Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2016-01/Automated transliterations

Transliteration versus romanization
Your proposed revision for the text uses both terms; it would far preferable, in my opinion, only to use one. I assume that transliteration is the better term, as it's the one we seem to use most here; otherwise I suppose they're functionally equivalent, but it would be best to be consistent. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 04:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 12:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

My main objection still holds
Here is a version of the text I would be OK with:
 * Translations not in the Latin script should display a transliteration, as per that language's transliteration policy.

Serbocroatian's own transliteration policy is where its exemption should be mentioned. Or it perhaps could even be mentioned in a global transliteration policy. But not as part of the translation section policy. --WikiTiki89 20:52, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I copied your text, but I added a link to Category:Transliteration policies. Is that OK?--Daniel Carrero (talk) 20:58, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm still debating whether saying "should usually display" would be better or worse. It would make the statement more accurate, but it would also falsely imply that the exceptions are somewhat common. --WikiTiki89 21:01, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * What about "unless otherwise stated"?
 * Also, it follows from your argument that we should have a page named Serbo-Croatian transliteration. (currently a redlink) I would be cool with that. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 21:14, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Good idea. --WikiTiki89 21:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

The Serbo-Croatian example brings another question: what if there does not exist a transliteration policy?Dixtosa (talk) 23:19, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There always exists an unofficial policy, even if the official policy hasn't been codified. Eventually someone should codify it. --WikiTiki89 23:23, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * A Serbo-Croatian transliteration system (Module:sh-translit) could be used but for a different purpose - to automate Latin to Cyrillic conversion and Cyrillic to Latin. I don't remember if only one side can be converted with 100% accuracy (something with letters љ (lj) and њ (nj)?). Even if 100% is not possible, those cases can be handled separately. . I know Ivan is not a big fan of modules but this could be very beneficial for Serbo-Croatian space and will save a lot of typing and copy-pasting those accents. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:43, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * As far as the automating the Serbo-Croatian transliteration: it is true that only one side (Cyrillic) can be converted 100% accurately, the automatic transliteration of Roman/Latin is problematic with words like or, which should be transliterated as  (and maybe ) and , and not as  or exclusively as . So there's an issue with letters nj, dž and lj but only from Latin to Cyrillic not the other way round. Cyrillic to Latin makes no problems. --biblbroksдискашн 10:29, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a good idea, but that's not what this discussion and Dixtosa's question was about. --WikiTiki89 23:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If this idea is implemented, then it could part of the global and Serbo-Croatian policy including Serbo-Croatian transliteration. Similarly, there is a system to transliterate the Japanese kana but it only works on entries and Japanese specific templates but the transliterations in e.g. translations from English still require manual transliteration - no impact on that policy but it disallows manual transliterations in Japanese entries. A Serbo-Croatian entry like would not require  but only . Compare with the Japanese, which doesn't need any manual romanisation: . --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:57, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * By the way, you should take a look at what I did with Judeo-Tat using the template and Module:jdt-translit. See for example the pages, , . --WikiTiki89 16:14, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Good stuff! Similar work is done with Pali recently. I don't see why Serbo-Croatian is not done. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:27, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Too many parentheticals
Using many parentheticals is a hallmark of legalese/bureaucratic language: "Translations not in the Latin script should, unless otherwise stated, display a transliteration, as per that language's transliteration policy."

How about "Translations not in the Latin script should display a transliteration according to that language's transliteration policy, unless the policy states otherwise."? This, that and the other (talk) 06:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Daniel Carrero (talk) 21:12, 9 February 2016 (UTC)