Talk:Nuh

Comments

The matter of the article Nuh has been duplicated to Nuh(name) as this page can be used as redirect for Noah in Islam please.--Md iet (talk) 12:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived 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. None of the participants in the discussion, except the nominator, were convinced by the primary usage argument. DrKiernan (talk) 12:41, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was mass moves at Talk:Abraham in Islam#New requested move, related to above and it was agreed to move for change of article titles from "Islamic view of X" → "X in Islam".

Similarly there was another common move Talk:Ibrahim (disambiguation)# Suggested move 2013 but this initial move was for redirecting article with title "real name of X in Islam" to "Islamic view of X" ( e.i. redirect Ibrahim to Islamic view of Abraham or Abraham in Islam. There was Opposition on grounds of lack of evidence and all of them requested to be done on a case-by-case basis, with proper evidence provided for each, why the primary topic in the English language is as suggested. The same move was then requested at Talk:Ibrahim (disambiguation)# Suggested move no 2 of 2013 for specific case of Ibrahim, the requested move was finally agreed for: "Redirect of Ibrahim was done to Abraham and Ibrahim page was moved to Ibrahim(disambiguation); This move is nothing but redirect of “real name of X in Islam" to "X" and creating disambiguation page for redirected name.

If we analyse above, there are thousand of readers for "X" and as "real name of X in Islam" is also known by majority of English knowing people in Islamic region whether Muslim or non Muslim, "real name of X in Islam" also automatically qualify as prime topic for “X”. Since for one personality there cannot be two prime topic, one has to be redirected.

This is on a very general common acceptable criteria applicable for all Islamic personality who are mainly related with well known common prophets amongst many religions and I don’t think that there will be divergent view on this move hence the mass move was requested at Talk:Ibrahim (disambiguation)#Requested move, but there is some opposition on ‘how I am trying to make it happen’ and suggestion to ‘make individually for articles’.

Rather making discussion lengthy there I am requesting individual move for Nuh first here and then mass move if you all agree:

Nuh → Nuh (disambiguation)
~~Musa → ?~~
~~and so on...~~

– Also Nuh would be a redirect to Noah. Fixing up the nomination due to missformatting. See below for rationale. --Salix (talk): 08:23, 4 March 2013 (UTC) Original nominator: -- Md iet (talk) 07:31, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am shifting all the justification I have already provided for Nuh at Talk:Ibrahim (disambiguation)#Requested move, to here as follows:

The way Ibrahim has been moved to Ibrahim (disambiguation) and Ibrahim redirected to Abraham as being primary topic, Move Nuh to Nuh (disambiguation), and redirect Nuh to Noah with same justification applicable as discussed and justified in moveTalk:Ibrahim (disambiguation)# Suggested move no 2 of 2013. The figures are as follows: 1) Total traffic to page Noah http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Noah is 69450

2) Total traffic to page Noah in Islam http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Noah_in_Islam is 6726

A): Traffic to single personality prophet Noah (Noah)/ /Nuh (Noah in Islam) = 1)+2)=.69450+6726= 76176

B) Max. traffic gone through any other title related with word ‘Nuh’ = highest traffic of any one of below:

-Total traffic to disambiguation page Nuh is http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Nuh is 830

or All total traffic gone to individual page covered in disambiguation page nuh of:

-For Nuh_(city) http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Nuh_(city) is328

-For Nuh_(sura) http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Nuh_(sura) is531

-For Nuh_(name) http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Nuh_(name) 121

-For Nuh_I http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Nuh_I is 156

-For Nuh_II http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Nuh_II is 144

= 830 (max.)

As justified above many non Muslim fellows are going to Abraham using name Ibrahim, here is it is same case and many people might be searching for Noah using name Nuh, hence irrespective of considering religion there is no way to prove whether traffic to Noah is coming from Nuh or Noah. When traffic to single personality prophet Noah (Noah)/ /Nuh (Noah in Islam)(A =I+II) = 76176 are so high than traffic to any other personality by similar name ‘Nuh’(B=column III)) =830, it is proven that Noah (Noah)/ /Nuh (Noah in Islam) is prime topic for Nuh.

Choice to redirect [[Nuh}] is in between Noah and Noah in Islam. As justified in case of Ibrahim , we should be least bothered to select any out of Noah and Noah in Islam as both are article on one and same, our main concern is person searching for 'Nuh' should reach to article on global personality of majority people 'prophet Nuh' first rather roam here and there and reach the destination. It is perfectly alright if we redirect Nuh to Noah.

Regarding spelling difference of "Noah" and "Nuh" we can compare this with "Abraham" and "Ibrahim", whatever spellings, if they are used for one and same person then prime topic will be only one for both the words, and Ibrahim is well justified to be directed for Abraham, here also same justification will apply for "Noah" and "Nuh".

