Talk:Hijra

Requested move 2 May 2017

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The result of the move request was: the result was withdrawn -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 01:42, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

---

(non-admin closure)

Hegira (disambiguation) → Hijra – The spelling Hijra transliterates both Arabic: هِجْرَة and Urdu/Hindi: हिजड़ा. Until February 2017, a disambiguation page was there. The current situation, in which Hijra redirects to Hegira (disambiguation) and various things called hijra appear near the bottom of the page, is confusing for people looking for that spelling. See more discussion at Talk:Hijra#Hijra (Islam) is surely primary by a mile. Cnilep (talk) 00:14, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• @Bkonrad, Florian Blaschke, and Korny O'Near: Pinging per comments on the other talk page. Cnilep (talk) 00:14, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose, with counter-proposal. Cnilep - thanks for pinging me. I was the one who merged the two disambiguation pages into one (this one) in February. I still think that was the right thing to do, given that those two pages were more or less identical. But I didn't realize, until you brought it up, that Hijra (South Asia) is a major topic on its own. (There's one other more-or-less exact match for "hijra", which is the NGO HIJRA, but it seems to be rather obscure.) A Google search on "hijra" would seem to indicate that the transgender group is, in fact, the dominant meaning for this exact spelling - it's not until the 3rd page of results that the Islamic meaning of the term shows up. ("Hijrah" seems to be the much more common spelling for that one.) So what I propose is to keep this page where it is, but move Hijra (South Asia) to just Hijra - with disambiguation links at the top of the article to Hegira, HIJRA and Hegira (disambiguation). Korny O'Near (talk) 02:44, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

That seems like a reasonable solution; I'd like to see what other editors think. Cnilep (talk) 11:43, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support counter-proposal I've thought of a solution like that myself, actually. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:50, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
• Proposal withdrawn in favor of Korny O'Near's counter-proposal. Cnilep (talk) 00:18, 9 May 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 19 August 2017

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: moved DrStrauss talk 22:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

---

Hegira (disambiguation) → Hijra (disambiguation)Hijra (disambiguation) – The term "Hegira" does not need any disambiguation, there is only one meaning of it. It is the term "Hijra" that needs disambiguation which becomes immediately clear when looking at the content of the page. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:27, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

• The correct scholarly transcription of Arabic هِجْرَة is Hijra. The spelling "Hegira" is a European Latinization that arose in pre-modern times when many more people than now thought in Latin. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:12, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support rename to "Hijra (disambiguation)". Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:47, 19 August 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.

Deny DPL bot : WP:BRD discussion

This discussion was based on a misunderstanding and has been resolved satisfactorily. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:25, 4 March 2022 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

DPL bot attached a big notice (in main space) to say that this article has >30 ambiguous incoming links. I checked. All those links are from user: space or talk: space, there are none from main space. It would not be acceptable to go round those links to "correct" them, especially when most are about the previous mis-spelling of the name. So the notice is inappropriate and disruptive. I have removed it. The obvious (to me at any rate) to avoid it being reinserted at every DPL bot run is add a {{bots|deny=DPL bot}}.

However, R'n'B reverted that addition with the edit note per Template:Bots/doc, not the way to address a perceived issue. First, bots/doc says that {{bots|deny=}} is the way to keep an unwanted bot away; no alternative is suggested that I can see. Second, it is not just a matter of perception: this is a high-profile disambig article and should not be cluttered with pettifogging administrative notices that are neither necessary or resolvable.

Have I got it wrong? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:30, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

The relevant passage on Template:Bots/doc is the following:

“ In particular, in the encyclopedia spaces:

• Avoid using the template as a blunt instrument
• Address the root problem with the bot owner or bot community
• Remove the template tag once the underlying problem has been resolved.

