User talk:Mellohi!/Archive 2

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hi, you just closed the discussion I started in

@Richard3120: I believe we are in gross miscommunication. My intent was to merge the the Western Cape article with the Canadian article to make a general page about the term MPP, and then outright replace the disambiguation page with the merged article. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 00:42, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I see, my apologies. Well, given that the one for the Western Cape is basically nothing more than one line taken from the Western Cape Parliament's website, I do wonder if there's anything worth merging there, and whether it's just easier to redirect that article and then keep the others as they are. But I'll reinstate the request and see what other editors think. Richard3120 (talk) 00:55, 7 April 2022‎ (UTC)

I've closed it, as you suggested – clearly your original proposal as stated was going nowhere. Yes, I think I would start by suggesting or boldly merging

WP:RM for Member of Provincial Parliament (Canada) to be moved to Member of Provincial Parliament. But as others have suggested, the original list could be expanded, so the move request then becomes moot. Richard3120 (talk

) 18:15, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

When you added a {{disputed}} tag to Breton language, you did not provide an adequately detailed explanation in the edit summary or on the talk page. "V2 word order" tells us nothing. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:35, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

@LaundryPizza03: I was misusing the template as a section expansion reminder, so I'll remove the template when I come back to the page for a little expansion. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 15:51, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

In that case, I will leave the tag up, but replace it with an {{Expand section}} tag. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:08, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello

• @Jack Frost: No worries, you don't need to ping me whenever you carry out one of my technical requests. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 11:31, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for closing the discussion, but I fear the closing statement leaves a lot up in the air. It's a very complicated issue that -- in order for it to be helpful -- needs some careful explanation of the different dimensions of the arguments. The only section really worth diving into is the "without commentary" section, because "with commentary" is the status quo and uncontroversial. That's why less than half of the RfC participants even bothered to write anything there. Your closing statement made it seem like we were deciding between the two, and that there was any opposition at all to "without commentary" made the "decision" easier, but that's not at all what the RfC was doing, and none of this should be based on a headcount (which was, incidentally, 62% support/38% opposed). One of the biggest issues is in the very nature of the questions: articles about songs contain "commentary" about songs, and the RfC had a lot of people throwing out different interpretations of what "commentary" means that would need to be resolved. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:04, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: I have greatly amended my close reason since. How is it now? — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 02:58, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for revisiting/clarifying. It's a tricky one, for sure. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 11:44, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi Mellohi, even though you agreed with my position at

Hi again, at Talk:Səlahət Ağayev you wrote that "redirects make the usability problem moot anyhow." I am wondering why you believe this to be the case. (I would have replied there, but you closed the discussion already.) Since the special character is now used throughout the article as well, it seems that anyone who does not know how to use the special character will be unable to read it normally. We do not, for example, use "Москва" or "北京" as article titles with redirects from Moscow and Beijing and claim that redirects make the usability problem moot. Dekimasuよ! 01:33, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

@Dekimasu: Your comparisons to Moscow and Beijing are faulty comparisons, because they involve the extra complication of romanizations. Contrary to your argument, Azeri is natively written in the Latin alphabet and just happens to use non-ASCII characters like ə in its orthography. I see no difference between using ə when appropriate in the names of Azeri persons and using diacritics and other non-ASCII characters to spell out the names of French, Turkish, or Icelandic persons as long as sources don't overwhelmingly prefer an anglicized spelling (and the RM noted multiple sources that did not anglicize the ə). — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 07:21, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

(ec) I was attempting to make a point about transliteration, rather than romanization. English users not familiar with diacritics will likely ignore them and read é as e or ō as o, ğ as g, even when those assumptions are faulty; I don't think that's a great solution, but

