Talk:Raghuvaṃśa (dynasty)

Spelling
These changes needs to be reverted as this doesnot reflect the correct spelling nor the Sanskrit / Hindi pronunciation.

curprev 02:22, 20 February 2022 Getsnoopy talk contribs m 3,278 bytes −2  Fixed some formatting issues. undothank curprev 02:20, 20 February 2022 Getsnoopy talk contribs 3,280 bytes +26  Fixed the transliteration and added a clarification about the terminology. undothank curprev 02:12, 20 February 2022 Getsnoopy talk contribs m 3,254 bytes 0  Getsnoopy moved page Raghuvanshi to Raghuvamshi: Proper transliteration. undothank — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neha.thakur75 (talk • contribs)
 * This is the English Wikipedia. You need to present reliable, published sources showing how it is spelled in English.  You also need to stop edit warring over this content.  General Ization  Talk  04:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)Talk 
 * This such a common that if you google you will get correct spelling — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neha.thakur75 (talk • contribs) 04:53, 7 Mar 2022 (UTC)
 * "You can Google it" is not a valid method of presenting evidence to support a change that you are requesting, which is your responsibility. See WP:BURDEN. As it happens, I have Googled it, and I find both spellings are common.  General Ization  Talk  05:00, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

You can never find m in Raghuwanshi/Raghuvanshi. it is spelling रघुवंशी in Hindi or Sanskrit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neha.thakur75 (talk • contribs) 05:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Revert the chnages done by Getsnoopy and undo page move

curprev 02:22, 20 February 2022 Getsnoopy talk contribs m 3,278 bytes −2  Fixed some formatting issues. undo curprev 02:20, 20 February 2022 Getsnoopy talk contribs 3,280 bytes +26  Fixed the transliteration and added a clarification about the terminology. undo curprev 02:12, 20 February 2022 Getsnoopy talk contribs m 3,254 bytes 0  Getsnoopy moved page Raghuvanshi to Raghuvamshi: Proper transliteration. undo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neha.thakur75 (talk • contribs)


 * No, that's not the way it works here. You've been informed as to what needs to happen for the change you are requesting to be made, and unless you provide the requested sources, we are at a stalemate.  General Ization Talk  05:12, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Now that the edit war is resolved (for the time being), following the conventional steps of dispute resolution: Pinging to join the conversation and explain the basis for their edits at this article in February.  Note that this may take significant time, since that editor may or may not see this request immediately.  The current, consensus version of the article will be maintained in the mean time.  General Ization  Talk  05:42, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a foregone conclusion. The proper transliteration in the Hunterian scheme and in the ISO 15919 scheme is with an m and ṁ, respectively, which are the only official transliteration schemes allowed on India-related pages. This is not to mention that this is the correct pronunciation of the word in "Sanskrit" (which you'll notice is transliterated as Saṁskr̥ta on the page itself) and Hindi; the anusvāra only transforms into a class nasal from the class of the subsequent consonant for stops, not for sibilants or semivowels, as per sandhi rules. This is why it is written, as has pointed out, रघुवंशी everywhere and without exception in Sanskrit and never as "रघुवञ्शी" (which would be the transformation if sandhi occurred) or "रघुवन्शी" (which technically is not possible via sandhi, but I'm giving the example anyway to illustrate it because that's what they might be assuming it's pronounced as). Compare this to words with the same prefix as Saṁskr̥ta which do get transformed: संजय (saṁjaya) → सञ्जय (sañjaya), संपूर्ण (saṁpūrṇa) → सम्पूर्ण (sampūrṇa), etc. In other words, all sandhi changes are documented orthographically in Sanskrit.
 * Furthermore, the w doesn't occur in any native Indic-language word, which this is one of; it only occurs in English and Perso-Arabic loanwords, so it surely is not "Raghuwanshi". Getsnoopy (talk) 07:16, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

