Talk:Cyrillic script/Archive 1

message: OK, I bit and made article on iotation. Edits are welcome :) Nikola 09:52, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Iotation

message: I always thought it is a strictly Russian term. Do Bulgarians, Ukrainians, Serbs call it azbuka? If not, may be it shouldn't be in the header....Gaidash 4 July 2005 08:10 (UTC)
:No, other languages that use Cyrillic have the word азбука, too. In Serbian, for example, азбука refers specifically to цириллица as opposed to латиница. I’ve also seen it used in Ukrainian, Bulgarian, and Macedonian. —Stephen 4 July 2005 09:19 (UTC)
The term 'azbuka' is used in Serbia and Bulgaria as a synonim for alphabet. Vanjagenije 20:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Azbuka? 

message: On this page are the Characters Ң/ң, Ү/ү, Ө/ө (used in Kyrgyz) mentioned?
:*You will find those three letters (and their pronunciations) on the main Cyrillic alphabet page in the Kazakh alphabet table. Ң = ŋ; Ө = ö; Ү = ü. Here are the thirty letters of the Kyrgyz Cyrillic alphabet:
 The Kyrgyz alphabet
А а	Б б	Г г	Д д	Е е	Ё ё	Ж ж	З з	И и	Й й	К к
Л л	М м	Н н	Ң ң	О о	Ө ө	П п	Р р	С с	Т т	У у
Ү ү	Х х	Ч ч	Ш ш	Ы ы	Э э	Ю ю	Я я	   	   	
:—Stephen 09:02, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'll add this to the article.  —Michael Z. 2005-08-12 14:16 Z
More missing characers -  Э э appears to be missing from the Common Cyrillic letters table. Is there a reason for this?--YellowLeftHand 19:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, it is rather non-common letter: used only in 2 of 6 national Cyrillic-based Slavonic languages. -- Kcmamu 12:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing Characters?? 

message: Please see the new page at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Cyrillic), aimed at 
#  Documenting the use of Cyrillic and its transliteration in Wikipedia
#  Discussing potential revision of current practices
—Michael Z. 2005-12-9 20:37 Z
::Italics in Cyrillics:
::A guideline on whether or not to italicize Cyrillics (and all scripts other than Latin) is being debated at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (text formatting)#Italics in Cyrillic and Greek characters. - - Evv 16:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cyrillic in Wikipedia 

message: Everyone please start discussing this issue here on the talk page, and not in the page history.  If the revert war continues, I will temporarily protect this page.  —Michael Z. 2006-06-15 02:13 Z
:Right.
:Montenegrin may or may not be a unique dialect, but it seems that it is only because of a political situation in the region that people have decided to include it as a distinct language.  We would need at least some sort of scholarly source to include it in the article as another distinct language.  AEuSoes1 05:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Montenegrin alphabet 

message: The individual letters all have their own article, but no more information is available on those stubs than the main article itself. Should they not be merged and left as redirects here? Ifnord 21:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  It's a similar layout with latin characters.  I think it's better to actually expand the letters' pages.  AEuSoes1 22:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But, is it expandable? What more can possibly said about Ҩ? Ifnord 23:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Origins, usage... I don't really know much about Abkhaz and I learned most of what I know about Cyrillic through Wikipedia.  If you're talking about that one particular letter it's one thing, but I don't think all the Cyrillic letters should collapse into one page.  AEuSoes1 00:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging individual letters 

message: After the recent changes, the layout of the top of the article is quite broken in my browser (Safari).  The infobox and history of the alphabet navbox seem to align at the top right of the article as intended, however they both overlap in a very messy way with the big box with the letters: they both appear above that boxes borders and tone, but below the letters and names.  It's an unreadable mess.  I suppose it would work fine if my monitor were about 1200px wide or larger, but that's not the case.
The new font sample in the infobox seems pointless: it is too small to discern the individual letters, and seems to be an old Romanian script which is not even mentioned in this article.  —Michael Z. 2006-08-29 20:16 Z
:100% ACK. The layout is broken in Firefox/Konqueror/Opera as well if the browser window is not large enough. Plus the sample should show current usage.--Hhielscher 20:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks awful to me, too. I'm probably not the only passerby to be totally turned off. Anyone going to fix it? --Masamage 22:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Completely broken layout 

message: --Greasysteve13 03:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks--Greasysteve13 10:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

text: He's called Cyril in English nevertheless. -- Evertype·✆ 13:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it pronounced "Sirillik" or "Kirillik"? 

