This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Writing systems Low‑importance This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page.Writing systemsWikipedia:WikiProject Writing systemsTemplate:WikiProject Writing systemsWriting system Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. India Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Isn’t this pronounced with a vowel in languages such as Hindi or Marathi, as /ri/ or /ru/? -- pne (talk) 19:33, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

R̥ (Indic) → Ṛ (Indic) – Articles in category:Indic letters otherwise use IAST standard transliterations. For some reason, this one is using a non-standard R with underring, which is used in IAST to indicate a syllabic consonant R, rather than vocalic R. VanIsaac, GHTV ^contr_about 03:55, 18 March 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 08:56, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

:Support. The correct symbol ⟨Ṛ⟩ is used throughout the article. The usage and description here appears consistent with the articles Ṛ and International Alphabet of Sanskrit Transliteration. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 15:25, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since the article is not named Ṛ (Sanskrit), but Ṛ (Indic), IAST (intende for simplifying Sanskrit transliteration) will not do. The international standard is actually this one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_15919

where the correct letter is ⟨r̥⟩

So much for standard and correct. However, even if this was not the case, what is more important is serving the purpose - pls read my longer reply posted few minutes ago to this topic, explaining the ambiguity of ⟨ṛ⟩ that would make a disservice here.

Kindly, next time, before you revert an edit, the reasons of which you do not see, ask! (Now it's irrevertable, already) Yak-indolog (talk) 21:24, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck my !vote because I have no particular expertise here and was relying largely on the information available in this and the related articles. I suggest you two make arguments based in Wikipedia policy and practice and/or reliable external sources, rather than assertions. Whatever you come up with, the article body should be consistent with the symbol used in the title and with related articles. I assume that last line was directed at VanIsaac since I have not reverted any of your edits. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 22:27, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a misunderstanding:

1) "syllabic consonant" vs "vocalic r" is a mistaken opposition. It is one phonem, with phonetic properties of a consonant (same sound as "r") but functioning as the core of syllables, hence commonly called vocalic ("vowel-like") r (which implies it's syllabic). It's treated as a vowel by native grammar and it's graphic representation follows the same rules as of other vowels in the Brahmi-derived scripts, such as Devanagari.

2) The letter can be, and is, transliterated either by ṛ or by r-underring.

The former is arguably more common, but if used as an isolated letter, it becomes ambiguous - in our case " Ṛ (Indic) " can refer not only to ऋ/◌ृ = U+090B/U+0943 (allographs of 1 phoneme) which is the one dealt with in this article (Sanskrit vocalic ṛ), but also to a totally unrelated letter ड़ a consonant (letter for voiced retroflex with a modifier nuqta).

The (2) is the reason why this article would be better off to remain as R̥ (Indic), which makes it unambiguous.

The paralelly existing article Ṛ (Indic) should ideally receive "disambiguation" template informing that it is either used to transliterate Sanskrit "vocalic r" in IAST - where a redirect should be to this article (but this article should clearly mention that the same letters given here in pics are also transliterated by ṛ ) - or used to transliterate consonant retroflex flap occuring in Hindi/Urdu and some other northern Indian languages, such as Bengali. That should link to the (hitherto inexistent?) article about that letter.

Hope it's clear.

If we move the material from this page to Ṛ (Indic), it will not be incorrect, however keeping it under the present name gives us a solution how to tackle the ambiguity of Ṛ (Indic) using the unambiguous R̥ (Indic). Yak-indolog (talk) 21:07, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing out ISO 15919. I've only ever seen reference to IAST before, and a lot of content on Wikipedia has used it as a default. With this, should we instead be looking at moving Ṝ, Ḷ (Indic) and Ḹ to their ring counterparts? VanIsaac, GHTV ^contr_about 05:11, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]