Wiktionary talk:About Persian

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search


I prefer to use the following system:

  • long "a" = â
  • short "a" (zabar) (fatha) = a
  • خ = x
  • ش = š
  • ژ = ž
  • long "i" = i
  • zir (kasra) = e

As for the ezafe, I prefer to place it in the transliteration as e preceded by a - (hyphen). What does everyone else prefer or what do they want to present for the official policy? --Dijan 21:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I don’t have a strong preference, but I suggest what I put at Appendix:Persian transliteration. Feel free to modify it. —Stephen 23:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
The Wiktionary:About_Persian#Transliteration says that there will be a vote on what transliteration system to adopt for the site, but I do not see a record of any such vote nor do I see any suggestion of when/how it might take place. Any ideas as to when or if this decision might happen? --Mavaddat (talk) 18:46, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
We use Wiktionary:Persian transliteration (Wiktionary system). I'm not sure there was ever a formal vote, since most Wiktionary editors do not know Persian. We just came to agree on the system shown. —Stephen (Talk) 02:24, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

New addditions[edit]

It looks very nice. Just a few things:

  • In ===Etymology=== section individual language template should be deprecated in favour of generic {{etyl}}. Most old folks are still accustomed to old templates, but the newcomers will love the flexibility of {{etyl}}.
  • An example with a loanword from Turkish otağ should be replaced with a better one (perhaps from Old Persian? ;), because 99% of all Turkish loanwords in all the languages are in fact from Ottoman Turkish (ISO code 'ota') which was written in Arabic script, not from this after-1928 Turkish with reformed orthography and lexis.
  • Example in the ===English-Persian=== section should use {{t}} instead of {{t+}}
  • Examples in ====Etymology==== section should be rewritten using {{etyl}} and {{term}}
  • Instead of using explicit categorization with [[Category:Persian nouns]] + reinstating the headword in every POS line, rewrite the examples to use {{infl}} with sc=fa-Arab, or maybe create {{fa-noun}} which should use it implicitly?
  • Dari and Tajik entries should not be put in ====See also==== section (that catch-all section that people tend to (mis)use for various purposes is likely to be deprecated sometime), but instead mentioned in ===Etymology=== section, as cognates or something. ===Etymology=== and ====Descendants==== sections are the only place where entries should link to other languages' entries. --Ivan Štambuk 10:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


Hi, I've created {{R:STEIN}} which can be used to reference comprehensive Persian dictionary compiled by Steingass in 1892 (thus out of copyright) and freely searchable here. However, I see several potential problems with it:

  • It transcribes pronunciations that may have shifted a bit by today, especially in the omnipresent Tehrani dialect of "New Persian" which I've read on WP had much innovation in phonology in the last century, as opposed to more conservative peripheral dialects
  • Some meanings (probably whole lot of them) are probably only used in the language of literature, and never colloquially, and thus distract from the primary, denotative meaning of the lexeme which should be listed first and emphasized
  • Some of the meanings have become dated, obsolete or archaic in the meantime.

Thoughts? --Ivan Štambuk 23:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

romanisation of چ[edit]

What's the romanisation of چ ? Is it č? Please specify in the body. I have just added the Persian translation of what time is it using this romanisation: sâ'at čand ast? (ساعت چند است؟). I hope it's right. --Anatoli 23:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Both č and ch can be used. The چ letter basically has the same sound as the ch in the English word "chair". Placebo 16:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


No {{fa-noun}}, {{fa-verb}} on this page? Then it's out of date, we generally avoid writing the categories out like Persian nouns when a template can do it. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


I think it is not good to use 'y' in phrases like 'Jomhuri-ye Eslâmi-ye Irân' because it makes the reader misspell that as 'Jomhuriie Eslâmiie Irân' (i accented like p in 'tappe') though it is practically pronounced 'Jomhurie Eslâmie Irân'; I think it is better to write this way: "Jomhuri-e Eslâmi-e Irân" --C.pazoki 17:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry?? Mglovesfun (talk) 17:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
He’s talking about the ezafe, a sound that is used to connect nouns to their adjectives but which is not written. It is okay with me if we spell it -e instead of -ye, but how it’s spelled really will have no effect on how Persian students write it. It is elementary grammar and every student knows exactly what it is, no matter how it is spelled. —Stephen 18:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
(Bump) In terms of romanisation I used زبان فارسی (zabân-e fârsi), adding ezafe if it's pronounced. Are there objections? --Anatoli 03:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Spoken words used in casual conversations[edit]

I would like to bring some words into attention which I'm honestly puzzled are worthy of an entry or not. As an example I'd like to use the word باران. This is the formal and correct way to spell it and in formal speeches the word is pronounced "bârân" as the entry says.

