Talk:Serbian Cyrillic alphabet/Archive 1

Differences from other Cyrillic alphabets
The html code examples do not seem to work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berengar (talk • contribs) 15:19, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

The origin of ć and đ
I doubt that ђ and ћ are a "traditional Serbian letters"; I'm fairly sure that they were invented by Vuk directly, or that he was inspired by Mrkalj's or Mušicki's work. Brborić says that У с. ћир. само шест слова специфичан су српски додатак: ј (преузето из лат.), љ, њ (две једине лигатуре, настале стапањем л и н с танким јер [ь], одн. меким знаком у руској терминологији), затим слова ђ, ћ и џ, којима је коначан лик утврдио В. Караџић. The articles of Tshe and Dje should be fixed as well, but I kind of recall that I've read the more closer description of origin... somewhere... Sorry, I don't recall. Duja ► 16:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

...also, an useful link. Duja ► 16:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I also think Vuk introduced ћ (he certainly introduced ђ), I just can't find a reference for it (which is why I referenced the "traditional Serbian" line in the article... seemed dubious!). I'll do a few more clean-ups and adding of content over the next day or so. Cheers all =) AWN2 23:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

article title?
Should it simply be: Serbian alphabet, after seeing other similar articles (please see Category:High-importance Writing system articles for a few examples) it seems we should change the title? Any thoughts? // Laughing Man 03:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The catch is that the other Serbian alphabet is Latin, so the current title is more precise. Btw, I don't know how to organize the articles in a politically correct way: there are currently Croatian alphabet, Bosnian alphabet and silly South Slavic Latinic transliterations. Normally, there should be only two articles, but the issue of their naming will always cause petty nationalistic warring. Duja ► 09:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Is it possible that there isn't a single instance of the word "азбука" in this article? -- P rim E vi L 17:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

latin alphabet in serbia
@Laughing Man, i’m sorry if i made a mistake... i meant no harm.

it’s clearly that the "azbuka" is more common in serbia (it is - in the meantime - in official use), but i think that the usage of the latin script in serbia should be more accentuated, because it’s also very important for everyday life (look at the goods in the supermarket, or at the cars - registration plates, magazines etc.)… particularly in Vojvodina... furthermore it should be mentioned, that in northserbia are living different national minorities who are using (like a part of the serbs) more the latin script (vojvodina has six official languages). do i really need scores therefore? i thought this is general knowledge.

i won't edit the article again… firstly, i'd like to know other opinions… and secondly, my english is not so good (енглески није мој матерњи језик).-- 172.178.224.138 14:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Written Cyrillic
Is there an image anywhere of the letters as they're written, rather than just as they're typed? I know there's a Russian one somewhere (Apparently several, actually. Here's the one I was thinking of, a second, and a third.), and based on that I've figured out that written and typed look rather different, on top of the same problems with some letters in the Latin alphabet also being used in the Cyrillic (or vice versa), but it's not actually the same letter (P Latin vs P Cyrillic = R Latin, for one). It would be interesting to see what other differences there are between letters not used in Russian. -Bbik 06:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * http://www.cirilica.org/dokumenti/dizajn/Jednopotezna.html. It's actually a proposal of "one-strike" form, but it mostly matches what we were taught in school. Duja ► 15:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, we have Image:Serbian_Cyrillic_cursive2.png on Commons; not too beautiful, but you get the idea. Duja ► 15:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm starting to get the feeling you're going through my entire contribs list, here. :p Though, there's now something I can work with, even if it'd be stupid to put it in the page, since it would kill all the letter links.  Maybe it can be used somewhere else, or at least (hopefully) be useful for some other equally crazy person who comes looking for it, despite a complete lack of need for it.  How'd "T" end up with three vertical lines in cursive? -Bbik 03:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Latin <-> Cyrillic
I'll change the current sentence The two alphabets are entirely interchangeable, with each letter in one having a corresponding letter in the other. to The two alphabets are almost entirely interchangeable. When you have a text in Cyrillic, it can always be transliterated to Latin quite easily, since Cyrillic is phonetic (one letter is always pronounced the same way). Latin is however not phonetic (some letters are pronounced in different ways on different occasions odživeti and odžak for instance), and it is not always easy to tell how to transliterate from Latin to Cyrillic. Especially with automatic transliterators. -- Obradovi&#263; Goran ( t al k  12:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Article/alphabet name
Does anyone actually call this alphabet "Karadžić's Cyrillic alphabet"? Do Croatians ever write their language in Cyrillic, and if so, is it Karadžić's Cyrillic? A Google search seems to say 'no'.

