Future Perfect at Sunrise

; Archives
1. – Jul 2006; 2. – Oct 2006; 3. – Nov 2006; 4. – Jan 2007; 5. – Mar 2007; 6. – May 2007; 7. – Sep 2007; 8. – Dec 2007; 9. – Feb 2008; 10. – Mar 2008; 11. – May 2008; 12. – Jul 2008; 13. – Aug 2008; 14. – Nov 2008; 15. – Feb 2009; 16. – Apr 2009;	17. – Aug 2009; 18. – Dec 2009; 19. – Apr 2010; 20. – Aug 2010; 21. – Jan 2011; 22. – May 2011; 23. – Aug 2011; 24. – Feb 2012; 25. – Jun 2012; 26. – Oct 2012; 27. – May 2013; 28. – Apr 2014; 29. – Oct 2014; 30. – Jul 2015; 31. – May 2017; 32. – Mar 2021; 33. – latest;

Greater and Lesser Tunbs

Latest comment: 1 month ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, I would like to understand your rationale. As you know, Arabic is not an official language in Iran and the name of these islands is Persian (not like Abu Musa island where the Arabic name is included because the name itself is Arabic). The disputed status of the Greater and lesser Tunbs appears in bold in the infobox, why do you insist to add their name in Arabic in the lead ? Please let me know if you think I'm missing something. Thanks.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:56, 12 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for reaching out. I don't strongly feel about listing the names as such, although it's standard treatment for disputed geographical entities to list the names in the languages of each contestant party. Whether the name is official in Iran is of course of no relevance whatsoever. What I reverted, mainly, was the removal of the disputed status and all mention of the UAE in the infobox – this has been tried by the same slow-edit-warring, drive-by vandal IP for about a dozen times and I'll keep reverting that vandal for as long as it takes. I don't know if you meant to reinstate that vandal edit, but that's what you did in your first edit.

By the way, the whole thing could probably be simplified if we moved the article to something like "Tunb islands", rather than the awkward "Greater and Lesser Tunbs" with its weird English plural ending. That way, the listing of the names in the lead could be reduced to just "تنب" and "طنب" respectively, without even the need for transcriptions (as both versions simply transcribe to "Tunb" anyway) and without the need for all that "-e bozorg" and -e kuchak" and "al khubra" and "al sughra" (as all of those are just trivial literal translations of "greater" and "smaller"). Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:10, 12 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks very much for your detailed response. My bad, I didn't mean to remove the disputed status in the infobox, which of course should stand as long as there is a dispute about these islands, please accept my apologies for that mistake. If Wiki standard is to mention both names for disputed territories, then I can self revert if you want. I agree with you, it would be better to changé that weird name into something else and your proposal sounds fine to me. If you want to proceed, that's great, otherwise I can go ahead, but it's not something that I know very well. Wish you a great rest of your day.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:40, 12 March 2025 (UTC)Reply