Misplaced Pages

talk:Romanization of Russian: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 07:43, 24 August 2011 editMiszaBot II (talk | contribs)259,776 editsm Archiving 4 thread(s) (older than 60d) to Misplaced Pages talk:Romanization of Russian/Archive 3.← Previous edit Latest revision as of 16:51, 9 December 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,317,535 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 2 WikiProject templates. (Fix Category:WikiProject banners with redundant class parameter)Tag: Talk banner shell conversion 
(115 intermediate revisions by 33 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{WikiProject Russia|class=project|lang=yes}}
{{Shortcut|WT:RUS}} {{Shortcut|WT:RUS}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K |maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 3 |counter = 4
|minthreadsleft = 5 |minthreadsleft = 4
|algo = old(60d) |algo = old(90d)
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Romanization of Russian/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Romanization of Russian/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{WikiProject banner shell|
{{Archives |search=yes |bot=MiszaBot II |age=20 |units=days }}
{{WikiProject Misplaced Pages essays}}

{{WikiProject Russia|lang=yes}}
== Double letters ==
}}

{{Archives |search=yes |bot=MiszaBot II |age=3 |units=months}}
The only reason to discuss the Cyrillic ''е'' at all is to say that the combination -йе- is to be transliterated -ye- not -yye-. By changing this, we can get rid of several lines in the table which say effectively "follow the BGN transliteration". Similarly, the lines which explicitly say "follow BGN except" are unnecessary; all we need are the cases where it doesn't. Doing this will not ''change'' guidance atr all; it will just make it much easier to comprehend. ] <small>]</small> 14:37, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
:Can you please clarify if you are suggesting adding a section dealing with the -йе- combination in addition to simplifying the "e" section, or if you are suggesting simplifying the "e" section and not mentioning -йе- at all? This combination is very rare, so it's probably not worth being covered separately.
:Another instance of double letters the guideline fails to mention in its current form is the "-ые" ending. The current practice is to romanize it as "-ye" ("y" for "ы" and "e" for "е"), not "-yye" ("y" for "ы" and "ye" for "е")&mdash;see, for example, ]. Unlike -йе-, this combination is very common and is worth being covered, ''but'' (things are never easy, are they) it is seldom romanized as "ye" in the middle of the words, only when it's an ending. Otherwise it would be impossible to distinguish "{{lang|ru|въезд}}" from "{{lang|ru|выезд}}" and their numerous derivatives.—]&nbsp;•&nbsp;(]); June&nbsp;23, 2011; 15:15 (UTC)
:::I'm proposing to ''replace'' the ''e'' section with a -йе- section. I would have no objection to a -ые section in parallel. But the rest of ''e'' only repeats BGN. ] <small>]</small> 20:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
:::: ] <small>]</small> 15:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
::::: I added the rule for "-ые" ] (]) 09:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

== Ё (ё) ==

===Yo-yo===
Our actual practice, independent of this guideline, appears to be to Romanize ё as ''e'' and to transcribe it as ''yo''; that's also what most Romanizations do:
*'''Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev''' ({{lang-rus|Михаил Сергеевич Горбачёв|r=Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachyov|p=mʲɪxɐˈil sʲɪrˈɡʲejəvʲɪtɕ ɡərbɐˈtɕof|a=ru-Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev.ogg}};
Let us take this as ''default''. As usual, we can vary from the default for good reasons. ] <small>]</small> 14:37, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
:Gorbachev isn't a good example. His last name is spelled with "e" not because it's an exception to the default romanization table, but because that's what you end up with if you go through the steps outlined in the "People" section. Do you have a better example?—]&nbsp;•&nbsp;(]); June&nbsp;23, 2011; 15:24 (UTC)
::And so do most other people and places. ] <small>]</small> 20:26, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
:::People, maybe. At least those who have coverage in the English-language sources. There are also plenty of people who meet our notability criteria, but the coverage is in the sources which are not in English. The omnipresent soccer players who, unfortunately, manage to pass our notability tests, are the best illustration.
:::Places, not so much. The easier the use of "ё" can be documented, the more likely we are to see a push to using "yo" and not "e". From what I've observed, our articles gradually migrate to the variants with "yo", not the other way around. {{small|(And no, it wasn't me who moved them ''all'' :))}}—]&nbsp;•&nbsp;(]); June&nbsp;23, 2011; 20:46 (UTC)
::::Because you move them, relying on the former text of this guideline? ] <small>]</small> 20:49, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
:::::See the fine print above.—]&nbsp;•&nbsp;(]); June&nbsp;23, 2011; 20:56 (UTC)

Instead of examples we would need statistics. WP:ROMRUS is meant to document most common deviations from BGN/PCGN found in English language publications. Maybe this is a case where people are treated different to places. For people a lot of "-ёв" -> "-ev" seems to be documented. What about place names, what about non-endings? ] (]) 17:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
:Where does it say ''ROMRUS is meant to document most common deviations''? This page is meant to guide WP editors on how to provide 'English' versions of Russian names to a largely non Russian-speaking audience. I think the purpose of choosing variations from the over-academic system is to make the spelling less intimidating to that audience while continuing to give an idea of the pronunciation. Anyway we could not easily find statistics to answer some of the questions we might pose.
:I can understand the idea of a specific rule that says "-ёв" -> "-ev" (and "-ёва" -> "-eva" ) but if that is adopted it should be an exception to a general rule of ё -> yo. I expect there are more cases of Fyodor than Fedor, for example, and the "yo" indicates how the name/word is pronounced (so I prefer ] to stay put). ] (]) 19:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
::One of the ways in which this rule "intimidates" is by providing our readers with versions of well-known people and places which they have not seen before. It is not necessary for Romanizations to indicate pronunciations, any more than it is necessary for native English spellings to do so (], anybody?). ] <small>]</small> 20:26, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
:::My reference to "intimidating" is the same as yours: unfamiliar strings like "yy" in ''Sosnovyy Bor'' mean nothing to a non Russophone reader and if we can do without them so much the better. The average reader will assume that a name that has been rendered into script readable in English conveys the rough pronunciation. There is nothing we can do with ] or ] but we can help by using ] and ] rather than the alternatives. Subject always to the ''common English name'' rule. ] (]) 12:03, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
::::I don't feel helped by reading a page about ''Oryol'', which means nothing to me. I've heard of Orel; I know something about it. What we should do is to indicate that Orel, like Gorbachev, is not pronounced as it is spelt.

::::''Fyodor'' is another question; it is now the conventional and customary spelling, understood by most readers. Therefore one necessary step is to indicate that the ''default'' spelling (whichever it is, even the BGN ''ë'') should rarely be used. ] <small>]</small> 13:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
::::: @Sussexonian "''Where does it say ROMRUS is meant to document most common deviations?''" - My understanding was, that WP:ROMRUS is a deviation from BGN/PCGN and that the differences to BGN/PCGN that WP:ROMRUS contains are commonly found. Ezhiki wrote: ''The "simplifications" were the observations of real-life usage, both indirect and direct'' . ] (]) 13:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

=== WP:ROMRUS Ё rule has been removed ===

The ] Ё rule has been removed , that would mean articles need to be moved now? ] (]) 13:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
:Not until we have a consensus guideline (which we don't), that requires their being moved. Even if we did, that would only apply to articles which don't have a customary English title. ] <small>]</small> 23:27, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
::@customary English title - of course. So how can we get Ё out of the way. Maybe even without consensus, I mean, some people may just stay with different opinions. Shall there be a vote about Ё treatment? ] (]) 18:41, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

=== Ё summary 2011-June ===
As far as I can see there are
* ]: '''Yë (yë) + Ë (ë)'''
** supported by:
*** indirectly via the removal of the old WP:ROMRUS rule
* Old ], from start of the page in 2005-12-14 , modified 2006-01-02 , removed 2011-06-24 : '''Yo (yo)'''
** supported by:
**# Ezhiki
**# Sussexonian
**# Bogdan (only for procedural reasons, no opinion on the rule itself)
* Personal name based suggestion: '''E (e)'''
** supported by:
**# Pmanderson
] (]) 10:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

=== Voting on Yo rule re-introduction for procedural reasons ===
The Yo rule that existed since 2005/2006 should be added back to WP:ROMRUS for procedural reasons and to allow the WP romanization system to be back in policy status. The Yo rule existed since at least 2005/2006. Since the rule affects a lot of article names, its removal or change should be discussed and if people cannot get a consensus a voting should be done.