message: I added the 'disputed' template to this section. Please see comments and discuss here: 
--Sasper 05:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  German cyrillic alphabet?? 

message: #  —Michael Z. 2006-10-23 02:17 Z
# // Laughing Man 02:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Agree 

message: # [rts_freak] | 5p34k 2 /\/\3 09:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disagree 

message: While cyrillic is not the alphabet commonly used for Bosnian today, it can't be denied that cyrillic still is used by Bosnian and was historically used for Bosnian (or derivatives of cyrillic). While it may be acceptable not to mention Bosnian in the introduction, it is important to mention the historical importance of cyrillic to the Bosnian language, but maybe later on in the article. Also, since cyrillic (or it's derivatives) were the first alphabet used for Bosnian (and the only used for a long time), on the article Latin Alphabet, Bosnian should not be mentioned in the section "spread of the latin alphabet" along with languages such as Czech, Croatian etc, as Bosnian did not use latin until much later than these languages, and teh spread of Latin alphabet to Bosnian language did not happen at the same time as these other languages, and certainly not in teh same manner as the others. But anyway, I'll agree to not having Bosnian in the intro if it is mentioned in a later section dedicated to explaining the strange situation of cyrillic & Bosnian.
:P.S. I am deeply sorry for all the inconvenience and/or frustration I have caused to other users for engaing in an edit war. Also I apologise for any incivility on my part, either in edit summaries or on talk pages. - [rts_freak] | 5p34k 2 /\/\3 09:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello. We're reporting the official position of Bosniak linguists, which may be politically motivated, but it's their official position. The point is, the Cyrillic was in use in territory of Bosnia in medieval times, it was used during the times of SFRY. If Bosniaks formally refused Cyrillic, that would mean that they refused the cyrillic literature and books printed during the time of SFRY as their own, in effect "ceding" it to Serbs, which they don't want to do. We know that it's not actively used today, and that's written several times, thank you for reminding us. Would you please stop this senseless flogging of a dead horse? Duja 15:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text: You really don't get it. Go to any Bosniak politician, linguist or nationalist with the sentence "Bosnian language DIDNT EXIST during SFRJ" and you'll get your ass kicked for national treason. I do know Bosnians are stubborn, but you're pushing it above the limits. How many times do I have to say that I know and accept that Cyrillic is not actively used? Did you read my comments and edits at all? Did you read any official language book issued in the last 10 years? It is Bosniak officials and linguists who claim the heritage of Muslim writers during SFRY and earlier times, not me. If you reject that heritage, that's fine with me also. But, for god's sake, stop edit warring for no reason. Duja 15:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text: One has to see that the Bosnian language does not have a formal organization that states whether or not Cyrillic is used. However, one will never see a Bosnian book or newspaper regularly published in Cyrillic. The Cyrillic would be seen as Serbian since all three languages (Bosnian, Croatian, and Serbian) are used in Bosnia due to the complicated outcomes of the war. Anyone interested about what occurred please read the article Bosnia and Herzegovina or the article Bosnian War. Nevertheless, using Cyrillic for Bosnian is usually seen as a provocation. It is hard for an outsider who has never been to Bosnian or lived in Bosnia to understand this, but it is the common view. Similarly Hindi uses its own alphabet while in Pakistan they uses the Arabic script for the same (really similar) language. This goes for Bosnian as well. So, far we have a consensus from foreign perspectives and local perspectives (BiH, HR, SR). I suggest that we end this right now. Thanks, Vseferović 00:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: The article says:
In Bulgarian, Macedonian, and Serbian, some cursive letters are different from those used in other languages.
I don't know about Macedonian and Serbian, but in looking in the alphabet section of my Bulgarian grammar book, I don't see any cursive letters that differ from those shown in the table that directly follows this sentence. Am I missing something here, or is this a mistake? --Dale Gerdemann 13:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right.  It's a Serbian alphabet's specifics (adopted also by the Macedonian alphabet), not relevant to the Bulgarian case. Apcbg 21:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bulgarian Cursive

