Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Tibetan)

message: Since the discussion on the new naming conventions proposal above has been predominantly positive, I started thinking about what the next step is. On the main Naming conventions talk page, I have raised the question of what the next step is to move this from proposal to a policy.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 01:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Related talk page: Wikipedia talk:Article titles#At what point can we move toward making Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Tibetan) a policy? (seemingly will be archived into Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 30). --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 06:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving toward making this a policy 

message: I just became aware of this proposal. I have one concernt before I can support it. Since I haven't read this entire talk page I will just put it here instead of boldly editing the page:
WP:Naming conventions (Tibetan)#Avoid strict transliterations: "The Wylie spelling should always be given at the start of the article on a subject or, if it does not have its own, at its first mention in another article." I hope this sentence is not meant to say what it says. On a list of famous people, the current Dalai Lama will appear as "14th Dalai Lama" or "Tenzin Gyatso". He will not appear as anything like "Tenzin Gyatso (Wylie: bstan 'dzin rgya mtsho)". Similarly, a less notable person should not appear in this last, long form just because there is no article for them. However, this sentence seems to say that Tibetan names that don't have an article may not be used in another article without also giving the Wylie transcription. I don't think we have any rule like this for any other language, and it would not be a good idea. I guess that this sentence is aimed at articles that discuss the thing/person named in detail, as happens when a former article forms a section after a merge. The precise scope of this sentence must be made clear, or it should be said that if a Wylie spelling is given it should be at the first use (use, not mention, but that's a minor point). Or maybe it's better to leave this case completely without regulation for the moment. Hans Adler 16:30, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, it shouldn't say "always". I would like to point out that this is supposed to be a naming convention, not a Manual of Style, so I did not put as much effort into getting the style elements right. Basically, my point in mentioning was to assuage any worries that using a phonetic spelling would mean that the Wylie spelling won't appear in Wikipedia at all.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 15:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have rtried to recast, starting with "Wikipedia should include Wylie" and going onward from there; this seems the clearest way to include that message. If this is not what you mean, feel free to tweak until we achieve consensus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of Wylie when there is no dedicated article 

message: ––<Span xml:lang="zh-Hant-CN" lang="zh-Hant">虞海</Span> (Yú Hǎi) <Big>✍</Big> 03:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your response, and your opinions will be taken into consideration. ––<Span xml:lang="zh-Hant-CN" lang="zh-Hant">虞海</Span> (Yú Hǎi) <Big>✍</Big> 06:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

text: Reply 1: And here what I want to say first is: you oversimplified the classifiction. There're at least 4 kinds of Romanizations - transliteration (e.g. Wylie, ISO9, etc.), transcription (e.g. THDL), phonetic transliteration (e.g. IPA), and phonetic transcription (e.g. ZWPY). The former two are Romanizations of scripts, even though the second one is less strict than the first one. The latter 2 are Romanizations of languages. The first may determine the second, and the third may determine the fourth, but neither can the first determine the third or fourth, nor can the third determine the first or second. For example, “flower” and “flour”, and “resume” and “resume”. Now a question is raised: will we Romanize the language, or the script? ––<Span xml:lang="zh-Hant-CN" lang="zh-Hant">虞海</Span> (Yú Hǎi) <Big>✍</Big> 06:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yú Hǎi, I don't think your description of those categories is correct. Per Wiktionary, transliteration is "The act or product of transliterating, or of representing letters or words in the characters of another alphabet or script" and transcription is "A representation of speech sounds as phonetic symbols." Now, there are certainly different types of each — a transcription may be perfectly lossless (given a particular model of the phonemes in a language) or it may contain ambiguities, it may use strictly one character per phoneme or it may employ digraphs — but all transliterations reflect the written form of a language and all transcriptions are phonetic and/or phonemic. IPA is definitely a transcription (note that the page on IPA says that it is "used for phonetic and phonemic transcription of any language"). Note that Hanyu Pinyin contains exactly the same phonemic information that an IPA transcription would (relative to the concept of Standard Mandarin phonology). For Tibetan, THDL is not really a transcription or a transliteration, but it is a compromise between them.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 03:39, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

