Talk:Fatima (disambiguation)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconDisambiguation
WikiProject iconThis disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. 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 debate was Move to Fatima. ZOMG, what a mess. Since it seems fairly clear that Fatima Zahra (separate RM) is not going to reside at "Fatima", this looks like a step in right direction... Duja► 10:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Support Move Fatima (disambiguation) → Fatima[edit]

  • Yes jnestorius(talk) 16:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Vegaswikian 21:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support as per User:Vegaswikian's rationale below. Fasach Nua 12:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes (see my comment below). patsw 21:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - absolutely. gsearch clearly shows that Muhammed's daughter is not the primary usage. While she may be quite notable, she's not the primary usage, and there should be a disambig. -Patstuarttalk|edits 01:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Move Fatima Zahra → Fatima[edit]

  • No jnestorius(talk) 16:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]
  • No Fasach Nua 18:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]
  • Strong support as primary usage; the town is spelled differently; although there should be a dab link. This is an approval poll; please indicate only those options you support. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The town is Fátima in Portugese, but not usually in English; we have Our Lady of Fatima, not Our Lady of Fátima. jnestorius(talk) 07:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

This one struck me as very odd since what I would consider to be the primary topic was not the one proposed. What that tells me is that an editors opinion on the primary topic will depend on their location or other factors. In the end, it would not be clear that there is a primary topic so the dab page should be at the main article space as the best choice. Vegaswikian 21:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean Fátima, Portugal? I would agree that that is sufficiently important to preclude Fatima linking to Fatima Zahra. However, the town has never been at Fatima on Wikipedia, to little objection. jnestorius(talk) 09:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That or the shrine. The fact that the town was not at the main name space means, for me anyway, that this move should not happen. Vegaswikian 00:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I take it you mean, "The original move should not have happened, and the proposed reverse move therefore should happen".
I'm confused by the proposals and don't know how to vote. I know what I want: since Fatima refers to several quite distinct notions, Fatima should be a dab page, and then we should have Fatima (town), Fatima (apparition), and Fatima (daughter of Muhammad). That's off the top of my head; Fatima is a common name in many Muslim-majority countries, and there may well be other Fatimas who belong on the dab page. Zora 01:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We have all the items you mention at Fatima (disambiguation), and more at Fatima (name). The poll is not about adding or removing articles, just renaming them. To move the dab from "Fatima (disambiguation)" to "Fatima" and move the daughter-of-Muhammad from "Fatima" to "Fatima Zahra". jnestorius(talk) 07:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hence the confusion since Fatima redirects to Fatima (disambiguation). Vegaswikian 07:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Without any prejudice to the outcome of this discussion, let me note that I find jnestorius's actions objectionable. [1] First, there was a consensus to move Fatima Zahra to Fatima (among the editors of that article); second, after moving the page back jnestorius edited the resulting redirect, making the move irreversible (without help of deletions etc). Conscious 08:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    1. I apologise for double-editing Fatima. This was not a devious attempt to prevent reverting, just an honest mistake. Check my edit history; I made a number of mistakes trying to untangle the various articles and redirects, which proved more complicated than I had anticipated.
    2. I truly don't believe there was a consensus for change. At Talk:Fatima Zahra#Survey, the original proposal was to move "Fatima Zahra" → "Fatimah". Someone tentatively suggested an alternative of moving "Fatima Zahra" → "Fatima" (with no h). The original proposer immediately implemented this revised proposal, which nobody else had supported, and without leave a rename notice on the Fatima page, which was unaffected by the original propsal but affected by the revised one. This is not in accordance with procedure, and it's the reason I for one hadn't noticed the move earlier. I believe it was an honest mistake and I have no hard feelings about it — we all make them ;) — but I also believe my actions are fully justified and I stand over them. jnestorius(talk) 23:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course, Fatima should be a redirect to a disambiguation page because a free-standing reference to Fatima in text is ambiguous. There isn't an obvious primary usage of the word, so the (so-far) sole support vote for the move, and comment, of Septentrionalis is unsupported by fact. patsw 21:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. After reading a second rename it this area it should be noted that Fatima Zahra really belongs at the correct name for that article which is Fatimah bint Muhammad. This move request probably should be closed by simply doing an uncontested move of Fatima Zahra to its correct name. Vegaswikian 23:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Requested move 22 November 2017[edit]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. If there is a primary topic, the proposed redirect target is not it, is the discussion's consensus. (non-admin closure) James (talk/contribs) 09:22, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fatima → Fatima (disambiguation) – Fatima should be a redirect (WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT) to Fatimah (daughter of Muhammad) as the most likely WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:15, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose not likely absolute majority in English sources. And the Arabic does have -h. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:45, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@In ictu oculi: The use of a 'h' is just for the Arabic transliteration on this Wiki, it is not the unanimous way of writing it. Fatima is used to describe the daughter of Muhammad in English, such as in this published book Story of the Holy Ka’aba And its People (not a copyright violation as per their FAQ. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:46, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose; I suspect that most English speakers know it from Our Lady of Fátima; or possibly Fátima, Portugal through the former. I am skeptical that Fatimah is the primary topic. TJRC (talk) 22:13, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, no clear primary topic. (Same in several other European languages). Disambiguation is always better than mis-identifying a primary topic. —Kusma (t·c) 10:29, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As per the nomination. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:56, 27 November 2017 (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.

