User talk:عُثمان

STIBM

Hello, I'm Airon90. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Q65125405 because it didn't appear constructive. Feel free to use the sandbox for test edits. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks!  ★ → Airon 90 14:28, 4 May 2022 (UTC) ★ → Airon 90 14:27, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Deprecated rank

As far as I understand Help:Ranking#Deprecated rank, special:diff/1665975722 is wrong. The data should not be anotated with a deprecated rank but with end time (P582). But don't believe me: ask trustworthy users. 2A01:CB14:D52:1200:A508:35B0:BE91:721B 08:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the message - I was on the fence about whether it made sense or not, but saw Wikibase reason for deprecation existed for deceased person and thought it might be usable. I've updated the item to use normal rank with start date + end date. --Middle river exports (talk) 15:58, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Music community!

Hi! I notice that you contribute to music and KPOP releases! I'd invite you to come join WikiProject Music's Telegram chat where all of the music contributors colaborate. There you can also ask me any questions about KPOP music and how we should document it on Wikidata. I'm also on Discord if you want to chat with me there. Just see my user profile. Lectrician1 (talk) 15:38, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm already in there! username bgo_eiu Middle river exports (talk) 15:46, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

ah lol that is you? awesome! Lectrician1 (talk) 22:39, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Together with

identifier shared with (P4070) is only for external identifiers so I changed it to together with (P1706). You probably want to update these Multichill (talk) 19:53, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the heads up Middle river exports (talk) 00:33, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

A question

Why do you want to move the articles inside Q1334774 to Q112670533, but I see that the English article have not been moved, and my Chinese article is translated according to the English entries.--日期20220626 (talk) 14:41, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello,

There are multiple different concepts discussed in the English Wikipedia article which have the same name. Since about 2017, there has been a shift to focus on one of these - the Lahandi dialects - based on a conversation on the talk page there. There is no longer a single English Wiki article about Lahnda, so I have separated the items to avoid conflating the two. "Lahandi" is a word which simply means "Western" which can have many meanings in the original language Punjabi; Lahandi as it pertains to contemporary Punjabi linguistics describes a continuum of dialects, whereas Lahnda was an idea by colonial linguist George Grierson that there is a different language variety rather than dialect continuum spoken in western Punjab. I am currently working on a draft update that adds more details to the English wiki page, I can update you more on this if you would be interested in maintaining this distinction on Chinese Wiki as well. --Middle river exports (talk) 14:46, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Looking at this particular article, it is shorter than I realized - I can move it back to the original item if you intend to update it based on the current English article. It is tricky with these articles because Wikidata items are supposed to represent one concept, but on Wikipedia, if they have the same name they tend to be on one article. Middle river exports (talk) 14:48, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Another question

Hi, Middle river exports!

A few days ago you merged items Q7062091 (with 155 entries) and Q33017180 (1 entry). All well and good; but you overrided the default, which is to move the new item (Q33017180]) content into the old one (Q7062091), and making the new one to a redirect. Instead, you choose the option of merging in the other direction, moving the 155 entries, labels, et cetera, from the old item to the new one. (This is how I found out about this; there were automatic messages going out to the creators of these 155 objects.) In particular, this made the history of the item related to the concept "Category:Chinese people" much harder to access. (Compare the Q33017180 history with the `true history'!)

My question is if this overriding the default was made on purpose, and if so, for what reason, or if it was a mistake. Regards, JoergenB (talk) 10:43, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Sorry about this, usually I paste the QID from on to the other using the "Merge" toolbar gadget which doesn't choose a direction for you. I must have got the tabs mixed up. Is there a way to switch the QIDs back when this happens? Middle river exports (talk) 11:58, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

OK; mistakes happen (and all too often they are mine...). Anyhow, I also now and then use the "Merge" tool; but I have left the default option titled `Always merge into the older entity (uncheck to merge into the "Merge with" entity)' on, and thus do not have to think about the order of the objects myself. Thus, for me, "Merge" indeed does choose a direction, namely, incorporating the objects from the newer entity into the older one; unless I particularly would find a reason to override this default in some particular case, but I don't think I've found such a reason so far.

As for how to "switch the QIDs back": Perhaps you could ask somewhone with rollback authority to undo your changes for the two items, and then make the merge in the way you intended? I don't know any more efficient and easy way, but there well may be some. Some more experienced wikidata editor may know. JoergenB (talk) 15:56, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Ok that makes sense. I don't remember why exactly I leave the checkbox unchecked but I think because I'm a little scatterbrained I make the same item two times in a row and then I would want to merge to the one I added more statements to or already linked to other items, which could be the first or the second one. In those situations, having it choose would be a bit confusing but in others it is more clear that the older one has more links to it. In any case I will try to pay more attention to it Middle river exports (talk) 18:27, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Following up on this - I actually just fixed it to the old QID myself. I don't know why I assumed this required some kind of extra step, I just had to undo and redo the merge and make sure it kept the older ID. Middle river exports (talk) 03:47, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Please don't put babel categories with numbers in the parent category directly

Thank you for editing Wikidata. However Category:User doi-1 is better to be put in Category:User doi; otherwise, Category:Babel - Users by language would be flooded.--迴廊彼端 (talk) 09:21, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

OK, thank you. عُثمان (talk) 16:58, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

"Kirstie Alley" (Q151935)

Hello.

In the Wikidata page of "Kirstie Alley" (Q151935), please also add the label "American actress" or "American actor" in Punjabi as well as her full name Kirstie Louise Alley in the bottom box in Punjabi letters.

Yours sincerely, 31.200.16.201 07:22, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Done, and also added in the Gurmukhi script for Punjabi now too. عُثمان (talk) 07:45, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much. 31.200.16.201 17:14, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

P180 and lexemes ?

Hi,

(talking with my professional account today, For the context, I just received a warning in OpenRefine)

I'm not sure why you added constraints about lexemes on depicts (P180) last July. AFAIK, P180 is never used on Lexemes (which would be weird anyway, this property is for depiction in visual art).

