Template talk:Quran related

Placement

While the "Satanic Verses" is a popular and controversial book, does it really need to be placed so prominently in Wikipedia's information box (on the right hand side of the page) on the Quran next to historic theological works such as the entire commentary of "Tafseer?" It seems to me that the fictional novel is important and well-written, but simply has neither enough historical, nor theological credibility, to be placed in the same category along with century's-old works of theology and religious commentary.

Qur'an

This template was originally created under the name "Qur'an". Quigley recently changed it to "Quran" claiming support from a vote on the page Qur'an. This template is independent of the article Qur'an and that vote, as this template affects many other articles. If this template is to have its name changed, there must be consensus by all editors affected by this template, not only editors who edit the page Qur'an. Currently there is an open poll on the page Qur'an that has more editors supporting use of "Qur'an" than "Quran" even for that article, demonstrating that there is and was no consensus for changing the name of this template to "Quran". Please discuss the template name here rather than directly editing the template, as there has of yet been no discussion for changing the name of this template. Respectfully, Abdullajh (talk) 04:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

This page *is* called "Quran related". You may not like the change of Qu'ran -> Quran but it happened. If the dodgy poll there turns out to move it back again, well, then we'll all accept that I guess, much as you accepted the first poll. But in the meantime, you haven't got a leg to stand on William M. Connolley (talk) 18:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

This template is completely independent of the page Qur'an and is placed on dozens, if not hundreds, of pages in the Wikipedia domain. A vote by a few editors who edit Qur'an cannot be used to change this template, and most authoritative pages at Wikipedia, including Portal:Qur'an, use the spelling "Qur'an". In fact, as an editor, I was not even watching the page Qur'an, as I do not edit it frequently, but this template directly affects a large number of pages that I do edit, and cannot be changed without consensus by all editors involved. This template correctly bears the original authoritative spelling "Qur'an" unless consensus is reached to change it in discussion on this template talk page. If you would like, we can open a poll to determine consensus on changing the template to "Quran", however given the opinions of the majority of editors on the poll at Qur'an who support "Qur'an" as the modern authoritative spelling, it is very unlikely that such consensus would be reached. This page has always been called "Quran related" with the use of "Qur'an" in the template, and there has been no move of the template, nor any consensus for changing the template to "Quran". Abdullajh (talk) 18:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

You make a number of mistakes above, but most importantly you have totally missed the point when you say This template correctly bears the original authoritative spelling "Qur'an". The point is, this template is *called* Quran related. Yes? Look at the page title William M. Connolley (talk) 19:20, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Please see the version that existed with this spelling for many years immediately prior to when Quigley changed it. There was no consensus for his move as he was attempting to cascade a vote from another page which had no discussion of this template and did not include many of the editors affected by this template. It is best for us to keep the original version until consensus is reached for changing it, if ever. Respectfully, Abdullajh (talk) 04:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you please try to distinguish "move" from "change page text". As to the rest: look at the title of this page William M. Connolley (talk) 07:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

You can see from this diff that Quigley stated "Rendering Quran without apostrophe per title change on Quran article", attempting to cascade a vote from another page without consensus from the editors affected by the template which is posted on dozens or hundreds of articles. His changes not only removed the apostrophe but also made other problematic changes such as rendering "Beit Al Qu'ran" as "House of the Quran" despite this being a proper noun, the name of a museum. Most importantly he had no consensus for his changes. The original spellings existed for years before his changes and should be not be changed without consensus. Respectfully, Abdullajh (talk) 04:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)