Request for comment: Fatima or Fatimah[edit]

(non-admin closure) Closed as no consensus.- MrX 🖋 19:23, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Trying for a more centralized discussion to resolve the ambiguity of having pages titled Fatima and Fatimah, both of which names can refer to Fatimah, the daughter of Muhammad, as romanized versions of the same name in Arabic (فَاطِمَة). A proposal at Talk:Fatimah to disambiguate the title of Fatimah found no consensus, with several users saying that Fatima should redirect to Fatimah as the primary topic. Meanwhile a proposal at Talk:Fatima to do just that and rename Fatima as Fatima (disambiguation) was rejected. Please indicate which of the options below, if any, would clear up the confusion of names:

—Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:56, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Make Fatimah the primary topic[edit]

  • Oppose. This was already rejected in the RM above, #Requested move 22 November 2017. Let's not relitigate it. TJRC (talk) 05:06, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. A primary topic for a less common spelling variant is a pretty bad idea. Batternut (talk) 12:14, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The discussion above already addressed this issue. In English Wikipedia, Fatima already points to a page with the variety of further options depending on one's interests. Likewise, page views point more toward Our Lady of Fatima. FULBERT (talk) 17:18, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate Fatimah[edit]

  • I support this option. Admittedly, Islamic history is not my strong suit, and it might be the case that she may rarely be referred to in this way, but such a change would make it much less anbiguous what the topic of the article by that name is. John Carter (talk) 23:28, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I weakly support this one. I am also fine with making Fatimah the primary topic. I am strongly opposed to "do nothing" - having a Fatima and Fatimah article (when Fatimah may also be rendered as Fatima) makes absolutely no sense. Something should be done.Icewhiz (talk) 07:10, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fatimah may be referred to as Fatima, but the reverse is not true from what I can see. It is an odd one way situation. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:01, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The policy at WP:SMALLDETAILS recommends that readers "are guided as swiftly as possible to the topic they might reasonably be expected to be looking for", I doubt that the majority of random "Fatimah" search would be looking for Fatimah bint Muhammad. Batternut (talk) 12:14, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The above mentioned reasoning mirrors my own thoughts on the matter. LiPollis (talk) 22:26, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This seems reasonable. FULBERT (talk) 17:18, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. WP:PRECISION, WP:SMALLDETAILS, and WP:CONCISE all point to having enough detail in the title to identify the specific topic. Since Fatimah is a name belonging to more than one person, the title of the page should specify whom it belongs to. The Fatima(h) spelling variant alone seems insufficient to distinguish the topic from Fatima for the average reader. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:08, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This suggestion was already opposed by some many users on the most related page. This is a clear move against the former consensus. --Mhhossein talk 07:43, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The result of that discussion was "no consensus". Hence this RfC. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:15, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think there's a misunderstanding. So, you're going to keep opening such RFCs so that the 'no consensus' turn into 'consensus'? I don't think so. Just look back at the former discussion and you'll see that most of the involved users opposed your proposal. This one is certainly not going to take you anywhere, unless there's something new for those user and others to here! --Mhhossein talk 12:52, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please see the definition of no consensus: "there is neither a strong consensus to move nor a strong consensus to keep the current title". That was evidently the opinion of the closing editor. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:35, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • This discussion seems to have attracted more interest from newcomers to the Fatimah article. Batternut (talk) 15:10, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: this proposal has been already discussed, and rejected, only a few days ago at Talk:Fatimah#Requested move 23 November 2017. It is pointless to start the discussion again so soon. The OP should have waited before proposing again. For now, we must keep the current, stable titles, until a consensus is reached to move. Khestwol (talk) 15:18, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I stated above, the proposal was not rejected. The result was "no consensus", meaning no consensus was reached either to keep or to move. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:38, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Khestwol. See Talk:Fatimah#Requested move 23 November 2017 for my comments. Eperoton (talk) 03:43, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The oppose comments hold more weight in my view, and I agree with them. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:32, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the oppose !votes above largely seem to per Khestwol's reasoning, ie already discussed, and rejected. Batternut (talk) 18:53, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do nothing[edit]

  • Support It is acceptable, albeit confusing to have the current situation. For whatever reason sadly your two proposals failed to resolve this problem, and I think that the current to nothing would be best for the time being. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:02, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. As a variant spelling Fatimah should just redirect to Fatima. Use Fatimah bint Muhammad for that topic (analogous to Mary, mother of Jesus). Batternut (talk) 12:14, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The current situation is much better than disambiguation of a primary topic! --Mhhossein talk 07:49, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: as per the move request above on this page, as well as the move request on Talk:Fatimah#Requested move 23 November 2017. Already, the consensus seems to have rejected both the suggested moves. Khestwol (talk) 13:46, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Khestwol. See Talk:Fatimah#Requested move 23 November 2017 for my comments. Eperoton (talk) 03:43, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Hi all- summoned for RfC. Unfortunately, the previous proposals lacked resolution. When, amid the noise and confusion, consensus fails, then it is often best to let the item remain quiet for a number of months. Re-visit this in the distant future. The proposals have been reasoned and thanks all for the work.Horst59 (talk) 23:33, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Other suggestions[edit]

@Khestwol: I Agree with you. --Mhhossein talk 08:31, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither option seems obviously correct to me. What came to my mind was Our Lady of Fatima, just fyi. I am not saying that's what it should be instead, just that it isn't always a woman's name. Elinruby (talk) 04:54, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Our Lady of Fátima[edit]

According to the disambiguation guideline, we shouldn't include links that have the page title as part of a longer proper name if there is "no significant risk of confusion". It seems unlikely that Our Lady of Fátima, being a title of the Virgin Mary (and the various churches and other institutions with this title) would ever be referred to simply as Fatima; I would suggest moving at least the named institutions to a separate Our Lady of Fátima (disambiguation) page, similarly to how the various institutions named after Thomas Jefferson are listed at Thomas Jefferson (disambiguation) and not Jefferson (disambiguation). Other proper-name titles such as Nossa Senhora de Fátima, Macau and Fatima Mata National College should also be moved or removed, for the same reasons. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:52, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Indeed closer adherence to WP:PTM might remove several other entries too, eg Fatima Khel Kalan, Sanctuary of Fátima, most of the schools and hospitals, The Fatima Mansions ... Batternut (talk) 15:03, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Our Lady of Fátima would be more appropriate for See also. Eperoton (talk) 02:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Clean Copytalk 15:44, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Seanbonner (talk) 05:32, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done: Proposed changes made. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:30, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Fatimah which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:02, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fatima_(disambiguation)&oldid=1101853289"