![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||
|
These changes needs to be reverted as this doesnot reflect the correct spelling nor the Sanskrit / Hindi pronunciation.
curprev 02:22, 20 February 2022 Getsnoopy talk contribs m 3,278 bytes −2 Fixed some formatting issues. undothank
curprev 02:20, 20 February 2022 Getsnoopy talk contribs 3,280 bytes +26 Fixed the transliteration and added a clarification about the terminology. undothank
curprev 02:12, 20 February 2022 Getsnoopy talk contribs m 3,254 bytes 0 Getsnoopy moved page Raghuvanshi to Raghuvamshi: Proper transliteration. undothank — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Neha.thakur75 (
talk •
contribs)
You can never find m in Raghuwanshi/Raghuvanshi. it is spelling रघुवंशी in Hindi or Sanskrit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neha.thakur75 ( talk • contribs) 05:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Revert the chnages done by Getsnoopy and undo page move
curprev 02:22, 20 February 2022 Getsnoopy talk contribs m 3,278 bytes −2 Fixed some formatting issues. undo curprev 02:20, 20 February 2022 Getsnoopy talk contribs 3,280 bytes +26 Fixed the transliteration and added a clarification about the terminology. undo curprev 02:12, 20 February 2022 Getsnoopy talk contribs m 3,254 bytes 0 Getsnoopy moved page Raghuvanshi to Raghuvamshi: Proper transliteration. undo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neha.thakur75 ( talk • contribs)
You are not giving correct explanation. You need understand how मात्रा matra works in Hindi and Sanskrit. You dont have transliterate to nearest pronunciation if proper pronunciation is available. I also cannot find any reference of Saṁskr̥t (you mean saṃskṛta ??) that you pointed in this sentence - 'This is not to mention that this is the correct pronunciation of the word in "Sanskrit" (which you'll notice is transliterated as Saṁskr̥t on the page itself)' . You are not native Hindi speaker nor you learned Sanskrit as I did in my school. I am Hindi speaking Indian, and I belongs to Raghuwanshi Lineage. This how most of us use write our surnames as Raghuvanshi or Raghuwanshi. Even Google translate Raghuwanshi to रघुवंशी. Also you pointed out Sandhi which is not relevant here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neha.thakur75 ( talk • contribs) 07:46, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
You dont have transliterate to nearest pronunciation if proper pronunciation is available.And what is that proper pronunciation?
I also cannot find any reference of Saṁskr̥t (you mean saṃskṛta ??)Yes. In the ISO 15919 scheme, it is transliterated as Saṁskr̥ta (excuse my lack of the last a in my previous response; it was a typo that I now corrected), while in IAST, it is transliterated as Saṃskṛta; they're the same thing. As for my knowledge, I would refrain from making sweeping judgements about others' knowledge, especially online when you don't know them personally. I am a native Hindi speaker and have learned Sanskrit, and am a Hindi-speaking Indian (not that it should matter).
This how most of us use write our surnames as Raghuvanshi or Raghuwanshi.Yes, and this (Raghuvanshi) is presumably because of a mistaken sandhi rule. (The w is simply out of place entirely; the sound doesn't exist in Sanskrit at all.) I think you're assuming that just because someone transliterates it a certain way, that it is the correct way to transliterate it. Many in India transliterate लक्ष्मी as "Laxmi" (लक्स्मी or even लख़्मी), which is obviously wrong, and similarly for many other instances. Google Translate is not a reliable source for anything, but even if one were to use it,
Raghuvamshi
transliterates to रघुवंशी as well, so that doesn't disprove the transliteration of Raghuvamshi. We follow standardized, consistent transliteration schemes here on Wikipedia (as does the Indian government, which follows the Hunterian standard), and that calls for the unaltered anusvāra to be transliterated as the m in the Hunterian scheme or the ṁ in the ISO 15919 scheme. Also you pointed out Sandhi which is not relevant here.My point with showing that is to show that in Sanskrit, sound changes involve spelling changes (since there's always a 1-to-1 relationship between the two), and there is no spelling change involved in रघुवंशी, which clearly indicates that there's no sound change. Getsnoopy ( talk) 08:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
This explanation is not helping the case. The bindu matra (also called anusvaar)used for homorganic nasal consonants or for nasalized vowels. You are mapping it improperly. Your explanation clearly shows you neither understand Hindi nor Sanskrit then why are you changing the spelling. Do you understand the wrong spelling changes the meaning of the word ? Please revert the changes to the original form. There was no reason to correct the spelling. How would you feel if I change the spelling of your name ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neha.thakur75 ( talk • contribs) 13:16, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
@ General Ization: First of the [1] you have shared is horseshit. This doesnot have any person's name as Raghuwanshi/Raghuwanshi. refer to which shows results for real people [2]. Dont share any such horseshit without verifying. Again it seems like you want to ignore the facts & rational behind the discuss but make it a personal injury shit. STOP THAT RIGHT NOW. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neha.thakur75 ( talk • contribs) 17:33, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
@ Getsnoopy: I dont think you understand what Sandhi is , I cannot understand why you keep bringing that into the argument.
