Talk:osthya

As a frequent code-switcher, I can tell you that the quotes are not code-switching (maybe you meant something else though). —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान) 00:11, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm probably using it improperly. I don't really know how else to call it though. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 00:28, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it's an English word. It's the same thing as italicizing Brahman or Vishnu IMHO. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान) 00:29, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, I think the issue of italicisation is a fundamental one (an italicised occurrence is halfway between a mention and a use; it's not a true use). So while I think Vishnu and brahman are legit English words (as they're easily attested non-italicised), I wouldn't use any italicised quotation of these words as evidence either. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 01:45, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

RFD discussion: February 2018–July 2019
I'm not convinced this is an actual English word; it looks rather like code-switching to me. The use of italics is telling.

See also Talk:mahā.

--Per utramque cavernam (talk) 00:08, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * To be honest it might be. I'll leave the decision up to you all. But there are quite a decent number of uses, strictly in Indian linguistics. DerekWinters (talk) 01:03, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced it's citable; every cite I see on Google Books is oṣṭhya, not osthya. But I'll push my standard position; if osthya is verifiable as a word, I don't care much about exactly what language it's under, but I think it highly inappropriate to delete and leave no entry. "oṣṭhya" is an easily attestable word, and thus shouldn't be deleted over an argument about a header name.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:00, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I honestly think it's nothing else than Sanskrit (in transliteration, but still). It's the same deal as having Latin words in French sentences: l'ager publicus. That doesn't make a French term.
 * We then have three options: 1) rely on the search engine, which will redirect us to the Devanagari-script Sanskrit entry; 2) create Sanskrit transliteration entries which are attested, or 3) always create Sanskrit transliteration entries, regardless of whether they're attested or not. I don't like 2) because of its randomness, and 3) is more or less out of the question (cf. this discussion). That leaves us 1), which is fine by me. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 13:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Delete - all cites I could find were in italics and with dots underneath (i.e. oṣṭhya) to signify cerebral consonants which are not part of English phonology. The authors are making it clear that these are Skt words used in English sentences. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 05:43, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect to ओष्ठ्य. bd2412 T 14:39, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Do not redirect. I favour deletion, but the most important thing is not to proliferate obviously bad redirections that occupy a pagetitle where an entry for a word in a language could conceivably go. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 18:23, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If an entry for a word in a language can go here, then it should. If we are talking about a word that exists now, then there is no reason to delay in making such an entry. Otherwise, what harm is there in redirecting to the thing for which the reader is most likely to be looking? bd2412 T 20:33, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * A great deal of harm. Anyone who doesn't know how redirects work will be discouraged from creating an entry. The burden of proof should be on those creating hard redirects to show that there's no possibility of a valid entry under the redirecting page's spelling. There's a reason we have a page like WT:REDIR, which, by the way, explicitly mentions this kind of redirect as unacceptable. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:49, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * For the record, WT:REDIR is a policy draft that was reactivated and rewritten in 2018. It used to say "The actual common practice is to keep some redirects while avoiding others. There is no hard and fast rule for which redirects to avoid" and maybe it should say as much again, or else we have that kind of sneaky policy making that we want to avoid. And as for "show that there's no possibility of a valid entry under the redirecting page's spelling", no such thing can possibly be shown; rather, a search for "osthya" in Google books suggests that there would be no valid entry in another language. Likelihood of non-existence given current searches of evidence should be enough; proofs of non-existence that are impossible in principle should not be required. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:49, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Then keep per Chuck Entz; we should be including common transliterations, anyway. I would go so far as to say that we should have specific headers and categories for them. bd2412 T 19:19, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , my inclination is to err on the side of the status quo and leave this entry as is, closing the discussion as no consensus. Is that how you all interpret the outcome? - TheDaveRoss  20:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think we need more participation to make a clear determination. I interpret the statement by User:DerekWinters as ambivalent about deletion ("there are quite a decent number of uses, strictly in Indian linguistics") and the statement by User:Prosfilaes as opposed to deletion if it is attestable ("I think it highly inappropriate to delete and leave no entry... shouldn't be deleted over an argument about a header name"). I think User:Chuck Entz has taken a position opposed to redirection, but I wouldn't call this a vote to keep the entry. bd2412 T 20:29, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, there seems to be no consensus. My two cents are that it's definitely not codeswitching, because no one codeswitches between academic English and academic Hindi... —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान) 19:17, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I probably shouldn't call this "codeswitching" (I may have been throwing this term around a bit too much), but still, I think it's very wrong to say it's an English word. Are you sure you don't want any Romanization entry for Sanskrit? I think it would be the best solution here. Chignon – Пучок 19:47, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Looking into it more, I don't think it deserves an English entry. If it's used, it's inevitably written as osthya or oṣṭhya with italics. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान) 00:55, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Do you have enough to close this discussion? bd2412 T 17:15, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * it now looks like it has swung to delete. - TheDaveRoss  13:13, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't feel strongly about it either way. bd2412 T 13:41, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Closed as no consensus This has been open for a year and a half and consensus has not formed around deletion. This should have been closed and archived a year ago. Purple</b><b style="color:#991C99">back</b><b style="color:#C3C">pack</b><b style="color:#FB0">89</b></b> 15:03, 22 July 2019 (UTC)