Talk:Romanization of Arabic

message: 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)
thread_title: Arabic romanization in Indonesia

message: 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)
thread_title:  Clean-up 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Headings 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Comparison table 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Merge from [[Hans Wehr transliteration]] 

message: 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.
===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)
thread_title: Ney to the merge 

message: 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)
thread_title: Merge

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: "SM" system

message: 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)
thread_title:  SATTS 

message: I have created  for tagging DIN 31635 transliterations ( seemed too impractical to remember), corresponding to , ,  etc. These should be used instead of generic , e.g.  . 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#transliteration. dab (ᛏ) 11:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Template

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Sounds good to me. BjarteSorensen 22:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Using Saddam Hussain as example 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Using Omar Khayyam as an example 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Romanization of Arabic 

message: 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DanIssa (talk • contribs) .
: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)
thread_title:  Online web transliteration service 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Does anyone know why there are both Ibrahims and Ebrahims? 

message: 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)
replies: text: I added this question on Talk:Maltese alphabet. --Atitarev (talk) 23:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maltese alphabet to romanise Arabic? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Question 

message: 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)
thread_title:  alif maqṣura is not "broken alif" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Tagging all transliterations by specific standard 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  SEHL 

message: # Aren't the diacritic marks too redundant for the table to be written? Normally, Arabic texts aren't written with diacritics.
# (SATTS, Qalam, Buckwalter) are defunct.
# (ALFB, SIMPLine, SEHL) are original research transliterations. Their sources aren't reliable. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 14:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears SEHL has been removed since, without discussion here. — Sebastian 01:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup table 

message: # Any transliteration of Arabic ignoring diacritics is incomplete, and make no sense at all.
# 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)
replies: text: It appears SEHL has been removed since, without discussion here. — Sebastian 01:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Answers to the Cleanup table

message: 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)
thread_title:  Harmonizing list and table, and minor cleanups 

message: 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:
Letter	Unicode	Name	UNGEGN	ALA-LC	DIN	ISO      	ISO/R	-2	IPA	SAS       	BATR   	ArabTeX	chat
      	0621   	    	ʼ     	ʼ     	ʾ  	ˈ, ˌ	ʼ    	' 	   	ʾ         	e      	'      	2
      	0627   	    	ā     	ā     	ā  	ʾ        	ā    	aa	   	a, i, u; ā	aa or A	a      	a/e/é
      	0628   	    	b     	b     	b  	b        	b    	b 	   	b         	b      	b      	b
      	062A   	    	t     	t     	t  	t        	t    	t 	   	t         	t      	t      	t
      	062B   	    	th    	th    	ṯ  	ṯ        	ṯ    	ṯ 	   	ç         	c      	_t     	s/th
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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Repeat letters in table? 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Original standard symbols 

message: 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)
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)
replies: text: Wikipedia has some criteria to add content, such as Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:No original research. Additionally, the comparison table compares between the most used transliterations. If you believe it should be in Wikipedia, try creating an article for it. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 13:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Arabeasy 

message: 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)
thread_title:  ISO 233-2 Simplified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  SAS and Buckwalter 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Romanization of Arabic. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081007063234/http://www.bsi-global.com/index.xalter to http://www.bsi-global.com/index.xalter
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:19, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Principal standards and systems are: ...." 

message: 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)
thread_title:  New one 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Paragraph with Confusing Grammar and Non-Encyclopedic Language 

message: 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)
thread_title:  To add to article