text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffries Projects

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus, so keep. --Conti|✉ 03:17, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Jeffries Projects
No claim to notability. Just some buildings with a history of falling apart and housing drug dealers. — Ливай | Ⓣ 01:02, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, what's wrong with drug dealers? Sadly, it has no place here. -mysekurity 01:31, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable. -- M P er el ( talk 02:31, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. A housing development of 18 14-story buildings is pretty notable.  An awful lot of people must have lived in those buildings.  I would say with a population that large it would be comparable to one of the many neighborhoods of Chicago we have articles on.--Pharos 03:34, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Major housing projects are notable enough, see Cabrini-Green and Robert Taylor Homes. I wouldn't have a problem with a merge if this is part of a larger neighborhood within Detroit. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:53, 2005 July 11 (UTC)
 * In fact, I think this could reasonably be put in Category:Detroit neighborhoods itself.--Pharos 04:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Housing projects this size are notable. Capitalistroadster 04:29, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete non notable buildings. JamesBurns 09:06, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete: Unlike Cabrini Green or Robert Taylor Homes, there is no indication that this particular project served any role in history, was the locus of any particular action, or is an exemplar of the misguided project mentality.  The number of persons passing through it is totally irrelevant, because, by that logic, again, every pizzaria in New York City would be more "notable" than the Battle of Little Big Horn.  Rather, it is the effect that a thing has had on the world, and it is that solely because that indicates the likelihood of a need for discussion and explanation and the likelihood of a term being sought by researchers.  There is no rule on tenements, projects, height of buildings, etc.  To suggest such is to abrogate your voting responsibilities entirely in favor of "rubber stamp" votes.  Each article is an individual entity.  Geogre 15:12, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * This is not some corner pizzeria; it was a community of thousands of people. If the community was sited in nice private homes spread out over some suburban tract, presumably there would not be an objection, because there are thousands of such articles on Wikipedia.--Pharos 18:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * There would be an objection from me. We do not cover subdivisions, housing estates, etc.  We don't do that for the rich or the poor.  We only do little subdivisions of perfect homes if they have some interplay with history or the wider culture.  The same should be true of tenements.  Again, saying "lots of people live there" is ridiculous as a criterion for inclusion or deletion.  You don't feel a sudden need to look up 225 Smith Street in Shanghai just because there might be 1,000 people there.  You need to look it up if it has some significance other than being a big box of people, if it has some place in history or politics or literature or some other way in which it needs contextualizing.  To think otherwise is to think that encyclopedias are about good and bad, that they are passing values by inclusion.  Not so.  Geogre 23:59, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. It becomes no less notable for being a notable neighborhood belonging to poor people.  A. J. Luxton 22:31, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying it's not notable because poor people live in it. Rather, because there is no claim to notability in the article, besides simply housing a lot of people. Like Geogre said, how do these buildings affect society at large? Should I be encouraged to write articles on each dormitory complex at my university? After all, lots of people live there, even if there's virtually nothing to say about them, and certainly nothing that would be of any interest or relevance to the wider culture. We live in a world of six billion people. Allowing articles for anything that holds a couple thousand, regardless of whether anything notable ever happened there, would be like allowing an article for every street in every big city. — Ливай | Ⓣ 00:26, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable neighborhood royblumy 00:21, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment How is this article different then one on public housing high rise projects built in the 1950s? Didn't they all go through the same set of problems?  If so, then why is this one so unique that it is encylopedic on its own and not unreasonable to just cover it in a general topic article?  Somehow I don't see the number of complaints being filed as encylopedic.  Vegaswikian 04:45, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * It's not the number of complaints that's encyclopedic. It's the fact that this was a major community of Detroit. Eighteen 14-story buildings is a real residential neighborhood, just as real as the 13 others (Category:Detroit neighborhoods) we have articles on.--Pharos 05:01, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm becoming more of a rabid inclusionist every time I see a needless VfD like this one.  This housing project is notable enough and an interesting part of Detroit's history, a neighborhood of sorts in its own right.  Why delete it?   It's a symbol of, and an important part of, Detroit's particular social culture, especially as it existed in the era of large housing projects.   And it's become a cliche but for heaven's sake, repeat after me, Wikipedia is not paper.  Edit: I've read a bit about this housing development, and have consequently added some to the article as well as added a link.  Actually, this was rather a notable housing development in Detroit (uh, thirteen separate 14-story buildings; don't minimize it), and serves as a symbol of the failures of the high-rise, isolated public-housing model in American cities.  There are many articles about the projects (find them on Google) and I encourage everyone to read the article linked in the article now, from the Detroit News.  This isn't, as someone keeps comparing these supposedly "non-notable" VfD entries to, a random pizzeria.  Moncrief 06:15, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. These housing projects are a big part of how urban America developed itself. Development like that is a big thing in that it drastically affects how a city grows and shapes itself. They are now a big part of urban America's history. They notable, especially these extreme examples. -maclean25 07:11, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Nothing in the article established notability. As they've been mostly destroyed, I don't see how something new could happen that would make them notable.  Maybe they're still known to people from that area, but I don't see how buildings (even large ones) are automatically notable.  Friday 14:42, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notability is a minor concern for a non-paper Wikipedia. It is not a great article, but it could, with expansion and more verifiability, be valuable to researchers. Such concerns are editorial, and not deletion criteria. Dystopos 15:03, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as unencylopedic. Nothing her or in the article has shown that this neighborhood is encylopedic.  It could be mentioned in a list of failed 1950s projects or maybe, if they are different enough, in a failed detroit neighborhood article.  This would not be the place for a researcher to look for information, they would go to the back issues of the local newspapers.  This is not the place for everything non encylopedic.  For this resource to be useful there needs to be quality.  Without quality articles, this wiki will die.  Including articles that should not belong does not help this project.  Notability is not the criteria for admission, however lack of notability is clearly a reason to not include an article.  Noteable articles that are not encylopedic should be deleted.  Vegaswikian 19:09, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. I disagree. Researchers will look here for information on topics that are encyclopedic, even if well below the bar of notability for paper encyclopediae. It is more helpful (and absolutely NOT harmful) to have such information preserved here. This would, of course, include references to the pertinent back issues of local papers. Where there is a lack of "quality", there is an invitation to improve the article, not to axe it. --- And while I'm on it, even if I were going to give "notability" more credit as a criterion for deletion, having witnessed a consensus to keep a fleeting web-meme, I would have to set the bar WELL below the threshold of a major public housing project in a major American city. Dystopos 19:30, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment so a bad decision can be used to justify more? The issue is encylopedic and I don't see that quality in this article.  I do see it for an article about the failed housing projects of the 1950s since they all had similar histories and problems.  For a project to be encylopedic on its own it would have to be rather different then a general article.  I suspect that you and I would agree that some VfD votes keep moving the bar lower and that may not be a good thing if it gets too low.  Vegaswikian 00:48, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * We probably would agree on some. In this case, I think a single housing project is likely to have as much verifiable, encyclopedic info as entire classes of Wikipedia entries both notable and not notable. The fact that the article does not yet contain much of it is an editorial weakness. Deletion doesn't help us. Wikipedia is blessed with the potential to become much more than a paper encyclopedia. Articles like this should be left open to encourage the development of that potential. Dystopos 03:03, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
User talk:Kptocanada

Welcome!
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Tobycat 01:02, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Survey Invite
I'm working on a study of political motivations and how they affect editing. I'd like to ask you to take a survey. The survey should take 5 minutes. Your survey responses will be kept private. Our project is documented at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_%2B_Politics.

Survey Link: http://uchicago.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_80J3UDCpLnKyWTH?Q_DL=eYcEJhpD4guKGZT_80J3UDCpLnKyWTH_MLRP_9nRlsqTJ35g3gfH&Q_CHL=gl

I am asking you to participate in this study because you are a frequent editor of pages on Wikipedia that are of political interest. We would like to learn about your experiences in dealing with editors of different political orientations.

Sincere thanks for your help! Porteclefs (talk) 20:59, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Mariana Froes

A tag has been placed on Mariana Froes requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. PRAXIDICAE💕 22:49, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User talk:Kptocanada


text:
Talk:Romanization of Arabic

Romanization of Arabic
I finally wrote this article per this discussion on the Arabic alphabet article. — J’raxis 01:02:58, 2005-07-11 (UTC)

Headings
I have rearranged the headings since having a distinction between 'common' (whatever that means) and 'academic' transliteration without any content seemed rather pointless. If someone cares to rearrange later content that way, please do! — Moilleadóir 05:27, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Comparison table
The structure (names, IPA, etc.) is based on the tables at Arabic alphabet. If corrections are required you might like to start there. It would be worthwhile expanding the table to show the vowels more completely as in this comparison table. — Moilleadóir 08:39, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

al- or Al- or al or Al
Does anyone know whether there is an emerging scholarly consensus on how to render the Arabic definite article (and its various "soft" variants) in English? And should it be handled differently in proper and common nouns? If anyone does know this, I think it should be incorporated into the article. Babajobu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Babajobu (talk • contribs) 11:30, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia policy Naming conventions (Arabic) is currently under construction, and it's trying to make a consensus around such issues. CG 14:37, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Diacritics not showing
is this a browser issue? I cannot see any diacritics, ṭ etc. in the table. The table on ISO 233 renders correctly for me, with all underdots for emphatics, underscores for fricatives and ǧ for gim, ġ for ghayn. Non of these work for me in the table here. dab (ᛏ) 16:01, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * It might be a browser issue...what browser are you using?