The article should be renamed "Serbian Cyrillic alphabet", on the basis that:


 * the alphabet is known as the "Cyrillic alphabet" in all three languages (Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian) (see official Bosnian government documents at and, and Serbian government documents at   and especially , which refers to the alphabet as the Serbian Cyrillic alphabet);

In Serbian, Croatian and in Bosnian, the Cyrillic alphabet used to write Serbian (and Serbo-Croatian) is called the "Cyrillic "alphabet". The term "Serbian Cyrillic alphabet" therefore differentiates the alphabet from the Russian, Ukrainian, Mongolian, etc Cyrillic alphabets. Calling the alphabet -- or this article -- "Karadžić's Cyrillic alphabet" is therefore incorrect, and the article should be changed back to "Serbian Cyrillic alphabet". Cheers AWN2 (talk) 07:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I completely agree. I think the reason it was changed was to make it parallel to Gaj's Latin alphabet, but that alphabet is used for the languages of Croatian, Bosnian and Slovenian. Karadžić's alphabet is only for Serbian. Even back in the day of Serbo-Croatian, this Cyrillic variant was used in Serbia (and probably Montenegro, maybe even some parts of Bosnia) and Latin elsewhere.  Balkan Fever  07:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

"Back in the day of Serbo-Croatian"? Do you really believe all that load? Everyone knows that the Serbs, Croats and Bosnians speak the same language, with only a handful of vocabulary differences that everyone knows and can count in one hand; I won't get into endless nationality discussions; that's not what the article is all about. Anyway, The alphabet are almost entirely translatable. Outside of the Western Balkans, when someone talks about the Cyrillic alphabet, they usually refer to the East Slavic or Bulgarian version; Use Karadžić, you find a particularly distintive version of the script. If Ljudevit Gaj has the Latin version in his name, why can't Karadžić have it on his own?.Batmen (talk) 18:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The language that the Serbians speak in Serbia is officially called "Serbian" . Therefore, this article should include the Serbian name for the alphabet (not Serbo-Croatian, Croatian, Bosnian, Swahili, etc). There is no official (i.e. governmental) reference to the language as Serbo-Croatian. Calling Serbian "Serbo-Croatian", "Croatian" or anything other than "Serbian" is an opinion.


 * Batmen's point about the alphabet also being used to write Serbo-Croatian is a good one though, and additions to the article to reflect this should be made.


 * Regarding whether Serbian/Croatian/Bosnian/Montenegrin are the same language or separate languages, that controversy is not in the scope of this article, and has already been dealt with in the respective language articles and in the article on Differences between standard Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian.


 * The naming dispute over Karadžić's Cyrillic alphabet versus Gaj's Latin alphabet is irrelevant here -- the correct name for this article is Serbian Cyrillic alphabet. I am not sure that Gaj's Latin alphabet is the correct name for that article either (my opinion only), but that's a debate that should occur in that article, on the facts relevant to that alphabet, not here! (As an aside, Gaj's Latin alphabet is also used in Serbia, Bosnia and Montenegro to write Serbian, although Montenegro is considering altering its Latin alphabet. The article could therefore not be called the "Croatian Latin alphabet", in the same way as this article is called the Serbian Cyrillic alphabet!)


 * Further, the information about the Macedonian alphabet is for the Macedonian alphabet and language articles, not the Serbian Cyrillic alphabet article.


 * I will make a few changes to this article as discussed above. Please discuss and source any major changes before making them, and let's keep it nice!