text: Reply 2: Concerning the Lhoka-Darzêdo issue, “Shannan” is a newly-created title and directly origined from “Lhoka”, while the title “Kangding” has been created as late as Qing dynasty. So in Kangding, all - Tibetans, Han Chinese, Qiang, Manchus are considered to be natives (you cannot determin which “native” name should be followed); while in Lhoka, only Tibetans and Moinba are natives, so you have no cause to use the Chinese name Shannan. ––<Span xml:lang="zh-Hant-CN" lang="zh-Hant">虞海</Span> (Yú Hǎi) <Big>✍</Big> 03:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

text: Reply 3 and others yet to be written. ––<Span xml:lang="zh-Hant-CN" lang="zh-Hant">虞海</Span> (Yú Hǎi) <Big>✍</Big> 06:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  response to Yú Hǎi 

message: the bottom line here is that wikipedia is an encyclopedia, we are not aiming to achieve perfection or instruction in Tibetan language, what we do on wikipedia is create articles about certain topics, the titles of those articles should be indicative of what most users will be familiar with. If Wylie or another system is more commonly used in academic journals, the press, etc, then that system should be chosen as a standard.Дунгане (talk) 23:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You're self-contradictory, Дунгане. You told us that the title should be what most users will be familiar with, but on the contrary you told us to use those name commonly used in academic journals. Clearly most users will not be familiar to academic journals. ––<Span xml:lang="zh-Hant-CN" lang="zh-Hant">虞海</Span> (Yú Hǎi) <Big>✍</Big> 06:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  the bottom line 

message: Re: Vmenkov, et al. I agree that place names of locations in the PRC should include the name in Tibetan script, Wylie, Chinese characters, Hanyu Pinyin, Tibetan Pinyin, and the pronunciation in IPA for Standard Tibetan. There is a concern that the intro to the article will be overstuffed with different spellings, but that's a stylistic question that we can figure out. I'm not sure that Tibetan areas outside of Ü-Tsang need Tibetan Pinyin or IPA, since those are based on a particular dialect that isn't spoken everywhere in the Tibetophone world. I'm also not sure how the same rules should apply to persons, i.e. which spellings for which persons. This proposal is a naming convention rather than a Manual of Style, so, technically, I don't think this topic would be included. However, since there is no Manual of Style for Tibetan currently, I don't have a problem with mentioning this proviso in the naming convention.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 03:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point that the intro could become overstuffed with alternative names.  If too many alternative spellings make the intro unwieldy, less common names could be moved to a short "alternative spellings and names" section in the body, or even to a footnote.--Wikimedes (talk) 17:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Our infoboxes also have several spaces for extra versions. --Danger (talk) 17:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

text: I think we would need to be clear on what kind of consistency we want. In the case of Kagyü, we are talking about a specific entity (albeit a fairly inchoate one, but it refers to a single school of Tibetan Buddhism), so we would want to be consistent on how we refer to that on Wikipedia. That said, if I decided to start a local Kagyü enthusiasts club and I called it bKargyüd Enthusiasts Local 151, then Wikipedia would still have to use the spelling bKargyüd for that article (just as we have an article on Peking Duck which mentions that it's from Beijing). On the other hand, "Trinley"/"Thinley" is a word used in personal names, so it appears as part of the names of many different people. I think our standard should be that each individual has a name which is spelled consistently across Wikipedia, but different people whose names each include phrin-las don't have to all have it spelled the same way. Maybe this section is not necessary: my original intention was to avoid having page move on the basis of logic like: "Well, we can't say that either 'Trinley' or 'Thinley' is primary, so let's fall back on a systematic spelling like Chinlai or Phrin-las." In that case, it should definitely be either Trinley or Thinley (or possibly Trinlay); picking among those options might be tricky, but this is section is simply advising us to make sure that we pick one of them.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 04:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