But in casual conversations, most people in Iran have developed an "oon" sound so the word would be pronounced "bâroon" instead, seeing as the last vocal is shorter and easier to pronounce. "bâroon" is only informal.

If you had to spell this with Persian letters it would be spelled as بارون.

My question is, do you think بارون, تهرون, ایرون, زندون,‎ etc. deserves their own entry?

I would like to point out that these words are frequently being used on the Internet. If you look up these words on Google you can find quite a few hits on them. بارون comes up with 1,150,000 results and images of rain. ایرونی comes up with half a million hits. قلیون comes up with appo. 50 thousand and lots of pictures of hookah.

So these words are used frequently. They aren't used as much as their formal counterparts but still enough so that there is a chance somebody might run into these alternative spellings.

Furthermore, the Persian Wiktionary has the fa:بارون entry added saying it's meaning is باران.

So my question is, are these words worthy of an entry? What is the best solution to this? Placebo 16:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course they deserve their own entries. If such entries are created, please make sure they are marked as "colloquial" or "informal" and that they have links to literary and/or formal Persian spellings. Take a look at توانستن (tavânestan), تونستن (tunestan) and تونسن (tunessan). --Dijan 03:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I have tried to create a list with all of the words that came to my mind. There are many more that I will add as I remember them. Here is the list. The six entries that I have created so far are ایرون, ایرونی, بارون, تهرون, زبون, قلیون. Placebo 13:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Entering zero-width non-joiner[edit]

What are the methods to enter zero-width non-joiner on a computer? Apart from copying existing examples, I don't see another method. How is it done on Persian keyboards and on popular virtual keyboards? --Anatoli 03:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

It is located in different places depending on the Persian keyboard that you use. Commonly it can be accessed by typing shift-space, or ctrl-alt-2, or ctrl-shift-2. Yours may be different. My Windows XP-Pro uses ctrl-shift-2. —Stephen (Talk) 11:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, Stephen. I try to type: خانه‌ام - my house, I saw it written this way in a textbook. Interesting that Google produced heaps of خانهام. --Anatoli 12:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Tajiki Persian is not descended from Iranian Persian.[edit]

Tajiki Persian is not descended from Iranian Persian, so I don't know why it is being shown in this way on Wiktionary. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 12:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@Kaixinguo~enwiktionary: This will have to be changed here. @-sche? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 13:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
OK, I have set "tg" to have the same ancestor as "fa". I have also updated WT:AFA to reflect what was agreed upon and recorded at WT:LT after several discussions (linked there) with knowledgeable editors - that Dari is subsumed, not separate, while Tajik is separate still. - -sche (discuss) 18:41, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:Calak[edit]