WP:DIACRITICS is agnostic on the matter and that is generally how transliteration works (systematic mapping of one character onto another). However, when coming across letters that are never used in English at all, including ə, they cannot be read by such users, much like the case of Cyrillic. (Do you expect unfamiliar readers to gloss the letter as e?) This distinction is actually noted at Latin-script alphabet#Letter inventory, which distinguishes between "letters with diacritics" and "new letter forms (e.g. ⟨Ə ə⟩ in Azerbaijani alphabet)". Thus a step of transliteration may be warranted whether or not the requested title is in a Latin alphabet. I don't really take issue with you expressing your opinion that redirects are sufficient, but it is frustrating to see you also mark the discussion as resolved on the basis of that opinion 50 minutes after you expressed it, apparently resulting in the creation of a greater number of similar requests. I understand that you don't see a difference between using diacritics and ə; I don't see a difference between ə and 投稿 because both are illegible for many users. Dekimasuよ!

07:43, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

It appears there are five new RMs requesting the same sort of change, so I will try to follow up there if I have enough time. Dekimasuよ! 04:29, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Kia ora! Just wanted to stop by and clarify why you didn't opt to move the page

Disregard this - saw your reply on the talk page itself! Thank you for being willing to wade into the dual name discussions and to close moves around it, I know they can be a bit daunting at times! Turnagra (talk) 18:53, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi, just querying your close at the above page. The discussion appears very confused, as some editors are suggesting changing the primary topic entirely, and others are suggesting moving back to having it be a primary redirect to the generating station. It seems to me that in this scenario, with two competing topics and no consensus for either in the RM, having the disambiguation page at the base name is the correct outcome and that it should not be moved. Certainly I oppose the move and would retain the dab page myself if I could vote in this discussion. Please could you reconsider your close? Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 19:38, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

@Amakuru: Point taken. Feel free to remove that from Technical requests, if you haven't done so already. Will instead relist and add a comment advising to focus on which topic is primary. Also, don't be afraid to cast an oppose after I reopen it, as you've expressed your opposition here. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 19:45, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi, asking about your close decision on the above discussion. Users opposed to the change have steadfastly refused to engage in discussion twice now with the clear intent of stalling so their unilateral status quo is kept. I have made direct arguments on why the current title is unfitting without any response so could you reopen the move or at least direct me to a place where users will actually discuss in good faith? Watercheetah99 (talk) 04:44, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Mellohi!. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving a redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

• Wikipedia:Requested moves
• Category:Requested moves, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Primefac (talk) 12:41, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi there, if you're declining requests at

@Kj cheetham: Sorry for failing to do that! Indeed I would remind them, but given how IPs work (i.e. dynamic IPs), I was unsure if such a message would ever reach its target. But I'll restore the request under "Contested". — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 15:05, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Mellohi! Not to worry! Sometimes IPs come back, sometimes other editor contribute with further info. I personally tend to give them a day. -Kj cheetham (talk) 15:08, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

San Felipe, Venezuela

I closed the RM, and when I performed a round-robin page move, they were already moved/swapped by you. So my moves most possibly took the page back to their original position.

@Usernamekiran: Yeah, we had an edit conflict. It's fixed now. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 21:02, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

lol. We had edit conflict again, here. Old message: I see you have fixed the mess. Thank you :-)

For future reference, kindly do dont perform the page moves before closing the RM. See you around :-) —usernamekiran (talk) 21:05, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: Actually I was trying to close the RM first before swapping, but you edit conflicted with me during that too! — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:07, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the Indus Valley Civilisation

Similar problem on Indus Valley Civilisation? You closed it but didn't move the page, and one of the arguers did a different move, without the talk page. I undid that. Could you do the indicated move please? Dicklyon (talk) 02:22, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: I actually submitted it to WP:Requested moves/Technical requests, where it is still waiting, because I needed an admin to override the talk page's move protection. It might be a long while, as the main admin dealing with RMs (Amakuru) took a side in the RM so he won't move it himself. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 02:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

OK, I'll note that there. Dicklyon (talk) 02:33, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I shall be filing a move review of your page move

