Talk:Oybek (writer)

Article title

Hey, NmWTfs85lXusaybq! The article is in a very sorry state, but I've added a couple of reliable sources confirming that he's known by his pen-name and replaced all the Russian spellings (Aybek) with the Uzbek spelling. I wonder if the article should be moved to Oybek, as people think of him when the name is used in former Soviet countries. At the very least, let's move it back to Oybek (writer) (which is also problematic, as he was both an accomplished poet and a writer). Nataev ^talk 00:50, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I have moved the redirect back to Oybek (writer) which is the WP:COMMONNAME. However, as the qualifier could still be problematic, please start a move request to obtain a consensus for the proper name per WP:PCM. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 04:30, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Poets are writers (of poems) too, so it seems like a valid qualifier. Unlike the article title which defines the subject, redirects can exist in parallel and so can legitimately describe just one of many reasons for notability. We could even create a second redirect Oybek (poet) without implying that poetry was his only talent. Certes (talk) 11:18, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it's valid and actually complete. However, the move is controversial because the nominator himself is contesting this title, which could have been requested as a technical move per WP:COMMONNAME. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 12:46, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is, hardly anyone knows his real name. It's like with Mark Twain -- not everyone knows he was born Samuel Clemens. And by the way, the current title is a Russified version of his name. The proper Uzbek spelling is Muso Toshmuhammad oʻgʻli.

Here are a few of independent, reliable English-language sources where they refer to him exclusively as Oybek: 1, 2, and 3. I'd think the article on him should be simply titled "Oybek", with the disambig page being moved to "Oybek (disambiguation)". By the way, one of the Tashkent subway stations is named after him, not the other way around. Nataev ^talk 14:49, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 21 November 2023

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: Consensus to move to Oybek (writer) as was proposed during the discussion, and leave the dab page where it is. There was evidence presented that the writer is commonly known as Oybek, but a lack of evidence that he is the primary topic of Oybek. The question of primary topic can be revisited in the future if there is more evidence. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 23:26, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

---

• Musa Tashmukhamedov → Oybek
• Oybek → Oybek (disambiguation)

Muso Toshmuhammad oʻgʻli, whose pen-name was Oybek, is a household name in Uzbekistan. Here are some independent, reliable English-language sources where they talk about his works and legacy: 1, 2, and 3. He was a People's Poet of Uzbekistan, received numerous state awards, and remains popular to this day. One of the stations of the Tashkent Metro is named after him, and he has been featured on stamps. All the other people currently listed under Oybek are obscure footballers (and one is a boxer).

While we're at it, the current title is a Russified version of his real name, with his proper Uzbek name being Мусо Тошмуҳаммад ўғли / Muso Toshmuhammad o‘g‘li. Nataev ^talk 15:04, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: No valid rationale provided for the primary topic. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 15:41, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

  What do you mean no valid rationale provided? As per WP:DPT, "There are no absolute rules for determining whether a primary topic exists and what it is; decisions are made by discussion among editors, often as a result of a requested move."

  Search engine analysis: "Musa Tashmukhamedov" -- 620 results; "writer Oybek -- 1030 results; "Oybek" "poet" "Uzbek" -- 44,500 results.

  Books Ngram Viewer: Oybek, Musa Tashmukhamedov Nataev ^talk 16:19, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

  Still not convincing at all about why Musa Tashmukhamedov should be the primary topic of "Oybek" rather than a simply disambiguated name like "Oybek (writer)" or "Oybek (poet)". NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 22:48, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

  @NmWTfs85lXusaybq Can you give a compelling reason why it shouldn't be the primary topic? Nataev ^talk 23:14, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

  Apparently Musa Tashmukhamedov is not a primary topic of "Oybek" with respect to usage, although the original topic Oybek (Tashkent Metro) isn't one either: see massviews. This is a case of no primary topic and I oppose moving to Oybek. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 00:14, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

