Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Dharmic)

NOTE: Post all discussions at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Indic)--Dangerous-Boy 03:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

merge

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. --Dangerous-Boy 18:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've some second thoughts. Can we be clear where this proposed merge is going? The bulk of the material in this article was a part of the Hinduism project page. There it was a transliteration guide and not limited to the article names. It is now proposed to merge it to a 'Naming convention' which will limit its scope considerably, to less than its current content. Going back as a guide to the Arabic proposal which has been further developed, it is a manual of style there [1] . Can we think about this? So I have some other proposed names now. First alternative, Manual of style (Naming and transliteration from Indic languages). The naming conventions can then refer to a part of it. Or alternatively, Manual of style (Transliteration from Indic languages), and leave the naming to be detailed further in separate pages. Imc 20:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 00:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese?

I'm not sure of the relevance of "Transliterations from Chinese should be in Pinyin, not Wade-Giles." Chinese, methinks, is not a Vedic language. Moreover, there is no blanket policy on Wikipedia to use pinyin rather than alternatives, although pinyin is somewhat favoured. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 18:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at

there many more than transfer over thanks to the lotus sutra. Do you want me to list them all? I just want it to be organized. I took the Transliterations from Chinese should be in Pinyin, not Wade-Giles policy from wikiproject buddhism. So far none of them have given their input. --Dangerous-Boy 18:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Usage of Devanāgarī

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 06:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Might want to state that here: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Indic)--Dangerous-Boy 21:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naming conventions (Indic) doesn't have anything to say about Devanagari - though I note they use a system slightly different from IAST. I don't see the point to the Devanagari myself, but I'd probably be happier with it if my computer rendered it correctly! RandomCritic 01:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to reopen this issue. Why do we need Devanagari in every article that has something to do with Sanskrit. For most part of its history and when it was in vogue, Sanskrit never had a script or even when it did have a script it wasnt Devanagari. To this day, none of the Southern states and am sure many other states use devanagari for writing or reading sanskrit.

Whats worse, there are people fanatically pushing for the use of Devanagari on pages like Jana Gana Mana, Vande Mataram, Sare Jahan se achcha etc based on the false presumption that the songs are either in Sanskrit or because those songs are 'national' songs and everything supposedly 'national' should be in Hindi/Devanagari.

My suggestion is, where Sanskrit is concerned, we do away with vernacular scripts all together and stick just to the IAST or IPA or the use of diacritical marks etc.,. Sarvagnya 16:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the disputes about Jana Gana Mana etc., this discussion probably was quite independent of them. The intention was to provide an uncontested reference to the term(s) being transliterated, and it is similar to the practice in other languages with some history, e.g. Greek, Chinese, Arabic. If the original term or usage is being contested political reasons, I don't see how not using Devanagari will help.

Also, this discussion should probably continue on the Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Indic) page, since the proposal seems to be solidifying around merging this and leaving that one. Imc 22:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simplified Transcription

I find it helpful to use simplified transcriptions for article titles, avoiding diacritics simply as an aid to those who want to search for those articles without risking a redirect, or, for that matter, not finding the article at all, without having to resort to hunting for diacritics. I'm happy to use diacritics in editing, but for the ordinary end-user there should be no such requirement.

However, I take issue with certain of the rules for simplified transcription, namely these:

2. The two sibilants 'ṣ' (ष) and 'ś' (श) (both sometimes written sh, and sometimes s) are both to be always written sh in the simplified system, and not doubled if it is a double consonant. Thus

* Shiva (शिव), not Siva (IAST Śiva)

* Dushasana (दुश्शासन), not Dushshasana (Duśśāsana in IAST)

I see no justification for the second example. Dushasana is simply wrong, even as an inexact simplification; and Duśśāsana is also marginal, as the now-standard way of writing this in Sanskrit is Duḥśāsana. I would simplify that as "Duhshasana".

3. The palatal 'c' (च) of IAST is to be written ch. Hence, the aspirated 'ch' (छ) of IAST needs to be written as 'chh'.

* Chandra (चन्द्र), not Candra

* Chhatraketu (छत्रकेतु, son of Lakshmana), not Chatraketu

I think this is totally unjustifiable. Why drop an easy transcription convention that presents no ASCII problems whatsoever? This isn't simplification at all.

I should add one more rule I would like to see for simplification:

Anusvāra should be assimilated to the following consonant in simplified transcription, not simply transcribed "m". Thus for saṃdhi we should use sandhi, not samdhi, and for saṃgha we should use sangha not samgha.

I should also point out that with the IAST characters, italics do not work for at least some browsers. Emphasis for whatever reason is far more effective with bold than with italics when using IAST characters. Compare ānāpāna with ānāpāna. RandomCritic 01:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate discussion

I think that this article is supposed to be merged into Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Dharmic). If so, all discussion should take place there. If this is not to be merged, someone should make that clear somewhere, preferably one of those who have been leading the proposals. Imc 07:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"A" sound

Why do we use "A" at the end of words???? I am so confused because in Hindi, most of the words do NOT have the "a" matra at the end. Take "Aryabhata". There's no "A" sound when written in Hindi...

Tdayal 18:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC) Confused Tushar[reply]