Talk:Karib'il Watar

Requested move 28 May 2016

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: Page moved by Only in death. -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 13:42, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

---

Karab El Watar → Karib'il Watar – I made an earlier move to this name on the grounds of WP:COMMONNAME but it was reverted without explanation. An ordinary Google search gives over 6500 hits for my proposed spelling[1] versus aboutg 15 for the current spelling preferred by the article's creator, virtually all Wikipedia articles or derived from Wikipedia articles.[2] A GBooks search gives over 2000 for Karib'il Watar[3] versus maybe 2 (the only one I could search didn't seem to have it)[4] for the current spelling. This should have been a slam dunk. Doug Weller talk 13:24, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

The English literature is written by people who are not native Arabic speakers !! So if you can interpret who is (il) not (El), I would agree the change in article's name !

@Ecoboy90: Did you actually read the policy I linked? It says "In Wikipedia, an article title is a natural language word or expression that indicates the subject of the article: as such the article title is usually the name of the person, or of the place, or of whatever else the topic of the article is. However, some topics have multiple names, and this can lead to confusion about which name should be used in the article's title. Wikipedia generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority ofindependent, reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the criteria listed above." Doug Weller talk 14:08, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I read it but you can't say common mistakes are true just because so many people believe in them (just like religions) ... a question for you, why didn't create a version with your proposed name in the first place?! Anyway, if you want to move it, you can do it ... honestly, I have not met more stubborn person than you are !

Not only is the current article name not adhering to the naming policy, but it's also a mistake. The individual's name is Karab'il with the hamzah in the middle of the name; currently, it's written as if the "el" is the Arabic alif-lam for the definite article. That isn't the case but anybody familiar with Arabic transliteration will assume that.

Because the current article name is both a policy violation as well as a blatant mistake, I recommend changing it immediately to the standard naming. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:30, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Silly argument about spelling .. there is nothing called 'il ?! Ecoboy90 (talk) 21:35, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

And now you're being disruptive and ignoring policy. If there is nothing called 'il', why do so many reliable sources use it? See[5], over 2000 results. Versus[6]. And of course the German, French and Italian articles spell it Karib’il Watar. User:Ecoboy90, are you really saying everyone else is wrong and you are right? Doug Weller talk 20:36, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Can you translate this 𐩱𐩡

if you can, what does it mean?! User:Ecoboy90 talk 22:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

It's not in English, we rely on English language sources for article titles. Doug Weller talk 21:13, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

They didn't translate 𐩱𐩡 properly ... so, do you want to take misleading translation as something for granted!! User:Ecoboy90 talk 22:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Ecoboy90, this may not have been explained properly to you. We use the names as the sources name them, even if they may be incorrect. The overwhelming majority of sources use the spelling Karib'il Watar, so that is what is used on English wikipedia. Even if all of those sources are actually incorrect (which MezzoMezzo indicates is not the case), we still use what reliable sources call someone except in very rare circumstances. And this is not one of them. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:24, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Secondly RE my changes to make the article more readable to a western audience - the formatting and language choices you have used make the article difficult to read (parse) at some points. This may be a language barrier or it may be because you are quoting the original text - but as written the sentence structure in places is not an easy read. Almost all of my changes have actually changed very little of the content, merely re-arranged it into a easier to read format. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Closing this discussion as the move has taken place and it will hopefully de-escalate the above situation -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 13:42, 1 June 2016 (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.

Sources that would greatly improve this article

These are just the first I came across and include Oxford and Cambridge University Press books.[7][8][9] Doug Weller talk 12:34, 5 June 2016 (UTC)