Jump to content

Talk:Uthmanic codex

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

Requested move 29 November 2024

[edit]
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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Moved to alternative, as proposed. (closed by non-admin page mover) Bobby Cohn (talk) 14:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Uthman's QuranMushaf of Uthman – I suggest this move because:

  1. As this article is about a codex (or mushaf) and it is consistent with other articles. (Mushaf of Ali and Mushaf of Aisha).
  2. Uthman Quran is a redirect to Samarkand Kufic Quran, an early manuscript (not a codex) and this title makes it very ambiguous for the reader. Please note that we also have Uthman Taha Quran (a modern-day calligraphy of Quran).
  3. Arabic Wikipedia (the native language of this book) has used this title.
  4. Scholarly sources do not use this title. 'Codex of Uthman' and 'Uthmanic codex' are common. If the word mushaf is obscure, I suggest the word codex to be used instead.

Best regards, Khánum Gül (talk) 09:19, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support "Uthmanic codex": On Google Scholar, it has by far the most hits, above "Codex of Uthman", "Mushaf of Uthman", "Uthman's Quran." ―Howard🌽33 15:47, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also think Uthmanic codex make sense. Pogenplain (talk) 06:50, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Uthmanic codex. Khánum Gül (talk) 13:31, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.