Talk:Romanization of Serbian

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) — Relisting. HurricaneZeta^C 17:56, 18 December 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Iseult ^Δx talk to me 20:38, 26 December 2025 (UTC)— Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 15:16, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

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)

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)

Good points. I agree that orthography is also jargon although it is in more widespread use, and I think at least *more* widely recognized, than digraphia. There are over 200 article titles using orthography or some variant of the word and Serbian orthography would at least be consistent with these. (Although, there are other titles like Japanese writing system and Written Chinese.) If these articles remain separate, Serbian Latin alphabet is a possibility; that is currently a redirect to Gaj's Latin alphabet. Some of these redirects probably need to be retargeted after this RM is settled. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:39, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Looking at some of the examples, the typical orthography article seems far more intricate, though not often reviewed (all that I clicked were C or Start class). Written Chinese being a GA, unlike many of the former, indicates there's no impediment to using something like that. Interestingly, the orthography article is tagged C-class, and writing system is tagged B-class.

BTW, the caption in Gaj's Latin alphabet#See also for this article says describes usage not the alphabet so I don't even know if that redirect really needs to change. It's fine that searches for the two alphabets go to two alphabet articles, while this article can describe the big picture, and be linked from there of course. --Joy (talk) 09:43, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

I think we are left with needing to come up with a lengthy descriptive title. I'm not thrilled with anything I've come up with – Use of the Latin alphabet in Serbian, Serbian use of (the) Latin alphabet… —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:14, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Ah, but why not just Serbian writing systems? --Joy (talk) 20:37, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

This gets back to the merger/scope question. I would support Serbian writing systems (or similar) if the article has expanded coverage on the use of Cyrillic. If not a strict merger, some content on the use of the Serbian Cyrillic alphabet should be included here. If we go that direction Serbian orthographySerbian orthography should then redirect here. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:48, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes. A fair bit of this article already mentions Cyrillic, and vice versa, so those parts would make sense to be consolidated under the more generic title. --Joy (talk) 21:17, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Can someone make a list of all the articles (and redirects if relevant) that cover this topic? I just want to see what we're on, so I can sort of mentally consolidate all the information we have and redistribute it again. It seems to me not so much like this is under the wrong title, but rather that we just have the wrong articles, and that if this entire subject area was being written from scratch, there would be a better way to organise it, if you see what I mean. JustARandomSquid (talk) 21:23, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't know that this is comprehensive but we have Serbian language § Writing system, which lists:

• Serbian Cyrillic alphabet – with 36 redirects to this article
• Gaj's Latin alphabet – with 28 redirects
• Yugoslav Braille – with 10 redirects

I have not reviewed all the redirects beyond those that have come up in this discussion. There are >3,000 articles with "Serbian" in the title which I have not reviewed beyond skimming the first page; I expect the vast majority of these would not be implicated in this discussion.

Re: It seems to me not so much like this is under the wrong title, but rather that we just have the wrong articles, and that if this entire subject area was being written from scratch, there would be a better way to organise it, if you see what I mean. – I think it's both–and. I agree with Joy's initial nominating rationale that romanization is not really the proper description of the article's content and the situation it describes. At present, I continue to lean towards the view that Serbian writing systems is a better title for the article currently and that this title suggests a need for some expansion or reorganization of content. ETA: But Serbian writing systems seems to broad a title for the article if the current content is left as-is. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 22:47, 19 December 2025 (UTC) Amended 00:16, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't like the suggestion of 'Serbian orthography'. I happen to have here before me Matica Srpska's Orthography of the Serbian Language, effectively the official rulebook of the Serbian language, and it is 508 pages long, discussing thousands of tricky word examples, transcription from every world language to Serbian, the proper use of quotations, footnotes, hyphens, pages and pages on capitalisation... and the chapter titled 'Script' is five pages long, 3 of which are just full page prints of various forms of the two scripts. So I retract my previous suggestion to move this to Orthography redirect, because I don't think that's what we need. JustARandomSquid (talk) 08:08, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

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. I have no idea, this is a doozy. JustARandomSquid (talk) 17:25, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Because this has been listed at WP:CR with the suggestion for a Wikipedia:Bartender's close, I think Serbian writing systems, though flawed, is probably the best place to send this drunk article. Of course, it would need to be rewritten to include a broader perspective etc. etc., but there's not much we can do about that in a requested move. JustARandomSquid (talk) 23:09, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

