Talk:CCCP

RFV discussion: January 2015
Is this ever used in running English text? — Keφr 18:19, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've added three cites from Usenet. It stands for a lot of other things, too, so it's hard to find citations on Google Books, if there are any (there probably are). - -sche (discuss) 19:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Dumb question: is this uppercase Latin or uppercase Cyrillic, and does it matter which is which in the cites? Chuck Entz (talk) 03:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Latin. It matters, which is why Usenet was necessary to cite this. — Ungoliant (falai) 03:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, we managed to find three book citations. Also, finds a US Congressional Record. — Keφr 20:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think Ungoliant's point is that, in the absence of Usenet citations which clearly use Latin letters, it would potentially be debatable whether the books were using u0043 u0043 u0043 u0050 or u0421 u0421 u0421 u0420. - -sche (discuss) 20:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * For print books, that's a distinction without a difference anyway. Especially before the days of desktop publishing, there would literally have been no difference at all. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly. It’s impossible to know whether a book is using Cyrillic or Latin. I bet most are really using Latin, but it’s good that we have bitching-proof citations. — Ungoliant (falai) 20:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I thought about that too. But I think as long as they are used in running English text (i.e. not parenthetical mentions or quotations; and the author does not demonstrably use untransliterated Cyrillic terms otherwise) like in the ones we found, it is safe to assume that the letters are Latin. To play devil's advocate a bit, you could argue that maybe the authors of those Usenet cites ostensibly using Latin letters have in fact meant to use the Cyrillic letters, and that their encoding in ASCII is just an irrelevant artefact of the medium (and/or the fact that they cannot type Cyrillic on their keyboards). — Keφr 21:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It was common in the U.S. prior to about 1994 for writers to write CCCP (Roman letters) in articles or comments about the Soviet Union. Very few typesetting companies in the U.S. had the ability to set Cyrillic type, even if they could enter it. Unicode fonts for office printers were just beginning to come out around that time. Before the collapse of the USSR, few Americans had access to any sort of personal or office printers, and even if those who did generally could not type in Cyrillic because they lacked Cyrillic fonts. So almost any book printed before that time in the U.S. had to use Roman fonts for this, and CCCP was usually pronounced as though the letters were Roman (i.e., cee cee cee pee). —Stephen (Talk) 20:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Passed, I figure. Thanks to -sche and Smurrayinchester for providing citations. — Keφr 09:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I found one from 1987-- --Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:55, 25 April 2022 (UTC)