Wikipedia talk:Administrators

External videos
Wheel warring

Admin names on English Wikipedia

This issue came up during the most recent RFA, where a nominee's name was entirely in a foreign language, I believe Asian keyboard letters/symbol. A valid point was raised during the (since withdrawn) nomination, in that if the alphabet or symbols of an English Wikipedia admin's name is not of latin characters, then in most cases, the admin cannot be pinged except via copy and paste, at best. And if a user has any issue with an admin whose name is not latin characters, numbers or symbols, then a user cannot adequately open a talk thread about that admin - not at Arbcom, any of the notice boards, or general talk pages. And what that means, is that it would be difficult to hold an admin accountable for anything, if the average user cannot input their name. Perhaps it would be best to address this issue now, and have it in writing somewhere. — Maile (talk) 01:58, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

To ensure accuracy, I regularly copy and paste "unusual" or lengthy usernames when pinging editors. But I understand that this may be cumbersome or unknown for less experienced editors. I would favor a requirement that any candidate for administrator on English Wikipedia have a username consisting of the common keyboard characters regularly used for communicating in English. Cullen328 (talk) 02:11, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

That would imply that any user on any foreign language Wikipedia who wanted to become an administrator, even if they were already an admin on their home wiki, would be mandated to change their username purely for that purpose. I find that extremely problematic. Primefac (talk) 02:39, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

There's an obvious difference between a user who created their username on a foreign language wiki and a user who has never edited jpwiki changing their name to a single Japanese character. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 02:23, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

• Would this mean that Tóraí and Yamaguchi先生 would need to change their name or be desysoped as no longer complying with policy? Seems a bit harsh? Keeping in mind that usernames are also re-used across all language projects, I wouldn't want to rule out sysop access for a multi-project contributor whose username isn't on a standard English keyboard - especially if they are active on other language projects; doesn't sound like a good brightline rule. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:41, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
• I wouldn't be inclined to introduce a rule. The example of the recent RFA, where this alone provoked many opposes, is probably enough to put anyone else off. But yes it's a nuisance - I'm not going to track to the RFS to cut n'paste the name. Johnbod (talk) 03:10, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
• People can oppose an RFA for literally any reason. We cannot and should not make policy based on opposes at one RFA. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:41, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
• As Beeblebrox notes anyone can oppose for any reason at RfA. That does not mean there is a reason that deserves weight. However, given how many people brought it up, it seems worthwhile to see if such a stance has community support (at which point it would of course deserve weight). As for me I agree with Xeno and Primefac. We should not be preventing people who would make good sysops but who register a username in a different language from helping us out. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:28, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
• Wouldn't a declared alternate account using only common English characters alleviate any such concerns? Cullen328 (talk) 05:32, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
• I concur with Primefac, and oppose this suggestion. Also, a declared alternate account doesn't solve the issue; it would presume the person is frequently logged into the account enough so that they receive pings in a timely manner. It would also presume that the person wishing to ping them is aware of the alternate account. Even if it's posted on the admin's userpage, it's likely that few would be aware of it. I believe this is a corner case; scanning through the first ~100 at Wikipedia:List of administrators/Active I find no administrators to whom this would apply. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:47, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

The problem is not that users may use unicode in the user names, but that some folks are unnecessarily difficult to reach. The signature — Maile cannot be used to copy/paste, because it doesn't match User:Maile66 and there is no User:— Maile that redirects me to the right place. To get the user name, I have to ctrl-click on the user name, Copy Link, take https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Maile66 and then remove the scheme and host name, or click on your user name to go to your page and copy it from there. The example that was cited, where a user name is in a non-latin script, has a signature that does match, allows me to simply copy/paste the user name, making that user easier to reach than the proposer. Vexations (talk) 13:50, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Given the recent RFA where the community made it clear that this is a desirable thing, we should consider codifying this. SQL^{Query Me!} 14:34, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

