Talk:Vṛścika

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.

Time Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Time 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.TimeWikipedia:WikiProject TimeTemplate:WikiProject TimeTime articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Removed kerala and kerala-importance as this is referred in almost all the states of India. If I'm wrong please correct me. Thanks -- Madhuric (talk) 07:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 30 September 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) Sceptre (talk) 20:08, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vṛścik‌‌‌a → Vrishchika – The transliteration into international English is not correct. In English language there are no diacritics. Also the title Vṛścik‌‌‌a is highly confusing for English language users, as it skips vowels and c is used instead of ch. Crashed greek (talk) 05:02, 30 September 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:30, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the proposal is clearly incorrect, English does use diacritics for Sanskrit terms, and there is no evidence from reliable University texts provided. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:56, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What is your opinion, Ms Sarah Welch? – Uanfala (talk) 08:53, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Uanfala: We have had similar disagreements on "diacritics versus no diacritics" in the past, particularly in the context of Sanskrit terms. A better compromise approach is: [1] check the reliable sources, preferably scholarly and secondary/tertiary. [2] use the WP:COMMONNAME in the reliable sources for the article, [3] If both "diacritics and no diacritics" are in use equally or one in significant minority, create another Wikipedia page for the alt-spelling and redirect it to the article, [4] mention all the alt ENG-spellings (no Indic scripts) in the article somewhere (lead or infobox or nomenclature section e.g.), [5] update Wikidata as well, since our mobile device-based readers tend to get search results from Wikidata first. In this way, a reader is able to easily find the article regardless of the spelling she or he searches. On this specific move RfC, see, e.g. Vrishchika, Vṛścik‌‌‌a, Vrscika, and Vṛścik‌‌‌a in books, Vrscika in books (look for David Pingree's usage), Vrishchika in books etc. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 10:03, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ms Sarah Welch, another possibility of this article name without diacritics would be Vrushchika. You can search on this term too, other than Vrishchika. Both these variations fetch much more results on google than Vṛścik‌‌‌a, so these are common names. Crashed greek (talk) 03:42, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support per well-reasoned nomination and per elucidation by Ms Sarah Welch. I would also support Vrushchika if consensus coalesces around that variant. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 13:14, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. The nom is indeed mistaken in their belief that diacritics are not allowed in titles, but their argument that Vrischika is more easily pronounceable than Vṛścik‌‌‌a certainly has merit. The current title, however, has the benefit of using the standard IAST, which is more systematic as a transliteration than the informal anglicisation that is proposed (and hence it seems preferable in light of WP:TRANSLITERATE). Usage in sources is relevant, but the links adduced by Ms Sarah Welch are inconclusive: there might be more hits for the simpler form on google scholar (74 vs. 29), but these results look less significant when compared with the much larger number of results on google books, where there are around 240 hits for each of the alternatives; and these raw numbers are not directly relevant anyway: most of the results are for other topics with the same name (like Ayurvedic concepts or personal names). Another reason to oppose is the fact that this article is very closely related to the dozen or so other articles about Hindu solar months (so closely related in fact, that I'd be in favour of merging them all into a list), and consistency in naming them is desirable. All the other months have stable titles in IAST. – Uanfala (talk) 14:26, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"as it skips vowels" :: The 'r' is the first vowel. That is why it is spelled 'ṛ'. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:45, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.