Talk:Despondence in Islam
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Title[edit]
@Mhhossein:Which title is better?
- Despondence in Islam
- Despondency in Islam
- Despondence on Islamic view
- Despondency on Islamic view
- Disappointment in Islam
- Disappointment on Islamic viewSaff V. (talk) 11:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Saff V.: To get an exact answer, you should pay attention to reliable sources. "Disappointment in Islamic view" seems suitable. However, refer to reliable sources! Mhhossein (talk) 13:32, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Saff V.: Like Mhhossein told, you should have used your sources in deciding on a title. According to the sources in this article, qunut is translated as "despondence" and as such this article should have been titled "Despondence in Islam" (besides, "in Islamic view" is incorrect English). - HyperGaruda (talk) 16:47, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
@Mhhossein: and @HyperGaruda: According to sources Despondence is correct and instead of in Islamic view, we can use in view of Islam. Therefore, "Despondence in view of Islam" is suitable title.Saff V. (talk) 07:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- That's good. Let's see what HyperGaruda thinks. Mhhossein (talk) 07:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- Actually, per WP:PRECISION ("Usually, titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that.") and WP:PARENDIS, the most concise title is preferable, i.e. Despondence (Islam). - HyperGaruda (talk) 18:46, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- @HyperGaruda: I think that your title is defective. The Islam word do not show the concept of the article. Why is wrong the phrase "in view of Islam"?Saff V. (talk) 08:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- Because 1) "in view of Islam" is idiomatically incorrect and 2) most other articles that deal with how something is viewed in Islam, are named "... in Islam" (e.g. God in Islam, Prophets and messengers in Islam, Women in Islam, Animals in Islam, Apostasy in Islam and so on). Therefore the article should be titled either Despondence in Islam or Despondence (Islam) - HyperGaruda (talk) 22:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- @HyperGaruda:OK, Despondence in Islam is better. I will change the title.Saff V. (talk) 07:16, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- Because 1) "in view of Islam" is idiomatically incorrect and 2) most other articles that deal with how something is viewed in Islam, are named "... in Islam" (e.g. God in Islam, Prophets and messengers in Islam, Women in Islam, Animals in Islam, Apostasy in Islam and so on). Therefore the article should be titled either Despondence in Islam or Despondence (Islam) - HyperGaruda (talk) 22:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- @HyperGaruda: I think that your title is defective. The Islam word do not show the concept of the article. Why is wrong the phrase "in view of Islam"?Saff V. (talk) 08:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- Actually, per WP:PRECISION ("Usually, titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that.") and WP:PARENDIS, the most concise title is preferable, i.e. Despondence (Islam). - HyperGaruda (talk) 18:46, 8 November 2015 (UTC)