You are not giving correct explanation. You need understand how मात्रा matra works in Hindi and Sanskrit. You dont have transliterate to nearest pronunciation if proper pronunciation is available. I also cannot find any reference of Saṁskr̥t (you mean saṃskṛta ??) that you pointed in this sentence - 'This is not to mention that this is the correct pronunciation of the word in "Sanskrit" (which you'll notice is transliterated as Saṁskr̥t on the page itself)'. You are not native Hindi speaker nor you learned Sanskrit as I did in my school. I am Hindi speaking Indian, and I belongs to Raghuwanshi Lineage. This how most of us use write our surnames as Raghuvanshi or Raghuwanshi. Even Google translate Raghuwanshi to रघुवंशी. Also you pointed out Sandhi which is not relevant here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neha.thakur75 (talk • contribs) 07:46, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You dont have transliterate to nearest pronunciation if proper pronunciation is available. And what is that proper pronunciation? I also cannot find any reference of Saṁskr̥t (you mean saṃskṛta ??) Yes. In the ISO 15919 scheme, it is transliterated as Saṁskr̥ta (excuse my lack of the last a in my previous response; it was a typo that I now corrected), while in IAST, it is transliterated as Saṃskṛta; they're the same thing. As for my knowledge, I would refrain from making sweeping judgements about others' knowledge, especially online when you don't know them personally. I am a native Hindi speaker and have learned Sanskrit, and am a Hindi-speaking Indian (not that it should matter). This how most of us use write our surnames as Raghuvanshi or Raghuwanshi. Yes, and this (Raghuvanshi) is presumably because of a mistaken sandhi rule. (The w is simply out of place entirely; the sound doesn't exist in Sanskrit at all.) I think you're assuming that just because someone transliterates it a certain way, that it is the correct way to transliterate it. Many in India transliterate लक्ष्मी as "Laxmi" (लक्स्मी or even लख़्मी), which is obviously wrong, and similarly for many other instances. Google Translate is not a reliable source for anything, but even if one were to use it,  transliterates to रघुवंशी as well, so that doesn't disprove the transliteration of Raghuvamshi. We follow standardized, consistent transliteration schemes here on Wikipedia (as does the Indian government, which follows the Hunterian standard), and that calls for the unaltered anusvāra to be transliterated as the m in the Hunterian scheme or the ṁ in the ISO 15919 scheme. Also you pointed out Sandhi which is not relevant here. My point with showing that is to show that in Sanskrit, sound changes involve spelling changes (since there's always a 1-to-1 relationship between the two), and there is no spelling change involved in रघुवंशी, which clearly indicates that there's no sound change. Getsnoopy (talk) 08:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

This explanation is not helping the case. The bindu matra (also called anusvaar)used for homorganic nasal consonants or for nasalized vowels. You are mapping it improperly. Your explanation clearly shows you neither understand Hindi nor Sanskrit then why are you changing the spelling. Do you understand the wrong spelling changes the meaning of the word ? Please revert the changes to the original form. There was no reason to correct the spelling. How would you feel if I change the spelling of your name ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neha.thakur75 (talk • contribs) 13:16, 7 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Quite the contrary; I think that response is very helpful.  It establishes that:
 * Getsnoopy is an Indian national, is a native speaker of Hindi, has learned Sanskrit, and is someone familiar with Indian culture, not a "" or one of a " [sic]" as you have asserted.
 * Getsnoopy changed the spelling at this article based on their knowledge and understanding of international standards that have evolved for the transliteration of Hindi and/or Sanskrit to unaccented English, specifically Hunterian transliteration and ISO 15919, and Wikipedia's application of those standards.
 * Not being Indian or a speaker of Hindi or Sanskrit, I cannot confirm that Getsnoopy was correct in their interpretation, but it is clear to me that, prior to the development of the standards I mentioned, transliteration from Sanskrit to English was as much art as science, and that multiple transliterations were (and are still) possible, and in fact occurred (and probably still occur) with regularity. What is required now to resolve this dispute is for you and Getsnoopy, and any other editor with expertise to share, to review collaboratively the references he shared and any others that may exist to determine the best transliteration of these specific terms to appear here in the encyclopedia, based on the standards that exist and Wikipedia's policies.
 * You have repeatedly posed highly emotional arguments about your name and its relationship to these terms, and suggesting that you have been and are being personally injured by Getsnoopy's change here. Apologies for plain language, but that is horseshit. You have suffered no injury, any more than the many people who bear the family name Raghuvamshi have been injured as a result of your and/or your family's apparent use of an alternative transliteration.  You must stop attacking other editors in this way immediately.  Click on the links in this reply to learn more about the standards mentioned and Wikipedia's policies.  Please also read the guidance at WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and WP:USTHEM. I may have no expertise in Hindi, Sanskrit or Indian culture, but I have expertise and experience in how disputes do, and do not, get resolved on Wikipedia, what approaches are constructive and not constructive, and what generally happens to those who do not approach these matters constructively.  General Ization  Talk </i> 17:17, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