Just start the review. We fundamentally, and immovably, disagree about closing criteria, with our rationales already argued explicitly in the RM itself. I don't think a conversation here will get either of us to change our minds. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 04:19, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Good. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:23, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Can you undo your closure at ANI? There are problems with the reported editor relevant to the topic of the thread and they need to be documented there. Note that I was watching this thread and reverting sock edits there earlier.[1] Abhishek0831996 (talk) 07:22, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

What I gleaned from that section was that Venkat implemented his proposal before getting its RFC closed properly, causing confusion which I resolved by closing the RFC. I believe that should be enough to de-escalate the situation. To me, de-escalation is more productive than artificially keeping it open (especially by bumping it every single day) just because an admin hadn't punished Venkat yet. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 07:56, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

No problem. I would instead start the thread below the existing one. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 08:25, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

I've moved your new thread to the bottom of ANI because it is a separate issue to the mass move problem. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:19, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi there, I've done your requested moves on

I'll admit that the closure reason should be rewritten because of inaccuracy, but I still stand by closing to not move the pages. It was more of your side's arguments shooting themselves in the foot than anything. On the long term significance front, it wasn't more of proving that the moon was primary but whether the giant has vastly bigger long term significance than the moon; on this point no consensus seems to be reachable any time soon. This leaves the usage side of the debate, which seems to favour the opposers. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 20:18, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I think it is a good close. There was no evidence provided that the giant had greater long-term significance. Someone said the page should be moved because the giant is older than the moon, which is quite funny but not a great argument. Vpab15 (talk) 21:25, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed that you closed the RM that I initiated. Is it safe for me to move pages that say 'History of the Jews' to 'History of Jews' without an RM, or should such process be initiated? Considering that this would involve roughly 250-300 pages, I thought it best to check with someone. JML1148 (talk) 10:38, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

@JML1148: Hundreds of pages is an extremely large number to handle through covering all of them in RMs. There's an ongoing series of like dozens of requested moves to remove dual names from enormous swaths of New Zealand place name article titles, and the effort is still trucking along 8 months later.

But yeah, I don't think the consensus for just the Kingston-upon-Hull page is enough to move every single page about populations of Jews in specific places without further discussion. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 04:55, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi there. Regarding your close of

A standard pageviews argument was presented by the nominator @Natg 19 later in the discussion. The tournament got 16x the pageviews of the district, while Boston, MA has 12x that of the English place it was named after (hence me bringing it up in the closing rationale). — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 13:08, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

The London district has a much longer history, so it has arguably greater long-term significance. Not that it should be the primary topic. But all things considered, I'd say the status quo was correct and there is no primary topic. Compare with Chelsea, another dab page with many similarities, with the football team getting most views. Also, it is true that a RM discussion is not a vote, and the focus should be on the quality of the arguments rather than the number. But cases are rarely black and white. When there are good arguments from both sides, it is important to consider what option the majority of editors support. Vpab15 (talk) 13:41, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but that single comment is plainly not good enough to suggest there is consensus for such a move. It should also have been obvious that the pageviews presented only compared against a single possible target and ignored all others (e.g. the football clubs), and so didn't actually support the argument being made; by simply adding FC and AFC, and excluding the June/July spike it's clear that the tennis tournament accounts for substantially fewer than half the total pageviews for most of the year. As such, I request you revert the subsequent moves, and amend your close or reopen and allow someone else to close. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:03, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