;Support re-introduction of the 2005/2006 Yo rule for procedural reasons:
* ] (]) 10:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
* ] (]) 16:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC) as there is no consensus for its removal and because there is no consensus what would replace it.
*the discussion above demonstrates that it has only one substantive opposer, and therefore removal of the clause is not consensus. Texts of amendments should ''be'' consensus; when adopted and preferably thereafter. When amendments have no consensus, the usual practice is to retain the existing wording.—]&nbsp;•&nbsp;(]); June&nbsp;29, 2011; 16:56 (UTC)
* ] ] 16:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

;Oppose re-introduction of the 2005/2006 Yo rule for procedural reasons:
*the discussion above demonstrates that it has only one substantive supporter, and therefore is not consensus. Texts of guidelines should ''be'' consensus; when adopted and preferably thereafter. ] <small>]</small> 14:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

;Neutral
*When any rule is being seriously questioned, it should either be removed, or have an "under discussion" tag, while the discussion is on-going. ] (]) 21:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

=== Voting on Yo rule re-introduction for substantive reasons ===
;Oppose Yo rule re-introduction for substantive reasons:
*In most cases, including almost all (all?) of the common -ёв ending, the English is -''ev'', not -''yov''. In many of the other uses of Ё, the prevalent English is ''e'', not ''yo''. ] <small>]</small> 14:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
*I think it's better to have no rule at all, than to have a poorly justified one. We should be trying to ]. ] (]) 20:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
** Comment: No rule ''in the table'' of WP:ROMRUS would mean to invoke BGN/PCGN, i.e. using Latin Ë (ë) and Yë (yë). ] (]) 22:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
***Not really.. no rule means no rule. The accepted policies and guidelines would still apply.. in particular ] would probably dominate for most cases, which doesn't give explicit preference to BGN/PCGN. ] (]) 22:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

;Neutral to Yo rule re-introduction for substantive reasons:
* ] (]) 20:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

===WP:ROMRUS Ё rule 2011-June re-introduction===
I re-inserted the rule. Ezhiki and Pmanderson, two opposing parties (on Ё treatment, this is not a statement about the procedural matters) did edit in WP in the last 24 h, but didn't come here two vote. I just want to accelerate the process to get this page back to policy status. The current Ё rule documents current usage in en WP. If policy change is wanted, please try to get a majority via the talk page. ] (]) 16:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

== Where we are ==

OK, now that Mlm42 has closed his RfC, can we do something about the mess the rest of the discussion has become? I've been involved with this from day one, and now even I can't make out what's going on and where. I ] to keep track of all the proposals voiced so far, and more suggestions came in since I had last updated that list. The list is obviously too long and contains some of the proposals people to whom they are attributed to probably no longer wish to pursue, but there is no indication on this page that they have been retracted. Can we perhaps do a shorter version of it and tally the supports/opposes to each item? It would be pretty similar to the last several threads on this page, except it should also account for the proposals and opposition voiced before those threads started to materialize. I just can't think of any other ways to organize the discussion without dismissing all points of view, although I am, of course, open to alternative suggestions. Change-as-we go approach exercised so far is obviously not working&mdash;can you imagine someone who's just joined being able to figure out what's going on here?—]&nbsp;•&nbsp;(]); June&nbsp;24, 2011; 16:54 (UTC)
:This is one advantage of a divide: there's only one pressing question on this page: the ''default'' Romanization of ё. All the rest are tweaks. ] <small>]</small> 17:06, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
::Not exactly. The fate of the conventionality cause hasn't been decided yet either. You, I take, are for removing it altogether, while me and some other participants are for amending it, although each has his/her own opinion as to how exactly the final version should look like. There's no consensus on this by a long shot.
::With the rest, even though they are mostly tweaks, it's still helpful to have them documented in one place rather than to hunt them down all over this page.—]&nbsp;•&nbsp;(]); June&nbsp;24, 2011; 17:13 (UTC)
:::What do you mesn by conventionality case? If you mean
:::•In absence of documentation supporting one of the criteria of conventionality, articles can be moved to the spelling produced using the WP romanization of Russian.
:::I'm for banning any editor who acts on it; but it's at ] in all its bossy and unidiomatic splendor; not ''here''. How strongly any default spelling should be enforced is separate from what the default should be. ] <small>]</small> 17:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
::::WP:NCRUS is itself only one proposal as to how to go about that clause. Whether the split is even necessary is debatable.—]&nbsp;•&nbsp;(]); June&nbsp;24, 2011; 17:38 (UTC)
:::::We have 1) Misplaced Pages's "default" romanization of Russian, and 2) Misplaced Pages's naming conventions for Russian articles. Before, they were split as two sections of the same page, and now they are split into two different pages. I think having two different pages makes more sense because it more clearly separates the talk page discussions. Although the two are obviously related, I think it's helpful to keep the discussions (and arguments) separate whenever possible. ] (]) 00:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
::::::Not to forget that some WP:RUSSIA related naming conventions were only contained in ], so in fact there were two pages before. The WP:NCGN content is now copied to WP:NCRUS. ] falls into ] and WP:NCRUS falls into ]. ] (]) 07:25, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
:Mlm says ... ''it more clearly separates the talk page discussions.'' The bulk of ''this'' talk page concerns matters that are in NCRUS, and currently there is ], although there are more live issues to be sorted there than here.

:The discussion about gazeteers and dictionaries overlaps with the one about 'iy' and 'y' and other rules. If ''any'' English source such as an atlas can be used to claim the existence of a "common" English spelling, then we will rarely use ROMRUS at all for place names. And someone would have to change thousands of article names to insert an apostrophe for every soft sign etc. We would be better making ROMRUS simply mirror BGN/PCGN for consistency.

:We need to know, is ROMRUS only going to be used for "obscure" people and places, which have no coverage in English outside reference books, or will it be used frequently, with only the most common cases like Tchaikovsky etc standing as exceptions? In the first case we should go for a scholarly ROMRUS and in the latter case we should go for something user-friendly for the casual Misplaced Pages reader.

