This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
cities,
towns and various other
settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
Arab world on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world articles
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Western Asia, which collaborates on articles related to
Western Asia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Western AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Western AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Western AsiaWestern Asia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oman, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Oman on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OmanWikipedia:WikiProject OmanTemplate:WikiProject OmanOman articles
Wasn't Muscat once part of Pakistan? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
72.143.61.134 (
talk) 18:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)reply
Well actually GWADAR now a part of pakistan was a part of sultanate of oman before its control was relenquished to the pakistanis...SO YOU GOT YOUR INFORMATION ALLLL WRONG!
User:Pranav21391(
User talk:Pranav21391)
The historical text should be recast using modern sources which differentiate between the state of research in the mid 19th century and today. Haphasard source selection results in a skewed text. See e.g. D.T. Potts Arabian Gulf in Antiquity, 1990.
Azd0815 (
talk) 03:55, 18 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Flag history
I'm told by a friend from Muscat that the flag was all red until 1970, when it was "Msucat and Oman". Now, it is the flag that is easily found with a quick google search:
I would appreciate it if a regular editor will look into this, and update the flag to the current official flag. Thank you! — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Alfranco584 (
talk •
contribs) 05:28, 11 November 2012 (UTC)reply
Population
In the text, it sais the population is 880 200, in the infobox it says 646 024. /
Habj 01:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)reply
Could someone add a note to indicate where the stress falls in "Muscat", as I think the correct stress is on the first syllabble (MUScat), but many people like to put the stress on the second (musCAT). Could someone clarify this please.
To my ear, native pronunciation of Musqat has a very slightly greater emphasis upon the second syllable. However, as is the case in many languages including Arabic it is common for no single syllable to be stressed more than any other in a given word.
Corrected the place names .
Bharatveer 04:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)reply
Who wrote the IPA transcription of Muscat? I am curious, because it does not match the Arabic spelling of the name - unless the (Classical) Arabic spelling (which I would have assumed would be pronounced [mʌsqʌtʕ]) is not faithful to the local pronunciation of the name in Oman. --
SameerKhan 07:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)reply
Mostly the pronounciation is sipposed to be masCAT as far as i know
The writing style looks very much that of a tourist guide map than an encyclopedic article.
Bharatveer 11:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Particularly the last line. "Large lanes"?
Mashford 20:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)reply
I have doubts on the term "Baiza Buses". Only seen it in some tourist descriptions. I have never heard it used in Muscat. Rather 'Shared Taxi" seems to be the common name.
Mostly Clueless (
talk) 12:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Requested move (2009)
The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was No consensusParsecboy (
talk) 15:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)reply
The capital city of Oman is the most common usage of Muscat. No other notable uses are listed in the disambiguation page. Also take a look at 'what links here'.
Basis9 (
talk) 14:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Support per nom but you might get some
œnological resistance. — AjaxSmack 16:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Clearly the grape is either the primary use or we have two primary uses, hence the need for the dab page. As to the what links here argument, sloppy editing or bad naming conventions are not an excuse to move articles in violation of primary use policy. Likewise, being 'based on' is not a reason for moving. And notable is not part of the primary use criteria since every blue link on a dab page is notable.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 22:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Œnological resistance.
Srnec (
talk) 04:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Geography
The map coordinates listed, 21°00′N 57°00′E, are wrong, as these are well into the central interior of Oman. Furthermore the Tropic of Cancer, at 23° 26′ 22″ N, would pass north of these stated coordinates.
Based on what I can deduce from Google Earth, the coordinates of Muscat should be about 23° 35′ N 58° 30′ E, with the Tropic of Cancer running through the urban area. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
72.138.251.66 (
talk) 14:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Request move (2010)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: No consensus.
Jafeluv (
talk) 09:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Support as primary topic.
Cjc13 (
talk) 12:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Support We already accept that the city is the primary topic as
Muscat redirects to this page. In addition, there is already a hatnote referring to
Muscat (disambiguation). It might be an idea to expand the hatnote to also refer specifically to
Muscat (grape and wine).
Skinsmoke (
talk) 07:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose. The disambig page (now in
Muscat) has 13 choices. (In my experience I have little reason to concern myself with the wine OR with the place.)
Anthony Appleyard (
talk) 21:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)reply
The dab page does have 13 articles but one is a redlink as yet so I don't think that should count :P
Green Giant (
talk) 02:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment I'm sorry
Anthony Appleyard, but this is descending into the realms of being ridiculous. The disambiguation page has 13 links, one of which we don't even have an article on. None of the people listed are known simply as
Muscat. The football club and governorate derive their names from the city. That leaves us with the wine or the city as primary topic. The city is clearly the primary topic, and the disambiguation page should be moved back to
Muscat (disambiguation). Given that the redirect to the city had been in place for six months, making that move while the discussion was ongoing was, to say the least, unhelpful.