@Wjemather: Regardless, the rename of the Championships themselves to Wimbledon Championships seems uncontroversial, so I will only revert the disambiguation page swap and amend that issue to no consensus, but will not revert the Championships move. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 15:10, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree, there was consensus for the move of the tennis tournament (apologies for not being clear on that). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:13, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for amending you're close, I was going to make the same comment that while not a vote it seems that the majority 10 v 5 did not feel that the championships was primary especially by long-term significance for just "Wimbledon". Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:10, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I have to disagree that there was any consensus to move the tennis tournament either. Of the 10 people opposing the moves, only three mentioned some support of moving the tournament article to "Wimbledon Championships". That's not a clear consensus in favor of move. The only clear consensus was not to move anything. Therefore the moves should be reverted entirely and the closure amended to reflect the actual consensus.Tvx1 22:20, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I am taking into account the fact that people supporting or okaying "Wimbledon Championships" spanned a wide variety of opinions in the RM. In addition to the three opposers who explicitly voiced their support for it, a neutral participant and a supporter of the nominator also explicitly supported it, in addition to a supporter of "Wimbledon (tennis)" who came onto this very talk page to approve of my move to "Wimbledon Championships". — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 23:04, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I did not forget to close this FFD. AnomieBOT goes around to close these discussions within an hour or two after a file is deleted, so manual edits are not required when the result is "delete". ✗plicit 03:53, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

@Explicit: Oh, sorry. Didn't know FfD uses bots to close deletions; I was more used to other XfD places where deleters also typically close the discussion. Amending closure statement accordingly. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:56, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello! Earlier today I saw your move decision on the

FYI, I added info on this request on the article's talk page just in case it may be relevant for other editors. I appreciate any time you may be able to set aside for this request.--MirkoS18 (talk) 21:19, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi, and hope you're well. If you would like me to undo my courtesy closes from rmCloser bugs, please feel free to let me know. Not sure why rmCloser keeps bullying you—it happened to me once, too, and I worked around it exiting out the window after typing my close and using the direct move link on the RM template. (I personally prefer the native edit summary over rmCloser's.) Thank you, and best of luck! Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 02:33, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Mellohi! Thank you for your resistings at this RM. Please could you consider closing it when you have time? It has now been open for seven weeks. Many thanks, Onceinawhile (talk) 06:17, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile:  Done I've closed it in favour of "Qibli Mosque". — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 06:46, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Buídechus, particularly for sticking with this very complex one for so long. When you have a moment would you mind removing the brackets at Al-Aqsa Mosque (disambiguation), as I don't believe they are needed any more? Onceinawhile (talk) 09:47, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

I ask you to reverse your close. First of all the proposal made only on 10 and seven days have not passed per

Agreed Drsmoo (talk) 12:42, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

@

Iskandar323 (talk

) 11:13, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

The first step is ask the closer. The last proposal was made at 10 of July I think it would be reasonable to open in for two days at least Shrike (talk) 11:17, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

It is true the Qibli alternative was only proposed five days ago, but looking at the whole discussion, it is quite clear there is no consensus to change the name. I'd rather this was just reclosed as no consensus so we can move on. See also

Talk:Qibli_Mosque#Post-closure_comments, in case there is any doubt about the consensus for Qibli. Vpab15 (talk

) 11:26, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

The post-closure comments section has comments from only one additional vote from an editor with a meaningful edit history. The two other post-close votes were from editors with a very small number of edits, whose involvement in such a short timeframe is quite a coincidence. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:38, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, quite incredible timing when you reflect on the fact that this move discussion has been rumbling on without end in sight for a full six weeks.

Iskandar323 (talk

) 11:41, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed that the timing is incredible. Right after VRs vote, the move requester asked for the discussion, which had no consensus for a month and a half, to close. It was then closed immediately, without even giving pinged users 24 hours to respond. The whole thing was so confusing that GidonB literally responded in the wrong section despite the new one being opened, and was not given time to comment in the new section. Drsmoo (talk) 12:42, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

No, I mean the incredible coincidence that two just-over-the-500-edit-ARBPIA-threshold accounts pop up at almost exactly the same time making the same argument with the same intention of overturning a just closed RM. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:58, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Move discussions are guided by policy not numerical voting or conventional consensus-building in the usual sense. See

Iskandar323 (talk

) 13:24, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

True, but Al-Qibli Mosque, an only slight variation on the theme, had been in the offing and available to comment upon since 5 July, a full 10 days ago.