text: Again, I am mostly speaking from ignorance, but is there some "standard reference" book on Tibetan culture and history whose spellings we can use to resolve ties when there are several competing spellings? Obviously it has to be something in English, large (multivolume, probably), and reasonably modern. For example, for the Iranic civilization Encyclopedia Iranica could perhaps be considered such a standard; is there an equivalent for the Tibetan region? -- Vmenkov (talk) 22:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there is something like that for Tibetan culture. I have seen enormous variability among the best English-language scholars on how to spell Tibetan names.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 04:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think this policy is an attempt to compensate for a lack of the kind of an English-user-friendly standard Vmenkov describes. Many, if not all, personal name spellings will be (and ought to be) lifted fairly intact from sources when starting and naming an article. The differences in reliable sources' romanisations range from arbitrary (minor variations) to dialectical and on to outright transliteration, as this policy reflects and does a pretty good job treating. However, if this policy states that a primary romanisation for Thinley exists (subject to personal preferences), an answer as to what it is should be both discernible and useful for editors. I don't find a primary romanisation for Thinley is either discernible or awfully useful. I think either the statement on "primary romanisation" or the one on "minor variations" with examples should be reworked. But I do agree with Nat that other reader-unfriendly fall-backs are unsuitable. Perhaps some more separate guidance belongs in the section on personal names; perhaps also a statement favoring using sources' romanisations as opposed to their transliterations. I don't mind doing this myself, but what say ye? JFHJr (㊟) 04:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

text:  I've gone ahead and reworked what I had in mind. If it's not what we need, just revert. JFHJr (㊟) 07:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Inclusion of other names

message: I think we've got a consensus. So far, positive criticism has shaped this policy into something reasonable and workable. There have been almost no new or renewed suggestions in almost a week. JFHJr (㊟) 04:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that would be appropriate. – Quadell (talk) 22:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Closed JFHJr (㊟) 22:31, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have changed it from a policy to a guideline:  It was nominated for a guideline here and subject specific naming conventions are guidelines so I guess the policy designation was a misunderstanding. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:38, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Many thanks! JFHJr (㊟) 03:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

text: I'm rather late, Nat, so I'll just cheer in the background as I do indeed (belatedly) support the guidelines. They are sensible, though I would ask we include Wylie in parenthesis. Longchenpa (talk) 07:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Move to close

message: Hello, there's a name change discussion going on at talk:Xixabangma and what constitutes minor spelling variations appears to be relevant to the discussion.  Are all four terms minor spelling variations of each other, or are Shishapangma and Shisha Pangma minor spelling variations of each other with Xixabangma and Xixiabangma constituting minor variations of a separate spelling?  Or maybe there's a better grouping?  Input on talk:Xixabangma would be appreciated.--Wikimedes (talk) 21:04, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor variations - Shishapangma, Shisha Pangma, Xixabangma, and Xixiabangma 

