Template talk:Cite Quran

Change Al-Qur'an to Qur'an ?

A nice versatile template! The only thing I would change is 'Al-Qur'an to Qur'an'. MP (talk) 19:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

A reasonable suggestion. Will change if no other comments received. → Aktar ^{(talk • contribs)} — 20:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

There should be a template that does not contain the word Qu'ran but rather Surah, to be used in sentences like "the Quran refers to ... in surah x:y.", similar to the current example 10. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

More flexible would be something analogous to {{bibleverse-nb}}, which gives the numbers and the link, without any word. It also for some reason suppresses the 'external link' glyph, which can make for a tidier page. Jheald 17:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

This has been the consensus to-date in order to clarify that the quotation is from the Qur'an (which is more widely understood than Surah). Where the context requires it, you can specify "expand=no" to suppress the word "Qur'an". → AA ^(talk) — 17:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Upgraded Jan 22, 2008

Upgraded the template codes to use shorter form of parameter name, and their values name, like instead of using "expand=no", now "b=n" or "begin=no" can be also used. Also keeping backward compatibility for the previous functions/results. See the Optional Parameter paragrapgh above to see the new features. --Tarikash 23:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC).

Added one more feature, "tn" parameter to specify Translator's name without the beginning "Translated by" prepend words. Tarikash 04:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC).

Suggestion

How can one get rid of the square brackets surrounding the Qur'an and link when the template is used in superscript format - e.g. ^{[Quran 23:5]}. The square brackets do seem annoying and unnecessary. I think the template would look better without the square brackets. Thanks. MP ^{(talk•contribs)} 11:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

en-dash (–) required between verses, not a hyphen (-)

Would an admin please edit this template so that it uses an en-dash (–) instead of a hyphen (-) between verses, i.e.,

#if:{{{end|{{{e|}}}}}}

| –{{{end|{{{e|}}}}}}

Perhaps this is a problem on related templates as well. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 20:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done. --Random832 (contribs) 20:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Line breaking problem—perhaps an extra carriage return in template?

Wow! That was fast. Do you know how to correct this problem? There appears to be an extraneous line break somewhere because

*{{Quran-usc|19|16|e=40|s=ns}}

*{{Quran-usc|19|88|e=95|s=ns}}

*{{Quran-usc|43|57|e=65|s=ns}}

is set as:

• Quran 19:16–40
• Quran 19:88–95
• Quran 43:57–65

Note that the bullets are gone, as if there's an extra carriage return at the beginning of the template. Any idea how to fix this one? Maybe this is the first carriage return after the </noinclude>?

<noinclude>{{Highrisktemplate}}</noinclude>↵

<includeonly>{{

should be

<noinclude>{{Highrisktemplate}}</noinclude><includeonly>{{

Just guessing here. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 21:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

That'd be it.  Done. --Random832 (contribs) 21:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The reason my response was so quick was because I happened to be looking at my watchlist at the time (and I'd previously fixed another technical issue with this template so it was on the watchlist) - in the future please use {{editprotected}} to ensure you get a response. --Random832 (contribs) 21:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Quotation marks

This template imposes quotation marks on the text. Following the Manual of Style strictly, this would prevent its use for presenting block quotations, because they are not supposed to be surrounded by quotation marks (the block formatting is sufficient to mark it as a quotation). See for example LGBT topics and Islam#Qur.27an. I guess the template is mostly used for inline quotations, so a solution would be either (1) explain that it is not supposed to be used to format block quotations (or provide an example illustrating how to use it properly this way), or (2) add an option to suppress the quotation marks.

On a somewhat related note, the documentation doesn't say what use(s) the template is intended for — it should, even if it may seem obvious to the authors. Hairy Dude (talk) 11:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Cite Source

I wonder why the cite source is USC(University of Southern California) rather than some other source. May be tanzil, al-quran.info or quran.com can be a better citation source. These three sources are rich with multilingual translation sources, provide better navigation and somewhat community non-profit community approaches. These sites have become popular recently and are modern than the template itself (by the date of inception). USC has served as good source of citation for long, but I suppose now we can switch the citation source. --নাফী ম. সাধ nafSadh^{talk | contribs} 15:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Nafsadh, I don't think the Wikipedia community is going to go along with changing the source of our Quran citations from an academic website to a religious one. -Aquib (talk) 09:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

@ Aquib: what do you think about the changing the cite source? I think, not as a Muslim but as a academician, any of tanzil, al-quran.info or quran.com is better (user friendly, reviewed, verifiable, updated, maintained) cite-source.