संधि शब्द का अर्थ है 'मेल' या जोड़। दो निकटवर्ती वर्णों के परस्पर मेल से जो विकार होता है वह संधि कहलाता है।
यहां पर संधि जैसा कुछ नहीं हो रहा है। यहां पर तुम एक सब को अंग्रेजी में परिवर्तन कर रहे हो। — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neha.thakur75 ( talk • contribs) 17:41, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
@ Getsnoopy: Based on your argrument you cannot change Raghuwanshi/Raghuwanshi to only Raghuwamshi. As per your argument both ways are correct. So please make me understand why you removed one correct spelling ? You could have added both ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neha.thakur75 ( talk • contribs) 17:46, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
@ General Ization: I am writing in English, I don't understand your behaviour
@ Getsnoopy: Based on Hunterian transliteration अं -> ŋ, m n, m ṅ, ṁ म -> m m m Based on ISO_15919 m -> m म ISO 15919 has two options about anusvāra. (1) In the simplified nasalization option, an anusvāra is always transliterated as ṁ. (2) In the strict nasalization option, anusvāra before a class consonant is transliterated as the class nasal—ṅ before k, kh, g, gh, ṅ; ñ before c, ch, j, jh, ñ; ṇ before ṭ, ṭh, ḍ, ḍh, ṇ; n before t, th, d, dh, n; m before p, ph, b, bh, m. ṃ is sometimes used to specifically represent the Gurmukhi tippi ੰ. रघुवंश is labial anusvara hence it should be 'n' Please correct your changes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neha.thakur75 ( talk • contribs) 17:29, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
but you changed it to RaghuwamshiI did not; I changed it to Raghuvamshi (you seem to be confusing the v, which exists in all Indic languages, with the w, which does not and is not native).
which is not the correct Hunterian transliteration based on the transliterationThis indeed is the proper transliteration of it in Hunterian: the ṃ/ṁ in IAST/ISO 15919 becomes the m in Hunterian; it's quite straightforward. I think you might be confusing it with the analogue to the complex anusvāra option in ISO 15919, where anusvāras that transform into homorganic nasal consonants which are velar (ṅ), palatal (ñ), retroflex (ṇ), or dental (n) become n in Hunterian, while the labial (m) remains as m and the true nasal anusvara (ṁ) merges into m as well. Hence, the transliteration Raghuvamshi.
You could have kept it to Raghuvaṃśī and RaghuvaṁśīI could've changed the transliteration scheme to that, but we have a WP:RETAIN policy on Wikipedia where we should keep things using the same standard/policy/pattern that was already established, which was the Hunterian scheme in this case, so I maintained the scheme, but fixed the mistransliteration. Getsnoopy ( talk) 07:55, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Extended content
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ISO 15919:
IAST:
Hunterian:
|
@ Getsnoopy: I posted this on Wikipedia:Teahouse#c-Casualdejekyll-2022-03-08T16:55:00.000Z-Transliteration was told that Wikipedia:Indic transliteration is the relevant guideline. Hence right transliteration of रघुवंशी is Raghuvanshi. The letter is followed by v. Refer the snippet below. The standard nasal signs (ṁ and ṃ) are only to be used at the end of words OR when it is crucial to keep the distinction between Bindi and Tippi use in Gurmukhi. Otherwise, the following rules should be enforced:
When followed by | ISO 15919 | IPA |
---|---|---|
k, kh, g, gh or ṅ q, ḵẖ, or ġ |
ṅ | ŋ |
c, ch, j, jh or ñ z |
ñ | ɲ |
ṭ, ṭh, ḍ, ḍh, or ṇ | ṇ | ɳ |
t, th, d dh, or n | n | n |
p, ph, b bh, or m f |
m | m |
y, r, l, v, ś, ṣ, s, h ẏ |
n | n |
Neha.thakur75 20:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Since the above has gotten too lengthy and heated lets get back to the central content issue, namely the preferred transliteration of रघुवंशी for the article title...
