Talk:Roman Urdu

Standardized Roman Urdu Alphabet Table
A standardized roman urdu alphabet would be nice. Someone add a table of that stuff. Fine, I will.
 * Fayyazabbas and Kitabparast are taking care of the job. Thanks guys! Anupam 21:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Sample texts
Can a Perso-Arabic and/or Devanagari version of the texts be given? And can a description of the text and the romanisation used in the texts be given too? Thanks, Khuda hafiz, --Basawala 18:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks like Kitabparast has taken care of the job. Thanks Kitabparast! Anupam 20:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Transcription system - 3 or 1?
We have three transcription systems on this page. Is this intentional? If so, we should feature each system in its own section. If not, we may want to agree on one system to be promoted - one that is simple yet adequate. Kitabparast 16:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it would be useful to have all of the transcriptions documented in the article, in their own sections. We might also want to think about renaming the article to Romanization of Urdu or Urdu romanization, to follow all other parallel articles found in Category:Romanization.  –jonsafari 00:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The third one was just IPA that I changed to Roman Urdu. There are only two systems used in the article. The additions I made in the article use the standard system I have seen in the Kita'b I Muqaddas and Roman Urdu hymnals. I would oppose the renaming of the article to Romanization of Urdu or Urdu romanization because the system is today known more popularly as Roman Urdu. This name came into use after the British came to India and used the Roman script for Hindustani (Hindi/Urdu). It was and still is used by speakers who know the Roman script but only know one of the two scripts for writing Hindustani: Devanagari or Perseo-Arabic. Today, most South Asians still refer to the system as Roman Urdu and it has widespread usage. The second system on the page which Fayyazabbas incorporated into the article comes from his proposed system of writing Roman Urdu (see his talkpage). He has done an excellent job of creating the table and writing a sample text. I am not sure if we should leave both of the page or just one. I think it might be best if we give alternate methods in the table. Anupam 20:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Kitabparast that we should agree on one system to be promoted, a simple yet adequate system. We can have a discussion on each and every character used as the alternative for Urdu/Hindi alphabets, and analyse it in terms of its pros & cons for future use. If we fail to settle on one alternative, we will list more than one alternatives, as I have already done in my proposed table. I had known other alternatives but didn't include them in my table for one reason or the other. Let's talk about them all... Fayyaz Abbas 30.08.06

Alternative for ں न (Retroflex Nasal)
Some people render Urdū into Roman characters using capitals and small letters. With vowels, a capital letter would indicate a long vowel while with consonants it would indicate retroflex consonants. As an example: "maiN kitAbparast hUN" for maiⁿ kitābparast hūⁿ / मैं किताबपरस्त हूं / میں کتابپرست ہوں. I do not know if Urdū-speaking Christians use such a system. Should such a system also be put into a table and put on this page? I can do it if it is deemed appropriate. Kitabparast 17:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * In the way I am have seen Roman Urdu written, the capital n (N) and the superscipted n (ⁿ) are usually rendered as n. I have used this system in my additions. So I would write: main anupam hun. However, you bring up a good point with the capital N as I have also seen it written in this way. I think you should incorporate "N" into the table as an alternate method for "n". From my understanding, Urdu speaking Christians would generally use "n" as I have seen this in the Kita'b I Muqaddas and Roman Urdu hymnals. Thanks for your concern and entusiasm! Anupam 20:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Dears, I think the retroflex nasal be better represented by ŋ (meŋ kitäbparast hüŋ) as it is the IPA symbol, and a single-stroke character. Characters like N, ⁿ or n require two key strokes. Further if we select N for this purpose, there surely will arise some problems when capitalizing a word (at the sentence-beginning or for proper nouns). Maybe we do have Roman Urdu keyboards in the future having a separate ŋ key; it's easy for hand-writing as well. Awaiting your valuable responses, Kitabparast & Anupam ...
 * Fayyaz Abbas 30.08.06
 * You bring up a good point with the capitalization issue. However, if N is used frequently among the South Asian populace, it might be advisable to include it as a third alternate method. We'll see what Kitabparast has to say for this issue. I'm sure his comments will be very useful. I know for a fact that n for the retroflex nasal ں न is standard in many places. As a result, I still think we should include it as an alternate method in the Alphabet table. However, I think the ŋ is important as well. We should also include this in the Alphabet table. This is the symbol for the retroflex nasal in IPA, correct? For the sample texts and examples table in the article, I think we should only implement one of the letters for the retroflex nasal  ں, either nor ŋ. (this is just to make the article standard and avoid confusion) Let me know which one you would like to use. I am okay with either one. Thanks! Anupam 04:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The [ɳ] is the symbol for a retroflex nasal (eg. ण), while [ŋ] is the symbol for a velar nasal (ङ), and a tilde over a vowel [ã] is the symbol for nasalized vowels (अं). Thus ŋ is not a retroflex nasal. –jonsafari 06:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC).

Romanizations used by native speakers
This page needs more on the way the Urdu language is written in the Latin alphabet for day to day communication. The systems shown seem highly unlikely to be how an Urdu speaking person would write an SMS text message to their mum, or an eMail to their Hindi speaking friend etc. Of all the instances of written Urdu in the world, I imagine most would look like that? I would add this myself, but i don't know where i'd find the info, except things which fall into the "original research" category and thus aren't suitable. Wiki has an article on this kind of topic for Arabic (the Urdu version looks a lot more conventional, no numerals etc), that page has a couple of academic research papers on colloquial Romanization of Arabic; i can't find anything comparable for Urdu, but it must exist? I'm from a biology background, so i don't know where to find reliable linguistics research? Irtapil (talk) 04:27, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Kkhh.jpg
Image:Kkhh.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

irrelevant image
The letters with names in Devanagari and Latin alphabets doesn't seem relevant to Roman Urdu? are there any objections to removing it? Irtapil (talk) 23:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

removed. Irtapil (talk) 16:37, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

a large section removed without explanation
A large chunk of content was removed by User:Idell in a single edit but the only note on that edit is "mobile edit" and "visual edit".

Can you please clarify why you removed that section? what was wrong with it? Irtapil (talk) 16:32, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I just noticed the NOCRIT tag, but it doesn't seem to fit the content you removed. Irtapil (talk) 16:37, 22 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The Urdu sentence used as example was a slogan that has been the subject of major controversies in Pakistan. I find it inappropriate to repeatedly mention and discuss (whatever aspect of) an infamous slogan in this article. It could easily be construed as advocacy or propaganda. Some other example would do all right. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman;color:Teal;font-size:110%;">Idell</b> (talk) 11:43, 23 November 2020 (UTC)