Talk:murali

Uncommented removal of text

Can this reversion of a new section to this entry be explained? 24.29.228.33 22:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• Yes. Sanskrit articles must be in Devanagari. SemperBlotto 06:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Because most users are not able to type in Devanagari, this makes it quite difficult for normal users to obtain information about commonly romanized terms such as nath, Gopala, Gopi, Govinda, etc. "Murali" is a commonly encountered term of Sanskrit origin, but often presented in romanized form, usually as part of South Indian names, but also in publications dealing with Hinduism. At the very least these should be redirects to the Sanskrit forms. This is why we have entries such as xiexie, nihao, etc., in that it assists users all over the world who only have regular Latin keyboards in finding the information they need, as quickly and easily as possible. 24.29.228.33 07:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Please see this Google search for evidence that the Sanskrit term "murali" does appear, in romanized form, in published scholarly works. In the future, would you please use "Discussion" to evaluate such additions rather than simply blanking such text? It would contribute a lot to our spirit of collaboration, which is such an important hallmark of all of the Wikimedia projects. 24.29.228.33 07:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I've added the section back. As the anon stated, we do keep entries of romanized foreign scripts on Wiktionary. However, the entry does need to reference the corresponding Sanskrit entry (if one exists).--TBC 07:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you; well, then, why don't we do that? Do editors not work together in collaborative fashion here at Wiktionary, as they do at the other Wikimedia projects? I see a lot of punitive actions, that don't seem warranted, rather than an attempt to work together to build this encyclopedia. 24.29.228.33 07:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

We do not keep romanizations of words in languages which use different scripts. This has gone through extensive discussion. The only exception (one which I disagree with, I might add, but that is neither here nor there) is when native speakers use the transliterations themselves. In practice, the only languages currently authorized to use transliterations are east Asian languages, such as Japanese and the Chinese languages. Yes, scholarly papers use transliterations of Sanskrit, but it has been decided that we will not allow such things on Wiktionary. If a word exists in another language, one that uses a Latin script perhaps, then the word needs to be titled, defined, and verified in that language. I have added murali to the Sanskrit request page. Concerning people who do not have access to non-Latin keyboards: First of all, this is becoming more and more rare. Windows Vista, for example, comes preloaded with a number of non-Latin keyboards, including Devanagari. Also, there are a number of alternative approaches, such as searching categories and indeces. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 07:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I've provided several examples of this, but you haven't addressed them. For example, Ahmed, lin, xiexie, Gopala, etc. It really is useful to be able to find the meanings of these without having a Chinese, Devanagari, or other foreign keyboard. At least they should be redirects to the non-Latin script titles. 24.29.228.33 07:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that all the above linked terms should be considered English words for the purpose of Wiktionary? That is confusing because several of them can't really be considered English terms, yet they should be easily and quickly findable by our users. 24.29.228.33 07:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Ahmed is an English name, which comes from Arabic (admittedly, the language of a name is difficult to define, but it's common enough in English speaking counties anyway). Gopala needs to be moved to the Devanagari spelling, and I have tagged it for Sanskrit attention, so that should happen in the near future. The rest are east Asian transliterations, which are currently allowed (a policy with which I disagree). -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 07:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The fact remains that Gopala appears, in Latinized form, with great prolificacy in scholarly English-language publications (source provided above). If even, at minimum, the term "Gopala" is not permitted even as a redirect to the Devanagari-titled entry (which would be illogical and not useful for our users), the term won't be able to be easily found by our users. I believe allowing our users to find the information they need is one of the paramount imperatives for our project, particularly as regards finding common Sanskrit terms that commonly appear in Latinized form in English-language publications. 24.29.228.33 07:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Since there is a BP discussion, we should continue there. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 07:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Please feel free to copy any of my comments which might be relevant to that location, if you would like to respond to them. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 07:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)