First of the  you have shared is horseshit. This doesnot have any person's name as Raghuwanshi/Raghuwanshi. refer to which shows results for real people. Dont share any such horseshit without verifying. Again it seems like you want to ignore the facts & rational behind the discuss but make it  a personal injury shit. STOP THAT RIGHT NOW. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neha.thakur75 (talk • contribs) 17:33, 7 March 2022 (UTC) ‎

I dont think you understand what Sandhi is, I cannot understand why you keep bringing that into the argument.

संधि शब्द का अर्थ है 'मेल' या जोड़। दो निकटवर्ती वर्णों के परस्पर मेल से जो विकार होता है वह संधि कहलाता है।

यहां पर संधि जैसा कुछ नहीं हो रहा है। यहां पर तुम एक सब को अंग्रेजी में परिवर्तन कर रहे हो। — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neha.thakur75 (talk • contribs) 17:41, 7 March 2022 (UTC) ‎


 * This is the English Wikipedia. We communicate with other editors on Talk pages in English. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 17:44, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Based on your argrument you cannot change Raghuwanshi/Raghuwanshi to only Raghuwamshi. As per your argument both ways are correct. So please make me understand why you removed one correct spelling ? You could have added both ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neha.thakur75 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 7 March 2022 (UTC) ‎

I am writing in English, I don't understand your behaviour

Based on Hunterian transliteration अं ->	ŋ, m	n, m	ṅ, ṁ म ->	m	m	m Based on ISO_15919 m ->	m	म ISO 15919 has two options about anusvāra. (1) In the simplified nasalization option, an anusvāra is always transliterated as ṁ. (2) In the strict nasalization option, anusvāra before a class consonant is transliterated as the class nasal—ṅ before k, kh, g, gh, ṅ; ñ before c, ch, j, jh, ñ; ṇ before ṭ, ṭh, ḍ, ḍh, ṇ; n before t, th, d, dh, n; m before p, ph, b, bh, m. ṃ is sometimes used to specifically represent the Gurmukhi tippi ੰ.  रघुवंश is labial anusvara hence it should be 'n'  Please correct your changes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neha.thakur75 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 7 March 2022 (UTC)


 * You're confirming all of the things I've said: in ISO 15919, the simplified anusvāra option always transliterates ं as ṁ, whereas in the complex anusvāra option, the anusvāra gets changed to a class nasal for the classes which have a corresponding nasal, which only applies to the stops (i.e., the k, c, ṭ, t, and p rows of consonants in the Devanagari script); the anusvāra remains unchanged (from the ṁ) when it occurs before any other letter, which are the semivowels and the sibilants. The same logic applies in Hunterian, but since Hunterian doesn't use characters with diacritics for all of the nasal consonants (ṅ, ñ, ṇ, and ṁ), those are all transliterated simply as n and m, respectively. Hence, it would result in Raghuvaṁśī in ISO 15919 or Raghuvamshi in Hunterian.
 * I never said sandhi is relevant here; I said that sandhi is just an example that illustrates how sound changes occur, which would necessitate changes in spelling. In Sanskrit, it would never be acceptable, for example, to write "रंग" (raṁga) in order to mean the pronunciation raṅga; it would always be written as रङ्ग because the anusvāra changes its pronunciation based on the subsequent consonant, which is a ग (g), so the corresponding class nasal would be ङ (ṅ). This never occurs with the word रघुवंशी or with its root word वंश (vaṁśa), and that's not coincidental; it's because there is no sound change for the anusvāra there, which means the anusvāra retains its original pronunciation, which is that of a true nasal. This is always transliterated as an m in Hunterian and ṃ/ṁ in IAST/ISO 15919, respectively. Getsnoopy (talk) 00:38, 8 March 2022 (UTC)