:Or we could just assume that the vast majority of articles are properly titled already and put the pages back how they were. ] (]) 14:40, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Where we are? Except for Ё treatment the page is ready to be tagged as guideline or policy again. Or is there any other issue with the WP romanization? Maybe the easiest is to document current use in the guideline, then no pages need to be moved. After that, the people that want to change Ё treatment can gather support and try to change the longstanding Ё rule. ] (]) 18:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

== Romanization table ==

I am in favour of restoring the whole table in some form, rather than only include the "List of differences from BGN/PCGN". This could simply be in the form "In all cases except as listed below Аа -> a; Бб -> b ..." with no need for examples, but it will increase the likelihood of this guideline being used by non experts as well as Russian experts, and non-regulars will already have been passed from one page to another before arriving here (or at NCRUS if that split is kept). I don't see the point in sending the user to ] when we can provide all the information here. ] (]) 18:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
:Hear, hear.—]&nbsp;•&nbsp;(]); June&nbsp;24, 2011; 18:06 (UTC)
::That would be reasonable, if it is kept ''short'', so that people don't have to search the table. For example, I commend "Ее -> ''e'' or ''ye''" rather than specifying at length which is which; those who aren't sure can follow the link. ] <small>]</small> 22:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
:::There were inconsistencies regarding the WP:ROMRUS deviations from BGN/PCGN mentioned in the text and those mentioned in the table. A good way to avoid inconsistencies is to always have only one statement about a particular difference between BGN/PCGN and WP:ROMRUS. In that case one would have to choose between text and table. Having it only in text, would lead to no table or to a pure BGN/PCGN table. Having it in a full alphabet table would lead to the deviations being dispersed. Maybe a full table can be restored having a column that allows sorting on the deviation, so anyone who wants to see the deviations can have them in one place. Another <strike>and maybe more elegant</strike> solution is to have a complete list of vowels and the hard and soft sign. No need for sorting and it still will be quite compact. But with E and Ё removed the number of letter having differences in treatment is now lower. Under the logic that led to the removal of E and Ё, one could also remove Ы, leaving only hard and soft sign and vowel combinations. ] (]) 13:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
::::Please do remove Ы. ] <small>]</small> 00:14, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
:::::It would depend on the logic of the table. It could list all letters that under some situations are treated differently. If done that way, the corresponding rows could be inserted into the BGN/PCGN table as replacement. Since there are some situations where Ы is treated different from BGN/PCGN the row could be kept. But since и and й have been removed it is inconsistent to keep ы. What is nice, is that with these removals the table is easier to read. When ы is removed only hard and soft sign and vowel digraphs are contained. ] (]) 07:18, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
::::::It may be ''easier to read'' but it is harder to implement. I have no idea why sections of the table have been removed as there has not been debate about changing WP practice, (other than some debate, but certainly not agreement, about Ё). If anyone is going to suggest changes they need to state whether the changes are to bring the table into line with WP practice or proposing to change WP practice, if so why and how many articles they think would be disrupted. ] (]) 09:28, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
:::::::I added examples for Ы in BGN/PCGN. Now it is visible that the romanizations differ, i.e. the row has to stay anyway. ] (]) 11:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

== Abbreviations ==

"Abbreviations are usually romanized with capitalization as indicated" - what does "usually" mean? When not? This is one more unclear rule. ] (]) 13:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
:I presume it means "unless there is a common English rendering". But if a Russian entity is not normally abbreviated in English, I'm not sure why we would want to do so in an article.
:Another related case is academic citations such as "Yu. A. Ivanova", but they too vary in English usage and we would want to keep the style found in the source. I guess the main reason for the sentence is to clarify that the style shown is acceptable in Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 09:49, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
::I will change to "unless there is a common English rendering". But maybe for consistency it could be removed completely, since if something is established it will be mentioned anyway. This part would belong to WP:NCRUS. ] (]) 11:04, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

== Й (й) ==

I re-inserted Й (й) since BGN/PCGN differs, I added an example for the difference to make this fact more obvious. ] (]) 18:23, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

== Bringing WP:ROMRUS to guideline or policy level ==

If the Ё rules are added back, then WP:ROMRUS could be taken to guideline level? It can then be discussed how and if the Ё rules need to be changed. I think this is the only pending dispute on the enWP romanization rules? After that, we can look how to organize ]. ] (]) 18:27, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Now the Ё rule is back. I would like to tag WP:ROMRUS as policy now. Any opposition? ] (]) 16:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
:For the record, I'm generally content with the current wording, although I'd say to wait until July&nbsp;9 to mark the page as a standing guideline (July&nbsp;9 will be one full month since the original RfC). Of course, if there's additional input in the meanwhile, that can always be extended as necessary.
:Also, from what I gather, there is no opposition to reinstating the full romanization table for ease of reference (do correct me if I've missed something).—]&nbsp;•&nbsp;(]); June&nbsp;28, 2011; 17:27 (UTC)
::I object to reinstate the full table. It makes the differences to BGN/PCGN harder to find. All consonants are equal, most vowels too. Mostly only certain two letter combinations are treated differently. "ease of reference" could also be claimed by those that want only a diff table. ] (]) 01:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
:::Sensible. ] <small>]</small> 14:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
::::I don't understand how having a full table would make locating the differences from BGN/PCGN any more difficult. The differences are documented in a separate column, and on the lines where there is nothing to document (which is most of the lines) that column's cells will be empty. I'd argue that such a setup makes the differences ''easier'' to find (they really stand out among all those empty cells), not harder. Besides, it's not the differences this table is going to be consulted for most often; it's to find out how to romanized something properly according to our guidelines. As Sussexonian previously mentioned, that'd require jumping between several pages, making the guideline less usable.—]&nbsp;•&nbsp;(]); June&nbsp;29, 2011; 14:49 (UTC)
::::: Currently I can see all rules on one screen. Otherwise I have to scroll. Adding more than 20 lines of '''non''' differences in between the differences of course makes locating the differences harder. That's simple logic. If the table ''only'' has the differences, one knows that ''each'' line documents a difference. Only in your setup one would need to look for specific lines.
::::: Maybe you remember that the old version of ROMRUS had a listing outside the table to summarize the differences. Exactly because they were not easy to find. And these two places of documenting differences were not in sync.
::::: "require jumping between '''several pages'''" You are again diving into drama, it's only '''two pages''', BGN/PCGN linked in the intro sentence, very easy to go to. ] (]) 11:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
::::::Well, the intent of the guidelines is to guide. The page will be used most often not by you or me (or by people curious how exactly our guideline is different from the BGN/PCGN's), but by those who don't remember the romanization rules by heart and need help. Those folks are better served by seeing the whole conversion table. It's not exactly an easy task to reconcile what ] says with what this page says, when all you have to work with is the differences. If ease of locating the differences is your only concern, then I suggest we use two tables&mdash;one as a letter-to-letter romanization guide (for people like Sussexonian), and the other one to document the differences (for you and other curious folk).—]&nbsp;•&nbsp;(]); June&nbsp;30, 2011; 18:37 (UTC)
::::::: Two tables - fine with me. But please list the diffs first and make the diff list the normative one, while the full one is only descriptive, or how ever one would call that. ] (]) 20:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