Hey, Calak. Tajik is actually a variant of New Persian, and not descended from Middle Persian (300 BCE – 800 CE). As such, Tajik should be placed under Persian. Thanks!--Victar (talk) 10:42, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps actually placing Tajik, Persian and Dari under a "Classical Persian" level is best. See here. @JohnC5 what do you think? --Victar (talk) 10:51, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
@Victar: Not my area of knowledge. —*i̯óh₁nC[5] 11:17, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
@Victar: Hi! Yes, I agree. Iranian Persian (pes), Tajik (tgk) and Dari (prs) should be under "(Classical) Persian" (fas) level [1]. So for "intelligence" we have:
  • (Classical) Persian: هوش (hōš)
    Dari: هوش (hōš)
    Iranian Persian: هوش (hûš)
    Tajik: ҳӯш (hüš)
So please define "pes", "tgk", "prs" and "fas" in Module:languages/data3. Thanks.--Calak (talk) 15:13, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Calak, if you see the page I exampled, I'm using language code fa-cls for Classical Persian. --Victar (talk) 15:21, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
@-sche sorry to bother you again, but I've just noticed this. So apparently this edit (a followup to that conversation) is wrong, and the ancestor has to be moved one step further again. Sorry for the trouble! Pinging @Victar as well. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 23:56, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Just to be clear, you want to go back to Tajik being a descendant of (an etymology-only subvariety of) Iranian Persian? I'll ping @Kaixinguo~enwiktionary, who participated in the WT:T:AFA discussion, to be sure they are on board with that.
On a separate note, Calak, Wiktionary uses two-letter codes rather than three-letter codes whenever the ISO has assigned them, so the code for Persian is "fa" not "fas", and Tajik is "tg" not "tgk", etc.
And based on past discussions (documented at WT:LT), "pes" and "prs" are subsumed into "fa" here, on the grounds that they are mutually intelligible. I could add an etymology-only code for Dari, though. - -sche (discuss) 01:12, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, "one step further again" wasn't very clear; but no, not go back. From what I've read above, the ancestor of Tajik should be Classical Persian directly; it shouldn't go through Middle Persian, since the split happened before that. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 01:21, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
I know Classical Persian is ancestor of Tajik and Dari, but we should split Dari from Iranian Persian.--Calak (talk) 05:43, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Dari is mutually intelligible with Iranian Persian, and written in the same script. We have not had any problems that I am aware of in treating them as the same language. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:46, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes they have same script but have different phonology. Dari has 8 vowels but Iranian Persian has 6 vowels, beside different words. For example in Iranian Persian شیر/šir means 1.milk 2.lion but in Dari شیر/šir means milk and شیر/šēr lion. Now we can reflect this different.--Calak (talk) 06:12, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
We already do reflect that, in our pronunciation sections. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:20, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Right; this mirrors other languages, including English, where some dialects have different phonology or words, and sometimes even (as in English) some spelling differences. - -sche (discuss) 16:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
There are a couple of nonsense suggestions in this discussion as a whole, it's a bit dismaying to see. @Victar's suggestion was fine. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
@-sche: Just to make it clear, no, that is not what I meant at all about the etymology. By the way, I was referring to etymology sections in entries and 'descendants' sections though I have seen the issue crop up elsewhere. Perhaps this discussion does not belong under the same heading although they are related and thank you for moving them. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 19:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
@-sche, Metaknowledge: I am opening a new discussion about Dari Persian transliteration. It is unfortunate timing, but it seems that the issue has now become pressing. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 19:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
@Per utramque cavernam: that (saying the split happened before Middle Persian) confuses me, since Classical Persian is encoded as, and also explained by other references as, an early variety of fa that came after Middle Persian. Wikipedia seems to agree with treating Tajik and (Iranian) Persian as developments of either Middle Persian or (Early New / Classical) Persian, but not anything earlier. - -sche (discuss) 16:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
@-sche: Ahah, I'm making a jumble of it all, sorry about that. I thought Classical Persian was the stage before Middle Persian. But I think (?) I've got it now.
  • first solution (the previous one): Middle Persian > Classical Persian > Iranian Persian > Tajik
  • second solution (the current one): Middle Persian > 1) Tajik + 2) Classical Persian
  • third solution: Middle Persian > Classical Persian > 1) Tajik + 2) Iranian Persian
I'll just let you guys decide what's best. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 17:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Guys I talk about reconstruction namespaces not entries! how can we reflect different pronunciation between Iranian Persian and Dari in reconstruction namespaces?!--Calak (talk) 18:26, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Please hold important policy discussions like this at WT:AFA, not on an individual user's discussion page. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 18:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree and have moved the discussion. - -sche (discuss) 18:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
@Calak: How would you indicate the pronunciation differences if Dari had its own code? Indicate them the same way, but just using the code "fa" and qualifiers as needed. :) Also, I made "prs" (Dari) an etymology code, so you can write things like {{cog|prs|سویدن}}, and add vowel dots or a particular transliteration or {{IPAchar|//}} as needed. - -sche (discuss) 18:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
@ZxxZxxZ, Irman, Dick Laurent, Dijan, Atitarev, Stephen G. Brown, Kolmiel, LissanX, Rye-96 Apologies to those whom I have forgotten. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 19:26, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
@-sche: There's been an agreement here thus so far that Dari Persian and Iranian Persian are being treated together, although the issue of Dari Persian-only transliteration has been lurking unresolved in the background, suddenly adding a Dari Persian-only etymology code represents a major shift. Please slow down such changes until the people who have actually made significant edits in Persian have contributed, too. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 19:58, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, this is all I need. We want to indicate the pronunciation differences, nothing more.--Calak (talk) 20:06, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm aware of the prior discussion that led to Dari being subsumed into "fa", having started it, hehe. An etymology-only code doesn't represent a major shift, IMO: Dari is still handled under ==Persian==, but now words borrowed specifically from it can be marked. On reconstruction pages, the Dari forms can now be given more easily; but if this prompts someone to implement an even more robust solution instead, like separate "fa-tr=" and "prs-tr=" transliteration parameters to display Dari and Iranian transliterations with their different vowels, all the better. - -sche (discuss) 20:31, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
OK, OK stop showing off :P By coincidence this Dari Persian issue has come up today at امریکا. @Metaknowledge has already objected to what I suggested about Dari Persian below. I think there have been plenty of discussions to be had about various aspects of Persian, but the main reasons not to have them recently have been that people such as ZxxZxxZ, Irman, Dick_Laurent and Dijan (and perhaps others) have all been absent, so it would be like trying to hold a conversation alone.
P.S. Personally I wouldn't 'give' 'fa' to Iranian Persian, I thought Iranian Persian and Dari Persian have and equal claim on 'Persian', don't they? Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 20:54, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
I object to your method of showing it, and the highlighting going on at امریکا is pretty bad on the eyes as well. I said that it's not a bad idea, but that it's not as necessary as you seem to believe, because we are not having actual problems in documenting Dari Persian. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
As per usual, I must disagree. Dari Persian is scarcely being represented at all. It's a complete afterthought. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 22:07, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
@Calak: Thanks. Do you think you could outline your scheme for Dari Persian transliteration somewhere please when you have time? I take it that any other moves to show Dari Persian Romanisations in the future naturally will follow the same scheme, too. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 22:31, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello everyone! I initially didn’t want to add anything here because I have absolutely no experience in the formatting required to organize these sorts of things, so pardon me beforehand for possibly making a formatting mess here. As I understand, the issue is distinguishing between Iranian, Dari and Tajik dialects of Persian? If so, I agree with making a distinction when it comes to categorizing entries here separately and distinctly formatting for Iranian Persian, Dari Persian and Tajik Persian. I believe a lot of misinformation could be spread by implying Iranian-specific aspects of Persian, particularly when it comes to colloquialism, also apply to Dari or Tajik Persian. If the conversation here is about something else entirely, then forgive my lack of Wiki-savviness because I don’t know what exactly is going on here... (lol). User:LissanX (talk) 23:36, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Please do not change placement of synonyms without discussion[edit]