• Tolerating administrators with usernames that stray from 7-bit-ASCII while coming down like a hammer on RFA candidates who do the same has two effects: makes us big damn hypocrites, and teaches people to change their username only after they're promoted. —Cryptic 14:49, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
• I don't think this should necessarily be a rule, but it is something that candidates with usernames such as this should keep in mind to try to come up with a way to make it less of a problem. Part of the issue at the recent RFA was that the candidate expressed what a lot of users evidentally felt was an unwillingness to work to provide a functional way around the issue, and had even switched their account name from a Latin alphabet name to a non-Latin alphabet one. As to copy-and-paste, my mobile phone, for instance, is almost impossible to copy-and-paste with and will not easily produce the character in question with that RFA. While this would really be instruction creep, RFA candidates with non-Latin alphabet characters in their usernames should really have a way planned out to not make it unduly burdensome on others. If you're putting a character like that in your username and are considering RFA, but not trying to create a work-around for people, then that raises questions about if you have the collaborative spirit generally needed to be a successful administrator. Hog Farm _Talk 15:26, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
• The relevant policy is WP:NONLATIN: There is no requirement that usernames be in English. Furthermore, contributors are welcome to use usernames that are not spelled using the Latin alphabet, but should bear in mind that other scripts are illegible to most contributors to the English Wikipedia, and sometimes the characters may not appear correctly. To avoid confusion and aid navigation, users with such usernames are encouraged to use Latin characters in their signature. There was an RFC back in 2011 (Wikipedia talk:Username policy/Archive 18#RFC: Use of non-latin or unicode characters as usernames) which was archived without being closed. If anyone knows why we have usernames I would be interested in knowing the origin of the practice. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:49, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

  The origin of usernames is probably the Compatible Time-Sharing System. Vexations (talk) 21:04, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

• One of the early opposes in that RfA based their oppose because the candidate didnt have any activity on any other wikipedia. Even though not many people mentioned it, I think that was the reason they opposed. There are many other users with non-keyboard usernames who are active on multiple projects. It is not a wise idea to limit enwiki adminship based on username which is global (all wikimedia sites). However I always had an issue with article titles. Why do we have non english characters in article titles on an english encyclopaedia? Why Élodie Yung but not Дмитрий Медведев? Also per Primefac, and Xaosflux. —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 19:51, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
• I do not find this a good reason to oppose an RfA candidate, so I naturally oppose codifying this. Because of WP:SUL, usernames are globally unified across all Wikimedia projects. The English Wikipedia is a diverse collection of individuals, and imposing some kind of expectation that administrators should only have Latin characters in their username is unfair to editors who come from non-English backgrounds. If non-Latin characters truly hinder communication to the extent that a user cannot adequately open a talk thread about that admin - not at Arbcom, any of the notice boards, or general talk pages, then non-Latin characters should be disallowed in all usernames, not just those of administrators. Mz7 (talk) 01:02, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
• Definite oppose. There is no requirement that usernames use Latin characters, nor should there be.--Aervanath (talk) 07:33, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
• If there is anything to learn from 力's RfA, it is that "candidate has a username that is policy compliant, but I disagree with the policy" is an exceptionally poor oppose reason. —Kusma (talk) 18:50, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
• Clear oppose, as a) per Mz7 it should be the case for all editors and b) it's globally restrictive and frankly, selfish (to those coming from other projects where it may be the norm). Also, cf. SUL, is it even possible?
  In other news, I'd be interested to know how—somewhat per Kusma—crats would have weighed all those !votes which had no basis in policy whatsoever; can we be reassured that they would be discounted wholesale? I admit, that would be *gulp* brave  :) SN54129 — Review here please :) 19:03, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

  RFA isn't AfD where arguments have to be grounded in policy, as !votes are based on whether or not the !voter trusts the candidate with the tools. We don't have any policy on a minimum tenure or edit count to be an administrator, but I don't think anyone would discount a vote of "Oppose, editor has only been here a month and made 1000 edits". It's perfectly valid to say "I don't trust this user's judgement because they want to be an administrator but they chose a username makes them difficult to reach," whether or not you agree with that argument. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 02:31, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

• I probably would not vote against someone for a user name (or maybe I would, who knows), but to oppose because the admin's name is not accessible for some people, to me, that is a valid oppose. How a Crat weighs it, probably depends on the Crat, but I would be very disappointed if they (as a group) were to say they completely discount those votes. I also doubt it. Accessibility isn't a trivial thing, particularly since so many access Wikipedia with phones, and expectations for admin are a bit higher than for editors in other areas as well. It might not be the strongest reason to oppose (or support) a candidate, but it is a valid reason nonetheless. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:15, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
• Brown is accurate here. I do not believe we should have a rule to prohibit them, especially due to the presence (and wanting the presence) of cross-wiki admins. But it also a valid oppose grounds - I suspect (!)voting editors are much more likely to oppose on these grounds where an editor does not have significant non english-wikipedia ties, in practical terms Nosebagbear (talk) 12:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
• Strong oppose’. Counterproposal: indef anyone who misspells my name. It is with ‘tstr’. Ok, enough joking. This should simply never be policy. I try to teach myself to copy/paste any username that I want to ping, the number of people that have maimed their username in signatures makes having to copy/paste usernames almost mandatory. I miss replylink, that pasted an {{rto}} automatically on reply unlike convenient discussions. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
• I do think, strongly, that administrators should have a username that people can easily use to contact them. If they don't, maybe that could be achieved by creating a keyboard-friendly name which redirects to their actual name, and using that keyboard-friendly name as their signature here. For some history: this very question came up at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TLSuda, and I was one of several people who withheld support because their username at the time was ТимофейЛееСуда . A few days into the RFA discussion, he changed his username to TLSuda, leaving ТимофейЛееСуда as a redirect, and explaining the change as having been done "Due to a consensus of editors requesting (with very good reason)". I'm not suggesting that admins be REQUIRED to have a keyboard-friendly name, but they should recognize it as an issue; if they have a good reason for their non-standard name, IMO they should offer a keyboard-friendly alternative. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with sensible suggestion of MelanieN. The interests of other editors should be primary. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:57, 5 January 2022 (UTC).