== -ev, -yov == == Romanization of его ==


Can we please change the rule for Г(г) to clarify that (contrary to what I have found in several WP articles) ''его'' is pronounced ''yevo'', never ''yego''? It has been too many decades since I took an elementary Russian class for me to want to write the rule, but IIRC it applies not only to ''его'', but to a lot of related words, as well. ] </sup></span>]] 03:48, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
I object to the rule which makes normative a transliteration of Ё as ''yo''. When this page was discussed together with ] others did also. It seems obvious that its treatment should be context dependent (spell Fyodor as ''Fyodor'', as default, unless there is some reason not to; but spell -ёв endings as -ev (as most of them are). ] <small>]</small> 20:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
:While I agree with your sentiment, I'm not aware of any transliteration that makes an exception for words like его, so it would be original research. ] (]) 20:12, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
: Who beside you? Maybe the user can be added to ] and maybe you can vote at ]. I personally have no opinion, but for procedural reasons favor reinsertion. Maybe a rule "-ev" for names would be ok for all? I would be fine with that. ] (]) 01:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
::You can pronounce whatever you want: book-stylish with shapened noticeable "г", or casualy – without it. Because this morning this lanuage wasn't about phonetical terrorism of foreign speakers. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 18:32, 10 October 2021 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::That would be a great improvement; add a sentence that other exceptions may exist, and I would join the consensus. ] <small>]</small> 14:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
:While Г(г) in many places is pronounced as a hard G (Грозный = Groznyy), there are many words where it has the sound of v or h. сегодня = sevodnya, not segodnya. Петерго́ф = Peterhof, not Petergof. Гамлет = Hamlet, not Gamlet. It jars every time I read a bad translation in Misplaced Pages. (I understand that Misplaced Pages is following BDN/PCGN, but if the intent is to give an accurate transliteration, garbling the word's pronounciation doesn't achieve this.) ] (]) 00:40, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
::I suppose one could athe question the other way: Is there something (a person, place, etc) which has a -ёв ending, and has a widely accepted English-language name ending in -yov? Because if not, then we should seriously be questioning it's use as the default.. because there are quite a few -ev endings that are widely accepted. ] (]) 01:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
::: At least Britannica is using http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/433662/Oryol UPDATE: sorry this is not answering the question by Mlm24, since it does not end in -yov. ] (]) 09:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC) ::Both «Петерго́ф = Peterhof» and «Гамлет = Hamlet» are against modern literary Russian. Perhaps, you are implying southern dialects or pidgins like surzhik. ] (]) 16:27, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
:Transliteration of the written word is not transcription of pronunciation. For the latter, see ]. &nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 18:04, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
::::Not just Britannica. I should have mentioned this before, but it completely slipped my mind: transliterating "ё" as "yo" is also the recommendation of the ''Oxford Style Manual'' (section 11.41.2 "Transliteration"), although at the same time they recommend to transliterate it as "o" after "ж", "ч", "ш", and "щ", which isn't something often seen in use in real life. In practice, this prescribes to transliterate the "-ёв" ending as "-yov" except in "-чёв" and "-щёв", which would become "-chov" and "-shchov" ("-жёв" and "-шёв" endings are invalid or very rarely encountered in last names). I suspect Britannica follows that style guide&mdash;while their Gorbachev entry is under "Gorbachev" (presumably because that's the most common one), their entry on Pugachyov is under "Pugachov" and they routinely use "Chorny" when they mean "Chyorny".
::::Incidentally, the "-ий" and "-ый" endings are also covered (the recommendation is to use "-y" in proper nouns or titles).—]&nbsp;•&nbsp;(]); June&nbsp;29, 2011; 14:42 (UTC)
::::::That's perfectly sensible - as transliteration. ] <small>]</small> 14:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
:::::Hmm.. but Oryol doesn't end in -yov. My question was to find a ''widely accepted English language name'' whose ending is "-yov", as romanized from "-ёв".. are there any? The Oxford Style Manual is a single source, and isn't itself enough to determine what is widely accepted.. ] (]) 17:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::: I am sorry, for my mistake that is does not end in -yov. ] (]) 10:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
::::::But why is this important? We are supposed to research the spelling of each individual person's name anyway (either per WP:COMMONNAME or per the conventionality criteria for people in the pre-RfC WP:RUS) and use ''that''. The default "-yov" is only going to be used for people who meet the notability criteria, but have no coverage in English sources. Including a note about the last names ending in "-ёв" seems completely redundant to me.—]&nbsp;•&nbsp;(]); June&nbsp;29, 2011; 17:19 (UTC)
:::::::Even if such people do have notability, why should they be spelled differently than 99 out of 100 people with the same ending who are mentioned ''once'' in English sources? ] <small>]</small> 21:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
::::::::I'm merely questioning the wisdom of setting something as the "default", when there appears to be no individual case where the "-yov" ending is widely used.. if it's not actually used, then in my opinion, it shouldn't be the default.
::::::::And the default shouldn't only be when we have ''no'' English coverage, but also when a significant proportion of English sources ''disagree''. ] (]) 22:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
::::::::: Using "-ev" for personal names would make the naming of people more consistent within WP. But I would like to know, how many articles are affected. Is it 10 000 articles VS 10 like Gorbachev, Khrushchev ....? Maybe in sum "-yov" is widely accepted?
::::::::: Also I think Ezhiki is wrong by saying ''The default "-yov" is only going to be used for people who meet the notability criteria, but have no coverage in English sources.'' - because notability is not needed for being mentioned in articles. ] (]) 11:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::: @Mlm if sources disagree should we ever use a method that isn't supported by any (or a minority) of sources. Perhaps we need a clause that says in the event of disagreement consider in order;
::::::::::#Method WP
::::::::::#Method BGN
::::::::::#Method X
::::::::::#Method Y
::::::::::#Method Z
:::::::::: And use the first method that is used by the conflicting sources? ] (]) 12:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::: This belongs to ] or WP:COMMONNAME. The talk here is about "Method WP" (]). ] (]) 15:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::Yes, but the only reason "-yov" is being used on so many Misplaced Pages articles is because the old WP:RUS has been enforced for several years, with some editors following it very strictly.. so we can't really use that as evidence that it's "widely accepted". And of course, we're at a stage now that reliable sources may be inclined to use Misplaced Pages's spelling, so it becomes a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy. ] (]) 16:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::The "-yov" ending is used in so many Misplaced Pages articles also because it is far from being so uncommon as the editors in this thread seem to imply. Also, a part of the reason of why the "-ev" spelling is more prevalent is because there exist quite a few last names for which (in Russian) only the ending is different (and, consequently, the stress). "{{lang|ru|Лещёв}}" is a common last name, but "{{lang|ru|Ле&#769;щев}}" is also valid. Spelling the latter via "-yov" would, of course, be absolutely incorrect, so the bias is very much one-sided. In all, I'm pretty confident that for ''any'' Russian last name ending in "-ёв", one could find English sources which uses "-yov", and the number of the said sources will not be negligible.
::::::::::As I stated above, I'm against a separate provision for the "-ёв" endings simply because no manual of style I am familiar with has such a provision. Spelling of the last names via "-ev" is predominantly caused by the optional nature of the letter "ё" in Russian, not per any style guide or as a conscious effort. If we fancy ourselves being accurate, we should make an effort to ensure that the transliterations we use are accurate as well, not go with the flow and codify a common mistake just because it happens to be so common. Every other exception to BGN/PCGN we have so far documented on this page can be traced back to at least one formal recommendation; the "-ev" thing is the only one we are homebrewing on our own (whereas "-yov" flows from the general rule of transliterating "ё" as "yo"). I tend to side with Stuart on this&mdash;identifying a list of methods to apply in questionable situations would a better approach than trying to re-invent the wheel.—]&nbsp;•&nbsp;(]); June&nbsp;30, 2011; 18:19 (UTC)
I think the burden of proof lies with editors who claim that one or the other variant is more common. I'm no expert, so I don't know, but given the evidence that has been provided so far on this page, it seems to me that "-ev" is the more common and widely accepted ending in English than "-yov". I think this discussion can only proceed effectively if editors bring forward more ''evidence'' to support their claims. This applies not only to this one ending, but the letter "ё" in general (or any other disputed romanization, for that matter).


