A RetroSearch Logo

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Search Query:

Showing content from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/India-related_articles below:

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/India-related articles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Archives Index This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Obviously, the Urdu alphabet is not an Indic script, and it is not typically used in India. However, MOS:INDICSCRIPT would clearly seem to apply to situations where editors would want to add Urdu alphabet, so maybe this should explicitly be stated? Remsense ‥ 论 02:47, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this is merely a dumb question, but I'm still curious about this. Remsense ‥ 论 23:34, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe MOS:INDICSCRIPT does clearly apply to Urdu when the subject is Indian/in India. On the other hand, INDICSCRIPT and the RfCs on which it is based mainly mention "Indic scripts" and link to that article. (The exception is One reason Indian scripts are avoided...) I think the way to square this is: We don't know whether INDICSCRIPT applies to Urdu, but as soon as someone starts edit-warring or civil POV-pushing to include/not include Urdu text in a lead/infobox, then INDICSCRIPT applies in that case. Toadspike [Talk] 10:11, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Remsense and Toadspike, we have such a case currently being argued at Hyderabad, and my talk page.
I don't know who devised/adopted the phrase "Indic script", which is not defined in our guidelines, but is normally considered as a synonym for Brahmic scripts. I seem to recall that about 10 - 12 years ago there was a discussion about Arabic (or it could have been Persian), where it was being argued that it should be allowed as it as not an "Indic script", although, as Arabic is a Brahmic script, that seems contradictory. I believe the outcome was that MOS:NOINDICSCRIPT should cover any non-Latin script (except Sanskrit?), but unfortunately, my initial search for that discussion has drawn a blank.
This needs to be resolved, as, if Urdu is not being deleted, this will just encourage the addition of other scripts, and we will return to the mass language-warring which led to the introduction of, and the subsequent tightening up of MOS:NOINDICSCRIPT. - Arjayay (talk) 11:26, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Arabic is a Brahmic script – I'm no expert, but I don't think that's true. I think the Arabic script (which is used to write Urdu) is a separate writing system.
But I agree with the rest – it would be ridiculous to ban only Indic/Brahmic scripts, with the result that all India-related topics only have Urdu or Arabic in the infobox. That is absolutely contrary to the spirit of the close and unhelpful to our readers. Toadspike [Talk] 12:01, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the editor in question self-reverted in this case, but I'm starting to agree with Remsense that the inclusion of other non-Latin scripts needs to be explicitly stated in INDICSCRIPT. Toadspike [Talk] 12:06, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Remsense, Toadspike, Arjayay, and CX Zoom: Note these additions [1] and [2] (rev'd it). - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:21, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
...Yeah, that's concerning. Ophyrius, if you're reading this, I'm pretty sure that INDICSCRIPT does apply to Urdu – that's the intent of the rule. Toadspike [Talk] 19:32, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why not make a separate infobox for Indicscripts just like {{Infobox Chinese}}. Removing the scripts entirely isn't a neutral solution for the edit warring. Velthorion (𑲀𑲰𑱺‎!) 11:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just need the "Go" & the infobox will be ready in no time.Velthorion (𑲀𑲰𑱺‎!) 11:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The solution to "If we convey this information, there will be edit wars" isn't to exclude encylopedic information on an encyclopedia. There are compelling reasons to keep MOS:NOINDICSCRIPT considering the multilingual nature of India, but as far as I'm aware only India has a prohibition on including the local endonym and orthography, which feels like an overly broad solution to a very specific content dispute. The fitting solution in "which script" here is simply "All of them, but collapsed". It's not like there's a compelling content reason for Wikipedia not to present it, and it can also be useful for place names where they may be variations across local spoken languages. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:12, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Xiphoid Vigour ༈Duel༈ 17:44, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93, what do you think for this? Xiphoid Vigour ༈Duel༈ 17:45, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That proposal would prevent vandalism and drive-by edit-warring, but that's not the problem here. We already know how to deal with those things via page-protection and blocking. The issue is editors editing in good-faith having well-founded disagreements as to which languages to include and in what order. For this proposal to be workable it needs to include a way to handle those disputes. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:19, 26 February 2025 (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.

