Talk:World's Largest Handmade Quran in Afghanistan

"Quran Afghanistan" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Quran Afghanistan has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 23 § Quran Afghanistan until a consensus is reached. Rusalkii (talk) 19:09, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 29 October 2024

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The result of the move request was: withdrawn solely to not conflict with the upcoming WP:AFD nomination. Steel1943 (talk) 19:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

World's Largest Handmade Quran in Afghanistan → World's largest handmade Quran in Afghanistan – Doesn't seem that the subject of this article uses a proper title, meaning "Largest" and "Handmade" should be lowercase. Steel1943 (talk) 17:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why not simply "World's largest Quran" or "World's largest handmade Quran"? That appears more consistent with the three references in the article. "Wold's [SUPERLATIVE] X in [PLACE]" is an awkward construction. One typically speaks (or writes) of "The highest peak in the world" or "The world's highest peak" whereas "The highest peak in North America" implies there are higher peaks elsewhere. We don't say Mount Everest has "the world's highest peak in Asia." Even "World's largest Quran (Afghanistan)" would be better if for some reason the country must be specified. I agree with you on the capitalization question but that's not the only issue here. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 03:02, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quite frankly, I'd rather the phrase "World's L/largest" be taken out of the title since I'm not able to find an "official" name for this subject. But even then, removing "in Afghanistan" and leaving the title as "World's largest handmade Quran" could result in Wikipedia basically making a false claim in a title. So ... I'm not sure where to take this one, and just decided for now just to propose the words that should be in lowercase be changed to be in lowercase. Steel1943 (talk) 18:36, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, retitling this article as just "World's largest ..." without "... in Afghanistan" seems inaccurate at this point per an article that came out in 2014 stating a Quran was made in a different country that is larger than the one in this article: [1]. Steel1943 (talk) 19:14, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a tough one. I agree that sentence case is called for here but that is the least of this title's problems. I contend that "World's largest… in Afghanistan" is bizarre phrasing. If it's no longer the world's largest then anything with that label is incorrect. "World's largest Quran (Afghanistan)" *might* be justified since it was the one-time title holder and the disamb (Afghanistan) distinguishes it from other past or present record holders. I'm not convinced that would be acceptable. The lack of ongoing English language coverage to establish a WP:COMMONNAME also raises questions about the notability of this topic, although I realize that alone is not determinative. I note that there are no other language versions of this article, either… --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 23:41, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Myceteae: Yeah ... you thinking this should go to WP:AFD per basically WP:NOTNEWS? I'm leaning in that direction. Steel1943 (talk) 18:04, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Steel1943 Yeah, the more I think about it, the more I lean towards AfD. I've only participated in a few AfD's and I don't know that this one is a slam dunk but it warrants an assessment. A robust AfD discussion might identify newer, better sources that suggest a better article title and might get more eyes on a subsequent RM, if the decision is "keep." I'm not suggesting misusing AfD to beef up the article or answer the RM question—I think there's a valid AfD consideration here that makes sense to address—but that may be a side benefit. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 18:26, 4 November 2024 (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.