== Pre-reform spellings ==
Also, Stuart's comment acknowledges that we should probably still have a "Misplaced Pages default" set of rules, which I think is the point of all this discussion. ] (]) 21:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
:I'm not disagreeing with you about the burden of proof at all; in fact, as far as people names go, the pre-RfC WP:RUS heavily emphasized just that. The problem only exists when no English sources are available for an otherwise notable person, in which case our default is as good of a choice as any. My argument is to stick with "-yov" as a default because that's a more accurate approach. The "-ev" ending can be observed so often because when people transliterate Russian last names, they rarely bother checking whether the letter "е" is indeed a "е" or if it's in fact a "ё". If we strive to be a reliable encyclopedia, we should do better than that. There will, of course, be cases where making 100% sure whether a letter is a "е" or a "ё" is difficult to accomplish, in which case using "e" is perfectly fine (at least until more information is available), but to consciously transliterate "ё" as "e" when we know for sure it's a "ё" is just sloppy. That "everyone else is doing it" is not a good excuse, in my opinion. A commonly made mistake is still a mistake.—]&nbsp;•&nbsp;(]); July&nbsp;1, 2011; 15:09 (UTC)
::I agree with all this; although making an exception in favour of "-ev" looks reasonable, it could lead to a whole list of other exceptions: every Мария to be Maria not Mariya, for example, and the list of exceptions would be continually up for debate. There will always be cases where the Misplaced Pages default will produce a different spelling from the commonly accepted English version, and that can't be avoided. ] (]) 20:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
:::Thank you. Those aiming to codify every little exception often forget about this.
:::It's important to remember that if we have to resort to any kind of default to resolve the situations which consulting the sources can't resolve, it matters very little what that default is, as long as it follows some reputable and reasonable guidelines. Thus it makes sense that the defaults should have a broad scope, or we'll keep spending most of our time trying to pin down more and more possible exceptions instead of doing actual productive work.—]&nbsp;•&nbsp;(]); July&nbsp;1, 2011; 20:52 (UTC)


Hi - do we have rules for transliterating pre-reform spellings? It's sometimes used as an affectation in modern works, particularly in the linguistics community. I was citing an article called {{lang|ru|Законъ Иткіна}} in the journal {{lang|ru|Труды Института русского языка им. В.В. Виноградова}} from 2014, and was unsure of the best way to go about transliterating the title in the reference. My inclination is that we should ignore hard signs at the end of words, but to otherwise follow ISO 9 (making this example Zakon Itkìna). ] (]) 15:11, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
I will do a draft of the sort of thing I would prefer: when there is no English writing on a subject, and no other strong reason for a particular transliteration, consider how other similar terms are transliterated; ''then'' use the default. This is, I hope, where this list comes from in the first place: noticing that ь is normally omitted in Romanization, and so on. ] <small>]</small> 21:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
:Added a . Feel free to amend, but with this addition I would have no trouble joining the consensus, no matter what was done with Ё in the table. ] <small>]</small> 22:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
::I took out the portion on "the usage of the subject in other Western European languages" from the "some other clear reason to use a particular spelling" line. To me, the whole line duplicates the intent of the line above (if there is some clear reason to use a particular spelling, then English already uses it), but the example itself I just don't understand. We are romanizing a Russian name to use the result in a text in English, so what do we care what other Western European (or, for that matter, any other) languages use? If a place is not covered in any English sources but happens to be covered a lot in, say, Swedish (perhaps because some Swedish researcher's dissertation is about villages in Central Russia), why would we use the Swedish name instead of romanizing the Russian one? Such approach may sometimes be appropriate for historical references (which are mostly outside the scope of this guideline), but why use this as a title of an article about a modern place?
::I also find the third bullet point about analogies too vague to be useful. If a famous person happens to have his/her last name spelled a certain way, why should it matter when choosing a spelling for the articles about completely unrelated people? Would we move someone like ] to "Tchaikovsky" because the last name is the same? {{small|I realize Ihor is Ukrainian, but am using him just for the sake of illustration}}—]&nbsp;•&nbsp;(]); July&nbsp;5, 2011; 17:29 (UTC)
:::I think that is right regarding "Western European" spellings, although there may be occasions, for example, where a Russian footballer signs for a German club and his name is published according to German romanization, which probably we should accept until the name becomes used in English media. But more importantly, these "method" rules should be in NCRUS for as long as the split is accepted, with this page documenting the WP romanization system and the other page defining the circumstances when it is to be used. ] (]) 23:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
::::I still don't understand. I can see how we could occasionally have situations where such a player is not covered by any English sources but is covered by many more sources in German than in Russian, in which case using the German spelling makes sense, but if there are more reliable sources in Russian than in German (perhaps if the player only signed up for one season and didn't do much beyond the ordinary playing), why would we still stick to German? Alternatively, why is the spelling in Western European languages more important than the spelling in, say, Eastern European languages (many of which also use the Latin alphabet)? What if the said player signs up for a Romanian or Polish club?
::::I do agree on the split, though.—]&nbsp;•&nbsp;(]); July&nbsp;8, 2011; 13:43 (UTC)
:::::There is no "we". I have no interest in the footballer question, but if an editor specializing in footballers creates such an entry I don't think "we" should spend time changing the spelling of that person when there is no good reason to do so. But I don't suggest placing such a rule on the page. In general if a Russian person has no coverage in English language, any article would probably be created from Russian sources so WPROM would be used, no question. ] (]) 09:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
::::::I don't have any interest in soccer players either, and what worries me isn't an occasional article that an editor specializing in soccer might put up under a (say) German spelling for no obvious reason. However, I'd be concerned if such an approach became systematic with this guideline serving as substantiation ("...but romrus says we are supposed to use the spelling in 'Western European languages'"; that kind of stuff). It'd be good to have an explanation of the reasoning behind the "Western European languages" choice, but I can see it's not forthcoming.—]&nbsp;•&nbsp;(]); July&nbsp;11, 2011; 14:02 (UTC)
:::::::I agree with Ezhiki. I would go even further and say that an article not named according to the NC can be renamed. A systematic approach helps to reduce errors, like duplicated articles, red links etc. E.g. if an article is at the German spelling then there is the possibility that there are red links due to missing redirects. There is also a higher chance of false links, because it gets undetected that there are two articles with persons having the same name in Russian, but residing around under different Romanized names. I would favor having a dab in these cases under the ROMRUS romanized name, not sure this is already mentioned in ]. ] (]) 13:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