 * The difference between the two is that some of the characters with diacritics in the ISO 233 table have been converted to numeric entities (&#7776; instead of ṣ). I'm hoping it's not going to be necessary to convert every accented character as this would make editing anything intolerable.

 * If the page encoding is showing up as UTF-8 and you have fonts that include these characters, I'd consider getting another browser.

 * —Moilleadóir 02:36, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Is it a browser problem or forgetting to include the Unicode encoding { {unicode|...} }?9abdulla 13:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge from Hans Wehr transliteration
The article Hans Wehr transliteration was recently created by 24.76.5.124. It's not very presentable in its present form, but I have requested that we consider merging it into this article. Now, I'm not sure as to what degree Hans Wehr's system could be called a standard, albeit many Arabic students have his dictionary. It is certainly more of a standard than that ridiculous SATTS thing (which I believe should be removed, or demoted). Please post your thoughts here. --Gareth Hughes 14:32, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Ney to the merge
I think the Hans Wehr transliteration system deserves its own page. Because the transcription should be explained, because it is a very important transliteration system for those who are studying Arabic. If we merge it with the transliteration article then we either lose lots of info, of the details of the transliteration system or we fill a page about Arabic transliteration with too much information about a specific transliteration system. So for the sake of navigatability of each page it should have its own page. BUT it is not a bad idea to add the Hans Wehr transliteration system to that chart that compares transliteration systems. We need the Hans Wehr transliteration system to have its own page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TwoThirty~enwiki (talk • contribs) 13:52, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Merge
I agree that Hans Wehr transliteration ought to have it's own article. The current one is rather barebones, but that can be fixed. Kerowyn 21:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

"SM" system
With this edit, user 24.76.5.124 added a new system called "SM", but didn't identify what that system was. Is anybody familiar with what SM stands for? (I'm presuming this is unrelated to the Hans Wehr system mentioned above.) --Arcadian 04:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I also want to know as this is the only system which uses ğ for غ and I wondered if the system might have been an inspiration for the Latin Turkish alphabet in the 1920s. — Hippietrail (talk) 02:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

SATTS
Does anyone know if the SATTS transliteration for ﺔ changed? As I learned it in the mid-90s, it was a "?", not a "@". (Which is why we used the "$" to signify an actual question mark. Gotta love military logic...) I haven't used SATTS in quite a while so it might have changed, and it's also possible that they taught us jarheads differently. Just wondering if anyone else knows.

Also wondering why, on the chart, it show the final form of the letter, when all the other letters in the chart are shown in their stand-alone form. Shouldn't it be  ﺓ ? Kafziel 21:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Template
I have created ArabDIN for tagging DIN 31635 transliterations (DIN 31635 seemed too impractical to remember), corresponding to IPA, IAST, PIE etc. These should be used instead of generic Unicode, e.g. ʾal-luġatu-l-ʿarabīyatu ʾal-luġatu-l-ʿarabīyatu. I am not sure if this is "the most widely used" transliteration, but it seems to have some de-facto prevalence on Wikipedia (see Arabic language, Arabic grammar). See also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Writing_systems. dab (ᛏ) 11:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Scientific transliteration
The article mentions "scientific transliteration", but doesn't define the term. Which of the systems in the table are "scientific" transliteration?

I'm asking because I created an article for scientific transliteration thinking that the term is only applied to a particular system for the Cyrillic alphabet, but then scientific transliteration began to show up for other writing systems, but I haven't found a definition for the term.

The scientific transliteration system for the Cyrillic alphabet is universally used in linguistics, and rarely seen in other fields. The term applies to a specific system, developed in the late nineteenth century in Europe, which has varied very little. Is this the case for Arabic scientific transliteration? —Michael Z. 2006-02-17 04:45 Z

Using Saddam Hussain as example
Does anyone else see a problem with having the name of Saddam Hussain being the first exmaple in this article on Arabic transliteration? BjarteSorensen 12:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree with you. I'm sure 'Saddam Hussein' was chosen because it is well known. I suggest replacing that example with something a little more palatable. I've been doing disambiguation on various places called Al Mansurah (disambiguation page), which has a quite large number of variant spellings. Otherwise, we might go for a poet like Ahmed Shawqi (but there are not so many variants), or someone on the list of Islamic studies scholars. — Gareth Hughes 13:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Sounds good to me. BjarteSorensen 22:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Please, change it. It's just insulting... Use a poet or scientist or something. Jonas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.83.128.14 (talk) 10:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Using Omar Khayyam as an example
I'm not sure that Omar Khayyam is the best choice of example either, since surely, his surname is Persian (Farsi), not Arabic. Ed Avis (talk) 18:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

 * An Iranian friend tells me that his name is indeed Arabic, even though he wrote his poetry in Persian. Still, it seems a little odd to pick an author writing in some other language as an example for Arabic.Ed Avis (talk) 15:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Romanization of Arabic
I propose to move this article to Romanization of Arabic. Please see Category:Romanization. This would bring the article title nomenclature into line with the other articles. -- Evertype·✆ 12:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Online web transliteration service
Further to existing external links, adding a free transliteration service link to http://www.latkey.com/translit which provides free transliteration service for Microsoft Office, and matches Wiki guidelines.

I suggest reviewing other links as some contain commercial insertions of Google adwords. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanIssa (talk • contribs) 19:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Sure there are other inappropriate links, people just keep adding them, you know. Those need to be removed too, you can help. It does not matter if it's "free" or "useful". Linking to download sites for Microsoft Office plugins to use the online service of a company is not appropriate. There is no encyclopedic content on the site, and it does promote other products of that comany. If you reference and the corresponding user contributions, you'll see that there were repeated attempts to place links in several articles, despite all warnings not to re-add them (including the ignored warning on your own talk page). Not only to the transliteration service but also to the company main page, with link descriptions promoting the keyboard stickers. You will not add any more links to latkey.com, i-keyboard.com, or related domains. Femto 13:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Clean-up
I've redone the introductory paragraph, which seemed awkward to me as it stood. I also did some similar editing work on the Problems section, though there's still some redundancy there in the discussion of sun letters--the subject seems to come up twice. Hope to revisit that. Herbivore 17:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Have completed this little job re: sun letters, and am also re-organizing the Problems section, to make the distinction between transcription and strict transliteration a littler clearer. Am also giving the issue of romanization in non-English languages slightly less prominence, which seems appropriate in the Eng. WP. The transcription/transliteration could be even clearer, IMHO....Herbivore 16:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know why there are both Ibrahims and Ebrahims?
I note that Ibrahim and it's listed names tend to be predominantly Arab and Ebrahim and it's listed names tend to be predominantly Persian. Is it be a 'way back when' geographic and/or religious transliterational difference between Arabic and Persian. Is there an idenifiable source for this difference? Any ideas? Listed names from sub-Saharan Africa seem to show less correlation and may be related to the former colonial power's preference. Appreciated, shokran/memnoonam. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 16:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Maltese alphabet to romanise Arabic?
We have a fully-fledged Roman based Semitic language which can represent all the major Arabic sounds, except for the emphatic ones. These letters Ċ ċ چ (can be used for dialects), Ġ ġ ج may not be important and confusing but these 2 are quite good and, in my opinion, better than numbers:

GĦ għ ع Ħ ħ ح Are they worth using. Do you find any benefit?

I will probably add a link to the Maltese alphabet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maltese_language#Alphabet --Atitarev (talk) 23:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I added this question on Talk:Maltese alphabet. --Atitarev (talk) 23:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Question
If لونجا contains a و, and و is transliterated as "w," how would لونجا be romanized? Would it be "lwnjā"? That seems very strange, but it's what the table seems to recommend. Or is there an unwritten vowel placed between the "l" and "w"? Badagnani (talk) 22:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

loonja Sarah Shaheenbaz Faizi (talk) 17:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

alif maqṣura is not "broken alif"
The article translates the alif-maqsura( ى letter) as "broken alif". The author seems to have confused the letter ق in ألف مقصورة with the letter ك in ألف مكسورة, both which have a k/q sound. Kind of ironic given the context of the article :)

The word مقصورة means approximately "limited" or "bound" possibly among other meanings. Since I'm not an Arabic linguist and don't know the reason for the naming, I don't think I'm qualified to give an accurate translation for that word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.205.204.23 (talk) 03:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Tagging all transliterations by specific standard
It appears that Template:ArabDIN was replaced by Template:transl, which attempts to standardize transliteration tags. It does not seem to include all useful Arabic transliteration standards here, and the abundance of Arabic terms Ive noticed, dont indicate specifically which standard they use. I surmise from specific characters that SAS is used alot here, but that should be indicated. Template:transl appears to need updating if all relevant standards are to be implemented.-Stevertigo 06:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you haven't rtfm. Or I don't understand your point. Use transl regardless of whether you want to specify the transliteration standard used. Use three parameters if you wish to include a string identifying the standard, use two if you just wish to say "this is Arabic". The template doesn't do anything with the "DIN" or "SAS" string, it just keeps it around in case anyone wants to parse it. In this sense, I do not understand what you mean by "implementing all relevant standards". As you are also able to learn from the documentation, the transl template is only intended as a pragmatic measure of limited lifetime. The correct way to handle this in the long term will be via the lang template alone. --dab (𒁳) 09:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Other ways of transliteration
The transliterations in those sections are likely to be made-up. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 03:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the section which appeared to be clearly made-up. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 13:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

But why have You removed this transliteration from the page? إ.شرفي، the creator of this system. قل من فضلك، لمذا فعلت هذا، يا صاحب؟ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.220.33.64 (talk) 16:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC) Improve, but don't remove! - that's I wish You —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.220.33.64 (talk) 11:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

SEHL
Another recent Transliteration of Arabic must be added to the Table. That is of SEHL Arabic-Latin-Arabic Transliteration. SEHL copies all Arabic writing styles, and is much simpler than those mentioned in this article.

