User talk:Ibrahim ebi/Archive 1

Oops
You just created the infobox on Ali, but you did so in the article namespace instead of the template namespace. I moved it for you, but as a newcomer, you might not have realized that it was in the wrong place. This is just so you know that it needed actual human intervention and wasn't moved automatically. No harm done, though. DS (talk) 13:09, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Templates that are used by one article only
The template that you did for Uthman ibn Affan looks really good.

But it is not really a template. It is only used by one article (Uthman ibn Affan). It contains the information (which is why it is not really a template). It is really just a transcluded part of the article.

Surely it would be better to have all this included in the article.

If it is in the article and someone changes the information, it is easy to spot this, and make a judgment about whether to revert it. If part of the information is in the article and part in a transcluded part (like your 'template'), this means that people need to have two things on their watch list instead of one, and it makes checking changes more involved.

For these reasons I think the templates that are only used in one article are not a good thing, and things that look like templates but have the information already filled in are even less of a good idea.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:50, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for incorporating it into the article.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:29, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * On a similar note, I and two other editors have now reverted you at Ali. When a functional, useful, standard template exists for a topic, we should always use that. We should never hand code each one, because it makes it far harder for other users to edit, and often ends up with a lot of excessive info not appropriate for an infobox. Please stick with the caliph template for now. Also, at this point, you definitely should not revert back to your version, because that would be edit warring, which could result in you being blocked. You need to go to the article's talk page to discuss this further. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Qwyrxian Actually the thing is that i only wanted to make the infobox of abu bakr,umar,uthman and ali to look the same. what i find is that their is no synchronization between the articles. You are right that one should use the standard caliph template.Ibrahim ebi (talk) 08:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Ibrahim, I think you can do what you want to achieve using the Caliph template. Why not experiment in a sandbox.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Infobox Ali


A tag has been placed on Template:Infobox Ali requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes ( ).

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. -- WikHead (talk) 06:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The tag that is being placed on the template Ali is too sudden to place because the template is being created recently and its in the phase of adjustment.It takes a little time to make its appearance in other articles and it is not specifically created for Article Ali although the name says so. Please kindly consider and Check the template Abu Bakr.This template is going to serve the same purpose for navigation and connecting other articles.--Ibrahim ebi (talk) 13:23, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Re: Thanks
You are most sincerely welcome! Here's something for you:

Tip: you could make a userpage with something about yourself? Cheers, theFace 20:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this wonderful banner. Appreciate your liking towards my contribution. My userpage is in pipeline as i am new to wikipedia therefore understanding the way it works. Cheers, --Ibrahim ebi 02:30, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Re: Need help for Moving a Template.
Hmmm... this seems a slight bit confusing to me, and I'm not sure I'm following you 100% of the way. I was just about to offer you a solution, but it appears that you may have just performed a cut-and-paste move here, which I assume will be reverted. In normal circumstances however, when a redirect needs to be inverted, I would recommend using db-move as outlined at CSD G6. -- WikHead (talk) 13:25, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, the link is a redirect page for Cite quran but as there are now No redirect links on the page therefore i want the page to be deleted so that the template Quran related would take its place as described earlier. Further i want to know that the tag db-move on the page is right for speedy deletion or one should use something else or contact an administrator for its deletion. -- Ibrahim ebi (talk) 08:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * As per your request, the old 'Template: Quran' has been deleted as an unused redirect, and you may now move your new Template into its space. DS (talk) 11:44, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Ibrahim ebi, sorry I was off line when you sent your talkback and just getting around to replying now. As some of the items we're discussing and linking to have already been deleted, I'm currently unable to see the full picture of what has happened here. I do see however that DS has offered some assistance, and I assume has addressed all your current page-move concerns (Thank you DS.). As for your questions about the db-move template (just so you'll know the next time around), it is commonly used when a redirect exists in a name-space where the actual page or template should be located. The  template gets placed on the page that needs to be deleted so the other page can be moved to take its place. In some cases, the reviewing admin may decide to merge the revision histories of both name-spaces rather than completely deleting either version... (A good example of a merged move begins here).