@ Getsnoopy: Can you explain why you prefer the Hunterian transliteration 'Raghuvamshi'? As far as I know the IAST and (closely related) ISO 15919 systems are much more widely used in contemporary scholarship, and the two would (correct me if I am wrong) transliterate the word as Raghuvaṃśī and Raghuvaṁśī respectively.
That said, the 'proper' transliteration system to use is somewhat besides the point as far as the article title goes because the appropriate policy for that is WP:COMMONNAME. I am, at this moment, not sure whether 'Raghuvanshi', 'Raghuvamshi', 'Raghuvaṃśī' is the one more commonly used either in general writing or in scholarly literature. If we were talking about the modern day surname, I suspect, 'Raghuvanshi' would win hands down but that is not the central subject of this article; hence my uncertainty. Any suggestions on how we can settle the issue of common use? Abecedare ( talk) 19:37, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
I believe that User:Getsnoopy being an Indian and Hindi speaking will second this.I thought I didn't understand nasals; how would I second your opinion? Setting sarcasm aside, again, please refrain from claims about what others know; I understand nasals perfectly fine. The video you showed does not establish any new information. As I've already spelled out clearly above, only the nasals which have the base letter as n in IAST or ISO 15919 get transliterated as n in Hunterian, while those which have a base letter of m get transliterated as m (naturally). The former include the velar, palatal, retroflex, and dental nasals, while the latter include the labial and true nasals (anusvāra). It is quite straightforward. Getsnoopy ( talk) 20:14, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
The audience of wikipedia are normal internet user who don't have any understanding of a specific topic or wants to know more about a specific topic.That is exactly what I said above, so I don't see how I'm "wrong". Wikipedia works on the basis of " horizontal linking", where concepts which might be unfamiliar to a user are linked so that they can click on them to find out more, which can repeat recursively. This page is no different. And again, I'm not sure what you mean by "simple" or "simpler". Practically anyone who is Indian or is familiar with Indian topics (e.g., Sanskrit) knows what IAST is or has encountered it at some point in their life, and if they haven't, it is linked for them to find out more (because that, indeed, is the goal of Wikipedia: to educate people on topics unfamiliar to them). This is not to mention that IAST is quite intuitive to begin with, as it uses base letters that people would expect to be mapped to certain equivalent Indic characters. Getsnoopy ( talk) 20:14, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
OK, here are the results of the literature survey i mentioned above. To recap, I was looking at some standard sources on Itihasic and Puranic literaure to see how they dealt with the subject of the Raghuvaṃśī 'dynasty' and which transliteration they preferred (I was not looking for sources on the related modern surname, since that is not the subject of this article):
I should note that all these works do talk about Kalidasa'a Raghuvaṃśa, almost invariably spell it in IAST. And for completeness, Google Ngram finds 'Raghuvanshi' and 'Raghuwanshi' to be much more frequent in its corpus than 'Raghuvamshi' although that result almost surely reflects the modern surname and is thus of limited relevance to this article with its current scope.
( TL;DR) Standard sources discuss Raghuvaṃśa and its variants mainly to refer to the Kalidasa epic, as an epithet for Rama (compare with 'Raghav', 'Raghupati', 'Raghuananda' etc, none of which have stand-alone artices), or translate it literally as 'lineage of Raghu' etc. There is little to no discussion of the dynasty qua dynasty. So I'd suggest that this article be merged with Solar dynasty, where the various members of the (various versions of the) lineage(s) are better discussed in any case, and that the Raghuvamsa (disambiguation) be slightly expanded to mention the various transliterations and uses of that and related terms.
I realize that this sidesteps the question of what to title this article but since we can have redirects from all reasonable spellings, that would no longer an issue. Thoughts? Abecedare ( talk) 23:58, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Disclaimer: The google translate is built by reputed engineering team after extensive research. Those who think google translate tool is not good enough for the discussion, God help them !!
Request Uncle G, DanielRigalto , Abecedare and Vanamonde93 share views on right transliteration of रघुवंशी.
