Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Indic)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject_Hinduism#Naming_and_Transliteration
Check out the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Hinduism#Naming_and_Transliteration. It might be helpful. --Dangerous-Boy 02:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
- Can we merge Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Vedic) to here? There shouldn't be a problem unifying Vedic and standard Indic transliteration. I am personally in favour of using ISO 15919 for transliterating text primarily because it's a standard, but also because it applies equally to all the main Indic scripts.
- In regards to the changes from IAST to ISO 15919, they are very minimal and listed on the main page. What do you think? Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 13:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- Actually, I don't think they should be merged. The vedic articles mostly center around sanskrit and pali. The indic naming conventions should take into account all Indian languages such as the Southern ones. It shouldn't focus only on Hindi and Devengiri(sp). Take a look at the Mahatma Gandhi article to see how many scripts it has for his name. I think indic conventions could use the vedic conventions as a template but they about two complete different things. India is a secular country and Vedic is about religion. Also, take a look at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean) and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Korea-related articles). i was always thought they did a wonderful job on their policy for transliteration and templates.
{{koreanname noimage| Devangiri=허황옥| English transliteration=許黃玉| south indian script=Heo Hwang-ok| English transliteration=Hŏ Hwang-ok| }}
-
-
- We should not be centering our transliteration scheme around languages or particular subjects. We should however standardise based on each individual script. I completely agree with you that it shouldn't focus only on Hindi and Devanagari. Indeed, the good thing about ISO 15919 is that it slightly changes IAST so that other Indic scripts and languages can be represented equally.
- I'm not sure why we should standardise only based on Dharmic (or Vedic) terms - there is no reason why that same transliteration scheme cannot be applied to all terms in that script (or script family, i.e. Brahmic).
- If we were to merge the two pages, there would be very little difference in what is written. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 23:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I think you're right. The page should be merged into indic. Go ahead and merge it.--Dangerous-Boy 23:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
-
-
I have some reservations about the proposed merge of the transliteration guide, posted at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Dharmic). Imc 21:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I was looking at the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Korea-related articles) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean). The Dharmic naming conventions will be merged into Indic naming conventions because have a dharmic one is essentially useless. A manual of style article (Indic-related articles would also be need in the future. but right now, naming is probably more important. The indic languages will probably need to reflect the many languages of south asia. It might have to be split into several pages for each langauge. The content for naming conventions should be probably be
-
1 Romanization of names
1.1 Name order 1.2 Family name 1.3 Given name 1.4 Royalty
2 Place names 2.1 Province 2.2 Other administrative divisions
or
1 English words of Indic origin 2 Romanisation
2.1 Article titles 2.2 Category link sorting of macronned titles 2.3 Alphabetic order
3 Indic terms
3.1 Template
4 Names
4.1 Names of historical figures 4.2 Names of modern figures 4.3 Pseudonyms 4.4 Names of emperors 4.5 Names of fictional characters 4.6 Place names 4.6.1 Suffixes 4.6.2 Temples and shrines 4.6.3 Train and Subway stations
4.7 Names of companies, products, and organizations 4.8 Names in titles
--Dangerous-Boy 00:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Simplified transliteration
In the Amrita Pritama example, the as at the end of the two words are always pronounced in Sanskrit but not in Hindustani, so dropping the a would only be correct in a Hindustani context. --Grammatical error 18:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- The first 'a' is a long 'a' and so it remains in a Hindustani context too. I definately appreciate what you mean, but in this example at least, as a Punjabi and Hindi poet, she would never have pronounced the final 'a' (or have written it in English).
