Talk:Nastaliq

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

quote[edit]

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)[reply]

Content on Nasta'liq example[edit]

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)[reply]


An example of the Nastaliq script used for writing Urdu

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)[reply]


has it reappeared? [above]

Irtapil (talk) 12:04, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nasta'liq - Grammatically Incorrect Sentence[edit]

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.

Comparison Image[edit]

I created a new comparison image with text from Ghalib's poetry. Mustaqbal 22:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Text should be Improved[edit]

this article is not good. lots of persian calligraphers were optimized it during about 300 years. best of them: Mirza Gholamreza Isfahani, Kalhor, Seyed Hossein Mirkhani, ...

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.

Have rewritten the whole story[edit]

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)[reply]

I added the history of the script in Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh. I think we still need some help with Turkey, though. Stallions2010 21:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shahmukhi[edit]

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)[reply]

Diacritics[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

Uyghur[edit]

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)[reply]

Nafees Nastaleeq[edit]

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)[reply]

Proposed merge with Urdu alphabet[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Agreed... there will be overlap... but the answer would not be to move it into here--if anything, asking for a merge is saying there is nothing special about the Urdu alphabet and that it should be deleted... which, I would disagree with because you have the issue of having different characters than Arabic / Persian which can / should be discussed on that page. In any case, I am going to remove the merge request. gren グレン 18:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose. Merging Urdu alphabet with Nasta'liq would be like merging Latin alphabet with Times New Roman. Nasta`liq is merely a style of writing the basic script, characterized by a diagonal slant, as opposed to the level lines used by naskh. Naskh can be used for Urdu, and sometimes is, especially in scholarly pulications and reference books. Grover cleveland (talk) 23:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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][reply]

Ta'liq redirects here?[edit]

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)[reply]

Pashto erroneously listed[edit]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

working on it... but i'm no expert Irtapil (talk) 11:40, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Computer software[edit]

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.

Cleaning Up[edit]

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)[reply]

Someone can comment on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.114.168.176 (talk) 21:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Alvi Nastaleeq[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Removed non-reference[edit]

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]

  1. neither is really a reference, but at best an "external link"
  2. copyright disputes are not intended to be in the article itself

LjL (talk) 21:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Advertisement?[edit]

Why does the article look like two or more companies have simply copy and pasted advertisement text into the body?

move to Nastaʿlīq STYLE of writing[edit]

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)[reply]

Pretty sure you mean the proper description, not name. ― Greater Intosh 13:38, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]


??[edit]

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)[reply]

Faiz Lahore Nastaliq Section Must Be Deleted[edit]

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)[reply]

File:Persian inscript-nast- farsi-khat e fasi nast..jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

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
What should I do?

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.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nastaliq font used for WP articles[edit]

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)[reply]

This question was never answered. I am trying to find out what fonts are being used in en.wikipedia, ur.wikipedia, and fa.wikipedia for Urdu script and Persian script. So far I have not been able to find the answer. I would like to improve the Urdu and Persian entries on en.wiktionary. Thanks for any help. —Stephen (talk) 07:02, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To use the font in wiki articles you use the tags. e.g. with پاکستان and without پاکستان - click edit source on this talk page section to see how that works. But for dictionary entries aimed at people who are not fluent in Urdu I think it might be more useful for more readers to just use the generic Perso-Arabic font. I got the knack of being able to read that in a week or so but I am really struggling to read Nastaliq Urdu. For a dictionary the important thing is what letters are there in what order? And for en.wiktionary.org it's being read by people who've been learning Urdu for a few weeks, or who's native language is Moroccan Arabic, etc. the horizontal fonts with only three forms for each letter are way more readable to non-native speakers. Open to other opinions though, the style is used very widely for Urdu so obviously some people find it easily readable? Irtapil (talk) 20:05, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
By "obtain" the font do you mean you also want to use it locally on your computer or on other websites? Does it need to be the exact same font? or just a comparable one you can use for a similar effect? Urdu Wikipedia looks like Urdu Typesetting (microsoft) or Google's Noto Nastaliq Urdu (the ones mentioned in this article) you can download google's Noto fonts here google.com/get/noto and i think that page also has info on how to use it on websites. To get Urdu typesetting on Windows i think it comes automatically if you add Urdu on your language settings. The font on fa.wikipedia.org definitely LOOKS like Tahoma, the ـهـ is very distinctive, and Tahoma seems to come included with pretty much everything? I'm not 100% sure what they are using, if anyone else knows for certain i'm curious? I think both ur.wikipedia.org and fa.wikipedia.org use Arial or similar for headings, but a lot of different Latin fonts use the same near-identical set of Arabic characters. Irtapil (talk) 20:05, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. I just had a closer look and the font on ur.wikipedia and on Nastlyq snippits here looks more like Urdu Typetting than Noto, it leave the dot off the bottom of ـہـ ـہـ e.g. in تہجی تہجی - whereas it's prominent in the Noto Nastalyq font. It might be getting UT from my machine though? i'm not very knowledgeable on web design stuff. Irtapil (talk) 09:29, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP doesn't use a specific Nastaliq font. Text inside the {{Nastaliq|...}} template displays in whatever NQ font you have downloaded on your device. ― Greater Intosh 13:35, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]