Skinsmoke (
talk) 04:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose, What links here is only one measure, and arguably measures sloppy editing more accurately than primary usage. Google search is inconclusive. Traffic statistics show parity between
Muscat, Oman and
Muscat (grape and wine).
older ≠
wiser 01:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment - Those stats refer to the specific articles in one month; it might be more relevant to consider how many of the views of
Muscat were looking for the city or the wine. We should note the
disclaimer on that stats page:
redirects and moves are split across different statistics pages so you should really include the stats for the redirects
the stats are "easily susceptible to deliberate attacks and manipulations"
The author recommends not basing important decisions on these stats.
In this case "What links here" isn't so much sloppy editing if you consider that:
more than 700 "articles" link directly or via redirects to
Muscat, Oman
only 96 "articles" link to
Muscat and the vast majority are clearly referring to the city
Note that's articles, and not talkpages or other links.
Green Giant (
talk) 16:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)reply
I'm well aware of the limitations of traffic statistics and I've been critical of over-reliance on traffic statistics in the past. You cite some of the limitations, but fail to actually produce any actual evidence that undermines the usage. The Google results are also significant. In all, there is no strong indication of a primary topic.
older ≠
wiser 01:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose. The wine and hence the grape are significant uses. While I would like to think that they are the primary use, that would be impossible to prove. Hence we likely have a case with two (actually three) significant uses and no primary use. Contrary to the positions of some editors, cities are not by definition the primary use as I have made clear in the past. There is nothing wrong with a disambiguated name for a location. One point when I looked at the incoming links before they were cleaned up, a good portion were for the football club.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 17:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
SOMEBODY IS CARRYING OUT DEFAMATION
HTYE CHANGED THE NAME IN INFOBOX..TO MASCTEEEE —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Pranav21391 (
talk •
contribs) 18:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Portuguese conquest of malacca and muscat, and the subsequent arab reconquest of muscat and east africa from the portuguese
The article talks mostly about
Muscat Governorate, the metropolitan area referred to officially as Muscat city [1]. Muscat Municipality for example deals with the whole governorate[2]. Muscat province is referred to officially as the Old Muscat City and does not contain any government buildings or ports. I suggest merging this article with the Muscat governorate article since it mostly talks about the latter, or moving everything to the latter article except the Etymology and History sections, which talk mostly, if not exclusively about the Old Muscat.
The front page of Wikipedia article for Muscat shows the map of Bangladesh.
Please replace the map at the earliest. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
86.98.51.112 (
talk) 06:37, 30 June 2015 (UTC)reply
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Muscat, Oman. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.
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. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: No consensus. (non-admin closure) Primary topic seems to be rather ambiguous, and no consensus has developed either way. InsertCleverPhraseHere 02:14, 20 April 2016 (UTC)reply
– I am rather surprised that the capital city of a not-insignificant country is not at its base title. Most of my search results on DuckDuckGo and Google are about the capital of Oman instead of the grape/wine.
Page views data also show that this article is viewed more than the article about the grape.
sst✈ 12:02, 3 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Support - in book results,
"muscat"+"oman" "muscat" "oman" has 185,000 hits, while
"muscat"+"grape" "muscat" "grape" has 84,600. I think that gives the city enough of an edge. We could consider including the grape in the hatnote though, as well as the disambiguation page, to make the grape one click away rather than two. —
Amakuru (
talk) 12:48, 3 March 2016 (UTC)reply
@
Amakuru: You didn't include the results for muscat+wine. If you do that, the existence of a primary topic isn't as clear. ~
Amatulić (
talk) 18:42, 14 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Oppose no primary topic, Google Books does not show that Oman is much greater than wine and grapes. A 2:1 advantage isn't enough. --
70.51.46.39 (
talk) 05:38, 4 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Oppose. I am rather surprised that this move proposal keeps coming up, in spite of the fact that there isn't a clear unambiguous primary topic. About 1/3 of the sources and page views are for the grape. That's near enough to 50%. I'd support a move if that fraction was insignificant, but it isn't. ~
Amatulić (
talk) 06:24, 4 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Oppose. When you use "wine" instead of "grape", the gap is even slightly closer, with 88,800 hits for muscat wine. And if you go further, on a simple google search it is 20,200,000 for the city, while 23,500,000 for the wine. Scholar also has about 27k for the city, and 12k for the wine and 13k for the grape. These numbers hardly show a preponderance of usage for a single primary focus.
Onel5969TT me 12:45, 4 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Oppose Keeping the status quo makes it easier to spot incorrect incoming links. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 11:11, 5 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Support. I was coming into this one thinking "oppose", but
the pageview evidence is pretty convincing: the capital of Oman article gets about 72% of the pageviews - including the dab page - while the grape article gets less than 25%. That is clearly more than any other use, and more than all the other uses combined. A double hatnote to the grape and the dab page should do th trick.
Dohn joe (
talk) 15:45, 5 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Page views don't make a primary topic. Sources do. And the sources do not indicate a primary topic. ~
Amatulić (
talk) 05:43, 7 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Oppose. A line call perhaps, in which case I think we should stick with the DAB at the
undisambiguated name.
