Talk:Kaurik

Scripts

@Kautilya3: Actually it does cover footnotes or any other manner of material that may try to retain scripts. This is much better explicated at the discussions listed at WP:INDICSCRIPTS. Have been through numerous discussions and implementations of the policy to know this. For instance, I also remember users trying to bypass the policy by adding "transcriptions" at a variety of articles, was quickly shot down. Whenever there is any doubt about whether a script is to be retained in a India-specific article (including de-facto) the answer is invariably no. When the topic may go beyond this, the ideal situation is to still have no scripts (what we still follow at India-Pakistan etc. articles). Of course, the topic we have at hand here does not fall under the latter category anyhow. Gotitbro (talk) 00:11, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Even if we accept that it covers footnotes, you were deleting script for a Tibetan name for a Tibetan place. That is taking it to the extreme. Secondly, Tibetan names are always an exception for the INDICSCRIPTS policy because its various transliterations give absolutely no indication of how it is spelt, and often it is only the Tibetan spelling that is standardised, rest everything varies according to time and place.

Disputed areas should also be excluded from the INDICSCRIPTS policy because we need to know how the other country refers to the place, especially a country that doesn't even use English! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:21, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: The disputed area thing was exactly one of the reasons to enact this policy (too many script warriors), so that is unlikely to change. This is per multiple discussions and consensus. All scripts are covered by INDICSCRIPTS regardless of language or script family, Tibetan is no exception to this (neither is Chinese). If the need is felt to include a script it should go in the body and definitely should be nowhere near the lede or ib. Since the article is now being expanded I recommend the note be put in the relevant section (name, location etc). Gotitbro (talk) 04:11, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

No, the policy came to avoid disputes among Indian languages. Not for politically disputed territories among countries. And certainly not foreign place names. I am afraid you are making too many unsubstantiated claims. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:01, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Which include disputed territories. Kashmir et. al. has been brought up previously (e.g. here) and the precedence/consensus has been to be remove all such scripts (especially so after the last Kashmir consensus). A useful read is this last RfC which tried to whittle down the policy: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/India-related articles/Archive 2. There has never been any doubt that the policy applies to de-facto territories (and also in spirit to larger articles). No scripts in India-specific articles regardless of whether they are 'foreign' or not has always been the case, a clarification can be sought at the MOS or Noticeboard but I am certain that this is the case.

What you assert could have been true for a larger article like Kashmir, but as its lede and ib would show the implementation of the policy has been to avoid all scripts all together even in broader disputes. I understand the need felt to have Chinese and Tibetan scripts but a strict implementation of the policy is what we have always gone with even where utility maybe argued for. Gotitbro (talk) 12:09, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Kashmir meaning disputed by Pakistan? There, there is no need for anything, because Pakistan is English-speaking and they use English spellings just the way we do in India.

But China is an entirely different ball game. The Chinese use their own language, with its own script(s), which are not phonetic at all, and you can't find the sources that deal with the subject without knowing the Chinese spellings.Tibetan language is also the same. Even though the Tibetan spellings are supposedly phonetic, they were phonetic a thousand years ago, and the present pronounciations are entirely different from the original spellings.

And, scripts are quite necessary to identify the subject. For example, there has long been an article on Demqog, but the fact that it was the same word as Demchok became clear only after I found the native spellings of the two words. A single Demchok village got divided across the two countries due to bad border-setting exercise centuries ago. Having worked on Tibet border pages for several years now, I can tell you quite emphatically that the native spelligns are quite necssary. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:30, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Also, the script that is being added is for an article that already exists (Tsosib Sumkyil Township), making the insertion all the more unnecessary. That is the article where it should be limited to. Gotitbro (talk) 12:16, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Oh, that is a valid point. I think the script was added here before that page came up. Now it can be removed because the dedicated page has all the details. But the general argument you are making hurts a lot of pages that have Tibetan names, all across the border. Even for this page, I don't know what the Tibetan spelling for Kaurik is. If and when I find it, I will want to add it, because it will allow us to connect a lot of dots. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:41, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Finding sources et. al. is an important venture but that should not impede implementation of policy and precedent. I remember this argument being made in the last RfC as well but I will repeat what I said then, the place for these [looking for scripts and sources] is Wikidata or Wiktionary. The Wiktionary coverage of Chinese place names/sources thereof is especially excellent. Gotitbro (talk) 17:34, 19 July 2025 (UTC)