Zaljohar (talk) 09:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Salám, iá Zaljohar! Kaifa ălhál? This is شرفي writing to You. I've visited a page, where this system is situated. It's quite good! (I'll try to add the SEHL to the table). Before those two, which are in the table, I have created some systems very similar to SEHL, using different varieties of letters T, S and D. (But stroked T I use for ث). And I also have my full system: HaRFabet, finished in October, 2010, which represents all Arabic harakatas.

Can I give you some advice? For example it will be better (well, why better? it's only my point of view), if the tanwin will be indicated as ¨ for an, " for un, and .. for in. Short vowels in the end of the word is also possible to indicate as: . - for kasra; ' - for damma; · - for fatha. Ø is likely to be smaller than letters or even above them, like in Arabic script. As for me, I use the diacritical hook from Unicode above the letter instead of ø.

P.S. It may be a strange coincidence, but some days before I was also transcribing súraë alfátihaë! (In ALFB system). You can also advise me something. Let's collaborate here! سلام —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.220.33.64 (talk) 17:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Would you please, refer to original research. Those methods of transliteration aren't referenced from a reliable source. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 17:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm the main source of those transliterations because of being their author (ALFB NewWay and SIMPLine). And I have a large amount of experience in this sphere. I also have an educational transliteration sytem, which is difficult to type here. (The HaRFabet). If it is possible, could you give me a possibility to have a page in Wikipedia, called NewWay Romanization of Arabic, where I will be able to describe my romanizaton systems and mention the sources, which helped me to create my transliteration alphabets. Help me, if You could! - to Mahmudmasri from شرفي —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.220.33.64 (talk) 21:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Selam شرفي, this is Zaljohar writing to you: I like the idea of collaboration between us: as regards your proposal for the tenoiyn (tanwin), the reason why I didn't choose en,un,in as you suggested, is because SEHL is a bidirectional system from Arabic to Romanization and backwards from Romanization to Arabic, and in such a system one cannot use your suggestion because this will create a confusion with words ending with ُ or َ  or  ِ  followed by ن example:  لَن ، كُن ، بِن  all those will be transliterated according to your suggestion to kun, bin, len, and then back-transliterated to كٌ و لً و بٍ, you see my point!

That's why i chose eŋ,uŋ,iŋ instead of en,un,in. also the long limb in ŋ gives the phonetic impression of the long noon present in tanwin when spoken in Arabic.

As for the matter of ø, I think it is better not to put it as a superscript, since it is not desired to put a lot of superscript material in SEHL, also there is no need to shrink it, since it is will make it unclear, the beauty about ø is that it is incorporated within the word without giving the sense of cutting the word into smaller words, therefore it is better to keep it at the same size as other letters in the word.

As regards the terminal diacritics,I adopted your suggestion at earlier systems of mine, but later I omitted them, since this will increase the complexity of the script.

I shall further examine your system and discuss it with you.

Selam to Mahmudmasri from Zaljohar: I don't know if you were addressing me when you requested Original research, since I already pointed out clearly in my website that SEHL is my own system of Transliteration, and that website is the original source, and according to Wikipedia policy this is acceptable.

Quote:

Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

1. the material is not unduly self-serving; 2. it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities); 3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; 4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; 5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Zaljohar (talk) 09:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Marhaban iá Zaljohar! (m.n شرفي) Explanation for kun, bin, len according to my HaRFabet Dotted system: when it is tanwín, I transcribe them: k", b.., l¨ . When it is a combination: káf+damma+nún = k'n ; bá*+kasra+nún = b.n ; lám+fatha+nún = l·n . When I work with Unicode, I always place these harakatas up and under (for kasra) the letters, to represent the native Arabic system. Of course, if someone uses both letters and dot-comma system, it can be a confusion, but I try to indicate only long vowels in this case: k.t·ab" , d·ft·r" , q·an'un" - you know: book, note-book, law. The other way to indicate tanwins - un = ; an = :   in = ,

(I have also another system for vowels and semi-vowels: (hamza in all my alphabets is º or *)

chain for alif: º - ə - a; for waw: w - v - u; for ya: y - j - i; E.g.: rəfiq; kvtvb; ĉjnaq). As you have mentioned, the chains consist of consonant, short vowel and long vowel.

This summer I also have a thought to indicate long vowels by combination of a letter for harakata and long vowel (like your ea), but I prefered dots and comma instead of your e, u and i - I find  them more compact, that's why I use them. I think, it's our greatest difference. إلی اللقاء

Selam toشرفي from Zaljohar. That dot system you are using, I personally see it as too abstract, it is more suitable for mathematical symbols rather than words, second: it not cosmetically acceptable, and this practice is generally alien to that used in most languages (other than mathematical,logical and Morse). I agree with you, that this is the main point of difference between us.

By the way, it is not 'ME' who represent long vowels as a combination of a short vowel and a letter, this practice is genuine Arabic writing practice, SEHL system only transliterate the basic characters in Arabic, but it keeps most relations between them as in Original Arabic writing.

Zaljohar (talk) 09:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

S·lam, Zaljohar! (مِن شرفي) I know this fact, that this system is native Arabic - we, of cource, only represent it in different ways which are similar in general! And what can I say about my dotted system - it helps to save place and it is also good for some dialects, like maghribi.

Well, to be more philosophical, I'd like to say some statements: ا Modern computers begin to be more and more friendly to Arabic language, so it is rather simpler to type Arabic, than to use accurate transliteration. So, ideal transliteration must combine the benefits of traditional systems as well as of our systems and don't use strange for many people symbols. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.220.33.64 (talk) 15:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

ب We must realize, that a romanization system doesn't seem to be very popular in all spheres of life. Your, for example, is wonderful to work with some programs, my sistem is more likely to be used in books or newspapers? ج And also - one of the aims of Romanization is educational targets: to learn people, who don't know Arabic, how to read serious texts in Arabic. (My dots, I think, can help to get used to harakatas) د The greatest thing is tradition, so new transliterations are always living in exile! I think, the same thing was with nearly any new alphabet, even in ancient time. If the socety adopted some systhems - they are popular, even if they are not cosmetically acceptable. Have You ever seen the modern latin-based Vietnamese script? It's too complicated: every tone is indicated by a diacritic up or under the letter... It is a hard job for unprepared people to use it, but it has become accepted, and it's in use. I think, to make a new transliteration accepted everywhere someone must to print some editions using them or even work with government! What do you think about including in SEHL little low a (like ª but placed on the line to represent a rare harakata - the subscribed *elif?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.220.33.64 (talk) 15:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Selam شرفي from Zaljohar.

Thanks a lot for your nice account on transliteration systems. As regards your last suggestion about the little low a, this is of course possible. SEHL,that I wrote, is only a prototype, that's why I only included common characters used in Arabic writing, but of course it can be developed further to EXTENDED SEHL, but provided further extensions to SEHL must obey the general philosophy SEHL began with in the first place. For example some languages using Arabic alphabet has the letter Arabic dal with Arabic ttaa above it, this can be represented in EXTENDED SEHL by d followed by a superscript ŧ. Of course for the rare harakat of subscribed alif, of course you can use a subscribed a. Further extensions to SEHL would be interesting (I assume), but frankly speaking, I don't have the time to explore its ramifications, nor the will for that. I hope some people might find SEHL interesting, since it is very simple actually, and above all it copies *All* Arabic writing styles in a naive manner actually, it is very clear, since it doesn't use a lot of diacritics, and doesn't have a lot of complicated abstractions, also it incorporates historical letters in Latin, and so it revives them, and add a lot to education about Latin also. On the other hand SEHL incorporate some of the IPA characters, and doing so, it introduces its readers to recent stuff about Latin. So in short it encompass the past, as well as the present, and provide a base for the future.

I need some time to study your systems, but the problem nowadays is that I am too busy unfortunately. Can you contact me via e-mail: my e-mail is: zaljohar@yahoo.com

Thanks a lot.