 * Cheers, AWN2 (talk) 06:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to clear things up, my "back in the day..." comment was referring to when the term used was "Serbo-croatian". I don't really care if these modern standards are the same language or not. AWN, I don't think it's a good idea to present Serbo-croatian as a different language in itself. That, I believe, can only serve to confuse the reader.  Balkan Fever  11:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The letter 'L' in Serbian Cyrillic
The 'L' in Serbian Cyrillic can be written as 'Л' (Slavic Cyrillic) and 'Λ' (Greek). Shouldn't this be noted in the article? Serbian Font #1 Miroslavljeva older serbian texts has the Lambda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.82.246.8 (talk) 17:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's normal for the Cyrillic alphabet isn't it? — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]  19:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Serbian Cyrillic vs "Montenegrin Cyrillic"
I would like to open a debate about a recent beggining of use of "Montenegrin Cyrillic" or simply "Cyrillic" to describe the cyrillic alphabet used in Montenegrin language. In Bosnian, happends the same. The cyrillic alphabet used in those two countries, is the "Serbian Cyrillic" and the naming is finding a strong oposition from the nationalists of those two countries. But, they like it or not, it is "Serbian Cyrillic" isn´t it? FkpCascais (talk) 00:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course it is. Whether they like it or not, in Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, and whole former big (Tito's) Yugoslavia, Cyrillic script belongs to Serbian people. Because Serbs live there and use that script, not new "latinized" Montenegrins, Bosniaks etc. --178.149.44.254 (talk) 03:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC) Ivan from Krusevac

Windows in Serbia
I removed this part of the article, and I'm placing it here in case someone wants to discuss about it

As the script is attributed to Serbs who try to promote, cherish and protect it, some actions have been seen as threats against the script such as in 2002, when the Microsoft Corporation announced that they would translate the Office packages into Serbian, but only in the Latin script. The announcement was passed through the Serbian community and the Serbs maintain that a Windows in Latin script would be unthinkable. 

First of all, tone of this part is very different than the tone of the whole article. The mentioned event had much less covering that it might seam from this part of the article, it was not considered "a threat" and it was certainly not considered "unthinkable", as today most of Serbian editions of Microsoft products are in Serbian Latin.

Names of letters - missing completely!
а - бе - ве - ге - де - е - жа - зе ..... ка, эл, эм, эн ...  ча  -  це  -  ша ? Оr а - бъ - въ - гъ - дъ .... - жъ - зъ -  и  ..... къ - лъ - мъ - нъ..., like Bulg. азбука? --178.149.44.254 (talk) 03:47, 13 February 2014 (UTC) Ángel.García2001 93.193.64.66 (talk) 15:26, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Nothing is missing. In Serbian Cyrillic every letter has it's own name (voice). 30 capital and 30 small letters = 30 voices, nothing more and nothing less. It is not like Slovenian/Croatian latin script. --178.149.44.254 (talk) 03:47, 13 February 2014 (UTC) Ivan from Krusevac

Serbian Cyrillic script in Bosnia and Herzegovina
There is a long-standing "conflict" on WP whether the Serbian Cyrillic script in Bosnia and Herzegovina is to be called "Serbian Cyrillic" or "Cyrillic" (omitting "Serbian"). According to the article: "Cyrillic is in official use in Serbia, Montenegro and Republika Srpska. Although the Bosnian language "officially accept[s] both alphabets", the Latin script is almost always used in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina whereas Cyrillic is in official and every-day use in Republika Srpska (and is used only by the Serbs)."

Example of diffs with comments of omitting "Serbian":
 * "Cyrillic is not only official in the Serbian language, but also in Bosnian. Using Serbian Cryillic is simply POV used to provoke. Look at other Bosnian articles such as Banja Luka, etc. for stand." (diff)
 * "Both the Bosnian language and Serbian use Cyrillic script officially. Since this place is literally within the country of Bosnia and Herzegovina, no specific language should be used for the Cyrillic translation, unless greatly sourced" (diff)

--Z oupan 02:12, 25 May 2015 (UTC). Comment in the RfC below.--Z oupan 02:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Serbian Cyrillic script in Bosnia and Herzegovina
"Should the name of Serbian Cyrillic script in Bosnia and Herzegovina-related articles (predominantly Republika Srpska-related articles) be simply "Cyrillic"?"