If there's anything of value in 'Persian calligraphy' it should be merged[edit]

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)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:44, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming[edit]

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)[reply]

I pasted these into https://fonts.google.com/ as sample text scrolled through the first hundred or so fonts:
Most fonts are missing ʿ but there are better alternatives that preserve more of the meaning that the symmetrical mark suggested. The current character is a mirror image of the ’ indicates ء instead of ‘ for ع https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA/Arabic - There are two others ‘ or ` that are available in almost every font (often used as single quote marks) and are not ambiguous. I think these are more commonly used for transliteration because I have never seen Arabic transliterations with boxes for missing characters. Because ‘ or ` are unambiguous they could also be used to improve the places that need strict transliteration?
If a lot of people see Nastaʿl▯q then I agree a double E would be better. But 95% of the fonts in that catalogue had "ī" and the only fonts I could find which were missing "ī" were mostly either novelty decorative fonts, or non-Latin fonts with a bare minimum set of Latin characters. Alternatives to 'ee': I have no objection to 'ee' but exploring alternatives before we change every mention of it. For weeks I thought that was just an i, but that would be "lick", which is probably way off? But a plain lowercase "i" is used in some English language dictionaries, and in the font tags it is "Nastaliq". Letter for letter, Y seems like a perfect match for ي and ی since they have the same dual consonant and vowel role as English Y. Farsi ye is a bit different, but they seem to be regarded as different ways to write the same letter یـ ـیـ ـی ی ؛ يـ ـيـ ـي ي (یـ ـیـ ـی ی ؛ يـ ـيـ ـي ي ) and some Arabic dialects use the dot-less terminal form? But I have no objections to "ee", Y definitely seems to be non-standard, I'm mainly just curious as to why transliterating ي / ی doesn't use Y more, it is used in the letter name, . Irtapil (talk) 00:51, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Irtapil (talk) 00:52, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Josephholsten so how did we end up with so many English words that use it as a vowel, e.g. many, my, by. Irtapil (talk) 04:17, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

Actually, the current transliteration "Nastaʿlīq" is possibly wrong, or at least inappropriate?

  • "Nastaʿlīq" seems to be Arabic, but this is a style most commonly used for Urdu that originated from Persian. The Urdu pronunciation would be most appropriate? Since most documents in this style are in Urdu.
  • The ʿ / ` / ‘ is the ARABIC pronunciation of ayn, "voiced pharyngeal fricative (/ʕ/)". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayin says "Semitic abjads, including Phoenician ʿayin Phoenician ayin.svg, Hebrew ʿayin ע, Aramaic ʿē Ayin.svg, Syriac ʿē ܥ, and Arabic ʿayn ع" but Urdu and Persian are both Indoeuropean languages.
  • I don't know about Persian? but as far as i can tell, in Urdu ayn is usually silent or sometimes pronounced as glottal stop ʔ transliterated as {{}} / ’ i.e. the mirror image.
  • but glottal stop is transliterated as the reverse again i Hawaiian: :"In the traditional Romanization of many languages, such as Arabic, the glottal stop is transcribed with an apostrophe, ⟨’⟩, which is the source of the IPA character ⟨ʔ⟩. In many Polynesian languages that use the Latin alphabet, however, the glottal stop is written with a reversed apostrophe, ⟨ʻ⟩ (called ‘okina in Hawaiian and Samoan), which is used to transcribe the Arabic ayin as well and is the source of the IPA character for the voiced pharyngeal fricative ⟨ʕ⟩." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glottal_stop
  • and Urdu speakers pronounce ayn as ʕ in Arabic words... but even if this can be traced to Arabic origins, if it's mostly used for documents in Urdu, wouldn't it be pronounced as an Urdu word? Religious loan words maintain an Arabic pronunciation sometimes, but i don't think Nastaliq would...
  • modern Qurans are written with full diacritics, to make the pronunciation clear to people who do not speak Arabic, and diacritics don't work well with Nastaliq, so they are probably usually written in the more horizontal Arabic styles? even in Pakistan where they use Nastaliq for other things. If a modern Quran has Nastaliq it'd only be for the translation section or footnotes in Urdu?
  • (tangent) i know Quran needs ’ or ʻ somewhere... but i am now thoroughly muddled... Qu’ran... though, arguably not, since Quran is kind of the English term for it, i don't think Arabic would drop the article al-? unless Qu’ran is for an individual copy of it? i kind of like "koran" but it looks outdated.(end tangent)

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)[reply]

And listed in dictionaries as "nastaliq" with no listed alternative e.g. [2] Irtapil (talk) 05:30, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

In summary: should we move the page to "Nastaliq"?

