is so dull that they don’t know even Abraham. Even if they know Ibrahim only then also they can very well go to Abraham via Ibrahim also.
Thanks for efforts taken for improving articles without any prejudice and advice given. Article reach is basic requirement, content improvement is always welcome next.--Md iet (talk) 09:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? The URL you cited as the tool used in your survey does not have the ability to do what you say it did.[11] All it does is count page views. It does not exclude page views reached by people clicking on a template. Do you have some other tool?--Toddy1 (talk) 22:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The tool I used is for getting 'total traffic' to that particular page, but calculation and logic I used is 100 % full proof to get minimum traffic which could have passed via Ibrahim to topic of Abraham Abraham in Islam of one person prophet Ibrahim.
The formula used is:
minimum traffic which could have passed via Ibrahim to topic of Abraham Abraham in Islam =
Total traffic to Ibrahim- collective total traffic to all the articles listed in Ibrahim excluding article of prophet Ibrahim (of Abraham and Abraham in Islam).
Please study it carefully I am talking right.--Md iet (talk) 09:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! I understand the maths. In December 2012, 7475 people viewed the disambiguation page. Assuming that they all went on to look at one of the other pages listed, the most that chose a topic other than Abraham or Abraham in Islam is 1903 203 791 220 318 246 137 (reading down the column for that month in the table above), i.e. the views of Ibrahim (name) etc by any route, = 3818. 7475 - 3818 = 3657, so at least that number went from the disambiguation page either to Abraham or Islamic views on Abraham.
The calculation explained further is in response of "What are you talking about?" please. --Md iet (talk) 04:47, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
However, for the primary topic, we cannot calculate how many chose Abraham as opposed to Islamic views on Abraham.
Md iet seems to argue above that whereas Muslim readers only know the name Ibrahim, Christian Arab readers would be more aware that the usual name in English is "Abraham" rather than "Ibrahim", and so they would type "Abraham" if they wanted the article about him in the Bible and general history. I'm not sure about that. British-born Muslims also know the English version of the name is Abraham. In countries with an Islamic culture where language is influenced by Arabic, e.g. Egypt or Indonesia, Muslims and Christians would equally use the name Ibrahim, and I don't see why more Christians than Muslims would know the English version of the name. Even if they do know it, many would look up the name that they know best. – Fayenatic London 12:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, very good, if you feel that in countries with an Islamic culture where language is influenced by Arabic 'Ibrahim' is used for searching 'Abraham' then also compare the percentage in respect to population, it will be very less. Even if we take 25 %, then also the absolute figure comes out to be 0.75 X 3657= 2740, which is again almost one and half time more than 1903 the other best claimant of title 'Ibrahim'. So 'Abraham in Islam' is justified as prime topic for prophet Ibrahim. Since there is already one prime article of Prophet Ibrahim by the name of Abraham in Islam, and we do not agree to include word 'Ibrahim' in that article topic, it is very much justified that we agree to redirect Ibrahim to topic Abraham in Islam. --Md iet (talk) 04:47, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, we are no longer interested in comparing with the 1903 views for Ibrahim (name). The choice is between Abraham and Abraham in Islam. I agree that a majority of people looking at Ibrahim went on to one or other of those two, but we do not know which. We know that in total, 120,837 looked at Abraham, whereas only 9,476 3,075 148 looked at Abraham in Islam or one of its redirects. That suggests that only a very small proportion of Wikipedia readers are Muslims or interested in the articles about Islam. Perhaps some Muslims are discouraged by their teachers from using secular sources; I do not know. It might be helpful to find out. Meanwhile, we have no way of knowing how many of those who search Wikipedia for "Ibrahim" want the main page Abraham or the sub-page Abraham in Islam.
It is likely that Christians/Jews from Arabic-influenced cultures may be typing the word Ibrahim and then choosing the page Abraham. Neither they nor the Muslim readers are "dull", to use the word you wrote above; they are just using the name best known to them. If some Muslims are discouraged from using Wikipedia, then it could be a large proportion of people who come here and view Ibrahim then choose the page Abraham.
So there is no way to prove whether Abraham in Islam rather than Abraham is the main topic for Ibrahim. – Fayenatic London 15:04, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is also no way of us knowing how many people who looked at the current Ibrahim page left the page without clicking on any of the links, and then used either Wikipedia search or Google to find the page they were really interested in.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, we take 'there is no way to prove whether Abraham in Islam rather than Abraham is the main topic for Ibrahim', now 'the choice is between Abraham and Abraham in Islam'. We should be least bothered to select any out of Abraham and Abraham in Islam as both are article on one and same, our main concern is person searching for 'Ibrahim' should reach to article on global personality of majority people 'prophet Ibrahim' first rather roam here and there and reach the destination. It is perfectly alright if we redirect Ibrahim to Abraham.--Md iet (talk) 05:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is a new proposal, which I would support. After doing so we should simply replace the current hatnote at the page Abraham, {{redirect4|Abram|Avram}}, with {{redirect10|Abram|Avram|Ibrahim}}. Shall we ask someone to close this discussion, so that you can propose that as a fresh start? – Fayenatic London 20:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In case nobody else has any objection on this new proposal we may conclude here self. If required I don't have any objection to put proposal your way.--Md iet (talk) 05:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Suggested move no 2 of 2013

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move Ibrahim to Ibrahim (disambiguation), redirect Ibrahim to Abraham.

