Talk:Nusrati

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Islam Low‑importance

	Islam portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Poetry

	Poetry portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poetry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of poetry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoetryWikipedia:WikiProject PoetryTemplate:WikiProject PoetryPoetry articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

India Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Transliteration

@Srnec We do not need to use strict transliteration throughout the entire article, only once for the first mention of the subject. MOS:ARABIC (which applies to Persian) specifically says "strict transliterations in the main text should only be used out of necessity" and that "the strict transliteration uses accents, underscores, and underdots, and is only used for etymology, usually alongside the original Arabic." Sources overwhelmingly do not use the strict transliteration for any of these words. The only two sources which do are the Encyclopaedia of Islam and Encyclopaedia Iranica, but those are much more specialized and do not reflect the consensus of other sources. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 20:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the most modern reliable sources do in fact typically use strict transliteration for Arabic. You say only once for the first mention of the subject, but that does not correspond to your edit. I think it is easier to be consistent and use it throughout. I do not see why two encyclopaedias would be more "specialized" than some histories of Urdu literature. Srnec (talk) 19:21, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the most modern reliable sources do in fact typically use strict transliteration for Arabic. I can assure you that that is not the case; if it was MOS:ARABIC wouldn't prohibit using strict transliteration throughout the entire article without good reason and there would be more than one user (that I know of) who creates/writes using strict transliteration of Arabic; maybe "specialized" was not the best word but those sources are indeed the only ones I've encountered which consistently use strict transliteration, and even if there are one or two more it is clearly not the common method; and yes, my quote didn't correspond with my edit as using strict transliteration at all isn't mandated, only that using it adjacent to the first mention for etymology is the only recommended use if one does want to use it. One should not go against the MoS just because they prefer one transliteration method; Wikipedia should be consistent in which method is used.

The main reason I'm making a fuss over this is due to strict transliteration of more common words such as Bijapur, the sultanate which ruled from the city, and the sultans who ruled the sultanate; from personal experience those words are overwhelmingly not strictly transliterated, and the same goes for the other words from Arabic used here barring the names of his works, which make some sense if you're adamant about this method. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 19:43, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, strict or full transliteration is the norm in works from academic publishers. I have no problem with removing the diacritics from Bijapur. I do not think Wikipedia needs to be consistent across all articles. We allow variation in date format, English spelling, reference style, etc. Consistency within an article matters, but not necessarily between them. Srnec (talk) 01:59, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]