Talk:The Gaj Latin Alphabet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project’s quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the Project’s importance scale.

[edit] name

On 17:37, 9 April 2007, User:Методије moved Croatian alphabet to Gaj's Latin alphabet: This is a much more neutral title than "Croatian alphabet", as this is used in Serbian, Bosnian, and Montenegrin as well.

While I understand that it is certainly an alphabet completely integral to all those other languages, I wonder if we are taking the neutrality thing too far here. I assumed that Gaj was creating the alphabet for Croatian use, so it's not illogical to call it the Croatian alphabet. Obviously it's not *only* Croatian alphabet today, but that is supposed to be its origin.

Another aspect is that it's not actually Gaj's complete work, if Đuro Daničić added the letter Đ. Furthermore, was Daničić adding the letter to be used in Croatian, or in Serbian, or both? That aspect also affects the original name.

What exactly do the history books say about this? --Joy [shallot] 21:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I noticed the move at the time as well, and reluctantly accepted it. At the time, there were separate Croatian alphabet, Bosnian alphabet, and South Slavic Latinic transliterations (strangely, no one got the idea to create Serbian Latin alphabet), so he did a good thing to consolidate them. Now, the question of correct naming of the article is difficult; whatever short title one puts, someone will complain that it's not only Croatian, or that Serbo-Croatian doesn't exist, or that Montenegrins are unhappy or... I'm generally against overt political correctness, but if the current title solves the issue, let it be (at least it has connection with occasionaly used name gajica), and I'd really dislike an unwieldy one ("Croatian, Bosnian, Serbian and Montenegrin alphabet" ?). The article still emphasizes the Croatian origins of the alphabet, so I'm inclined to put the matter to rest. Duja► 14:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] usage

as someone who has absolutely no knowledge on this matter and looking for some answers on wiki, I was surprised to find that neither this article nor the Serbian Cyrillic one had any mention of how widespread the usage of either alphabet is. Can someone add this information, preferably with some references? Thanks! —lensovet–talk – 21:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It's as widespread as the usage of the languages it is used in, and those are linked. Does that really need clarifying? --Joy [shallot]

[edit] Article name (Which apostrophe?)

For the sake of not turning this into a revert war -- which title should be used, "Gaj’s Latin alphabet" or "Gaj's Latin alphabet"? It was at the second title until just yesterday, when it was moved to the first title, and no reason (other than personal preference) was given, even when I asked at User:Crissov's talk page. Now that the article has been moved, every article that links here comes through a redirect, as compared to previously, when half the articles linked directly. I see no purpose in forcing a redirect to be used when it's so obviously unnecessary, nor do I see why someone's time (even if it is a bot's, as proposed by Crissov) should be wasted by going through articles to fix the redirect. As far as the two versions of apostrophe are concerned, I really don't care which one is used, but in this case, especially when considering the redirects, I think it should stick with the original. I'd move it back myself, but as I mentioned at the beginning, I don't want to create an edit war, so I'm bringing it up here in the hopes of getting some more opinions one way or the other. -Bbik^★ 03:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not really inconvenient at all to have redirects. I'm in favor of ' over ’ anyway. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 18:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)