:For transcribing bibliographic information, we should be consistent with libraries and most published sources, and use ], which includes the old letters. &nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 18:07, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
== Join WT:NCRUS - Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (Russia) ==
::Full ALA-LC would romanize it Zakonʺ Itkīna, or Zakon Itkina if we drop the diacritics as some publications do. Might make sense to use the first if referencing publications, but the latter if using the name in the text of an article. &nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 01:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
:::{{u|Mzajac}}, when writing the titles of pre-1917 sources, should we be updating the form to modern Russian or keep it in the original form? I was recently ] on my talk page. Cheers, – ] ''<sup><span style="font-size:75%">]</span></sup>'' 03:28, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
::::When mentioning them in the text I think fancy characters should be dropped for consistency with everything else, so the question is almost moot. For example, the ] ''ě'' (ѣ) becomes ''e'' which often reproduces modern spelling ''e'' (е), and the ] (ъ) is dropped anyway so inconsistency disappears. For cases where it still makes a difference, I can’t think of any guideline that helps decide. Either serves just as well to identify a work’s title. I would tend to keep it simple for the reader and stick with modern conventions.
::::For citing sources, in my opinion it’s more important to romanize the original spelling to identify them unambiguously. We can use full ALA-LC to be consistent with library cataloguing, or use modified ALA-LC as most publications do in their notes and bibliographies. Depends how hard you want to try, I think, and if we choose the simpler of those options the usage is more likely to remain consistent within and among different Misplaced Pages articles. &nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 16:34, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
:::::It's important to remember that there are some modern publications which intentionally use pre-reform spellings (e.g. the article I mention at the top of the thread), so it's not a universal rule that modernising the spelling will help in keeping the text uniquely identifiable. Seems like an area where common sense should generally prevail. ] (]) 16:59, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
::::::That’s true in all areas. Agreeing on a consistent general approach is also helpful in all areas.
::::::Certainly any name that self-consciously uses non-standard orthography is a special case to consider, whether it’s pre-reform Russian, capitalization like ], or ], or something else. &nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 17:16, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
:::::::Thanks for both of your responses!{{bcc|WikiEditor1234567123}} Best, – ] ''<sup><span style="font-size:75%">]</span></sup>'' 03:53, 23 July 2023 (UTC)


== "-iia" vs. "-iya" for Russian "-ия" ==
Invitation to join the talks at
* ]
* ]
* ]
They result from Russia related text imported to ] from ]
] (]) 09:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


Please weigh in ]. - ] ] 22:18, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
I've posted a courtesy notice at ] to inform about the continuing discussion both here and on the NCRUS talk page.—]&nbsp;•&nbsp;(]); July&nbsp;1, 2011; 15:16 (UTC)


== Motion to close == == Romanization of sources ==


Should the sources' author(s), location(s) and publisher(s) be romanized for the sake of making it easier for people who can't read Cyrillic text? As an example, {{harvnb|Месхидзе|1998}} would be {{harvnb|Meskhidze|1998}}. ] (]) 19:56, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Apart from Bogdan's remarks on July 28, it has now been three weeks since the last substantial comment. I motion to close this discussion.


:You mean in references in Misplaced Pages articles? Yes, romanizing the author’s name would follow common practice in English-language referencing. For title, chapter, work, and some other parameters you can enter, for example:
Having reviewed the comments so far, I would say that the new wording is mostly supported by all participants. The only point where some disagreement can still be seen is regarding the way we should treat the letter "ё". To that effect we have PMA's opinion that it should be romanized as "e" in most, if not all, cases, Sussexonian's opinion that it should be romanized as "yo" in all cases with the exception of the endings of the last names, Bogdan's and my procedural opinions that it should be always {{small|1=(where "always"="when this guideline is being applied directly", not "regardless of usage")}} be romanized as "yo" (as per the 2005/2006 rules), Greyhood's support for the 2005/2006 rule, and Mlm42's neutral !vote. I would say this is leaning to re-instating the 2005/2006 rule without any special provisions such as the endings of the last names. If anyone disagrees with this assessment, we can invite an uninvolved admin to re-evaluate the status of this particular item; otherwise I motion to remove the "-ёв" ending provision, remove the "under discussion" tag from the "ё" provision, move the Usage section to WP:NCRUS where it belongs and can be discussed in more detail, and change the status of this page to "active guideline". Note also that anyone feeling strongly about the "yo" clause is welcome to initiate a new discussion regarding just that clause&mdash;there's little point in holding up the whole guideline because of one item. Comments, clarifications, seconds?—]&nbsp;•&nbsp;(]); August&nbsp;2, 2011; 14:14 (UTC)
:* script-title= Красный голод: Сталинская война в Украине
:* title= Krasnyĭ golod: Stalinskai͡a voĭna v Ukraine
:* trans-title= Red Famine: Stalin's War on Ukraine
:See {{tl|citation}} and related template docs for the details. &nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 02:38, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
::Sure, "Romanization" from the word ]. Unreadable, unprintable and unsearchable. Strongly disagree. - ] ] 04:27, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
:::''Romanize'' is from the seventeenth century, derived from ''Roman'' which is inherited from Old English.
:::It’s readable, searchable, and printable on my computer and phone. Are you on a TRS-80?
:::Anyway, maybe we should drop the diacritics as most books and academic articles do in their citations:
:::* Krasnyi golod: Stalinskaia voina v Ukraine
:::&nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 18:35, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
:::: ] was an irony about lots of diacritics. I sure know the term.
:::: Search: when I google search "stalinskai͡a", it gives me 13 hits of "stalinskai͡a". When I search "stalinskaia" google also suggests "stalinskaya" and gives thousands of hits. From that I conclude that when google sees lost of diacritics it turns on exact match. - ] ] 19:08, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
:::::What has google web search results on one romanized word to do with how reliable sources romanize Russian-language references and what we should do about it? &nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 20:43, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
:::::: It has to do with my objections to fancy romanizations I stated at the beginning of this chat thread and they have to with the convenience of usage by Wikpedia readers. Just like IPA renderings, they are of use only for experts. AFAIU the main goal of romanizations is to provide searchability for users who want to read about the subject in English sources. And keywords such as "stalinskai͡a" effectively defeat this purpose. - ] ] 22:05, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
:::::::Citing sources for the convenience of readers means readers can find the sources. Never mind the fancy diacritics; just drop them. Using ALA-LC without diacritics in citations serves that purpose well. Using something else does not. (And the diacritics do work if you copy-paste them.) &nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 03:12, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
::Whilst I agree in principle with romanising the title, it's my understanding that ] is preferred for all cases of Russian romanisation on Misplaced Pages. Since it's an essay, perhaps you could initiate a move towards a more systematic and academic romanisation system rather than the ''ipso facto'' one English Misplaced Pages uses. – ] ''<sup><span style="font-size:75%">]</span></sup>'' 04:59, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
:::In fact ] is based on ]. Most notable difference is avoiding diacritics. Aslo WP:RUS contains some clumsy decisions (imo), such as Синий = Siny; Великий = Veliky, creating confusion with Y (y) used for Ы (ы) and Й (й), leading to ] vs. ]. IMO ] is nearly good to go as a guideline after some updates/discussion, based on experience. Also, IMO there must be distinction in rules for (faithful) transliteration of ''Russian phrases'' and ''Russian ]s'', which can be used as article titles/search keywords. Indeed, I can find "Suyk-Su" using Google but not BGN/PCGN version "Su·yk-Su" . Also, Sovetskai͡a (by LOC system) looks weird compared to ], etc. - ] ] 05:39, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
::::Indeed WP:RUS is based off BGN/PCGN, though the special rules (or clumsy decisions as you termed them) as well as the omission of diacritics make WP:RUS unique and inconsistent with official romanisation systems. Whilst omitting diacritics may be okay for ease of reading, I'm of the view that those arbitrary rules should be stricken for the sake of consistency. – ] ''<sup><span style="font-size:75%">]</span></sup>'' 07:52, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
:::::Well, at least on one point we agree. Since you have a proposal, why don't you open a ] on this? - ] ] 18:46, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
:::Regardless of general romanization and WP:RUS, references should probably use LOC (ALA-LC) romanization either with or without diacritics, for titles of works, authors, etc. The former is used in practically all English-language libraries, and the latter in citations and bibliographies in most English-language books and academic papers. &nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 18:27, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
::::H-m-m, while I can agree about libraries, books and papers are rather chaotic in this respect, at least in my area of interests. - ] ] 19:08, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
:::::I find that surprising. I can’t think of a serious history book I’ve referred to that doesn’t use ALA-LC. Some of my books at hand with Russian, and flipping to the first pages of notes:
:::::* Plokhy 2023, ''The Russo-Ukrainian War: The Return of History'', Norton. ALA-LC dropping the tie bars but retaining ï=ї, э=ė, ъ=”, ь=’, but not й=ĭ. For example, p 305:
:::::** Mikhail Gorbachev, ''Zhizn’ I reformy'', . . . “Obrashchenie k sovetskim grazhdanam. Vystuplenie po televideniiu prezidenta SSSR.”
:::::* Yekelchyk 2020, ''Ukraine: What everyone needs to know'', Oxford University Press. ALA-LC dropping all special characters. For example, p&nbsp;187:
:::::** Andrei Illarionov, “Putin schitaet, chto chast Ukrainy dolzhna prinadlezhat Rossii,” ''Ukrainskaia Pravda''.
:::::* Yekelchyk 2007, ''Ukraine: Birth of a Modern Nation'', Oxford University Press. “Note on Transliteration,” p&nbsp;xiii, and p&nbsp;229, 231:
:::::** In this book, Ukrainian place and personal names are transliterated using the simplified Library of Congress system with soft signs, apostrophes, and diacritical marks omitted throughout.The masculine ending “-yi” is shortened to “-y,” and initial rotated vowels are rendered with “y” rather than “i.”
:::::** ''Istoriia Ukrainskoi RSR''
:::::** P.&nbsp;P. Tolochko, ''Kochevye narody stepei i Kievskaia Rus''
:::::* Wilson 2002, ''The Ukrainians: Unexpected Nation'', Yale University Press. “Preface,” p&nbsp;xiv, and p&nbsp;337:
:::::** To make things easier for the reader I have used an adapted Library of Congress system for transliteration, keeping diacritical marks and distinctive lettering (Pochaïv not Pochaiv), but ignoring soft signs (therefore Khmelnytskyi not Khmel’tyts’kyi and Viacheslav not V”iacheslav), although I have kept them in the footnotes for reference purposes.
:::::** Igor’ Froianov, ''Kievskaia Rus’''
:::::* Magocsi 1996, ''A History of Ukraine: The Land and its People'', University of Toronto Press. “Preface,” p&nbsp;viii:
:::::** Transliteration from languages using the Cyrillic alphabet follow the Library of Congress System
:::::* Subtelny 1988, ''Ukraine: A History'', University of Toronto Press. ALA-LC dropping specials. E.g., pp&nbsp;573–74:
:::::** ''Arkheologiia Ukrainskoi RSR''
:::::** “Zapiska o drevenem iazike Russkom,” ''Izvestiia otd. russkogo iazika i slov. Akad. Nauk''
:::::&nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 00:53, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
::::::In your examples there are no weird diacritics I was talking about, and without them translit looks defective. "iazika" - really? - ] ] 01:12, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
:::::::Yes, really. ] is used for cataloguing by every English-language library in the world. So it is used in bibliographies and academic citations.
:::::::What kind of sources have you found to be “chaotic” in their use of romanization? &nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 03:06, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 16:51, 9 December 2024

