Talk:Ña

malayalam jña

the image used for the malayalam jña ligature both here and on the ja (indic) page show the ligature for ñja instead Filipinojalapeno (talk) 20:10, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 2 January 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Almost nobody here seems convinced that any other encyclopedic subject with this name exists to disambiguate this from. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (Goodbye!) 15:18, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

---

Ña (Indic) → Ña – Per WP:OVERPRECISION. I'm wondering why they didn't move it yet. 143.179.74.165 (talk) 11:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 11:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Dr vulpes (Talk) 04:32, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support unless there are other uses that use this particular diacritic. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  I don't see any other uses for plain Ña than this. Even if there are, they probably don't deserve an article on Wikipedia. 143.179.74.165 (talk) 09:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

  Exactly. Andrewa (talk) 05:10, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose as per WP:Naming conventions (writing systems)#Glyphs and other elements. Wikiproject naming conventions are explicitly called out as exceptions at WP:OVERPRECISION, and this renaming would break the consistent naming of articles on the interrelated glyphs in Brahmic scripts. VanIsaac, GHTV ^contr_about 20:17, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  Are you interpreting that section as saying to always use parenthetical disambiguation? I don't think that's the point of the section – it lists Zeta as a case where disambiguation is unnecessary. jlwoodwa (talk) 07:46, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that it says to default to parenthetical disambiguation unless it meets WP:Primary topic, as articles about letter names without disambiguation are likely to be confused with general words in one or more languages. Criterion #1 says in part that "a topic is primary if it is much more likely than all the other topics combined to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term", but Google search results do not bear that out. "Ña" is a word in Spanish, which is the explicit concern addressed by the naming convention in urging towards disambiguation, and it fails the first major aspect that qualifies the only listed exception to default disambiguation. VanIsaac, GHTV ^contr_about 23:28, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

But the English Wikipedia doesn't have an article on the Spanish word ña, or even any coverage of the word in another article. Per WP:TITLEDAB, disambiguation is only necessary when a topic's preferred title can also refer to other topics covered in Wikipedia. jlwoodwa (talk) 23:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Of course English Wikipedia doesn't have an article on it. It literally uses a letter not found in the English alphabet. When you are dealing with elements of non-English writing systems, your world has to be larger than only native English terms. Quite simply, a plain "Ña" is wholly insufficient for anyone looking at the article title to have a reasonable expectation of what the article content would be. The disambiguation of "(Indic)" is just a workably WP:CONCISE method of having an appropriately WP:TITLE#Descriptive title, which plain "Ña" fails to do. That is the reasoning behind the Writing Systems naming convention as it exists, and I've seen no argument for how this proposal even remotely achieves that principle of WP:LEAST astonishment in article titles. VanIsaac, GHTV ^contr_about 02:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The English Wikipedia has many articles on subjects that don't have English names; that's not the reason why we don't have an article on that word. And even if it were, how would that be relevant to deciding this article's title?

Anyway, most titles are wholly insufficient for anyone looking at [them] to have a reasonable expectation of what the article content would be. That's the job of short descriptions, not parenthetical disambiguation. And as noted above, the writing systems naming convention allows for titles like Zeta when a letter is the primary topic for a title. It's not like WP:NCUKPARL or WP:USSH, which require parenthetical disambiguation regardless of whether a title is actually ambiguous. jlwoodwa (talk) 03:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I didn't say it doesn't have an English name, I said the article name as proposed uses a letter not found in the English alphabet. A transliterated title will by necessity lose critical context on the domain of the term, and the investigation of what constitutes WP:Primary topic cannot arbitrarily exclude non-English results and still give a coherent result. VanIsaac, GHTV ^contr_about 04:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

It's not excluding non-English results, it's excluding subjects that are not covered in this encyclopedia (which happens to be written in English). jlwoodwa (talk) 04:32, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose per VanIsaac. The standalone Ña, which is currently a redlink, as seen in the nomination, should redirect to either Ña (Indic) or to the Na disambiguation page, but Ña (Indic) should retain the parenthetical qualifier, analogous to Na (Indic), which currently has no hatnote, but needs one that points to Ña (Indic). It may be also noted that this entry was created in November 2015 as Nya (Indic), but was unilaterally moved in March 2018 to its current header, Ña (Indic). If a nomination were to be submitted for restoring the original Nya (Indic) header, I would support such a proposal. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 07:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

FYI, the move from Nya regularized the set of Category:Indic letters to names based on IAST romanization, which is the ISO recognized transliteration standard for Indic scripts. Cf. Ṅa (Indic) being moved from Nga (Indic) at the same time. VanIsaac, GHTV ^contr_about 05:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support Disambiguation without a base title. No opinion on reverting to Nya (Indic). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support. No other topics are contesting for the primary title "Ña", making the current title textbook WP:OVERPRECISION. The examples provided on WP:NCWS#Glyphs and other elements show that in some cases like Zeta, a glyph is permitted to hold a primary title. The consistency argument is not applicable; WP:CONSISTENT explicitly advises us against inserting unnecessary disambiguation for consistency's sake. No opinion on Nya (Indic). ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 20:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisting comment: One last relisting to try and get some more editors to opine Dr vulpes (Talk) 04:32, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support. Even if disambiguation were necessary... which it isn't... (Indic) is a poor disambiguator, unlikely to be widely recognised. Andrewa (talk) 05:13, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.