Talk:август

RFC discussion: March 2007–January 2009
Marked Roman spelling unknown/invalid header. There are many of these, but I have seen no suggestions for a different solution. A few languages such as Serbian are currently written in either the Roman or the Cyrillic alphabet at the writer’s whim, so every Serbian word has a Cyrillic spelling and an equally valid Roman spelling. (Russian, by contrast, is only written in Cyrillic, and any romanizations are due to equipment or software limitations or as an aid to people who are simply at sea with the Cyrillic alphabet.) Before these headers can be changed, another solution must first be decided on. —Stephen 17:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * But romanizations, whether used (e.g. romaji, pinyin, etc.) or just transliterations, are always given right on the inflection line. And then linked if they are used, and have their own entries.


 * Things like "Devanagari spelling" are a bit different, they clearly should be Alternative spellings (whether tagged as Devanagari or just treated as obvious ;-). Robert Ullmann 18:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * What I meant was that with Serbian, the Roman spelling is not a romanization, it is an alternative spelling. Serbian written in Roman or Cyrillic is like Urdu written in Arabic or Devanagari. Many people write Serbian exclusively in Cyrillic, and many others write it in the Roman alphabet instead. —Stephen 13:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * What about a level 3 version of the "Alternative spellings" header, which is already in use? --EncycloPetey 07:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I am all for a new method of listing these terms. But, I'm not in favor of using "Alternative spellings" header.  Alternative spellings suggests that the word is pronunciated the same way (or very similarly) as another, but it is written just a bit differently.  That is the case in English and how the header is used here.  In this case, it is written in a different script.  That deserves a completely different section.  Making it a level 3 does not change anything and might even cause others to "fix" it.  --Dijan 18:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well they are alternative spellings so they would not be misnamed. Fewer kinds of headings is good - we don't really need specially named ones for each language which has been written in more than one script. We shouldn't worry about what the brief wording in headings or any other part of the user interface "suggests" because we can document them fully. This is already the case with the alternative spellings heading which has been contentious for years for "suggesting" it means something other than what it is. We can't put lengthy sentences in headings and labels and category names so we put the best concise term we can and then we explain it in lengthy sentences in the documentation. I don't see any problem with putting a, or somesuch for these under the one-size-fits-all "alternative spellings" heading. We already attach notes to many alt spelling entries to explain what countries it's used in, dates the spelling was standard, etc. &mdash; Hippietrail 00:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Latin spelling now on inflection line. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 09:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)