Jump to content

Talk:List of mosques/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Accuracy?

  • i believe this article needs more accuracy. there were just two samples for irans mosques whic none of them were mosques indeed.(like Ribat-i Sharaf in Iran which is a carvansarai not a mosque). please cheak all places. many of them are not mosques and not famous at all ! --Babakgh 00:07, 13 September 2005 (UTC)


It hardly needs to be said that List of famous mosques is the better title. Wetman 03:19, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

agreed, because I looked at the title and added the Tsar's Mosque because the page was List of mosques... if it's not famous enough feel free to remove it and/or move this page to List of famous mosques. (I say this because there is a difference between famous mosques and mosques and both are valid pages.) gren

You have to speek about the great mosque of Damas.

We have to decide between “list of mosques” worldwide and “list of famous mosques”? It seems we would be doubling the work if we maintain two lists. I’m building a list of all mosques worldwide that do not necessarily include ‘famous’ mosques, you can view the ‘work in progress’ under my page here *NEWUSER Page this information will be moved to “list of mosques” or “list of famous mosques” once I verified them by date of construction, to be developed.
We also need to create a Category for “list of mosques” or “list of famous mosques” that can be used on all mosques’ pages for navigational purposes.
ps: same applies to my list of Frank Lloyd Wrights work.
Please share your ideas, thx! NEWUSER 18:51, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
Category:Mosques will be fine for categorization, we don't need a category for lists of mosques... I think it should be all mosques for now....famous is very subjective... plus, I don't think people are going to start adding pages for random small town mosques any time soon. I have uploaded three pictures of small mosques but I'm not going to make pages for them... So, even though London Central Mosque probably isn't truly famous like Al-Aqsa... it does deserve to be there since it is marginally famous at least... so... I'd say be inclusive until people start adding "Mosque of Lancaster, Pennsylvania" which, if there even is one is pretty insignificant. gren 19:33, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I do agree with your point gren; I just wanted to note that I’m personally developing a list of all mosques worldwide and that’s why I only keep them here before I move any well-known mosques to the main page on Wikipedia for further development by others. If an admin can merge the List of famous mosques with List of mosques would be great - since as you noted, the list currently contain mosques that are not necessarily ‘famous’ --NEWUSER 17:04, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Duplicate article

The article List of Mosques (capital 'M') should be merged into this one (the only entries not found here are links to mosques without an article) and then deleted. 80.202.25.17 15:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Religion

This should be in a category I think should be called see below on category list. Category:Muslim Religion. --User:Michael Simpson--

Factual Error

I saw that there is a factual error when there was a list under the name Palestine/Israel. First pointing out the fact that no such country (Palestine) exists, none of the mosques listed are even located in the occupied territories. Until the future status of Jerusalem is resolved, I wish to change the title from "Palestine/Israel" to simply "Israel". I will proceed with the change in two days, if no sufficient well-put argument is presented.--Brad M. 04:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Note to the section is added. Cheers -- Szvest 19:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™

Not Factual Error

There is a State of Palestine that is recognized by over 3/4 of the world, Wikipedidia is trying to maintain neutrality, and about 15 or so countries don't even recognize Israel. If the palestinians control the land the al-aqsa mosque is on, then it is technically in Palestine. User:Talib 72 12/19/06 15:39

Mosques in the Philippines and Brunei

We need to also add mosques in Brunei and the Philippines. There is even new version of a well-known existing mosque in Sulu, Philippines under construction.

This article has way too many red links. Is there any evidence that all the mosques posted here are important/notable/famous?

