The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Move to Fatima. ZOMG, what a mess. Since it seems fairly clear that Fatima Zahra (separate RM) is not going to reside at "Fatima", this looks like a step in right direction... Duja► 10:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Fatima (disambiguation) → Fatima — completing the undoing of an overhasty move of Fatima Zahra to Fatima. The proposal is oviously uncontroversial in itself, but effectively it amount to reopening the original move proposal. If a proper consensus emerges for the original proposal, then Fatima Zahra will be moved back toFatima; if my current proposal is the consensus, then Fatima (disambiguation) will move back there. Either way, Fatima should not be a redirect page. Also, the Talk: pages of these three pages, as well as Talk:Fatima (name), have become tangled together. —jnestorius^(talk) 14:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Support Move Fatima (disambiguation) → Fatima

• Yes jnestorius^(talk) 16:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Vegaswikian 21:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support as per User:Vegaswikian's rationale below. Fasach Nua 12:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes (see my comment below). patsw 21:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - absolutely. gsearch clearly shows that Muhammed's daughter is not the primary usage. While she may be quite notable, she's not the primary usage, and there should be a disambig. -Patstuart^talk|edits 01:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Move Fatima Zahra → Fatima

• No jnestorius^(talk) 16:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]
• No Fasach Nua 18:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]
• Strong support as primary usage; the town is spelled differently; although there should be a dab link. This is an approval poll; please indicate only those options you support. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The town is Fátima in Portugese, but not usually in English; we have Our Lady of Fatima, not Our Lady of Fátima. jnestorius^(talk) 07:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

This one struck me as very odd since what I would consider to be the primary topic was not the one proposed. What that tells me is that an editors opinion on the primary topic will depend on their location or other factors. In the end, it would not be clear that there is a primary topic so the dab page should be at the main article space as the best choice. Vegaswikian 21:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean Fátima, Portugal? I would agree that that is sufficiently important to preclude Fatima linking to Fatima Zahra. However, the town has never been at Fatima on Wikipedia, to little objection. jnestorius^(talk) 09:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That or the shrine. The fact that the town was not at the main name space means, for me anyway, that this move should not happen. Vegaswikian 00:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I take it you mean, "The original move should not have happened, and the proposed reverse move therefore should happen".

I'm confused by the proposals and don't know how to vote. I know what I want: since Fatima refers to several quite distinct notions, Fatima should be a dab page, and then we should have Fatima (town), Fatima (apparition), and Fatima (daughter of Muhammad). That's off the top of my head; Fatima is a common name in many Muslim-majority countries, and there may well be other Fatimas who belong on the dab page. Zora 01:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have all the items you mention at Fatima (disambiguation), and more at Fatima (name). The poll is not about adding or removing articles, just renaming them. To move the dab from "Fatima (disambiguation)" to "Fatima" and move the daughter-of-Muhammad from "Fatima" to "Fatima Zahra". jnestorius^(talk) 07:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hence the confusion since Fatima redirects to Fatima (disambiguation). Vegaswikian 07:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Without any prejudice to the outcome of this discussion, let me note that I find jnestorius's actions objectionable. [1] First, there was a consensus to move Fatima Zahra to Fatima (among the editors of that article); second, after moving the page back jnestorius edited the resulting redirect, making the move irreversible (without help of deletions etc). Conscious 08:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I apologise for double-editing Fatima. This was not a devious attempt to prevent reverting, just an honest mistake. Check my edit history; I made a number of mistakes trying to untangle the various articles and redirects, which proved more complicated than I had anticipated.
  2. I truly don't believe there was a consensus for change. At Talk:Fatima Zahra#Survey, the original proposal was to move "Fatima Zahra" → "Fatimah". Someone tentatively suggested an alternative of moving "Fatima Zahra" → "Fatima" (with no h). The original proposer immediately implemented this revised proposal, which nobody else had supported, and without leave a rename notice on the Fatima page, which was unaffected by the original propsal but affected by the revised one. This is not in accordance with procedure, and it's the reason I for one hadn't noticed the move earlier. I believe it was an honest mistake and I have no hard feelings about it — we all make them ;) — but I also believe my actions are fully justified and I stand over them. jnestorius^(talk) 23:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Of course, Fatima should be a redirect to a disambiguation page because a free-standing reference to Fatima in text is ambiguous. There isn't an obvious primary usage of the word, so the (so-far) sole support vote for the move, and comment, of Septentrionalis is unsupported by fact. patsw 21:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note. After reading a second rename it this area it should be noted that Fatima Zahra really belongs at the correct name for that article which is Fatimah bint Muhammad. This move request probably should be closed by simply doing an uncontested move of Fatima Zahra to its correct name. Vegaswikian 23:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

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: not moved. If there is a primary topic, the proposed redirect target is not it, is the discussion's consensus. (non-admin closure) James (^talk/_contribs) 09:22, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Requested move/end must be substituted

Fatima → Fatima (disambiguation) – Fatima should be a redirect (WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT) to Fatimah (daughter of Muhammad) as the most likely WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:15, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose not likely absolute majority in English sources. And the Arabic does have -h. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:45, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@In ictu oculi: The use of a 'h' is just for the Arabic transliteration on this Wiki, it is not the unanimous way of writing it. Fatima is used to describe the daughter of Muhammad in English, such as in this published book Story of the Holy Ka’aba And its People (not a copyright violation as per their FAQ. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:46, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose; I suspect that most English speakers know it from Our Lady of Fátima; or possibly Fátima, Portugal through the former. I am skeptical that Fatimah is the primary topic. TJRC (talk) 22:13, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, no clear primary topic. (Same in several other European languages). Disambiguation is always better than mis-identifying a primary topic. —Kusma (t·c) 10:29, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support As per the nomination. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Note A related discussion is taking place at Talk:Fatimah#Requested move 23 November 2017. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:43, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: That's how the disambiguation pages work! --Mhhossein ^talk 10:33, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. No primary topic here. The Portuguese miracle is just as notable, if not more so. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:03, 29 November 2017 (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.