+USC have YUSUFALI, PICKTHAL and SHAKIR translation only. OQP, tanzil, quran.com all has multiple languages and multiple translations. In OQP, tanzil the translation language and translator can also be included in URL. In the time when USC was selected, there was no other such cite-source. The template is coded in such a way that switching cite source shall not lead much work-load.

It is also possible to display multiple sources e.g. ^USC · ^T --নাফী ম. সাধ nafSadh^{talk | contribs} 11:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

As Quranic translations are not something all are agreed upon, unlike the Arabic text; this template should be able to handle switching sources as it is able to handle different translations. Template parameter can be added as "source=xyz"/"src=xyz". But there should be a default one. For sake of avoiding confusion, the default source can be the current source. kmonsoor 09:51, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The Al-Quran/OQP is "not affiliated with any organization, nor endorse or share any particular political or religious ideology..." as stated on the project webpage. This also seems evident when they include *all* (both non-Muslims and Muslims) translations on there site. The translation by Pickthall and Yusuf Ali are popular, but are also archaic in contemporary English (e.g. distinguish between the second person singular 'thou' and the second person plural 'ye'/'you') - it seems like more and more people find alternative sources to find more modern English translations online. Furthermore, as fare as I can see, the USC don't include the original annotated text, preface/introduction etc. All in all, it's time for the cite template to consider updating its source. Sincerely --Xhmee (talk) 12:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Not working?

All of these links in the article on Apostasy in Islam are dead. They auto-forward to cmje.org, which looks like a commercially-parked website. E.g., Sahih al-Bukhari, 9:89:271 goes to http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/089.sbt.html#009.089.271 which goes to http://cmje.org/#009.089.271, all of cmje.org gets "Bandwidth Exceeded" error, and the Archive.org page for it looks like commercial-parked site, http://web.archive.org/web/20110627112506/http://www.cmje.org/, with sections for movies, music and DVDs for sale. Benefac (talk) 06:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Just noticed this. I think I fixed the problem. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 15:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

And they worked last night but now I'm getting the bandwidth error. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 15:54, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

harmonize with Quran's wikipedia article

The title of the wikipedia article Quran is styled without the apostrophe, yet this citation template employs it. makes for inconsistencies within articles that use "Quran" (what appears to be considered the wikipedia WP:COMMONNAME) in prose and also use this template.

possible solutions: change template to "Quran" or add parameter allowing for either stylings "Quran" or "Qur'an".--96.232.126.111 (talk) 11:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Sahih International translation

Please also add a parameter for the Sahih International translation which is among the most commonly used English translations. Thanks, Khestwol (talk) 11:08, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a link to it? CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 16:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Request for changing category

The Template Cite quran is in category Category:Islamic text templates which is un-popularized and should be moved toCategory:Quran templates. -- Ibrahim ebi (talk) 19:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I did it here but it was in the documentation page. You can edit most of those. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 08:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks --Ibrahim ebi (talk) 17:46, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Question for administrator

Can you Please change the usc cite quran template to the standard consistent source having multiple translations of form: www.quran.com/<chapter#>/<verse#>

 Not done I don't think quran.com is better than the USC for this purpose; USC also has multiple translations, and it's a much more reliable source than one created by a few volunteers with no academic reputation or editorial oversight. Huon (talk) 19:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

The USC site doesn't have the Arabic, and quran.com has more translations, including all the translations USC has.Scientus (talk) 06:48, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Scientus that Quran.com is more useful (mainly for its Arabic text, transliteration, more recent translations). Their corpus.quran.com has been deemed "most useful" in recent reliable sources (for example, [1]). By contrast, the Quran section of the Compendium of Muslim Texts currently in use (which was created by a Muslim student association?) now feels very outdated/limited. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 09:04, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