message: The Bosnian language uses the Cyrillic script, aside from Latin... --PaxEquilibrium 21:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See the above discussion.  Apparantly it doesn't.  Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 02:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That discussion's one-sided. The Cyrillic script is today official as another standard of the Bosnian language. Anyone who learns Bosnian in schools must also learn Cyrillic. And it's wrong that there are not books/publications in Cyrillic (by Bosniacs). Aside from mainly out of solidarity, presenting the whole of Bosnia's linguistics, it's a component part of Bosniacs' linguistic history - before 1878/1908 Bosnians always (for hundreds and hundreds of years) used the Cyrillic script, and only due to western influence and especially later Communism that Latin was established. --PaxEquilibrium 12:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: But they didn't speak Bosnian back then ;) --estavisti 14:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, and Serbs are the oldest people in Universe :) Kruško Mortale 19:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: According to Senahid Halilović (Pravopis bosanskog jezika, in the Introduction section) Cyrillic is one of two scripts in Bosnian, but is not often used. Kruško Mortale 19:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't deny this. As I explained multiple times, there is a dichotomy between the language politics and language usage: nowadays it's practically never used by Bosniak speakers, and could be even found offensive in certain contexts, as acknowledged even by VSeferovic at Talk:Bosnian language. For this reason, we agreed above to drop it out from this article, as the statement that "Bosnian language uses it" is fairly misleading, and rather political than practical statement. And now you're forking the "Serbian" section. We can re-initiate RfC if you want, but for now I'll follow the consensus above and remove it from the article. Duja► 08:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about Bosnian? 

message: Hi, I'm doing a lot of work with minor Wikipedias, some of which are in languages that use the Cycrillic alphabet. Usually these contain a lot of unusual characters that my browser renders as question marks. I found lots of links providing free Cyrillic fonts, but these only provide the Slavic characters I already have. Shouldn't it be a good idea to add an external link to some free Cyrillic fonts that do contain the non-Slavic and archaic letters I and presumably many others are looking for? Steinbach (fka Caesarion) 11:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A lot of non-Slavic characters 

message: In Classical Latin (from the days of Caesar and Christ), the letter C was hard, and "Caesar" was pronounced "Kaiser".  By today, however, "C" is soft, and "Caesar" is pronounced "Seezer".  When did this transition occur?  By virtue of the letter-form "C" being used in the Cyrillic alphabet for the sound "S", it is clear that this transition occured before the 9th Century CE when Cyrill invented these letters.  Further, perhaps the transition was only just completed, because there seems to be a tradition, quoted by user "Derek Ross" below, of calling the Cyrillic letters the Kirillitsa.66.235.30.222 23:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No tradition, I assure you. I would know, since my own grandfather is named Kirill, in Russian, which uses Cyrillic, for that particular saint. On the contrary, this seems to indicate that the K>S transition for C occured much later, and that S=C was chosen for some other unknown reason, since St. Cyrill certainly thought of himself as a Kirill. Perhaps, much like R=P in Cyrillic, it was just borrowing on a familiar letter design that seemed basic, convenient, and unoccupied. 128.195.186.57 (talk) 12:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dating Latin C transition 

message: Should Serbia and Moldova be in light green or not? There is an ongoing discussion about Serbia on the page :commons:Image talk:Cyrillic Europe.PNG. Feel free to add your comments, even if you do not understand German. I'm pretty sure everyone speaks English. --Komischn (talk) 12:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distribution of the Cyrillic alphabet: Serbia and Moldova 

message: I seen in the article on Tuvan language that it uses another modified Cyrillic alphabet.  Any reason not to include it in the section on Turkic languages?  Jer ome 00:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Tuvan language|Tuvan]]? 

message: You have Windows XP and the glyphs were showing up as MS Mincho. If you have Vista, the glyphs will be showing up correctly. If you set the font to Segoe UI, the letter Omega will be shown. All other glyphs show up as .notdef, which is a glyph.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.233.98.148 (talk) 15:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Glyphs showing up as MS Mincho 

message: All we know about Cyril and Methodius is that they were Byzantine subjects. Please stop calling them 'Greeks', 'Slavs', etc. All these determinations of their ethnic backgroud are just assumptions without any evidence. But that they were Byzantines - this is undisputable.195.114.112.193 (talk) 09:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: We go on sources. The sources say they were Greek. I agree that we can't assume they were Greek, since Byzantium was an empire, but we're not doing that. Do you have any reliable sources stating explicitly that we don't know their ethnicity? kwami (talk) 10:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop the controversy - Cyril and Methodius were Byzantines 

message: The article's history section mentions some "Paul Cubberly". There is no article on such person in Wikipedia, and his credibility is obscure (if any). --91.92.29.19 (talk) 16:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because the person inst in Wikipedia doesn't bring his notability into question. There are many experts (in their field that is) that do not have a Wikipedia page. On Paul Cubberly, he is a leading linguist, with a specialty in Russia, working with Cambridge University. Thanks, Ono (talk) 16:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paul Cubberly? 