Cheers, VIGNERON en résidence (talk) 10:09, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Somehow I do not remember adding these or exactly why I did, but looking at the linked lexeme senses like ਪੁੱਤ/پُتّ (L717452-S1), I think I just wanted to provide some context as to what the relevance of the image is to the sense. I exclusively use media legend (P2096) for this type of information now though since that allows adding a monolingual text caption. The images on Commons can have links added via structured data anyway, so these constraints can be removed. عُثمان (talk) 10:17, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I have now removed these constraints and am removing the uses of P180 on lexemes. عُثمان (talk) 15:03, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Requesting information about server errors

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T326768

Hi! At T326768, we (Wikidata developers at WMDE) noticed some server errors that we can’t explain so far. It looks like you edited some of the affected lexemes (ਤੂੰ/تُوں‎ (L679424) and (L942105) – the second one was merged into میرا (L940730) later) around the same time that the errors happened – do you maybe remember if you did something special that might have caused these errors? (It seems to be related to edit conflict resolution, but we haven’t managed to reproduce the errors yet.) Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE) (talk) 13:58, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

@Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE) That is odd, I would not have expected anything out of the ordinary from these edits but they do have something in common; both the forms mentioned in the Phabricator tickets are ones I deleted. On ਤੂੰ/تُوں‎ (L679424), I deleted F5 in order to create a separate lexeme for it to account for differing etymology. On (L942105), I deleted the single form F1 before merging it into میرا (L940730) to prevent it from being duplicated on the target lexeme. The merge should only have carried over the sense and "derived from" statement, so if the error was with the forms it must have been related to those deletions. عُثمان (talk) 14:12, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Do you remember if you got any errors, or if you had to repeat the deletion? (Usually, errors like the ones mentioned in the task should abort the request and not result in a persisted edit.) Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE) (talk) 14:22, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

There were no errors that appeared on the deletion of either form; there was an error on the merge at first but that was because I hadn't removed a link between the senses on them. عُثمان (talk) 14:37, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Hm, that’s quite strange… but I can’t think of any further questions for now. Thanks for your answers so far! Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE) (talk) 16:05, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Old Punjabi forms

Hi Usman! I'm going through some of your edits (which by the way, again I'm very impressed that you've added so much data)! While majority of your edits are fine, there are some issues I'd like to discuss with you, if you don't mind - starting with the Old Punjabi forms.

In a lot of the verb lexemes, you've added the Old Punjabi forms, but in Shahmukhi as well, like جاہُ at ਜਾਵਣ/جاوݨ (L45305). Are these attested or are they simply a transliteration of the Gurmukhi lemma? نعم البدل (talk) 00:07, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

@نعم البدل Sure--in Shahmukhi as far as I know a form like جاہُ would be just written as جاہ because of the tendency to leave short vowels unwritten. We have two main pieces of evidence for knowing this form was present in Old Punjabi however, one is the Gurmukhi attestations from the Adi Granth as you note, but also attestations of Prakrit. In modern Punjabi, the singular imperative is unmarked, and so جا is used with a "zero" suffix. In Old Punjabi, the Prakrit imperative paradigm was still conserved as Punjabi is ultimately a continuation of Prakrit, and the singular imperative was marked with -u or -hu. If you look at the table here for Prakrit verb forms you can see where -u and -hu come from:

http://prakrit.info/prakrit/grammar.html?r=morphology#imperative

The left side of the table is ēkavacanam (singular) forms for the stem ṇama-. The -u ending of the imperative is seen here as ṇamaü. Then, as explained below the table, in Prakrit an -h- was inserted in the imperative affix as a liaison when the stem ended in a long vowel, which is consistent with what we see attested historically for ja-. (Note that one of the forms of the affix given is -asu, this may be the one related to jahu here as 's' to 'h' was a very common sound change in the transition from Prakrit to Punjabi)

Not every possible form is available for every verb and if I do not find an attestation for an Old Punjabi form I do not add it. عُثمان (talk) 00:23, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

@نعم البدل You will likely be interested in this if not familiar with it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sande%C5%9Bar%C4%81saka

The Sandesh Rasak (as it would be pronounced in modern Punjabi) by Muslim poet Abdul Rehman in the 11th century is either the last Prakrit written work or the first Punjabi written work depending on how you look at it. The manuscripts were penned in Devanagari that differed relatively little from the way Hindi is written today. (Indicating details like short vowels where present.) Subsequent Muslim writers who used the Perso-Arabic script and studied his work would have been at least aware of these details even if the writing system did not record the information in the same way. عُثمان (talk) 00:31, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

@عُثمان: I don't doubt your reasons, from what I know short vowel endings did exist in Old Punjabi. My issue with this is that if it hasn't been attested then what's essentially being done here is that a different standard of the script is being defined here, which again wouldn't be an issue if it was another script, but for languages like Punjabi and Urdu (and not even Arabic) it seems unorthodox. It's basically assumptions that they may have written it, but then again they might not have. نعم البدل (talk) 00:57, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

@نعم البدل I find this to be a pointless distinction to be frank - even my parents, native speakers, are not literate in Punjabi, most Punjabis have never been. The point is to represent the spoken language with the information we have available in a way that can be readily understood. Almost nobody was writing Punjabi in any script but we do not have audio recordings from the past. Sindhi which is more closely related to Punjabi than Urdu is still written with the short vowel diacritics like pesh and zer word finally in any case if you are looking for examples of where it is done. The Sindhi variant of the Perso-Arabic script resembles older Urdu writing (for example with the four dot variations of the retroflex consonants) so I don't think it's particularly unconventional. عُثمان (talk) 01:04, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

@عُثمان: While most Punjabis may not have been literate in the Punjabi language, Punjabi was still a written language, written in Shahmukhi, no? Even before the rise of Gurmukhi. The Sindhi writing convention was 'adopted' or made specifically for the Sindhi language. Prior to that it was only ever written Devanagari or Lahnda scripts. Punjabi and Urdu are a different case here. In essence, I don't think that we should be defining a separate standard for Punjabi. Wikiprojects aren't made for that. نعم البدل (talk) 02:20, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

@نعم البدل There is nothing interesting or useful about representing the language as written historically. No separate standard is being defined, it is perfectly clear what vowel pesh represents. I didn't invent it. Urdu is irrelevant here, short vowels were lengthened in the development of Hindustani.

