Talk:Commanding what is just

This article should be moved to a different title, such as Commanding What is Just, as the current title is unnecessarily complex: parentheses should only be used where there are two identically-named articles that could be confused with one another, which is not the case here. -Silence 19:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I dont whant it to be confured with the general term, the general term is Qur'anic and is here: Enjoin what is good and forbid what is wrong --Striver 20:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That's fine, but you should use the contents of the article, not the title, to clarify that. If you think there's a large chance of osmeone searching for the Enjoin article under this title, then why not just add a disambiguation notice at the top of the page saying "This article is about the Shia doctrine. For the Qur'anic term, see Enjoin what is good and forbid what is wrong." That's the way to resolve such ambiguity in a way that's consistent with Wikipedia conventions and avoids excess verbosity.
 * However, even that may not be necessary unless it's really necessary to have three articles for these two related pages. So, how about circumventing any possible confusion and simply merging the 3 articles into one? After all, this page is practically a substub: aside from the many templates and internal and external links, it's only one sentence long! With that in mind, all we really need is a section of the "Enjoin" article which explains the Shi'a doctrines derived from the phrase, and redirect all the "Commanding what is just" and "Forbidding what is wrong" pages there. As is often the case, the simplest solution is the best. Any reasons this merger wouldn't work well, that you can think of? -Silence 20:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Good idea, lets rename them. As for the merge, i do agree that they are very small stubs, but considering they are 20% of the Branches of religion, im sure the right person can fill them up. Further, rather have each link in the template go to its own article. --Striver 21:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * A renaming would be acceptable, but I still think a merge would be ideal. People will have an even easier time filling them up if they're more consolidated; information in related articles receive less attention the further they are apart from each other, so merging is a good way to consolidate editor attention, and it also tends to prevent inconsistencies. And there's no reason we won't be able to re-split these two articles in, say, a year, if they've accumulated a good number of paragraphs of information in that span of time. We don't need a separate article for every single aspect of the Branches of Religion: we don't have separate articles for each of the eight tenets of the Noble Eightfold Path, even though Buddhism's a much more ancient and widespread religious faith than Shi'a Islam, and has many times more information on each of the eight than we have on "commanding what is right" and "forbidding what is wrong". Sometimes consolidating articles can be as important for ensuring their growth as splitting them is in other circumstances. Plus they're just so darned short, and so redundant in their information with respect to each other, and their article titles are so complicated and similar, that I just don't see any pressing benefits to having three distinct articles where a single one would do at least as well. -Silence 21:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Your arguements are good, but due to personal preference, i rather have it as it is now. Put since i admitedly do not have better arguements, i wont oppose a merge, if no information is lost in the proces. --Striver 21:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm not as involved in the topic as you, so I don't want to push for an unpopular merge just for the sake of organization. You took the time to work on these articles, so I'll let you, and other users more familiar with these topics, have the final say. However, rest assured, if we do make the merge, absolutely no information will be lost in the process. I've made many similar merges (and splits) in the past, and have always been careful to above-all preserve the informational value of the actual contents of these articles, which is, ultimately, the point. But anyway, I've made my suggestion, which is all I wanted to do. Good talking to you, and see you around. -Silence 21:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * my plasure, have a good day/night! --Striver 18:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)