Jump to content

Talk:Branislaw Tarashkyevich

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Name

[edit]

Suggest renaming of article to Branisłaŭ Taraškievič. This variant of the name uses Belarusian Latin alphabet alphabet and does not require to be romanised from Cyrillic. Beside this, this is the way how this person signed his works written in the Belarusian latin alphabet: File:Branisłaŭ Taraškievič - Biełaruskaja gramatyka dla škoł, 1931.jpg (with the only difference that w is not used now in Belarusian anymore and is replaced by v). —zedlik (talk) 12:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Cyrillic)#Belarusian explicitly states that "Lacinka [is] not to be used". And there's a good reason for that, as stated in the article Łacinka: "It is not, as such, the Romanisation system, as it imposes knowing certain accompanying orthographic conventions. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 17:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the way of transliteration, this is the name which, besides others, is used in the English-language literature. Please, see the references to the printed books in the article. For the variant "Branislaw Tarashkyevich" no sources in the book search are available. —zedlik (talk) 03:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@TaalVerbeteraar: The Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Cyrillic)#Belarusian only applies "When no commonly accepted form exists in English". Renaming the article to the BGN transliteration violated WP:COMMONNAME, or at least that's how I see it.
Additionally, the BGN/PCGN romanization of Belarusian scheme is designed to be ambiguous without the use of interpunct characters and apostrophes, which Wikipedia doesn't seem to bother to use in its articles, such as Mikhas Lynkov (it should have been "Mikhas' Lyn'kow" per BGN if one wanted to play the naming conventions card in the same manner as you do, but apparently the WP:COMMONNAME policy was selectively applied there).
Whereas Łacinka is commonly used in practice outside of Wikipedia, it's perfectly standardized via a ton of educational materials (such as school textbooks from 1920s), a lot of Belarusian books and newspapers had been published using it. It's non-ambiguous and reversible from/to Cyrillic, assuming that the conversion is done for the valid Belarusian words. You shouldn't be surprised to see the use of Łacinka as a common spelling for Belarusian names in published English books. --Ssvb (talk) 13:41, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]