Template talk:ur-noun

Issues
This should support ur-Arab and Devanagari spellings. Also, it listed Hindi spelling, not Devanagari spelling. Hindi is a language, Devanagari is a script. Mglovesfun (talk) 07:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Right, but the trick is this: Hindi and Urdu are more or less the same language, and in fact are often referred to as such by the term Hindustani. However, Hindi uses Devanagari and Urdu uses Arabic.   So, the Devanagari spelling of an Urdu word is basically just the Hindi spelling.  Consequently, I think your change from Hindi to Devanagari should be undone, but I'll leave it to Dijan, who is far more capable of addressing the situation.  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 12:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm yes, do we have any policy on Urdu? I've always considered Urdu and Hindi separate languages, if for no other reason they have different ISO 639 codes. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, well......that's a sticky issue......very, very sticky. The problem is that SIL, or whoever's running the ISO 639 bit these days is a) not terribly competent (they're not horrible, really, but not really experts either) and b) will give out a code to anyone who asks for one.  All else being equal, ISO 639 provides a standard, which is better than none.  However, there are plenty of fairly in the know folks who disagree with some of their divisions.  In any case, I certainly agree that Hindi and Urdu are best treated as separate languages, as the simple fact is that there are two distinct sets of spellings (Arabic and Devanagari) that we need to cover, and so it works just as well to call them two languages.  That and the fact that trying to merge the two into one language has the potential to ignite a nuclear war.  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 13:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Literally in this case. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah. Do you want all that blood on your hands?  Huh?  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 14:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, let's just ignore reality in favor of speakers' petty, sensitive views. Any blood will be on their own hands, not ours. --JorisvS 16:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Please, do not use script as the main criteria to define what a language is. This is the same problem that Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian and Montenegrin have. I went around this in a very delicate manner because, like you mentioned, it could start a war.  I would prefer if we treated the two as the same under the header of Hindustani, but at this time I don't think the community is ready for this.  For now, I would leave the Urdu entries as they were, with "Hindi spelling" linking to the same word, with the same pronunciation, under the header of "Hindi". --Dijan 09:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, but please don't undo all my changes, like italics, spacing, name space, etc. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree with Dijan. Let's leave things as they are. Unless we create something like (for translations):

* Hindustani:
 * Hindi: उर्दू
 * Urdu: اردو
 * Hindustani:
 * Hindi: उर्दू
 * Urdu: اردو
 * but there should be a discussion and a vote. Hindustani or Hindi-Urdu are not so well-undersood and accepted as separate Hindi and Urdu languages. --Anatoli 02:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The situation is quite analogous to Serbo-Croatian: two scripts, ethnic divide along religious lines resulting in a differential influx of vocabulary, (fanatically) considered by most of the speakers to be different languages, but at the end of the day they're still one language, with only superficial differences. Having two ISO codes doesn't mean much, as said well already; Croatian, Serbian, and Bosnian have separate codes as well. It's easy enough to create such a nested translations, as exists for Serbo-Croatian. It could be better under the header of Hindi-Urdu, as that may help people unaware of the actual situation locate what they're looking for. As for entries, we will have to have separate entries in Devanagari and Arabic scripts anyway, so if they're cross-linked to one another and no forks are created on the same page (like regularly happened with Serbo-Croatian), then there won't be much 'harm' in any case. --JorisvS 16:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * There are more pairs like this, for example Persian and Tajik. I see no reason to unify these. -- Prince Kassad 19:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Persian and Tajik have enough differences that I would oppose this with considerable vehemence. — [&#32;R·I·C&#32;] opiaterein — 19:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)