Revert to ابری

Thank you for your reply as I wasn't aware of this singular standard. Nevertheless, it seems that Wiktionary has arbitrarily decided to use a mixture of different standards based on the personal preferences of an ad-hoc group of editors. This is extremely problematic.

While I did see your summary, I also note that there is some debate on this "system", such as it is, on the associated discussion page! https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary_talk:Persian_transliteration. The contributors observe the incompatible use of a mixture systems. That mixture with different standards has shown up in this particular article. As you can see in the first post, one person asks if they really must change all of the macrons to circumflexes! Then the last person asks that the standards here be reviewed that it be put to a vote, which never happened.

Secondly, you unilaterally reverted corrections of obvious mistakes and changes that are in fact in line with the standard. Others were incorrect translations that had nothing to do with the Wiktionary diacritics, such as translating as well as transliterating ابری as "ebru". It's incorrect on both counts. Ebru is not an English word. The correct translation is "marbled paper".

Please see the talk page in which I review the standards, the inconsistent application, and puzzling translation of Persian into Turkish rather than English.

I agree it's problematic to use inconsistent transliteration systems. I don't know much about Persian but WT:Persian transliteration indicates the usage of i and â rather than ī and ā, so you should probably stick with that, and change macrons to circumflexes. I don't agree that we should leave macrons alone; if the standard is to be the usage of circumflexes, we should change the entries that way. Awhile ago I went through and corrected all the Arabic entries to use a single transliteration system.

As for ebru being an English word or not, there is a good deal of Google evidence indicating that it is (e.g. search for "ebru technique" or look at the Wikipedia articles on "ebru" and "paper marbling"). Wiktionary is descriptive rather than prescriptive, meaning it documents what people actually say rather than dictating what they should say. Since people do say "ebru" in English, it's fine to use this in English translations.

As for your comments about transliteration vs. transcription, Wiktionary somewhat misuses the term "transliteration" to refer to romanization in general, and tends to prefer a more phonetic rather than strictly written approach, which is why various Arabic letters are mapped to the same Persian letter. The idea is to help readers who aren't very familiar with the foreign script; those who are more interested in etymology are more likely to be able to handle the foreign script. Note however that there is currently a long-running discussion about transliteration vs. transcription in certain languages (e.g. Tibetan and Burmese, but also Thai, Persian, etc.) where the two differ significantly, with some proposing to use one in some circumstances and the other in other circumstances and others proposing to use the two in tandem, or to stick with the current more phonetic approach.