Some people have added a new placement of synonyms under each definition line, but they have only done it in a few entries and then left all the others as they are. And sometimes the synonyms they gave were wrong anyway. I believe that this placement of synonyms is a mistake for Persian, as it doesn't suit the future of the way the entries will develop when they (hopefully) show Dari persian and have Dari Persian transliterations as well, which will make entries much longer with two transliterations (e.g. بچه bačče Iran bačča Afghanistan, as a possibility). Anyway, that is only my opion, but if there is a decision to switch the formatting in this way, at least put a notice here informing everyone and edit more than one entry so you are not just leaving 8999 entries out of sync with all the others. —This unsigned comment was added by Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talkcontribs). at 12:33, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't agree on any of these points. I don't think we necessarily need to elevate Dari transliterations in the future (although it's not a bad idea), I don't think that your proposed format for doing so is efficient or aesthetically pleasing, I don't think adoption of such a format would impede usage of {{syn}} and its kin, and I don't think that entries being "out of sync" in terms of a relatively minor formatting detail is at all a problem. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:49, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Romanisation of Dari Persian - offer your opinions please[edit]

It is common practice to put an Iranian Persian-based transliteration for the simple reason that that is what the majority seem to have been most familiar with, so far. There are a handful (~30) of Dari-Persian only words that have no transliteration, because it would be ludicrous to have an Iranian Persian transliteration for a Dari Persian-only word and no Dari Persian transliteration. There has been no native speaker of Dari Persian on Wiktionary so far, let's face facts: there have only been a handful of editors of Persian at all.