For Tamil cities, towns, villages, and settlements, could the Tamil script be used in the native name? There is a linguistic significance to having the native names included, especially considering the protected status of the Tamil language within Tamil Nadu (and because native names are included for nearly all toponyms outside of India). Furthermore, there is a lack of controversy as to the inclusion of additional languages to Tamil cities, towns, and villages, other than Tamil and English since the two are the official languages. Finally, I am a native Tamil speaker and can cross-verify the accuracy of the spellings. As I am somewhat new to Wikipedia (as a student), I would appreciate guidance on this matter. WeltBhoomi (talk) 22:11, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend reading through some of the discussions listed in the MOS:INDICSCRIPT section to get a sense of past arguments over script inclusion questions have consisted of and what needs to be considered in order to be likely to change the current consensus. The details are worth looking through, but in general opponents of INDICSCRIPT reform want to see compelling explanations of how edge cases of language affinity will be handled so as to minimize disputes. signed, Rosguill talk 22:33, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, @Rosguill. I will take a look at the MOS:INDICSCRIPT discussions. WeltBhoomi (talk) 23:11, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WeltBhoomi then vandalised the Manual of style to say what they wanted it to say, without any discussion whatsoever, let alone the required community consensus. They then went on a mass editing spree to add Tamil to about 100 articles - a prime example of the language-warring that led to the introduction of WP:NOINDICSCRIPT in the first place. - Arjayay (talk) 10:51, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Arjayay, I understand that you are not happy with my modification of WP:INDICSCRIPT. However, I don't believe that I have committed vandalism, especially because I have been encouraged in my course to "be bold" in improving Wikipedia for all. "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism."
I will pause any future modifications to respect your comments. However, I do think there are fundamental issues with WP:INDICSCRIPT, including its predication that there is not sufficient expertise in Indian languages to warrant accuracy (despite existing Wikipedia pages in Indian languages that express Indian language expertise), geopolitical issues (although the most geopolitically tricky regions, such as for example, Lhasa, express all languages), and a disorganization that is engendered from multiple languages being represented (this is juxtaposed with, for example, the page on the Republic of South Africa). Specifically with respect to the State of Tamil Nadu, it goes against the spirit of linguistic identity and preservation, as well as longstanding bilingualism policy within the state. I hope that "being bold" for a temporary basis will encourage future conversations and underscore that the status quo is not necessarily the best pathway forward to achieving Wikipedia's core missions. If language is so significant to a given culture and identity, then failing to acknowledge it in its true form, that too, only for Indian jurisdictions, seems contradictory to Wikipedia's global mission and obligations to accurately disseminate information. I am saying this not specifically in response to your messages but to continue a conversation amongst the Wikipedian community. Thank you for your time.
WeltBhoomi (talk) 17:13, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also do not think it is fair to characterize as "language warring" the addition of an official language of a given political jurisdiction to its associated Wikipedia pages. Would it be constituted as "language warring" to add Greek to a given article on a settlement in Greece or, quite similarly to the given example, Tamil to a Sri Lankan article? WeltBhoomi (talk) 17:15, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that modifying the guideline isn't vandalism, but it is WP:FAITACCOMPLI to then go and start changing things to your preference without first reaching a consensus here. You know quite clearly that people oppose this change by default, you cannot go about ignoring them without a new discussion demonstrating consensus for your view. signed, Rosguill talk 17:24, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, @Rosguill. I am passionate about this and duly note your comment. I had treated the three-word modification as not a "substantive edit" but see how I should have thought more on that. WeltBhoomi (talk) 17:39, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As another native Tamil speaker (though I'm not very good at literary Tamil), I agree a better solution needs to be found especially for South Indian articles. WP:NOINDICSCRIPT is a nuclear bomb trying to kill a fly in this sense and should be revisited at some point. —Matrix(!) ping onewhen replying {u - t? - uselessc} 17:47, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@WeltBhoomi and Matrix: I encourage you both to read all the discussions in the archive, but specifically the one immediately above. If you do wish to make a change to this guideline you will need to offer ways to avoid the problems that it was created to avoid: to put it another way, a proposal to simply repeal the guideline is never going to be successful, but a proposal containing a detailed framework to resolve stylistic disputes - which is what the MOS generally is for - might have a chance. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:57, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, a better system needs to be found. —Matrix(!) ping onewhen replying {u - t? - uselessc} 18:57, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is the consensus on the use of {{Indic Transl}}? Shouldn't the transliteration standard be ISO? IAST is exclusively for Sanskrit and leads to incorrect transliterations for other languages (Udgā̃vakara → Udgāṁvakara). ~ ՏԹՄՐ (✉ • ✎) 16:18, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Saurmandal As the creator of the template, I support ISO. But, ther isn't any consensus on that. saluere, Ɔþʱʏɾɪʊs⚔ 05:35, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the description, can we add (bold is the proposed inclusion):

"This avoidance of Indic scripts only applies to articles that are predominantly India-related and is excluded from, among others, articles about Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, or any of India's neighbouring countries. It is a divergence from the usual practice of including non-Latin script in leads when it is arguably relevant (e.g. "Athens ... Greek: Αθήνα ..." at the article Athens)."

MaplesyrupSushi (talk) 19:54, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

among others would seem to suffice. Issues arise when fairness in an article would require either very many scripts or none. If that's not the case with articles about Jainism or Sikhism, then there's no problem. Remsense ‥ 论 20:02, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Remsense Sikhism only uses Gurmukhi script, Jainism I’m not sure about. MaplesyrupSushi (talk) 20:03, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue

Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo

HTML: 3.2 | Encoding: UTF-8 | Version: 0.7.4