The only reason we know anything about Prakrit for example is because people transcribed it in what was modern orthography at the time continuously. Whereas you are asking that I remove information because of what reason exactly? Aesthetic preferences? People weren't using computers in the 16th century easier, we might as well forgo recording anything altogether for the sake of “historical accuracy.” I am sorry but I really do not understand this nonsense logic. There were short vowels at the end of some verb forms historically. I am not interested in entertaining this any further, your time would be better spent actually reading older Shahmukhi texts than trying to misrepresent the language based solely on assumptions about them. عُثمان (talk) 02:42, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

@نعم البدل If you saw this entry in Salahuddin's dictionary for example, would you seriously remove the pesh just because you don't think it should be there? https://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/app/salah-ud-din_query.py?qs=%D9%B9%DB%81%D8%B1%D9%8F&searchhws=yes&matchtype=exact

What you think is conventional is irrelevant, if the source indicates a short vowel—in Shahmukhi or in Gurmukhi—then it will be indicated as such. As is already done in every Shahmukhi dictionary I have seen. عُثمان (talk) 02:47, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

@عُثمان: a vowel pesh ... at the end of a Urdu/Punjabi lemma? Just because it can be done, doesn't necessarily mean that it should be. One could perhaps also render عِبادَت as अ़िबादअत - we have no knowledge that such a lemma exists, but hey عِبادَت exists so a literal Devanagari version of that must exist too, right? That's exactly the gist of your argument.

• remove information because of what reason exactly? - Because you are inventing the lemmas yourself. That should be a pretty good enough reason for me escalate this - if I so wished.
• your time would be better spent actually reading older Shahmukhi texts than trying to misrepresent the language based solely on assumptions about them. There was absolutely zero need for that dig. Ironically, I objected to your edits for this exact reason.
• if the source indicates a short vowel—in Shahmukhi or in Gurmukhi—then it will be indicated as such. As is already done in every Shahmukhi dictionary I have seen. – Then please share you sources. If you hadn't noticed, Salahuddin's dictionary has issues with diacritics. You gave the example of ٹہرُ from a modern-Punjabi dictionary. Really? You chose to give that as an example, rather than try and comprehend that it could be a misspelling? Or are you telling me that you've heard of this term "ٹہرُ" '//ṭ.hru//', which is listed as an alternative form of "ṭohar", literally in the dictionary? نعم البدل (talk) 03:16, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

A literal Devanagari printing like that does exist—I uploaded a book with it in there the other day but that's irrelevant. And on Wikidata, we do pair every single Urdu lemma with a Devanagari equivalent rather than entertain the idea that Urdu and Hindi are distinct languages.

Salahuddin was very careful about his diacritic placement, it is exceedingly rare. It is also not a dig that you have not read any older Shahmukhi texts because if you had you wouldn't be having this argument. Are all the word final peshes at the bottom of this page mistakes too? https://archive.org/details/TareekhMukhazanEPunjab1877/page/n541/mode/2up

Also, there are literally references on the lemma so I don't understand what you are going on about “inventing” lemmas. عُثمان (talk) 03:32, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

@نعم البدل Also if you are reading ٹہرُ as ṭ.hru you really do not understand Shahmukhi well enough to be criticising Salahuddin's dictionary. As written, it would be ṭéru. Punjabi is a tonal language, we don't pronounce h in this position. If you are reading it like it is Urdu it looks like that but that is not the pronunciation being indicated. عُثمان (talk) 03:36, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

@عُثمان: Punjabi is a tonal language, we don't pronounce h in this position. – There's just one issue with your problem. The thing is, I wasn't pronouncing it, I was transliterating it, hence which I used "// //". You yourself explained that the short vowel endings is a feature Old Punjabi, yet here you are attempting to prove it from a Modern Punjabi dictionary?

• A literal Devanagari printing like that does exist – what, so I can find "अ़िबादअत" exactly like that in a book, a literal Devanagari transliteration of "عِبادَت"? Where a zabar is represented by a अ, and that too in the middle? Boy, pleased do enlighten me with the source.
• we do pair every single Urdu lemma with a Devanagari equivalent rather than entertain the idea that Urdu and Hindi are distinct languages. – Oh so that must explain all the attempts of any sort of Hindi<->Urdu translations, books or otherwise, ever. I recall Punjabi university in India even spending the resources to create a proper Hindi to Urdu (and vice versa) translations tool, but I suppose that must have been an entire waste since a linguistics wizz and expert such as yourself is making the bold claim that it's just one language. Perhaps let's ask native Urdu speakers whether they know what words like भव/بھوَ/ਭਵ (L1001468) and ग्यानेश्वरी/گیانیشوری (L1001782) mean?
• Salahuddin was very careful about his diacritic placement – Salahuddin may have been (which again is your assumption), but the people who digitalised it, might not have been. Also please remind me, do diacritics go on top of the do-chasme he? Can they go on top of vowels to represent a long vowel? Because I'm fairly certain, the digital dictionary utilises diacritics like that.
• It is also not a dig that you have not read any older Shahmukhi texts because if you had you wouldn't be having this argument. You know for a person who likes to assume a lot, you've really not given anything that proves your point. What are the attested forms for "جاہُ" in Old Punjabi writings?
• Are all the word final peshes at the bottom of this page mistakes too? Where am I supposed to be looking or what word am I looking for? And again, it's an Urdu source from the 19th century. I thought the discussion was about Old Punjabi? نعم البدل (talk) 04:07, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

> You yourself explained that the short vowel endings is a feature Old Punjabi, yet here you are attempting to prove it from a Modern Punjabi dictionary?

As part of the verb paradigm specifically. In nominals they are retained on some words. Salahuddin's dictionary does include some historical entries however. Dictionaries were not published in Punjab in the 16th century, the only documentation we have of Old Punjabi at all is modern.

> Where a zabar is represented by a अ, and that too in the middle?

Not exactly like that, I just assumed you did that because you didn't know Devanagari well.

> I recall Punjabi university in India even spending the resources to create a proper Hindi to Urdu (and vice versa) translations tool

I am aware of the Sangam Punjab tool. It does not work well nor was much time spent on it.

--

{{L!L1001468}} is the Prakrit form of "hona." It is not listed as an Urdu lexeme because it is a Prakrit one. I think most Urdu speakers are aware of "hona" hence the reason to include this etymological link. The other lexeme you are upset about has an Urdu source linked to it at the top which you are free to read.

Hindi and Urdu are identical languages, there is not a single legitimate linguistic argument to say otherwise.

> do diacritics go on top of the do-chasme he

Yes. That is convention in Punjabi.

> Can they go on top of vowels to represent a long vowel?

Yes, not only is that convention in Punjabi, but it is convention in most Arabic based scripts.

You haven't even read any of the sources linked on the lexemes themselves, I don't know what exactly will satisfy you or what you are trying to prove here. I was looking forward to potentially having someone here who could contribute to Punjabi and Hindustani (Urdu/Hindi) lexemes, but you seem entirely disinterested in the actually interesting parts of either language. عُثمان (talk) 04:40, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

@عُثمان:

• the only documentation we have of Old Punjabi at all is modern – So these aren't attested forms, and the 'modern' ones don't place diacritics at the end of the word, right? So..
• I am aware of the Sangam Punjab tool. It does not work well nor was much time spent on it. – That's not the point. Prior to that there was research and intentions on creating a machine translation for the Hindi-Urdu pair.
• It is not listed as an Urdu lexeme because it is a Prakrit one. I think most Urdu speakers are aware of "hona" hence the reason to include this etymological link. The other lexeme you are upset about has an Urdu source linked to it at the top which you are free to read. – Again not the point, there are tons of these Sanskrit borrowings which were added to Urdu dictionary/lexicons a couple hundred years ago. Will a native Urdu speaker understand these Hindi terms? No, they won't. Hindi and Urdu are highly intelligible languages, not 'identical'.
• Yes. That is convention in Punjabi.
• Yes, not only is that convention in Punjabi, but it is convention in most Arabic based scripts.

Ok that's just completely wrong. By the way, diacritics don't go on top of the do chashme he, it's always the consonant that precedes or succeeds it. And I don't know which Arabic script you've been learning, but placing diacritics on top of vowels like و and ی, turns them into consonants, not vowels – or are you telling me that if I wanted to write for instance 'kūṛ', I would write 'کوُڑ'? نعم البدل (talk) 04:59, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Not going to argue much further, but not in Punjabi re: diacritics on top of vowels. Reason why is because of the way verb stems attach to affixes in the language. Observe:

لاوَݨا

This is not pronounced as written. It is pronounced like:

لَوݨا

lauNa. However, we do not write it like this, because if we recorded every sound change which happens in the verb stem, it would become less apparent what the verb stem actually is (morphophonemic spelling). Urdu doesn't do this because verb stems attach directly to their affixes, so the same system does not work.

So if the stem is la- لا and we want to indicate that و is a glide and not a diphthong, we have two options:

لاَوݨا

with zabar over alef. or

لاوَݨا

with zabar over wau. However zabar over alef + wau *does* make wau a consonant, otherwise wau would have hamza over it. It also defeats the purpose of retaining the stem لا unchanged in all verb inflections. So the convention in Shahmukhi is to put zabar over wau to indicate a glide after the verb stem. Since wau is already a semivowel anyway, some speakers say this as "lavna" anyway and this doesn't even matter because how tense this semivowel is does not distinguish between words in Punjabi anyway. Changing the stem makes a big difference though as لاوَݨا and لاہوݨا are different words which would look identical if we spelled them closer to their pronunciation.

The reason diacritics go on top of do chashme he in Punjabi has to do with tone and gemination which are not prominent features of Urdu. عُثمان (talk) 05:10, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

@عُثمان: Right, here's where I'm at. Previously, I only had slight objections to your edits, but after this discussion, I'm concerned - because you're obviously attempting to propagate your own form of Shahmukhi, or are trying to construct your own rules for it, and I really don't want this go down the route Punjabi Wiki did. I really don't know how to discuss this further with you, without having to escalate this. نعم البدل (talk) 18:05, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

@نعم البدل Escalate with who? This is not my own form of Shahmukhi, it is well attested in writing. You just do not like it, or seem determined to replace it with Urdu representations. Read more of it (in print) and pay attention to what you see. Everything in my explanation can be observed in published writing, and is consistent with typical Punjabi pronunciation rules. عُثمان (talk) 18:11, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

@نعم البدل Here is a good book about Punjabi linguistics written in Shahmukhi instead of arguing here: Q115923108. The whole thing is free and may be downloaded from the archive.org link at the bottom. عُثمان (talk) 18:13, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

It's also important that you are reading Punjabi in Nastaliq, otherwise you are less likely to see why the diacritics are placed over do chashme he. This is a book of Punjabi poems. Go to page 3: https://apnaorg.com/poetry/wasif/

In the bottom stanza, compare these words: کُجھ and کھُلیا . The ligatures these form place do chashme he partially under kaf. If it were convention to write the diacritics above kaf in the ligature کھ, then it no longer becomes possible to tell which consonant the vowel is on in ligatures like کجُھ which would look to close to کُجھ when rendered in Nastaliq. Seriously just read more Shahmukhi instead of arguing in English; and stop assuming you know better than writers like Salahuddin. Instead of speculating which aspects of the DSAL transcriptions are mistakes, compare with the scanned PDF they provide for the front matter so you don't have to guess how he wrote it. Punjabi Classicy Lughat is another Shahmukhi dictionary available as a full scan online. There is no shortage of sources to check. عُثمان (talk) 18:37, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

@عُثمان: 1. I'm being quite nice with you, so I'd appreciate it if you could stop being impudent for one teeny second, and understand that I'm not specifically against you, and would rather work with you to try and solve this.

I've asked you several times to show me pieces of work which attest the fact that Old Punjabi Shahmukhi writings used to end with short vowels for words such as "جاہُ". You've not done that, and have only gave your opinions and assumptions.

• Escalate with who? – Are you being naive on purpose, or do you really not understand that there are also Administrators on this website too? The reason why I would rather not, is because believe it or not, I would rather that you continued contributing for the Punjabi language.
• or seem determined to replace it with Urdu representations – Yet all you've done is tried to justify your edits, based on your understanding of the language. Actually, in a way you've shown that you are hell bent on trying to create a different standard, one that is meant to be clear distinct from Urdu. And I mean like why? You said it yourself that most Punjabis aren't literate in Punjabi, yet if they attempt to use Wikimedia to learn Punjabi, they will find a standard, which 1. Differs from the standardised form, such as the one in textbooks, and 2. probably confuses them? I'm assuming you're purposefully trying to deviate the writing system to give Punjabi it's own "shine"?
• Here is a good book about Punjabi linguistics written in Shahmukhi instead of arguing here: Q115923108. The whole thing is free and may be downloaded from the archive.org link at the bottom. – Okay, I will go through this, and I'll also let you know what I thought of it, and if your claims are any relevant.
• The ligatures these form place do chashme he partially under kaf. – Partially under the do chashme he, because of the font which is more cursive than normal Nastaliq font. I'm willing to bet the the pesh was placed on top of the kaf, and I'm fairly certain you know this too.
• and stop assuming you know better than writers like Salahuddin. – Lol is that another one of your assumptions? Considering your tone, you should say that to yourself. نعم البدل (talk) 19:23, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Instead of speculating which aspects of the DSAL transcriptions are mistakes – really? Are you new around here? There are so many DSAL dictionaries which don't even use the correct Unicode characters for languages like Urdu.