 * On another note, I was going to ask you again about the status of Template:Infobox Ali, but I see that you've already tagged it per CSD T3, as I had previously done myself. Though your tagging appears to be 100% correct, db-self could also be used in this particular case, and would be reviewed and processed immediately, without the (usual CSD T3) seven day delay. Regardless, it appears that everything is now in order, and that's all that really matters . Have yourself a great day Ibrahim ebi... and happy editing! -- WikHead (talk) 17:02, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your kind words of appreciation! I will most certainly keep you in mind and take you up on your offer should there ever be something you could assist me with in the future. I'm glad to see that everything is in order (including the fast-track deletion/cleanup of Template:Infobox Ali). Stay well Ibrahim ebi... and edit happily!  -- WikHead (talk) 20:18, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Template talk page
Thanks for the heads up about the talk page. James086 Talk &#124; Email 18:17, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Hadith, Muhammad templates
I just now noticed that you are reworking these templates. My reaction:

1) They're too large. They reduce the space available for the actual article.

2) I don't think that they should replace the general Islam template. They should be smaller, and follow the Islam template. Hmm. I see a general trend in the Islam-related articles to replace the general template with micro-focused templates, which seems like a mistake.

3) Apparently I didn't notice the Muhammad template earlier. I don't think it's NPOV.

Miracles? That seems to say that he DID work miracles. (Which isn't in the Qur'an -- it's later embroidery, IMHO.) It would have to be Alleged Miracles to be NPOV. That would be offensive, so it would seem wiser to just leave it out as a heading. (Unless templates for other religious figures always have a Miracles heading, in which case I'll shut up.)

The heading Durood is also problematic. Who knows the word Durood? I have been editing Islam-related articles for years, and have never heard this word. It would be meaningless to more than 90% of Wikipedia users. Furthermore, it points to ONE article (though it could point to more; see article on Islamic honorifics. I think that this should not come under Muhammad, it should be part of the material on Islam, since the practice isn't limited to Muhammad. In fact, the several articles on the subject should probably be merged under Islamic honorifics, with durood pointing to the more comprehensible English term. This is an aspect of Islamic practice that seems bizarre to non-Muslims and perhaps should get some more explanation.

4) I briefly saw a template re hadith that had an entry for the Rightly Guided Caliphs. I hope that this was a mistaken upload. That template would infuriate Shi'a Muslims, who do not see all of those caliphs as rightly guided. Zora (talk) 02:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, your right that i am currently working on these templates and the reason behind this is that there are a number of templates floating in the section Islam that are not only contain same information but are decentralized too and has not been updated for a long time. My attempt is to make them centralized depicting NPOV. Thanks for you detailed review on these template actually the fact is that one always need someone to review his or her work.


 * 1) Hmm, this is what i felt when designing the template. But the information, specially like Quran and Muhammad are too hard to be placed in a smaller template.Currently the size of the template is now similar to the Template:Sunni Islam. I would definitely try to make them slimmer.


 * 2) I believe article Hadith should have a template related to it specifically but i find template Islam floating on the article. Similarly the books on Hadith should too have template Hadith but i find Template:Sunni Islam or template Template:Islam their. As these Articles are placed in Hadith category therefore they should have specific templates on it.


 * 3) The heading Miracles was in the template from the beginning. Although i believe the heading should be "Associated Miracles" and they have quranic evidence too. Such as
 * ♦ Isra and Mi'raj - there is a whole chapter on it in the Quran that is chapter-17 (Al-Isra)
 * ♦ Splitting of the moon - Quranic evidence chapter-54 verse-1-2


 * And as far as the head Durood is concerned it is related to Muhammad and is an essential part of salah and is neutral in all sects. Although the head would be bizarre to non-Muslims as its new to them, the English term for Durood would be praise but its not that much appropriate.


 * 4) Exactly the template and articles should have a NPOV. Depicting everyone perspectives.