As discussed above there is new proposal to redirect Ibrahim to Abraham as Abraham is the main topic for Ibrahim also. Further after doing so we should simply replace the current hat note at the page Abraham, {{redirect4|Abram|Avram}}, with {{redirect10|Abram|Avram|Ibrahim}}. If anybody have further suggestions on this may please discuss.-- Md iet (talk • contribs) 05:22, 6 February 2013‎

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move

[edit]

The way Ibrahim has been moved to Ibrahim (disambiguation) and Ibrahim redirected to Abraham as being primary topic, Move Musa to Musa (disambiguation), and redirect Musa to Moses and similarly other as listed below, with same justification applicable as in discussion above.

--Md iet (talk) 09:07, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose combined discussion, as some of these are stronger/weaker than others. I suggest you start separate discussions on one or two others at a time, and do it on the articles' own talk pages rather than here. Of course, you can provide links here to the other discussions. – Fayenatic London 09:46, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have jotted down traffic details of one month of most of above, this indicates that first two columns are of one and same person and both added together have many many times more weightage than last column. Even in many case first and last column itself are comparable. As discussed above lot many person referring second column use name of first column, hence it is more than justified that all of them are justified for this move. Combined discussion is very much justified, other missing data in above also will be filled.--Md iet (talk) 11:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Fayenatic that these need to be evaluated separately. And the methodology needs to be much more carefully laid out and documented. Taking only one example, Nuh, I am unable to reproduce the figures you present (even approximately). Second, it is flawed logic to compare or combine figure for very different spellings (i.e., Nuh vs Noah or Isa vs Jesus). older ≠ wiser 12:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Although same methodology as used in the above case of Ibrahim is repeated but For making my methodology and logic more simple to understand and validate figures presented, please take example of Nuh again:

1)( column II figure): Total traffic to page Noah http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Noah is 69450

2)( column I figures): Total traffic to page Noah in Islam http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Noah_in_Islam is 6726

A): Traffic to single personality prophet Noah (Noah)/ /Nuh (Noah in Islam) = 1) 2)=.69450 6726= 76176

B)( column III figures) : Max. traffic gone through any other title related with word ‘Nuh’ = highest traffic of any one of below:

-Total traffic to disambiguation page Nuh is http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Nuh is 830

or All total traffic gone to individual page covered in disambiguation page nuh of:

-For Nuh_(city) http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Nuh_(city) is328

-For Nuh_(sura) http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Nuh_(sura) is531

-For Nuh_(name) http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Nuh_(name) 121

-For Nuh_I http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Nuh_I is 156

-For Nuh_II http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Nuh_II is 144


Now all the figures are made clear and first two (I & II) column figures are for single personality prophet Noah/Nuh , third (III) column figures are max possible for any other personality known by name similar to “Nuh “.

As justified above many non Muslim fellows are going to Abraham using name Ibrahim, here is it is same case and many people might be searching for Noah using name Nuh, hence irrespective of considering religion there is no way to prove whether traffic to Noah is coming from Nuh or Noah. When traffic to single personality prophet Noah (Noah)/ /Nuh (Noah in Islam)(A =I II) = 76176 are so high than traffic to any other personality by similar name ‘Nuh’(B=column III)) =830, it is proven that Noah (Noah)/ /Nuh (Noah in Islam) is prime topic for Nuh. Choice left is in between Noah and Noah in Islam. As justified in case of Ibrahim , we should be least bothered to select any out of Noah and Noah in Islam as both are article on one and same, our main concern is person searching for 'Nuh' should reach to article on global personality of majority people 'prophet Nuh' first rather roam here and there and reach the destination. It is perfectly alright if we redirect Nuh to Noah.

Similarly column I II figures are many times higher than of column III for all other personalities and requested move is justified. II column figures are 5 digit figures, although many III column are not yet filled but it can be max. to 4 digit as trend shows and there will be difference of at least 5 times between II and III figures. --Md iet (talk) 08:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC) Earlier figures written were old figures, some have been corrected with latest pl.--Md iet (talk) 09:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One problem is that "Noah" and "Nuh" are very different spellings and it VERY misleading to combine the figures. And I still think it extremely inappropriate to discuss these as a mass move. older ≠ wiser 13:07, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose mass move. Please can you do this as a series of individual move requests that can each be discussed on their own merits.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:03, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can also compare "Abraham" and "Ibrahim", whatever spellings, if they are used for one and same person then prime topic will be only one for both the words, and Ibrahim is well justified to be directed for Abraham, here also same justification will apply for "Noah" and "Nuh". We are not combining the figures, the figures are meant for referring one person only.
Rather just opposing the mass move for the sack of opposing, would you please list any demerits against any move suggested with facts and figures justifying them.--Md iet (talk) 07:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not here. This is not the correct forum for discussing the specifics of each move. older ≠ wiser 10:50, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, your views are welcome at Talk:Nuh please.--Md iet (talk) 07:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But that is just another mass move proposal. It is not even clear what the scope of it is! Some of us are objecting to the mass move proposals because we believe that each should be discussed properly on its own merits.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:54, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ibrahim&oldid=1200112048"