There is no shortage of sources to check. See my above reply. 🤦 نعم البدل (talk) 19:26, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Are there any Shahmukhi textbooks other than the Punjabi Qaida ones? The way standards I follow do not differ from anything in there. I've linked plenty of sources, it's on you to read them. Has nothing to do with "purposely deviating" anything.

The purpose of Wikidata is to store structured data, not provide a direct interface for language learners. I already showed you a while ago how I would present the data with the Wiktionary inflection table on pnb Wikitionary which uses the lexeme data on here:

https://pnb.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D9%85%D8%B9%D9%86%DB%8C%D9%B0

The format does not differ markedly from that of any print publication in the language.

I am aware there are mistakes in the DSAL dictionaries, but the things you have identified as mistakes are not any of those. That is why I nudged you to take a closer look at the Salahuddin front matter. عُثمان (talk) 21:20, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘@عُثمان: I'm not sure what Punjabi Qaidas you're referring to. The Punjab textbook board has Punjabi textbooks for the 6th Year group, till the 12th year, and considering you can complete a PhD in Punjabi, in Pakistan, I would assume there more resources than just Punjabi Qaidas.

• not provide a direct interface for language learners. And Wikidata is not just limited to just Wikiprojects. It's data can be used by external organisations and websites. That's my issue. There's already a lot of damage done in the past, because of Wikidata/Wikipedia across the web (for Pakistani languages). I'd like to try and limit that, here, even if it means having to dispute diacritics.
• I am aware there are mistakes in the DSAL dictionaries, but the things you have identified as mistakes are not any of those. That is why I nudged you to take a closer look at the Salahuddin front matter. While I've not looked at the front matter for Salahuddin's dictionary, I've previously read the front matter for the other DSAL dictionaries, which don't explain why they still use the incorrect Unicode characters, among other issues. It's good that DSAL have digitalised dictionaries, but you can't assume they're flawless. نعم البدل (talk) 01:14, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

@نعم البدل

گونگلوآں توں مٹی لاتھی۔ تسیں درست وی نہیں او، پاکستانیت تہاڈی مدد نہیں لوڑدا۔ تینوں پڑھن دی لوڑ آں۔

عُثمان (talk) 02:05, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

@عُثمان: تے مامے ہیر دیا تُوں کہڑی چھال مار دتی کہ تینوں لگدا اے دنیا تیرے باجھوں ختم ہون لگی اے؟ تُوں آپئی مینوں کیہا سی کہ تیری ماں بولی انگریزی اے۔ پنجابی تینوں بولنی لکھنی آندی نئیں تے "پاکستانیت" دی گلاں کرنا ایں مینوں۔ نعم البدل (talk) 06:48, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

جے تسیں لکھ سکدے تاں اوہ حوالے نوں ویکھ سکدے او۔ ہݨے تو میرے کن وی کھاندے۔ عُثمان (talk) 07:08, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

@عُثمان: تُوں انج کر، پہلاں ایہہ فیصلہ کر لے کہ تُوں کہڑی لہجہ سکھنی اے۔ جدوں تیری پنجابی درست ہو جاوے فیر میرے کول آویں۔ وڈا سکھان آیا۔ نعم البدل (talk) 07:15, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

نہیں، توں انج کر۔ عُثمان (talk) 07:19, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

ZWNJ

Why are you using the ZWNJ for Urdu/Punjabi terms, when it isn't used digitally? No default Urdu keyboard, whether it be on Mac, Windows, Android or iOS, has this character? نعم البدل (talk) 19:36, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

@نعم البدل With respect to Urdu, that would be @Mahir256's decision, not mine. For Punjabi it is only necessary for a very small number of forms. عُثمان (talk) 20:24, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

At a certain point I was using the ZWNJ by analogy with what is done in Persian with multiple distinct words that are put together to form compounds, given that Urdu orthography is modeled after Persian orthography. I no longer intend to add the ZWNJ to new Hindustani lexemes. Mahir256 (talk) 20:32, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

@نعم البدل I have a custom Shahmukhi keyboard which includes various modifications for Punjabi on Windows if you are interested.

If you are interested in conributing to Hindustani lexemes—we do not maintain Urdu and Hindi separately here—instead of removing information from existing items, your time would be better spent on adding missing gender statements to these lexemes: [1] and adding references to etymology statements on these lexemes: [2]

Punjabi is already caught up with respect to these statements. The most helpful thing you could do for existing Punjabi lexemes is provide glosses in Punjabi on senses which currently do not have them. عُثمان (talk) 21:02, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

@عُثمان: Fyi, I, too, use a custom keyboard for Punjabi/Urdu, even designed some. It's great that you've been contributing to Wikidata, and I've complemented on this multiple times. However, one thing that you don't seem to understand is that the data should also be accurate and consistent – and actually . @Mahir256: I assumed that we agreed it was acceptable to remove the unattested forms, or at least be able to dispute them? Yet Usman has gone ahead and reverted my edits, straight up, multiple times.

• we do not maintain Urdu and Hindi separately here—instead of removing information from existing items – That doesn't mean label Hindi words Urdu, when you know well that they are not Urdu words, and assume the Urdu spelling by by merely transliterating them. Where has this आधुनिकीकरण/آدھنکی کرن (L679497) term been attested? Not even Platts has attested the Perso-Arab variant of this term. نعم البدل (talk) 21:34, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

@نعم البدل ٰThere is nothing to talk about regarding accuracy and consistency when you have refused to look at any of the sources at hand and insisted on imposing ahistorical standards to lexical items.

An attestation in any script, including Devanagari, is entirely sufficient to support the inclusion of a Hindustani lexeme, as are audio recordings or transcriptions of them.

If you would like to continue insisting that Hindi and Urdu have any legitimate linguistic difference--not orthographic or political in nature--I challenge you to find a single verb that may be called just Urdu or just Hindi. It would be implausible that anything that lacks a single distinction in an entire class of words could be considered anything different, and if we were to treat this single language otherwise we would be forced to treat each Urdu and Hindi as a collection of nouns without a grammar and without speakers. Not just that, it would be a very small collection of nouns if we were to take this logic to its conclusion.