 * The Template:Allah, Template:Quran, Template:Hadith, Template:Muhammad, Template:Abu Bakr,Template:Umar, Template:Uthman, Template:Ali, Template:Wives of Muhammad and Template:Rashidun Caliphs are now been synchronized and are been placed in the respective categories. These templates are now also been translated into other languages. Thanks again for your elaborate review on the template. Will definitely work on the loop holes you have pointed out in you review in the near future. Feel free to provide there reviews as i always appreciate one's time and effort. -- Ibrahim ebi (talk) 09:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Template:Hadith collections
the T3 tag requires a date as the second parameter, not your signature, the template is current appearing in Category:Pages with parser function time errors. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 22:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the correction. -- Ibrahim ebi (talk) 09:48, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

THANKS
Thanks for the Barnstar.-- S.A.Sajid Talk  13:28, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Linking to a disambiguation page
Please see WP:HOWTODAB. Where there is no primary topic, the disambiguation should be at the base name, for example Musa or Ibrahim. In such cases, it is correct to link to a disambiguation page using a redirect with "(disambiguation)" in the title, for example Musa (disambiguation) and Ibrahim (disambiguation). It is an incorrect use of Db-disambig to speedily delete such redirects. If you think there is a primary topic, such a determination should usually be made by consensus through discussion per instructions at requested moves. older ≠ wiser 13:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Yaqub

 * Links may be external to Wikipedia as well as internal. In addition, that it was used in several articles on Wikipedia means people are likely to both search for it, and link it when writing/editing.  You can try redirects for discussion, but it would almost certainly be kept. Wily D  08:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That's very different than wrongly asserting that it should be deleted because it's "useless". Given that it's been this way for six years, I'm suspicious that such a move would not be uncontroversial.  It would be better to bring it to RFD or discuss it at Talk:Islamic view of Jacob first. Wily D  08:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll watch the discussion and we can take it from however it goes. Wily D 08:36, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

RMs
Hi Ibrahim, I noticed you opened three RMs with essentially the same argument applied to three different topics. Would you mind if I consolidated them into a multi-move? I suspect most editors will either support or oppose all, for the same reasons, but if not, they're free to express nuance. This should help to not clutter the RM backlog and avoid odd cases where one discussion gets closed and the others aren't. Just let me know if you're alright with that and I can take care of it for you. Best, BDD (talk) 17:40, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I could also include Yaqub, as above. It seems to be a similar case. --BDD (talk) 17:42, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, these are live at Talk:Islamic views on Abraham. I figured it would be better to add them on to an existing RM rather than start a new one. The only change I made to your requests concerns Yusuf. It's currently separate because Yusuf is about the name Yusuf, including people with that name, and Yusuf (disambiguation) discusses other uses. It's not necessarily a bad idea to merge them, but merging is a separate process than renaming. --BDD (talk) 20:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Shuaib
Hello Ibrahim ebi, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Shuaib, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: '''I see no discussion on this potentially controvertial move. Besides Shuayb (prophet) is a redirect itself, so there is no article there to move.''' You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk page notifications
Could you please modify the talk page notifications you just made regarding the RM? The one I noticed was on Talk:Ali. The problem is the phrase "as it becomes difficult to search the topic". That phrase is non-neutral (that is, it pre-disposes the reader towards a particular side on the RM discussion); WP:CANVAS, however, requires that all such noticed be neutrally phrased. You should be able to fix it just by removing that phrase. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

page moves
I've reverted several of the page moves you just made. The discussion is ongoing and in any case, it is very poor form for one of the principal proponents of the move to move the pages before the discussion has been closed. The instructions at WP:requested moves suggests you should wait for an uninvolved editor to review the discussion and determine if there is in fact a consensus for any particular move. older ≠ wiser 16:41, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Template:Abu Bakr
You may want to talk to User:Frietjes.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:11, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Templates
Hi, I reverted one of your edits on template:Quran, I don't understand why you put so much calligraphy in articles and templates, which themselves affect thousands of articles, such as you did on Islam, Hadith and Jesus, the last one was reverted by another editor Rafy

Your calligraphy is nice but nobody, other than wikipedia’s manual of style, has the authority to define how the templates should look like and generally one template per page is enough. If a consensus has been reached previously that I am not aware of, please let me know. Thanks.Kiatdd (talk) 22:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * As far as Rafy reverting is concerned there might be a point of disagreement that can be resolved. consensus regarding what? -- Ibrahim ebi (talk) 02:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * There is a discussion now on the Isa template talk page. History2007 (talk) 01:18, 6 January 2013 (UTC)