Talk:Oasis

Disambiguation
If the disambiguation page can be the first "goto" page for all forms of Oasis, then I think its serve everyone's interests equally. This way, there would not be a need to have a disambiguation pointer on the current Oasis wikipedia page. Furthermore, this venue should not be driven by a popularity contest where the largest viewed page using the same search term becomes the gateway for the rest of the uses for Oasis. If anyone knows how to delink this page from the general search term oasis, I'd appreciate the advice about how to do. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgrebinski (talk • contribs) 07:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

the band
I also request the link goto Oasis. I would venture that the article for the geographic feature generates much less traffic and as a result should take a backseat to the band. I would also point out that the quality of the article on the geographic feature should be enough to relegate it behind the band. Dcosman (talk) 02:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC) -- Anyone have any clue how to give the britpop group Oasis their own special room?


 * Oasis (band). Make a link to it at the bottom of this article after an hr line.


 * I don't understand why doing a search for "Oasis" doesn't just lead to the disambiguation page, rather than directly here.


 * Yes, a link to the band would be nice. Its sooo annoying.even though i love oasis /the band of course hehe!!!

Who on earth is looking for the dictionary definition of the word “Oasis’. Surely this should link to the band or at the very least the disambiguation.--202.47.52.184 15:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It does seem silly, im sure the Oasis (band) Page gets 5 times as many views as this. --Tukogbani (talk) 08:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

--

But also see Talk:OASIS all caps. Psb777 11:06, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC) -- Yeah does someone want to fix this page... -- Er, an admin needs to do that. I'd probably fuck it all up. Maybe someone will notice the swearing and fix it all. :) --202.47.51.50 20:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC) (remember to sign your posts) -- Oasis should really link to the band, that's what most people will be searching for. At the very least the disambiguation page. Dave101 16:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

This isn't bandpedia. By far the most common usage of Oasis is of the geographic feature, and the main article should be about that, with a link to a disambiguation page for the band and other uses. 129.174.176.3 00:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Beatle links to the Beatles. Dave101 08:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

That's because the insect is called a "Beetle". "Beatle" only refers to the band. 129.174.176.3 21:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

But look at the size of this article compared to Oasis', it just has a couple of paragraphs, and I think Oasis the band is more likely to searched on wikipedia than the geographic feature. Ian 17:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * who would actually look up the term Oasis? surely Oasis the band should be prior, and Oasis with water should be Oasis (geography


 * Me. *throws your arrogant assumptions out the window* I searched for Oasis to try & find out how they're formed; I would be highly unamused if I was sent to an article about some random band! After all, the word 'Oasis' came long before the band, which is named after the word anyway! 82.109.66.146 19:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * And how are Oasis' formed? Oh wait, it doesn't say. Very useful. Ian 16:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The first page that show up when you search for Oasis, should be the page the most people are looking for. I don't think that is geography. A solution could be to put a direct link to Oasis(band) on top of this page. Ole-p 22:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The first page that shows up should be about the geographical feature. This is because every other thing mentioned at the disambiguation page is named after it, and without any qualifier, any reasonable person would expect the word oasis to refer to a pond in a desert, not a band. Similarly, the word apple leads to the page on a fruit, not a company. On the other hand, orange leads to a disambiguation page since there are two common usages for the word itself, which isn't the case here. - Bobet 13:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * To back up what others have said - I came to this page to look up the geographical feature - we aren't all hopelessly lost in pop culture that we fail to recognise things outside it (though I like pop culture, but only in its place). sheridan (talk) 22:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * All this argument is such rubbish. It's obvious that the geographical feature is more important than the band. The band took their name from the feature so what?- Should they just overtake the feature itself in the importance ranks? Not a chance. I completely agree with the way it is now. Bonzostar (talk) 17:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Etymology
What's the evidence for the bold claim that those who suggest the word comes from Egyptian through Coptic are wrong? The American Heritage Dictionary supports that etymological origin. I remove the claim until evidence proving them wrong is provided. Uaxuctum 10:05, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The Greeks borrowed the word long before Coptic existed as a written language (the spoke language of the day being Demotic), despite the claims of the AHD. The Greeks borrowed no words directly from Coptic. Flembles 19:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

aaaahm.... i'm not overall fluent in arabic, but don't the ancient egyptian/demotic/coptic words for oasis very much like the arabic term? check http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%AD%D8%A9: could it be those supposedly pre-arabic/ancient-egyptian termns are in fact arabic? where is the source for the claim brought forth in the article (just to be refuted in a alltogether equally superficious way) that those words are in fact what they are supposed to be? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.147.40.8 (talk) 08:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

speaking as someone with only a rudimentary understanding of the subject, but i was lead to believe that our translation of ancient Egyptian came directly from studies of Coptic. This would suggest that the origins of Coptic are a lot older than suggested by this article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.73.107 (talk) 18:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Not an Oasis
The photo in Tozeur, Tunisia is not showing an oasis. That's just a swimming pool.
 * Any reference to back up your statement? Bonzostar (talk) 19:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

It is Fazecraze (talk) 21:26, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

This page
The geographical Oasis is the PRIMARY TOPIC for the word oasis. If you do not believe that it is, fine. Then take it to WP:RM. I'm an admin who has disambiguated literally hundreds of thousands of pages. I know what I'm talking about here. Here is more on the idea of a primary topic. --User:Woohookitty Disamming fool! 09:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Parth
Parth is my best friend. He thinks he is sachin tendulkar in cricket.And he is. He is playing with his friends :- Vibhor bhaia, Mohit, Mousam, Aamir.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.54.50.138 (talk) 09:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

etymology
Douglas Harper's excellent dictionary is misinformed. There is a similar word that means 'dwelling', but it has nothing to do with 'oasis'. In fact the pictographic form of the word has a determinative (taxonomic) sign that indicates a region outside Egypt, probably a desert area. The similar word for 'dwelling' is not written with this sign. The Ancient Egyptian word (Middle Egyptian) sounded like 'ouahat'. It went into Greek as 'oasis'. Because the oases did not disappear and Egyptians kept visiting them, the word survived into the later stage of the language known as Demotic and from there to the even later stage known as Coptic and from there to the language that eventually became the dominant language of Egypt, Arabic, as something like 'wah'. All of these transliterations are approximations. There is only one to write a language properly and that is to use the graphemic system appropriate to it (Pamour (talk) 23:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)).

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:


 * http://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00004609/
 * Triggered by  on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 15:27, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

✅ This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 07:11, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Split list of places to its own article?
I was just browsing to this article, but the dynamic list "List of places called oases" is extremely long and takes up most of the space in the article with a table full of non-existent articles. Could it be pared down or split to its own page? I would try to do it myself but I am fairly new with Wikipedia editing Equationsmith (talk) 14:06, 28 June 2023 (UTC)