Take for example, bheu / bhed - transcription only used here to avoid the awkwardness of text direction formatting.

The inherited, older word in Hindustani is bheu, yet the manual tatsama borrowing bhed has replaced this word to the extent that you will find a more extensive list of definitions for the newer borrowed word in any recent Urdu dictionary. See for example, bheu in Urdu Lughat compared to bhed . If we are to say that this word should not be treated as an Urdu word for lack of "originally" Urdu attestations, we would be forced to omit nearly ever detail about the use of this word in Urdu. If we are to say that this word should only be treated as Hindi because it originated as a learned Sanskrit borrowing which was first written in Devanagari, well then we are forced to ignore all the information about the use of this word that Urdu dictionaries can offer it. And documentation of the whole language would be worse off for it. عُثمان (talk) 22:08, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

@عُثمان::

• An attestation in any script, including Devanagari, is entirely sufficient to support the inclusion of a Hindustani lexeme – Err, no it's not. And I wish you would stop maintaining this position that Hindi and Urdu are "identical" languages. They are not. An Urdu speaker would not be able to understand a Hindi newspaper, even if it was transliterated. A Hindi speaker cannot understand Urdu commentaries or journals or works, even if they were transliterated. Yes they both share a substantial amount of grammar - but they are NOT identical languages. Were the authors of the "Modern Hindi-Urdu dicitionary" and "Urdu-Hindi dictionary" so retarded that they spent their time and resources into publishing a dictionary in the same language? Why didn't Wikipedia just create a "Hindustani" Wikipedia, where the script changed at the touch of a button, as is the case for Kashmiri Wikipedia? I already gave you the Sangam program as an example previously.
• Why do Hindi news channels translate Urdu texts/quote into Hindi before the summary is given by the journalist who speaks Hindi? Why not just transliterate the same quote into Devanagari? You'll see that when they report on an event that occurs in Pakistan.
• And do not attempt to reiterate that to me, until there comes a time where Urdu speakers can fully understand any Hindi article or vice versa. Urdu and Hindi are treated different. No one calls their respective language "Hindustani" unironically.
• You or me are not here to determine what term can be classified as Hindi, Urdu or Hindustani. You look at its usage and the sources to prove that it exists, and is used. What use are audio files on Wikidata when you're advocating for the written form? You're transliterating them even though you don't know that's how it's written. Borrowings from Sanskrit with short vowels usually become prolonged in the Urdu spelling, yet from what I can see – you've not even taken that into account. نعم البدل (talk) 22:40, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

@نعم البدل With all due respect, I come from a background where my family never had the opportunity to receive an education in Hindustani, and they find both "Hindi" and "Urdu" network programming to be largely intelligible. My grandmother watches both ARY News and Zee TV (both for the drama) and the language used on both is in fact, identical for practical purposes, and contains so much borrowed Punjabi vocabulary in both registers that they can be understood well enough. I also have only every heard the term Hindustani from speakers of the language; English speakers are more likely not to know the word. So I find what you are claiming about mutual intelligibility and about the the applicability of the term to be discordant with reality as I have observed it.

Why can't you name a verb that is only Urdu or only Hindi? I agree that having separate Hindi and Urdu Wikipedia sites is pointless and would support their merger.

I also am not "advocating for the written form." I have uploaded pronunciation audios for Punjabi lexemes. Those files also have file names - computers are textual machines, that is a necessary limitation of the format. If you want to marvel at historical manuscripts you can simply look at those manuscripts. You do not need structured data for that. عُثمان (talk) 23:01, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Regarding your nits to pick with spelling, they are simply wrong. If you had anything specific to substantiate this criticism we could talk about it, but thus far that has not been the case. عُثمان (talk) 23:03, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

@عُثمان: You know what, whatever. Break a leg, hope you're happy. Do whatever you want on Wikidata cause I can't be bothered to constantly keep an eye on your edits. نعم البدل (talk) 23:06, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

@نعم البدل Finding a verb that belongs to just Urdu or Hindi turns out to be so challenging it took you seconds to give up. It's disappointing you can't help with the gender & etymology tasks I brought up. عُثمان (talk) 23:11, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

@عُثمان: – No it's the fact that a user who can't even put two sentences together in Punjabi has the audacity to lecture me – what an embarrassment that was. You're not even trying to understand my point or what I'm trying to say, so I'm better off arguing with a wall, let alone try to help to you in anything.

• out to be so challenging it took you seconds to give up – Yeah because that's exactly was the topic we were arguing about, right? I definitely gave up purely for that reason(!) Idiot. It's my last message to you on Wikidata. نعم البدل (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

You didn't have anything to say about my Punjabi until I disagreed with you; and I would say you should fix your IPA transcriptions and inflection tables on enwiktionary before going down that route. عُثمان (talk) 23:23, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Punjabi Calendar

Hi عُثمان

I've seen your edits related to the Punjabi Calendar. Do you think it would be appropriate to have separate pages for the months of the Punjabi Calendar and the Nanakshahi (Sikh) Calendar? That way Sikh religious content would have its own article and general Punjabi cultural content about the months would be separate EstablishmentOfKnowledge (talk) 22:51, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

@EstablishmentOfKnowledge I do not think it is necessary - as I understand it the difference is in which month is considered the first month of the year, but the month names and times they refer to are the same. (Also based on the "controversy" section of the enwiki article for the Nanakshahi calendar, it does not seem like everybody agrees on whether the beginning and end of the months should be fixed to specific dates.) عُثمان (talk) 23:00, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Self-referencing derivations

Hi,

I see that you added some self-referencing derivations, I reverted the obvious ones (a lexeme referencing to itself, like ਕਾਰੋਬਾਰੀ/کاروباری (L1096144)) but there is a more tricky one (two lexemes referencing each other) for instance (L707490) and सकना/سکنا (L984540). Could you take a look?

Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 10:13, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

@VIGNERON The original forms of this verb have been lost in both languages due to mutual borrowing—we know partly because neighboring languages have cognates with older forms. Following ordinary sound change processes we would expect *sakk- in Punjabi and *sāk- in Hindustani, but *sakk- must have replaced *sāk- in Hindustani, simplified to *sak- as Hindustani does not allow gemination at the end of stems, and then replaced the original form in Punjabi which in native intransitive verbs always geminates the stem after short a.