Comments: --AnulBanul (talk) 16:27, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think to call Serbian Cyrillic simply Cyrillic is breaking WP:NPOV — note that omitters instead call the use of "Serbian Cyrillic" to be Serbian POV. An example is Vraneševići (Вранешевићи), which has the letter Tshe (Ћħ/Ćć), which is only used in Serbian; in Bulgarian Cyrillic and Russian Cyrillic, Tshe is non-existant, and would instead be Che (Чч) — Serbian Cyrillic and other Cyrillic alphabets are not identical, so why is there a need for omitting Serbian?--Z oupan 02:12, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It's actually borderline WP:OR considering that facts on the ground attest to Latin script being prominently featured as being used as the du jure script. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:25, 25 May 2015 (UTC) [EDIT] Comment: Okay, I'm dropping out of this RfC now that I've actually twigged as to what it's actually about . You do realise that the RfC issue section is malformed, and the issues to be discussed are supposed to be inserted in the appropriate place when using the RfC template, not as a section above. Secondly, aside from the prominent question being awkwardly phrased for response, responses follow the "Support"/"Oppose" format with policy and guideline arguments as to why the contributor/editor !Votes one way or the other (bearing in mind that Wikipedia is not a WP:!VOTE). In that way, a closing admin can evaluate the policy-based arguments and establish what the consensus is according to the merits of the arguments. This currently stands as being a non-RfC. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No, we should not call it only Cyrillic because its not any kind of Cyrillic script, but only one specific. As Zoupan explained above, its important to make difference, and so, we should use Serbian Cyrillic. I am afraid this was only a political question anyway, so, one more reason to include Serbian. -- Ąnαșταη  ( ταlκ )  12:41, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Serbo-Croatian uses two scripts: a Latin one and a Cyrillic one. In Serbo-Croatian itself, they are called gajica and vukovica respectively (when necessary to distinguish them from scripts used in other languages and archaic scripts used in the same language). On English language Wikipedia, the names are inconsistent with each other: Gaj's Latin alphabet and Serbian Cyrillic alphabet rather than Croatian Latin alphabet and Serbian Cyrillic alphabet or Gaj's Latin alphabet and Vuk's Cyrillic alphabet. Whether or not this reflects English language usage, I cannot say for certain. Either way, this is a quite dull thing to discuss. If deemed more suitable, a reasonable alternative can always be found ("Vuk's Cyrillic", "Serbo-Croatian in Cyrillic", "Serbo-Croatian: Неки Град/Neki Grad", etc). Surtsicna (talk) 13:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd go with Serbian Cyrillic in order to avoid any possible confusion, as there are, as said, many more Cyrillic scripts other then Serbian. I doubt this has to do anything with political correctness/incorrectness. Things should be called by their proper name.
 * A compromise solution could be to pipe the link like: Cyrillic: Сарајево . No such user (talk) 17:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * But "Сарајево" isn't Cyrillic at all. :-)   — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You know the joke of reading САРАЈЕВО as if it was written in Latin letters (while reading only Р as in Cyrillic)? Vladimir  (talk) 17:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a rotten compromise, as if one should be ashamed to spell the proper name of the script. Why indulge individuals who are allergic to any manifestation of Serb presence in BiH? Anyway, Serbian Cyrillic should not be applied to articles about places with insignificant Serb population (unless there is some historical justification for that). Apart from that, it's quite normal to use the format (to paraphrase Surt) "Serbo-Croatian: Неки појам, Neki pojam" (or vice versa), when "Neki pojam" is used in the article in its English translation, rather than in its original S-C form. Vladimir (talk) 19:34, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * While this is RfC is slightly malformed, it's salvageable. When necessary to identify the script this way (which is rarely), usually prefer "Serbian Cyrillic", but use a piped link, that is specific vs. over-generalizing, when confusion is likely. When we pipe it it, I would suggest   or, when brevity is needed, , or   when avoiding nesting another parenthetical.  Rationale: It's inaccurate, or rather insufficiently accurate, to simply call it Cyrillic; if we did so, we run the very high risk (actually a certainty) of many readers being misled into believing it's the exact same script as used in Russia, even if we used a piped link to this article.  But "Serbian" can have more than one contextual meaning, and it may be confusing to some readers, and  inflammatory, to use that adjective in reference to Bosnia and Herzegovina. I think the claim that is it inflammatory is overblown, and pre-supposes that lots of our readers cannot grasp that words can have more than one meaning. The potential confusion over which meaning is intended is far more compelling.  If this script had a clearly defined standard name (what Vladimir called "the proper name of the script), and it was "Serbian Cyrillic alphabet", we would use that without question in every article, but that doesn't seem to be the case. As for alternatives, the possessive construction "Vuk's Cyrillic" is awkward, confusing to readers in other ways, and inconsistent with similar treatment of other writing systems named after their inventors/codifiers (e.g. it's Wade-Giles, not "Wade's and Giles's", and for that matter it's Cyrillic, not "Cyril's alphabet"). "of" constructions are okay for titles, but are awkward mid-sentence.  I agree with Vladimir that 'it's quite normal to use', in parenthetic translations/transliterations, the formats 'Republic of Serbia (Republika Srbija, Република Србија)' or 'Republic of Serbia (Република Србија, Republika Srbija)', but that doesn't entirely address the issue raised in the RfC. A case like 'Vraneševići (Вранешевићи)' is actually unhelpful to readers, since they do not need the script identified but the language. So this would be more useful as 'Vraneševići (Вранешевићи)', entirely avoiding the problem raised here. But we can't get around it when writing descriptively about language usage, e.g. "and X% of the population of Republika Srpska use the Vuk form of Cyrillic", where it's necessary to refer directly to the writing system.  