Zaljohar (talk) 17:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup table

 * 1) Aren't the diacritic marks too redundant for the table to be written? Normally, Arabic texts aren't written with diacritics.
 * 2) (SATTS, Qalam, Buckwalter) are defunct.
 * 3) (ALFB, SIMPLine, SEHL) are original research transliterations. Their sources aren't reliable. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 14:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Answers to the Cleanup table

 * 1) Any transliteration of Arabic ignoring diacritics is incomplete, and make no sense at all.
 * 2) SEHL is permitted to be used according to wikipedia standards, although the citation is self published.

See:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_source

The following is a quote from that page:

Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

1. the material is not unduly self-serving; 2. it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities); 3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; 4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; 5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

And since the citation provided for SEHL is on itself, and satisfies all the above requirements, then it is a reliable source.

Zaljohar (talk) 17:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

شُکرًا جزیلاً You make good thing - you help us to make Wikipedia absolutely free encyclpoedia and protect rights of Wikipedia's users. To Zaljohar مِن شرفي —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.220.33.64 (talk) 21:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

 * It appears SEHL has been removed since, without discussion here. — Sebastian 01:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Harmonizing list and table, and minor cleanups
I found it hard to map the table to the list above, and therefore formatted the list so that it expresses the correlation more clearly.

In the process, I also removed the following:
 * " /e +double consonant " in "chat" column. It sounds like the rendering of "l" as pronounced before a sun letter, which is common in most romanizations, and not special for chat.
 * Hidden comment: "(SATTS, Qalam, Buckwalter, ALFB, SIMPLine, SEHL) the defunct & the original research transliterations should be removed". Such comments belong on the talk page. Moreover, it is not up to date, as some of these have been removed already. — Sebastian 01:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Repeat letters in table?
Currently, the table is built such that letters are not repeated when they are the same in adjacent cells. As for me, I find this harder to read, because it does not allow reading down a column. I therefore would like to change it. However, there is something nice about the current layout, namely that it doesn't have borders between like cells. There is a way to keep that like this:

But it's a lot of work to do this. Basically, I have to redo the table from scratch, and I'd only want to do this if there is agreement that it's an improvement. So my question is: Is this worth it? — Sebastian 02:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

 * The reason why I removed the borders and removed their repetitions was to make it quicker and easier for the eye to compare schemes, since it is a comparison table. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 11:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

References?
Does this article have sufficient references? RJFJR (talk) 17:11, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

No Wikiking666 (talk) 11:11, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Original standard symbols
Note 4 on the table states:

"The original standard symbols for these schemes for transliterating hamzah and ʻayn is by Modifier letter apostrophe ⟨ʼ⟩ and Modifier letter turned comma ⟨ʻ⟩, respectively. However, there is a common practice to instead use Right single quotation mark ⟨’⟩ and Left single quotation mark ⟨‘⟩, respectively. The glottal stop (hamzah) in these romanizations isn't written word-initially."

It refers to UNGEGN (1972), ALA–LC (dating to 1949?), and Wehr Dictionary (1952, 1961, 1979) romanizations. Seems dubious, since these romanization systems mainly precede the concept of “modifier letter” in computer text encoding, and probably computer text encoding in its modern form altogether.

Incidentally, Wehr (1979) uses a reversed comma ( ʽ ) for the ‘ayn, not a standard apostrophe form resembling a figure 6 ( ʻ ) – don’t know about other editions. —Michael Z. 2013-11-07 19:51 z

 * What to do, the article Hans Wehr transliteration did not use the ring symbols and I couldn't find any source to prove so. The sources I found used the modifier letters. The names mentioned for the symbols are the names in Unicode, not the names of the symbols before the creation of Unicode. The intention was to let readers understand that the symbols used on computers to represent them are different, because many fonts show little or no difference. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 23:42, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Arabeasy
If the table contains some defunct standards (SATTS, Qalam, Buckwalter), surely a proposal, Arabeasy, which has been published by a peer reviewed journal, deserves to be included. It is of vital importance to Arab learners from roman alphabet backgrounds for reasons mentioned in the article, and as far as I know the most easily typable and usable non-phonetic system. Lack of mass penetration is not an argument to blocking it on Wikipedia because in that way you are stifling new ideas and innovations, and censuring users from knowing what exists. 124.149.132.231 (talk) 14:00, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Mahmudmasri, you have continued to delete the arabeasy section of this page without providing a counter argument, please explain. 00:55, 28 August 2014 Mahmudmasri (talk | contribs). . (30,086 bytes) (-160). . (→Comparison table: no more transliterations) (undo) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.135.165 (talk) 01:02, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

❌
 * That discussion indicates that Arabeasy should not be included in the article: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ArabEasy (software). --Mahmudmasri (talk) 20:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

ISO 233-2 Simplified
Could anybody confirm this system? The letters in the table like đ, đ̣, ř, ŧ looks very suspicious. It may be a falsification of the actual standard. --Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 16:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

SAS and Buckwalter
I think SAS could be hardly seen in any English language text, so it is a very rare system. Its best place in Spanish Wikipedia, where it belongs rightfully. Buckwalter may not be created for humans, but it is used by humans, at least in quran.com. I also saw it in other places, it is worth its place in the table.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 11:54, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * And BATR is hardly a substitution for Buckwalter. BATR is one among dozens of "proposed" and "the best" schemes from around the web, we cannot list them all.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 12:08, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Arabic romanization in Indonesia
In Indonesia, we have a comprehensive system for romanize Arabic texts, including our Al-Qur'an. Link here: https://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pedoman_alih_aksara_Arab_ke_Latin. Muhammad Hidayat (talk) 02:42, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Opposite order of dipththongs and long vowels in Comparison table
Please, the elements should be read from right to left --Backinstadiums (talk) 21:48, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Done.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 09:52, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

"Principal standards and systems are: ...."
The systems listed here - apart of "chat" - are hardly 1% of all instances of romanisation use. E.g. EI - this system is used in Encyclopaedia of Islam only. Is it one millionth of all texts in romanized Arabic? No, it is not.

Most common romanizations, offical and not, are not spoken about. 46.242.13.62 (talk) 05:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Who's DIN??? Is Deutsches Institut für Normung any more influential when it comes to romanizing Arabic, than any Nigerian institution? I don't think than in 19th century (early 20th century if you need q and not ḳ) Germany where the alphabet was already in use anyone prophesized that DIN would "develop" it in 1982. 46.242.13.62 (talk) 12:06, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

What I mean: I believe, romanisation of Arabic is "representation of the Arabic language with the Latin script". This is "short description" in the article and I believe it is accurate.

The central part is the table. The table is for standards and systems. Moreover it is for a certain kind of them. It is easy to find content and sources for such a table, but the table is sort of "greedy". This ease of filling it with stuff whose prominence by WP standards is seems easy to demonstrate - everyone knows UN, many here know ISO, people who're into electronics know DIN... - makes it dictate what the article is about.

Why "seems"? The organisations are prominent. But what about application? Where exactly UNGEGN's current system is used? Arab countries also have institutions and standards. If we have DIN here, what about them?

As long as the table is the article's core you won't read here about some of the most widespread approaches (e.g. "aa" for long a - I see it daily!!! Native speakers, teaching, occasionally linguistics articles) and I won't find here answers to some of my questions (e.g. do they share some romanization methods in schools in Arab countries?).46.242.13.62 (talk) 12:48, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

New one
https://www.facebook.com/gubayev.marat/posts/2531039703776893 Example: http://crh2.ugu.pl/#ARABIC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.114.147.158 (talk) 18:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Spelling changes over time
Discussion moved from Talk:Omar:

if we can source some of this discussion to reliable sources, it would be a very valuation addition to this article. Frankly my interest in the Omar/Umar title is much more about my keenness to understand how this changed over time and what the path to consensus around a truly standardized system looks like (the Chinese authorities were able to impose it with Pinyin; the decentralization of the Arab world makes that impossible).

Have you come across any sources that would allow us to cite the following three sentences in this article?
 * 1) "20th-century Arabists have taken it upon themselves to strictly adhere to one transliteration system throughout every individual publication" Ideally we would state exactly which system - which one of the list in this article are you referring to?
 * 2) "Arabists do not discuss orthography anymore, and explicitly regard their use of transliteration as a non-orthographic convention."
 * 3) "...words using 'o' are probably a legacy of 19th- or even 18th-century orthography"

Onceinawhile (talk) 07:06, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

 * Hello Onceinawhile, thank you for moving this here! I'm afraid that what I wrote above (as well as below) is based on my own long experience of reading secondary literature written by Arabists rather than on any written source, though when I hit upon such a source I will make sure to let you know!

 * As for your queries, the lack of standards for Arabic transliteration is even worse than you think: this article lists a number of codified standards (there are in fact many more which are not listed here), but the reality is that, with the exception of DIN 31635, they are very rarely adhered to as a standard. What actually happens in practice is that every publisher, every journal, at times just the editorial team of an edited volume, imposes their very own transliteration scheme. This scheme is very strictly adhered to throughout the publication for which it is devised, and it is only the rigorous consistency of following such a scheme itself that differentiates 20th-century practice from older, more anarchic practices.

