Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles)/Archived sections 01

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a poll that passed. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Rearranging

Guys, this talk page is geting crowded, can i re-arrange it into proper sub-pages, so we can have more order? --Striver 10:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I second that.Starwarp2k2 17:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Just dump it all in an archive page. Cuñado - Talk 17:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I have moved most of it into the appropriate sub-sections. --Striver 20:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

It wa undone withouth talk, i reverted it and moved everything to its proper section, no info is lost.--Striver 21:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Tariqabjotu, you will easly follow everything if you wacth the sub-articles. In this maner, older disscusions won't be lost into archives, disscusions regarding a topic are visible for much more time, and there is a better sense of overview. The only backside is having to watch several pages, and that is a small and one time price to pay for the benefits.--Striver 21:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

You say the major change was "undone without talk", but I would hardly call the drastic sub-page change "with talk". Above we have you suggesting (and one other person agreeing) that you put everything in subpages. Then you have Cunado19 (and, sure, I'll add myself) going for the archive solution (which is how archives are almost always done; see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page). However, I'm not going to expend much energy arguing this; it's not worth it. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 21:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

My opinion is that the subpages are easier. If many people object to it, I don't mind it being changed.Starwarp2k2 15:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Striver's suggestion for making sub article was an excellent suggestion *to my mind*. --Aminz 21:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

If the consensus appears to suggest that Striver's reorganization was a good idea, I'll respect that. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 22:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't really like it this way...BhaiSaab ^talk 22:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... it looks like we are split... how about trying it out for a week and get a feel for it? It does have some benefits... --Striver 23:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I like it, but there are too many sub-pages now. How about combining them into only 4 sub-pages? Cuñado - Talk 19:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

How about you others? I feel that its better to keep the topics separated, for example, arguements regarding "martyr" are not relavant to those regarding "prophet".--Striver 21:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nonsense?

Why is this nonsense, Striver? Perhaps there's no reason for this to be on this talk page, but I don't understand why it's nonsense. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 02:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Because it singles out Islam, Christian editors friviously add honorifics, going so far as adding it to the article name iself: Blessed Virgin Mary, Martyrs of Córdoba, Saint James the Great. Can you belive the reactions of having Saint bin Laden the Great or some more correct equivalent? I see no reason to start the whole talk page by singleing out the Islam related articles. --Striver 09:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Naming Conventions of Clergy

For Sheikhs, Imams, Ayatollah, Ruhollah etc. Use Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Western clergy) as a start, its prior example to allow Ayatollah to be used if he has earned the title, to quote "General guideline is then to use the ecclesiastical title the person was best known, or was highest"--Tigeroo 11:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Islamic clergy) --Striver 04:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)