Talk:Romanization of Serbian

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Article title and scope

[edit]

While the concept of romanization of Serbian was perfectly pertinent prior to the 19th century, ever since the equalization in status of Latin and Cyrillic that started with the Novi Sad Agreement, I don't think this is a good title any more because it's not like Cyrillic is the sole first class alphabet that then gets romanized - instead, Latin is simply equal. Perhaps Serbian use of Latin would be a more appropriate title for this whole story? Keeping it purposely ambiguous to avoid having to deal with whether we limit it to "Serbia" or to "Serbian language" from the get-go. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:04, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding some pings here to everyone who participated in the last discussion: RandomCanadian Blindlynx Docholliday11 Srnec In ictu oculi No such user --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:24, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This article is of high importance to WikiProject Serbia. It should not be discussed hastily by only a few editors, and it would be justifiable to exercise patience in order to include as many of WikiProject Serbia's members in the conversation as possible. Is there a way to provide pings for those members in question? Thank you. Docholliday11 (talk) 14:09, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Um, I don't appreciate the inference that I'm doing anything "hastily" when I've actually taken an explicit effort to call y'all in. Let's remember to WP:assume good faith, shall we? Besides, WikiProjects do not WP:OWN anything, and if you want us to call on folks watching that, please feel free to post on WT:SRB. Can we now go back to simply discussing the merits of this matter now? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:28, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the ping. It was not my intention to offend, and my direct nature may be to blame for that. If an agreement is eventually reached, it should incorporate a larger set of users that find the topic highly important, such as those within the scope of WikiProject Serbia. If they are not made aware of the discussion, they will not be able to provide much-needed input. The discussion may need to be open for a longer time frame in order to allow less habitual Wiki users to chime in as well. ----Docholliday11 (talk) 23:08, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think we could just merge Romanization of Serbian into Serbian Cyrillic alphabet and move the merged article to Serbian orthography. That would be my first choice. Just smooshing the articles together doesn't go over 40,000 bytes. Srnec (talk) 15:07, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
that's not a bad idea, it avoids most of teh issues raised in teh RM—blindlynx (talk) 21:14, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That seems better than this, too. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:02, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Serbian Cyrillic alphabet article should not be changed by any means, including its title. It is an important stand-alone article, which represents the creation, history, and usage of the official script of the Serbian language, according to the 2006 constitution. The constitution stipulates that it must be used in communication between public institutions, as well as between such bodies and the public at large. All exams, scientific literature, official documents, bills, schoolbooks, etc. are strictly written with it. Across wiki, all other languages also have separate articles that represent their official alphabets. And for good reason. ----Docholliday11 (talk) 06:21, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Romanization of Serbian was created to show how the official script of the Serbian language, through the process of transliteration (known as 'romanization/latinization'), can be converted into another commonly used written variant known as 'latinica'. Latinica is not the official script, but it is a 'script in official use'. These two seemingly interchangeable variants portray the digraphic nature of the standardized Serbian language. The title 'Romanization of Serbian' therefore fits its intended description. See other languages with similar articles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanization_of_Cyrillic.