If there isn't, and no other editor has a valid objection, then I'll be removing all dead links soon.

xCentaur |  talk  15:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure they are notable. There is no reason to remove red links only because articles aren't created yet. Your proposal isn't solution, it's destruction. - Darwinek 17:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
No problem, I assume good faith, Darwinek. How do you propose to sort out the ones that are not notable? Rather, to avoid destruction, whats your solution to the large number of red links? xCentaur |  talk  20:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Maybe the best solution will be to get through all these links by checking each in cooperation with Google. After all, it is open Wikipedia and sooner or later most of red links would appear again added by other users or IPs. :) - Darwinek 20:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Dear Lord. *sigh* Thats what I thought,too... Take a look at this. There's a whole list of mosques in Singapore thats gonna come in soon. But again, is it neccessary to add all of them? I mean, I'm in Mumbai and we have mosques and temples all over, but that doesn't make all of them automatically important. xCentaur |  talk  20:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
No worries. Unfortunately User CarpeDiem had left Wikipedia long time ago protesting against behaviour of some users who compared mosques to mosquitos. :( - Darwinek 20:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Unbelievable. Just read the whole thing. Ridiculous, the things we squabble over... xCentaur |  talk  21:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Jerusalem

Due to the unresolved dispute whether to enlist the Dome of the Rock mosque under Israel or Palestine, it is better to enlist the mosque under Jerusalem. --24.211.239.204 19:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Israel/Palestine

The land of Palestine is not rightfully Israel's. Muslims know it as Palestine. This is a muslim article. We should say palestine --Danny 17 08:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Just my 2c worth "We" shouldn't say anything. "We" say what reliable sources say. In the strickest sense of "where" something is, it is normal practise to use the actual country name. Rightly or wrongly Israel is a recognised country. It is POV otherwise. Shot info 10:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but Israeli annexation of Jerusalem is not internationally recognized. In fact, since there is no clear definition of Israeli borders (they're always changing), it is very controversial to designate East Jerusalem as part of Israel.Bless sins 21:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
"Yes" = you agree with me, or "Yes" your are acknowledging the edit and in fact you disagree with me? Rather than editwar to enforce your POV, I suggest that you back up your edits with reliable sources. Shot info (talk) 09:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Please see East_Jerusalem#Status for the debate over the status of East Jerusalem.Bless sins (talk) 07:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Given that Israel's boundaries are not clear, (and the boundaries of the State of Palestine are even more ambiguous), as well as the disputed status of Jerusalem, I have suggested (and actually edited) the title "Israel and Israeli-occupied territories". This is the most neutral was to put it.Bless sins (talk) 07:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

'Israel/Palestine' is the best heading in this case. Claims over this land overlap each other, however, the two most important sites lie within East Jerusalem, an area which is occupied by Israel but this occupation is not recognized neither by UN nor the majority of sovereign states. A far larger of states do recognize the State of Palestine. --Soman (talk) 18:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