  @NmWTfs85lXusaybq That's a flawed argument. First off, hardly anyone knows his real name. (How many people do you think look up Samuel Clemens?) Second, as I've pointed out, Musa Tashmukhamedov is his Russified name. (How many English speakers intentionally look up a Russified version of a name?) Third, the article was created a month ago and is machine translated. Finally, these stats show that he's getting more views than all the other Oybeks and the subway station. Anyhow, let's see what others have to say. Nataev ^talk 00:32, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

  Don't double your comment here. A topic primary in uzwiki doesn't have to be primary in enwiki. From the pageviews you provided and massviews in this month, I don't see how Musa Tashmukhamedov is getting more views than Oybek Bozorov, let alone all other entries in the disambiguation page. It's not surprising if an article only got a lot of views at its creation or renaming, when it needs review or gets involved in controversy. At least, you should argue that it could be primary with respect to long-time usage. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 01:02, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

  What do you mean don't double? Is that a threat? I'm not sure you're even reading my comments. Moreover, I specifically pointed out how wrong you are in your specific comment above.

  "A topic primary in uzwiki doesn't have to be primary in enwiki." -- Whoever said anything about uzwiki on this page? Please stay on topic.

  How come you "don't see how Musa Tashmukhamedov is getting more views than Oybek Bozorov"? In my books, 115 is greated than 104. And as per WP:DPT, the tool you're using "may help to support the determination of a primary topic in a discussion (but are not considered absolute determining factors, due to unreliability, potential bias, and other reasons)".

  "At least, you should argue that it could be primary with respect to long-time usage." -- Well, it's obvious that long-term significance applies here, as at least since the 1930s scholarly articles, newspaper articles, books, and, since the 1990s, countless online articles have been published about Oybek the writer. Nataev ^talk 01:34, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

  Can you really understand English or fail to meet WP:CIR in this discussion? You have doubled your comment here and here. As I stated above, an article can always get a lot of views at its creation, but often get much fewer views after that. Musa Tashmukhamedov doesn't receive more pageviews than Oybek Bozorov in this month and is unlikely to do so in the future. Even based on your pageview, Musa Tashmukhamedov obviously doesn't have more views than all the other topics combined and fails to meet WP:PT1. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 02:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

  Did you see the times and content of those two edits? It seems the mobile app glitched and saved twice. And as I've repeatedly stated, pageview stats do not play a definitive role in deciding whether an article should be moved or not. You can read WP:DPT again if you're having difficulty understanding this. "... is unlikely to do so in the future" -- wait what? You can predict the future? That's a great argument! "... doesn't have more views than all the other topics combined" -- whoa, stop there! I never said "combined!" You should stop putting words into people's mouths. I feel like if anyone needs to read about WP:CIR here, that's you. Finally, you haven't provided any evidence to prove that Oybek the author doesn't meet WP:PT1. Moreover, he clearly meets WP:PT2. Nataev ^talk 02:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

  But you did see this as a threat rather than removing your doubled comment. The pageviews and massviews already provide the clear evidence against Musa Tashmukhamedov as WP:PT1. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 02:51, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, I did, becase you didn't provide links the first time you wrote about it. As I've repeatedly said, pageviews should be taken with a pinch of salt. And even though you've been editing (under your current account at least) for a year, I'd expect you to know that throwing WP:CIR at people, especially during a dispute, is not good practice. ("Be cautious when referencing this page, particularly when involved in a dispute with another editor, as it could be considered a personal attack.") It's weird that you asked me if I understood English but you don't seem to know that "evidence" is an uncountable noun (and "much lesser views" is wrong on so many accounts). Nataev ^talk 02:56, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

  Then what about You should stop putting words into people's mouths? I was referring to WP:PT1, but your comment was either misunderstanding or misleading. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 03:13, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

  You didn't specificy whether you were referring to WP:PT1 or the stats I provided, that's why I wrote that comment. Moreover, on that page it's writtern "more likely than all the other topics combined". "Likely" is a key word here. I.e., it's not a requirement. Nataev ^talk 03:17, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

  No, that requires the primary topic should at least have more pageviews than all the other topics combined, if you're arguing on WP:PT1. But given on most of your claims here, I advice you to argue on WP:PT2 instead. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 03:24, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