 Done, though the "most useful" quote actually refers to http://zekr.org/quran/. Note that I've also implemented the "end=" parameter within the URL; I checked the test cases given on this talk page above, but if my edit caused any issues that I missed, please let me know. Huon (talk) 17:31, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Huon, there is one minor problem. In the USC the translations were given one below another. In this version you always get the Sahih International translation. You can click and look at the alternate translations. If you do that, using the Muhsin Khan version, then every time you follow a reference it opens the Muhsin Khan version and resets to the Sahih International if you restart the browser. It would be better if all translations came up at the same time. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 00:24, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

You can get them all displayed simultaneously, but I believe the cookie used to save that setting expres at the end of the session, meaning you'd have to click on all those checkboxes again whenever you have restarted the browser. I haven't seen a way to modify the link for this purpose. Do you think the issue is signifcant enough to switch back to the other site? Huon (talk) 00:55, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

No the new one is fine. It would have been useful to have all of them to come up but it's still easy enough to click and choose the translation(s) you want. Also if you want a range of pages then you get them. UTC always opened on the first verse but had all the verses. CambridgeBayWeather (mobile) (talk) 21:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I urge the source be reverted to University of Southern California (USC) website. I checked quran.com and it does list many translations, including those at USC. However, the first one that appears as the only default as well as the other non-USC translations have WP:RS issues. The future stability of a volunteer-maintained quran.com website, as well as translations therein, is also unknown. The USC site is university-related and is more likely to face editorial oversight in case someone attempts to change the Ali, Pickthal or Shakir translations. I also checked the [2] source, and all it says on p. 64 is that quran.com is one of several good resources for searching the Arabic version of Quran, but that does not imply anything about the various English translations hosted by quran.com. The same author, on p. 63 ([3]), re-asserts the significance of Ali and Pickthal translations. In other words, the only additional value of quran.com is that it carries Arabic text, which is nice for someone like me who can read Arabic, but what value does having Arabic text add to English wikipedia where usc-quran template is predominantly used? The concerns with quran.com outweigh this benefit, for a widely embedded usc-template in wikipedia articles. The historically used University of Southern California (USC) website redirect for scholarly translations, should be reconsidered and restored. RLoutfy (talk) 19:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

@Huon: Thoughts? RLoutfy (talk) 09:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

USC is only hosting this material, which was created by a Muslim students association (see Compendium of Muslim Texts). I see no indication of any editorial oversight. It has also been a dead project for a while (no recent translations, incomplete hadith database, old web design). Moreover, serious researchers who can't read Arabic would benefit more from the transliteration provided by Quran.com. I searched Google Books/Scholar and found many reliable sources that quote the default translation. Sources also refer to Quran.com for its hosted English texts. For instance, a recent work by Cambridge University Press says "All quotes from the Qur'an use the English translation 'Yusuf Ali', available at http://quran.com/."[4]. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 15:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The Cambridge University Press book states in footnote 8, on page 85, "All quotes from the Quran use the English translation 'Yusuf Ali', available at quran.com". However, this "cite quran" template makes no such clarification, and now defaults to "Sahih International" translation. The Yusuf Ali translation is one of three default translations and direct links that the USC website provides (see example). The transliteration, is of limited value in wikipedia articles, and is also provided by USC website 1.

The Compendium of Muslim Texts is actually the work of a joint project by USC's Center for Muslim-Jewish Engagement (CMJE), a partnership between Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, the Omar Ibn Al-Khattab Foundation, and USC’s Center for Religion and Civic Culture, and came into being under the encouragement of USC President Steven B. Sample 2. The center and its website remains under the editorial oversight of USC faculty 3, 4. As I note above, the University of Southern California website has scholarly and editorial oversight, while quran.com offers no such assurance and provides a default translation that isn't Yusuf Ali, Pickthal and Shakir. We should revert back to the University of Southern California website that the wikipedia community has been using for many years. Or at least, we should revert to the old USC path, and do a community wide RFC before this major change. I will accept RFC consensus. RLoutfy (talk) 16:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

None of the links above mention the Compendium of Muslim Texts or its history. So your edits just now[5] to our article is not supported by the sources you cite. I'm also not sure why an encyclopedia known for its speed should encourage the use of outdated/limited projects. In any case, many reliable sources use Sahih International or link directly to quran.com in the same manner we're doing it here (search Google Scholar for "quran.com" for example). Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 19:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

@Wiqi55: You reverted my edits at Compendium of Muslim texts, and put the dead links back. Lets take that dead link revert discussion to that article's talk page. Let us focus on this talk page on this template.