 * Another misleading aspect of our WP article here is that it obscures the fact that in practice, almost all anglophone publications choose one of two transliteration schemes: either DIN 31635 (a guestimated 4.9% of publications; mostly adhered to very strictly; it is the standard everywhere in the German-speaking world), or a system closely resembling ALA-LC (though ʾ and ʿ for hamza and ayn are much more common than ʼ and ʻ, and á for alif maqsura rather than ā is extremely rare to non-existent; a guestimated 95% of publications use something resembling this). So most of the systems listed in this article are never used in anglophone publications, while the one that is used most often is actually not listed!

 * One common thread through all these systems is that they are very consciously used to transliterate Arabic, not to coin a specific spelling for English words deriving from Arabic. Modern Arabists don't want to and don't have to discuss whether the most prevalent or 'correct' spelling is Koran or Kuran, because they will use Qurʾān anyways, without any pretension of establishing this as dictionary orthography. But if popular usage now often prefers Qur'an (which in Wikipedia WP:MOSAR terms would be the 'basic transcription'), the usage among Arabists is very likely to have something to do with that.

 * Anyways, this is all still just to give you some basic info drawing upon professional experience. I have no sources for this, and since I have no personal interest in this topic, I do not plan to work on this article. As I said, I will let you know when I find something relevant though! ☿  Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 13:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , thank you. This is very interesting, I will have to read it a couple of times more to fully digest it.
 * I have been mulling over one sentence you wrote: What actually happens in practice is that every publisher, every journal, at times just the editorial team of an edited volume, imposes their very own transliteration scheme. This scheme is very strictly adhered to throughout the publication for which it is devised Surely this is what Wikipedia should do too.
 * Would you be interested in working with me on a mini-project to create Arabic conventions for Wikipedia, such as we have for other languages at Romanization (see also Category:Wikipedia naming conventions and Category:Wikipedia romanization systems)?
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 22:54, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello ! That mini-project you speak of is called Manual of Style/Arabic. It was called a 'proposal' from its inception in 2005, and was declared 'dormant' in 2017 (after it hadn't been edited in almost a year), but in practice it really functions as a guideline and serves as Wikipedia's own Arabic transliteration scheme (though it is in some regards not at all adhered to). If you'd be interested to work on it, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Arabic would be the place. I'm watching it, so if you post there I will probably chime in (as will perhaps some others).
 * But actually, although I do think that a reworked and officially 'guidelined' version of WP:MOSAR could be helpful, I'm not in favor of imposing one transliteration scheme on all WP articles. I think the first thing such a guideline should tell editors to do after using 'common transcription' (non-systematic transcriptions which just are the most common, like Osama bin Laden or Mohamed Morsi, and which should always be used if they exist), is to use one transcription system consistently throughout the article. Somewhat like WP:ENGVAR, it would be better to stress consistency first, and let it be changed only by local consensus on the talk page. Then I would have the guideline recommend a strict transliteration system based on ALA-LC, with enough alternative options for those things which often vary between publications (‘ or ʿ for ayn, -a or -ah for ta marbuta, al- or ar- for sun letters, etc.). Finally, and most controversially, I would get rid of 'basic transcription', and recommend to use strict transliteration for everything that is not 'common transcription' or looks almost identical in strict transliteration (if it were up to me, Muhammad would be Muḥammad and Jabir ibn Hayyan would be Jābir ibn Ḥayyān).
 * So yeah, that's all if it were up to me. But I've never engaged with this because I know very well that it is not up to me, and I don't really feel like putting all my wiki-energy in something like this. If you do, however, I would always be glad to help. ☿  Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 20:33, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello ! That mini-project you speak of is called Manual of Style/Arabic. It was called a 'proposal' from its inception in 2005, and was declared 'dormant' in 2017 (after it hadn't been edited in almost a year), but in practice it really functions as a guideline and serves as Wikipedia's own Arabic transliteration scheme (though it is in some regards not at all adhered to). If you'd be interested to work on it, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Arabic would be the place. I'm watching it, so if you post there I will probably chime in (as will perhaps some others).
 * But actually, although I do think that a reworked and officially 'guidelined' version of WP:MOSAR could be helpful, I'm not in favor of imposing one transliteration scheme on all WP articles. I think the first thing such a guideline should tell editors to do after using 'common transcription' (non-systematic transcriptions which just are the most common, like Osama bin Laden or Mohamed Morsi, and which should always be used if they exist), is to use one transcription system consistently throughout the article. Somewhat like WP:ENGVAR, it would be better to stress consistency first, and let it be changed only by local consensus on the talk page. Then I would have the guideline recommend a strict transliteration system based on ALA-LC, with enough alternative options for those things which often vary between publications (‘ or ʿ for ayn, -a or -ah for ta marbuta, al- or ar- for sun letters, etc.). Finally, and most controversially, I would get rid of 'basic transcription', and recommend to use strict transliteration for everything that is not 'common transcription' or looks almost identical in strict transliteration (if it were up to me, Muhammad would be Muḥammad and Jabir ibn Hayyan would be Jābir ibn Ḥayyān).
 * So yeah, that's all if it were up to me. But I've never engaged with this because I know very well that it is not up to me, and I don't really feel like putting all my wiki-energy in something like this. If you do, however, I would always be glad to help. ☿  Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 20:33, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Romanization Issues Section Largely POV and OR
I just dug thru the history of the section to try to figure out if the list of issues originally had some source for which we could add a citation—there doesn't seem to be. There doesn't seem to be. At present, two claims have some citational backing. The rest seem to be personal opinion. Perhaps someone would like to try to clean this up and get it to a good Wikipedia standard. If not, I'd like to delete it. Pathawi (talk) 08:10, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

 * I agree that we should delete the problematic sections. They are pretty poorly written.
 * Unrefined Gasoline (talk) 15:55, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Paragraph with Confusing Grammar and Non-Encyclopedic Language
The paragraph which states "the same sound in the Arabic script, e.g. alif ا vs. alif maqṣūrah ى for the sound /aː/ ā, and the six different ways (ء إ أ آ ؤ ئ) of writing the glottal stop (hamza, usually transcribed ʼ ). This sort of detail is needlessly confusing, except in a very few situations (e.g., typesetting text in the Arabic script)." should be removed in my opinion. I'd do it myself but it's a major edit and I'm not sure if it's okay for me to do. The first sentence doesn't really make sense at all, and the second sentence is too opinionated for Wikipedia. Unrefined Gasoline (talk) 15:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

To add to article
Explanation to add to this article: exactly why ال is romanized "el" rather than "al" in Egyptian Arabic. Is it actually also pronounced "el" rather than "al"? 98.123.38.211 (talk) 18:15, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Romanization of Arabic


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ZAG

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Conti|✉ 03:40, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

ZAG
Seems to be a hoax, google returns zero hits. PrologFan 01:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Neologism, probably just a joke. — Ливай | Ⓣ 01:07, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, probably a hoax. Jaxl 01:12, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as hoax. -mysekurity 01:33, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Unverifiable. The article helpfully tells us that the organization lacks any tangible existence.  There's nothing to rewrite about, moreover. Although quite a few ZAG University departments exist, Zentrum für Angewandte Geowissenschaften and Zentrum für Anthropologie und Gender Studies aren't the English names that they are known by. Delete.  Uncle G 01:42, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, no evidence such an organization actually exists. -- M P er el ( talk 02:34, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Appears to be a hoax or is not noteworthy. The irony in the ZAG is pretty funny. DarthVader 02:46, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete seems more like a bad joke and unverifiable. Poli (talk • contribs) 08:29, 2005 July 11 (UTC)
 * Delete hoax. JamesBurns 09:07, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Hoax. royblumy 00:21, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Abstain Original author here... perhaps it should be deleted: ZAG is indeed a joke. I guess the question is whether the joke is widespread enough to make note here.  Or perhaps just the article tone is wrong.  Much like TLA and GNU, ZAG is an amusing self referential joke on the tendancy to turn everything into an acronym.  I guess calling it an organization is misleading... it's just that that is the form of the joke: someone complains about acronyms, and then the jokester asks if they'd like to join the association for "zero acronym growth", or ZAG.  Ha ha ha.  Well, that's the deal.  If it should be deleted based on that, I won't argue.  If it should be modified, that sounds good too.  Thanks.  05:00,, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I just made an attempt to wikify and expand the page. It isn't a hoax, simply a joke that I believe deserves an explanation. -- Reinyday 16:27, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, is it a notable joke? How popular is it? There are no Google hits for "zero acronym growth", and I can't fathom why an English-language joke notable enough for an encyclopedia would not appear anywhere on the web. — Ливай | Ⓣ 23:51, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, neologism. Dcarrano 00:31, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

title: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ZAG


text:
Provisional Government of the Republic of Poland

The Provisional Government of the Republic of Poland (Rząd Tymczasowy Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej, RTRP) was created by the State National Council (Krajowa Rada Narodowa) on the night of 31 December 1944.

Background
The Provisional Government of the Republic of Poland was created to take the place of the previous governmental body, the Polish Committee of National Liberation (Polski Komitet Wyzwolenia Narodowego or PKWN). Because of its location in Lublin, the PKWN was also known as the "Lublin Committee". The establishment of the RTRP was an important step in strengthening the control of the Polish Workers' Party and the Soviet Union in Poland.