  Well, that's what I'm trying to do. It'd be good to have it right at the top of the discussion, but I should probably refrain from repeatedly revising my original request. Nataev ^talk 03:26, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: The RM provides a good rationale for why, if there were no other topics called Oybek, this page would take that name. However, the title is contested by other topics with that name. The question then is whether there is a primary topic, i.e whether the writer has most long-term significance and is most likely be what readers seek. We need to compare evidence such as page views, incoming links and search results between the writer and other uses. I'm not claiming that the writer isn't a primary topic, just that we have no evidence for that status yet. Certes (talk) 16:06, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

  Even though the article is a horrendous machine translation (most likely created by a participant of the WikiStipendiya edit-a-thon; I've repeatedly told the organizers that encouraging inexperienced folks to edit enwiki is a bad idea, but they haven't heeded my words; luckily, the translation edit-a-thon will end on December 1, 2023) and was created only a month ago, it's still getting more pageviews than all the other articles listed on the disambig page. Nataev ^talk 16:29, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

  Also, I'm not sure if we can say the topic is contested by the others with the same name. For one thing, in all the other articles Oybek is the person's first name, but in the case of the writer, it's his mononym. Moreover, all these sportspeople are rather obscure (at least personally I hadn't heard about any of them before yesterday). I wanted to provide some data from WikiNav, but it's broken or doesn't show results for entries that are only a month old. Checking ruwiki is leading to an error too. Nataev ^talk 16:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

  It is entirely possible that the writer is a primary topic. So far, we have very little evidence either to support or to refute that claim. The default position is that there is no primary topic. Certes (talk) 18:37, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

  Oybek is after all an Uzbek name, and the first thing that comes the mind of someone from Uzbekistan (or a neighboring country, as in my case) when they hear the word Oybek is the author. Since all the other people with the name Oybek are obscure Uzbek athletes and footballers (the only one from Tajikistan is also an Uzbek), I see no reason why the writer shouldn't be the primary topic. (I'd actually guess that some of these sportspeople are actually named after the poet, as he is indeed a household name in Uzbekistan.) Even the metro station is named after the author, and you can see his sculpture in bas-relief at the entrance to the staion. Nataev ^talk 19:17, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

  I am inclined to believe that Oybek is a primary topic, at least in Uzbekistan, but it would be good to have some concrete evidence rather than anecdotal opinions. One objection you may hear is that the primary topic is not what first comes to your mind. Certes (talk) 23:39, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Certes How come the facts that 1) he was a national poet and received numerous other state awards (some at the Uzbek SSR level, some at the Soviet Union level); 2) he has places named after him; 3) he has been featured on stamps and statues; 4) the sorry article on him is getting more pageviews than all the other Oybeks; and 5) that all the other Oybeks are obscure athletes -- all of these are anecdotal opinions? Which one of these is an opinion in your view? Nataev ^talk 23:46, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

  All the claims here are just anecdotal opinions and 4) is even erroneous per massviews. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 02:15, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

  @NmWTfs85lXusaybq, you don't seem to know the meaning of the word "opinion". Besides, I didn't ask for your opinion here. I repeat, massviews or any other tool "may help to support the determination of a primary topic in a discussion (but are not considered absolute determining factors"). Nataev ^talk 02:32, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

  Did I mention "primary topic"? The result of massviews here is only used to show how false the 4) claim is. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 02:45, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

  But they fail to show that it's false. The claim is true as per these data. Nataev ^talk 02:49, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

  Please read WP:PT1 again. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 02:54, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

  I already have, numerous times. At this point your comments are not helpful and do not move the discussion forward. I'll wait for other, more experienced users to jump in. Nataev ^talk 02:58, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

