Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Romanization of Russian/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Old talk

Thanks, Ëzhiki, this is the way to go.

This sort of system is used by a lot of publications and web sites for Slavic names in English, although in practice it has so many exceptions that it isn't strictly a transliteration system. Such publications often simply cite "a modified BGN/PCGN system", or feature a simple table plus a list of simplifications (eg, -ський: -s’kiy→-sky) and exceptions (eg, personal names are anglicized: Piotr→Peter). I've tried to describe such a system in those terms at Romanization of Ukrainian#Conventional romanization of proper names. Starting with a standardized system, and summarizing the modifications with their rationale seems clearer and more concise to me than such a complex table with so many unexplained exceptions.

Academic publications may also use one or more strict transliteration systems to present Slavic words, as opposed to simply naming people or places in English text. —Michael Z. 2005-12-14 19:06 Z

Thanks, I've been studying the Ukrainian portion for some time now—there are plenty of good ideas there. I'll be commenting at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Cyrillic) as more ideas come to mind.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 19:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Streamlined

I've streamlined the table, so it looks a bit more like a transliteration table, instead of a summary of all possible transliteration systems. Much of the redundant clutter is replaced by a note at the top that says "use conventional names". Exceptions are also summarized in the note with examples. I simply removed items with no example (this table has been around for quite a while). —Michael Z. 23:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

–ий endings

–ий endings | -y or -iy

Can we not pick one or the other? It's just not transliteration if the editor can choose according to his whim. —Michael Z. 2006-01-3 00:57 Z

My suggestion: let's always transliterate -ий as -iy. —Michael Z. 2006-01-3 01:08 Z
  • It will no longer be an exception to normal letter-for-letter BGN/PCGN transliteration
  • It will be distinct from -ый endings which become -y (normal BGN/PCGN: -yy)
In theory, it's a good suggestion, which I totally support; however, cases with "-ий" being transliterated as "-y" are all too common to be ignored, which is why I mentioned this exception in the first place. Still, let's add this suggestion to the "new translit system" proposal when we are ready to draft it. The only problem I see is that while we will get rid of the currently too complicated "-iy/yy/y rule", we'll still need to add a clause about "common English usage" for cases when "-ий" is traditionally transliterated as "-y".—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 16:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Okay, but I'm hoping the one "common English usage" note at the top of the article will suffice. We can certainly offer more examples to support or encourage such usage.
What do you think of the rather radical reorganization I've done to the table? I'm confident I haven't changed any of the technical features, but I think its nature is much clearer now, for either novices or editors who are already familiar with transliteration. —Michael Z. 2006-01-3 17:08 Z
Somehow I missed your massive update before posting my previous comment. I think it looks splendid—nothing is lost, and the structure makes the table oh so much more readable. Thanks for your hard work—I am sure if it was not for you, little would be done to improve this table.
Re-addressing your concern regarding "-(i)y"—since intro now mentions common English usage, I think it perfectly covers the cases when "-ий" is transliterated as "-y".—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 17:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Yer makin' me blush! Thanks for the comment. Please have a look at it carefully when you have a chance—to make sure I haven't screwed up the details. I did add the rule for е after й straight out of the BGN/PCGN standard, which still needs an example—was that one omitted for a reason? —Michael Z. 2006-01-3 17:42 Z
You do deserve the compliments, because in almost two years you've been the only person who actually contributed anything useful to this article/policy instead of blindly criticizing it.
Per your request, I reviewed the article one more time and made some minor corrections. I commented the е after й rule out, because I am not really sure what it is supposed to mean. The only example that comes to mind is "Йемен" (the Russian name of Yemen), which, according to this particular BGN/PCGN rule, would be rendered as "Yyemen" (and, of course, it does not make much sense to transliterate the name of this country from Russian). I do not remember omitting this rule on purpose, but I guess I did so because it is pretty much useless since there are virtually no Russian words that utilize the "йе" combination (although I would imagine that some Russian geographic locations may bear names from native languages that would employ "йе"). Anyway, I will uncomment it back if I (or someone else) find a good example.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 18:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
How about representing "-ий" simply as "-i"? i.e. Yuri Dolgoruki, Alexander Nevski, Yuryev-Polski, etc.
Kazak 01:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
The tradition to transliterate '-ий' as '-y' came from rules of transliteration of Polish surnames and does not represent neither Russian pronounciation, nor Russian spelling.Nixer 11:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
And the proof of that is?—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 12:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Proof of what? That it does not represent neither Russian pronounciation, nor spelling? If you speak Russian, you know it without "proof".Nixer 07:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Of course I do, but please cite something regarding the other portion of your statement. How do you know that the rule comes from Polish and not, say, from Mongolian? Irregardless of where it comes from, why is it a problem if it is used? This transliteration rule is commonly used in English-language publications; if it works for Anglophones, it's all that matters. So far no single English-speaking editor complained; you seem to be inventing a problem and doing all complaining for them.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 12:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
iy or y are well established transliterations and i isn't. Why tamper with it?--Spartaz 08:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Why do people ask for citations and yet not provide them, themselves? I'm sick of one-sided debates. Kazak's and Nixer's comments are valid and should be met by citations NOT requests for citation. M-72 06:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