message: Here is a table with using Times New Roman:
Serbian and Macedonian letters are missed.
а	б	в	г	ґ	д	е	ё	ж	з	и	й	і	ї	к	л	м	н	о	п	ҧ	р	с	т	ҭ	у	ў	ф	х	ц	ч	ш	щ	ъ	ы	ь	э	є	ю	я
а	б	в	г	ґ	д	е	ё	ж	з	и	й	і	ї	к	л	м	н	о	п	ҧ	р	с	т	ҭ	у	ў	ф	х	ц	ч	ш	щ	ъ	ы	ь	э	є	ю	я
::Why not add ҕ, ӡ, қ, ҟ, ҧ, ҭ, ҵ, ҳ, ҷ, ҽ, ҿ, ҩ and ә into the table? 222.233.98.133 (talk) 18:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Times New Roman font 

message: I cannot determine from the article what any of the letters stand for. Is г the same as the English letter G or what?
Remember, this is the English language Wikipedia, so English speaking readers such as myself would like to be able to understand the content of this article. 
I'd say the most important aspect of an alphabet or writing system is how to pronounce the letters or symbols. So, please include a chart relating Cyrillic to English.
Otherwise, we'll have a whole generation of teenagers thinking that я is simply R written backwards, ya? --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The Latin alphabet article doesn't do that either.  For instance you can't just outright state the pronunciation of the letter "j" because it represents completely different sounds in English, German, Spanish, etc. So to find out what the letters "stand for" you'll have to read the articles for each region variant (e.g. Russian alphabet, Serbian Cyrillic alphabet, Mongolian writing systems#Mongolian Cyrillic script.--Lairor (talk) 01:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: What the letters stand for

message: So, I don't think this article states it explicitly but I assume Cyrillic is named after Saint Cyril?--Lairor (talk) 01:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Saint Cyril

message: The article states, in the Introduction: "Cyrillic is one of the two alphabets... expressions such as “И is the tenth letter of the Cyrillic alphabet” typically denote that meaning;"
What is this supposed to mean? How does the fact that И is the tenth letter in the alphabet denote anything about the idea that there are two alphabets? And if not every Cyrillic-based language uses every letter of the alphabet, is И always tenth? LordAmeth (talk) 23:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing statement in the introduction 

message: WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE? IF THEY WERE, GREEKS WOULD BE USING THE CYRILIC ALPHABET RIGHT NOW! THIS IS INSANE!
The alphabet was created a long, long, long time before the Treaty of Bucharest (1913), and at that time today's Macedonia (Greece Region) used to be part of today's Republic of Macedonia. That's how Cyril & Metodii were born there, in today's Thessaloniki (Solun). This whole article should be REWRITTEN! LEARN THE HISTORY, THEN WRITE ARTICLES ABOUT IT! Fireleaf (talk) 12:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.134.55.190 (talk) 11:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

text: What a patriotic macedonian douchebag. They were just half-south slavs/half greeks from Solun. The name 'Macedonia' is stolen from greeks. It's well known all over the world -- nobody in the world doesn't think Alexander Macedonian was Slav as well. You just wanna prove that your country isn't just yet another poor slav hole. I understand it.  But please don't bring politics here.195.113.149.177 (talk) 01:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  ST. CYRIL & METODII WERE NOT GREEKS! 

message: The sentence 'Russia mandated a law that all recognized must be written only in Cyrillic, to try to bring them closer to Russia's statehood', seems to missing one or more words.  Any ideas? Bevo74 (talk) 13:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latin Alphabet section 