  Have you noticed much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined? NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 03:08, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, I have. However, the statement isn't only about wikistats, but refers to other sources as well (such as scholarly articles, books, etc.) Moreover, in this particular case the article uses a Russified version of an Uzbek author's name, as I've already pointed out. Also, as writtern in WP:PTOPIC, it's just one of the "two major aspects that editors commonly consider", meaning they are not definitive rules. Nataev ^talk 03:14, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

  wikistats is not sufficient for the statement, but it's necessary. Next time you are arguing on WP:PT1, please take care about this. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 03:26, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not so sure. In this particular case, it doesn't make sense to insist on this rule, because the article is 1) relatively new and 2) both its title and contents are very problematic, which for sure affects traffic. Nataev ^talk 03:28, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support per WP:PT2. Numerous books and journal articles have been published on Oybek the author since at least the 1960s. Here's another scholarly article in English where they refer to him as Oybek. Umarxon III (talk) 03:49, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

   Note: The comment was later moved here from the section above. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 04:32, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

  This is a good example of mononymous use, but it's a short, clearly enthusiastic article from what appears to be a non-native speaker, using the phrase 'Skilly Criticist' in the title, which strikes me as a bad literal translation? --Joy (talk) 15:41, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, I wonder if it's machine translated. But then again, Google Translate isn't this bad. Probably just a bad translation by a non-native speaker. Nataev ^talk 15:48, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support Alpasli (talk) 06:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support It is mentioned as Oybek on page 25 of this book. The second reason is why the name of the article should be changed Third referenceMirfayzbekabdullayev. (talk) 16:20, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

  The third link above says documentary film "Aybek" and It is dedicated to the life and work of the people's writer of Uzbekistan Musa Tashmuhammad ugli Aybek. so let's not be overzealous :) --Joy (talk) 15:34, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not being overzealous, not by a long shot. And that third piece is a not a journal article, but a news article. (And a pretty sorry one. Who spells "Musa Tashmuhammad ugli Aybek"? It's not correct in either Uzbek or Russian.) Nataev ^talk 15:44, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support – Mrshaxas (talk) 04:06, 23 November 2023 (UTC).
• WikiNav for Oybek doesn't render anything, which generally means there's too little traffic, and that doesn't typically indicate the existence of a primary topic. Mass views for Oybek for the last 90 days and mass views since tracking began shows there is no primary topic by usage. We didn't even have the article about the poet until October 2023? And the article mentions the pseudonym can also be rendered Aybek, not just Oybek? This all makes it rather doubtful that the average English reader associates the poet with the term 'Oybek' so strongly that we need to short-circuit. In general, the argument for long-term significance should be rather strong to override the fact that this given name is generally in use. Use Oybek (writer) or similar, and keep him listed at the top of the list (presumed MOS:DABCOMMON), and let's revisit the statistics in a few months' time to see if this was just a case of navigation slanted by a lack of content, or a genuine case of no primary topic. (Oppose) --Joy (talk) 09:37, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks, Joy; it's useful to get a new view on this question. I'd agree with almost all of that but move over the existing redirect Oybek (writer) because he wrote prose too. Creating Oybek (poet) as a redirect to there seems sensible. Certes (talk) 12:49, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

  Moving to Oybek (writer) and revisiting the stats is not such a bad idea! " Mass views for Oybek for the last 90 days and mass views since tracking began shows there is no primary topic by usage" -- as you yourself pointed out, @Joy, the article on the author was created only a month ago (which in of itself doesn't mean anything, as people contribute to Wikipedia based on their interests.)

  As for the spelling of pen-name, "Aybek" an English transliteration of the Russified version. You see, Russian refuses to round the vowel /ɑ/ to /ɒ/ in Uzbek and Tajik words (therefore Toshkent became Tashkent in English). But I personally haven't seen many English-language sources which use the Russified spelling. As the other users have pointed out, Oybek is the predominant spelling in journals and books. Nataev ^talk 14:02, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

  A cursory review of what the others posted that I just did doesn't exactly instill confidence that others conducted a comprehensive review of journals and books, though the enthusiasm is of course welcome. --Joy (talk) 15:47, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, most have carried out a cursory search. Google Scholar has indexed over a thousand pieces on Oybek the writer.

  I think even scholars are exasperated by the two different spellings of Oybek/Aybek. This Turkish author just used both in the title of his article. Nataev ^talk 16:20, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

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.