✓ agreed. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 01:29, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Should be Serbian writing system per WP:SINGULAR. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 03:48, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, but there are two. This new article would discuss the relationship between Serbian Cyrillic and Latin. JustARandomSquid (talk) 06:57, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if there are two or ten, the title should be singular. In any case, Cyrillic and Latin are scripts, not writing systems. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 07:05, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

The first is definitely debatable because this isn't an article about general members of a class, but rather two specific ones. From WP:SINGULAR: "Exceptions include [...] the names of classes of objects (e.g. Arabic numerals or Bantu languages)." Sounds awfully like our case here. But for the second point, damn, you're right. Writing system means something else. Not sure what the solution is. "Serbian scripts" doesn't sound amazing. JustARandomSquid (talk) 07:45, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

There is one Serbian writing system – two scripts are used within that system: see this source. If we are looking for a compromise title for this article, I would propose Written Serbian (see Written Chinese as a precedent). Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 08:20, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

I disagree. The plural, Serbian writing systems, is appropriate here. A writing system is defined as any conventional system for representing a particular language using a set of symbols (called a script), as well as the rules those symbols encode. One type of writing system is an alphabet. (Britannica gives a similar description.) Two distinct alphabetic scripts are conventionally used to write Serbian, and since Yugoslav Braille is also within the expanded scope being discussed here, there is a third distinct system to consider. I would accept Written Serbian as an alternative but I don't see it as any better and it did not get much traction earlier in this discussion. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:27, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

I'd accept Written Serbian as a bartender's close, but not a long-term solution. I don't know about the writing system/script distinction. I thought writing systems were the type of script, so alphabetic, syllabary, ideographic... also, could this just be merged to Gaj's Latin and then we redistribute the contents of these articles more optimally? Or has this been suggested earlier? JustARandomSquid (talk) 17:57, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Without digressing into the script–system distinction too much, my read is that Serbian has at least two scripts or writing systems that are widely used and whose use and relationship could be covered in a single article. Hence the plural. Since Gaj's Latin alphabet covers use in languages other than Serbian, it probably warrants a standalone article, but one solution would be to excerpt or copy with attribution some content from Gaj's into this article or vice-versa. At a minimum, the coverage should align where there is appropriate overlap. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:26, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Actually, the more I think about this, the more it seems like merging this into Gaj's Latin alphabet and then letting editors split out and redistribute the content as is seen fit is an acceptable solution. I don't know if an RM can close as a MERGEPROP but I wouldn't be opposed to it. Any issues with that? JustARandomSquid (talk) 19:50, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Myceteae, please consider consulting reliable sources, rather than conducting your own WP:OR. I have already provided one reliable source above, which says the Serbian writing system uses two scripts: Latin and Cyrillic. A script is not a writing system – you may consider that the Japanese writing system makes use of at least four scripts, each of which can be used together, or independently. You may also consult other sources, such as this. I can agree to JustARandomSquid's proposal to merge the content of this article into Gaj's Latin alphabet. This solves the original problem that motivated this discussion, and provides a much more satisfactory result for the reader. The reality is that the only reason this problem has arisen is because we are dancing around the fact that the Serbian and Croatian languages were historically classed as one and the same – as Serbo-Croatian. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 22:32, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

I provided a reliable source for what a writing system is and that source aligns with the definition used in the en-wiki article on the subject. But here's one that's specific to this topic (emphasis added):

Furthermore, there is the ideological weight of choosing between the two officially recognized Serbian writing systems, Cyrillic and Latin (Figure 12.1). Though most citizens use both writing systems, each of them carries different semiotic associations. Cyrillic can be associated with tradition, nationalism, official state business, Eastern Orthodox religion, and distance from the West. Latin script, closely related to English orthography, dominates on social media and can be used to indicate proximity to the West or a global or cosmopolitan sensibility. It is also associated with Croatian, the closely related language of Serbia’s former co-republic and war enemy, and/or with Serbian regional identities outside of the capital (see Alexander 2006; Greenberg 2004). While both writing systems are officially recognized by the Republic of Serbia, Cyrillic is granted a higher official status and is generally considered the more distinctly Serbian orthography. In Belgrade, storefronts and products often mix writing systems, while street signs are often only in Cyrillic (with the exception of heavily-trafficked thoroughfares and tourist areas). On social media, however, the Latin script dominates to the point that the presence of Cyrillic is usually noteworthy, or at least noticeable.