 * @GetsnoopyI have shared this to demonstrate the difference taking your example you cited in your argument transliteration scheme Neha.thakur75 (talk) 05:01, 8 March 2022 (UTC)


 * You could have kept it to and Raghuvaṁśī but you changed it to Raghuwamshi which is not the correct Hunterian transliteration  based on the transliteration.
 * You went on to change everything related to Raghuvanshi and raghuvansh everywhere it in mentioned in wikipedia.


 * Now that it seems like we agree on what the correct pronunciation of the anusvāra is here, it seems like we're debating on what the proper transliteration is. Fortunately, there is no debate to be had, as this is clearly spelled out in both standards (thankfully so, because they are standards). In IAST, ं (one that is maintained as a true nasal and is not masquerading as a homorganic nasal consonant) turns into ṃ; in ISO 15919, it turns ṁ; in Hunterian, it turns into m.
 * but you changed it to Raghuwamshi I did not; I changed it to Raghuvamshi (you seem to be confusing the v, which exists in all Indic languages, with the w, which does not and is not native).
 * which is not the correct Hunterian transliteration based on the transliteration This indeed is the proper transliteration of it in Hunterian: the ṃ/ṁ in IAST/ISO 15919 becomes the m in Hunterian; it's quite straightforward. I think you might be confusing it with the analogue to the complex anusvāra option in ISO 15919, where anusvāras that transform into homorganic nasal consonants which are velar (ṅ), palatal (ñ), retroflex (ṇ), or dental (n) become n in Hunterian, while the labial (m) remains as m and the true nasal anusvara (ṁ) merges into m as well. Hence, the transliteration Raghuvamshi.
 * You could have kept it to and Raghuvaṁśī I could've changed the transliteration scheme to that, but we have a WP:RETAIN policy on Wikipedia where we should keep things using the same standard/policy/pattern that was already established, which was the Hunterian scheme in this case, so I maintained the scheme, but fixed the mistransliteration. Getsnoopy (talk) 07:55, 8 March 2022 (UTC)


 * You are just self proclaiming that you are correct. Dont refer just pages copy the snippet that you are pointing to. There is lot of data on those pages, be specific to what you are pointing to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neha.thakur75 (talk • contribs) 08:04, 8 Mar 2022 (UTC)


 * There is no proclamation, and I'm not sure how I can be more specific. All of the transliteration standards I mentioned clearly outline how the anusvāra should be transliterated. They're all clearly outlined on the pages, but here are the reproduced snippets anyway:

ISO 15919:

IAST:

Hunterian:


 * In the Hunterian case, like I've already said, the homorganic nasals essentially drop their diacritics (from their IAST/ISO 15919 equivalents) if they have any, with the true nasal becoming m. Getsnoopy (talk) 20:14, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I posted this on Teahouse was told that Indic transliteration is the relevant guideline. Hence right transliteration of रघुवंशी is Raghuvanshi. The letter is followed by v. Refer the snippet below. 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. Otherwise, the following rules should be enforced:

Neha.thakur7520:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)


