Talk:Q3537439

Moebeus are you really want to create the separate items for the cyrillization of French into Ukrainian, cyrillization of French into Belarusian, into Bulgarian, into Macedonian, Mongolian, Kazakh, into indigenous languages of Russia??? all these ones may be appeared in a future. Is it really helpful? I undestand that Wikidata content should be structured but it's just bust! --Wolverène (talk) 04:21, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

@Wolverène: Hi there! Yes, I think that's a good idea. Just as French Romanization of Russian is different than say German Romanization of Russian, it seems wrong to use a determination method (P459) that is specifically about cyrillization into Russian when the destination language isn't in fact Russian and the transliteration is different than the Russian transliteration (as is often the case for Russian Vs. Bulgarian, or Ukrainian or Belarusian). To be clear, I think it's necessary when defining a determination method (P459) for a transliteration (P2440).

I am no expert though, so more than open to a discussion - what do you think? Moebeus (talk) 10:41, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I will not insist, but there will be two issues. 1) Authors from another Wikipedias will still intergrate their versions in local languages with the Russian version, like for now here, or even here (although Georgian doesn't use Cyrillic). We will need to explain authors not to merge pages in different languages, but well it's OK if we're ready to keep an eye on all these items. 2) Cyrillic alphabets are more homogenous in reading than Latin, meaning that a reader of one Cyrillic-written language may read texts in another Cyrillic-written language almost without problems (almost unless regarding accent or stressing features or appearance of very non-typical letters). For example most of Cyrillic alphabets don't need complicated combination of vowels for diphthongs. So the differences in cyrillization rules between Russian and Bulgarian aren't same sharp comparing to romanization differences between French and Dutch.

If you still standing for separation of items I can help you with it, but as you see there may be shortcomings. --Wolverène (talk) 11:48, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

@Wolverène: I would love it if you could help me with this, thank you! Mixing in Georgian with Russian is just so wrong that I kinda think that proves why there is need for this.

As for your second point "Cyrillic alphabets are more homogenous in reading than Latin, meaning that a reader of one Cyrillic-written language may read texts in another Cyrillic-written language almost without problems." - That is actually true for Latin Script alphabets as well, *in general*. But then there are cultural or linguistic small differences from language to language where certain vowels don't translate well (like "j" in Spanish, often ends up as "y"), or "w" is preferred over "v" (Polish, German). For Finnish and some of the Baltic languages it can get... weird ;-) I will try to ping you when I find some examples of differences between Cyrillic transliterations (Serbian!) going forward, does that sound good? Moebeus (talk) 22:01, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

EDIT: I think I misunderstood a little there, when I say a Latin script language reader can "read" almost any other latin language, I didn't mean to also say "understand". I take it what you're saying is that it's easy for a Russian speaker to read and understand any other language using Cyrillic. That is obviously not the case for Latin script alphabet languages. Moebeus (talk)

• OK agreed. I'll start working on separation tomorrow, unless I'm busy. --Wolverène (talk) 22:47, 21 December 2018 (UTC)