I understood and I always believed that there was a common consensus that the default reasoning for the absence of Dari Persian transliteration so far is that no native speaker of Dari Persian had started editing and put forward their own transliteration system, example sentences etc. And there are compelling reasons for it not to be done ad hoc by others. There's a plethora of bad and unreliable resources out there for Dari Persian that are not accurate or confuse Iranian Persian with Dari Persian. Some of them were no doubt produced with the American military market in mind during that era just to make a quick profit and have been worked on by Iranian Americans, probably, resulting in inaccuracy and misinformation. There's even a dictionary (!) of Dari Persian to Iranian Persian that is full of faults, even a respected Iranian publisher cannot get it right [2]. It is a not a simple area to deal with. There are political and cultural considerations to be taken into account as well as linguistic ones.

Though the decision has been made to have Dari Persian and Iranian Persian together, it has to be understood that some Dari speakers could well appear one day and demand to know why they haven't been given, or why they aren't entitled to their own language sections. Dari Persian has been incorporated into Persian here, but it's always been my understanding that it will have equal and fair treatment and that it is alongside Iranian Persian, not 'subsumed' or 'beneath' waiting to be 'elevated', and that is how their inclusion under one language header can be justified. The only reason (as I understood it) for the absence of Dari Persian transliterations, has been a lack of qualified editors, not that is in any way inferior or less significant. I believe the equal representation of Dari Persian is important, not only because that would one day make Wiktionary a useful resource for Dari Persian, but also because the fact is that the one 'variety' of Persian is not superior to another. Moreover, Dari Persian remains closer to the classical pronunciation and it's very beautiful to hear poetry in that accent. As I said, Dari is used by a whole country of people (well, the ones of that country who speak it), it is just as dear and important as Iranian Persian in everyone's hearts.

Perhaps the only reasonble and fair alternative to having transliteration sections for both Iranian Persian and Dari Persian, would be to put every word with a classical Persian transliteration section and Iranian and Dari pronuncations (and others) in the pronunciation section together. I believe that Z devised a scheme for this and it looked good, but it hasn't been applied extensively for unknown reasons.

However, having aired some of these thoughts due to recent developments, it seems that not everyone is in agreement as I had assumed. Please everyone give your thoughts on the status of Dari Persian transliterations which will be, no doubt, more informed than my own. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 21:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I am sympathetic to the idea of elevating classical romanisations, but I presume most users are coming here for Iranian Persian, and I think they would be confused by seeing ē where they expect i, for example. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:46, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
By the way — since this needs to be said — we are not disrespecting Dari by standardising on Iranian Persian. There are at least 3 times as many native speakers of the latter (probably more like 4 or 5 times as many), and there is vastly more written material (more than 90% of Iranian adults are literate, but only about 30% of Afghanistani adults). By treating Iranian Persian as the norm, we are simply following the facts of what we can use as evidence in entries. That doesn't mean it's the right way to go about this, but it does mean that it is justified and not because one is less "dear in our hearts". —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:04, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
We don't even have Classical romanizations at all; even having them in the pronunciation section would be helpful.
Also @Metaknowledge I see that you think Kaixinguo's proposed romanization format is unwieldy. How about this: بچه (I. bačče, A. bačča)AryamanA (मुझसे बात करेंयोगदान) 22:09, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
The approach used at امریکا seems bizarre to me: two separate sections, labelled as having different etymologies(!), for identical headwords (امریکا) and meanings ... two separate sections for the same word? IMO, we can handle it better the way that e.g. words that have more than one gender, or dialectally-different past tenses, or several script forms (e.g. Serbo-Croatian) are handled.
I like Aryaman's suggestion, except that I would spell the words out, like "Iranian:" and "Dari:". But if we do that, it would seem easier to maintain in a standardized/unified way (so we don't have some entries saying "Dari:" and some saying "Afghani:" and some saying "Afghanistan:", etc) and cleaner in terms of the code and machine-readability and reusability of output, to have versions or "masks" of {{l}} and {{m}} for Persian that allowed the two transliterations to be input as different parameters, rather than manually typing "Iran:" into the "tr=" as if it were part of the transliteration. In other words, on the model of {{he-l}}, perhaps have {{fa-l|بچه|I=bačče|A=bačča}} outputting بچه (Iranian: bačče, Dari: bačča).
Less optimally, since it would needlessly require a lot more typing, would be to only make {{l}} and {{m}} accept tr1= and tr2= and trgloss1= and trgloss2= (which would also be necessary as a backend to the "masks" above), and (if certain users preferred not to allow language-specific "masks") require people to spell out {{l|fa|بچه|tr1=bačče|trgloss=Iranian|tr2=bačča|trloss2=Dari}}, preferably in such a way that the parameters of trgloss1= and trgloss2= were passed through a module that could standardize "Iran:" and "Iranian:" etc into a single displayed label. - -sche (discuss) 22:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
@-sche: It may seem bizarre to you but the two words have different pronunciations and have entered Dari Persian and Iranian Persian separately. There's no need for the exclamation mark. Dari Persian has taken most of its words for country names independently of Iranian Persian, and the same goes for Tajiki Persian. There's plenty of words that are Dari-Persian only and the same goes for Iranian Persian, it's just that it seems more striking because they happen to be on the same page in this case. Another example along similar lines is مین which means 'mine' (landmine) in each place but has come from French 'mine' in Iranian Persian and English 'mine' in Dari Persian. The pronunciation and etymology is different, but the meaning is the same. But that's actually virtually irrelevant to the issues being discussed here. I would use 'Iran' and 'Afghanistan' rather than 'Iranian' and 'Dari', but I would leave the actual Dari Persian transliteration field empty until some native speakers of Dari Persian started editing, for the reasons I have stated above. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 23:10, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Modification of English-Persian translation layout[edit]