 * It looks like that page has the guidance to transliterate an anusvāra before semivowels and sibilants to simply an n in ISO 15919 (or न, the dental nasal). This, however, is not corroborated by any phonetic source (e.g., this one), by the ISO 15919 standard (which it is supposedly following), or by simple physical possibility. For example, according to that article, words like संराग (saṁrāga) and संयुक्त (saṁyukta) would be transliterated as sanrāga (सन्राग) and sanyukta (सन्युक्त), which is not only ridiculous from a phonological perspective, but almost impossible to pronounce as such (because, in the first example, your tongue would have to go from the dental position back to the dental position or to the retroflex position immediately). It seems like the last row of that table was a hypercorrection by the initial author, and it just went unchallenged all of these years. I wasn't even aware of the article's existence until just now, so I'm not sure it gets much readership. This is not to mention that almost no article on WP follows that guidance (e.g., Sanskrit), and for good reason. The discussion to remove the last row of that table should happen on that article, but is separate from the discussion and conclusion related to this article below. Getsnoopy (talk) 20:31, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Resetting the discussion
Since the above has gotten too lengthy and heated lets get back to the central content issue, namely the preferred transliteration of रघुवंशी for the article title... Can you explain why you prefer the Hunterian transliteration 'Raghuvamshi'? As far as I know the IAST and (closely related) ISO 15919 systems are much more widely used in contemporary scholarship, and the two would (correct me if I am wrong) transliterate the word as and Raghuvaṁśī respectively. That said, the 'proper' transliteration system to use is somewhat besides the point as far as the article title goes because the appropriate policy for that is WP:COMMONNAME. I am, at this moment, not sure whether 'Raghuvanshi', 'Raghuvamshi', 'Raghuvaṃśī' is the one more commonly used either in general writing or in scholarly literature. If we were talking about the modern day surname, I suspect, 'Raghuvanshi' would win hands down but that is not the central subject of this article; hence my uncertainty. Any suggestions on how we can settle the issue of common use? Abecedare (talk) 19:37, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * For my part, having learned that Getsnoopy is a native speaker of Hindi and made the change based on their estimation of what the appropriate transliteration standards called for, my intention was to push back from the keyboard and let that editor and Neha.thakur75 run the debate to its logical conclusion. If they are still unable to find agreement, I suggest an RfC on the issue, publicized on the appropriate lists and inviting input from members of WP:WikiProject India. However, will need to understand that the RfC process by its very design takes several weeks at best. If that editor unilaterally attempts to change the content again without a consensus to do so, my reading of the mood at WP:ANI is that they will swiftly find themselves blocked and the issue will be decided without further input from them. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization  <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 21:58, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not so much that I prefer the Hunterian transliteration scheme (though it is used officially by the Indian government), but that it is the one that was already being used in the title (since it does not use accented characters in its transliteration). I'm completely fine with using an IAST or ISO 15919 transliteration (depending on if we're treating this as a purely Sanskrit-related topic or an overarching Indic-language-related topic, respectively) in the title as well. From the article content, it's clear that it has less to do with the modern surname (in which case, the title would follow the pattern of "Raghuvanshi (surname)") and more to do with the history of the dynasty, so I'm inclined to treat it as a Sanskrit-related topic and using IAST in the title instead. This is along the lines of myriad other Sanskrit-related titles such as Pāṇini, Aṣṭādhyāyī, Bhaṭṭikāvya, and the like. In either case, however, the m or ṁ would not become the n. Getsnoopy (talk) 00:38, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input Getsnoopy.
 * I have been browsing some standard works on Itihasic and Puranic literature to see what transliterations they prefer for the 'dynasty' and based on that quick survey, right now I am veering towards merging this article into Solar dynasty or Raghuvamsa (disambiguation) instead of keeping it at as a stand alone article. But let me complete that exercise and form a firmer opinion before I chime in. Will do so within the next 48h. Abecedare (talk) 03:46, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I will propose to invite members from WP:WikiProject India. Revert the changes that @Getsnoopy did back to original state of Feb 2022 and then find out what is the right way and which way makes more sense. Neha.thakur75 (talk) 05:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC)