Based on aforementioned point, I offer everyone to make a decision. I have provided snippet from the pages that I have referenced in my discussion unlike the other user who keep giving vague reason and vague explanations — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neha.thakur75 ( talk • contribs) 20:45, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||
|
These changes needs to be reverted as this doesnot reflect the correct spelling nor the Sanskrit / Hindi pronunciation.
curprev 02:22, 20 February 2022 Getsnoopy talk contribs m 3,278 bytes −2 Fixed some formatting issues. undothank
curprev 02:20, 20 February 2022 Getsnoopy talk contribs 3,280 bytes +26 Fixed the transliteration and added a clarification about the terminology. undothank
curprev 02:12, 20 February 2022 Getsnoopy talk contribs m 3,254 bytes 0 Getsnoopy moved page Raghuvanshi to Raghuvamshi: Proper transliteration. undothank — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Neha.thakur75 (
talk •
contribs)
You can never find m in Raghuwanshi/Raghuvanshi. it is spelling रघुवंशी in Hindi or Sanskrit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neha.thakur75 ( talk • contribs) 05:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Revert the chnages done by Getsnoopy and undo page move
curprev 02:22, 20 February 2022 Getsnoopy talk contribs m 3,278 bytes −2 Fixed some formatting issues. undo curprev 02:20, 20 February 2022 Getsnoopy talk contribs 3,280 bytes +26 Fixed the transliteration and added a clarification about the terminology. undo curprev 02:12, 20 February 2022 Getsnoopy talk contribs m 3,254 bytes 0 Getsnoopy moved page Raghuvanshi to Raghuvamshi: Proper transliteration. undo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neha.thakur75 ( talk • contribs)
You are not giving correct explanation. You need understand how मात्रा matra works in Hindi and Sanskrit. You dont have transliterate to nearest pronunciation if proper pronunciation is available. I also cannot find any reference of Saṁskr̥t (you mean saṃskṛta ??) that you pointed in this sentence - 'This is not to mention that this is the correct pronunciation of the word in "Sanskrit" (which you'll notice is transliterated as Saṁskr̥t on the page itself)' . You are not native Hindi speaker nor you learned Sanskrit as I did in my school. I am Hindi speaking Indian, and I belongs to Raghuwanshi Lineage. This how most of us use write our surnames as Raghuvanshi or Raghuwanshi. Even Google translate Raghuwanshi to रघुवंशी. Also you pointed out Sandhi which is not relevant here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neha.thakur75 ( talk • contribs) 07:46, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
You dont have transliterate to nearest pronunciation if proper pronunciation is available.And what is that proper pronunciation?
I also cannot find any reference of Saṁskr̥t (you mean saṃskṛta ??)Yes. In the ISO 15919 scheme, it is transliterated as Saṁskr̥ta (excuse my lack of the last a in my previous response; it was a typo that I now corrected), while in IAST, it is transliterated as Saṃskṛta; they're the same thing. As for my knowledge, I would refrain from making sweeping judgements about others' knowledge, especially online when you don't know them personally. I am a native Hindi speaker and have learned Sanskrit, and am a Hindi-speaking Indian (not that it should matter).
This how most of us use write our surnames as Raghuvanshi or Raghuwanshi.Yes, and this (Raghuvanshi) is presumably because of a mistaken sandhi rule. (The w is simply out of place entirely; the sound doesn't exist in Sanskrit at all.) I think you're assuming that just because someone transliterates it a certain way, that it is the correct way to transliterate it. Many in India transliterate लक्ष्मी as "Laxmi" (लक्स्मी or even लख़्मी), which is obviously wrong, and similarly for many other instances. Google Translate is not a reliable source for anything, but even if one were to use it,
Raghuvamshi
transliterates to रघुवंशी as well, so that doesn't disprove the transliteration of Raghuvamshi. We follow standardized, consistent transliteration schemes here on Wikipedia (as does the Indian government, which follows the Hunterian standard), and that calls for the unaltered anusvāra to be transliterated as the m in the Hunterian scheme or the ṁ in the ISO 15919 scheme. Also you pointed out Sandhi which is not relevant here.My point with showing that is to show that in Sanskrit, sound changes involve spelling changes (since there's always a 1-to-1 relationship between the two), and there is no spelling change involved in रघुवंशी, which clearly indicates that there's no sound change. Getsnoopy ( talk) 08:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
This explanation is not helping the case. The bindu matra (also called anusvaar)used for homorganic nasal consonants or for nasalized vowels. You are mapping it improperly. Your explanation clearly shows you neither understand Hindi nor Sanskrit then why are you changing the spelling. Do you understand the wrong spelling changes the meaning of the word ? Please revert the changes to the original form. There was no reason to correct the spelling. How would you feel if I change the spelling of your name ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neha.thakur75 ( talk • contribs) 13:16, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
@ General Ization: First of the [1] you have shared is horseshit. This doesnot have any person's name as Raghuwanshi/Raghuwanshi. refer to which shows results for real people [2]. Dont share any such horseshit without verifying. Again it seems like you want to ignore the facts & rational behind the discuss but make it a personal injury shit. STOP THAT RIGHT NOW. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neha.thakur75 ( talk • contribs) 17:33, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
@ Getsnoopy: I dont think you understand what Sandhi is , I cannot understand why you keep bringing that into the argument.