You claim, "In any case, many reliable sources use Sahih International or link directly to quran.com in the same manner we're doing it here (search Google Scholar for "quran.com" for example)." In all examples above, including the Cambridge University Press book you mention above, the Sahih International translation is not used, but Yusuf Ali, Pickthal or Shakir is used. If it is indeed "many reliable sources" as you claim, it should be easy for you to cite a few examples. So, prove it with a few links that scholars or "reliable sources use Sahih International". Additionally, do you believe that quran.com is more reliable and stable than University of Southern California hosted website that has worked well for wikipedia over the years so far? why? RLoutfy (talk) 20:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I was asked for my opinion above. I don't have much of one and would agree with RLoutfy's suggestion of a formal RfC if you otherwise cannot agree on what website to link to; as soon as we have a clear consensus I'll gladly implement it. Huon (talk) 22:29, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Due to the unanswered concerns about the appropriateness of quran.com's default translation I'll reverted to the status quo ante. Please launch a RfC to establish a consensus on whether quran.com should be used instead. Huon (talk) 07:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

@Huon:, why revert when most editors on this page agreed to the change? Also, these "unanswered concerns" can be answered with a search on Google Books/Scholar (as I repeatedly said above). Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 13:05, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

For a couple of reasons. Firstly, this was the state before I edited this template; I don't think it's appropriate to make an edit that turns out controversial and then require others to go through a month-long process to revert it; that's not the spirit of WP:BRD. Secondly, the concerns about quran.com's default translation have not been answered; repeatedly claiming that sources exist without providing them on request is not particularly convincing. Thirdly, no one but you responded since RLoutfy raised his concerns. Again, if you feel the issue is important and quran.com should be used, please start a RfC. Huon (talk) 22:04, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

@Huon:: It wasn't a bold edit. The change was discussed in the talk page first and the edit was made based on consensus. Afterwards, one editor disagreed using specious arguments (including falsifying the history of Compendium of Muslim Texts by citing sources that do not mention the project[6]; or refusing to search GB and GS even though keywords were provided, and academic press books that use the default translation are on the first and second pages, e.g., [7][8][9]). You took the side of this one editor against the new consensus, which is not how things usually work here. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 07:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Huon. On merits, I submit two additional arguments, beyond what I presented above, to urge that the old, stable USC website with translations accepted by most scholars be continued, and that quran.com should not.

First consider 7 that Wiqi55 newly mentions. It is the book Gender in Judaism and Islam by Firoozeh Kashani-Sabet and Beth Wenger (2014, ISBN 978-1479801275). On page 57, it discusses the translation of verse Al-Nur 24.2 by quran.com, then criticizes quran.com and Sahih International for inserting and interpolating "unmarried" in square brackets, because "Quran does not mention married or unmarried". Why would we at wikipedia want to prefer a source that is being criticized by scholars? I skip others, because I do not need to repeat.

Second, consider the 2005 review of various English translations of Quran in the peer reviewed journal Middle East Quarterly: Khaleel Mohammed (2005), Assessing English Translations of the Qur'an, Middle East Quarterly, Volume 12, Number 2, pp. 58-71. Of the numerous translations this review discusses, the 1997 Sahih International translation preferred by quran.com is neither recommended nor held in high regard. Rather, it is the three translations presented by the University of Southern California website, that are. FWIW, the author Khaleel Mohammed is a professor at San Diego State University. Further, again FWIW, the Al-Nur 24.2 translation on USC website, avoids interpolations and corruption during the translation, does not present contested non-scholarly sectarian translations, and presents three translations to empower the reader to get an NPOV perspective - a core content-related policy at wikipedia.