Shortcut

This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconMisplaced Pages essays
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Misplaced Pages essays, a collaborative effort to organize and monitor the impact of Misplaced Pages essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.Misplaced Pages essaysWikipedia:WikiProject Misplaced Pages essaysTemplate:WikiProject Misplaced Pages essaysWikiProject Misplaced Pages essays
Note icon
The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.
WikiProject iconRussia: Language & literature
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Misplaced Pages.
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
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by the language and literature of Russia task force.

Archives
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Romanization of его

Can we please change the rule for Г(г) to clarify that (contrary to what I have found in several WP articles) его is pronounced yevo, never yego? It has been too many decades since I took an elementary Russian class for me to want to write the rule, but IIRC it applies not only to его, but to a lot of related words, as well. Peter Chastain 03:48, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

While I agree with your sentiment, I'm not aware of any transliteration that makes an exception for words like его, so it would be original research. 162.208.168.92 (talk) 20:12, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
You can pronounce whatever you want: book-stylish with shapened noticeable "г", or casualy – without it. Because this morning this lanuage wasn't about phonetical terrorism of foreign speakers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.242.2.80 (talk) 18:32, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
While Г(г) in many places is pronounced as a hard G (Грозный = Groznyy), there are many words where it has the sound of v or h. сегодня = sevodnya, not segodnya. Петерго́ф = Peterhof, not Petergof. Гамлет = Hamlet, not Gamlet. It jars every time I read a bad translation in Misplaced Pages. (I understand that Misplaced Pages is following BDN/PCGN, but if the intent is to give an accurate transliteration, garbling the word's pronounciation doesn't achieve this.) 73.189.125.249 (talk) 00:40, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Both «Петерго́ф = Peterhof» and «Гамлет = Hamlet» are against modern literary Russian. Perhaps, you are implying southern dialects or pidgins like surzhik. Tacit Murky (talk) 16:27, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Transliteration of the written word is not transcription of pronunciation. For the latter, see Help:IPA/Russian.  —Michael Z. 18:04, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Pre-reform spellings

Hi - do we have rules for transliterating pre-reform spellings? It's sometimes used as an affectation in modern works, particularly in the linguistics community. I was citing an article called Законъ Иткіна in the journal Труды Института русского языка им. В.В. Виноградова from 2014, and was unsure of the best way to go about transliterating the title in the reference. My inclination is that we should ignore hard signs at the end of words, but to otherwise follow ISO 9 (making this example Zakon Itkìna). Theknightwho (talk) 15:11, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

For transcribing bibliographic information, we should be consistent with libraries and most published sources, and use ALA-LC romanization for Russian, which includes the old letters.  —Michael Z. 18:07, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Full ALA-LC would romanize it Zakonʺ Itkīna, or Zakon Itkina if we drop the diacritics as some publications do. Might make sense to use the first if referencing publications, but the latter if using the name in the text of an article.  —Michael Z. 01:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Mzajac, when writing the titles of pre-1917 sources, should we be updating the form to modern Russian or keep it in the original form? I was recently asked this on my talk page. Cheers, – Olympian 03:28, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
When mentioning them in the text I think fancy characters should be dropped for consistency with everything else, so the question is almost moot. For example, the yat ě (ѣ) becomes e which often reproduces modern spelling e (е), and the hard sign (ъ) is dropped anyway so inconsistency disappears. For cases where it still makes a difference, I can’t think of any guideline that helps decide. Either serves just as well to identify a work’s title. I would tend to keep it simple for the reader and stick with modern conventions.
For citing sources, in my opinion it’s more important to romanize the original spelling to identify them unambiguously. We can use full ALA-LC to be consistent with library cataloguing, or use modified ALA-LC as most publications do in their notes and bibliographies. Depends how hard you want to try, I think, and if we choose the simpler of those options the usage is more likely to remain consistent within and among different Misplaced Pages articles.  —Michael Z. 16:34, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
It's important to remember that there are some modern publications which intentionally use pre-reform spellings (e.g. the article I mention at the top of the thread), so it's not a universal rule that modernising the spelling will help in keeping the text uniquely identifiable. Seems like an area where common sense should generally prevail. Theknightwho (talk) 16:59, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
That’s true in all areas. Agreeing on a consistent general approach is also helpful in all areas.
Certainly any name that self-consciously uses non-standard orthography is a special case to consider, whether it’s pre-reform Russian, capitalization like iPhone, or e. e. cummings, or something else.  —Michael Z. 17:16, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for both of your responses!​ Best, – Olympian 03:53, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