All I see in this talkback subject is blatant bias, thus making the edits unfactual. Before trying to undo my edits, please provide a factual basis. Until then, be curtious and stop enforcing edits that go contrary to your POV.--Brad M. (talk) 15:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Brad M. can you please take a look at this: East_Jerusalem#Status? Thanks.Bless sins (talk) 02:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Feel free to point to a RS that says which nation Jerusalem "belongs" to. Shot info (talk) 02:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
You've hit the heart of the problem. Reliable sources, depending on which way they lean, can say Jerusalem belongs to the Israelis or the Palestinians. Thus we put a neutral title over it.Bless sins (talk) 04:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Nation, last time I looked, both in WP and elsewhere, Palestinians are not a nation...a people yes, probably with a real claim, a nation, no. Simply put, the RS' tell us that either it belongs to Israel or Jordan. And Jordan pulled out a little while back. Perhaps in the very near future the nation of Palestine will exist but at the moment it doesn't. Unfortunate, but factual. Shot info (talk) 04:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually your logic implies that Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Ramallah as well as the Gaza city all belong to Israel. This is something no one will agree on.
Also, who says Palestinians aren't a nation? They have a NATIONAL authority , NATIONAL constitution, a flag, NATIONAL anthem and coat of arms. Now you may be wondering, what is the geography of the Palestinian nation? Well the Palestinian nation is situated in the Palestinian territories.Bless sins (talk) 05:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
It's not my logic, but the logic from RS'. In saying that, I'm not interested in an argument with you. I don't mind how the article stands although I would prefer the word "Occupied" is removed only as it is POV. Palestian Territories is satisfactory and Neutralish enough for an encyclopedia's purposes. Shot info (talk) 05:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Your constant efforts to enforce your POV has demonstrated that you lack common courtesy. I am not interested in an edit war, and I even offered to discuss this in a calm and collected manner seeing as it is obviously a cause of tension for you. I only ask that the section remain in it's original format until this issue is resolved. And no amount of agressivness on your part is going to change facts. First off, the Dome of the Rock and Al Aqsa mosques are located on the Temple Mount in the Old City of Jerusalem. That section has been formally annexed by Israel, thus making it a part of the State of Israel. You, as well as some nations, may not like it but that is reality until perhaps a future peace deal or other circumstances takes place. Until that time, those mosques are currently in Israel. BTW, please don't put words in my mouth to make a petty point. You claim that by my logic "implies that Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Ramallah as well as the Gaza city all belong to Israel." Israel never formally annexed these places, thus making that statement an entirely different subject altogether. What point are you trying to make?--Brad M. (talk) 23:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Please don't accuse anyone of lacking courtesy. You have reverted atleast as many times as others.
"That section has been formally annexed by Israel, thus making it a part of the State of Israel." And that annexation is not recognized by almost the entire world. This encyclopedia cannot solely present the views of one country at the exclusion of all others. Its not in accordance with NPOV.
BTW, just as Israel claims East Jerusalem and part of Israel, the Palestinians also claim it for themselves. Thus there are conflicting claims. One could could the opposite way and categorize East Jerusalem as part of "Palestine", but that's not right either.Bless sins (talk) 08:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
There is just one alternative option, and that would be to split the Israel and Palestinian section in two, thus putting the sites in Jerusalem in the Palestinian territories section. I personally feel that would be a step in the wrong direction, as in terms of Islamic religious practice, the Green Line doesn't really function as a separation in terms of Islamic history and the composition of the Islamic community. The Muslims on both sides of the Green Line are Palestinian Muslims (leaving aside that there might be a few Cherkess, etc.), and it makes more sense to keep it to one section. --Soman (talk) 10:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little confused here. You say that because I reverted your erroneous edits, as well as from various vandals in the past, that I am in the same boat as you? If that is what you're saying, please don't insult me. "BTW, just as Israel claims East Jerusalem and part of Israel, the Palestinians also claim it for themselves." There's a pretty big difference though, Israel formally annexed e. Jerusalem making the Israeli argument more than a simple claim, it is factual that e. Jerusalem is legally part of Israel. I also like to know where you got your data, it is irrelevent to this topic, but I was unaware that almost the entire world does not recognize this annexation. Keep working on your argument.--Brad M. (talk) 14:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm just a bit more confused. You seem to answer mine and bless sins' comments in one, and I cannot really distinguish the points. Your comment 'is legally part of Israel' is of course flawed, as this is only true according to Israeli law. Perhaps you should read the intro of the Positions on Jerusalem page:

"Israel has de facto control over all of Jerusalem. However, there are many differing legal and diplomatic positions on Jerusalem.[1]

   * Others claim part or all of Jerusalem as Al Quds, the capital of a future Palestinian state.
   * Many United Nations General Assembly members including most Arab states, support the Palestinian claim.
   * De jure, the majority of UN member states and most international organisations do not accept Jerusalem as Israel's capital, nor Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem. Embassies are generally located in Tel Aviv, which served as the temporary capital of Israel during the Arab blockade of Jerusalem in 1948.

* Within Israeli jurisprudence, Jerusalem is the de jure capital of the State of Israel.[2]"

Your argument is simply that might is right, that military violence makes any territorial claim legitimate. Lebensraum anyone? --Soman (talk) 20:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