Addressing the side issue implied by this RFC: There is no clearly demonstrable WP:NPOV or WP:NOR problem using the character string "Serbian Cyrillic" in this article title. That clearly does comport with WP:COMMONNAME, according to the evidence at hand, even if it's not "official" in any way. It's not some "made-up name", it's a descriptive compound adjective, and not confusing in the context of a whole article, or in most other contexts. If someone wants to make a newly-sourced case that some other concern overrides the WP:COMMONNAME analysis, that's a separate matter for a WP:RM.  The obvious interim solution to any such concerns about the article name as a whole is to create redirects, so that at least all of the following actually work: Serbian Cyrillic alphabet, Cyrillic alphabet of Serbia, Cyrillic alphabet in Serbia, Cyrillic alphabet (Serbia), Cyrillic alphabet of Vuk, Vuk's Cyrillic alphabet, Cyrillic alphabet (Vuk), Cyrillic alphabet (Vuk's), Vuk Cyrillic alphabet, and corresponding variants using the more accurate term "script" instead of "alphabet", and some short versions like Vuk Cyrillic, Vuk's Cyrillic, Cyrillic of Vuk, and Cyrillic (Vuk); then make equivalent redirs to what is presently at Gaj's Latin alphabet.  Use  and/or in a few cases  and/or . That whole process should take 30 minutes or so, and essentially eliminate any chance of readers and editors being unable to find the right article, or accidentally creating redlinks, or accidentally creating a content fork because they think an article is missing, or feeling forced to use a link name that they politically object to.  Finally, people getting hot around the collar about this stuff need to examine the WP:ARBCOM cases WP:ARBAA and WP:ARBAA2 closely, including the blocks and other discretionary sanctions issued under them to restrain the disruption caused by partisan editwarring and personal attacks in topics relating to Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkey, and Kurdistan. It's not pretty, and it sets a clear precedent for how ArbCom would eventually deal with an escalation in editorial strife over Central and Eastern European topics (with a hot locus on what Westerners my age still often think of as "former Yugoslavia"). The  of the RfCs that have come across my talk page tagged as linguistics ones (plus many history and culture ones) have been disputes relating to this part of the world, and most of the RfC discussions, or edit summaries and prior threads leading up to them, have included bad-faith assumptions (or worse) that run along ethnic-strife lines. The 'simply POV used to provoke' edit summary is a case in point here, as is the 'individuals who are allergic to any manifestation of Serb presence' comment. Just because someone  use an appellation like "Serbian" (or "Armenian" or "American") to push some kind of POV does not mean everyone using them is doing so, or that such terms are inherently unusable. And remember that you own your own emotions. "I feel provoked" is not equivalent to "you are provoking me".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * User:SMcCandlish I think you are missing one particular point regarding Serbian language which makes it impossible to use simply the 'Vraneševići (Вранешевићи)' formula, and that is because Serbian language is one of the rare languages in the world that are dygraphic, and uses equally Latin and Cyrillic alphabets. Using the template you suggested would imply that Vraneševići is then some other language that not Serbian, and that Serbian is only the Cyrillic version, when in fact both Latin and Cyrillic versions are Serbian.  So that is why we use the '(Вранешевићи)' template, because in 90% of cases, the Latin title already corresponds to Serbian Latin, and only the Cyrillic scrypt is further needed adding. FkpCascais (talk) 14:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not missing that at all. Please re-examine my examples. To spell it out, the 'Vraneševići (Вранешевићи)' case already gives the proper Serbian Latin-script name to begin with, Vraneševići. We only need to stick both the Latin and Cyrillic in a parenthetical when they follow, as in the other examples: 'Republic of Serbia (Republika Srbija, Република Србија)' or 'Republic of Serbia (Република Србија, Republika Srbija)'. There is no need to browbeat readers with something like '... (Република Србија)'.  To approach this from another angle: To use 'Vraneševići (Vraneševići, Вранешевићи)' or worse yet 'Vraneševići (Vraneševići, Вранешевићи)' is redundant.  Doing it the way I suggest would be entirely consistent with how we treat this in other languages (e.g., see the lead of Vladivostok, which is not an exonym, vs. Moscow, which is. We don't need to state the obvious in cases like this, that "Vladivostok" isn't an exonym.  All that said, if you really want to add the "Cyrillic" label, see next response, to FkpCascais; there's an obvious way to do this, that I already proposed. :-)   — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Another point is that Bosnian language finds itself in exact same situation, it also uses both alphabets, the same ones. So that is why some time ago, regarding this issue, I archived a weak consensus with some other users in using the solution mentioned earlier by User:No such user. Since Latin form already corresponds in 90% of the cases to Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian latin alphabets (as in Vraneševići exemple), all we need is just the Cyrillic version of Bosnian and Serbian languages.  Since the Cyrillic version Bosnian and Serbian languages use is the Serbian Cyrillic alphabet, we found some weak consensus in using a piped version, like this Cyrillic to represent the Bosnian and Serbian Cyrillic version of the name in all articles related to Bosnia and Herzegovina.  In conclusion, that solution meant flexibility in both sides of the dispute: a) Serbian side will agree to drop out the adjective "Serbian" in Bosnian-related articles since that same Cyrillic scrypt is also used by Bosnian language, and B) the Bosnian side will agree in using the Cyrillic in all Bosnian-related articles, not just on Republika Srpska ones (Cyrillic alphabet although used by some Bosniaks is indeed perceived by most as Serbian-related, so by the time of that discussion, most Bosnian-related articles which were not related to Republika Srpska didn't included Cyrillic versions). FkpCascais (talk) 14:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Here is the link of that discussion where that weak consensus was archived: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina. It was over a year ago. FkpCascais (talk) 14:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, then the only issue with this is that multiple editors clearly object that using simply  is unacceptably misleading, so what I suggested is still appropriate: '[U]sually prefer "Serbian Cyrillic", but use a piped link, that is specific vs. over-generalizing, when confusion is likely .... I would suggest ...   when avoiding nesting another parenthetical.'  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