 * At this point there will be no reversion. Your goal here is to find consensus.  Until a consensus is reached, the current spelling is the one that will remain. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization  <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 14:40, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That would be against what was concluded in [Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents] forum.
 * Please refrain from giving personal opinion here if you have issues. You can share your opinion on sharing your views at [Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents] if you are not happy with the conclusion Neha.thakur75 (talk) 14:46, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You may not instruct other editors not to participate in a conversation on any Talk page. See WP:OWN. The discussion at WP:ANI is still very much open, and there has been no conclusion there that calls for reversion. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 14:51, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Refer this "Content issue: the transliteration issue is debatable (rather than being plain right/wrong) and ideally should have been debated before Getsnoopy moved Raghuvanshi and Suryavansha to their preferred transliterations on Feb 19. This can be discussed further on the article talk page and perhaps the status quo ante restored while the discussion takes place (I am fine either way)."
 * also refer to the examples shared by other user on Raghuvanshi.
 * Also, I am here top get this corrected. I am not an editor. My focus is to get the content corrected. So what I may or may not is not my concern.
 * I dont want wrong content on the website.
 * I will not stop until this content is correct and User:Getsnoopy had no basis to edits by the person who created and maintained this page and also other pages Solar dynasty & ‎ Suryavamsha Neha.thakur75 (talk) 15:09, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You must stop now and pursue this discussion. If you continue with your aggressive tactics, the discussion at ANI will be revived, and if you will review it you will see that the general consensus there was that your previous approach to this was unacceptable and unconstructive. Please continue to seek consensus. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 15:12, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I wont stop until this content is corrected. I have shared the examples shared by the users in WP:ANI . That seems to make no difference in your approach though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neha.thakur75) 15:27, 8 March 2022 (UTC)


 * This video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_d2VfMTCik should help you understand how nasal sounds work in English. I am disappointed User:Getsnoopy dont understand how nasal sounds works and how it is mapped with transliteration. I am sharing this video with simple nasal sound. Nasal sounds get more complicated with Hindi and Sanskrit and with use of tongue movement; I believe that User:Getsnoopy being an Indian and Hindi speaking will second this. Neha.thakur75 (talk) 16:53, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe that User:Getsnoopy being an Indian and Hindi speaking will second this. I thought I didn't understand nasals; how would I second your opinion? Setting sarcasm aside, again, please refrain from claims about what others know; I understand nasals perfectly fine. The video you showed does not establish any new information. As I've already spelled out clearly above, only the nasals which have the base letter as n in IAST or ISO 15919 get transliterated as n in Hunterian, while those which have a base letter of m get transliterated as m (naturally). The former include the velar, palatal, retroflex, and dental nasals, while the latter include the labial and true nasals (anusvāra). It is quite straightforward. Getsnoopy (talk) 20:14, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * wow, amazing you dont want to see things with open mind . How many examples you would need to just accept the correct things ? (talk) 20:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Also I would like to understand who is the target audience for this page ? The pronunciation should be kept simple to make to normal people who come to wikipedia to gain knowledge. If you complicated everything using transliteration scheme then it defeat the purpose of free knowledge for everyone. Ofcourse have the transliteration scheme but dont remove everything else.
 * If you had like to share the knowledge you had to keep it simple for everyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neha.thakur75 (talk • contribs) 05:10, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by "simple". Most people who have a remote familiarity with Sanskrit or Indic texts have a familiarity with IAST, so it's the standard we follow. The target audience is anyone who has an interest in the topic. For those not familiar with IAST, they'll have a link before very IAST transliteration (as part of the template) that takes them to a page explaining what IAST is. This covers all the cases. If you meant that Hunterian is somehow "simpler" than IAST or ISO 15919, then the status quo already covers this case. Getsnoopy (talk) 07:55, 8 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Thats where you are wrong. The audience of wikipedia are normal internet user who don't have any understanding of a specific topic or wants to know more about a specific topic. Most of the users are diverted to wikipedia from Google search results.
 * The aim should be making things simpler for the audience not complicate it by trowing huge pages links where they get lost.
 * The aim of knowledge sharing is to make people understand in simple explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neha.thakur75 (talk • contribs) 08:34, 8 Mar 2022 (UTC)