संधि शब्द का अर्थ है 'मेल' या जोड़। दो निकटवर्ती वर्णों के परस्पर मेल से जो विकार होता है वह संधि कहलाता है।
यहां पर संधि जैसा कुछ नहीं हो रहा है। यहां पर तुम एक सब को अंग्रेजी में परिवर्तन कर रहे हो। — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neha.thakur75 ( talk • contribs) 17:41, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
@ Getsnoopy: Based on your argrument you cannot change Raghuwanshi/Raghuwanshi to only Raghuwamshi. As per your argument both ways are correct. So please make me understand why you removed one correct spelling ? You could have added both ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neha.thakur75 ( talk • contribs) 17:46, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
@ General Ization: I am writing in English, I don't understand your behaviour
@ Getsnoopy: Based on Hunterian transliteration अं -> ŋ, m n, m ṅ, ṁ म -> m m m Based on ISO_15919 m -> m म ISO 15919 has two options about anusvāra. (1) In the simplified nasalization option, an anusvāra is always transliterated as ṁ. (2) In the strict nasalization option, anusvāra before a class consonant is transliterated as the class nasal—ṅ before k, kh, g, gh, ṅ; ñ before c, ch, j, jh, ñ; ṇ before ṭ, ṭh, ḍ, ḍh, ṇ; n before t, th, d, dh, n; m before p, ph, b, bh, m. ṃ is sometimes used to specifically represent the Gurmukhi tippi ੰ. रघुवंश is labial anusvara hence it should be 'n' Please correct your changes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neha.thakur75 ( talk • contribs) 17:29, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
but you changed it to RaghuwamshiI did not; I changed it to Raghuvamshi (you seem to be confusing the v, which exists in all Indic languages, with the w, which does not and is not native).
which is not the correct Hunterian transliteration based on the transliterationThis indeed is the proper transliteration of it in Hunterian: the ṃ/ṁ in IAST/ISO 15919 becomes the m in Hunterian; it's quite straightforward. I think you might be confusing it with the analogue to the complex anusvāra option in ISO 15919, where anusvāras that transform into homorganic nasal consonants which are velar (ṅ), palatal (ñ), retroflex (ṇ), or dental (n) become n in Hunterian, while the labial (m) remains as m and the true nasal anusvara (ṁ) merges into m as well. Hence, the transliteration Raghuvamshi.
You could have kept it to Raghuvaṃśī and RaghuvaṁśīI could've changed the transliteration scheme to that, but we have a WP:RETAIN policy on Wikipedia where we should keep things using the same standard/policy/pattern that was already established, which was the Hunterian scheme in this case, so I maintained the scheme, but fixed the mistransliteration. Getsnoopy ( talk) 07:55, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Extended content
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ISO 15919:
IAST:
Hunterian:
|
@ Getsnoopy: I posted this on Wikipedia:Teahouse#c-Casualdejekyll-2022-03-08T16:55:00.000Z-Transliteration was told that Wikipedia:Indic transliteration is the relevant guideline. Hence right transliteration of रघुवंशी is Raghuvanshi. The letter is followed by v. Refer the snippet below. The standard nasal signs (ṁ and ṃ) are only to be used at the end of words OR when it is crucial to keep the distinction between Bindi and Tippi use in Gurmukhi. Otherwise, the following rules should be enforced:
When followed by | ISO 15919 | IPA |
---|---|---|
k, kh, g, gh or ṅ q, ḵẖ, or ġ |
ṅ | ŋ |
c, ch, j, jh or ñ z |
ñ | ɲ |
ṭ, ṭh, ḍ, ḍh, or ṇ | ṇ | ɳ |
t, th, d dh, or n | n | n |
p, ph, b bh, or m f |
m | m |
y, r, l, v, ś, ṣ, s, h ẏ |
n | n |
Neha.thakur75 20:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Since the above has gotten too lengthy and heated lets get back to the central content issue, namely the preferred transliteration of रघुवंशी for the article title...
