Talk:Urabi revolt
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg)
 | On 11 February 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from ʻUrabi revolt to Urabi revolt. The result of the discussion was moved. |
Anglo Egyptian War
editThis article covers basically the same subject as the Anglo-Egyptian War article. However, this article is better written. Perhaps the two should be combined? Isenhand 05:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Would an alternative to present a focused view on the British military intervention as a sub-article and have an overall picture in this article...? Kernel Saunters 19:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- The best thing would be to write one article, that had proper footnotes to contemporary sources. Its title should be one that people who have read about the conflict from contemporary sources would instantly know what the article was about.--Toddy1 05:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Arabi or Urabi or Orabi
editWikipedia has articles referring to this man either as Orabi or Urabi. Is there any evidence that his name was ever spelled in either of these ways at the time?
All the contemporary sources I have seen spell his name Arabi. That suggests to me that Wikipedia ought to standardise on Arabi.--Toddy1 19:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- Incidentally, as it is written out in Arabic, the definition could also mean the "Arabic Revolt/Uprising"... Arabi himself was most definitely named after his native language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.189.30.212 (talk) 18:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Nope. That would be a homonym, but it wouldn't have that meaning. He wasn't Arab and his insurrection wasn't Arab or in Arabia. — LlywelynII 14:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
- See Talk:Ahmed ‘Urabi. — LlywelynII 14:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
ENGLISH COMMONNAME
editIs Urabi; included the ‘ for correctness since this page redirects from the unmarked form. Orabi, despite being a common rendering of the man's personal name, is not even notable enough to gloss in the lead, outside of a basic explanation of whom we're talking about. — LlywelynII 14:59, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Requested move 30 May 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 — Amakuru (talk) 12:20, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
– Proper mark for ayin. Srnec (talk) 01:21, 30 May 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. — Amakuru (talk) 12:27, 15 June 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. Anarchyte (work | talk) 14:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- If so, every use of ayin in all Wikipedia page names will have to be changed, and thus need countless page-moves. Book printers on paper have been using inverted comma to represent ayin from the beginning of Semitic-language scholarship. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:17, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
- Relisting comment: There's been no input since you relisted it, Amakuru. Do you have any opinion on the matter? Anarchyte (work | talk) 14:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Anarchyte: looks like a no consensus to me. Anthony Appleyard's comment about book sources using the present form seems a valid reason not to move, so we're left without much participation, but no clear consensus to move. Not sure if any new opinions will come with a third listing? — Amakuru (talk) 15:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- No particular objection either way will redirect, but not as important as getting Hawaiian, for example, right. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- Just looking at pages that being with the inverted comma vesus pages that begin with ayin, it does not appear to me that we are likely to have a big problem. Our articles with Arabic titles are terribly inconsistent anyway. The inverted comma doesn't bother me in the article itself, but in the large serif font of the page title it looks (to me) like a mistake. Srnec (talk) 01:51, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
- In the large serif font of the page title it looks OK to me. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:11, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose per Anthony Appleyard. We will need an RfC to move a mass range of articles. Redirects will be created for both articles. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:35, 30 June 2017 (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.
Requested move 11 February 2023
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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: moved. Uncontested. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 02:04, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
– Per WP:MOSAR, word initial ayin is not usually marked in transliteration. And when it is it is with an apostrophe or a half-ring. Srnec (talk) 15:09, 11 February 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. ❯❯❯ Raydann(Talk) 20:26, 18 February 2023 (UTC)