 * The audience of wikipedia are normal internet user who don't have any understanding of a specific topic or wants to know more about a specific topic. That is exactly what I said above, so I don't see how I'm "wrong". Wikipedia works on the basis of "horizontal linking", where concepts which might be unfamiliar to a user are linked so that they can click on them to find out more, which can repeat recursively. This page is no different. And again, I'm not sure what you mean by "simple" or "simpler". Practically anyone who is Indian or is familiar with Indian topics (e.g., Sanskrit) knows what IAST is or has encountered it at some point in their life, and if they haven't, it is linked for them to find out more (because that, indeed, is the goal of Wikipedia: to educate people on topics unfamiliar to them). This is not to mention that IAST is quite intuitive to begin with, as it uses base letters that people would expect to be mapped to certain equivalent Indic characters. Getsnoopy (talk) 20:14, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

OK, here are the results of the literature survey i mentioned above. To recap, I was looking at some standard sources on Itihasic and Puranic literaure to see how they dealt with the subject of the 'dynasty' and which transliteration they preferred (I was not looking for sources on the related modern surname, since that is not the subject of this article): I should note that all these works do talk about Kalidasa'a Raghuvaṃśa, almost invariably spell it in IAST. And for completeness, Google Ngram finds 'Raghuvanshi' and 'Raghuwanshi' to be much more frequent in its corpus than 'Raghuvamshi' although that result almost surely reflects the modern surname and is thus of limited relevance to this article with its current scope. Standard sources discuss and its variants mainly to refer to the Kalidasa epic, as an epithet for Rama (compare with 'Raghav', 'Raghupati', 'Raghuananda' etc, none of which have stand-alone artices), or translate it literally as 'lineage of Raghu' etc. There is little to no discussion of the dynasty qua dynasty. So I'd suggest that this article be merged with Solar dynasty, where the various members of the (various versions of the) lineage(s) are better discussed in any case, and that the Raghuvamsa (disambiguation) be slightly expanded to mention the various transliterations and uses of that and related terms. I realize that this sidesteps the question of what to title this article but since we can have redirects from all reasonable spellings, that would no longer an issue. Thoughts? Abecedare (talk) 23:58, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) * Doesn't use the (or any of its variants) itself; uses the terms 'descendant of Raghu', 'House of Raghu', 'dynast of the Raghu' instead, which could be translations of  and/or
 * 2) * refers to (in that form) only when providing the (transliterated) text of the Sanskrit verse (Book Two; verse 89.19) and translate it as 'Rama, heir of the Raghu dynasty'.
 * 3) * I also checked several other volumes of Clay Sanskrit Library's translations of Ramayana and didn't find any relevant use. Not listing the books indicdually.
 * 4) * has a whole chapter on The Solar Dynasty but no relevant use of
 * 5) * has an entry for the king Raghu but none for the dynasty
 * 6) * has an entry for the king Raghu but none for the dynasty
 * 7) * no mention of Raghu or.
 * 1) * has an entry for the king Raghu but none for the dynasty
 * 2) * has an entry for the king Raghu but none for the dynasty
 * 3) * no mention of Raghu or.
 * 1) * has an entry for the king Raghu but none for the dynasty
 * 2) * no mention of Raghu or.
 * 1) * no mention of Raghu or.
 * Pinging who as an experienced editor in this area may have alternate suggestions. Abecedare (talk) 00:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Conclusion

 * 1. Multiple example of references of the word was shared by users on WP:ANI
 * 2. As per Wikipedia:Indic transliteration, the right transliteration of रघुवंशी is Raghuvanshi.
 * 3. Google translate of रघुवंशी hindi Language transliteration to Raghuvanshi.