Let us have any more suggestion for this justification to get clear the way for mass move later.--Md iet (talk) 07:31, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment exactly what pages are in this nomination? "and so on" doesn't indicate which pages, or even how many are being considered. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 09:40, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We may inclde following pages in "and so on" depending on further consensus:

Idris, Ismail, Ishaq, Yaqub, Yusuf, Harun, Ilyas, Yunus, Isa, Maryam, and Hajar

Let us first discuss page current1 Nuh redirect to Noah and renaming Nuh to Nuh(disambiguation).--Md iet (talk) 05:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you wanted that, then this nomination is horribly misformatted. (There should be no "and so on" or "Musa" at all in the listing section. Instead it should be indicated at the end of the nomination that it is a precedent case for further move requests) -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 06:33, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We may format nomination whatever way you desire but our aim is to achieve all redirect as listed above please.--Md iet (talk) 11:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose While the first page of a google search does come up with Nuh as Noah there are several other uses, in the UK Nottingham University Hospitals has a lot of google results. Following the principle of least astonishment I would be surprised to be taken to Noah. --Salix (talk): 08:40, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'The first page of a google search does come up with Nuh as Noah' it self is proof that Nuh deserve to be redirected to Noah. NUH is not same as Nuh and NUH has already redirect available to go to Nottingham University Hospitals. If somebody knowingly search NUH with Nuh and then taken to Noah and blame principle of least astonishment then he deserve to be surprised please.--Md iet (talk) 11:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NUH has total traffic http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/National_University_Hospital of 1536 , is it comprable with 76000 or even 10% of it 7600?--Md iet (talk) 12:08, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. First, the request is nearly unintelligble. From what I can understand, the reasoning mistakenly makes direct comparison of "nuh" and "Noah". What is necessary is to show that IN ENGLISH (this is the English Wikipedia after all) that when readers use the string of characters "nuh" they expect (or at the very least, not be surprised) to find the article on Noah by looking for "nuh". For me, Google does not return "Noah" as the first result for "nuh" (not that that being first by itself is especially significant). In fact, Noah, doesn't even show up in the entire first page of result. The sura does, but as it is transliterated as "Nuh" in English, that is not surprising. Disregarding the flawed comparison of page traffic for "Nuh" and "Noah", the page traffic for things that are known as "Nuh" in English indicates there is no primary topic for the term. older ≠ wiser 12:32, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. In the case of Ibrahim, it was demonstrated that the total number of page views for the minor meanings was equal to less than half of the visits to the disambiguation page; therefore, on the reasonable assumption that most people viewing the disambiguation page go on to one listed page or another, the most-visited page was accepted as the primary meaning. In this case, the corresponding arithmetic does not demonstrate any primary meaning. – Fayenatic London 13:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The logic explained below in discussion is sufficient for the cause please.--Md iet (talk) 09:33, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Noah in Islam is still Noah not Nuh. Likewise Nuh isn't muslim, Christian Arabic also uses Nuh. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very correct, Nuh is a name need not be known only by Muslim. Noah and Nuh are similar like Abram, Avram, Ibrahim are similar to Abraham. 'Many Christian Arabic also uses Nuh' to get the information about Noah as they know him by the name of "Nuh" only, hence redirect of nuh to Noah is much more justified. --Md iet (talk) 09:53, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 20:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC)~~ WP:RMNAC[reply]

Discussion is not complete, please wait for Admin to close the case. If require time extension to be given.--Relisted. Md iet (talk) 07:20, 9 March 2013 (UTC) --Md iet (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note I've corrected the reversion of the WP:RMNAC to fix broken formatting. Going by the guideline BDD's close was in order as consesus is clear and technically only an admin should revert an NAC. --Salix (talk): 06:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

The table below contains page traffic statistics for the entries on the disambiguation page (plus some redirects which are counted separately in the statistics).

Article	Redirect?	30	60	90	stats link	Notes
Nuh	No	939	2141	3014	[1]	disambiguation page
Nuh (disambiguation)	Yes	30	168	485	[2]	redirect to Nuh
Nuh (city)	No	305	670	877	[3]
Nuh (sura)	No	519	1019	1576	[4]
Nuh (name)	No	88	272	272	[5]	created 2013-01-08
Nuh (prophet)	Yes	179	498	805	[6]	redirect to Noah in Islam
Nuh I	No	170	313	446	[7]
Nuh I of Samanid	Yes	31	66	107	[8]	redirect to Nuh I
Nuh II	No	170	303	432	[9]
Nuh II of Samanid	Yes	95	181	287	[10]	redirect to Nuh II
Totals	n/a	2526	5632	8301

No single title has more than the sum of the others. Only Nuh (sura) qualifies as have more views than any other single title apart from the disambiguation page.

