Talk:Romanisation of Bengali

message: XHK is eXtended Harvard-Kyoto, XIAST is eXtended IAST. Hence, XHK is the variant using an alteration of small and capital letters, while XIAST is the one using diacritical marks above and below characters. I've reversed them in the above tables. --Raga 15:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  XHK and XIAST mixed up 

message: I shortened and simplified the Transcription vs. Transliteration arguments. Most people reading the article aren't going to be interested in reading full-fledged arguments for and against transcriptions or transliterations. Instead, I tried to keep things a little simpler. --SameerKhan (talk) 23:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  edits 

message: Isn't it strange that every authoritative source transliterates this letter as "ph," but for some reason Wikipedia has chosen "f"? "Ph" is the Standard Bengali pronunciation. "F" does appear in several dialects, but it is in regional and non-standard varieties. If "f" is to be included, then regional pronunciations of many other letters should also be included in the chart. 149.79.35.227 (talk) 21:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transliteration of letter following "po" 

message: The Romanization issue is basically a subject regarding the script itself and doesn't really carry with it enough information to be worth a separate article. More importantly, splitting the two topics creates a risk of dividing issues and conflicting information in the two articles. 149.79.35.227 (talk) 21:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. Per summary style, topics should be discussed in detail in child/sibling articles, rather than dumping all the discussion into a single article. Right now, this article is substantially long to be an independent one. Besides, Romanization is a topic quite orthogonal to the discussion of the script, and also this article contains detailed discussion of existing standard romanization schemes. --Ragib (talk) 08:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: :The "Wiki" system is definitely OR as it stands and not permissible. I recommend replacing that by falling to the Hunterian transliteration method and crafting a Bengali specific article for it (Hunterian transliteration for Bengali or something). By reviewing literature, it should be possible to discover some diacritics to provide the distinctiveness needed. Among other things it will help handle hoshonto  (or non-usage of it with schwa deletion), which is pretty vexing if you apply Sanskrit-schemes to other Indic languages (though Bengali is closer to Sanskrit than many other). I am working towards something similar for Hindi. Failing this, we're headed towards stuff like বাংলা = Baṃla. Thoughts welcome. --Hunnjazal (talk) 09:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Hunterian for Bangla

message: In the chart above, এ is allocated by most schemes that recognise the vowel harmony as æ and e. The word for yes is pronounced as hæ̃ with this vowel. Now I understand that it may not sound like so in the voice clip regarding the IPA æ but that is the fault of the voice clip. Can we use æ for the এ when followed by ɔ, o, e or a in the next syllable and e for when followed by i and u as Bengali vowel harmony dictates? Æ(ash) is already an established character for this sound and recognised for the same sound in related languages such as Old English, Norwegian and Icelanding. The use of ê is more misleading. 
--Robinas Šongketas.
:: এ্যা/অ্যা = Romanization is ê, IPA is æ. not confusing. বব২৬ (talk) 08:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand why Robinas has made this point. Wasn't the idea of the transliteration scheme to assist (in English Wikipedia) English speakers pronouncing the Bangla? If we use æ it'll be easier for those who don't know to do a quick search of the glyph and obtain the correct sound. Interesting how this was actually an Old English character. I would like to add that we increasingly see people online writing "এখন" mostly as "akhon" and I believe this reflects the vowels proximity to to the English "a." æ seems like it will reflect that better visually than ê as the latter can be percieved as "raising" an e to the untrained eye. Maybe Mr Šongketas was visually confusing it with what I assume to be his native Lithuanian ė? Can we have more discussion on this? Nads93uk (talk) 23:41, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  æ vs ê  

message: The "Wiki" Romanisation scheme given in the article and used widely throughout Wikipedia seems to be original research and should thus be replaced by a system found in reliable sources.  —  AjaxSmack  23:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: If it’s not asserted as a fact, then should it still be considered original research? – Greg Pandatshang (talk) 17:20, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose I was being charitable.  If it is not a "fact", it should be summarily deleted.  —  AjaxSmack  00:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds like a more relevant approach. – Greg Pandatshang (talk) 02:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

text: I've removed the OR. Anyone who wants to reinstate it should provide a source. Mr KEBAB (talk) 13:04, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:    I don't dispute your removal, nor that the Wiki system is OR, but I believe this issue was quite active many years ago, when Bengali language was up for FA or GA status.  There must have been some justification for this system but I wasn't involved nor do I recall where it would be.   I think the problem was that there is no good notable transcription/transliteration for Bengali....  Also, the Bengali language article still uses this transcription scheme, as do probably many other Bengali language-related articles, so removing the Wiki scheme completely from WP would take quite a bit of work.  Probably worth bringing this up on Talk:Bengali language, but I don't know if the editors who worked heavily on the article are still active.   ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ тʌʟк 22:26, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

text:  Ah okay.   was the main proponent of this system.  My personal opinion is that if it's possible to have exceptions to WP:OR at all, this ought to be one.  But until such a proposal is made on a WP guideline page, this system doesn't belong.  ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ тʌʟк 22:36, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

text:  (I'm also starting a discussion here.  ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ тʌʟк 22:44, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Wiki" system is original research 

message: see Romanization of Hebrew ינון גלעדי (talk) 17:43, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Romanization]] or [[Romanisation]]