The description there is consistent with my understanding of the topic. While mixed usage absolutely does occur, typically one 'system' or the other is used in both formal and informal writing. The situation in Japanese is quite different, where the standard is to use at least three scripts in a single piece of writing. There's a good argument that either the singular or plural could be used for both languages and the discussion in the respective articles could be framed accordingly. I have a preference for the plural in the case of Serbian. This is justified by the particulars of this case, for which Japanese provides a useful contrast. And there's also the possibility of including Yugoslav Braille in the expanded scope. As for merging content from this article into Gaj's, that has some merit and may be the better option after all. I don't know if that would be considered to give too much weight to Serbian in the context of Gaj's Latin alphabet. If we merge that direction, the details could be worked out at Talk:Gaj's Latin alphabet. I had misread the suggestion as merging content from Gaj's into this article. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 23:18, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Japanese may be written in mixed script, or it may be written solely in Chinese characters (which may be used as a logographic system or even as a phonetic notation, such as in man'yōgana), kana (syllabic system), or Latin letters (alphabetic system). Korean likewise may be written in mixed script, or it may be written solely in Chinese characters, hangul or Latin letters. Yet, we do not talk of 4 or 5 Japanese writing systems or Korean writing systems, only of the 'Japanese writing system', and the 'Korean writing system'. Your source seems to be confusing 'script' with writing system – per the source I cited above, a writing system is a symbolic system that uses visible or tactile signs to represent language in a systematic way. The term writing system has two mutually exclusive meanings. First, it may refer to the way a particular language is written...Second, the term writing system may also refer to a type of symbolic system, as for example, in alphabetic writing system. In this latter sense, the term refers to how scripts have been classified according to the way they encode language, as in, for example, the Latin and Cyrillic scripts are both alphabetic writing systems. The 'Serbian writing system' is the system by which Serbian is written – this system includes multiple scripts, hence why Serbian is termed a digraphic language. Serbian uses only one writing system in the second sense, that is to say, it uses an alphabetic system, and never a logographic or other system. In any case, I think a merger is the best compromise we are going to get. Perhaps we can agree on that? Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 00:10, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Support merger into Gaj's Latin alphabet as the best option presented so far. As for the rest of this, I actually find it quite interesting and it's the sort of thing I'd enjoy discussing over beers or a latte but I don't think further discussion in this venue is productive for building an encyclopedia. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 00:19, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Ok, then please allow me to also express my formal support for a merger into Gaj's Latin alphabet. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 00:29, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Well, if you look at the content of this article, that merge would be actually be adding a lot of information peripheral to the alphabet itself to the alphabet article.

Just like we don't want to diminish the Serbian Cyrillic by cramming it together with peripheral information, we should extend the same courtesy to Serbian Latin, or rather the Latin also used in Croatia, Bosnia and Montenegro.

Arguably, the Gaj's Latin alphabet article already has a fair bit of peripheral information, so it might be possible to add this and not have it stick out as a sore thumb. It would be good to see a draft of that merge first. --Joy (talk) 10:32, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Bear in mind quite a bit of this article is already covered there. I don't think it would cause that much of an issue, it's not a long-term solution anyway. I'll see if I can do anything about a draft. JustARandomSquid (talk) 11:30, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Maybe most of the history section here could be an additional subsection under the existing "History" section there, something like "Introduction in Serbia" or something like that.

And then the rest of this article could fit as one or more subsections of the "Correspondence between Cyrillic and Latin alphabets" section there. --Joy (talk) 11:47, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. JustARandomSquid (talk) 14:23, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

This sounds like the right direction to take. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:04, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Fine by me. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 11:52, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

@Joy Any objections to the merge suggestion? JustARandomSquid (talk) 05:56, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, see above. --Joy (talk) 10:33, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Writing systems, WikiProject Bosnia and Herzegovina, WikiProject Montenegro, WikiProject Serbia, and WikiProject Linguistics have been notified of this discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 21:30, 29 December 2025 (UTC)