”

You've effectively done the second bullet point by posting here, so it's all good. Now, as for the substance of your comment, you've made an unstated assumption — that the content of Wikipedia never changes. That assumption is false. At the time the bot placed the template on this page, it did have incoming links from other articles. At the time you removed the notice, 10 hours later, it did not. You also made the stated assumption that the notice would be "reinserted at every DPL bot run," which is incorrect. If the bot finds no incoming links from articles at its next run, it not only will not reinsert the notice, but it will remove it if present. The bot (normally) runs every twelve hours, so it would have removed the notice within two hours if you had not edited the page.

Whether this is a "pettifogging administrative notice" is a matter of opinion. Is it "neither necessary nor resolvable"? Well, it's clearly resolvable, as I've explained above. It may not be "necessary" in the strict meaning of that word, but members of WP:WikiProject Disambiguation seem to find it helpful. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:29, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

@R'n'B and John Maynard Friedman: I think I understand. The bot identified problems and posted a notice. Somehow someone resolved those problems but the template remained, confusing subsequent readers because there is no easy way to navigate from this page to any log of bot responses to the notice. There is a time gap between when the problem is fixed and when the notice is removed, so some people will see the notice but be unable to see a problem. The bot itself is said to be responsible for removing the notice.

JMF, the criticism you direct to the bot is counterproductive to making developers feel welcome to address problems. I get what you are saying, and also, I get why you feel comfortable criticizing a bot and others may take criticism of a bot personally. R'n'B, I am going to take JMF's side here, but also offer support to the bot process. Humans take priority over bots so if any process confuses a human, then the community using the bots needs to improve human experience. Take what JMF says as valuable user feedback, and if one person speaks up, then at least 10x more people were confused and failed to communicate about it.

The Wikimedia Foundation runs a giving technological development program which can also support social development including tool documentation or similar. See meta:Grants:Programs/Wikimedia Research & Technology Fund. If you see an appropriate opportunity, return feedback to WP:WikiProject Disambiguation that there is the standing invitation of money for someone who can do maintenance. There is no rush, but even if you think in 2-4 years funding for development would be nice, now is the time to spread the word around. I also see that the template posted {{Dablinks}} gives no clear advice about how to talk about itself or its process. I think the suggested feedback path is see template -> click history -> identify bot's edit -> find FAQ link in edit summary -> in FAQ find "what if I have other questions" answer -> follow that to Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links -> go to talk page there -> now post feedback. This is an odd process.

I think that conflict between bots and humans are increasing. I am less concerned about this particular case and noticing more that conversations get tense when bots do activity which is hard to interpret. Bluerasberry (talk) 13:53, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Let me first and immediately hasten to say that I had no intent to criticise the bot authors or even the bot itself. The bot is certainly useful and I have on more than a few occasions been alerted by it to issues that need attention. I have worked through the list of "what links here" and have been able in good faith to delete the tag. My problem in this case (and this case only) is that it is not ethically possible to resolve the remaining incoming links.

It did not occur to me for a moment to "Address the root problem with the bot owner or bot community": I did not see it as a bot problem. The bot is working as designed and as it needs to be designed. This is an edge case. But now that you have raised it, maybe I should ask whether links from talk: and user talk: might be discounted in the ">30" threshold.

It also did not occur to me (as it should have ) that someone else had already dealt with the 'genuine' ambiguous incoming links. Nevertheless, there are still more than 30 "incidental" links so the tag remains valid within its own terms: if it is deleted, DPL bot will reinstate it at its next visit. As the bot may already exclude talk pages from its census, I will wait to see what happens before raising the question of "qualifying" links at bot talk page. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:16, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

As a point of information, the bot ran at approximately 0900 UTC this morning, and did not edit this page. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:48, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Adding (disambiguation) to the title per norms

I would propose editing the title of this page or migrating to a new page called Hijra (disambiguation) to avoid confusion with the Hijrah page. Darling58 (talk) 14:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

That's not what the article title guidelines state. The "(disambiguation)" suffix is required only when there is a primary topic with the same title. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)