Iskandar323 (talk

) 11:28, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

If you combine the votes for Al-Qibli and Qibli, you get 8 support and 8 oppose, ie., no consensus. Srnec did not bold his response, but it definitely looks like an oppose to me, though even with 8-7, that's no consensus. Drsmoo (talk) 12:57, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:Consensus "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable), nor is it the result of a vote". Selfstudier (talk) 13:06, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Seconded. Absolutely no consensus to move to a name that is not commonly used in English-language sources. Please reverse this. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:38, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

This is not a forum to repeat ones' vote, and the comment above is not a balanced reflection of the discussion or the evidence provided therein. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:58, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Not in any way what's happening here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:43, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

I will reiterate:

Ambiguity problems that none of the reference works from Oxford University Press seem to see... Srnec (talk) 04:10, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, and agree with your talk page comment that this will lead to citogenesis. For a notable subject, a term not even tracked by Google trends or Ngrams, cannot be described as “fairly common” in English. Drsmoo (talk) 06:43, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

If only those tertiary sources from Oxford had seen the ambiguity, they would have avoided discrediting themselves. As a direct result of the confusion around the name, those reference works have published provably incorrect statements about the southern building being the third holiest mosque in Islam, or being mentioned in the Quran.

The ambiguity has been acknowledged, studied and described in detail by the highest quality scholars of the subject since the early 19th century.

@Srnec: Are you satisfied with the way I have set up the piped links to assess traffic at the disambiguation page? Onceinawhile (talk) 05:41, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I'll admit another thing: it seems my closure approach was inspired that of the first Canada convoy protest RM. The article's name before then had a POV name problem, which was resolved by the RM's closer by choosing "Canada convoy protest", even though it was definitely not proven to be in enough use at all and precisely one participant supported this final solution — far less participant support than what Qibli got, which got the support of the supporters of the original RM idea and one opponent of the initial idea. The kicker was that "Canada convoy protest" was explicitly endorsed at a move review because it solved the POV problem. It seems to me the main difference between the two situations is that the opposition to the original convoy protest article title was expressed explicitly by several participants of various stripes while the identification of the ambiguity problems came after (me) analyzing the arguments instead of the problems being identified directly by the participants, and also this time there were opponents who generally did not see the ambiguity problems I saw as key to the RM. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 07:39, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

The protests happened earlier this year, so it is not unusual that it takes some time to settle on a name. The mosque was buld in the 8th century and has a long history in English sources as "Al-Aqsa mosque". Al-Aqsa mosque article was created on Wikipedia in 2006. Qibli mosque was created two weeks ago ([2]). This is an article that receives more than a thousand views a day, and yet we didn't have a redirect from Qibli mosque until that name was proposed in the move request. Vpab15 (talk) 09:59, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

@

Al-Qibli Chapel was created seven years ago (see here), but ultimately deleted as a poorly-sourced fork. And as far back as sixteen years ago, this name was discussed on talk (see here): "It was Umar Bin al-Khattab who decided to pray to the south of the Rock and face Mecca and thus have the Rock to his behind. He did this to make sure that people never have the Rock as their Qibla. That is why also sometimes this same building is called al-Jami al-Qibli" Onceinawhile (talk