Creation
On 1 January 1945, the Polish Committee of National Liberation became the Provisional Government of Republic of Poland. In London, the Polish government-in-exile protested. They issued a declaration that the Soviet Union had "taken over the sovereign political rights of the Polish nation." The governments of Winston Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt also issued formal protest, but they took no further action.

The Provisional Government of the Republic of Poland did not recognize the Polish government-in-exile and proclaimed itself to be the legitimate government of Poland. Initially, the RTRP was only officially recognized by the Soviet Union. But before the Yalta Conference, Joseph Stalin conveyed his intention to the Western Allies that Poland was under the control of the Soviet Union and that he intended for it to stay that way. The RTRP was given control of the Polish territories seized by the Red Army as it advanced westward.

The RTRP was chaired by the previous Prime Minister of PKWN, Edward Osóbka-Morawski. The Deputy Prime Ministers of the RTRP were Władysław Gomułka of the Polish Workers' Party (PPR, for Polska Partia Robotnicza) and Stanisław Janusz from People's Party. The Minister of defense was Michał Rola-Żymierski. The Minister of Security was Stanisław Radkiewicz.

The Polish Workers' Party declared that the RTRP was to be a coalition, but in practice all key posts were controlled by PPR. Semi-official control of the RTRP was exercised by Soviet General Ivan Serov. Some Polish Communists, like Władysław Gomułka and Edward Ochab, were opposed to this excessive Soviet control. However, they could do little to change the existing status quo.

On 18 January, the RTRP was relocated from Lublin to Warsaw.

From 30 January to 2 February, the heads of government of the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States— Joseph Stalin, Winston Churchill, Franklin D. Roosevelt, respectively — attended preliminary discussions on the Yalta Conference in Malta.

From 4 February to 12 February, the heads of government of the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union attended the Yalta Conference in the Crimea. At Yalta, the following "Joint Allied Declaration on Poland" was developed:

"The three heads of governments consider that the Eastern frontier of Poland should follow the Curzon line, with digressions from it in some regions of five to eight kilometers in favor of Poland. They recognize that Poland must receive substantial of accessions of territory in the north and west. They feel that the opinion of the new Polish Provisional Government of National Unity should be sought in due course on the extent of these accessions, and that the final delimitation of the Western frontier of Poland should thereafter await the Peace Conference."

On 7 February, Churchill documented the following discussion while at Yalta:

"How soon,' asked the President, 'will it be possible to hold elections?'

'Within a month,' Stalin replied, 'unless there is some catastrophe at the front, which is improbable.'

'I said that this would of course set our minds at rest, and we could wholeheartedly support a freely elected Government which would supersede everything else, but we must not ask for anything which would in any way hamper the military operations.'"

On 23 April, Soviet diplomat Vyacheslav Molotov was in Washington, DC. President Harry S. Truman and the United States Department of State appealed to Molotov for a compromise on the "Polish question". On the same day, Prime Minister Edward Osóbka-Morawski of the RTRP announced the following at a press conference:

"We need people who agree with our foreign policy and with our social reforms. Only such a government can do its work properly. We need the collaboration of men who accept the Yalta decisions, not only formally, but in fact.  We are making every effort to contact such people.  What we do not want are Fascists . .."

Provisional Government of National Unity replaces the RTRP
On 28 June 1945, the Provisional Government of Republic of Poland (Rząd Tymczasowy Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej) was transformed into the more coalition-like Provisional Government of National Unity (Tymczasowy Rząd Jedności Narodowej). This was promised by Stalin at Yalta and done by him as gesture of good will towards the Western Allies and Polish government-in-exile in London.


text:
User talk:Hml111

Welcome!
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Tobycat 01:02, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Hml111


text:
Abd Manaf ibn Qusai

Abd Manaf al-Mughirah ibn Qusai (عبد مناف ٱلمغيرة بن قصي, ʿAbd Manāf al-Mughīrah ibn Quṣayy) was a Qurayshi and great-great-grandfather of the Islamic prophet Muhammad. His father was Quṣai ibn Kilāb.

Biography
Abd Manaf was already honoured in his father's lifetime however Qusai preferred his first-born 'Abd ad-Dar and invested him with all his rights, powers, and transferred the ownership of the House of Assembly shortly before his death.

Father's death
After Quṣayy's death, Abd Manaf contested this inheritance. He was supported by their nephew Asad, their uncle Zuhrah ibn Kilab, their father's uncle Taym ibn Murrah (of Banu Taym), and al-Harith ibn Fihr, while 'Abd ad-Dar was supported by their cousins Makhzum, Sahm, Jumah, their uncle Adi and their families. The effects of this conflict continued among their descendants, especially under Abd Manaf's son Hashim and affected the internal history of Mecca right up to Muhammad's time.

Family
Abdu Manaf married several wives of influential tribes, including 'Ātikah bint Murrah ibn Hilāl ibn Fālij ibn Dhakwān ibn Hilal ibn Sa'sa'ah ibn Mu'awiyah ibn Bakr ibn Hawazin al-Hilaliyya of Bani Qays Aylan, Hilal of the Banu Bakr ibn Hawāzin, Raytah of Ta'if, and Waqida bint Amr.

Origin of tribes of Quraysh
Abd Manaf had three wives:

1. Atikah bint Murrah al-Hulaliyya
 * a. Muttalib ibn Abd Manaf, Founder/ancestor of Banu Muttalib
 * b. Amr-al-Ula/Hashim ibn Abd Manaf, Founder/ancestor of Banu Hashim
 * c. Abd Shams/Qays-al-Ula ibn Abd Manaf, Founder/ancestor of Banu Abd Shams
 * d. Tumadir bint Abd Manaf al-Quraishiyya
 * e. Qilabah bint Abd Manaf al-Quraishiyya
 * f. Hayyah bint Abd Manaf al-Quraishiyya
 * g. Rayta bint Abd Manaf al-Quraishiyya
 * h. Khathma bint Abd Manaf al-Quraishiyya
 * i. Sufyanah bint Abd Manaf al-Quraishiyya

2. Rayta bint Ku'ayb al-Thaqafiyya
 * a. Abd ibn Abd Manaf
 * b. Abd-al-Amr ibn Abd Manaf

3. Waqidah bint Amr al-Qurayshiyya al-Amiriyya
 * Nawfal ibn Abd Manaf, Founder/ancestor of Banu Nawfal

Death and burial
The grave of Abd Manaf can be found in Jannatul Mualla cemetery, in Mecca.

title: Abd Manaf ibn Qusai


text:
Aggro Berlin

Aggro Berlin was a German hip-hop independent record label based in Berlin that existed from 1 January 2001 until 1 April 2009. Three artists (Sido, Tony D and Kitty Kat) were signed with the label at the time of its closure. Since the end of 2007, it used to be a sub-label of Universal.

"Aggro" is German slang for having an aggressive attitude (as in British English).

History
The label was founded on 1 January 2001 by Berlin rappers Specter, Spaiche and Halil. The first signed artists were Sido and B-Tight. Later, the label also signed Bushido. The same year it released EP Das Mic und ich by A.i.d.S (formerly Royal TS) on the label, which was the first release of Aggro Berlin. In 2002 released the two samplers ''Aggro Ansage Nr. 1 and Aggro Ansage Nr. 2'', which contains tracks by its signed artists. Fler was also featured on the second sampler, but he had not yet signed on to the label. Bushido and Fler released, in the same year, the collabo album, entitled Carlo Cokxxx Nutten.

In 2003, Aggro Berlin released Bushido's debut album Vom Bordstein bis zur Skyline, which was indexed by the BPjM (Federal Department for Media Harmful to Young People).

Later, in 2004, Sido's debut album, Maske sold more than 100,000 copies in less than a month. In September of that year, the rapper won a prestigious German music award for "Best Newcomer", but his album had been indexed.

In June 2004, Bushido left the label and signed with Universal.

G-Hot's contract ran out in Autumn 2006. After the song "Keine Toleranz" (No Tolerance) appeared on the internet in July 2007, Aggro Berlin renounced any further business association with him. The song, which featured Boss A, discriminates against homosexuals and calls to kill homosexuals. It was not officially released by any label and G-Hot stated that it had been recorded many years prior to its leak and was never intended to be released.

