![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The contents of the Shikasta Nastaʿlīq page were merged into Nastaliq on 7 August 2016. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
is this quote too long to include in full? "an Arabic script developed about the 15th century, characterized by a tendency to slope downward from right to left, and used mainly for Persian poetical writings and in Urdu and Malay manuscript" from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nastaliq Irtapil (talk) 08:28, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Does anyone think that a differnt sentence should be used for the line given as examples of Nasta'liq script? The translation is: 'My name is Krishna Gopal, and I like drinking alcohol day or night.' Although quite funny I think a different example would be better. (the above wasn't signed)
lol, is that still it? i'll check that, and if still inappropriate i'll change it to the word Nastaliq if i can work out how, but i can only do it in noto nastaliq font. Does anyone knows of a good non-copyright example? Maybe from the gallery? Irtapil (talk) 06:48, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
seems to have been fixed: "Welcome to wikipedia for main page at fa.wikipedia" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasta%CA%BFl%C4%ABq#/media/File:Welcome_to_Persian_Wikipedia.svg seems to match, though, their ش is prettier... fa.wiki homepage and google translate agrees "Persian: خوش آعریر" = good luck "Persian: خوش غریر"welcome Irtapil (talk) 18:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
has it reappeared? [above]
Irtapil (talk) 12:04, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Grammatically incorrect sentence and also Mr. Krishna Gopal please be sensitive to the feeling of the vast majority of Urdu Speakers - Muslims. Your example of drinking wine day and night does not do justice to them.
I created a new comparison image with text from Ghalib's poetry. Mustaqbal 22:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Persian calligraphy has a very nice looking, arrangement and is subtly written, which can be appreciated by any non-persian person.
I advice to explain some about this best calligraphers and also show some good writings of them.
The previous text was very incomplete. Now, I believe, it looks better. If anyone knows anything about the history of Nastaliq in Pakistan or Turkey, please add it.
Long live!
Mtdashti 13:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
This article needs help: Shahmukhi
The script is used for writing Punjabi in Pakistan. It's pretty much Nasta'liq with a different name. I can do the history section, but please, if anyone can help out, do so. Especially the Persian speakers who know much about traditional Nasta'liq. Thanks. Stallions2010 21:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
It isn't true that vowel diacritics are never written in Nasta'liq. In Urdu they are used in materials for children, in dictionaries, and other contexts where it is desired to make precise the pronounciation. The use of vowel markers is independent of the difference in styles of writing. Except for the Qur'an, Arabic in the nasx script usually omits vowel diacritics too.Bill 05:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
are those Urdu texts with diacritics in this script? surely things like kids books would be in big clear learner-friendly letters rather than fancy curly calligraphy styles? Irtapil (talk) 16:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
i just had a quick look, heaps of Urdu kids books with diacritics, all probably copyright though. can someone find some that aren't? Irtapil (talk) 08:33, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
But is القرآن [the Qoran] often written in this script? القرآن is usually more horizontal? example: https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%85%D9%84%D9%81:Sura10.pdf and, the word for Punjabi پن٘جابی can be written in this script with the diacritic for the "u". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punjabi_language#/media/File:Punjabi_example.svg 124.170.159.223 (talk) 17:55, 11 January 2020 (UTC) twitter @evolving_string
This article says that Nastaliq is the preferred script for Uyghur, but there was no evidence at all for that, even on google. I removed Uyghur from the article. Does anyone have is evidence/citation for why Nastaliq would be used for Uyghur? Thanks. Mar de Sin Speak up! 17:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Why does the article say that the Nafees Nastaleeq font isn't used anywhere, and then that "its use is only limited to a few lines?" It's true that its handling of vowel markings is terrible (unfortunately for those of us using it to teach), but for individuals who use minimal vowelization, it's a very good font. --Mohamadkhan 04:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Nasta'liq is a calligraphic writing style, used by many more languages than just Urdu. Rename the Urdu alphabet article if you want, but don't merge it into here. They're two separate things. –jonsafari 22:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
The Urdu alphabet is one thing. The script used to represent it is another. Urdu can, and has been, represented by Arabic-scripts other than Nasta`liq (such as Naskh). Ishamid 23:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
why is the horizontal version used so rarely? i find the diagonal almost unreadable. I'm learning Arabic and Urdu from English, very quickly i could read Arabic in modern fonts, but Urdu is unintelligible. Do native speakers find it easy? It seems like you'd get used to it, but surely people learning to read would pick it up quiccker in modern horizontal fonts? 124.170.151.235 (talk) 02:21, 12 January 2020 (UTC) twitter @irtapil [i need to remember my wiki login]
I'd love it if someone would expand it and note the difference between the two, or if the difference isn't noteworthy enough for its own page to instead move the page to Ta'liq and Nasta`liq Scripts and expound upon the nuances in the article. Peter Deer (talk) 16:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Pashto does not use the Nasta`liq script. It uses the traditional Naskh script of Arabic. Therefore, I have removed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.209.203.254 (talk) 00:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
It seems most of the people writing this article don't know what it's even about? 124.170.151.235 (talk) 02:23, 12 January 2020 (UTC) twitter @irtapil
ArabTeX is now able to write urdu in nastaliq. We should add this software to the list. However I am not sure it is as rich as InPage regarding ligatures and there seems to be still some problems unsolved regarding full implementation of the nastaliq.