message: Note: this section does not attempt to discuss variations in the spelling of Tibetan names or article titles. Please refer to already existing conventions and guidelines for spelling and title issues.
This section attempt to discuss how Tibetan names should be included in the English WP when the common English name does derivate from a non-Tibetan language.
As examples, we can mention Gauri Sankar (aka Jomo Tseringma), Mount Kailash (aka Gang Rinpoche), Lake Manasarovar (aka Mapham Yutso), Mount Everest (aka Chomolungma) Shiquane/Ali (aka Senge Tsangpo).
There is currently no systematic way to include the Tibetan name in these five articles. Currently, two articles (Manasarovar and Ali) are mentioning the Tibetan name in the lead outside parenthesis, while the other three (Gauri Sankar, Kailash, Everest) only mention the Tibetan name in parenthesis under local languages. This makes an important difference, as in the latest three cases the Tibetan name is not considered as a possible English term, while it is in the former two. In the example I gave, notability of the Tibetan name in English does not seem to play a role, as Mapham Yutso for example is only marginally known in English, while Chomolungma has gained a certain recognition in English since at least 5-6 decades.
To try to sort things out, I have consulted the following guidelines and policies:
Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Tibetan)
Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Chinese)#Place_names
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)
Wikipedia:Article_titles
The following extracts seems to be relevant:
[…] other names, especially those used significantly often (say, 10% of the time or more) in the available English literature on a place, past or present, should be mentioned in the article, as encyclopedic information. Two or three alternate names can be mentioned in the first line of the article […]. If there are more names than this, or the first line is cluttered, a separate paragraph on the names of the place is often a good idea. Local official names are often listed first, but in other cases it serves neutrality to list the names in alphabetical order by language 
The lead: […]Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted.
In the five examples, certainly less than 10% of English speakers will use the Tibetan name, but according to the last sentence above, it should be OK to systematically include the Tibetan name. If we can agree on this point, it would also be good to have certain guidelines regarding the way how to present it:
* either in parenthesis following the Tibetan script as the/a romanised form: In such case, the Tibetan form is not given any preponderance towards other languages.
* or in parenthesis as an alternative in English. Example for Manasarovar: "Lake Manasarovar (also Mapham Yutso) followed by all different names in Tibetan, Chinese, Sanskrit, etc."
* or as an alternative English form. Example for Manasarovar: "Lake Manasarovar or Mapham Yutso (followed by all different names in Tibetan, Chinese, Sanskrit, etc.)
I have noticed many recent edits by different editors, each using different ways of doing. A rather unified style would be appreciated.--Pseudois (talk) 12:13, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: - Of course in this case "Manasarovar" is a rendering of the Hindi or Sanskrit - not Tibetan - name. CFynn (talk) 17:23, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to include Tibetan names when the common English name derivates from a non-Tibetan language? 

message: There is a very useful on-line tool that will automatically convert Unicode Tibetan or Wylie to a simple phonemic rendering which can be easily read by English speakers: . A description of the system by Dr. Nicolas Tournadre and Dr. David Germano may be found here: .  The converter is Free Software (written in Perl), and the source code is available for download from the THL site.  I suggest we just encourage editors to use this tool when transcribing Tibetan names as it will produce standard, academically acceptable, yet easy to read results.   
CFynn (talk) 16:45, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps this useful facility should be mentioned on the main page. Use of it makes things easy - and if widely adopted would ensure consistency. Chris Fynn (talk) 16:49, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: THL’s Online Tibetan Phonetics Converter

message: I feel there is no need to include both Wylie and Tibetan script in articles - Wylie was useful before the Unicode and Tibetan font support was common - but it is now almost universal in computer operating systems (except Android which includes no Tibetan font). Anyway I think anyone who can understand Wylie can also read Tibetan script - so including both is redundant and makes pages look messy. Using the Wylie or Tibetan script for a name or term more than once in an article - unless they form part of a quotation - should also be avoided.
For the average reader who cannot understand Wylie and Tibetan script, the primary phonetic transcription should be mostly used.   
Alternative Chinese or Pinyin names are useful for place names, but IMO Tibetan in Pinyin is not useful for anything else on English Wikipedia - anyway "Tibetan Pinyin" is often not very consistent.  
Chris Fynn (talk) 14:55, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Wylie and Tibetan script

message: In article is said "Nicolas Tournadre writes that the Chinese names for both Shannan Prefecture...". After many years of living in Lhoka, U-tsang, Amdo and Kham have to say, CHINESE people use Shannan! Maybe few mixed Tibetan in very North Amdo or very east Kham, who are actually Chinese, went to Chinese school and never been to U-tsang could say Shannan. Tibetan people say Lhoka (Lhokha), because that is their language, the name has meaning and it is part of Tibetan history. No idea with who Nicolas T. had conversation. If people will use Chinese sources and write Tibetan names, English wiki will be all wrong.
Andelicek.andy (talk) 09:31, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shannan? Never heard!