) 10:42, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

• The Official Name: The Jordanian government (who holds administrative and security responsibility over the area via the
  Jordanian Ministry of Awqaf Islamic Affairs and Holy Places): (1) Royal Committee for Jerusalem Affairs: "Al-Musalla Al-Qibli is the large mosque building standing in the southern side of Al-Aqsa Mosque compound, it is called so because it stands in the direction of Al-Qiblah (direction of Mecca). Its construction in its current form was commenced by the Umayyad Caliph Abd Al-Malik Ibn Marwan, the building was completed during the reign of his son, Al-Walid Ibn Abd Al-Malik. Again, this edifice is a part of the blessed Aqsa Mosque and must not be referred to as Al-Aqsa Mosque itself." and (2) Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, The Ministry of Awqaf and Islamic Affairs, The Administration Department of Awgaf and Al-Aqsa Mosque Affairs, Jerusalem: Al-Aqsa Mosque
  : "Al-Aqsa Mosque is a second name for al-Haram al-Sharif in Jerusalem; both expressions have the same meaning and refer to the same Holy Site and its components; it is the place, which Allah, Exalted be He, allocated to be Prophet Muhammad's home of al-Isra', the Holy Journey at Night, and al-Mi'raj, from which the Prophet ascended to Heavens… Al-Aqsa Mosque includes the Qibli Mosque (al-Jami' al-Aqsa), the Marwani Mosque, the Dome of the Rock Mosque, al-Buraq Mosque, the lower Asa, Bab al-Rahmah, all grounds, prayer halls, corridors with all the historical buildings built on them…"
• The Palestinian government (considered to hold sovereignty over the area under international law): Jordan-PLO Agreement on the Jerusalem Holy Sites - English (2013): "Recalling the unique religious importance, to all Muslims, of al-Masjid al-Aqsa with its 144 Dunums, which include the Qibli Mosque of al-Aqsa, the Mosque of the Dome of the Rock and all its mosques, buildings, walls, courtyards, attached areas over and beneath the ground and the Waqf properties tied-up to al-Masjid al-Aqsa, to its environs or to its pilgrims (hereinafter referred to as "Al-Haram Al-Sharif")"
• The
  United States State Department: INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM REPORTS: Israel, West Bank and Gaza, 2018
  : "The Waqf continued to restrict non-Muslims who visited the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif from entering the Dome of the Rock and other buildings dedicated for Islamic worship, including the Al-Qibli/Al-Aqsa Mosque."
• The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (whose role is to act as "the collective voice of the Muslim world"): 11 Jun 2015, OIC Journal - Issue 29: "As a result of its immense religious significance, the Old City is home to a number of important religious monuments, such as the Al-Aqsa Mosque, which comprises several sacred landmarks including the Dome of the Rock, the Southern Mosque (Al-Masjid Al-Qibli) and the Buraq Wall, and the Church of the Holy Sepulcher."
• UNESCO: UNESCO World Heritage Centre (2022-04-04). "39 COM 7A.27 - Decision". UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Archived from the original on 30 May 2022. Retrieved 2022-05-29. …the historic Gates and windows of the Qibli Mosque inside Al-Aqsa Mosque/ Al-Haram Al-Sharif, which is a Muslim holy site of worship and an integral part of a World Heritage Site
• The Royal Aal al-Bayt Institute for Islamic Thought: THE HASHEMITE CUSTODIANSHIP OF JERUSALEM’S ISLAMIC AND CHRISTIAN HOLY SITES 1917–2020 CE, p.30: "An aerial view of Al-Aqsa Mos- que/Al-Haram Al-Sharif from south to north: the Umayyad Palaces remains (outside); the Qibli Mosque with the silver dome (center inside); the Khata- niyah School south to lower level of the Qibli Mosque (inside-out- side); the lower level Marwani Mosque (right); Al-Aqsa Library and the Islamic Museum (left to the Qibli Mosque)."