This is not an RfC but a squabble. As I've noted near the top of this pseudo-RfC it is malformed, and no admin is going to wade through WP:WALLSOFTEXT to establish WP:CONSENSUS. Either start this again as a properly formed RfC, or take it to the WP:DRN where I believe it belongs. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it should be Serbian Cyrillic. Disclaimer, I am not Balkan but I live in Croatia. Reasons: In the English, Croatian, and Bosnian wiki pages Vuk's invention is referred to as Serbian Cyrillic. Additionally, Bosnian Cyrillic would be a likely choice, but this is the name of an older defunct alphabet. Cyrillic is too vague as there are plethora of cyrillic alphabets. Stevetauber (talk) 14:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * My second choice, then: If consensus is that  doesn't actually present POV problems even in the Bosnia and Herzegovina context, then I concur with Stevetauber: Use that consistently. Don't use   at all, regardless of that POV question, because it is misleadingly vague.  And only use any such link when it's not redundant.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I am perfectly fine with using 'Vraneševići (Вранешевићи)', that would actually be the correct form. The users opposing it were Bosniak editors who found that the word "Serbian" was somehow offensive for them because reminded them of the Bosnian War (Oh God -_-). I ended up being flexible, and in the name of peace I agreed to drop the adjective "Serbian" with three conditions: 1) they stop removing it with the silly excuse of representing Serbian nationalism, 2) that it stays piped to Serbian Cyrillic alphabet, and not generistic Cyrillic article as some Bosnian editors intended, and 3)that it starts being used in all Bosnian-related articles since Cyrillic is official along Latin in Bosnia.  However, at time I accepted that compromise as second choice, since the first one would always have been the correct form.
 * The format 'Vraneševići (Вранешевићи)' has the problem of impliying Serbian only uses Cyrillic. SMcCandlish, the problem is not in the cases you gave, since there the article title in English is different from B/C/S Latin, but when the article title is the same as in B/C/S Latin. We are only discussing those cases here. FkpCascais (talk) 17:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This particular script is the Serbian Cyrillic script, created by Vuk Karadžić (calling it Vuk's/of Vuk would be incredibly informal). Can we safely conclude that this is the proper (real/correct/established/official) name for this script and that "Serbian" should never be omitted?--Z oupan 20:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Why would it be "incredibly informal"? There appears to be no problem with referring to Croatian Latin alphabet as Gaj's Latin alphabet. Surtsicna (talk) 20:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, there is a problem. Neither of the two scripts has a hard, established WP:COMMONNAME in English, and their current titles are sort of a compromise out of necessity (see e.g: Talk:Gaj's Latin alphabet). "Serbian Cyrillic" is somewhat less of a problem, as it is used in Serbia predominantly, but it's still a problem. As result, you will seldom see link like Gaj's Latin alphabet, much more often like Latin or via redirects like Serbian Latin, Croatian Latin alphabet. Perhaps a RM at least for the Gaj's Latin to Serbo-Croatian Latin alphabet is in order (I wouldn't mind even Serbo-Croatian Cyrillic alphabet). No such user (talk) 08:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem with Gaj Latin is that both Serbs and Croats started using it, and Serbs even adopted some letters characteristical of Gaj Latin even before Crotian language did. FkpCascais (talk) 20:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No longer a squabble, the entry will be updated.--Z oupan 02:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Cheers, . That will still leave the problem of a lack of "oppose" and "support" entries. I don't see how that can be rectified. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:23, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Voting is not required. Suggestions for responding. There are several ways to end a RfC.--Z oupan 03:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of that, but it's already been turned into a bit of a mess. You need to refocus the discussion. Perhaps some of those more involved than casual commentators (such as myself) would be willing to strike out discussions between themselves and form a comment presenting a summary of their position pointing to the relevant policies and guidelines? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:51, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia can't try to not offend everyone and be politically correct all the time or else we wouldn't have much of an encyclopedia. Serbian Cyrillic is more specific and differentiated and we have a duty to readers not to confuse them by attempting to be overly politically correct. By the way, does anyone actually get offended by the term Serbian Cyrillic, really? As an analogy, in the US we speak English even though we don't live in England. If the Wikipedia community were to change the name of the language spoken in the US from English to "Americanese" all because some descendants of those who fought in the revolutionary war were offended, we'd have a giant mess. I know it's not exactly the same situation here, but you get my point. LesVegas (talk) 18:04, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