I did a little cleaning up of oddly worded sentances and grammar mistakes, as well as replacing wrongly placed numbers for words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.37.243 (talk) 05:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Someone can comment on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.114.168.176 (talk) 21:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I would like to suggest that a section be added about the recent developmont of Alvi Nastaleeq font, which is being hailed as a revolution in Urdu computing and typogaphy.
--Kpria (talk) 17:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
That link is broken. And according to a link on the InPage site, Alvi Nastaleeq is a pirated font. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.109.223.75 (talk) 06:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I removed the following from the references section:
The Faiz Lahori document is a shameless copy of earlier WinSoft Tasmeem's publicity in breach with copyright: [1]
LjL (talk) 21:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Why does the article look like two or more companies have simply copy and pasted advertisement text into the body?
There is no N. script, the script is Arabic, the Urdu version of the Persian extention allright, but Arabic script -- the style of writing is N.
Somebody had proposed to merge this article with Urdu alphabet. By giving this article its proper name, that problem will finally be solved. --85.178.123.223 (talk) 15:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
WHY IS 'Making of Faiz Lahori Nastaliq' article on here? What does this have to do with Nastaleeq, a writing style developed by Persians based on Arabic script. This does not belong here and should be moved to a Urdu wikipage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.104.208 (talk) 02:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I was about to delete the section about faiz lahori nastaiq but i read the warning "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved". This section by every means is an advertisement and there is no place for advertisement on wikipedia. It's vandalism. Though faiz lahori nastaliq is a good font for its part. But this section be deleted please, or the language be changed in encyclopedic style. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatal eyes (talk • contribs) 22:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article, File:Persian inscript-nast- farsi-khat e fasi nast..jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC) |
Can anyone tell me what is the exact Nasta'liq font used for all Wikipedia articles and from where it may be obtained? Jemiljan (talk) 12:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
((Nastaliq|...))
template displays in whatever NQ font you have downloaded on your device. ― Greater Intosh 13:35, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Stephen G. Brown i just worked out i need to tag people in replies? the lang|ur Urdu tag and Farsi tag lang|fa seem to use Tahoma?
٭ lang|ur ٹاہوما vs Tahoma ٹاہوما (my attempt to transliterte Tahoma in Urdu) ... for Farsi Irtapil (talk) 05:54, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
That article is little more than an essay writing in short form some of the key concepts here. There might be some useful references from the article, but I don't think it should be separate from the 'Nasta'liq script' page unless there is more that could be added to the Persian calligraphy page. Matsuzuma (talk) 14:35, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Nastaʿlīq script. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add ((cbignore))
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add ((nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot))
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:44, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
The are two outstanding, helpful, suggestions made by yoyo on Talk:Shikasta Nastaʿlīq, specifically that:
2. I also concur with another editor that Nastaʿlīq is a calligraphic style of the (extended Perso-)Arabic script, so perhaps the main article needs renaming to reflect that. 3. And in the process, I'd also recommend we replace every occurrence of "Nastaʿlīq" with "Nasta'leeq" in places where we'd expect a basic transcription (see WP:AMOS), but keep "Nastaʿlīq" wherever we need a strict transliteration, on the simple grounds that the current transcription uses two characters – ʿ and ī – not available in most typefaces used for English.
