Talk:Islāmic

The Usage notes section of the entry on the English word 'Islamic' reads, "The spelling (Islāmic) is far less common than (Islamic) ..."—sure, that's probably because the word 'Islāmic' isn't English, as the letter 'ā' isn't part of the English alphabet. I propose that we delete this usage note, the Alternative forms section (listing 'Islāmic'), as well as the whole entry on 'Islāmic'. that guy 20:38, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. The term is attested in English, and the macron isn't a reason for deletion—see Category:English terms spelled with Ā. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 20:56, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: I'm not familiar enough with Wiktionary policies on pronunciation, but I don't think macrons actually constitute alternative spellings. They're not even accent marks; they're used purely as pronunciation guides, and then usually just in dictionaries and grammars; but they have nothing whatever to do with spelling.  So if Wiktionary doesn't have a specific policy about macrons, I would delete this as a separate entry, and simply indicate that some writers like using a macron for reasons other than indicating a pronunciation.  It's simply not how English works... although I do note that one system of transliterating Japanese also insists on using macrons as though they were accent marks.  P Aculeius (talk) 03:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with policies on pronunciation. This is a different spelling, it is used in running texts in English, and therefore should obviously be kept. I have no idea what you mean by "accent marks", but macra are certainly diacritics. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 04:09, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not another spelling. English doesn't use macrons.  They appear exclusively as pronunciation guides in texts such as dictionaries and grammars.  And that's how they're identified both here and at Wikipedia.  Neither one suggests that the macron has any other usage in English.  Note that most typewriters included keys for accent marks, but no keys for macrons; until a few years ago most fonts didn't include characters with macrons or breves.  It seems to be fashionable to use macrons in some forms of transliteration, such as Arabic and Japanese, but doing so doesn't create a new spelling.  Omitting a macron doesn't change the spelling or the pronunciation, although in some cases it may leave the pronunciation ambiguous; but there's only one word 'Islam' in English, and only one regular way to pronounce the 'a' in it; and this is already one of the normal ways that 'a' can be pronounced in English; so there's really no ambiguity to resolve.  Nobody is going to type 'Islā-' into the search window; nobody will be confused to find the entry at 'Islam', and nobody should feel insulted to find it there.  A usage note is sufficient to indicate that some scholars prefer to write a macron over the 'a' whenever the word is used; but there's no particularly good reason for having a separate entry for it.  P Aculeius (talk) 12:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * They do not appear exclusively as pronunciation guides in texts such as dictionaries and grammars. I have added three quotations of the spelling Islāmic used in running English text, and more are available on Google Books. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 12:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * English does use macrons - and this Islāmic is an example. English uses umlauts, acutes, graves, circumflexes, cedillas, and so on. Writers in English use such diacritics for a number of reasons, such as to indicate that the word is not fully naturalised (which doesn't mean that it isn't "in" English), or that they wish to invoke a meaning closer to the word in the language that it is borrowed from. There is a grey area with regards to this - it is not black and white - English is a complex and very widely encompassing language that has a lot of variety in the spelling system to reflect this. Wiktionary does well to record these variants. KeepSonofcawdrey (talk) 08:54, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep, attested alternative spelling. Could be marked en, though. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:59, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose, this logic is completely the wrong way round. You can't delete references to the English entry because it 'isn't English' while we list it as an English entry! You could try and get  deleted and then we'd obviously remove links to it, but if Angr say's it's attested, then I believe him. On the other hand, rather than usage notes, use rare in the alternative forms section in stead. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:44, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Having read actual usage notes, disregard that last bit. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * RFD speedy kept per consensus of at least 5 keeps above, and per long-term practice of recognizing macron as a separate diacritic in English entries. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:50, 24 October 2015 (UTC)