The letter small Б
In Serbian and Macedonian print, the glyph for the small Б differs from what is shown in the article, cf. Be_(Cyrillic). Could somebody mend the table in Serbian_Cyrillic_alphabet, please? Also, the text should comprise a remark on the difference from other cyrillic alphabets.

--Knottel (talk) 10:08, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Under Macedonian_alphabet, there is a box that shows the correct form for Serbian Cyrrillic and Macedonian. A copy of that box would fit well in the present article.

-- Knottel (talk) 10:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * It is already covered in section Serbian Cyrillic alphabet, mostly. The shape of non-italic $\langleб\rangle$ presents a typographic doublet – both the Russian form, resembling the number $\langle6\rangle$, and the "Serbian" form, resembling Greek $\langleδ\rangle$ are permitted, and various fonts have different glyphs for them. No such user (talk) 21:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Grand Mufti and Serbian Cyrillic
I keep finding (and deleting) this fantastical claim in the World War II section:

''On April 25, 1941, Grand Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini of Jerusalem, who was made chief architect of the Nazi German offensive in Bosnia, had Serbian Cyrillic outlawed. ''

If anyone feels that this is factual information, please answer the following questions before adding it again:

1. Where did the Grand Mufti outlaw it? The implication is in Bosnia but the passage does not make it clear. 2. If this indeed took place in Bosnia, under what authority did the Grand Mufti pass this legislation? I don't recall him holding any official positions in the Independent State of Croatia, which Bosnia was ceded to and governed by during this period. 3. What military rank did the Grand Mufti hold in the Wehrmacht, Schutzstaffel, or Einsatzgruppen, and which of the Seven Enemy Offensives was he made the "chief architect" of, and by whom, specifically?

--Vladanr (talk) 05:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)