Talk:Kṛṣṇa

Kṛṣṇa
Do we keep transliterations of Sanskrit? --Anatoli (обсудить) 06:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the discussion at Beer parlour archive/2011/August and the vote at Votes/pl-2011-08/Romanization of languages in ancient scripts didn't end in any clear consensus one way or the other. I personally am in favor of keeping transliterations of Sanskrit, since Sanskrit is most often taught in transliteration rather than in Devanagari in the West. Textbooks and dictionaries and the like are sometimes written only in transliteration and usually in both Devanagari and transliteration, so I think it would not be advantageous for Wiktionary to give Sanskrit only in Devanagari. —Angr 08:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The editor of this page referred me to Sanskrit, which says "No native script. Written in Devanāgarī, various Brāhmī-based alphabets, and Latin script." Which is why I didn't revert a second time. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * To answer your question: no, we do not keep transliterations of Sanskrit. (We do for Pali though... god knows why this is so) -- Liliana • 13:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm curious, since we do apparently keep transliterations of Japanese entries -- is this Sanskrit behavior here based on a decision, or just the current inertia? -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 18:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Pali is even less bound to a single writing system than Sanskrit is. Western learning material for Sanskrit is usually in both romanization and Devanagari; Western learning material for Pali is usually in romanization alone. (I've looked and have been able to find any learning material for Pali published in the West that uses any writing system other than romanization.) If it comes to another vote (I somehow overlooked the vote last August) I would definitely be in favor of keeping transliterations of Sanskrit, as they are at least as helpful and familiar to Sanskrit learners as Devanagari is. It's not as if we're going to run out of space if we have both. —Angr 19:00, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * @Eirikr, if you ask me, I don't know why we have Japanese romanisation in the full format as full entries with parts of speech, etc. All info should be kept in the kanji/kana entries and romaji to be a method to find those entries. We have changed the approach for Mandarin pinyin, see biǎoyǎn as an example and Votes/2011-07/Pinyin entries.
 * Sanskrit is not an ancient script in terms of that it is not used anymore. Hindi, Nepali, Marathi, etc. are also written in Devanagari and we do have many Sanskrit entries in Devanagari. I've seen romanised Sanskrit books, though but romanisation is always different, dependent on the source. Not sure if the vote on ancient scripts applies here. Pali is a difficult case - it's written in multiple scripts, all of them complicated. If we keep the entries, I think we need categorise them properly and set some rules. I have no strong opinion about either Sanskrit and Pali at the moment. --Anatoli (обсудить) 22:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Arrowred.png|12px|left]] For Japanese, my understanding is that romanized entries should only have POS headers and bulleted lists of terms linked to the main entries and providing brief glosses; romaji entries shouldn't have any etyl, conjugation, usex, or other information, as that should all be on the main page under the headword as written in kanji or kana.
 * [[Image:Arrowred.png|12px|left]] For romanized entries in general, I think including them does a world of service to anyone who has not mastered whatever other scripts are out there. I appreciate being able to look up a word that I may have heard well enough to romanize, but that I may have no idea how to write in the native script.  WT's search function might help, but it falls short of that mark by a wide margin for many of the entries I've seen written in Devanagari.  It's also a failure if there is already an entry with that spelling, but in some other language -- I have to know enough to go to WT's *advanced* search page to be sure.  This is a profound usability failure.
 * For instance, if I type kvarta in the search box, I am immediately wisked to kvarta, the Icelandic word for to complain. I have to pull up the *advanced* search results (as at http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=kvarta&fulltext=Search&ns0=1&redirs=1&profile=advanced) to have any hope of finding the Georgian term კვარტა, romanized as kvarta and meaning.
 * As it stands, Wiktionary is ostensibly intended for English speakers to be able to look up all words in all languages -- but this is currently impossible using the Latin alphabet, the only character set that most English speakers are familiar with, and the only character set available by default on many English-language operating systems.
 * Just in terms of simple usability, I support the idea of providing romanized entries for all words in all languages. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 23:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I definitely agree that romanisation entries help finding entries in the non-Roman scripts but I would go further and remove POS as well because this already distracts uses from looking up all the relevant info in the proper entry, especially if one word can belong to multiple POS's. As someone put it, create a romanisation entry and forget about it, until there is another word spelled differently in the native script but with the same romanisation. Initially, the vote for pinyin even disallowed any definitions. We do add unwikified short definition on the same line to make the choice a bit easier, see àijiǔ. As you know, words can also be romanised differently dependent on the system or version of the system used, even with Japanese. Having a simple system would also enable bots to do the job of creating these romanisation entries.


 * I would support the idea of romanized entries for all words in all languages only if they serve as a soft redirect to the proper script entries, not as a replacement for the native script entries. Many languages can be romanised differently, no standard exists or there are too many standards. We also had a person who extremely exaggerated the role of romanisation entries for Mandarin. --Anatoli (обсудить) 23:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, great, that's exactly what I intend too. I somewhat agree about omitting POS; I've been including such headers when creating romaji entries based mostly on the stated policy at About Japanese.  About glosses, however, I think omitting any gloss at all as a matter of policy would reduce usability unnecessarily, and that glosses in general should be included, provided they are suitably terse.
 * Should we move this to WT:BP, or have we talked this out? -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 00:43, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I've been wanting to raise the Japanese romanisation question with you guys, yes, WT:BP or About Japanese would be good. --Anatoli (обсудить) 01:24, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that's the wrong question; shows plenty of unitalicized examples in running English text.--Prosfilaes 00:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * We are talking about the way Sanskrit should be handled, not English. The entry doesn't say it's an alternative English spelling. For the Sanskrit romanisation we probably have to talk about it somewhere else as this is not about just one entry but a general approach. --Anatoli (обсудить) 01:24, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Originally, however, until [ this edit], it did say it was an alternative English spelling. If shows plenty of examples in running English text (whether italicized or not, as italicization is irrelevant), then the English section should be restored, independently of whether we decide to keep Sanskrit romanizations in general. —Angr 10:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Restored the English section, removed rfd and the Sanskrit header. Fixed the formatting. --Anatoli (обсудить) 22:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)