Andrewa (
talk) 05:22, 11 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Support. Having the majority of Google Books hits and 72% of the page views is clear indication that this is the
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.--
Cúchullaint/
c 18:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Did you see Onel5969's analysis above? The OP didn't include searches for muscat+wine, and if you do that, there is not an overwhelming majority of sources in favor of the city. And page views do not make primary topics on Wikipedia. ~
Amatulić (
talk) 18:35, 14 March 2016 (UTC)reply
I noticed it, but there are always different ways you can parse Google returns. At any rate it seems that the search for the city is coming out ahead by any Google measure. As for page views, they're one of the major ways we can determine use; it definitely shows what our readers are looking for. Both topics are of serious long-term significance and encyclopedic value, but one is sought by readers significantly more.--
Cúchullaint/
c 20:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC)reply
But we don't determine primary topics according to page views. We use sources. The city may have somewhat more sources than the grape/wine, but in my view, a 2/3 proportion isn't sufficient. Unfortunately we have no policy on how large the fraction should be, which is why we have discussions like this. ~
Amatulić (
talk) 05:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Page views are one of the forms of evidence we use in determining primary topics, as is use in sources. In this case this topic is more common in both, which to my mind is a pretty clear indication it's primary.--
Cúchullaint/
c 11:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)reply
The policy that governs how we name articles is
Wikipedia:Article titles. Where, exactly, does that policy say anything about page views carrying any weight? ~
Amatulić (
talk) 23:09, 15 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Support as primary topic per comments above. The
the grapes and wines are usually appended as such. —
AjaxSmack 05:43, 17 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Support. Quite clearly what "Muscat" searchers are look for.
Filpro (
talk) 00:51, 22 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Support clearly a primary topic about the Omani capital which is more common and well-known name, with the named wine is much unfamiliar. It is notably seen in older encyclopedias.
ApprenticeFanwork 14:14, 23 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Strong Oppose this far-reaching primarytopic grab on a broadly ambiguous term, which only serves to make the article title less precise and inconvenience all the readers that are looking for other meanings such as the grape.
Dicklyon (
talk) 17:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Strong support A capital city is inherently more notable than anything else with the same name.
Bazonka (
talk) 12:00, 2 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Support - in view of my personal very intense dislike and distrust of the usage of the Primary Topic policy, I can relate to the notability as stated by bazonka rather than the primary topic issue, and as a consequence am in support of the move
JarrahTree 13:02, 2 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Perhaps not, but
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is relevant. A simple Google search for "Muscat grape" brings back 445,000 results, whereas a search for "Muscat Oman" returns 16.4 million. The primary topic is very clearly the city.
Bazonka (
talk) 15:05, 10 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Support as clear primary topic per above. In English-language sources, the city has been and will continue to be the subject of more commentary than the grape. As noted by Amakuru above, the grape can be linked directly in the hatnote, so readers will not be inconvenienced at all. IgnorantArmies(talk) 02:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Oppose, there is no clear evidence for either the grape/wine or the city being primary.
older ≠
wiser 14:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Oppose. The grape has been associated with the name for far longer than the town with the this transliteration.
Muscat, Oman is very acceptable as is. There is no PrimaryTopic. People who care about wine will know only the grape. People, non-drinkers, in Arab lands, will know only the town/capital. Far better to keep the disambiguation page and to use more precision in linking. Page views are not so easily interpreted, probably far more know of the grape but it being a simpler topic few have an interested in reading encyclopedic information about it. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 11:34, 10 April 2016 (UTC)reply
The
etymology of the grape's name is uncertain, although it is possibly named after the city. Therefore it is impossible to say with any certainty that "the grape has been associated with the name for far longer than the town". Also it is ridiculous to say that drinkers will not know of the city — not everyone who drinks wine is geographically ignorant, especially where capital cities are concerned.
Bazonka (
talk) 15:02, 10 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Support Muscat, Oman is primary. Helpful evidence (per WP:PTOPIC): more incoming wikilinks to this page; more traffic; more Google hits, more Books, more News
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk) 08:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on
Muscat, Oman. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.
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. No further edits should be made to this section.
– Over a year after the last RM, Oman's capital is still standing firm in terms of evidence, so I think we should revisit. It receives 73% of the page views over the grape,
[1] slightly up from last year's figures, and still has several times the Google Books hits, with 280k hits for
Muscat Oman compared to 84k for
Muscat grape. Seems like a clear case of a
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. There's also the
WP:SURPRISE factor of having the capital of a nation not being at the base name, requiring readers to go through a dab page to find it.
Cúchullaint/
c 20:49, 3 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Support, but I think the grape should be in the hatnote.
Srnec (
talk) 02:40, 4 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Support per the nominator, overwhelmingly the primary topic both in terms of use and long-term significance. The grape is getting a decent amount of views so per Srnec it should be included in the hatnote.
Ivar the Boneful (
talk) 14:42, 7 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Support as primary topic per comments in sections above. The
the grapes and wines are usually appended as such. —
AjaxSmack 02:44, 10 August 2017 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on
Muscat. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.