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.Writing systemsWikipedia:WikiProject Writing systemsTemplate:WikiProject Writing systemsWriting system
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bulgaria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bulgaria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BulgariaWikipedia:WikiProject BulgariaTemplate:WikiProject BulgariaBulgaria
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Serbia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Serbia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SerbiaWikipedia:WikiProject SerbiaTemplate:WikiProject SerbiaSerbia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Eastern Europe, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Eastern EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject Eastern EuropeTemplate:WikiProject Eastern EuropeEastern Europe
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Asia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject AsiaTemplate:WikiProject AsiaAsia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics
You silly, it does not need both tags. If it is unreferenced then it is already original research.
Doesn't mean you should just remove it instead of try to research. Not sure comment about the world alphabet is needed though. FourLights (talk) 19:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NPA and WP:AGF: try making your point without being adolescent about it.
Material can be contributed that is honestly believed to represent expert consensus, that the contributor is confident is supportable as soon as they find the references. Yes, they should do both at once. If the assertion looks credible, we attach a {{cn}} and allow a few weeks grace.
Material can also be contributed that is obvious to the editor concerned because Jupiter, Mars and the Moon are aligned in opposition the Sun in Aquarius, so obviously etc.
Yes, all OR is by definition not citable to an RS but first it is essential to confirm that it is in fact OR. Meanwhile, applying both tags means that the assertion does not really seem credible and that readers should treat it sceptically.
The correct response would have been simply to delete it as the contributor has had long enough to produce the evidence. To my mind, seven days is the maximum. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Late to the party, but let's just be very clear about something: "unreferenced" and "original research" are *not* the same thing. It's like a Venn diagram with two overlapping circles that define four spaces: there is an area of overlap where both apply (the obvious case), but there are two non-overlapping regions that are only one and not the other. If you replace the entire Wikipedia article with the contents of the Encyclopedia Britannica article about Cyrillic script without citing it, then what you have is an article that is verifiable, unreferenced, and without original research (the lune on the left, say). On the other hand, if you get some well-meaning but uninformed know-it-all who thinks they have the last word on ancient migrations into Melanesia and writes an article about it, citing some of the top sources in the field but getting it all horribly, laughably, mind-bogglingly wrong—then you have the lune on the right: a well-cited article that is pure OR. (Believe me, this happens.) Of course, a prankster could end up with the identical result, the only difference being intent: the prankster is a vandal, and the know-it-all is not. Mathglot (talk) 07:27, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Cyrillic script has the letters Я, Е, and Ю which make the sounds /ja/, /je/, and /ju/ respectively. Wouldn't this make it a semi-syllabary? I tried changing the script type twice and both attempts have been reverted. I just want to stop an edit war before it starts. 134.22.84.45 (talk) 23:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like it makes more sense to find a single reliable source that says this before you waste the time of others with an RfC. Have you pondered the so-called long vowels in English? Phonetic diphthongs are not an equivalent concept to moras, which is what syllabograms represent. Everyone can notice edge cases, that's why we only write based on RS, and not fun characterizations editors just came up with. Remsense诉23:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's just that the existence of the "backwards R" and the other 2 letters makes the traditional "alphabet" classification a little inaccurate. Once again, I want to prevent an edit war. (Oh, and I apologize for my tone that might have made it sound like I was playing the victim. Saints Cyril and Methodius probably aren't rolling in their graves over 3 letters.) 134.22.84.45 (talk) 23:55, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A syllabary is based on syllables. In Russian, Я, Е, Ю, when used word-initially or after a vowel, do not have to and are not intended to represent syllables, they only represent a '/j/ + vowel' sequence, regardless of its relationship to syllables. E.g.: он ел ('he ate'), /jel/ is a single syllable, it's not /je.l̩/. As far as I see, this idea about a semi-syllabary can be rejected completely. (It is also problematic that the idea seems to be based on equating cyrillic with Russian cyrillic. In truth, multiple cyrillic alphabets don't have Я and Ю letters at all, and E can behave differently. Maybe Russian cyrillic might somehow count as a semi-syllabary, but Serbian or Macedonian certainly can't.) — Phazd (talk|contribs) 03:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To return to your original question: Cyrillic is *definitely* not a syllabary, anymore than the English (Latin) alphabet represents a syllabary. You are confusing the name of the letter (how it is pronounced when reciting the alphabet) with the sound it represents when reading written text aloud containing those letters. English is not a syllabary, just because we call the letters #2 and 4 BEE and DEE, or #10 and 11 JAY and KAY. None of those four letters are part of a syllabary, and neither are the letters Я, Е, and Ю. As far as labeling it a semi-syllabary, see Semi-syllabary. Trying to shoehorn Cyrillic into that group is doomed, as original research. Hope this clears things up. Mathglot (talk) 23:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By pure fluke, I was editing Homograph just now and happened upon File:ES1845_keyboard.jpg (retrospectively inserted above for your viewing convenience). But it is a user-generated layout, not a pic of an actual keyboard. And it is probably for a Soviet era ES PEVM PC. Would it do for now? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:00, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am new to wikipedia editing and have no idea how to make a legend for this, so I figured I'd post the topic here for somebody more experienced to correct.
There are two maps in "usage of cryllic versus other languages" and one of them has a legend while the other does not. The data for the legend information is in the image description but not on the article. Please let me know if this is corrected or how to fix this error. Thanks. Brellaface56 (talk) 00:48, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
level-3 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg?lang=en){kind=small}
