Talk:Bangladesh

RFV discussion: December 2014–April 2015

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).

Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.

---

Bangladesh

Tatar in Roman letters. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 04:40, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Some comments. We have deleted (after some failed RFV's) a number of Tatar entries in Latin spelling.

1. Officially and most commonly, Tatar (Volga Tatar, not Crimean Tatar, a similar but a different language) is written in Cyrillic.
2. The correct Tatar romanisation of "Бангладеш" is "Bangladeş", not "Bangladesh".
3. There are some "efforts" to move Tatar, Kazakh and Kyrgyz spellings from Cyrillic into Latin on corresponding Wiktionaries, often helped by Turks. It happens before Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tatarstan (a republic in Russia) officially adopted Latin. The change may eventually happen (as with Uzbek, Turkmen and Crimean Tatar) but I think it's unhelpful to use the alphabet, which is not in common use.
4. The changes are made by nationalists, not linguists, so there are many inconsistencies and mistakes. Turkish (-Tatar, etc.) dictionaries use incorrect forms and are full of mistakes. In most cases, the words cannot be verified. The artificial Tatar Latin spellings usually follow Turkish, English, Crimean Tatar or other spellings. The conversions results in a loss, e.g. letter "ь" is often ignored in the Roman spelling.

--Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 05:13, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

• This is RFV; it should only matter whether this spelling is attested in Tatar writing. It should not matter what is official and what is not. The fact that this is Tatar in Roman letters is not sufficient for removal via RFV, as per WT:CFI#Attestation. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

  No rule against discussing entries on this page Dan Polansky. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:39, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

  Just making sure we go by attestation, not by "this is not the official script", for which, as you know, there have been some tendencies around here despite English Wiktionary's being a descriptivist dictionary. Also making sure that, after this fails as unattested, it is not used as evidence of practice of going by an "official" script. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:48, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

  By all means, Dan. There is no harm in giving some background. I'm interested to see how much (Volga) Tatar is written in Roman, which may affect Tatar entries in Roman letters. Previous RFV's showed that a number of Tatar written in Roman were actually Crimean Tatar or were copied from from Turkish-Tatar dictionaries with no attestation, some were just made up and could not be found. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 21:31, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

  Exactly, sometimes you have citations but it's unclear or disputed in what language they actually are. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• RFV failed. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 02:19, 6 April 2015 (UTC)