RLoutfy (talk) 22:39, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

The Khaleel Muhammad article is online but there is no mention of Sahih International. How is that source relevant? Sahih is reliable and quoted by reliable sources as their default translation. I'm not familiar with it, but I know that most translations have been criticized. The three translations provided by USC aren't without bias or controversy either (e.g., [10]), even when combined. Pickthal and Ali translations have had multiple revised editions (it is unclear what edition the USC is presenting). That all 3 translations are from or before the 1930s suggests a clear bias for older interpretations. That's not empowering or neutral when compared to 6 translations (old and recent) and being able to compare against the Arabic text and transliteration. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 10:33, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Sahih International is an organization, and the 1997 translation was the work of individuals under sponsorship of a minority Islamic sect in Saudi Arabia. If you read the review carefully, you will understand my concerns above. Quran.com is an unreliable website, with unknown stability and unknown editorial credibility, whose preferred Sahih International translation is not considered reliable and has been declared as misrepresentation of Quran by scholars (see above). You question the USC translation, albeit vaguely. Your new cite is [10], which is a reference to a wikipedia article section, rather than a peer reviewed scholarly article!! Even that wikipedia article section you newly cite, it refers to a blog by Ahmadiyya Muslims – a sect whose publications are considered unreliable and non-representative of Islam by a vast majority of Sunni and Shia Muslims. We should not rely on such questionable blogs, weak and unreliable non-scholarly sources. RLoutfy (talk) 21:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

You misrepresented my arguments: 1) academic presses are using Sahih as their only translation, e.g., [11][12], 2) only giving access to 3 translations from the 1930s constitutes bias for older interpretations, 3) I did not point to a blog, but to a report written by an expert with academic qualifications. That said, I'm not familiar with Sahih, as I wrote above. If you feel so strongly against that translation being default, then I guess we can wait for a better alternative than Quran.com. There is no point in discussing this further. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 22:49, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Straight quotation marks rather than curly ones

MOS:QUOTEMARKS states that straight (or typewriter-style) quotation marks are recommend for use in Wikipedia and that curly (or typographic-style) ones are not recommended. This template creates curly quotation marks which cannot be altered by nit-pickers such as myself, and changing it such that it creates straight ones would presumably automatically bring a great many articles more into line with the Manual of Style. I know this is a very minor cosmetic concern, but could someone who knows how edit the template to make that happen? Thanks. BreakfastJr (talk) 03:32, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

@BreakfastJr: Done. Good eye for catching that.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

As I pointed out 6 years ago, it should not add quotation marks when used for block quotations because this violates the style guide on quotations. Hairy Dude (talk) 15:58, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I've added some guidance for use with block quotations to the documentation, together with two examples. Basically, the template should be put after the quotation (possibly in the second parameter of {{quote}} using style=nosup), rather than using the quote parameter. Hairy Dude (talk) 16:10, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Generated links are dead

The CMJE has obviously changed its addressing system. --eugrus (talk) 20:23, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me they have removed access to the full online text. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 10 January 2017

All the links to the full text on this website are dead links. Can you replace this website in the template with this one in order to have it working again?

For example, for verse 75:17 of the Qur'an, instead of "http://www.cmje.org/religious-texts/quran/075-qmt.php#075.017," it would be "https://quran.com/75:17" Kamalthebest (talk) 00:14, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Can someone. who doesn't run with every ad-blocker known to humankind operating at once, check this site out? I think we should be linking to something that is not an ad platform, and preferably a nonprofit. The .com on this gives me pause, though I agree the deadlinking has to be replaced.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I visited the site via the link above (75:17) and navigated around a bit with my ancient Firefox (22.0) and up-to-date Chrome. I didn't find anything untowards. Here's their "About" page (which mentions Wikipedia's Quran article). I also came across http://corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp which strikes me as an extraordinary project, where an attribution to the Language Research Group at the University of Leeds is made. The previous source, CMJE, seems to be non-operational, and I can't see any reason not to switch to this source. After all, according to Special:LinkSearch/quran.com it's being used widely already. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:25, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Suggested code is now in Template:Cite Quran/sandbox. Test cases in Template:Cite Quran/testcases. If this looks okay we can deploy — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

No further comments so I have deployed this code — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:59, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Tufts

@SMcCandlish: Apparently three scholarly translations used to be hosted by the University of Southern California usc.edu site. I checked, and I was told that the same translations are now hosted by Tufts University (see this). The quran.com translations look odd, as Pickthall etc are more mainstream scholarship. I agree with your concern with .com website. More important guideline here may be what is mainstream in externally verifiable reliable sources, particularly peer reviewed scholarship. That is not quran.com, but Pickthall / Ali / Shakir translations. Why not use tufts.edu? Additionally, perhaps someone should upload the Tufts.edu translation to wikisource, since all three scholarly translations are available under CC3.0. Would be a useful resource (I have no idea how to do it, do you know a wizard volunteer in community who does)? @RexxS: do you? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:36, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: I must admit I don't know how or if translations can be bulk uploaded to Wikisource – I tend to do work there mainly when I want to do some easy, stress-free editing as a break from Wikipedia. Maybe my pal Andy can tell us if he knows more about the practicalities of that kind of job? --RexxS (talk) 21:51, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Not something I've been much involved with, but see Wikipedia:Wikisource and ask on its talk page, or at wikisource:Wikisource:Scriptorium. See also wikisource:Qur'an. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I support switching to the Tuft's resources, since it's a more-reliable source, and provides more options for readers.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:13, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@MSGJ:, @Huon: This talk page suggests you two are our code wizards for this template and different scholarly translations. How about switching to Tufts resources linked above, like the way the USC resource formerly used to be? I will check into hosting the three scholarly translations available under creative commons on Wikisource. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

The example linked above is less useful as there is no English version. I suggest using the English version on the same site. We would need to figure out the format for linking to surah and ayah. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:21, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Michael Bednarek: do you have an opinion on this? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:00, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

It seems indeed that Tufts' Perseus Project collection of Quran texts is closer to the previously used USC collection – although that article warns of unreliable access. However, their URL scheme is impenetrable to me:

75:17 needs	http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2002.02.0006%3Asura%3D75%3Averse%3D17
its Pickthall version	http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2002.02.0002%3Asura%3D75%3Averse%3D17
Shakir:	http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2002.02.0003%3Asura%3D75%3Averse%3D17
Yusuf Ali:	http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2002.02.0004%3Asura%3D75%3Averse%3D17

Constructing those URLs from the template's parameters {{Cite Quran|75|17|translator=p}} seems difficult. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:01, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@MSGJ:, @Michael Bednarek: Thanks. FWIW, Pickthall is 2, Shakir is 3, Yusuf is 4, original is 6 coded in the first part of the string; then a Sura number 75, followed by the verse number. Thus, if I change the third line above to this, like so ::::http://[...] 3%3Asura%[...] 12%3Averse%[...] 2

with 3, 12, and 2, I get to Shakir's translation for verse 12.2. Don't know if that helps, but that is what their url scheme is I am told. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:40, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@MSGJ:, @Michael Bednarek: Had meant to ping. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:13, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I have fixed the template so that it points to Tufts now. All testcases I could think of look good to me. Huon (talk) 22:59, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

None of the examples overleaf work for me. There seems to be an extra closing brace ("}") after the translator's code. {{Cite Quran|75|17|translator=p}} gives ^{[Quran 75:17 (Translated by Pickthall)]}. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:08, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out; apparently I made a mistake when copy-pasting to the sandbox and back. Should be fixed now (though purging the cache may be necessary for the change to take effect). Huon (talk) 01:11, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Amazing work Huon. Its working now. Cheers, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:19, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Syntax

I found this syntax in an article:

{{Quran-usc|4|11,12,176}}

However it links to ayah 1 not 11. So I am not sure if this syntax is supposed to be supported or not — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:01, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I understand {{Quran-usc}} accessed some collection at usc.edu and it had some other related templates, e.g. {{Quran-usc-range}} (see this version). It's obsolete since 10 May 2007.

That Quran 4:11,12,176 links to 4:1 and not 4:11 is probably because the website is not equipped to parse "11,12,176" properly.

