Talk:Hud (surah)

Undiscussed move
(cur | prev) 17:28, 4 March 2019‎ JorgeLaArdilla (talk | contribs)‎. . (43 bytes) +43‎. . (JorgeLaArdilla moved page Hud (surah) to Hud (sūrah): add diacritic) (thank) Tag: New redirect
 * What's going on? Reverted. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:02, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 4 March 2019

 * The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) B dash (talk) 13:50, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Hud (sūrah) → Hūd– Having added a diacritic to the bracketed disambiguator, a non-sequitor would be to leave the main title without its diacritc. Simply moving it to Hūd would do away with the need to have a bracketed disambiguator at all. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 17:37, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Category:Surahs, if some reason to spell surah then move to Hud (surah). In ictu oculi (talk) 18:01, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Not sure what's going on here. Why did you add a diacritic to surah in the first place? Reverted. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:03, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


 * comment The practice of adding the diacritic is more modern. Encyclopedia Britannica h ttps://www.britannica.com/search?query=s%C5%ABrah is adopting the practice. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 19:14, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now per Hud (prophet), I've seen Hud referred to in English as just Hud with the diacritic use being extremely rare. I see you moved surah to sūrah recently; I think that move should be examined, as I agree that we should be consistent, but the literature I read basically always used simple "surah".  Might be worth a discussion at WikiProject Islam?  SnowFire (talk) 18:31, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * comment That would indicate that you are using older literature? The practice of adding the diacritic is more modern. Older editions of Encyclopedia Britannica did not use diacritics. Now it is adopting the practice. ttps://www.britannica.com/search?query=s%C5%ABrah JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 19:14, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * First off, Britannica is just one source, and not even a particularly great one. Second of all, most of my study of the matter was in 2000-2005, so yes, "older" sources, but not that old.  A check of Google Books shows:
 * https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=surah, 368K results, good books of both the scholarly and mass-market variety published as recently as 2018.
 * https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=s%C5%ABrah, 28K results, mostly to publishers like "Islamic Publications" and "Islamic Foundation", and Sayyid Qutb as the kind of authors who do this.
 * So yeah, I think your move should be reverted, and this merits a fuller examination. SnowFire (talk) 19:36, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Muhammad Vandestra is the first author I am presented with from your first link. What are his credentials? Regarding your second point, I personally am an Atheist and have not noticed any dark Islamic plot to favour diacritics JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 20:53, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


 * 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.

Status as at 18 December 2019
The article needs serious improvement. Refer WP:PG and MOS:ISLAM

The current citation >  is too cryptic - the citation needs to be more explicit. What does the article's only citation [1] add to the content?

The article needs subdivisions WP:SECT to enable readers to navigate to it and through it.

Koreangauteng (talk) 22:23, 17 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Sometimes Wikipedia editors cite guidelines, but yours don't help at all. What, exactly, of WP:PG do you claim supports your edit?  I could just as easily cite WP:PG back at you, and it'd be just as worthless a claim.  If you want to improve things with some citations to secondary sources, that is great.  I am largely reverting due to the fact you don't seem to be understanding the content of the article at all, e.g. not understanding how citations to the Quran work.  That is how they work - you just drop a Cite Quran tag in.  You will see similar practices with Template:Bibleverse and the like elsewhere on Wikipedia to make an in-text attribution.
 * As I mentioned on your talk page, if MOS:ISLAM supports one particular brand of transliteration between chapter/sura/surah/etc. or verse/ayat, feel free to make the change. However.  Nobody, nobody uses sections like you are in these sura articles you've been editing.  It'd be like creating a novel with "notable pages" and separating it with sections Page 97 / Page 120 / Page 150.  That isn't done.  To pick random other examples - look at something like Book of Hosea or Tattvartha Sutra or anything else.  This is plain bad writing.
 * If you don't mind, I'd like to go around and revert your changes to other surahs, but I won't if it would just start an edit war. Is there some kind of compromise that can be reached?  Again, it's great that you want to help out, but not all contributions are positive; your current ones need some adjustment.  Maybe make a Draft version in your sandbox that doesn't separate things out by "notable verses" and makes clear what you are changing?  SnowFire (talk) 06:39, 18 December 2019 (UTC)