  • It's the most common English spelling
  • It would mean the url does not look like this "Nasta%CA%BFl%C4%ABq"
  • The appropriate transliteration of a word used in multiple languages is a bit ambiguous. It's appropriate for the intro, but not the page name.
  • also, i think there's a wikipedia policy on preferentially using common English spellings in page names?

views from those above: Josephholsten, Klbrain? and others interested in the page: Kellen?
Irtapil (talk) 05:54, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The policy referred to above is WP:TRANSLITERATE, and so if "Nastaliq" is the most commonly used in the English then the page should be moved to that. The other arguments also make this a good idea. As Nastaliq page already exists (as a redirect), this would have to be done via a technical requested move. Klbrain (talk) 17:02, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
i agree, but i got a bit confused about how to do it, so i've not got around to it yet. Irtapil (talk) 11:43, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
requested Irtapil (talk) 12:01, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:19, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:25, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

panels[edit]

"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)[reply]

@Kellen`: Do you mean the last three? I think the ones you refer to in the intro have already been improved? but the last three in the final gallery are a bit vague. I was about to attempt to type out the text, but i think i'm woefully under-qualified, i've been learning Urdu for two months and i know literally only two words of Persian. Irtapil (talk) 12:13, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

typewriter[edit]

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)[reply]

one transcription looks wrong[edit]

OLD CAPTION:
Example showing:

خط نستعلیق

(Nastaliq script) written in Nastaliq.

In a simplified font: خط نستعلیق

NEW CAPTION:
Example saying, "Nastaliq script", written in Nasta'līq.

خط نستعلیق

(Naskh: خط نستعلیق)
The dotted form ڛ  is used in place of س  in the word نڛتعلیق Nastaliq.
In the " Notable Nastaliq calligraphers " section, the transcription in one of the captions looks wrong. The tripple dot in the image doesn't match anything in the transcription?
The dots for the نـ and خـ are a bit far away. But calligraphy often does that? and i can't find any letters that have one dot above and below?
Are they just using a variant letter? ڛ "A traditional variant of the letter س" is how Wiktionary describes it. It looks like the more common پ but that makes no sense in context and would be much more narrow in nastaliq?
isolated ڛ   ڛ   ڛ   س   پ 
medial ـــڛـــ    ‍ڛ‍     ‍ڛ‍     ‍س‍     ‍پ‍  
The letter ڛ is not available in Nastaliq fonts, so i can't add it to the Nastaliq version of the transcription خط نڛتعلیق  but i might add a note though?
@Farzan44: is my interpretation correct? Is that new caption accurate?
original: Irtapil (talk) 09:58, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
updated: Irtapil (talk) 23:24, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Hi @Irtapil, First of all, I would like to thank you for your attention. You can find 3 dots under the letter of ڛ and 3 dots above of that as the other letter ش in the very old manuscripts. Over time scribers removed the unnecessary 3 dots under the letter and transformed the ڛ to س.
Nevertheless, Nastaliq calligraphers always used those dots as the aesthetic values in their artistic piece of works. It still is very common in Nastaliq artworks but obviously you can not find that in the Nastaliq fonts or any Farsi, Arabic or Urdu typefaces. I made this image same as Al-Fatiha fragment a very Well known masterpiece of Mir Emad Hassani. You can find 3 dots under the س in words of بسم and نستعین.
More over, I have to mention that is very common that change position of dots to make a better composition and balance in the spaces of an artwork of Nastaliq calligraphy . This is the main difference of calligraphy art and typesetting.
Farzan44 (talk) 21:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

is this caption accurate?[edit]

An example of the Nastaliq script used for writing Urdu. Nastaliq:

؂ کیا تنگ ہم ستم زدگاں کابہاں ہے
جس میں کہ ایک بیضۂ مور آسماں ہے

Naskh:
؂ کیا تنگ ہم ستم زدگاں کابہاں ہے
جس میں کہ ایک بیضۂ مور آسماں ہے

@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)[reply]


Shekasteh Nastaliq images?[edit]

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)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

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)[reply]

Taliq script and Nastaliq are not the same script. Taliq predates Nastaliq. Nastaliq was inspired by Naskh script and Taliq; thus its name a portmanteau of the two. They should not be merged. However, Taliq script does need expansion. Idell (talk) 06:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! The info on this page is misleading & I read Taliq script too quickly. I'll withdraw the proposal & make a change here. Pathawi (talk) 14:20, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nastaliq typesetting[edit]

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)[reply]

سەرەتا 185.95.206.100 (talk) 19:25, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nastaliq&oldid=1194721458"