Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Arabic)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] revert

There are a number of points of contention, and I get the feeling that you're suggesting conventions which are unacceptable. For example:

The ` sign should however be avoided in article titles.

This is nonsense, I don't even know where this came from, but all the guidelines say to use standard versions of transliteration, not make-up-your-own.

I wrote it, it is no nonsense, page names are better not by *transliteration*, but by transcription/translation. --Francis Schonken 06:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

secondary transliteration

This should be standard transliteration, you made this word up.

No I didn't. But if it's no longer in the MoS, then it has to be changed. --Francis Schonken 06:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The issues of transliteration vs translation need to be better defined. There are articles on people and places which are Arabic and do not have translations. Rather than say every article should use a translation if possible, it should say something like: "If the article is about a concept" or something.

I'll quote you: "nonsense". Further there's still something else beside "transliteration" and "translation": it's called transcripting. About time this would be properly handled. --Francis Schonken 06:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Avoid points, lines, or other signs under letters

The correct terminology is "Avoid diacritics, underdots, and underscores in the page names", and besides this, all this is already covered by saying that the strict transliteration should not be used in article titles.

No, that's not the correct terminology. Diacritics can as well be above letters. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (standard letters with diacritics). --Francis Schonken 06:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

And in general, you need a lot of examples. All this could easily just be redirected to the Arabic MOS as it was before. Cuñado - Talk 06:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, examples are needed, and you are free to provide them. I'm indifferent whether this is again encorporated in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Arabic). But please see [1] - if this goes back to the MoS, then the MoS should be "proposal" again: this is not near to a workable solution for a Naming Convention. --Francis Schonken 06:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't help but say something about this. There was a long discussion about whether to use Arabic or Turkish standards of transliteration. The sultan was Turkish, but used the Arabic script. I would rather use Arabic, and others insisted on using Turkish. If they actually make additions to the MOS I would support using Turkish for Ottoman Turkish names, but nobody has done that so far. Abdülaziz is the Turkish form of the Arabic word (عبد العزي), which in Arabic has two standard ways of writing it: ‘Abd al-‘Azīz or ‘Abdu’l-‘Azīz. I strongly prefer the phonetically correct version, and if I put aside a few hours I can arrange a vote to standardize the MOS so that there is only one form. I made the MOS in such a way that the "`" could also be used because it's on the keyboard. It was an attempt to get more popular support for standardizing, but nobody seems to care but me, so I will also try to get rid of that difference.

Since you ignored the points I brought up, I reverted again. Cuñado - Talk 00:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Re. "Since you ignored the points I brought up, I reverted again": Pardon? I replied all, you only reply to a single point, and a very indirect one (the Ottoman Arabic). --Francis Schonken 06:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)