Talk:Taw

Encoding

It isn't really clear to me why the unicode for the Arabic character is U+0637 (tah) rather than U+062A (teh), since they both appear on this page. The they different letters, or variants of the same one? Richierocks (talk) 11:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Interwikis

From my talk page:

Hi Amire80. I've reverted your interwiki removal on dewiki.

My rationale: It may be argued, whether to interwiki from enwiki Taw to de:Taw. But de:Taw has to interwiki to enwiki Taw, as the German article is about Hebrew Taw and the corresponding information can be found in enwiki Taw, despite the fact that the enwiki article covers a broader subject.

--Pjacobi (talk) 22:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

This page is about a "pan-semitic" Taw. As far as i understand, only Aramaic and Breton articles are like this, so i left only interwikis to them. Interwiki links should be to articles that match as closely as possible.

I'm gradually going over all the related articles on all the international wikis and fixing it. It's a big mess now, but i am cleaning it up. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 23:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

From Help:Interlanguage links: "The activity of the bots also requires that interlanguage links are only put from an article to an article covering the same subject, not more and not less." --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 23:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

While I sincerely believe you are acting in good faith, I still disagree with your course of action.

This article is also about Hebrew Taw, see Taw#Hebrew_Tav.

We are writing an encyclopedia for humans, not for interwiki bots, which as far as I'm concerned, can rot in hell as they are doing as much damage as benefit.

The not a subset rule is clearly contraproductive, think about the many articles in biology, where different Wikipedia have their content at different nodes in the tree of life.

Last but not least, Help:Interlanguage links has no standing on dewiki. So, you shouldn't remove interwikis on dewiki quoting this page. (As it is neither policy nor guideline, it's also thin ice here).

--Pjacobi (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The real problem is here on the English wiki, which for some reason mixed up all the semitic alphabets.

Wikipedia is indeed for humans, and i, as a human, think that there's a lot of sense in linking only between equivalent articles. It seems quite weird to me to link an article about a Hebrew letter to an article about a Phoenician letter and its reflections in other alphabets. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 15:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Another thing: meta:Meta:Interlanguage links quotes Help:Interlanguage links. I don't see a reason not to see it as a policy applying to all languages. I think that it makes a lot of sense. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 19:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll address all three aspects: (1) This specific case, (2) the operation of unterwiki-bots, (3) applicable policies and guidelines.

1. AFAIK Taw#Hebrew_Tav is the place on enwiki, where the best information about Hebrew Tav can be found. This implies, that an interwiki link from de:Taw makes sense for human readers and will stay.
2. The first interwiki bots met resistance on dewiki just because they only got the simple cases right, but messed up more complicated ones. Consequently they were blocked! As the code seems to have evolved to be a bit more carefull, they are accepted now as necessary evil, with the occasional call to shut them down again, e.g. for blowing up watch lists while adding links to thousands of bot generated articles (what an irony!) on Volapük Wikipedia.
3. There is few policy applying to all WMF projects, and even to all Wikipedias. The only binding one formally put in place by the WMF is its mission statement. Then there are the pillars of "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia", NPOV, and NPA -- in effect by tradition and Jimbo decree. Then there are some more technical things, like the open proxy blocking. Nothing of this will give the enwiki guideline on interwikis a standing on other Wikipedias. And I even doubt, that the enwiki interwiki guideline will survice a check against reality and editor consensus.

There are few places to efficently discuss cross-Wikipedia issues. If you thing, more opinions should be heard on this, perhaps it would be best to bring it to the foundation-l mailing list.

--Pjacobi (talk) 14:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

TAW TO TAV

I think the headline of this page should be changed from taw, to Tav. It will give a better translation to Hebraic script. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mangostenmaster (talk • contribs) 01:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it's wrong because in the Syriac Alphabet, it's pronounced TAW —Preceding unsigned comment added by Assyrio (talk • contribs) 05:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Some reverts traced to an old edit

That old version had someone claiming that [h] is actually optional, which is untrue, ever since anonymous IPs keep editing IPA transcriptions and falsely change standardized transliterations. [1] [2] --Mahmudmasri (talk) 14:44, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Tāʼ marbūṭah should be its own article

It deserves it. It has a history, which might be intresting. Or if that's not good, we can simply put it as a new section in the Arabic alphabet article. It also is used commonly in words, and should not just be a little blurb in a section. I was gonna consider being bold, but then I realized someone might be mad about it. Cranloa12n (talk) 20:23, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

(Summoned by bot) You're more than welcome to be bold! The criteria for an independent article are established in WP:NOTABILITY; as a rule of thumb, two reliable, independent sources discussing the topic in significant detail as a subject in its own right qualify. You can always create a draft and submit it at WP:AFC. (In general, no one should "get mad" if you create an unnecessary article; they would nominate it for WP:AFD and move one. C'est la vie.)

Note for future reference that this is not typically how RfCs are used. WP:RFC outlines how they usually work. One of the necessary features is a question of some sort — they generally ask editors to choose from a specific set of options (e.g. "Should X article say A, B, or C") — which is usually about specific article content, or general Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Whether or not an article should exist is generally not the purview of an RfC (that's what AfDs are for), especially before the article has been made. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 02:46, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

oh ok Cool guy (talk • contribs) • he/they 13:32, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Pronunciation of تاء مربوطة

The claim that it is silent is laughably false. It is 100% required in pausa according to تجويد rules (which under no circumstances admit short vowels in pausa) and retained in countless dialects. It is absolutely unacceptable to present certain urban pronunciations as definitive for الفصحى‎. 109.184.98.226 (talk) 09:06, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I’m talking about the [h] realization, obviously (although some dialects have [t] even outside إضافة). 109.184.98.226 (talk) 09:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC)