Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Romanization of Russian

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia talk:RUS)
Shortcut

"-iia" vs. "-iya" for Russian "-ия"

[edit]

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

Romanization of sources

[edit]

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 would be Meskhidze 1998. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 19:56, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You mean in references in Wikipedia 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)[reply]
Sure, "Romanization" from the word Română. Unreadable, unprintable and unsearchable. Strongly disagree. - Altenmann >talk 04:27, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.[1] Using something else does not.[2] (And the diacritics do work if you copy-paste them.)[3]  —Michael Z. 03:12, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia uses. – Olympian loquere 04:59, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 loquere 07:52, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Yes, really.[4] 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)[reply]

Ship names

[edit]

Just to confirm things. A ship named after Friedrich Engels should use the common name in English rather than the direct Russian transliteration? Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:04, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, later — if it is controlled by the Russian Navy. Tacit Murky (talk) 02:09, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I focus more on warships, so yes.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:34, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

{{Naming conventions}}

[edit]

Hi @162 etc., thanks for your revert. Do you think this page should be removed/changed from the {{Naming conventions}} template? FaviFake (talk) 19:30, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Although it is not a naming convention, the existing link does help editors find some kind of guidance when it comes to the romanization of Russian. I'd keep it. 162 etc. (talk) 20:56, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ok thanks! FaviFake (talk) 22:29, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Although some disagree with it, but it does help us to have some consistency. --Altenmann >talk 23:27, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Romanization_of_Russian&oldid=1303876872"