Only true according to Israeli law? I suggest you check this site and perhaps you will learn something about law. I'd elaborate on this subject further but I am currently pressed for time. [1] Again, countries are free to take any position they please with regard to the annexation, it is irrelevent. Fact is fact. BTW, if you can't really distinguish the points I suggest you make more of an effort and pay closer attention.--Brad M. (talk) 23:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Fact is fact, and the fact is that the world doesn't recognize Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem, nor approves of the Israeli occupation of territories acquired in the 1967 war. Soman and I have tried to compromise that instead of "Palestine", let's have "Israel and the Palestinian territories".Bless sins (talk) 15:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Please don't try and fake generosity. For the time being there is no such thing as a Palestinian state eliminating any factual use of the term "Palestine" from this article. Second, the other territories acquired in the 1967 war, excluding E. Jerusalem, is a totally different subject. Israel never formally annexed the rest of the West Bank, putting it on a different level than what we are talking about. The final status of that land has not yet been decided, but probably will be soon as the result of a negotiation. I suggest you and Soman come up with a clear argument because it is not clear at all. Is it that you believe Israel's annexation of E. Jerusalem is not valid because of legality, or international recognition issues? In your next post, I suggest you take this oppurtunity to add any other angles you might have. BS, you demonstrate how this is necessary because of your constant efforts to divert from the subject of discussion at hand. That is a game I am not willing to play. We will tackle this issue part by part.--Brad M. (talk) 18:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Please provide a list of countries which recognize the annexation of East Jerusalem. I'm not saying that the list would be a 0, but it should be compared with the number of countries maintaining diplomatic relations with the State of Palestine (a recognition, that would at least indirectly be seen as an endorsment to the Palestinian positions on Jerusalem). What should be said is that this is not the only case of territorial disputes that wikipedia has to deal with. Nor is it the only case where one state excerts de facto control over a territory, whilst other countries might hold very different views on the issue of recognition. See for example the article on El Aaiún. In cases were there are territorial disputes, all notable arguments should be presented. If one guy claims to be president of the Republic of Texas that can be ignored, but when a majority of countries refuse to recognize a territorial annexation, then de facto control is not enough to disperse mentions of other claims. The important issue there remains, namely that in this context, any separation between Israel proper and the territories occupied in 1967 would be highly artificial, considering the ethnic composition of the Muslim community in this area. I suggest having one unified section for 'Israel/Palestinian territories', and leaving out 'x City, Israel' or 'y City, Palestine'. --Soman (talk) 21:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
"Is it that you believe Israel's annexation of E. Jerusalem is not valid because of legality, or international recognition issues?" Because of international recognition issues. That East Jerusalem is part of Israel is a purely Israeli view (with some exceptions). Most of the world doesn't see it as that.Bless sins (talk) 21:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

To Soman: Overlapping claims regarding any territory is not a new occurence. Your example only proves how human beings can hold different views, some cases leading to a conflict. Despite countries holding different views regarding the annexation, the fact is that it is annexed barring any future occurrence. Also, your argument about the majority of nations is greatly flawed. This does not take into consideration when different politicians take power, resulting in different viewpoints taking place. You might as well be taking statements from political leaders that share your opinion. To BS: You change from saying "the world" to stating that there are "some exceptions." It seems you don't like that the title the way it is simply because it goes against your POV. I suggest you get your facts straight and leave your political sentiments out of this.--Brad M. (talk) 02:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you stop accusing both Soman and I of political motives. We have both provided sources for you. Aside form that your editing is disrupting style of the article (it appears you care only about the term 'Palestinian territories', not about other issues).Bless sins (talk) 05:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

BS, what exactly should I respond to? After reviewing our past discourses, it becomes clear that you have invalid data to back your POV. There is a frequency in your comments to type just for the sake of making it look like a substantive argument. And recently, you have resorted to personal attacks against me that have no relation to the issue at hand. Comments like I care only about the term Palestinian Territories, is not only erroneous, but has absolutly nothing to do with what we are discussing. I have particular interest in the comment you made when you reverted my edit yet again. Did you take a poll when you wrote that statement?--Brad M. (talk) 17:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

It certainly looks like you care only about a particular version. That is why you are disrupting the article. If look at the entire article, you will see that a country's name is mentioned only once, yet you insist on mentioning "Israel" several times in the same section. It appears you're only try to make a point. I urge to accept consensus, formed by myself, Soman and Darwinek.Bless sins (talk) 16:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Even though Jerusalem is legally part of Israel, the insertion of the Gaza and Hebron mosques makes the current title accurate. For my mentioning of Israel several times, it frankly makes no difference either way. It was only put that way because I thought it was better, presentation wise. If the title is left the way it is, I would have no further objections. It amazes me however, to see how much time and effort you put into this seemingly insignificant matter.--Brad M. (talk) 22:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Every clap require two palms, every war requires two parties. I put in just as much time as you did. What's more is that, upon taking a look at your contributions, the majority of your edits during the past 6 months have been dedicated to this "seemingly insignificant matter".
In anycase, it brings me joy that we have reached compromise and agreement.Bless sins (talk) 06:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Notable mosques