- There definately needs to be a distinction as to when the 'a' is dropped. If we're looking at a topic related to North Indian languages where the 'a' is dropped, then it should be dropped when writing a simplified transliteration. Conversely, if we're looking at a topic where a final 'a' is kept in the native language, then it should be kept in the simplified transliteration. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 23:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Usage of Devanāgarī
(This was copied from my post on the discussion page of the Dharmic naming conventions article and only concerns Sanskrit.) Why is the Devanāgarī equivalent for most Sanskrit words and names always included in articles? Should it have any special privilage over other Indic scripts which are also used to write Sanskrit and can represent the sounds just as accurately (like Grantha or Malayalam, but unlike Tamil because of its lack of aspirates) on the English Wikipedia. I think it would be better to just include the IAST. --Grammatical error 05:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- I suppose the reason is that most Sanskrit scholars use Devanagari or IAST and not other Indic scripts. Sanskrit as a locale in Unicode's CLDR uses Devanagari as its script. It's just a general convention because it's by far the most widespread Indic script. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 11:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- Many literate Sanskrit scholars in South India are probably not even able to read Devanagari, so I think we should just have IAST as compulsory and Devanagari as an optional extra - it really doesn't add anything to the article (except for special cases such as Aum) as IAST allows a lossless transliteration and is more neutral. --Grammatical error 15:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Actually I think u should use both Devanagari and one south Indian script that's used the most. Maybe either Tamil or Kannada? What's the base script for the south indian scripts anyway? Aren't they also used in southeast asia as well?--Dangerous-Boy 20:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I think that would be almost as bad because many of the South Indian, as well as non-Devanagari North Indian, scripts are each written and read by millions of people. The vast majority of people from Kerala, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh would not be able to make out a word of Tamil, which is probably the most prevalent Southern script (albeit woefully inadequate for writing Sanskrit). Therefore, I think it would be best to just use the IAST (however, it would just be a ridiculous waste of time to go about removing Devanagari from existing articles for the sake of neutrality - I'm just saying that there's no need to add it in future). --Grammatical error 20:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Wouldn't that kind of defeat the purpose of making this naming convention? Just having the english transliteration? No scripts? Isn't the whole point to have scripts?--Dangerous-Boy 20:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- This naming convention is about romanisation of Indic words and names, and an Indic script is not needed for Sanskrit as IAST allows a lossless transliteration and everyone who is reading articles on the English Wikipedia will either know it already or will be able to understand it quickly by looking it up. In contrast, most Indic scripts are incomprehensible even to people who use other Indic scripts (I think Telugu and Kannada might be mutually legible to some degree, as are several other pairs of scripts, but there's no real universal solution other than having all the scripts which would just be ridiculous). --Grammatical error 05:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I'm in favour of retaining the Devanagari or other original script, wherever it is appropriate. It is standard practice for other languages (see e.g. Aristotle, Muhammad, Laozi). It also saves those of us who are not familiar with Devanagari (which I'm not) the necessity of painstakingly going through it character by character. There should only be one language / modern script used, and it should be the language/script of origin for that word, which need not necessarily be Sanskrit. Imc 07:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I agree. Language for the origin of the word.--Dangerous-Boy 18:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- Not agreed ,My prposition is different
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Similler debate- kannad Vs Marathi -I have seen on talk page of a Indian city page Belgaum
- Wikipedia is Multy Lingual Community and already seems to have certain conventions in place in this respect.
- Wikipedia is having Multy Lingual collaboration in place and some administrators Bots seem too working already on interwiki connectivity.
- Please correct If I am wrong that these bots have been adding titles transliteration in all world languages,although it will not visible directly on page It will remain visible in edit page.
- If such a facility is not there for Indian Languages then we need to start it simply because it is beneficial for refference and serch engines (I suppose)
- Also we need to take into account India is having official three language policy, Inclusion of Hindi on this count across all India related articles need to be disussed at larger discussion forum of Wikipedia.That means Hindi article also should include one more refference to one more Indian language.
- Fore most is I would be happy if some one translates such a nice articles in more Indian languages for other language wikipedias.
Mahitgar 10:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Conflict?
This statement from "Dharmic": "Transliterated terms from Sanskrit and Pāli should take advantage of Unicode diacritics; for example, 'Nirvāṇa'," appears to contradict the statement in the next paragraph: "If a primary transliteration cannot be clearly established, then the article name should be be written in either a formal transliteration or a simplified transliteration," (not to mention perhaps contradicting the injunction to use a primary transcription if it exists). - Nat Krause(Talk!) 05:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- This statement was not written by me, so even I cannot understand what it actually means.Cygnus_hansa 21:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed; it needs some further rewrite and clarification. I'll try and work on it a bit further. A problem is that there appears to be contradictory policies within Wikipedia in general; on the one hand, a drive to use the most commonly used terms, and on another, a drive to follow scholarly practice. Imc 22:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- I see a sqaure in Nirvana.--Dangerous-Boy 05:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I see Nirvāna fine, both on a recently set up Linux PC with no special fonts installed, and on WinXP with the full Arial unicode installed. Imc 19:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Are you using mozilla? I'm using IE.--Dangerous-Boy 03:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Yes, I normally use Mozilla, but I've just tried IE and it works there too. Generally on Windows systems, I find that installing Arial Unicode MS means most scripts are rendered. Have you set up this particular font? Imc 20:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I don't think so. If the article is coded with the {{IAST}}, I can see it.--Dangerous-Boy 00:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- The Hinduism article is mostly coded in IAST. We really have a discussion over the use of which template to use.--Dangerous-Boy 00:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
[edit] Naming conventions (people of India and Sri Lanka)
I propose that this be explicitly restricted to older history. It will be difficult to include those more recent figures who are usually well known in the idiosyncratic spellings derived from English.
e.g.
- Tagore --> Tagur ? (I'm only guessing with this one)
- Cariappa --> Kariappa
- Vajpayee --> Vājpayī ? (more guessing here)
Imc 19:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Is this still active? I thinking about taking off the merge with dharmic articles since this is pretty much dead and the dharmic one serves its purpose.--D-Boy 22:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- I've done a bit of work on unifying these. Could it be left a little while, while I write it up? And personally I think that this one would be better than the dharmic one. Imc 14:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] unicode and iast template?
should they be combined?--D-Boy 06:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] My observations from Sikhism
I've been spending most of my time fixing this article up (which now looks a lot better than it once was) and I spent quite some time ensuring everything was a formal ISO transliteration. However, many people have objected to this over use of formal transliterations and many people dislike diacritics.