What if the English - Persian translation sections were modified to follow the pattern suggested above by Calak?

  • (Classical) Persian: هوش (hōš)
    Dari: هوش (hōš)
    Iranian Persian: هوش (hûš*) [*huš in the system used at the moment in entries]
    Tajik: ҳӯш (hüš)

I think it looks really good. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Maybe it's been rejected already as an idea. @ZxxZxxZ, Irman, Dick Laurent, Dijan, Atitarev, -sche, Metaknowledge —This unsigned comment was added by Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talkcontribs).

Just so you know, Kaixinguo, if you don't add your signature in the same edit as you add a ping, it won't go through. That's also why when you ping people and then later try to add more people to the template, it won't go through.
As for the suggestion... I don't think people looking for Tajik translations will think to look for them under P. (But you could make the same argument for Dari and Farsi already, I suppose.) —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:41, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
(And Chinese. —suzukaze (tc) 18:41, 23 January 2018 (UTC))
In general, I think translations should be listed under the same name as the entries use (in the L2 header), since that's where anyone who uses Wiktionary for any length of time, and looks at the entries, will then (quite reasonably) look in the translations tables. - -sche (discuss) 19:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Finishing transition to lower-case Romanisations for proper nouns[edit]

@ZxxZxxZ, Irman, Dick Laurent, Dijan, Atitarev, LissanX, Metaknowledge There has been a move at some point to change the Romanisations for proper nouns to lower case, but it is incomplete. The entries can't stay as they are with some proper nouns capitalised and others lower case so I am proposing to finish this by making them all lower case (I don't have any personal preference whatsoever). Please let me know if you object. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 18:38, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, of course, it has to be done. A while ago I requested a bot run but nobody did it. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 21:16, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
OK, it would be good if others would confirm that this is what they want, though. I couldn't find the discussion at all so I thought I would check. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 13:35, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Also, should this cover usage examples, too? Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 13:37, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I am undecided, many scholarly works (though not dictionaries) do use capitalization for transliteration of Persian or other scripts. Moreover, Tajik, which uses Latin as well, has a capitalization system. --Z 13:45, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