Now someone, User:Kamalthebest?, needs to update the documentation of this template, mainly by dropping all of its alleged "translated by" feature, which I think didn't work before either. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Unusual error

This template is used on Ali in the Quran, and seems to be producing an unusual error. I am not sure how to describe it so please check the article and look at the Quranic quotations. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:10, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

It seems that the template doesn't deal well with line breaks in the first or second parameter; I have no idea how to fix that in the template – if the line breaks are removed from the invocation of the template in Ali in the Quran, the errors disappear. Further, I think that the parameters related to translators (|translator=, |t=, |tn=), which are not supported by quran.com, have to be removed from the template code. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:54, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I removed the line breaks, but have not decided what to do about the translation problem. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

USC is back on

The USC website is back online with URL format such as http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/verses/007-qmt.php#007.026

Although Perseus offers the same translations, USC seems to be preferable, for a couple of reasons. It displays translations by default, without requiring further clicks. Based on a comment elsewhere, some readers appear to be confused by the Perseus layout. It also makes it easier to see the preceding and following verses. Perseus has the potential advantage of showing the original for those who can read it. Unfortunately, unlike virtually every other Arabic text of the Quran out there, this version seems to have undergone no proof reading, and perhaps every other line I've checked contained some badly mangled words. Eperoton (talk) 20:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

For the background here.... I had contacted the professor who manages this project, who forwarded me to the dean of USC. The dean gave me a long answer, which I will skip. He indicated, at the end, that they will get on it as soon as they have funds or this summer. So, they got it back. He kept his word, which is nice! I have no issues if Huon or someone wants to switch it back to USC, assuming the USC site is fully working (Quran, Hadiths, etc), and if others too concur USC would be better. I am still working on getting this all on the Wikisource. That way wiki sister projects can host the three public domain scholarly translations as a public resource. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the background and for your efforts, Ms Sarah Welch. Eperoton (talk) 21:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 14 July 2018

Add [[Category:Quran templates]] to the <noinclude> block. Ibadibam (talk) 01:01, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Done. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:17, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 13 August 2018

Please add TemplateData for VisualEditor compatibility. – Batreeq ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 02:41, 13 August 2018 (UTC) – Batreeq ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 02:41, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: {{edit template-protected}} is usually not required for edits to the documentation, categories, or interlanguage links of templates using a documentation subpage. Use the 'edit' link at the top of the green "Template documentation" box to edit the documentation subpage. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:26, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 11 December 2018

Add an option to avoid linking the word "Quran" please so we can satisfy MOS:REPEATLINK while using this template without omitting the word "Quran" entirely. This is useful in almost all articles which quote the Quran, as Islam is built on multiple sources which use numbered verses and not the Quran only, such as Kitab al-Kafi, Sahih al-Bukhari, even in some cases the Old Testament can and is quoted by both Muslim and non-Muslim scholars. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 06:01, 11 December 2018 (UTC) Psiĥedelisto (talk) 06:01, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done if you have a change ready to go, please put it in Template:Cite Quran/sandbox then reactivate the edit request. If you want someone else to work on it they can follow up here. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:50, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: I got it to work in the sandbox: Quran 1:1 ^[Quran 1:2] Quran 1:1. Please fulfill my request. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 13:21, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

If implemented, please update the documentation. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:08, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

@Michael Bednarek: Sure, I have no problem udpating the documentation once this is implemented. Thank you for reverting the premature close of User456541 as well. I hope this request can be closed soon so I can make articles conform to MOS:REPEATLINK like they ought to as said above. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 11:18, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:39, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 20 November 2019

The template is not working as it should. When I enter the translator tag where I do not want the "Translated by" expression be shown (that is, |tn=), then the resulting link never links to the appropriate translation, only to the original Arabic version. In other words, in this line:

|http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2002.02.000{{#switch:{{{translator|{{{t|}}}}}}

please add the switch {{{tn|}}} so that it looks like this (tested in sandbox):

|http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2002.02.000{{#switch:{{{translator|{{{t|{{{tn|}}}}}}}}} Vicky van Dal (talk) 14:22, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:38, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Sourcing Quran

Quran verse translations on some pages are sourced from university websites (tufts.edu is used on many verses in the Al-An'am page) instead of a website dedicated to Quran translations like Quran.com or Quran Corpus. Wakemeup38 (talk) 02:34, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Update to add modern translations

@GorgeCustersSabre:, @ParthikS8:, @Mccapra:, @AleatoryPonderings:, @Owais Al Qarni:, @CambridgeBayWeather:,

Hello everyone, this template needs to be updated, because it contains old translations, and should be linked to IslamAwakened instead of Perseus Digital Library, because IslamAwakened contains MUCH more English translations than any other website from different Muslim and non-Muslim sources.