Scholars

• Abu-Sway, Mustafa (2013-03-31). "Al-Aqsa Mosque: Do Not Intrude!". Palestine-Israel Journal. Not only do the Israeli occupation authorities prevent freedom of movement and freedom of worship, they interfere in defining Al-Aqsa Mosque by restricting the meaning of Al-Aqsa Mosque to the southernmost building, Qibli Mosque, rather than all 144 dunums or 36 acres.
• Omar, Abdallah Marouf (2017). "Al-Aqsa Mosque's Incident in July 2017: Affirming the Policy of Deterrence".
  JSTOR 26300531
  . As shown before, Israel tried first to play with the definition of al-Aqsa as being only the Qibli Mosque building. This would give Israel an excuse to request a share in administrating the whole compound, claiming that not all of it is al-Aqsa Mosque
• Yehia Hassan Wazeri THE FARTHEST MOSQUE OR THE ALLEGED TEMPLE AN ANALYTIC STUDY, Journal of Islamic Architecture Volume 2 Issue 3 June 2013, “The blessed Al-Masjid Al-Aqsa, which is mentioned in the Ever Glorious Qur'an (in Sura Al-Isra'), is the blessed spot that is now called Al-Haram Al-Qudsi and is surrounded by the great wall along with the buildings and monuments that have been built on it, on top of which is Al-Masjid Al-Qibli (covered Masjid) and the Dome of the Rock.”
• Kamil, Meryem (2020-09-01). "Postspatial, Postcolonial". Social Text. 38 (3). Duke University Press: 55–82.
  ISSN 0164-2472
  . The compound is an enclosed platform, with its western portion demarcated as the Jewish holy site of the Wailing Wall. Within the com- pound are two hallowed buildings: the Dome of the Rock and al-Qibli mosque.19 Muslims venerate the Dome of the Rock as the site where Muhammad ascended to heaven, and Jews honor the site where Abraham sacrificed Isaac. Al-Qibli mosque is noted by Muslims as the initial direc- tion for prayer before Mecca.
• Omran M. Hassan, A Graphical Vision of Aesthetics of Al-Quds Architecture through the Digital Technology, International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology Vol. 29, No. 7s, (2020), pp. 2819-2838: “As shown, it is a part of the building of Al-Qibli mosque which is part of Al-Aqsa Mosque and one of its monuments with a roofed building topped by a dome covered by a layer of lead, located in the south side of Al-Aqsa Mosque towards Al-Qiblah in which the name Al-Qibli came from.”
• Mahdi Abdul Hadi, Al-Aqsa Mosque Archived 16 February 2020 at the Wayback Machine, Palestinian Academic Society for the Study of International Affairs: "Al-Aqsa Mosque, also referred to as Al-Haram Ash-Sharif (the Noble Sanctuary), comprises the entire area within the compound walls (a total area of 144,000 m2) – including all the mosques, prayer rooms, buildings, platforms and open courtyards located above or under the grounds – and exceeds 200 historical monuments pertaining to various Islamic eras. According to Islamic creed and jurisprudence, all these buildings and courtyards enjoy the same degree of sacredness since they are built on Al-Aqsa’s holy grounds. This sacredness is not exclusive to the physical structures allocated for prayer, like the Dome of the Rock or Al-Qibly Mosque (the mosque with the large silver dome)
• Tim Marshall (2017). A Flag Worth Dying For: The Power and Politics of National Symbols. Simon and Schuster. p. 151.
  ISBN 978-1-5011-6833-8
  .: "Many people believe that the mosque depicted is called the Al-Aqsa; however, a visit to one of Palestine's most eminent intellectuals, Mahdi F. Abdul Hadi, clarified the issue. Hadi is chairman of the Palestinian Academic Society for the Study of International Affairs, based in East Jerusalem. His offices are a treasure trove of old photographs, documents, and symbols. He was kind enough to spend several hours with me. He spread out maps of Jerusalem's Old City on a huge desk and homed in on the Al-Aqsa compound, which sits above the Western Wall. "The mosque in the Al- Aqsa [Brigades] flag is the Dome of the Rock. Everyone takes it for granted that it is the Al-Aqsa mosque, but no, the whole compound is Al-Aqsa, and on it are two mosques, the Qibla mosque and the Dome of the Rock, and on the flags of both Al-Aqsa Brigades and the Qassam Brigades, it is the Dome of the Rock shown", he said."