Disclaimer: The google translate is built by reputed engineering team after extensive research. Those who think google translate tool is not good enough for the discussion, God help them !!

Request Uncle G, DanielRigalto, Abecedare and Vanamonde93 share views on right transliteration of रघुवंशी.

Based on aforementioned point, I offer everyone to make a decision. I have provided snippet from the pages that I have referenced in my discussion unlike the other user who keep giving vague reason and vague explanations — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neha.thakur75 (talk • contribs) 20:45, 8 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment I would put far more faith in Getsnoopy's research and prsentation of secondary sources, and the extensive discussion above, than Neha.thakur75's reliance on machine translation and two bibliography cites. —C.Fred (talk) 20:55, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I concur with G.Fred. To my mind, Getsnoopy has explained in great detail why and how they are applying the relevant standards to the transliteration of the subject terms, while Neka.thakur75 has done nothing but insist that they are correct and that Getsnoopy had "no right" to change the article, which is evident ownership behavior.  I do not see the two of them approaching anything that could be called a consensus, not that Getsnoopy has not (mostly patiently) tried.  Further, I believe that the evidence that Getsnoopy has presented shows that the current version, post Getsnoopy's 2/18 changes, reflects the correct transliteration (or at least a highly defensible one) and should remain the consensus version until another consensus is established. Note that consensus is not always determined exclusively based on the opinions of the main protagonists in a discussion, but on the opinions of all editors who have an opinion to share. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization  <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 23:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment/Proposal I think @Abecedare cogently summarized the current state of affairs. Little did I know that there are currently 5 different articles related to this topic or term:
 * "Raghuvamsa (disambiguation)" (which should be fixed per se because of it not following any transliteration standard or reliable source)
 * "Raghuvaṃśa" (which refers to the poem by Kalidasa)
 * Raghuvamsha (which redirects to Raghuvaṃśa, the poem)
 * This article, which refers to the dynasty in detail
 * Raghuvamsa (dynasty) (which redirects to Solar dynasty, which then has a link to the "cadet branch" that goes to this article)
 * I think since it's clear that the content of this article is related to the dynasty, I'd recommend using the IAST transliteration (i.e., and not ; more on this later), which should also circumvent any transliteration disputes. As for whether this article deserves to be separate: I think it would be cleaner to keep it separate since the "Solar dynasty" article seems to be of a decent length, and it would also avoid having to have all other subtopics of that parent dynasty be covered within that article. I suggest using  instead of  as the suffix because the former is the nominal suffix while the latter is the adjectival one, and this article's lead is written referring to it nominally anyway. Given that the name I suggested conflicts with the the title already occupied by the poem (and assuming that that's the more common article people are seeking when referencing the term), we can do the following:
 * Rename this article "Raghuvaṃśa (dynasty)".
 * Point "Raghuvamsa (dynasty)" to this new name.
 * Update the disambiguation article to have its first alternative link point to this article.
 * And likewise, change the link on "Solar dynasty" to point to this new article title.
 * Doing this would also solve another issue, which is that the article titles "Raghuvanshi" (i.e., the former title of this article) and "Raghuvamshi" (the current title) would open up to be expanded into an article referring to the modern surname, so people can do that if they want in the future.
 * Let me know your thoughts on this proposal. Getsnoopy (talk) 20:02, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I have quite intentionally not replied to your proposal, because I recognize that I don't possess the requisite expertise in this topic area to fairly evaluate it. However the absence of any reply to you for more than a week seems a bit shabby, given the effort you put into this discussion and explaining your proposal. Apparently no one other than the now-indefinitely blocked editor feels very strongly about it one way or the other. I guess I would say that, if you think it will help avoid a future revival of this debate, you should go for it. The main purpose of this reply is to thank you for the time you dedicated to the debate, and to documenting your rationale for the change that was apparently so triggering to the edit warrior. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization  <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 04:36, 17 March 2022 (UTC)