Talk:Romanization of Serbian

opposition to Cyrillic
recently noted several factoids in the article about various forms of opposition to Cyrillic - bans in Bosnia WWI and Croatia and Bosnia in WWII, and protests in Croatia this year. However, it's a bit unclear how that affects the topic of the article - the use of Serbian Latin. We shouldn't stop at that, but instead see whether the use of Latin was affected because of those negative actions towards Cyrillic; leaving this information in as is looks like synthesis, talking points. The article shouldn't advocate for or against the topic, it should just describe it. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 17:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Following on from this, I've marked several sections of the article as Off Topic. This is because those sections are to do when the use of Cyrillic might have been banned, rather than how the Roman alphabet (latinica) is used to write the Serbian language.

Deficiency in the article
There is a clear deficiency in this article. It only talks about the use of so called "Gaj's Latin alphabet". It does not describe any of the other systems that were used, and still might be used to romanise Serbian. For example, well into the 20th century, a French-inspired romanisation was used eg. the Serb royal family Karađorđević was transliterated as Karageorgevitch. Serbia itself was called Servia, the town of Niš was called Nich etc. There was also a German-inspired romanisation, eg. town of Šabac was Schabatz, and so on. Serbs themselves only started using the so called "Gaj's Latin alphabet" (in reality - the Croatian latin alphabet) after World War 1.
 * The article clearly describes how Serbo-Croatian is romanized in multiple countries, which is why I changed its title. Yes, it should be expanded to include this information - if we can find sources to back it up. Sol505000 (talk) 08:47, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 6 May 2021
Remove the WP:TAGBOMBING in the Romanization_of_Serbian section (and, optionally, replace with one tag at the top of the section). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, please revert the move by under WP:BANREVERT per Sockpuppet investigations/JohnGotten. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  23:41, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I've unprotected the page. I see that from 15 August 008 until 15 March 2021 the page was at Romanization of Serbian and was then moved to Romanization of Serbo-Croatian. If a discussion had been held here prior to the first move it would have made life easier for admins when seeing an edit war. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 11:45, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Doing that just below. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 7 May 2021

