Wikipedia talk:Romanization

policy vs guideline?

Currently this says : "Note that this rule ("Use English"), as well as the naming conventions referred to here, are generally Wikipedia policy and not a mere guideline." I don't understand this - the cited page ("Use English"), as well as the conventions referred to seem to clearly call themselves guidelines. Is this supposed to refer to Wikipedia:Naming conventions being a policy and not a guideline? I'll remove this if there is no objection or explanation.John Z (talk) 23:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have amended; only WP:NAME is policy; as elsewhere, the guidelines implement policy, and are not limited to statements of principle; but the principles concerned are policy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad that what you wrote makes sense to you Septentrionalis, because it confuses me! The difference between policies and guidelines is summed up in Wikipedia:policies and guidelines "Policies are considered a standard that all editors should follow, whereas guidelines are more advisory in nature." In the case of WP:UE it explains the policy Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Use English words --PBS (talk) 11:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to go through this list and mark those guidelines which are active and inactive. --PBS (talk) 11:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Should we list the inactive ones for reference, or is this WP:BEANS? Most of them are statements on diacritics, some for - at least one against. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that they be listed for their value as recommendations. Some people (like yours truly) are often presented with an option between two or more forms, & look to some kind of precedent or rationale to decide between them. (Acting like a cowboy will only lead to frustration, wikidrama & eventually someone leaving Wikipedia. Best to have as much information before making certain decisions.) -- llywrch (talk) 20:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Romanization of Persian

I've noticed it several times that there seems to be no consistent way of romanizing Persian names, which several times makes reading different articles dealing with Persian topics very confusing in my opinion. I think we should establish a preferred romanization system for Persian on Wikipedia to be used on all articles with Persian names. As it is now, one article uses Bahai romanization, another one uses UniPers, a third one uses and anglicized UniPers (subsituting š with sh, ž with zh and â with a, the latter being especially confusing) while a fourth article uses some odd scheme I've never even heard of, employing macrons in various places (such as the article about Hashemi Rafsanjani). This makes reading very confusing and sometimes gives the impression that these names belong to different languages.

Personally, I'm in favour of the UniPers scheme since I find it relatively simple, all sounds have a one-to-one phonetic correspondence with the UniPers Latin alphabet and it's relatively easy to type in (the circumflex is present on most Latin keyboards, the caron is a bit more rare but is found on most eastern and central European keyboards). UniPers also makes the romanization more or less consistent with that of Kurdish, making it easier to see a connection between the two languages in much the same way we use a consistent romanization scheme for all Cyrillic Slavic languages. Nederbörd (talk) 13:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Romanization of Arabic too!!

Since both are building on the Arabic Abjad, I also call for a romanization of Arabic! Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 19:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Arabic) inactive,

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Persian) failed. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 19:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Romanization of Tuvan

Please join a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Central_Asia/Tuva_task_force#Transliteration_of_Tuvan_Language. Thanks. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 22:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hawaiian language

How are words in the Hawaiian language with unusual symbols/accents/characters transliterated for en-Wiki page titles? Please consider Hawaiʻi ʻŌʻō as an example. Snowman (talk) 20:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of RFC for Korean MOS in regard to romanization

Should we use McCune-Reischauer or Revised for topics relating to pre-1945 Korea? Those inclined, please contribute here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]