According to Sido and Fler in an interview with the German hip-hop magazine Juice, Aggro Berlin has not been a fully independent label since October 2007 but now collaborates with Universal Records.

title: Aggro Berlin


text: File:Surfin'USACover.jpg

title: File:Surfin'USACover.jpg


text:
User:RyanSaotome

Ryan Saotome is the internet alias for Ryan Baer of Baltimore, Maryland. Ryan Baer is most well known for being a former editor at the video game website Gamerankings, and also known through many video game circles, and also among the Exiles of Gamerankings. His main hobbies are video games, watching sports, and listening to music.

title: User:RyanSaotome


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MentalBot

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Conti|✉ 03:41, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

MentalBot
Somewhere between "not notable" and "vanity". There are some 26000 hits for the Beehive Forums, which might merit an article (although not in my opinion). However, the bot itself gets very few hits, and none from the aforementioned article. Nothing links here, and only two edits -- from the same anonymous user -- grace the article. Avriette 01:07, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

 * Add "nonsense" to above two reasons. Avriette 01:11, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete. yea, seems kinda pointless and nn to me. In agreement with Avriette -mysekurity 01:37, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nonsense. -- M P er el ( talk 02:36, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete whatever the hell it thinks it is. The nominator is too generous: it is nowhere between nn and vanity: it's absurdity from otherwhere. -Splash 04:31, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I would have said but probably people would have called me prejudiced, or a deletionist, or whatever. I figured it wasn't a speedy, and that the vfd would bear it out. Last time I thought something was completely deletable, 40mm grenade, the article was vastly expanded within a week. I am generally not generous. Avriette 07:14, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete nonsense. Poli (talk • contribs) 08:33, 2005 July 11 (UTC)
 * Delete Nonsense. royblumy 00:21, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
George Gordon First Nation

The George Gordon First Nation (ᐳᓵᑲᓇᒌᕽ posâkanacîhk) is a First Nations band government located near the village of Punnichy, Saskatchewan, in Canada. The nation has an enrolled population of 3,752 people, 1,191 of whom live on the band's reserves. Chief Byron Bitternose leads the First Nation. Their territory is located on the Gordon 86 reserve, as arranged by Treaty 4.

History
In 1874, Treaty 4, which brokered the sale of indigenous land to the British Crown, was established between Queen Victoria and the Cree and Saulteaux First Nations. On September 15 of the same year, Kaneonuskatew (or, in his English name of George Gordon) was among the first of the indigenous leaders to make the agreement, signing as Chief of the George Gordon First Nation. By 1884, half of the families belonging to the nation were farming, a development which had commenced in 1876, and would continue for many years. Although both George Gordon and his son, Moses Gordon, were originally hereditary chiefs, the people have since adopted the practice of democratically voting their chiefs and councillors into office.

The George Gordon First Nation was the location of Gordon Indian Residential School, the longest-running residential school in Canada. The Anglican Church of Canada established a day school on Gordon’s Reserve in 1876. It was expanded in 1888 to provide housing to students attending the school. In 1929 the school was destroyed by fire and eventually rebuilt. Problems with water supply and maintenance led to its being closed for much of the time between 1947 and 1953. The school was closed in 1996. Children attending Gordon Indian Residential School were reported to have suffered various forms of abuse, inflicting severe damage to the Gordon community. The schools have been proven to have facilitated the abuse of children under their care. The federal government knew of these abuses, and has since apologized and paid compensation to the victims. The extent of the damage done to these communities is still yet known. The residential school system is widely regarded as cultural genocide, due to the action of destroying Indigenous culture, language, and religion, as well as the intent to do so. On the reserve, the Gordon Recovery and Wellness Centre provides services and support to the victims of the abuse that occurred during the Residential School System.

Reserves
Their reserves include:

 * George Gordon First Nation 86
 * Gordon 86
 * Last Mountain Lake 80A
 * Treaty Four Reserve Grounds 77, shared with 32 other bands.

Programs and services
The George Gordon First Nation boasts a modern medical clinic, an education centre, a computer centre, an arena and a day care, as well as the Gordon Retail Centre and the Buffalo Ranch Project. Programs that are offered to band members include the Residential School Recovery and Wellness Centre, Brighter Futures, and Gordon Social Development. Other community infrastructures include a band office, pre-fab plant, fire hall, teachers centre, gymnasium, warehouse, water treatment plant, and machine shed.

Notable people

 * Judy Anderson, artist
 * Lillian Dyck, Canadian senator from Saskatchewan
 * Mary Longman, visual artist
 * Edward Poitras, artist
 * Arielle Twist, poet

title: George Gordon First Nation


text:
Paragoge

Paragoge (from παραγωγή additional: παρα- prefix para- 'extra', ἀγωγή agogē 'bringing in' ) is the addition of a sound to the end of a word. Often caused by nativization, it is a type of epenthesis, most commonly vocalic epenthesis.

Paragoge is particularly common in Brazilian Portuguese, not only in loanwords but also in word derivation. It is also present in the accents of many Brazilians while speaking foreign languages such as English.

Some languages have undergone paragoge as a sound change, and modern forms are longer than the historical forms they are derived from. Italian sono 'I am', from Latin sum, is an example. Sometimes, as above, the paragogic vowel is an echo vowel, such as Proto-Oceanic *saqat "bad" > Uneapa zaɣata.

In loanwords
Some languages add a sound to the end of a loanword when it would otherwise end in a forbidden sound. Some languages add a grammatical ending to the end of a loanword to make it declinable.

Examples

 * English rack → Finnish räkki;
 * English gal → Japanese ギャル (gyaru);
 * English golf → Portuguese golfe

Grammatical endings

 * English computer → Latvian kompjūters;
 * Ottoman Turkish (rakı) > South Slavic rakia;
 * English chips → Polish chipsy (alt. czipsy) — the -y is added to make it a regular plural in Polish due to declension (the word turns into double plural);
 * Polish pierogi (pl.) → English pierogis — the -s is added to indicate plurality, due to the common misconception that pierogi is a singular form (double plural).

In inherited words
Paragoge can occur in the inherited words of a language as well. This is the case with many words in Romance languages and Austronesian languages.

Examples

 * Latin sunt → Italian sono
 * Latin fine → Catalan fins
 * Proto-Oceanic *saqat "bad" → *saqati → Tamambo sati
 * Proto-Malayo-Polynesian *bayaD "pay" → Proto-South Sulawesi *bayar → Makassarese báyaraʔ
 * Proto-Austronesian *bəsuʀ "satiated" → Proto-Malayo-Polynesian *bəsuʀ→ Proto-South Sulawesi *bəssuʀ → Makassarese bássoroʔ

title: Paragoge


text:
Talk:Heather

Proposed move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move. JPG-GR (talk) 06:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that this page (currently Heather (disambiguation) is moved to Heather. I have recently changed the Heather page from a redirect to Calluna to a redirect here, as "heather" is just as correctly applied to many other species, and so its use for Calluna vulgaris is not a dominant usage.  This leaves Heather as essentially unoccupied, and so removes the need for "disambiguation" on the name of the dab.  I have entered this proposal on WP:Requested moves.  Richard New Forest (talk) 14:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

 * Oppose. Heather is primarily used to mean Calluna. It even says this at Erica. 128.232.1.193 (talk) 16:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

 * No, I don't agree, not here in the UK at any rate. It is true that "heather" most often means Calluna if it is used only as a single word to mean a single species.  However, it is very often not used like that.  A number of Erica species have "heather" in their name – bell heather Erica cinerea cannot be called "heath", and tree heather and many other species can be either.

 * More importantly, "heather" is used whenever a general term is required rather than talking about an individual species (and "heath" is never used like that). The Ericaceae family is usually called the "heather family".  "Heather" is the general term used by non-botanists for all similar plants: when they say "walking through the heather" they surely don't only mean Calluna!  Finally it is used by botanists, ecologists and gardeners for unspecified small-leaved ericaceous plants in general – for example heathland might be said to be dominated by various heathers, or a garden might be a heather garden – "heath" would surely never be used in those senses.  If I said to another ecologist that my cattle often eat heather, their first question would be "which species?" (though actually on the whole they do prefer Calluna to Erica...).

 * The OED has an interesting article about Heather – historically "heather", "ling" and "heath" were each used in Scotland, northern England and southern England respectively, each for all the species occurring locally. I also wonder if there is an American/UK split here?  Is it in America that "heather" tends to be restricted more to Calluna?  Richard New Forest (talk) 20:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

 * Well, the opposing editor above appears to using an IP registered to Cambridge University, so I wouldn't say it's a US/UK thing, at least not in this case. From my experience (as a Cumbrian), I have heard Heather referring almost exclusively to Calluna, as far as plants go. Regardless, I don't have an opinion on the location of this page, or the target of the redirect. Dreaded Walrus t c 20:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

 * Let them speak for themselves – plenty of Americans at Cambridge... Richard New Forest (talk) 09:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

 * Hello, thanks for the explanation, Richard. I can see where you are coming from. My concise OED says "heather. n. A purple-flowered heath typical of moorland and heathland. [Calluna vulagris.] > informal: any plant of this family (Ericaceae); a heath." I understand this to mean that "heather" normally means Calluna. PS: I am British, but I admit I am not studying botany at Cambridge! 128.232.1.193 (talk) 12:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

 * Oppose. Heather should point at a plant, on the principle of least surprise, and the obvious one is Calluna vulgaris --Rumping (talk) 02:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

 * Not quite clear... Why should it point to a particular plant species?  Surely only if that was the main use?  What other term could be used for all heathers?  Richard New Forest (talk) 09:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

 * Possible alternative: a sentence explaining the word "heather" in the intro paragraph of the Calluna page. What do others think? 128.232.1.193 (talk) 12:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. I did not check before since this one appears to be so obvious. To say that the plant is the primary use and that redirecting to Calluna would not uprise a large number of editors is questionable.  Heather is a rather common name.  Vegaswikian (talk) 23:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Hmm. That was not the argument put forward in the proposal. Surely everybody knows that the name derives from the plant. According to the stats tool, hardly anyone looks at Heather (name), compared to Heather. 128.232.1.193 (talk) 19:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

 * The stats tool results are obviously misleading; most people who use Wikipedia are unfamiliar with how we name things; someone searching for a person named heather either already knows their last name (heather locklear, heather graham, etc.) or will simply type in "heather", and get the article about the plant. Stats tools should rarely be used to justify moving or keeping an article where it is, especially if it's concerning the undisambiguated location. Parsecboy (talk) 15:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I would like to try come to a consensus if possible. We have two people who have opposed the suggestion, and I have responded to each. One (IP 128.232.1.193) has said "I see where you are coming from", but I'm not clear whether that is now "support" or still "oppose". The other has not responded to my point.