message: Dear brothers, let us stop talking some theories. It is time to begin scientific proves, not just myths. So I will show you real Cyrillic origin.
Cyrillic in 9.-12.century was not name for alphabet which we know it. Cyrillic was name for alphabet which made by Konstantine (Kyril) and Methodius. Today cyrillic was known as Srbica (Serbian alphabet), because the oldest name for Slavs is Sorabi (Serboi=Serbs, Sora on Sanskrit means Sky man, guardian of paradise, something like this). The fist mention of Slavs is in 4. century BC when Alexandar the Great mentioned "famous nation" (Slavyan) which live from Balkan to Baltic.
But let us see alphabet origin.
When Slavs made the fist Europian civilisation in Pannonia (Vinča civilization) they made fist consonantal alphabetic system in the World.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vin%C4%8Da_signs  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blexandar (talk • contribs) 14:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The article you provide says, in the second paragraph, that they are considered "proto-writing." That is not a "consonantal alphabetic system." Please don't use talk pages as a sounding-board for your opinions. 68.51.74.133 (talk) 10:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Real Cyrillic origins 

message: Please stop this madness, Cyril and Methodius were Greek as their names state. The whole world seems to know, except you. http://www.behindthename.com/name/cyril
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saints_Cyril_and_Methodius
Falsifying history is extremely dangerous and leads to fanatism and unexpected counter reactions.
Best Regards
Denpap  Denpap (talk) 22:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I guess it's ok to stay that way for now. Fireleaf (talk) 17:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Byzantine empire was an empire. An empire is a political unit having an extensive territory or comprising a number of territories or nations and ruled by a single supreme authority. One of those nations were the Greeks. Cyril and Methodius were Greeks. Deal with it. A Macedonian (talk) 07:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

text: Sorry, but we're not going to take your word on it. You need to provide reliable sources to support your claims. Otherwise you may be blocked for edit warring. — kwami (talk) 21:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please see sources provided here. A Macedonian (talk) 23:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cyril and Methodius 

message: Currently the article says both that Cyrillic was developed in the region of Macedonia and that it was developed in the Preslav Literary School. Obviously at least one of the two claims is wrong.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.90.15.229 (talk) 16:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction 

message: The map shows that in Romania Cyrillic alphabet is one of official scripts. It used to be, but it's not anymore for more than a century.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.116.232.87 (talk) 18:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The colour on Romania was introduced on 17 July 2010 with the annotation "New light green shading is for nations that formerly used the Cyrillic script but do not do so currently." Coroboy (talk) 15:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Romania on the map 

message: Is Nezirović,"Jewish-Spanish book history"[cited in Šmid, 2002]  anyhow related to the "Cyrillic alphabet" article?
Šmid (2002)"The problems in studying sefardi language"?
Is that a joke? or self-promotion?
Brambilla (talk) 15:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevant references? 

message: I've removed Bulgarian from the list of languages using the Serbian and Macedonian italic letterforms. That statement comes from 
* 23 April 2009 first adding Bulgarian-Macedonian besides Serbian 
* 20 September 2009 splitting Bulgarian-Macedonian into Bulgarian and Macedonian
Clearly Bulgarian-Macedonian doesn't mean both Bulgarian and Macedonian language but rather Macedonian (which is closely related to Bulgarian), and doesn't imply in any way Bulgarian letterforms are similar in anyway to those mentioned. 
I've also added a reference to  for both Serbian and Macedonian using those letterforms. --Mᴏʏᴏɢᴏ/ ⁽ᵗᵃˡᵏ⁾ 17:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serbian and Macedonian letterforms not Bulgarian 

message: This article is supposed to serve as the entrypoint for people who know nothing about Cyrillic at all.  As it stands, the article fails that audience hopelessly.  At the very least, it needs to prominently list the letters of the modern alphabet and what they sound like.  That is the single most important piece of information people will come to this article to find.  
Instead, we are thrown straight into quibbling about ancient Cyrillic, and then 1001 other digressions.  The modern alphabet isn't actually clearly presented in this article at all, or at least not until the very last table.
The whole article should be reorganised, in my view, to much more closely parallel something like Greek alphabet.
There is no way, as it stands, that it currently deserves a B rating.  Jheald (talk) 09:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a year later and this is still true. This is a pretty terrible article! 96.3.96.172 (talk) 05:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs reorganisation 