Note: The article traffic statistics does not appear to recognize differences in capitalization. NUH, which is a redirect to National University Hospital, has the exact same statistics as Nuh. In this particular case, the difference may be negligible with regards to a primary topic for Nuh, though it could suggest that NUH should be a redirect to the disambiguation page. But it also indicates that page view statistics need to be examined with some care.

There are also a handful of pages/redirects that are not literally ambiguous, but which might be considered ambiguous with "nuh" in some contexts.

Article	Redirect?	30	60	90	stats link	Notes
Surat Nuh	Yes	126	269	397	[11]	redirect to Nuh (sura)
Noah in Islam	No	6776	12073	12126	[12]
Islamic view of Noah	Yes	1799	4673	13753	[13]	moved to Noah in Islam on 2013-01-03
National University Hospital	No	1534	3128	4631	[14]	current target of NUH
National Union of the Homeless	No	59	241	435	[15]
Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust	No	649	1777	2130	[16]

Yes, it is true that Noah in Islam, when combined with counts for Nuh (prophet) and Islamic view of Noah have more page views than all the others combined, but that mixes counts for unambiguous titles (Noah in Islam and Islamic view of Noah) with the ambiguous Nuh (prophet)). There is no reason to assume that readers of the English Wikipedia are looking for the prophet with the string "Nuh" more than the other uses. older ≠ wiser 15:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first part “Yes, it is true that Noah in Islam, when combined with counts for Nuh (prophet) and Islamic view of Noah have more page views than all the others combined ' is the only correct and enough to qualify Nuh as primary topic for Noah in Islam. The second part "but that mixes counts for unambiguous titles (Noah in Islam and Islamic view of Noah) with the ambiguous Nuh (prophet)).” claims that (Noah in Islam and Islamic view of Noah) are unambiguous but how can it be? When Noah sounding synonymous to Nuh , name of the one and same person spelled differently in different religion can be discarded. As Ibrahim, Abram and Avram counted ambiguous and have redirect to Abraham ,how can Nuh be unambiguous to Noah.

The traffic to Nuh (prophet) ,Noah in Islam and Islamic view of Noah is for one and only single person prophet Nuh, and there is no reason to not believe that person viewing these do not know that Nuh is prophet.

There was logic given at Talk:Ibrahim (disambiguation)# Suggested move 2013 that “It is likely that Christians/Jews from Arabic-influenced cultures may be typing the word Ibrahim and then choosing the page Abraham. Neither they nor the Muslim readers are "dull", to use the word you wrote above; they are just using the name best known to them. If some Muslims are discouraged from using Wikipedia, then it could be a large proportion of people who come here and view Ibrahim then choose the page Abraham.” Using the same logic there can also be large proportion of people a majority who come here and view Nuh then choose the page Noah.

As the traffic of Noah in range of (http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Noah) 70000, even 10% of this make 7000 and also will justify redirect of Nuh to Noah.--Md iet (talk) 09:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. "Nuh" and "Noah" are distinct terms in English and there is no basis for assuming that readers are primarily looking for the religious figure when looking for "Nuh". older ≠ wiser 11:27, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also who and where do you see anyone using the word "dull" in this discussion? older ≠ wiser 11:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The statement was quoted from Talk:Ibrahim (disambiguation)# Suggested move 2013(earlier referred wrongly above(corrected now)) please. As "Ibrahim" and "Abraham" are distinct terms in English and there was basis for assuming that readers are primarily looking for the religious figure when looking for "Ibrahim", above figures and logic provided prove similar thing for "Nuh" please.

So in that discussion, you were the one who first used the term "dull" in that discussion. In that discussion, I never used that term as you imply here. older ≠ wiser 12:09, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As for the second part, that is precisely why these sorts of move cannot be treated as a mass move. Each is different. Ibrahim is an obviously related linguistic form of Abraham and no one should be surprised to end up at an article about the religious figure when searching for "Ibrahim". In contrast, "Nuh" has no obvious connection to "Noah" for most English speakers (and please remember, this is the English Wikipedia) and among the ambiguous uses of "Nuh", there is nothing to indicate readers are looking for the religious figure by that name more than other uses. older ≠ wiser 12:15, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion is not complete, please wait for Admin to close the case.--Md iet (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2013 (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.

Further discussion on move request above

Sorry all, I was out last week mean while there is urgency shown to close the discussion by honored admin, I don't know why?, what was the hurry? Let the result be any way I feel Wiki has the credibility that free and fare discussion opportunities are available to make it more powerful. Let us discuss the things further without restriction of time and would I have further answer to my queries raised above, please. --Md iet (talk) 04:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was already a substantial consensus opposing the move. Nobody else was persuaded by your arguments. Therefore it was fine for the discussion to be closed.

I will reply further on your talk page. – Fayenatic London 13:37, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]