Thoughts? Klbrain (talk) 09:07, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Can we agree that Nast3lyq is not the transliteration we want? It certainly doesn’t line up with WP:AMOS. Hayyim uses “nasta'leegh” at https://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/app/hayyim_query.py?qs=نستعلیق&searchhws=yes But since most sources use “Nastaliq”, I’d like to keep our basic transliteration as close to that as possible.
A note on “y”: traditionally Latin used I for both vowel and consonant usage. J emerged in the Middle Ages to differentiate the consonant form “ye” from the vowel “ee”. This is visible in Germanic languages (eg ja, johannes, etc). It is also the source of the IPA glyph for the sound /j/. French shifted these sounds to a zh, and English to dzh. So while modern English “I” feels less appropriate than modern English “Y”, it makes more sense when attempting consistency across transliteration schemes, esp for historical languages.
Josephholsten (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
I like Nast3lyq, but i think Nastaliq is the best option, it is the most widely used English spelling, e.g. in font names. (I like it because the Arabic chat alphabet 3 for ayn solves the ambiguity in the different pronunciation of this letter in different languages, the variants of ' cause trouble with this, since the sound in Urdu is Arabic Hamza so it would be mirror image, and the letter ye/ya is best represented by Y. But Nastaliq still seems most sensible.) Changed to Nastaliq throughout except in intro. Irtapil (talk) 05:21, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Should we move the page to "Nastaliq" so the url does not look like this "Nasta%CA%BFl%C4%ABq"? I think i'm able to do that, but i figured i should get opinions first. Irtapil (talk) 04:17, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Actually, the current transliteration "Nastaʿlīq" is possibly wrong, or at least inappropriate?
So it seem a bit of a mess? for the strict transliteration, i'm a bit lost. But the most common English spelling "Nastaliq" would be the best for the page name. It's what's used in font names and such e.g. Awami Nastaliq and Noto Nastaliq Urdu. Irtapil (talk) 05:21, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
And listed in dictionaries as "nastaliq" with no listed alternative e.g. [2] Irtapil (talk) 05:30, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
If i move it, does it automatically create a redirect from the old name, or do i have to add that manually? Irtapil (talk) 05:54, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
In summary: should we move the page to "Nastaliq"?
views from those above: Josephholsten, Klbrain? and others interested in the page: Kellen?
Irtapil (talk) 05:54, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Nastaʿlīq script. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:19, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Nastaʿlīq script. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:25, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
"Panels" are referred to in the intro and I can surmise that these are the things depicted in the images, i.e. a set of text with a decorative border, but a more explicit explanation is warranted. KellenT 17:21, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
The images were contributed to commons by @Nasser-sadeghi: and @PHGCOM:. Are either of you able to add some more detail to the captions for your images on this page, please? Irtapil (talk) 12:22, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
I found a source that says a working Urdu typewriter existed in 1911, but it may have been using a simplified style and not Nastalyq? http://www.cicc.or.jp/english/hyoujyunka/mlit4/7-10Pakistan/Pakistan2.html Irtapil (talk) 00:58, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
isolated | ڛ | ڛ | ڛ | س | پ |
medial | ـــڛـــ | ڛ | ڛ | س | پ |
@Syed Wamiq Ahmed Hashmi: Is this caption accurate? I transcribed it myself and i'm not fluent in Urdu, i only recognised ایک - I googled it and i found a longer poem it matched a line of a longer poem. Irtapil (talk) 23:22, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
I moved two images out of the Shekasteh Nastaliq section and put them at the end. I moved the Shekasteh Nastaliq section up because the article flowed better with the computing stuff all at the end. But i think these two don't fit with that section? Irtapil (talk) 10:36, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
I propose that Taliq script be merged into Nastaliq. They denote the same script, & I don't believe that there's any information in the former article not present here. Pathawi (talk) 19:11, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
I was quite surprised to see no mention of Tasmeen (Tasmeen?), which took a decade or more to develop. It's computer calligraphy for Arabic script, and can produce beautiful results. IIrc, it's an adjunct to major Adobe typesetting software. 173.48.61.203 (talk) 02:42, 1 May 2022 (UTC)