Inclusion of Administrative action review

ProcrastinatingReader made an update to this page yesterday to include WP:Administrative action review which was reverted by DGG with the edit summary there was no consensus to adopt this proposed process. I believe this summary to be incorrect as there was an RfC used to establish the forum. DGG's issue is that there was no subsequent RfC to approve how it operates. You can see more discussion of that here. As I believe the board has been approved by the community, and the generation of procedures is being formalized through typical Wikipedia methods for such boards I have reinstated the edit. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:33, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

The removal of XRV from the policy was done by DGG after, in chronology: (1) he had said that the current, actual, XRV is an "illegitimate" (diff) implementation of XRV as emanating from the relevant RfC, and that it should probably be scrapped, (2) to reiforce this view, he had rhetorically asked what policy mentions XRV, implying there's none (diff), (3) he had been responded to with links to this policy as a form of a rebuttal (diff). To erase all mention of XRV from the policy under these circumstances was an example of WP:POINT.— Alalch Emis (talk) 15:41, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

The wording I removed that includes this process was added 3 days ago by one of the people developing this process, and it is now being linked to in order to show there's a basis in policy, This is circular reasoning of the most obvious nature. . I note that on the talk p. it is claimed that there is consensus., but I think enough people disagree. I think the discussion should remain centralized on the procedure talk page unless it gets moved elsewhere. I'm not going to do another revert, until the matter is further determined, and I'm taking a break from the discussion for a day or two to diminish the prospects for escalating conflict. DGG ( talk ) 15:35, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

•  Administrator note due to constant edit warring over this, the page has been protected - please resolve the issue here on talk. I'm sure it is at the The Wrong Version. Any uninvolved admin is welcome to reset protection (restore edit:SPP, indef) once this matter is resolved here on the talk page. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:00, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

In my view, the actions of DGG are disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point by getting rid of a noticeboard he doesn't like for some reason, although in fairness I've done that too. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:03, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: feel free to list conduct issues at WP:ANI, where uninvolved admins are also welcome to reset the protection if the edit warring is over. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:11, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@Xaosflux, I do not understand the reasoning behind full-protecting a page where admins are in conflict. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:30, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

You can challenge the administrative action at Wikipedia:Administrative action review. — Alalch Emis (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I giggled aloud. Izno (talk) 17:57, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@Usedtobecool: Because admins can get in trouble if they continue to edit war thru full protection, as people can start invoking WP:WHEEL. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:36, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@Usedtobecool: basically that. "Edits" made by someone that happens to be an admin normally have the same qualities as those made by non-admins; but editing a protected page may only be done by admins in accordance with the protection policy. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:38, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Floquenbeam and Xaosflux. That makes sense. Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:53, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

• I think I agree with DGG here. While I'm still agnostic about AARV long-term - it certainly had some kind of consensus at the RFC, and there's a 33% chance that what is there now will morph into something helpful - right now, honestly, it is not ready for prime time. If/when it becomes ready for prime time, I'd support adding it here even if it ends up in a form I don't like. But it shouldn't be added here yet, or to AN/ANI headers (I hesitate to look to see if that's already happened, I expect I'll be disappointed) until it is actually functional. Right now, use of AARV should be optional, with both the reporter and the reported editors agreeing to try it. It should certainly not be added to the admin policy page while still in (optimistically) beta mode. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:23, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) It's clear there was consensus for something called "Administrative action review". It is not clear that what has been recently established at that title matches what there was consensus for though. It is also clear that a board of that name does not derive its legitimacy from this policy, as no proposal was made to modify it let alone consensus for that modification to be made. Given that the bold change to mention AARV here has been objected to, consensus needs to be established before readding it. Thryduulf (talk) 16:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I have nominated the noticeboard for deletion at MFD subject to a proper discussion and RFC on how/if the page should work. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:49, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