Guys, let's keep this article to NOTABLE mosques only. This means mosques that have an article on them. It's nice that you want to share your local mosque with us, but please don't list it, if its not notable. Please see WP:NOT#DIR for further guidance on this issue.Bless sins (talk) 18:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

"Arab States Category"

I honestly do not see the purpose or logic in creating such a category that is up now. All the other mosques are grouped based on continental geography (Africa, Europe, etc...) and the creation of such a category based on ethnicity is illogical. I request to whoever made this edit to either discuss the reasons behind it, or revert it back the way it was before.--Brad M. (talk) 22:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The change was made in [2] by User:Arab League (who may have a problem with Wikipedia:Username policy#Company/group names). Is such grouping of Arab states over continents done in other articles and has it been discussed somewhere? It seems questionable to me. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC).

From my time at Wikipedia, I have not seen such grouping of Arab states over continents. Almost every list I have seen has the subjects grouped according to geography. It has not been discussed in these other articles to my knowlege. Do you perhaps know of any cases I might be missing?--Brad M. (talk) 16:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I decided to take out the Arab states category because of its questionable political nature, the lack of logic in having such a category, and my recent review of other similar architectural lists. All these lists are based on geography for a good reason. If the buildings were to be classified based on ethnicity, then a whole mess of classifications could arise. Feel free to contribute to this discussion.--Brad M. (talk) 19:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Brad M. that we don't need the Arab states categorization.Bless sins (talk) 20:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

"Groups"

What are the reliable sources behind "grouping" mosques in accordance with "Saudi Arabian", "Tablighi Jamaat" etc? Since when do reliable sources make such categorizations?Bless sins (talk) 21:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I was wondering what does "group" even refer to? The denomination within Islam, or.. ? ~ Toushiro 「 話 」 07:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Dome of the Rock

Is the Dome of the Rock really a mosque? according to wiki it is a shrine or dome for pilgrims rather then a place of worship or mosque. If this is true it shouldn't be on the list right? What do you guys think?


==Mosallā Complex Mosque located in Abbas Abad (Mosallā-e Tehran), ==bitul amman jama mosque Damuda soiratpour


This is the largest mosque in the world (under construction), can someone put it in the list and add pictures people. Thanks bitul amman jama mosque Damuda soiratpour —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.74.243.84 (talk) 04:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC) 

arambag mosque dhaka bangladesh  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.74.243.84 (talk) 04:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Move

Please move this back to List of famous mosques ... this move was improper, and made without consensus.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Moved. Islamuslim (talk) 08:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. As I indicated on the mosque talk page, where you are (incorrectly, I believe) asserting that there is consensus to move the title of the page from mosque to masjid, I don't believe such a move is appropriate. A google search on English sources shows more instances of mosque than masjid (11.7 million to 6.0 million). Same with gnews hits (5.9 thousand to .8 thousand). And gnews archives hits (185 thousand to 35.1 thousand). And gbooks hits (24.2 thousand to 3.1 thousand). And google scholar -- 88 thousand to 16.4 thousand. Plus -- this is English wikipedia, so the English word is preferred to the non-English word.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