Here are some of the modern English translations that should be added:

• Ali Ünal
• Nurettin Uzunoğlu
• Saheeh International or HERE
• Royal Aal al-Bayt Institute
• Nazeer Ahmed
• Talal Itani

Musharraf Hussain & Syed Vickar Ahamed translations are important as well, but I don't have direct links to their translations.

I would like to know your opinions and suggestions on this matter. Thanks in advance and best regards.--TheEagle107 (talk) 11:06, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

It should just be connected to IslamAwakened. ~𝓐𝓭𝓲𝓰𝓪𝓫𝓻𝓮𝓴 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓕𝓲𝓻𝓼𝓽~^Contact 12:37, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi I have the following thoughts. 1. The encyclopaedia does not necessarily need to connect to many translations; it is sufficient for it to link to well-accepted and widely used versions. 2. The Perseus Digital Library carries very clear statements about copyright, whereas it’s not clear to me what the copyright status of the versions used on IslamAwakened is. Wikipedia should not be linking to sites where copyright is not clear. 3. The IslamAwakened website appears to be maintained by a couple of committed volunteers but such sites are not always long-lived or stable. The Perseus site is supported by a university so we can be pretty sure it’s not going anywhere. I have no other opinions on the proposal at this time. Thank you for pinging me. Mccapra (talk) 20:10, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Mccapra:, Thank you so much for your consideration and taking the time to offer your feedback. Much appreciated! Well, I am not sure what the copyright status on this is. But all I know is that the condition of this template is very poor, compared with Template:Bibleverse, which uses several translations, old and new, from different sources and websites.--TheEagle107 (talk) 08:53, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@TheEagle107:: I concur with the suggestion to link the template to IslamAwakened -- it truly contains many translations. I'd suggest to also include Wahiduddin's translation in the list. Thanks. Cabolitæ (talk) 09:37, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Mccapra what about linking to Quran.com? It has been around for a long time and should remain stable.VR _talk 16:10, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

It only includes Sunni-leaning translations and is therefore biased. ~𝓐𝓭𝓲𝓰𝓪𝓫𝓻𝓮𝓴 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓕𝓲𝓻𝓼𝓽~^Contact 16:23, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

IslamAwakened.com is a NON-SECTARIAN website dedicated to ALL people, Muslims (and non-Muslims) of all denominations and faiths, to making the Qur'an accessible to the English-speaking public through a big collection of multiple translations which will provide a deeper understanding of the verses better than any other site. IslamAwakened also link, by verse, to related page(s) at Corpus.Quran.com - an excellent tool for those ready to pursue the actual Arabic words of the Qur'an. Anyway, I hope there will be a consensus of any kind that will contribute to the development of this template soon.--TheEagle107 (talk) 05:37, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I was replying to the user who suggested Quran.com, I know IslamAwakened is unbiased. ~𝓐𝓭𝓲𝓰𝓪𝓫𝓻𝓮𝓴 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓕𝓲𝓻𝓼𝓽~^Contact 13:02, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I advocate using Quran.com over Perseus. Yes it uses Sunni translations, but that does not mean it is "biased." The vast majority of Muslims are Sunnis. Both Perseus and IslamAwakened are full of Sunni translations and Perseus only has Sunni translations, but nobody rebuked it for being "biased." I vote for Quran.com which is more stable, more advanced with more features, many translations, and growing. DivineReality (talk) 15:31, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I think there is no problem using multiple websites together like Template:Bibleverse. For example, we use Quran.com to display Saheeh International translation.--TheEagle107 (talk) 17:46, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I think the citation source website need to be changed. because from mobile phone its very disturbing to study the verses from Perseus website. quran.com use Mustafa Khattab as default easy to read translation; also has links to commentaries. change it to quran.com--Shakib2018 (talk) 17:26, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Strange formatting

If this template should only be used inside ref tags, why is it in superscript with square brackets? They're not at all necessary in a footnote and frankly look weird. Hairy Dude (talk) 15:19, 14 October 2023 (UTC)