M-72, note that unlike this, this page is not an encyclopedic article, but a Wikipedia guideline, hence the attribution requirements are not the same. Also note that the existing convention is largely based on very common BGN/PCGN romanization system (documented in this book), while the systems Kazak and Nixer suggested were pure original research (otherwise they would have been able to refer to something similar to the BGN/PCGN document). If you read the rest of the discussions on this page, as well as at WP:CYR, you'll see that the general consensus is to create a Wikipedia romanization guideline based on (or using) one of the existing romanization methods, not to create one from scratch. It seems rather obvious to me that despite some discrepancies WP:RUS meets that consensus. What point of this discussion do you want us to provide a citation for? If it's regarding the "-ий" and "-ый" endings being rendered as "-y" instead of something else, I am afraid there is no direct citation. A quick look at the English-language reference materials, media, etc. should, however, be sufficient to see that "-y" is indeed widely used ("Oktyabrsky" in Britannica, "Leninsky Prospekt" in Washington Post, "Krasny Vostok" in Forbes, etc., etc.). This isn't to say there are no other variants, or that this one is the only one correct, but you should remember that since it's a Wikipedia guideline we are talking about, we should standardize on something. It makes all the sense to standardize on what is already being widely used.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

WT, Ь as Y???

It makes it hard sign, not soft! Elk Salmon 14:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The use is traditional.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 15:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Traditional use is '. Elk Salmon 01:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
It's not traditional, it's conventional :) We, however, do not use apostrophes in Wikipedia when transliterating Russian, unless absolutely necessary. Please note that for Anglophones y works better. Also, if you haven't already, take a look at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Cyrillic), where problems with the current Russian transliteration convention are discussed among other things.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 02:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
It is traditional and conventional :) y makes sound hard. It is incorrect. Even, I see such interpretation first time in my life in this article. It is always ', except of documents (what is wrong). Илья - Ilya(=Иля). Should be Il'ya or more correct Ilia(от русского Илия), but this is not about transliteration.Elk Salmon 08:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I see your points, but they have been debated (many times) before. Please go to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Cyrillic) and add your concerns there. For now, the romanization guidelines stays as it is.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 13:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Eduard or Edward

I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask, but which is the correct one to use, for example for Эдуард Успенский? Esn 02:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Eduard Uspenskiy Elk Salmon 12:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Eduard Uspensky is equally correct.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 12:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Eduard if the transliteration is important, but in many cases it can just be translated as Edward for the sake of smooth reading (like Aleksandr→Alexander, Yosif→Joseph, etc.). —Michael Z. 2006-06-06 17:34 Z
True. With human names, however, it doesn't really matter at the moment. It would, however, be practical to include a clause into WP:CYR regarding this. We should either be always transliterating Russian names, or always translate them (when they are translatable; it wouldn't apply to a name such as Yegor, of course), or set criteria determining the notability factor/common English usage (i.e., if criteria are passed, then translate, otherwise transliterate). I am not overcomplicating this, am I?—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 18:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps the notes about "conventional names" at Wikipedia:Romanization of Russian#Use conventional names should be moved up to WP:CYR, as they should probably apply to all of the languages. —Michael Z. 2006-06-06 19:51 Z
Good idea.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 20:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone here ever given a thought about the rights of the individual? My first name can be transliterated about 12 ways into Russian Cyrillic. My surname two. I have a preferred way for both. The reverse also applies. I frequently "massage" translations from Russian into English, when names are involved I always try and check as to the preferred spellings in "latin script" of the individual. Invariably it depends on whether German or English was their school second language. To do otherwise is an insult to the individual. Names are important! Forget rules and look to the person. M-72 05:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