"-iia" vs. "-iya" for Russian "-ия"

Please weigh in Talk:Korenizatsiia#Requested_move_21_August_2023. - Altenmann >talk 22:18, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Romanization of sources

Should the sources' author(s), location(s) and publisher(s) be romanized for the sake of making it easier for people who can't read Cyrillic text? As an example, Месхидзе 1998 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFМесхидзе1998 (help) would be Meskhidze 1998 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFMeskhidze1998 (help). WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 19:56, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

You mean in references in Misplaced Pages articles? Yes, romanizing the author’s name would follow common practice in English-language referencing. For title, chapter, work, and some other parameters you can enter, for example:
  • script-title= Красный голод: Сталинская война в Украине
  • title= Krasnyĭ golod: Stalinskai͡a voĭna v Ukraine
  • trans-title= Red Famine: Stalin's War on Ukraine
See {{citation}} and related template docs for the details.  —Michael Z. 02:38, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Sure, "Romanization" from the word Română. Unreadable, unprintable and unsearchable. Strongly disagree. - Altenmann >talk 04:27, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Romanize is from the seventeenth century, derived from Roman which is inherited from Old English.
It’s readable, searchable, and printable on my computer and phone. Are you on a TRS-80?
Anyway, maybe we should drop the diacritics as most books and academic articles do in their citations:
  • Krasnyi golod: Stalinskaia voina v Ukraine
 —Michael Z. 18:35, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Română was an irony about lots of diacritics. I sure know the term.
Search: when I google search "stalinskai͡a", it gives me 13 hits of "stalinskai͡a". When I search "stalinskaia" google also suggests "stalinskaya" and gives thousands of hits. From that I conclude that when google sees lost of diacritics it turns on exact match. - Altenmann >talk 19:08, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
What has google web search results on one romanized word to do with how reliable sources romanize Russian-language references and what we should do about it?  —Michael Z. 20:43, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
It has to do with my objections to fancy romanizations I stated at the beginning of this chat thread and they have to with the convenience of usage by Wikpedia readers. Just like IPA renderings, they are of use only for experts. AFAIU the main goal of romanizations is to provide searchability for users who want to read about the subject in English sources. And keywords such as "stalinskai͡a" effectively defeat this purpose. - Altenmann >talk 22:05, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Citing sources for the convenience of readers means readers can find the sources. Never mind the fancy diacritics; just drop them. Using ALA-LC without diacritics in citations serves that purpose well. Using something else does not. (And the diacritics do work if you copy-paste them.)  —Michael Z. 03:12, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Whilst I agree in principle with romanising the title, it's my understanding that WP:RUS is preferred for all cases of Russian romanisation on Misplaced Pages. Since it's an essay, perhaps you could initiate a move towards a more systematic and academic romanisation system rather than the ipso facto one English Misplaced Pages uses. – Olympian 04:59, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
In fact WP:RUS is based on BGN/PCGN romanization of Russian. Most notable difference is avoiding diacritics. Aslo WP:RUS contains some clumsy decisions (imo), such as Синий = Siny; Великий = Veliky, creating confusion with Y (y) used for Ы (ы) and Й (й), leading to Russian battlecruiser Pyotr Velikiy vs. Russian ironclad Petr Veliky. IMO WP:RUS is nearly good to go as a guideline after some updates/discussion, based on experience. Also, IMO there must be distinction in rules for (faithful) transliteration of Russian phrases and Russian proper names, which can be used as article titles/search keywords. Indeed, I can find "Suyk-Su" using Google but not BGN/PCGN version "Su·yk-Su" . Also, Sovetskai͡a (by LOC system) looks weird compared to Sovetskaya, etc. - Altenmann >talk 05:39, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Indeed WP:RUS is based off BGN/PCGN, though the special rules (or clumsy decisions as you termed them) as well as the omission of diacritics make WP:RUS unique and inconsistent with official romanisation systems. Whilst omitting diacritics may be okay for ease of reading, I'm of the view that those arbitrary rules should be stricken for the sake of consistency. – Olympian 07:52, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Well, at least on one point we agree. Since you have a proposal, why don't you open a WP:RFC on this? - Altenmann >talk 18:46, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Regardless of general romanization and WP:RUS, references should probably use LOC (ALA-LC) romanization either with or without diacritics, for titles of works, authors, etc. The former is used in practically all English-language libraries, and the latter in citations and bibliographies in most English-language books and academic papers.  —Michael Z. 18:27, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
H-m-m, while I can agree about libraries, books and papers are rather chaotic in this respect, at least in my area of interests. - Altenmann >talk 19:08, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
I find that surprising. I can’t think of a serious history book I’ve referred to that doesn’t use ALA-LC. Some of my books at hand with Russian, and flipping to the first pages of notes:
  • Plokhy 2023, The Russo-Ukrainian War: The Return of History, Norton. ALA-LC dropping the tie bars but retaining ï=ї, э=ė, ъ=”, ь=’, but not й=ĭ. For example, p 305:
    • Mikhail Gorbachev, Zhizn’ I reformy, . . . “Obrashchenie k sovetskim grazhdanam. Vystuplenie po televideniiu prezidenta SSSR.”
  • Yekelchyk 2020, Ukraine: What everyone needs to know, Oxford University Press. ALA-LC dropping all special characters. For example, p 187:
    • Andrei Illarionov, “Putin schitaet, chto chast Ukrainy dolzhna prinadlezhat Rossii,” Ukrainskaia Pravda.
  • Yekelchyk 2007, Ukraine: Birth of a Modern Nation, Oxford University Press. “Note on Transliteration,” p xiii, and p 229, 231:
    • In this book, Ukrainian place and personal names are transliterated using the simplified Library of Congress system with soft signs, apostrophes, and diacritical marks omitted throughout.The masculine ending “-yi” is shortened to “-y,” and initial rotated vowels are rendered with “y” rather than “i.”
    • Istoriia Ukrainskoi RSR
    • P. P. Tolochko, Kochevye narody stepei i Kievskaia Rus
  • Wilson 2002, The Ukrainians: Unexpected Nation, Yale University Press. “Preface,” p xiv, and p 337:
    • To make things easier for the reader I have used an adapted Library of Congress system for transliteration, keeping diacritical marks and distinctive lettering (Pochaïv not Pochaiv), but ignoring soft signs (therefore Khmelnytskyi not Khmel’tyts’kyi and Viacheslav not V”iacheslav), although I have kept them in the footnotes for reference purposes.
    • Igor’ Froianov, Kievskaia Rus’
  • Magocsi 1996, A History of Ukraine: The Land and its People, University of Toronto Press. “Preface,” p viii:
    • Transliteration from languages using the Cyrillic alphabet follow the Library of Congress System
  • Subtelny 1988, Ukraine: A History, University of Toronto Press. ALA-LC dropping specials. E.g., pp 573–74:
    • Arkheologiia Ukrainskoi RSR
    • “Zapiska o drevenem iazike Russkom,” Izvestiia otd. russkogo iazika i slov. Akad. Nauk
 —Michael Z. 00:53, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
In your examples there are no weird diacritics I was talking about, and without them translit looks defective. "iazika" - really? - Altenmann >talk 01:12, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Yes, really. ALA-LC romanization for Russian is used for cataloguing by every English-language library in the world. So it is used in bibliographies and academic citations.
What kind of sources have you found to be “chaotic” in their use of romanization?  —Michael Z. 03:06, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Categories: