Thanks for your reaction, Stas. I understand what your saying, but I think it's quite arbitrary to use English transliteration. In my opinion transliteration should be unbiased and impartial, like those international (ISO) standards are. Wikidata provides a possibility to enter national standards Shchedrin (English), Sjtsjedrin (Dutch), Chtchedrin (French) and Schtschedrin (German) as aliases. So why not use the ISO-standard as the main form?
best regards, Eric. Stas Malyshev schreef op 2015-04-22 22:10: > Hi! > >> maybe French and German too). Problem could be that these standardized forms >> lead to diacritic characters (e.g. hacek on 'c' & 's'; Чайковский ---> >> Čajkovskij and Щедрин ---> Ščedrin). Is wikidata able to deal with these? > > As a native Russian speaker I can say transliteration like Ščedrin would > look very unusual for Russian-speaking person (assuming they have > experience at all with non-cyrillic transliterations, which most > internet users do). Something like Shchedrin looks more familiar and > seems to be much more common. While letters like ч and щ can indeed > generate some long combinations which are not very visually appealing, I > think it is more common than diacritics, which most people I think would > struggle with. > > As for Hebrew, there are standard transliteration rules, which look a > bit weird since they are not phonetical but rather base on spelling and > distinguish some letters that all but lost their phonetical distinction > in modern Hebrew (such as kaf and kuf) - but they are frequently used > for signs, street names, maps, etc. These rules have been recently > updated but old ones still are used from time to time. See more at > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanization_of_Hebrew [1] Links: ------ [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanization_of_Hebrew
_______________________________________________ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