List of notable mosques → List of mosques — This page was at List of mosques for its entire history, before a move made without consensus led us here, after several intervening steps. Longtime consensus, as reflected at the guideline for stand-alone lists, is that lists should not have "notable" in their titles. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that every country has nationally acclaimed mosques. I think it should stay to the more prominent or worldly known mosques. One country could have many and one none. I don't disagree with the move, I'm actually neutral, but the list certainly should stay to notable mosques. Peaceworld111 (talk) 13:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment to the comment: what the guideline for stand-alone lists says is that lists are automatically limited to notable entries, and so including the word "notable" in their titles is redundant. Does that help? UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. I would rather err on the side of being over-inclusive here, rather than under-inclusive. I take the opposite view on lists where I fear wikipedia is being used to sell a product, as in "lists of management firms" ... which was getting out of hand until we limited it to those with wikipedia articles. Though that led to a sloppy list name.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, this actually makes more sense now, I should've read that. Thanks. Yazan (talk) 05:22, 13 April 2010 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Note to editors in article

Leaving instructions to editors in the content of the article is not appropriate. I've commented out the following sentence: "Note: Please do not put all mosques in here. Keep this article to notable mosques only." SnottyWong babble 22:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

File:La Grande Mosque Evry.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:La Grande Mosque Evry.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Rome Mosque is larger then Baitul Futuh

The article states Rome Mosque is the largest in Europe whilst Baitul Futuh is the largest in the Western Europe. This is a non-sence beacuse Italy is in the Western Europe (see Western Europe article in wikipedia). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.92.153.12 (talk) 12:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

According to the Baitul Futuh article, the Rome Mosque is larger. Denisarona (talk) 12:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
There is no common standard to measure which mosques are larger even by capacity, so its best to leave how it is currently, which doesn't state that Baitul Futuh is larger nor Mosque of Rome to be larger. It it merely says that Baitul Futuh is thought to be larger. --Peaceworld 14:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Cheng Hoo1.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Cheng Hoo1.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Abdul Rahman Mosque in February 2009.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Abdul Rahman Mosque in February 2009.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Abdul Rahman Mosque in February 2009.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Page views

Continued discussion from AfD

@Doncram: I didn't see your reply before the AfD was closed, so following up here. I'm having a little trouble following, but it sounds like your objections have to do primarily with (a) which history to preserve, and (b) an objection to the "lists of X" format.

Is it accurate to say that we agree that we should not have a "master list" of sorts which is entirely reproduced in a set of geography-based lists? (by master list I mean it has the content of the geography-based lists, not a list of lists). My major objection to this article (aside from "famous") is that it's redundant, but if you're just looking to save the history rather than see it deleted or redirecting to lists of mosques, I suspect we are not actually so far apart.

So, in an attempt to simplify what you proposed: move this page to list of mosques, turn this page into roughly the content of lists of mosques, and turn the current lists of mosques into a navbox?

If so, my only remaining objection is that "lists of X" is a well established naming convention, so if it is a list of lists of mosques, it shouldn't be "list of mosques" (I'm not so interested in debating that anywhere other than the appropriate projectspace page, though). So I guess the process that would make sense in that case would be to first move lists of mosques to template:lists of mosques (or whatever that one would be called), then move this page over the redirect that leaves behind and turn it into a list of lists (presuming HyperGaruda has merged everything already). If someone wanted to then create index of mosques that lists all articles about mosques on Wikipedia, that's another plausible project that could satisfy people who really want a "master list" of sorts.

Thoughts? Am I way off base? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:06, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

  • @Rhododendrites:, you and I apparently have opposing positions on "Lists", but I agree that the "b" issue, debating "Lists of mosques" vs. "List of mosques", can be separated and handled elsewhere. I think, knock on wood, that we are agreeing on what can be done here. Just to be sure, when you say "we should not have a 'master list' of sorts which is entirely reproduced in a set of geography-based lists", it seems to me that you were fearing that "List of famous mosques" or "List of mosques" would comprehensively attempt to list, perhaps all in one or a few pages, perhaps organized alphabetically, all the mosques covered in a comprehensive geographically organized system. I wouldn't want that either. Regarding any comprehensive list-system(s), we need just one, organized geographically, whose top list-article I prefer to be named "List of mosques" (and you prefer it to be named "Lists of mosques"). On the "a" issue, I appreciate that you will allow that top list-article to carry the 2003 edit history, and that the 2010 edit history can be moved to Template:Lists of mosques (and no one should oppose having a nav template). The nav template can link to the top and some of the split-outs of the geo-based system, and it can link to the several non-comprehensive lists (largest ones, first ones by nation, etc.). But then you half-heartedly suggest an "Index of mosques" could be created, which I do not think is needed either, if that would be an alphabetically organized comprehensive list. Having just one comprehensive list-system (geographically organized) is enough, right? IMO a reader seeking a specific mosque is well-served already: they can use the regular "search" feature, or look for it in its country's part of the geographical system; they don't need a separate alphabetical "index". But I agree that, while in the future someone may want to create such an "index" on one or a few pages, that we don't need to deal with that now. Likewise we don't need to deal now with the future possibility of someone creating a selective "List of famous mosques" according to some definition of "famous". I think we agree about pretty much everything. --doncram 16:16, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 15 April 2016