And that, predictably, did not work but there is now discussion there of removing pointers to that venue while it is properly developed and the scope made clear. I'd suggest that rather than continuing to discuss the matter here, everyone who hasn't already comment over there. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:33, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

By "there", Beeb means Wikipedia talk:Administrative action review#Two suggestions (said Floq modestly) --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:35, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I think there's a clear consensus to remove AARV from places where it appears to be listed as a currently operating board, and based on that consensus I've temporarily removed it from the AN/ANI headers, and am in the process of removing a link to it from WP:VAND. I won't remove it from here yet (even though that consensus specifically mentioned WP:ADMIN), because I don't want to be accused by anyone of edit warring thru full protection. Regardless of whether you agree with the consensus or not, is there anyone here who would object to following that consensus by temporarily removing AARV from this page? Alternately, are there any uninvolved admins who would agree that the consensus on that page (Wikipedia talk:Administrative action review#Two suggestions) removes the need for full protection here? --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:31, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: as the content dispute that led to the protection was more appropriately moved to a discussion, the protection has been removed and the page may be edited as supported by consensus. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:51, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Xaosflux:. Because I'm a little short of time the rest of the day to defend myself if challenged, I want to be 100% safe here (so I don't end up at AARV!). Does anyone think that the consensus linked above doesn't apply for some reason? --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@Alalch Emis: I see you're editing the page now. Can you please answer this question? Xaosflux removed protection because there was a consensus on the page I linked to remove this. Are you claiming for some reason that this consensus doesn't apply? --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:33, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't think there was a consensus to remove it everywhere as you say Floq but there was a consensus, at that moment - and since it only happened for less than a day it's not a very robust consensus which could change as more people weigh in - to remove it from here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:37, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: I think that the community-wide RfC which established XRV places higher in the hierarchy of consensuses than a talk page discussion. It seems appropriate that a policy should be updated by the way of such a high-level RfC. I'm of a position that even if the venue is currently inoperative (not saying that it is or isn't), the RfC and therefrom the policy create a norm that there be XRV. Instead of changing the policy by removing mention of XRV, what needs to change is furthering in practice what has been set out in order to have a functioning XRV. If over a relatively long period of time it proves that XRV isn't functioning, that'd be different. Then the policy would be dead letter. But we're not nearly there yet. — Alalch Emis (talk) 22:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that there is an expectation that there will be an AARV. But the consensus I linked was that links in the main space should be temporarily removed until there was consensus that it was "live". Removing this link from this page in no way counters the consensus at the RFA RFC that such a board should be created. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Every major change is based on a bright hope for the future, that is of uncertain prospects. It doesn't matter how worked out something is right from the start. You can prepare for every eventuality and most of what you've done turns out bad, or you can prepare for few things and work things out in the process (or fail). It's always uncertain. Change puts a burden on individuals to make the best out of the situation instead of saying "this will be terrible". The change is here and now we need the hope. The page (now after the MfD even more certainly) exists, just not in the specific shape that is sufficiently widely agreed with to make it fully functional. The proposal passed. We're past the expectation stage. We're in the "work to make things good stage". What is had now is a norm that there be AARV. The policy merely records this. Everything gels better together when norm-setting sources congrue, i.e. the RfC and the policy. Instead of an argument in the style of "it isn't mentioned in the policy so it's illegitimate" (creating an internal conflict among such sources) it's much much better to have a harmony in this area that motivates a response of "the policy mentions it, but it isn't quite what it needs to be yet, so let's do our best to make it what it needs to be". More constructive overall. — Alalch Emis (talk) 23:25, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: Here's an idea of a compromise: Restoring one mention (instead of three), specifically the one in Wikipedia:Administrators#Administrator noticeboards, and adding a custom notice like the one in Wikipedia:Administrators#Becoming an administrator (maybe formatted as a {{notice|small=left ...) based on the text of the notice in the header ("...newly created process and norms are still being established"). — Alalch Emis (talk) 00:18, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Personally, I could accept that. But after the recent edit warring, I'd strongly suggest getting a consensus here first. Maybe make a mockup and see what others say. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:22, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