Maybe there is a less confusing way to show this, but it is an unusual situation. Verbs are normally a closed class in both languages, but they are borrowed exclusively from eachother. عُثمان (talk) 11:26, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I see, this is unusual. When you say "Punjabi" and "Hindustani", is it really the modern languages or could it be Old Punjabi or Old Hindustani? (or something else). Otherwise, I'll leave it as an exception. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 14:19, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

@VIGNERON Both of the languages developed relatively recently, and Old Punjabi and Old Hindi are used to describe them as spoken only a few generations ago. The language which is analogous to the sense used in Old English is Prakrit, which had identical phonology to Punjabi. Punjabi can sort of be seen as a living form of Prakrit which applied no sound changes to it, so all the differences which make Hindi a different language today must have occurred during a time period we have very little written record of. عُثمان (talk) 14:34, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Long reply

Hello عُثمان

Thank you for participating in Wikidata, however, let me reply you honestly. I apologize in advance for the harshness of my response.

• You have created an item which brings together all the exceptions, which is not at all the role of an Item, by adding the violations (2094 in total!) due to a property made only for properties.
• You don't even use at least one basic property (P31,P279, etc.) for this Item.
• When you make more than 2 thousand exceptions, it means that there are no more exceptions, qed!
• We never create an item because we don't see any other solution to a problem, it's an abberation.
• By "overflowing" the content of a property into an Item, it ends up damaging the entire knowledge base, because there are far fewer properties than Items.
• As explained on this link, major changes to a property should be discussed on its talk page first. Changing constraints is a major change.
• You are using the deprecated rank too much or incorrectly.
• Finally, you create another item that has no structural use, Q113558184.

Your solution is one of the worst; you must never make this type of modification. To understand, you can consult Help:About data#Linking data (RDF model) and in case of problem or doubt, you can ask for help on WD:PC.

If you wanted to save this list, you can do it in your personal space. Once the situation is back to normal, you will be able to find the items you listed using the following query: https://w.wiki/7d3F. You may need to run the query several times to see the results. The solution can be found on this page and looks a lot like this statement.

Here is what is recommended on the help page:
On taxon name (P225):

property constraint	distinct-values constraint edit separator taxon author year of publication of scientific name for taxon original spelling etc. 0 references add reference
		add value

• That give on Kocheridia (Q119494102) :

taxon name	Acmaeoderella edit taxon author (P405) Antonio Cobos Sánchez year of publication of scientific name for taxon (P574) 1959 0 references add reference
		add value

and on Carininota (Q119480804) :

property constraint	Acmaeoderella edit taxon author (P405) Mark Gabrielevich Volkovitsh year of publication of scientific name for taxon (P574) 1979 0 references add reference
		add value

• Or on Amphibolia (Q138735), that give :

taxon name	Amphibolia edit taxon author (P405) Adolar Gottlieb Julius Herre year of publication of scientific name for taxon (P574) 1971 0 references add reference
		add value

and on Amphibolia (Q110901510) :

property constraint	Amphibolia edit taxon author (P405) Pierre Justin Marie Macquart year of publication of scientific name for taxon (P574) 1843 0 references add reference
		add value

Cordially. ―Eihel (talk) 08:48, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I just removed all violations related to distinct-values constraint (Q21502410) on the Pterostichus pages. Sincerely.―Eihel (talk) 10:18, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

@Eihel OK, I appreciate you taking the time to explain some better approaches. For what it is worth, I did that something like a year ago when I was less familiar with Wikidata and I am not in the habit of making edits like this. عُثمان (talk) 11:37, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Wrong forms

Hi,

Here are 14 lexemes in Punjabi that need some fixing: https://w.wiki/7hXr. It's all lexeme where in the combines lexemes (P5238) statement, the qualifier object form (P5548) is not applied to a form of the lexeme itself (which is obivously wrong, it could be for many different reasons, lexeme merge or change that brakes the links mostly ; as I don't speak Punjabi, I'll leave you correct it).

Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 14:56, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

@VIGNERON Yes, mostly redirects from merges. They are fixed now, thank you for checking on this. Cheers عُثمان (talk) 15:23, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Wrong OpenStreetMap keys kartaview and mapillary for image (P18)

Hi,

You added several OSM keys but there are inappropriates. There is a "Tag2link" mechanism in some OSM tools that use OpenStreetMap tag or key in conjunction of formatter URL. Fro example, if a user right click on the tag wikimedia_commons=File:example.jpeg the JOSM editor open the https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:example.jpeg.

But there is no sense for the tag mapillary=1234 or img=http://some/example.org/picture.png.

So I will remove Key:image, Key:image and Key:kartaview and repair the formatter url.

Note: the formatter URL must be https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/$1 and not https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:$1 because the prefix "File:" is part of the name of the picture (or the value of the OSM key wikimedia_commons).

Best regards,

Pyrog (talk) 15:06, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@Pyrog Fair enough, it has been a long time since I made these changes. عُثمان (talk) 16:20, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Tamil Lexicon Tamil Lexicon (Q12981044) and Tamil Lexicon (Q120646844)

Hi عُثمان, I have a doubt in Tamil Lexicon items. What are the difference between them. Why you create the Tamil Lexicon (Q120646844)? What we should use for described by source in Lexemes? Please explain Thanks Sriveenkat (talk) 14:59, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

@Sriveenkat I created Tamil Lexicon (Q120646844) specifically for the 1924 edition available online. Tamil Lexicon (Q12981044) is the item for all editions of the dictionary.

I would recommend using the 1924 edition item, since that edition is in the public domain and lexemes are also public domain. So we can copy from it exactly without any copyright problems. عُثمان (talk) 15:03, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Ok Thanks :) Sriveenkat (talk) 15:05, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

iso639-3:pnb, Q58635 and Q1389492

Unfortunatelly and sadly, an ISO 639 change request 2020-019 (I'm not sure whether it's submitted by you or something closely related to you), has been rejected, see reasons at [3]. Based on this rejection announcement, should Western Punjabi (Q1389492) descriptions and statements be modified to no longer say "spurious identity for purported distinct", but just a valid dialect of Punjabi/Panjabi in Pakistan? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

@Liuxinyu970226 Thank you for this update—the request was not submitted by myself but I was interested to see the outcome. I think the description of that item should remain the same. The request rejection is asking a question that is very difficult to answer seriously—it is like saying, proof is required to demonstrate Canadian English and American English are the same language. This is clearly something very easy to demonstrate, but it is not clear at all what the people asking the question will accept as evidence.