I am opposed to a merger of the two articles with a newly created title. The Serbian Cyrillic alphabet is the 'official script' of the Serbian language, and has a vast amount of information supporting its importance as a main article. Its title should not be changed. However, If we were to keep the title of the main article as 'Serbian Cyrillic alphabet', but add the Romanization of Serbian article content to the end of it, that may possibly work. It would then have the official script as the main article, with the process of 'romanization' explained in its subsections. ----Docholliday11 (talk) 23:08, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an opinion on merger yet, but I'd like to point out that "romanization" is misnomer here. The proper title for this topic is "Digraphia in Serbian". In general, there is no "process of transliteration" nor "conversion" involved, since nowadays about 50% of all written material in Serbia is originally generated in Latin. Status of "official script" for Cyrillic has nothing to do with this. The comparison with Romanization of Russian and similar is inappropriate: Russian is never written in Latin, and thus must be "romanized". No such user (talk) 07:19, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but "Digraphia in Serbian" strikes me as a bit too specialist of a title, indeed even the article on digraphia explicitly notes it's a very uncommon term. Thinking about it, "Serbian orthography" is also fairly specialized. I'd still recommend using something simpler. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:02, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This article does not have the sole purpose to represent the digraphic nature of the Serbian language or the usage of a Latin variant (that information was already exhibited in the article Serbian language). It mentions digraphia briefly in the introduction for users not accustomed to the topic. It does however explain how transliteration (or 'mapping') can be used to help convert the Cyrillic variant to the Latin variant. It goes into detail in its subsections to speak about the various uses of transliteration, including computer tools, programs, etc. It also speaks about exceptions to exact transliteration, such as the common usage of 'Dj' instead of 'Đ', variations used when dealing with foreign names, and the incomplete interchangeability between the two variants due to possible technical limitations (e.g. non-specialized keyboards, restrictive modern-day messaging systems, etc.). In my opinion, the section titled 'Use of romanization' is problematic, and has off-topic content which is confusing and unconstructive. Given the theme of transliteration intended throughout the article, the removal of that section would allow it to be more uniform and less ambiguous. ----Docholliday11 (talk) 05:54, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So, then you want the title to be Transliteration in Serbian, or what?
Besides, details about that are both mostly unreferenced and not necessarily encyclopedic. Indeed, the only references are in a section that is an outright violation of WP:NOT#HOWTO if you really think about it.
--Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:23, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Serbian Cyrillic alphabet article should remain separate in my opinion. Soundwaweserb (talk) 10:04, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In ictu oculi I don't know what exactly you're opposing here, because there's about 1-2 paragraphs in this entire article that's talking about history of Serbian when we could discuss romanization - everything else is from the period since digraphia has been common. This discussion is honestly starting to be a bit jarring to read, with one person arguing for modern-day howtos and another for some sort of ancient history in quick succession, it's giving me whiplash. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:29, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm opposing the change of title. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:16, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please agree instead of the word "Romanized" in the template to add the word "Latin:" and that will end all of the confusion. FkpCascais (talk) 20:39, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

“Romanization” is the wrong word

[edit]

Romanization is the conversion of text from a different writing system - e.g. russian, greek, or japanese. This means: the language is written in another writing system. In contrast to e.g. russian or bulgarian, which are written in cyrillic as a standard, serbian can be written both in cyrillic and latinica. Hence, it is not a conversion but one of two writing systems. — 2A00:6020:50CB:FB00:64C4:139C:9B55:1B15 (talk) 13:00, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 11 December 2025

[edit]

Romanization of Serbian → ? – Serbian hasn't had to be romanized for over a century now, and this article largely doesn't actually describe the time periods when it did; rather, most of it is about the more recent times when it's been digraphic. The title should reflect that reality (the encyclopedia describes, it does not prescribe).

What's a better title for it - maybe Serbian use of Latin, Digraphia in Serbian, or something else?

I tried to get to the bottom of this a few years back in #Article title and scope, but we didn't make progress at the time, possibly also because of an oversized influence of an editor who got indefinitely blocked in the meantime. Here's hoping this discussion doesn't get disrupted. Joy (talk) 13:35, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What are your thoughts on merger with Serbian Cyrillic alphabet and renaming the merged article Serbian orthography? This had some support in the prior discussion. Digraphia of Serbian is a much less accessible title. Serbian use of Latin needs to be expanded to specify the Latin alphabet. Any such expansion is less concise but would still be an improvement over the current title. I agree that "romanization" is not the best word to describe the present situation. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 23:58, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That also has the disadvantage of having a specialist term in the title. Maybe just Serbian writing systems would be better in that vein. At the same time, I also understand the argument that this Cyrillic variant is pretty old and distinct and worthy of a standalone article. --Joy (talk) 08:22, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I support the move, but I unfortunately as of yet have no suggestion as to where. Will get back when I do. and my best solution is to send this article to Serbian orthography, but also keep a standalone article on the variety of Cyrilic used in Serbia. Unfortunately, that necessitates writing the other half of the prospective Serbian orthography article, something I'm not exactly dying to do right now.JustARandomSquid (talk) 17:25, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]