It seems to me that to keep the name as it is, my point above to each must be satisfactorily answered: if "heather" does indeed primarily refer to Calluna, why is the word also used for all heathers generally? I'm perfectly prepared to be persuaded on the point, but no counter-arguments have yet been offered, and so as far as I can see my argument still stands. Richard New Forest (talk) 18:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Dear Richard, sorry if I was not clear. I am still opposed to the move. My concise OED tells me that "heather" primarily and officially refers to Calluna. My understanding is that some people now casually use the word "heather" for other Calluna-like plants. Perhaps they should formally say "I was walking through heather and related plants", but that is more of a mouthful than the sentence you wrote!

 * I can't speak for Rumping, but I think his/her complaint was as follows: suppose that when someone types "Heather" into the google, they end up at Heather (disambiguation); then, they probably don't know that "Heather" primarily means "Calluna", and so they are lost.

 * If the page is moved, the disambiguation page should be clarified. If it is not moved, perhaps this page can be clarified, to include a sentence about the meaning of "heather".

 * Finally: the other supporter, Vegaswikian, is supporting the move on different grounds. I am not sure about these grounds, as I mentioned above. 128.232.1.193 (talk) 17:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well Heather is a very common name so for a large population it is clearly the primary use. Most of these readers would not even think of a plant.  Vegaswikian (talk) 20:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Support per my reasoning above; it doesn't seem that the plant is the primary topic, there are plenty of other meanings for "heather", so the dab page should get the undabbed location. Parsecboy (talk) 15:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Hi. I don't think I was blindly using the stats tool. My point was Heather (name) is not a primary candidate, and for three reasons: (a) the article doesn't say much, and indeed there's not much to say about the name; (b) not many people ever actually look at the article (by stats tool); (c) the name is derived from the plant. June is also a common name, but that is not primary usage either. For me, Calluna very clearly satisfies the test for primary topic: when I think of "heather", I resolutely think of the plant — not "Heather Graham", or the village, or the unpublished song, or the fabric. Am I abnormal? 128.232.1.193 (talk) 16:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

 * I didn't assert that you're using the stats tool blindly; I just think the results should be taken with a grain of salt. I'm not arguing that Heather (name) should be located here, I think the dab page should be. The argument that the name is derived from the plant isn't valid, or else we'd have the article Boston be about a town of 55,000, not the city of over 600,000. What you or I think of when we hear "heather" isn't really relevant either; we need to follow common usage, and when one topic cannot be proved to be primary, the dab page needs to go to the undisambiguated page. Parsecboy (talk) 03:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

 * I'm still puzzled by why you only think of the single plant species. What word would you use for heathers generally?  Richard New Forest (talk) 19:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Support. The term heather is clearly ambiguous. No incontestable evidence has been given that among the many plant species known as heather that Calluna is the primary meaning. Wikistats should NEVER be the sole basis for justifying primary topic status. Results from wikistats should only be regarded as indicative and never as definitive. older ≠ wiser 14:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Text me at moonkeith152@gmail.com As i am Professor of Botany and Mycology — Preceding unsigned comment added by KeithMoon152 (talk • contribs) 03:39, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Various heather plants
User Fortdj33 has tried to remove all heather plants other than Calluna. I have reinstated them for the moment.

This is exactly the situation that dab pages are for. There are several plant species and genera which can have the common name "heather", not to mention the heather family itself. The dab allows users to decide which of these they are looking for. I think a quick look at many of the arguments in the move discussion above ought to make this clear. Otherwise where would one find, for example, "purple heather", "bell heather" or "heather family" without already knowing their exact proper names?

As for the section headings, yes, maybe this dab is a bit short for sections, though I don't think they hurt. Don't mind either way on that. Richard New Forest (talk) 20:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

 * Following comment copied from User talk:Richard New Forest, posted while the above was being written:
 * "Hello. My reasons for modifying the Heather disambiguation page, is to bring it more in line with the MOS:DAB guidelines, before the pages that link to it are fixed. I understand that the term 'heather' does not ONLY refer to Calluna vulgaris, but it would be more constructive for you to better reflect that by editing the intro of the page, rather that simply reverting my edits.  The section titles are cluttered, and not suited for a disambiguation page with only 11 links on it.  Fortdj33 (talk) 19:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)"

Very surprised indeed to see further reversion while discussion under way. Please restore material until discussion complete. Richard New Forest (talk) 20:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:Heather


text:
Talk:Kaylani Lei

Temp page
Guys, I wrote up a temporary page, using the link from Wicked Pictures as source material (not copy-and-paste work). Just FYI. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. 01:09, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Websites
I removed the clause "previously had an official website, kaylanilei.com, which is now offline. The new website is clubkaylanilei.com." because I can't determine which of the following sites (see below) is actually her official site.

Sites:
 * kaylanilei.com - video sales storefront
 * kaylanilei.net - claims to be "Kaylani Lei's Website"
 * clubkaylanilei.com - "Club Kaylani Lei"

Unless there's a definitive claim somewhere, we should refrain from using any of these, imo. Valrith 19:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Her company Wicked Pictures bio http://www.wickedpictures.com/bio/k-o/Kaylani_Lei.html refers to http://www.kaylanixxx.com/ which redirects to http://www.clubkaylanilei.com, which seems to be fairly official. Also http://www.kaylanilei.net says "the best web site for the beautiful and sexy Asian Pornstar Kaylani Lei" which makes me worry a bit. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

 * I put the www.kaylanixxx.com site into the infobox; I didn't restore the original paragraph just because it doesn't seem especially important to state in the article that she has a website... Valrith 20:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Untitled
she was married to the new zealand rugby player and then they divorced each other —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.8.11 (talk) 05:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 one external links on Kaylani Lei. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.avn.com/imagearchive/27/84/74/2784742007UpdatedNominations
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.avnawards.com/pdf/2009_AVN_NOMINATIONS_11_25_08.pdf
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://avnawards.avn.com/nominees/
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://avnawards.avn.com/2013_nominations.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 00:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 8 one external links on Kaylani Lei. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for www.avn.com/imagearchive/05/58/32/55832Nominations.pdf
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.avnawards.com/2005nominees_fr.shtml
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.avnawards.com/pdf/2008Nominations.pdf
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://avnawards.avn.com/2011_nominations2.pdf
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://avnawards.avn.com/2012_AVN_Awards_nominations.pdf
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://xbizawards.xbiz.com/nominees.php
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://avnawards.avn.com/page/3
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111022031340/http://www.wickedpictures.com:80/tour/?action=profile&model_id=708 to http://www.wickedpictures.com/tour/?action=profile&model_id=708

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:35, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Kaylani Lei. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924064703/http://www.iafd.com/person.rme/perfid%3DKeilaniLei/gender%3Dfemale to http://www.iafd.com/person.rme/perfid%3DKeilaniLei/gender%3Dfemale
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://modfxmodels.com/FeaturedModels/spotlight-KaylaniLei.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071014043038/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4159/is_20061105/ai_n16829167 to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4159/is_20061105/ai_n16829167
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.avn.com/imagearchive/05/58/32/55832Nominations.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141125015310/http://avnawards.avn.com/pages/4 to http://avnawards.avn.com/pages/4
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141231004725/http://www.xcitement.com/interview/?page_id=96 to http://www.xcitement.com/interview/?page_id=96

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kaylani Lei. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141209052611/http://aipdaily.com/2008/interview-with-kaylani-lei/ to http://aipdaily.com/2008/interview-with-kaylani-lei/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140830224119/http://aipdaily.com/2010/wickeds-kaylani-lei-and-alektra-blue-appear-in-fsc-anti-piracy-video/ to http://aipdaily.com/2010/wickeds-kaylani-lei-and-alektra-blue-appear-in-fsc-anti-piracy-video/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:45, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Active to present?
Could someone confirm that she is still active, or whether "former adult actress" would be the correct introduction? If she is still active, that would make her 41 years old in this year, which isn't unheard of, but certainly is old in the industry. To be honest, I think this is not credible without further verification. --Don Ecchi (talk) 11:21, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Kaylani Lei


text:
User:Lord Bodak

I'm 33 years old, born on June 13, 1979. I went to Virginia Tech and graduated in 2001 with a degree in Computer Engineering. I'm a casual Wikipedia editor, I find myself here extremely often when I am curious about things and I edit where I see a place I can do some good.

I play poker online at Full Tilt Poker and PokerStars. Before the UIGEA was passed, I played at PokerRoom.

Sadly here is Lord Bodak's obituary.

Areas of interest

 * Firearms
 * Graphic novels
 * Ice hockey
 * Poker

title: User:Lord Bodak