Just thought I'd mention my experience with implementing proper transliterations. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 20:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- This is amazing; I did a little work, went to get something to eat, and the topic was near complete when I came back!!
- The article already indicates a simplified transliteration for article titles. How about we also specify the simplified transliteration for general use in the article body, and that the formal transliteration must always be given in the opening paragraph to accurately indicate the subject and its pronounciation? Imc 21:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- Wow! This is actually coming along nicely.--D-Boy 23:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] New Template
Please take a look at Template:Indic. I've been working to make the IAST template obsolete. This wraps the text in the Unicode class and appends the language name based on language code. You can override showing the language name by including option 'x'. Please give your thoughts.... Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 00:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- So this will get rid of the squares?--D-Boy 23:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Mongolian is indic? I heard the ghenghis khan adapting other scripts for the mongolian written language.--D-Boy 08:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] Malayalam t
What needs to be confirmed about Malayalam t? The geminate symbol is the only one available in unicode. When it follows other consonants, one or two r symbols are written below the previous consonant. --Grammatical error 06:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- Basically, both [1] and [2] show vastly different characters to the one written in the table. Do you know the reason behind this? Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 16:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- That's the archaic character for the non-geminate consonant on its own. It's not encoded in unicode, is it? If it is, I'll change it, but I'd already provided a link to [3] on the Malayalam language page for those wanting to see the archaic letters. --Grammatical error 16:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] redundant h's
What is the point of "simplifying" the ISO "c" and "ch" to "ch" and "chh" (which just looks ugly)? In this case, both the academic and the simplified transliteration should be the same. --Grammatical error 16:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- I know it looks ugly. But, 'c' is never pronounced 'ch' in English (as far as I can remember), and the simplified transliteration is trying to follow English norms. If we were to use merely 'c' it would confuse readers. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 17:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Finish merging
Does anyone wish to finish merging while I complete the transliteration tables? Once they're merged we can begin a final check and put it up for review as a proper policy. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 19:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- what do you mean? Just make redirects on the other pages? Also, are we going to make a manual of style? The history of India project wanted one.--D-Boy 19:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- I mean if there is any information that is not in this article but is in the others it should be moved over. Once that's done, we can merely add redirects.
- Manual of style... uhmm... does Wikipedia not already have one Wiki-wide? What does the History of India project have in mind? Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 19:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Didn't specify. Someone just put up a request but I think it's in our interests to prove it. These Chinese have one and the Koreans have one. The a lot Indian content that covers a vast array of topics. With wikiproject India, this will help a lot for the coordination.--D-Boy 23:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- I still see a lot of squares under Sinhala. Is it because I don't have the font installed on windows? As for the merging, the titles for honorific names needed to be moved from people of India and sri lanka. I think this would go into the manual of style article instead. Probably should put in use stage names of actors too.--D-Boy 20:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Moved transliteration table
I've moved the transliteration table to Wikipedia:Indic transliteration scheme because it was taking up too much space. Hopefully this will enable us to finish this section and then concentrate on the specifics of transliteration. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 16:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Proposal on Indian names
I propose that South Indian names like A.K. Gopalan, B.T. Ranadive, etc. should not have a space in the 'initials'. These are not initials in the Western sense, and it is the name given after these that functions as a western first name. --Soman 11:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- I fully endorse the proposal. Also, I'm against expanding the initials in the title. Most South Indian personalities have titles with their initials expanded now.-- thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK09:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Advertise?
I think this proposal is a good idea and it's well-written; however as most of the work was (apparently) done by a single person, maybe it's a good idea to ask around on the Village Pump and/or related WikiProjects to get some more feedback on it? Other than that I'd say it's fully acceptable as an NC. >Radiant< 20:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- This proposal still requires several hours of work I think. I've been very busy lately but hopefully after a fortnight or so I will have time to continue efforts on updating this. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 23:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Modern place names
This is probably be a minefield best avoided for this project. However, are there any attempts at providing a standard anywhere else? They could be referred to here. Imc 22:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Not that I know of. However, given the low traffic of this page, I'd suggest you ask at the village pump. >Radiant< 16:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Personal titles in India
It is difficult to find any information or list defining personal titles like Sri/Shri, Guru, etc. Is there such an article on Wikipedia, and if not, is there someone who would volunteer to write one? --Blainster 17:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] What's going on with this?
?--D-Boy 23:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- My real life is taking over again :) Just about to go to bed so can't actually do any work on it at the moment. However, this page is *nearly* there... I can't imagine it taking more than a couple of hours work to get off the ground. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 00:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Use_of_vernacular_scripts_in_India_bio_articles
interesting discussion --D-Boy 07:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