OK I won't do anything until there is a consensus, thank you :). Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 15:22, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Extended content
@ZxxZxxZ: I'm sorry, but User:Atitarev has gone ahead with the change anyway. I can't not go along with it because he will block me from editing pages again (see:[3]). Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 22:30, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
@Kaixinguo~enwiktionary: That protection was made back in 2015, long gone now - when it seemed clear that there IS a consensus to keep lower case transliterations only. If you think that this is still being discussed and not agreed on, I won't protect pages.
The standard at the time was to capitalise romanisations. That is why they were all that way, and why the regular editors of Persian were capitalising them. It was pretty awful of you to block me from editing 'Iran' and I did leave for almost two years after that. Anyway, it doesn't matter now.
@Kaixinguo~enwiktionary: It wasn't my impression that it was standard. Lower case and upper case were both used by regular used and there WAS a discussion about with most editors agreeing to use the lower case for all Persian transliterations. I'm sorry if I caused you grief then, it wasn't my intention. @Wikitiki89, -sche: Do you happen to remember where that discussion was? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 13:14, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
@Atitarev: Found it: Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2014/January#Capital letters in transliterations of languages that do not have capital letters. --WikiTiki89 14:45, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
I saw that conversation before when I was looking for how this situation came about and why someone suddenly started changing all the entries. It's a conversation started and conducted by people who don't edit Persian, it's vague and inconclusive and there's only one comment about Persian from someone who has edited it regularly (Dijan comments, but about Arabic). Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 13:34, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
@Atitarev: No, don't apologise, because it wasn't your fault, I think I just thought at the time that I was wasting my time because the transliteration couldn't be standardised, that nothing would ever progress because of that with Persian or it would all always be inconsistent.
Even if there was a conversation about it (which I missed), it can't have been being followed uniformly at the time. It doesn't matter any more, there just needs to be an agreement now. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 13:27, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Well, hopefully if there is an agreement, people will also agree to follow it. I don't know why it was difficult to agree on either "â" or "ā" and "ou" or "ow", the capitalisation rules and stick to that policy. I mean, if somebody doesn't like the existing policy, should suggest a change, rather disregard it and use whatever seems nice to him/her at the moment. There's no perfect transliteration for any script, it's a choice (hopefully based on a standard with any required modification), which should be made, be well described and adhered to. I prefer consistency and following rules, even if I may not like some individual choices. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 13:52, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
If User:Qehath would give his opinion then that would be all the main editors of Persian (except for one...). Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 12:46, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Also I just want to point out, that it is years that the Persian transliteration has been causing problems now. People who edited really well have permanently left over it. There is this constant back-and-forth over â and 'a' with macron that I can't type right now. It's more than ten years that this goes on for. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 12:55, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
I mean, TEN YEARS. Maybe more than that! I believe we lost User:Optional, User:Placebo and Ivan Stambuk over it.
@Atitarev I have put that we have de facto changed to lower-case now below in the summary of changes. Add to the list if you can think of anything. User:ZxxZxxZ, User:Qehath and User:Dijan did all the important work on Persian entries, so I would have liked to see an agreement from them really. User:Dijan probably isn't here enough to give his input, though. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 23:58, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
I strongly believe that standard Persian transliteration should all be in lower case. If not, this policy page and WT:FA TR shouldn't be ambiguous about it. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:35, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with making transliterations lower-case. It makes no sense, in my opinion, for a transliteration to abide by the grammatical rules of English like it’s a quasi-translation. - LissanX (talk) 01:16, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I, too, am in agreement to make all transliterations of Persian in lower case. Obviously, this would not apply to the Tajik variants. -Dijan (talk) 01:41, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Dijan. Of the people who have an opinion then that's more in favour of lower case so far. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 12:48, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I actually don't have super strong opinions on this. Who would have expected that? Anyway it seems like lower case is winning, I'm ok with that. — [ זכריה קהת ] Zack. — 23:44, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Qehath: Thanks 😊, any chance you could act as ambassador to Armenia and find out what they think? Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 00:16, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
I have no reason to expect he'd feel differently. — [ זכריה קהת ] Zack. — 02:22, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
@Qehath: Would you prefer if the examples are lower case as well? While I was searching for conversations about this, I think you commented in the past that they should be capitalised. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 13:33, 14 April 2018 (UTC)


As there seems to be strong feelings surrounding discontinuing and deleting {{etyl}}I could convert some of the instances of this template whilst I am changing the capitalisation of proper nouns. Is it accurate to convert every instance of {{etyl}} to {{bor}} when the Persian comes from Arabic?

Also, some of the sections using {{bor}} are worded as 'Borrowed from...' and others say 'From...', which is preferable? Thanks. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 13:32, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

@Kaixinguo~enwiktionary, if {{bor}} is being used, it should be "borrowed from". I don't know why this is being brought up on this page. --Victar (talk) 15:16, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
It's being discussed on this page because this is the page for discussing the formatting of Persian entries. Whoever it was who altered this template created a big mess. Some entries say 'borrowed from' and others say 'from'. Since a bot changed everything, it is all inconsistent. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 15:51, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Where does it say that it should always be 'borrowed from'? If that's the case, why was the template altered to stop it showing 'borrowed from', so that now someone has to go and change every entry back, if you're saying it has to be that wording? Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 15:53, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
@Kaixinguo~enwiktionary, that's nonsense. This is a general formatting question, not specific to Persian. Persian should not have its own formatting scheme for {{bor}}. The removal of the lead text, which I for one was against, was due to people having to use parameters to modify the grammar, usually from "Borrowing of" to "borrowed from". It was decided that the it would be easier to manually type it all in instead. --Victar (talk) 16:03, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Right, no need to be rude af about it. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 16:07, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Actually, maybe not

