Talk:Si-o-se-pol

Proposed move
As this bridge is known in English as "Bridge of the 33 Arches", I propose that in accordance with Wkipedia naming conventions that it be moved to that title. See, for example "Bridge of the 33 Arches" and "La Chiesa in Iran (The Church in Iran)" --Bejnar 00:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing this out. I have added a redirect from Bridge of 33 Arches to this article and added the English name to the lead. --Jtir (talk) 13:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

IPA transcription of Persian name
This article needs the IPA transcription of the Persian name (سی وسه پل). --Jtir (talk) 14:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I added my best guess and tagged the article with Cleanup-IPA. --Jtir (talk) 23:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This site uses IPA and has audio clips. --Jtir (talk) 20:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Title issue
A simple search through the web reveals the fact that the spelling you are insisting on is used significantly lesser than the one I recently moved the page to. You keep referring to Iranica on every single case like this, without considering anything. Since when, and according to what policy, do we have to literally copy every single one of Iranica's exotic transcriptions into Wikipedia? —Rye-96 (talk) 20:33, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I assume the burden to demonstrate that h should not be written lies with you, because there is already a reliable source that does say otherwise. Plus, I think it is obviously clear that why we don't substitute sourced material with original research. Per Identifying reliable sources, Iranica is considered a reputable tertiary source, and its "exotic" transliterations are considered way more better than those preferred by Wikipedians. I recommend you to find a reliable source that supports your idea, in order to discuss further, or else the discussion would be a waste of time. Pahlevun (talk) 21:08, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Iranica is well known for its extremely inconsistent and very weird "way" of transliterating things. Heck, even the Iranica articles which you're talking about, who mention the bridge (in 1-2 sentences), are a prime example of this. For example, one of the two says that the bridge is also known as the "Pol-e Si-o-seh čašma". Nobody in Iran says "chashma". Its neither the Persian transliteration, nor is it a correct Romanization. Regarding transliteration, Iranica should often be taken with a grain of salt. On the other hand, there are a plethora of reliable sources, who, consistently, use Romanizations much closer/more akin to the way you'd pronunciate and write it in Persian. For example, Professors Willem Floor & Edmund Herzig are known for this. They use the spelling 'Si-o-se-pol" as well, not "Si-o-seh-pol";


 * "These were the construction of the Si-o-se-pol (the Thirty-three [arches] Allahverdi Khan Brifge) over the Zayande-rud (...)" -- Floor, Willem.; Edmund, Herzig, eds. (2012) Iran and the World in the Safavid Age. I.B.Tauris. p. 484
 * - LouisAragon (talk) 00:42, 27 July 2017 (UTC)