Pakistan is a very newly created country. The migration of people across the Pakistan-India border in 1947 was the biggest mass migration in history so far. As a result all dialects of Punjabi are spoken in both countries. The dialect of Faisalabad (Pakistan) is the same as the one of Jalandhar (India) for example. Canadian English and American English are actually more different from eachother. There are already separate items for Punjabi dialects, such as Doabi, the dialect used in Faisalabad and Jalandhar. عُثمان (talk) 12:19, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the rejection is too hard to understand, as different codes shall associate to different named language entities, so far, I'd love to know that, if you think this give us a question to answer by linguistic materials then:

1. Are Indian and Pakistani Punjabs speaking, writting, and communicating each other, same one Punjabi language? In this case, if a new request is still necessary, then it should be reflected as: Deprecate pnb, merge that entity to pa/pan. But under this way, the pnb Wikipedia and pnb Wiktionary should consider to be closed, with contents merged to pa Wikipedia and pa Wiktionary, as pnb will therefore, and thereafter, be invalid for future wiki projects.
2. Are both speaking different two languages, but they just name their languages as "Punjabi"? In this case, then both pa/pan and pnb are having typos on Reference Names, and should be pair-renamed as "Eastern Punjabi and Western Punjabi", "Indian Punjabi and Pakistani Punjabi", or likely. By this way, both pa.wiki* and pnb.wiki* projects can be continue live, and new projects being created on Incubator, though on Special:Sitematrix, the "Punjabi" left of pa line should also be renamed to e.g. "Eastern Punjabi".

Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

@Liuxinyu970226

1. Yes. I already have a ticket open on phabricator requesting the merger of the Wikimedia projects. On Wikidata and Wikisource they are not treated as separate languages.

2. No.

For what it's worth, Persian has several codes and they have not been merged either despite SIL having acknowledged there is no linguistic difference between them. عُثمان (talk) 10:50, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Creating a Wikidata property

Hello,

I request you to create a Wikidata property for the Quran encyclopedia site (https://referenceworks.brillonline.com/browse/encyclopaedia-of-the-quran/) similar to the Wikidata property (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P11761) of the Islamica encyclopedia (https://referenceworks.brillonline.com/browse/encyclopaedia-islamica).

THANKS

Soufiyouns (talk) 22:30, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

@Soufiyouns I am hesitant to propose a property for this as it is paywalled عُثمان (talk) 15:15, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi عُثمان,

Thank you for your kind response and for your excellent explanation and guidance.

I just proposed the creation of this property and here is its link: https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Property_proposal/Encyclopaedia_of_the_Qur%27%C4%81n_entry

THANKS

Soufiyouns (talk) 08:31, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

ரம்ஜான்

Thank you for your creation of ரம்ஜான், aspecially for Arwi spelling (I didn't understand arabic script). I added forms and changed as proper noun.

Happy Ramadan! ரமலான் வாழ்த்துக்கள்! Sriveenkat|talk/{PING ME} 09:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

@Sriveenkat Thanks! You may find this interesting, it is Tamil manuscripts in the Arabic script https://archive.org/details/@arwi_manuscripts عُثمان (talk) 12:14, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Quran.com entry

Salam عُثمان,

I just proposed the creation of a property and here is its link:

URL: https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Property_proposal/Quran.com_entry

THANKS Soufiyouns (talk) 11:02, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Ramandeep Kaur (Q104775896)

Hi, You added a video in this item, that video doesn't match with External Identifiers images. So, Kindly review the video and reply. Thank you Sriveenkat|talk/{PING ME} 12:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

@Sriveenkat Thanks for catching this, removed عُثمان (talk) 12:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Gabon - description

Hello can you change the description of Gabon. It's a country located in Central Africa not in Western Africa. Thanks you Apipo1907 (talk) 22:15, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Template:Ping project

Salam عُثمان. I created these three Wikidata projects below:

• Wikidata:WikiProject Islam
• Wikidata:WikiProject Quran
• Wikidata:WikiProject Sufism

I want to use the Template:Ping project to share opinions and discussions with participants in these projects:

1. Wikidata:WikiProject Islam/Participants
2. Wikidata:WikiProject Quran/Participants
3. Wikidata:WikiProject Sufism/Participants

What advice do you have for me to stay compliant with the Wikidata rules as outlined in the following discussion? Regards. Soufiyouns (talk) 13:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Katakana and Hiragana representations as lemma

I am sorry, I reverted some of your edits like this one and this. I hope you don't mind, and I’d like to explain my reasoning so we can discuss it together:

1. The Best practices states a lemma should ideally be the representation of that lexeme that is provided in a dictionary. I believe that it is uncommon to render the word オーケストラ (L1095869) as おーけすとら and I assume a japanese dictionary would not list the word in its hiragana form thought it might provide hiragana as a reading aid. I think the same applies to 太陽/たいよう (L464944) which a dictionary would probably not list under タイヨウ even if it might be rendered like this.
2. it also states If there are multiple scripts in which a language is generally written, it is desirable for the lemma to contain a representation for each script / Where a correspondence in representation exists between multiple related scripts, repeating that correspondence may not be necessary. I think this is the case here since software can easily convert text between katakana and hiragana.

What do you think? I’m open to hearing your thoughts and would like to work together on this! Looking forward to your feedback! –Shisma (talk) 11:49, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@Shisma Hi, I am aware that depending on the word it may not be as often written in one writing system or the other. I have been adding the Hiragana where it is shown on the Wadoku page and the Katakana where it is shown on the Kanjipedia page (which is not all of them, I am not sure if there is a pattern there.) I don't have a strong conviction about this approach though. عُثمان (talk) 14:38, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I'd think Wadoku lists the hiragana/romanji representations more as a reading aid, since more Japanese learners are familiar with hiragana than with katakana. 🤷

Kanjipedia uses Katakana to indicate that a reading is Chinese-derived, which seems to be a convention. I still think lemmas should only show common representations and the reading pattern should be indicated on the form with sinogram reading pattern (P5244) on'yomi (Q718498)– Shisma (talk) 16:02, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@Shisma Alright, I can stick to that if it is more consistent with how you have been maintaining these lexemes. عُثمان (talk) 16:08, 9 August 2024 (UTC)