Well, only one person replied here anyway but the fact is I have been in an accident in the snow last month and I thought this was a good chance to do something useful while I am getting better. But I don't need to deal with this kind of thing: https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGfarnab&type=revision&diff=49230382&oldid=49230190 at the moment. It's still useful if anyone puts what they think on these issues but I will be leaving this for now. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 14:21, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it'd be a good idea since etyl is deprecated and we ought to progressive get rid of it. bor is for borrowings, inh for inherited terms and der for whenever we are not sure about which of the former two to use.
I wish you the very best in your recovery, be it while editing or not

=== Summary of formatting changes in Persian entries === @ZxxZxxZ, Irman, Qehath, Dijan, Atitarev, LissanX, Metaknowledge, Calak, Lo Ximiendo

  • All romanisations of proper nouns are transforming to lower case.
  • {{etyl}} is being removed.
  • 'Borrowed from' is becoming 'from'.
  • 'Ou' is becoming 'ow' in the abscence of any other agreement, information or discussion. I will maintain a list of words with 'ow' so it can be put back easily if the decision changes.
  • Dari Persian transliteration is still outstanding.

Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 23:12, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

  • This discussion has become unfocused and overreaching. It should be broken up into individual points, most of which probably belong in the Beer Parlour, not here. --Victar (talk) 15:19, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
The discussion is not unfocused whatsoever. The relevant points have indeed been broken down into separate headings. I have explained why I was raising several points at once, it is because I did have a lot of free time to go through each entry and to try and make them more consistent. If I was going to do that, then it was worth trying to get some consensus on these points rather than edit them all once to change the capitalisation, then again to remove 'etyl', then again to change 'ow' to 'ou' or vice-versa, then again to add 'borrowed from' back into etymology sections...do you see my point? Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 15:48, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
With all due respect, this whole discussion reads like thought vomit, as I as said, overreaching. --Victar (talk) 16:03, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Like I said, rude as fuck. Fuck this. You could have explained it more easily than just complaining. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 16:09, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
So I volunteer to spend my time spent recovering in a lot of pain from an accident cleaning up tedious formatting problems created by other people, and I try to get some consensus on it so I'm not totally wasting my time, and all you can do is be rude and complain? Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 16:13, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Well many thanks for your very helpful contribution. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 16:14, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Kai, is this helping you in your recovery? I do appreciate your edits and hope you make more of them, but I posit you have first a duty with your health. You maybe have more to win at the moment listening to Beethoven's Heiliger Dankgesang than writing to Victar.
Whatever you decide, I hope you rest and get well soon!

This issue is now settled in favour of converting to lower case [4], with three neutral votes (User:ZxxZxxZ, User:Qehath and me (four if you count V.P.), three in favour (User:Atitarev, User:Dijan and User:LissanX), no opposing votes and no vote from User:Irman. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 14:49, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Example of Tajiki Persian published in the Latin alphabet[edit]

I can't believe I have finally seen it: [5]

Technically speaking one could make entries for some Tajiki Persian entries in the Latin alphabet and use these images as the citations... Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 11:34, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately they're all from the same source. --WikiTiki89 14:02, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Switching to place names to use {{place}}[edit]

@Qehath, ZxxZxxZ, Irman When I'm updating the proper nouns that are place names, I could switch to using {{place}} which Chinese seems to have adopted. Should I do that or would you prefer to keep the current format of: [[placename]] {{gloss|a city in___}}? Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 08:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

For example: لندن. @Atitarev as well. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 08:25, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
@Kaixinguo~enwiktionary: The use of templates is encouraged, especially if they are properly and add categrisations but it's not a requirement in this particular case, IMO. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 08:39, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Only London capital of Uk pronounced landan in Persian elsewhere it would pronounce london, lândon or lânden, so you did well.(Irman (talk) 08:57, 20 May 2018 (UTC))
I don't...super care. Sorry. (I like inflection stuff) — [ זכריה קהת ] Zack. — 23:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)