@ Getsnoopy: Can you explain why you prefer the Hunterian transliteration 'Raghuvamshi'? As far as I know the IAST and (closely related) ISO 15919 systems are much more widely used in contemporary scholarship, and the two would (correct me if I am wrong) transliterate the word as Raghuvaṃśī and Raghuvaṁśī respectively.
That said, the 'proper' transliteration system to use is somewhat besides the point as far as the article title goes because the appropriate policy for that is WP:COMMONNAME. I am, at this moment, not sure whether 'Raghuvanshi', 'Raghuvamshi', 'Raghuvaṃśī' is the one more commonly used either in general writing or in scholarly literature. If we were talking about the modern day surname, I suspect, 'Raghuvanshi' would win hands down but that is not the central subject of this article; hence my uncertainty. Any suggestions on how we can settle the issue of common use? Abecedare ( talk) 19:37, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
I believe that User:Getsnoopy being an Indian and Hindi speaking will second this.I thought I didn't understand nasals; how would I second your opinion? Setting sarcasm aside, again, please refrain from claims about what others know; I understand nasals perfectly fine. The video you showed does not establish any new information. As I've already spelled out clearly above, only the nasals which have the base letter as n in IAST or ISO 15919 get transliterated as n in Hunterian, while those which have a base letter of m get transliterated as m (naturally). The former include the velar, palatal, retroflex, and dental nasals, while the latter include the labial and true nasals (anusvāra). It is quite straightforward. Getsnoopy ( talk) 20:14, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
The audience of wikipedia are normal internet user who don't have any understanding of a specific topic or wants to know more about a specific topic.That is exactly what I said above, so I don't see how I'm "wrong". Wikipedia works on the basis of " horizontal linking", where concepts which might be unfamiliar to a user are linked so that they can click on them to find out more, which can repeat recursively. This page is no different. And again, I'm not sure what you mean by "simple" or "simpler". Practically anyone who is Indian or is familiar with Indian topics (e.g., Sanskrit) knows what IAST is or has encountered it at some point in their life, and if they haven't, it is linked for them to find out more (because that, indeed, is the goal of Wikipedia: to educate people on topics unfamiliar to them). This is not to mention that IAST is quite intuitive to begin with, as it uses base letters that people would expect to be mapped to certain equivalent Indic characters. Getsnoopy ( talk) 20:14, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
OK, here are the results of the literature survey i mentioned above. To recap, I was looking at some standard sources on Itihasic and Puranic literaure to see how they dealt with the subject of the Raghuvaṃśī 'dynasty' and which transliteration they preferred (I was not looking for sources on the related modern surname, since that is not the subject of this article):
I should note that all these works do talk about Kalidasa'a Raghuvaṃśa, almost invariably spell it in IAST. And for completeness, Google Ngram finds 'Raghuvanshi' and 'Raghuwanshi' to be much more frequent in its corpus than 'Raghuvamshi' although that result almost surely reflects the modern surname and is thus of limited relevance to this article with its current scope.
( TL;DR) Standard sources discuss Raghuvaṃśa and its variants mainly to refer to the Kalidasa epic, as an epithet for Rama (compare with 'Raghav', 'Raghupati', 'Raghuananda' etc, none of which have stand-alone artices), or translate it literally as 'lineage of Raghu' etc. There is little to no discussion of the dynasty qua dynasty. So I'd suggest that this article be merged with Solar dynasty, where the various members of the (various versions of the) lineage(s) are better discussed in any case, and that the Raghuvamsa (disambiguation) be slightly expanded to mention the various transliterations and uses of that and related terms.
I realize that this sidesteps the question of what to title this article but since we can have redirects from all reasonable spellings, that would no longer an issue. Thoughts? Abecedare ( talk) 23:58, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Disclaimer: The google translate is built by reputed engineering team after extensive research. Those who think google translate tool is not good enough for the discussion, God help them !!
Request Uncle G, DanielRigalto , Abecedare and Vanamonde93 share views on right transliteration of रघुवंशी.
Based on aforementioned point, I offer everyone to make a decision. I have provided snippet from the pages that I have referenced in my discussion unlike the other user who keep giving vague reason and vague explanations — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neha.thakur75 ( talk • contribs) 20:45, 8 March 2022 (UTC)