message: Cyrillic is not a single alphabet (that would be the Russian alphabet, or arguably the Bulgarian alphabet), but several, much like the Latin script or the Arabic script. Serbian is not a variant of Russian; rather, they are both alphabets based on the same script. Any particular reason we wish to retain it at "alphabet", which people have complained about being misleading? Or, since there really isn't any need to dab, why not just Cyrillic? — kwami (talk) 11:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Cyrillic would be OK. No dab needed, and it fits both the ISO 15924 and Unicode (alias) name. -DePiep (talk) 12:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Draft here: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (writing systems)#Draught. That's my take on the original proposal. Cyrillic is given as an example of the difference in our sources between a 'script' (a general writing system) and an 'alphabet' (a particular instantiation of a script, with a specified sorting order, language-specific variants, etc.), but it could just as easily be used as an example of an article, like hangul or cuneiform, where the name is unambiguous and therefore it isn't necessary to include a category. So if people here don't like 'Cyrillic script', we could move it down to the 'Exceptions' section as plain 'Cyrillic'. — kwami (talk) 14:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see no reason why not to, the reasoning is sound. I would be in favour of such a move. Lunch for Two (talk) 15:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved the Cyrillic example. — kwami (talk) 18:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: See Cyrillic (disambiguation) for the recent naming situation at WP.-DePiep (talk) 14:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cyrillic "alphabet" 

message: In "Cyrillic alphabets", sub-chapter 'Non-Slavic languages', Moldovan is missing. Even if their state be not recognized, the 250 000 people in Tiraspol' write their language in Cyrillic, and the language is uncontestably non-Slavic.
English Wikipedia should not be subject to the Romanian-"separatist" feud.
Nuremberg, Ángel García 131.188.3.20 (talk) 19:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moldovan writing 

message: What alphabet is being used there - Latin or Cyrillic?93.183.229.75 (talk) 14:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Republika Srpska 

message: I'm asking again (like others did two or three times before - above), why is there no Romanization of the letters?  The answers given are always skirting around the problem (e.g. "see the Russian alphabet for pronunciation"). The Latin alphabet article has the original names of the letters and how they were pronounced (and so do most, if not all, of the other articles on alphabets).  Why is it so hard for anyone to add some kind of latinized pronunciation here? If it is such a challenge, then just write the original pronunciation used when the alphabet was first developed. Or if that's too difficult, then write the most commonly used original pronunciation when the alphabet was first developed. Or, if that is challenging too, then write the original names for the letters (romanized). Or, if that is tough, then write the first recorded known names of the letters (romanized). Or, the original intended pronunciation. It's hard to believe this article has been here so long with no one having done this.Jimhoward72 (talk) 21:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Names/Pronunciation for Cyrillic letters? 

message: There is no consistency through the wiki pages for the origin of the cyrillic script.
One link relates the origin to the disciples. But only one of the wiki pages dedicated to the disciples explicitly states that the creation of the cyrillic script is associated with Kliment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clement_of_Ohrid
The article about cyrillic script states who is not the author of the cyrillic script, but no names for who is believed to be or might be associated with. 
Why the glagolic could have authorship while still stated on the wiki as "attributed to", but not the cyrillic?
It is confusing to have several pages with similar info for early cyrillic and for glagolic alphabets stating slightly different versions.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.11.27.51 (talk) 21:35, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You're point is taken. I'm sure you already know this is because the various pages are worked on by different contributors. I empathise with your chagrin as I'm trying to unify disparate information on variations of the Rus' peoples, history (et al) on other pages. If no one else is interested in changes, I'm more that happy to support you and discuss any changes to be made here. This will also give other contributors/editors the opportunity for their input on the subject. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin is confusing 

message: I hadn't noticed the Transnistria was featured in the infobox as being one of the countries which used the Cyrillic script. Fortunately, a once off edit has removed it. Does anyone have any compelling argument for featuring it there? If not, I'd like the talk page to reflect that it isn't an internationally recognised sovereign state and, as such, Wikipedia can have entries about Transnistria but cannot validate that which has not been recognised. Well, that's my two Transnistrian roubles on the matter and I'll adhere to it unless I can be convinced otherwise. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any logical reasons for featuring Transnistria as a 'country'? 

message: And all the small letters articles (ex. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_Cyrillic_letter). I'm confused about why this is on wikipedia to be honest and not on wiktionary where it seems to fit better. You can link to wiktionary you know, and stuff like etymology, word history does get put on wiktionary. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 13:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  On the infobox of cryllic script 

message: Discussion at Talk:Serbian_Cyrillic_alphabet#Serbian_Cyrillic_script_in_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina, with the question "Should the name of Serbian Cyrillic script in Bosnia and Herzegovina-related articles (predominantly Republika Srpska-related articles) be simply "Cyrillic"?"--Zoupan 02:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serbian Cyrillic script in Bosnia and Herzegovina