Talk:Umm Ruman

Latest comment: 2 years ago by Aicha khlifi hassani in topic Umm Rumän

Copyvio edit

I've removed a huge swath of text that was directly copied from http://www.islamswomen.com/articles/umm_rooman.php. It should not be readded to the article in that form. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 05:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Requested move edit

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. 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 per MOS Tiggerjay (talk) 19:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC) Tiggerjay (talk) 19:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)Reply



Um RumanUmm Rumman – The present transliteration of the name in the article's title is incorrect. There are shaddahs on the mīms. Each ‹m› in the transliteration is geminated (pronounced double length) and needs to be doubled. The correct transliteration is Umm Rumman. Wikipedia articles are supposed to use an accurate transliteration from Arabic. Johanna-Hypatia (talk) 04:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Right. Here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Arabic

Arabic words on Wikipedia should use a standard transliteration of Arabic, with some exceptions.

Google searches can be useful in determining the most common usage, but should not be heavily relied upon. The content of large searches may not be relevant to the subject being discussed. For example, the ISO transliteration of القائم is "al-Qaʾim", but the transcription "al-Qaim" receives five times as many hits. This word is used in the names of three historical Caliphs and a town in Iraq, and is also another name for the Mahdi in Shi'a Islam. Since Google searches do not discriminate between them, other sources must be used to determine if a primary transcription exists for any particular usage. Google search counts are also biased toward syndicated news articles; a single syndicated reference may generate hundreds or thousands of hits, amplifying the weight of whatever spelling happens to be used by that one reference.

If there is no primary transcription, a standard transliteration is used

The subject of this article is someone who lived many centuries ago, so random internet spellings carry less weight than the standard transliteration used for classical subjects. From the above MOS/Arabic, it is clear that the standard transliteration is called for here. Therefore not "uphill" at all. Johanna-Hypatia (talk) 21:05, 8 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • Then Support - I must admit my personal preference is for accurate transliteration, but wanted to see the guideline cited. Also the 4x sources look better quality than the 48x. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:54, 9 April 2013 (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.

Name correction edit

Umm Ruman's name should be written with one (m) since there is no Shadda in her name. Her name is read in Arabic very similar to (Roman) and it is very different from the Arabic name of the Pomegranate fruit which is written like this (رمان) while Umm Ruman's name is written as (رومان). [1] --Quigx 06:17, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Amir bedeutet Prinz edit

Guten Tag, Je nach Typografie könnte dies entweder einem artikulierten einfachen öffnenden Anführungszeichen ähneln (zB ʻ Arabisch عَرَب ‎). oder als erhabener, nach rechts offener Halbkreis ⟨ʿ⟩ (zB ʿarab عَرَب). Von Wikipedia kopiert. Dankeschön für ihr Verständnis. Mit freundlichen Grüßen Aicha khlifi hassani (talk) 14:07, 3 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Umm Rumän edit

Titel Fehler Umm Rumän ist sie nicht, die richtige Name Umm Rumān wie in die Text geschrieben auch . Aicha khlifi hassani (talk) 14:33, 3 June 2021 (UTC)Reply