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 List of famous mosques → List of mosques but no consensus on the second move  — Amakuru (talk) 09:14, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


– Per discussion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of famous mosques, "famous" doesn't seem right. "List of famous mosques" was started in 2003 as "List of mosques" and should be returned to that. And the "Lists of mosques" should be moved to a navigation template. This requested move proposal is for that and all the rest of the proposal late in the AFD:

Proposal (restated): By principles that
a) The concept of "Famous mosques" is not yet defined, and if someone wants to create a good "List of famous mosques" according to some definition they can do so from scratch, later.
b) a "List of mosques" should exist that indexes all of Wikipedia's mosques, organized geographically. Such an index exists now in the "See also" section of List of famous mosques and also there is one within Lists of mosques.
c) The edit history of "List of mosques" should be that of the original 2003-started list now at List of famous mosques, created by User:Technopilgrim. It should not be that of the 2010-started Lists of mosques, started by User:UnitedStatesian. The current List of mosques has only ever been a redirect and has no edit history worth saving. I am the editor who redirected that to Lists of mosques and thereby was putting UnitedStatesian in the role of being the apparent master originator of the idea of having a list of mosques in Wikipedia, so I or Unitedstatesian are the (perhaps-accidental) "usurpers" I referred to.
d) The edit history of the current Lists of mosques is less important to save, but still important by Wikipedia's principles. It could be saved as the edit history of a redirect, say List of mosques by geography or, better, as the edit history of "Template:Lists of mosques" (proposed next), and that fact could be permanently mentioned at the top of the Talk page of the "List of mosques" which results from this proposal.
e) IMO "Lists of X" are invalid because they are self-referencing. What they really are, are "Wikipedia Lists of X". Only if the topic "Lists of X" is valid in the real world, i.e. if there really exist different historically notable defined lists of X out there (such as, making this up: "Linnaeus's categorization of species", "Buffon's list of species", "Species identified by Darwin" and "Species accepted as of the Seconda Esposizione of 1832") is it justified to have a Wikipedia article about the history and differences of those lists. However, a navigation template is understood to be self-referencing, to be a navigation aid to Wikipedia articles. So it is okay/good to have a navigation template named "Template:Lists of mosques" that indexes Wikipedia's distinct list-systems of mosques, which are:
Specifically then this proposal is to:
  1. Merge content of List of famous mosques to other lists. (HyperGaruda may have done all or part of that already.) Replace by index of geography-based lists (i.e. its own "See also" section).
  2. Move List of famous mosques over redirect to List of mosques (currently a redirect to Lists of mosques)
  3. Move Lists of mosques to Template:Lists of mosques and edit that to be a navigation template indexing Wikipedia's distinct lists of mosques. Or move it to a plausible redirect to List of mosques. Record fact of where its edit history ends up, at top of Talk:List of mosques.
  4. Edit Lists of mosques to redirect to List of mosques
  5. Put Template:Lists of mosques at the bottom of the list-articles that it indexes.
This proposal now achieves the main intentions of everybody's concerns expressed in the AFD, I think. doncram 13:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC) -- Relisting. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:32, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
(Ping all participants in the AFD: @HyperGaruda, Eperoton, PWilkinson, Rhododendrites, Sa.vakilian, Andrew Davidson, SwisterTwister, and Daniel kenneth: --doncram 13:58, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
FYI, there is a {{List of mosques}} template, which is probably what was suggested at #5. - HyperGaruda (talk) 21:36, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks User:HyperGaruda that's good to know! It seems weird not to have known of it yet, funny that it wasn't mentioned in the AFD. Frankly the AFD was cut off too soon, IMO. I see that this navigation template doesn't appear in the top-level Lists of mosques article, but at ["what links here" for it I see it is displayed on continent-level and some country-level lists. I see also that it uses a clever and/or complicated system for arraying anything by continent and country. However the application currently seems a bit off. For example if you "show" its "South America" sub-template you see all red-links for countries and you would think there are no mosques in wikipedia for those countries, but in there are three in Argentina, one in Suriname, one in Venezuela, etc., as can be seen in List of mosques in the Americas. Perhaps what is needed is to create List of mosques in Argentina (currently a redlink) as a redirect to an anchor where the Argentinian ones appear within List of mosques in the Americas, and same for Suriname, Venezuela, etc. I am going to try now to adapt it to link in a top section to List of first mosques by country, List of largest mosques, and List of the oldest mosques in the world. If that works, then this can serve as you suggest. Thanks! --doncram 04:35, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose the second move which makes no sense to me. Look at List of lists of lists for an example of many "Lists of ..." indexes that are perfectly appropriate in article space. If you want to change List of mosques into an index, which I'm not sure I agree with anyway because "Lists" would be a better description, there would still be no need to move the "Lists" page into template space – it could just be converted into a redirect. Ambivalent about the first move, though I see no real point in moving the page if you're then going to edit it into a completely new page once it's moved. Jenks24 (talk) 13:10, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Support as proposed (and with whatever tweaks are needed for the templatization of the second nominated page) or just merge the second into the first. Probably merge, unless there's a really clear use case for the plain-text list. We've been over this a zillion times before, and we already remove "famous", "notable", etc. from list names, because it's already inherent in the fact that they're listed on Wikipedia.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:49, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Support the move of List of famous mosques to List of mosques but I see no reason to move List of mosques to Template:List of mosques. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:30, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

Ok, so I have been digging into the edit history. At the time that Lists of mosques was created (April 2010), List of famous mosques already had a "see also" section similar to the Lists page. I think it is safe to conclude that Lists of mosques is therefore a spinout of List of famous mosques#See also, and so the Lists' history actually extends back to the famous List's history. Doncram seems really bent on keeping the revision history of the List, but I do object the proposal to have a list-of-lists article that is titled List of mosques. With regards to keeping the revision history, I'd rather:

  1. Redirect List of famous mosques to Lists of mosques
  2. Ask for a WP:HISTMERGE of List famous of mosques to Lists of mosques so that the entire combined revision history is present at the latter article.

List of mosques is currently a redirect to Lists of mosques, but has almost no edit history, so it can stay the way it is now. - HyperGaruda (talk) 18:19, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

A histmerge would not be possible. They have distinct, parallel histories. Jenks24 (talk) 13:10, 3 May 2016 (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.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of mosques. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:35, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:37, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:24, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:25, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:25, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:54, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Merge content from Lists of mosques?

Currently, both Lists of mosques and List of mosques function as nearly the same thing. It's unclear to me whether the former was indeed intended as a "list of lists"-type article, but it's effectively a list page of its own that duplicates the scope of this one, or a mix between a list page and a list of lists. In fact, its criteria for inclusion is slightly clearer than here and it seems more developed and better-sourced overall. So I'd like to suggest merging most of the relevant content from Lists of mosques to this article, but preserving Lists of mosques as a WP:LISTOFLISTS. Would other editors support this?

(I would suggest also replicating the geographical subdivisions here, for the sake of easier merging and easier navigation in the long-term, rather than a single semi-infinitely long list.)

I considered making a formal merger proposal per WP:MERGE, but I'm not sure it's appropriate here, since I don't think a complete merge is needed. But I'll happily turn this into a formal merge proposal if helpful (with or without the caveat about retaining the other article as a list of lists). Any feedback appreciated. R Prazeres (talk) 18:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:26, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_mosques/Archive_1&oldid=1146146820"