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) ~ Aseleste  (t, e &#124; c, l) 15:07, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Romanization of Serbian → Romanization of Serbo-Croatian – As I explained to the (now blocked and confirmed sock) user who had objected and undone the move (diff), their move rationale was invalid. I doubt there'd be any opposition to this WP:BANREVERT, but just in case, given the disputed move was a bold one without prior discussion: Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * The Cyrillic alphabet is used outside of just Serbia AFAICS
 * The language is commonly known in English as "Serbo-Croatian", so this would be the logical and consistent name for any sub-page
 * Support Shouldn't have been moved in the first place—blindlynx (talk) 16:59, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose I am opposed to the move, and I believe the first move should have been discussed by the user before he decided to change it to Serbo-Croatian.
 * For one, Serbo-Croatian is an outdated terminology, used to represent the usage of the latin format. This was back in the early 19th century. Fast-forward to today and there is now an official distinction between Serbian and Croatian. Yes, they share the latinized/romanized version, but Serbia officially adopted Cyrillic as its written script, which Croatia has never adopted nor used. In fact, Croatia only has the latinized version as its official written language.
 * The usage of Serbian Cyrillic is also used outside of Serbia, in neighboring countries where Serbs are large in number. In Bosnia & Herzegovina (roughly 1 million inhabitants identify as Serb (mostly in the Republika Srpska entity). In Montenegro (roughly 30% of the population identifies as Serb). In Croatia (roughly 200,000 inhabitants identify as Serb). Although in Croatia, the usage of Serbian Cyrillic has practically been outlawed, due to ethnic tensions and the country officially using the latin version. You will not see many articles of Croatian people, places, and events that ever mention the distinction 'Serbo-Croatian'. They will only write 'Croatian'. That is because gradually throughout time, each language was given its own distinction. Serbian, Bosnian, Croatian, etc... These have become their own standardized representations.
 * The article was originally created to show this distinction. It was written to show that the Serbian language is a representation of digraphia, having two official written scripts. The main one being the Serbian Cyrillic script (created by the Serbian linguist Vuk Karadžić, being distinct and different from other forms of cyrillic, therefore termed 'Serbian Cyrillic'). The usage of the title 'Romanization of Serbian' is correct, due to the Serbian language officially adopting Serbian cyrillic as a written language, and the 'Romanization of Serbian' representing the latinized/romanized version, which is also used.
 * The only way I would change 'Romanization of Serbian' is possibly changing it to 'Romanization of Serbian Cyrillic'. If you look at the articles this link is used, it is actually referring to exactly that. But even then I do not see the need. It is fine the way it is. Docholliday11 (talk) 22:38, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this should be merged with Serbian Cyrillic and turned into a general page on Serbian orthography, kind of like Montenegrin alphabet. The idea of romanization of Serbo-Croatian is odd to me, since the language is natively written in the Latin alphabet (as well as Cyrillic and formerly Glagolitic and Arabic). The present title has the same problem. Srnec (talk) 22:54, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Bosnian and Montenegrin officially use Cyrillic as well, it makes more sense to move (back) and expand this article than to have separate ones with basically the same information—blindlynx (talk) 22:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is right to group Serbian Cyrillic (which was created by a Serbian linguist in the early 19th century specifically as a reform of the Serbian language, and the official written language of Serbia) and the broader term of Cyrillic( which encompasses many different variants). They are not interchangeable. Docholliday11 (talk) 01:05, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I personally think that it should have never been changed in the first place. Someone decided to change it only recently and did so without discussion. If you look at what articles it is linked to, it is trying to specifically explain the Romanization/Latinization of the Serbian Cyrillic script officially used in Serbia. I agree with the idea that the romanization of Serbo-Croatian is odd, being natively written in the Latin alphabet. Why can't it just be left the way it is?Docholliday11 (talk) 23:42, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Also if you read the article in full, you will see it specifically referring to the Serbian population, including Serbian place names, personal names, how Serbian road signs are represented etc... The article itself was created to represent the written usage of latinized/romanized Serbian. And since Serbian (Serbian language) is its own standardized variety of Serbo-Croatian, I really don't see the problem with it being used as such, especially given the context of the article itself. Docholliday11 (talk) 01:48, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The alphabet in question seems to be used outside of Serbia (see Serbian_Cyrillic_alphabet), by populations who speak other dialects of Serbo-Croatian. A single article covering the subject of digraphism in this language (which does not appear to be uniquely confined to one national variant) would likely be the best option. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:35, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Serbian Cyrillic is its own specific variant. The reason it is used in those neighboring countries is because of those inhabitants that identify as Serb. In Bosnia & Herzegovina (roughly 1 million inhabitants identify as Serb (mostly in the Republika Srpska entity). In Montenegro (roughly 30% of the population identifies as Serb). In Croatia (roughly 200,000 inhabitants identify as Serb). Those are some of the statistics. But that is not in question here. What are you proposing to be done?, because I'm not sure I fully understand what it is that you want to do with this page. Also, how do we get this discussion posted on the Serbian WikiProject page? I checked and it's not listed under 'requested moves'. I feel like we need much more input from other users before making any changes.Docholliday11 (talk) 05:32, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This RM is automatically listed by a bot at WikiProject Serbia/Article alerts, and that's how I got here. If you're interested in the project, place that page on your watchlist. Analogous pages exist for many wikiprojects. No such user (talk) 09:48, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I found this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanization_of_Cyrillic, where other languages are represented similarly to this article in its present state. There you have Romanization of Bulgarian, Russian, Ukranian etc (other Cyrillic variants)... I feel that this article should be treated the same as those, considering Serbian is its own standardized language. See Serbian language. If someone wishes to create a 'Romanization of __________' to add to that group that is fine, but I'm not sure why this page is being questioned with changes, given the specificity of its context. Docholliday11 (talk) 05:59, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnia_and_Herzegovina#Ethnic_groups. You will see that Serbs comprise 30% of the population in Bosnia. There is a "de facto recognition of three official languages" at the state level. The equal status of Bosnian, Serbian, and Croatian was verified by the Constitutional Court in 2000.
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montenegro. You will see in the infobox that roughly 30% of the population are of Serb ethnicity. And that Serbian is an official language in use.Docholliday11 (talk) 06:57, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I suggest keeping the page as it is. It was in its correct current state since 2008, without any problem whatsoever. Only recently on 15 March 2021, an attempt was made in good faith to change the article and have it moved, but it was done without sufficient reasoning, and without any prior discourse. Docholliday11 (talk) 07:50, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose, stay with stable title - we have two articles Serbian language and Croatian language, romanization only applies to the first, since Croatian is in Latin letters anyway. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:33, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Docholiday11. I was about to propose Romanization of Serbian Cyrillic to match the main article Serbian Cyrillic, but the article deals mainly with the situation in Serbia and its digraphia. The proposed title would be a misnomer. No such user (talk) 09:45, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Article title and scope
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 &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 23:04, 14 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Adding some pings here to everyone who participated in the last discussion:      --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 12:24, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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 &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 14:28, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * that's not a bad idea, it avoids most of teh issues raised in teh RM—blindlynx (talk) 21:14, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * That seems better than this, too. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 09:02, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)

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)


 * 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)


 * 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 &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 09:02, 17 August 2021 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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 if you really think about it.
 * --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 11:23, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

The Serbian Cyrillic alphabet article should remain separate in my opinion. Soundwaweserb (talk) 10:04, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose merger History is real. You can't delete or merge the past into the present. Likewise the title represents to some extent history, but the alternatives proposed are all a bit OR. If it is killing people that this article contains history then label it History of romanization of Serbian but seems redundant in my view. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:48, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 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 &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 22:29, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm opposing the change of title. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:16, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

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)