Talk:Alan Gua

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Alan Gua article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Mythology Mid‑importance

	Mythology portal This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.MythologyWikipedia:WikiProject MythologyTemplate:WikiProject MythologyMythology
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Central Asia Mid‑importance

	Asia portal Alan Gua is part of WikiProject Central Asia, a project to improve all Central Asia-related articles. This includes but is not limited to Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Tibet, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Xinjiang and Central Asian portions of Iran, Pakistan and Russia, region-specific topics, and anything else related to Central Asia. If you would like to help improve this and other Central Asia-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.Central AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Central AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Central AsiaCentral Asia
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Turkey Mid‑importance

	Turkey portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mongols: Mongol Empire High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mongols, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mongol culture, history, language, and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MongolsWikipedia:WikiProject MongolsTemplate:WikiProject MongolsMongols
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Mongol Empire task force.

Women's History Mid‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography

Γoa?

Isn't there a latin equivalent? I don't think that the NK support greek characters in article titles, let alone mixtures between latin and greek. --Latebird (talk) 03:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is NK? North Koreans?

WP:UE says "Wikipedia does not decide what characters are to be used in the name of an article's subject; English usage does. Wikipedia has no rule that titles must be written in certain characters, or that certain characters may not be used. Follow the general usage in English publications in each case, whatever characters may or may not be used in them."

Using a gamma for the back 'g' in Γoa seems indeed not so uncommon in english literature, see here (the OCR software seems to like turning Γ into T or f, and γ into y). Yaan (talk) 12:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

C'mon, you know I accidentally typed in the German abbreviation...

In your link, I don't see the greek gamma as prevalent use. And in those cases where either a greek or a latin gamma appears, it is usually not the only spelling presented. Without an exact count, I'd say that qoa or qo'a is most common, with the q sometimes mis-OCR-ed as g or д (weird!).

Actually, I'm pretty sure that the guideline you cite above really means within the latin character set, even if it is technically somewhat vague about it. --Latebird (talk) 14:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would Latin Gammas be acceptable? Actually I don't care so much, I'm much more worried that english wikipedia doesn't even know Γ-functions or χ² distributions. Yaan (talk) 15:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move. Andrewa (talk) 09:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To attract the attention of people who might be more familiar than us with the intricacies of WP:UE, I'm turning this into a formal morve request.

My assumption is that the naming conventions mandate latin characters for page titles. From the possible transcriptions available, Alan Goa is the most popular in Google scholar and Google books (with Alan Qoa as distant second), so that's seems the best candidate. Both latin and greek gamma give no results. --Latebird (talk) 12:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Both latin and greek gamma give no results" is because the OCR software turns the gammas into y's, T's, or f's. You could at least have mentioned this, as it was discussed above. Yaan (talk) 12:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, forgot about that, but then the discussion above is not hidden or anything. I actually also forgot that Alan Qo'a returns many results as well, and would probably be a reasonable alternative. --Latebird (talk) 13:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is that the common ttranscription (common outside China, anyway) of the Mongolian script into latin letters uses the greek gamma for the letter

, while the 'g' is reserved for

. There is of course the variant that uses 'gh' instead of gammas and 'kh' instead of q's, but I think this one is somewhat less common. OTOH it would be more compatible with words like "Khan" etc.

Note that Alan Qoa is actually not just a different transcription, in modern(?) orthography it would also look different (the difference being that the 'q' would have no dots, while the modern(?) 'gamma' would). Yaan (talk) 13:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see evidence confirming your assertion that the gamma is "the common" transcription. Even when cumulating all the OCR errors, Goa and Qo'a are wide ahead of everything else on Google Books/Scholar. I also don't think it matters here what they exactly refer to in the traditional script, that's something to explain in the article text. --Latebird (talk) 05:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are actually proving my point here. Alan Qoa and Alan Γoa are products of the same transcription scheme, the difference is in what letters you see in the original (

or

), not what letters you use for the transcription. I.e. the decision between Alan Γoa and Alan qoa is not between two different transcription schemes, but between different readings of the original. If we accept the transcription to Alan Qo'a, we should also accept transcriptions like Qutuγtu, Qalqa-yin γoul etc. Yaan (talk) 12:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We just need to find a solution within the guidelines. How does "proving points" help with that? --Latebird (talk) 04:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You were the one who asked for evidence about which transcription for

is common. My answer was that that people who use q's in transcriptions of Classical Mongolian usually also use gammas (also cf. stuff like Qutuytu vs. Qutugtu or Qutughtu), i.e. the gamma is the common transcription of

and, consequentially, if you find q's acceptable you should also find gammas acceptable. Yaan (talk) 15:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, non sequitur. There's no consensus to use a fixed transcription system, so we'll have determine the most common spelling of each name individually. --Latebird (talk) 06:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to something using English alphabet, whatever it is. 70.55.89.211 (talk) 04:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support for a move to any phonetic equivalent that relies on Latin characters. It's more convenient to work with for editors and WP:ACCESS comes to mind from the reader perspective. – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 10:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Turkic Alan gua?

If Turkic peoples borrowed this myth then it is not their history.Turks, please respect other nations history! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.160.44.232 (talk) 04:22, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

About Turkish Mythology and Mongolian Mythology

Turkish Mythology and Mongolian Mythology are different... But they are many common figures...

Also Turkish Mythology and Persian Mythologies are different. But they are some common figures...
Also Mongol Mythology and Tibet Mythologies are different. But they are some common figures...

Many figures are common in many mythologies.. Gezer Han (Abai Geser) is common in Turkic, Mongolian, Tibetian and also Indian mythologies... Is not it? Why? But it is...

Alangua (Turkish: Alankova) is a person in the Turkish mythology too as Mongolian mythology... Turkish mythologysts can studies the Mongolian mythology... Why did you delete the references about documents? Buzancar (talk) 06:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]