— Alalch Emis (talk) 00:39, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't object to the concept, but it's not really just the norms that are still being established - the whole purpose, structure and other fundamentals are still being developed. The simplest change I think of that would reflect this would to replace "a process page exists where administrative actions can be discussed and reviewed by the broader community" with "a process page is currently being developed to provide a place where administrative actions can be discussed and reviewed by the broader community". Thryduulf (talk) 11:37, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I removed protection because discussion was occurring instead of just a revert cycle, I didn't evaluate the conclusion of the discussion. In reviewing now, the target page (at least for now) says that the norms for it are still being established, and combined with the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Administrative_action_review#Temporary_removal_of_links_to_this_page_from_directions_at_AN/ANI,_WP:ADMIN,_etc. - I'd call the for the immediate result for that target not be listed on the admin policy page, yet (nor going and expanding it to everywhere else that may be in scope of XRV (e.g. WP:ROLLBACK, WP:MMS, or any other permission policy page) until the other active discussions on that page conclude. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:32, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Or here, or anywhere appropriate - just not a revert cycle! — xaosflux ^Talk 00:40, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I've no objections to @ProcrastinatingReader:'s updates. GoodDay (talk) 14:44, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Data on admin numbers

Hi! I was curious about what the current and historical ratios of number of admins to number of users are, but am struggling to find a page documenting this. Where can I access this data? A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 08:09, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

This is only a marginally useful response, because I haven't actually checked it will work. But I would guess you could search for "crisis" in the WT:RFA archives, and any number of charts and graphs will pop up giving you what you want. Floquenbeam (talk) 16:27, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Might also be buried in here somewhere [1]. WP:Active admins shows who is acutally active, as opposed to who has admin tools. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:34, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

No consensus

WP:NOCON says "When discussions of contested administrator actions result in no consensus either for the action or for reverting the action, the action is normally reverted."

It appears (see comments at planned [but probably unnecessary] Wikipedia talk:Consensus/No consensus RfC 2022 and the current discussion at Wikipedia talk:Consensus) that this is not true. In fact, whatever might have been true over a decade ago when it was added, the statistics of actual practice are probably exactly backwards now, and not just for AE work.

I have proposed removing this from NOCON, which is meant only to be a handy central summary of real practice and rules written elsewhere, and not to create new rules itself. (Please comment there if you have an opinion on whether NOCON should keep/remove this.) If you think that a rule about this subject ought to be written down somewhere, then perhaps this policy would be a sensible place for such a rule to be developed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:15, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: hmm, I suppose it may be directional? If the question is "Was WhatamIdoing's action appropriate?" a NC may lead to a reversal. If it is "Should WhatamIdoing's action be reversed?" a NC would be to let it be. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:35, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I doubt it. The way the question is phrased should not have any bearing one whether past actions get reversed. (If it did, then what would you do if the question said "Was this appropriate, or should it be reversed?")

All I'm certain of right now is that the existing statement is wrong. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:16, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

No consensus on Transliteration

I need help to conclude the transliteration of the word रघुवंशी. User Getsnoopy updated Raghuvamshi & Suryavanshi by replacing the letter n with m, which I consider is not correct transliteration.

Here is the research done by me :

1. Multiple example of references of the रघुवंशी in history books which spell it as Raghuvanshi of the word was shared by users on WP:ANI

Uncle G (talk) 17:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Rawat, Ramnarayan S. (2011). Reconsidering Untouchability: Chamars and Dalit History in North India. Contemporary Indian studies. Indiana University Press. p. 123. ISBN 9780253222626. The author was a lawyer in Aligarh […] and by choosing the surname of Raghuvanshi, he sought to underscore his learned status.

Copland, Ian (2002). The Princes of India in the Endgame of Empire, 1917–1947. Cambridge Studies in Indian History and Society. Vol. 2. Cambridge University Press. p. 23. ISBN 9780521894364. Alwar […] believed that 'My family is descended from the Suriya […] Dynasty […], coming down to Raghu, after whom the dynasty is called Raghuvanshi […]'

I leave you with a professor of history in a 2011 IUP book, an a 1933 letter from the maharajah of Alwar, both spelling it "Raghuvanshi". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neha.thakur75 (talk • contribs) 20:45, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

2. As per Wikipedia:Indic transliteration, the right transliteration of रघुवंशी is Raghuvanshi. The standard nasal signs (ṁ and ṃ) are only to be used at the end of words OR when it is crucial to keep the distinction between Bindi and Tippi use in Gurmukhi.

When अं is followed by 'v' hence the transliteration is n (as per ISO 15919) and n (as per IPA)

3. Google translate of रघुवंशी hindi Language transliteration to Raghuvanshi.