That's precisely my point as well (and also one of my proposals for WP:CYR)—the variant an individual prefers and uses is the variant we should be using. However, when individual's preference is unknown or when an individual simply has no preference, we must make a choice as to how that individual's name should be romanized. That's where the romanization guidelines kick in. In any case, spelling can always be changed later when/if more information comes to light. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Romanization of Russian

Wouldn't it be nice if we had a sytem of Russian romanisation that could be used which would allow readers to determine the Russian pronunciation unambiguously? Can we work on something like that?—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 01:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Nat, first of all, do you mean pronunciation or spelling? You can use IPA for pronunciation; it's the only accepted way, really. If you meant spelling, then both ALA-LC romanization for Russian and scientific transliteration provide means for unambiguous transliteration. Unfortunately, they are poorly suited for use in Wikipedia (especially in titles) due to heavy use of diacritics. As for developing a system of our own, it would not be acceptable due to no original research policy. Current system is already customized (it was adopted well before anyone was concerned with OR), and the fact that this customization was arbitrary was (and continues to be) a subject of numerous disputes. Imagine the fires around an uncommon system built from scratch—it would be a complete disaster! Finally, there is nothing preventing us from including the names in original Russian, so whatever ambiguities the transliteration system introduces, they can easily be bypassed by just looking at the Russian spelling. In any case, if this subject interests you, you might find WP:CYR (and its discussion page) worth reading.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 03:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I meant pronunciation. It seems to me that the goals of a system of romanisation in our circumstances should be 1) that it be suitable for use inside standard text and titles (which IPA is not, due to the large number of non-English characters); 2) that it contain accurate phonetic information about the word being recorded; and 3) that, if possible, it should imply approximately correct pronunciation to speakers of the target language (in this case, English). I don't think making alterations to the system we are currently employing constitutes original research at all. NOR is an important rule, but one that refers to statements of facts and opinions appearing in our articles. The spelling of a word is never going to constitute original research—it's purely an issue of style. Seeing as there is already a modified system ostensibly in place, this seems like even less of an issue.•Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 06:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Nat, even putting the problem of original research aside, WP:RUS's main purpose is to deal with transliteration, not with transcription. I am not very well versed in whether or not anything besides IPA is acceptable to show pronunciation, but I was under impression that it is not. One can always use that silly "system" many American dictionaries use (OO-glitch for Uglich, for example), but it's hardly unambiguous and is too tied to the English pronunciation to be truly useful. I believe the proper place to raise this point is on pages revolving around IPA usage and its alternatives, not here.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me that the purpose of a system of romanisation (or Cyrillicisation, etc.), if one is going to bother being at all systematic about it, is to accurately represent either native spelling or phonemic pronunciation (or both). It's true that we can accomplish this with the original Cyrillic letters in the first case or with IPA in the second case; however, if that's what we're going to do, then we don't require a system of romanisation. On the other hand, if we have a system for romanisation that clearly shows Russian pronunciation, then we don't need to include IPA, and we have a name that can be used in normal text, as well.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 00:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, no, that's not exactly the purpose of romanization. Take a look at BGN/PCGN romanization, on which WP:RUS is largely based. That system (as stated in the source) is used "primarily for the purpose of establishing standardized Roman script-spellings of those foreign geographic names that are written in non-Roman scripts or in Roman alphabets that contain special letters". Note that neither "accurately" nor "phonemic pronunciation" are present in that definition. Accuracy is somewhat sacrificed in BGN/PCGN because there is no way to provide accurate romanization without having to use special characters; those the system tries so hard to do away with. Still, as it's not accuracy that is the goal, but standardization, the system works fairly well, and since it is an established and commonly used system, Wikipedia uses it as well. The result is the system that combines elements of both transliteration and (in much lesser degree) transcription, and which serves a purpose different from that of those two.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) plays both ends against the middle! I'll not enter the discussion, but there is Transliteration. Transcriptioin and Translation! All hail Ëzhiki.!
If you have a point, then please make it. Talk pages are there for discussion, not trolling.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
As for IPA, I think it will be good idea, but... 1. Is any russian wikipedist to be perfect in IPA chart for Russian? 2. As the most of Russian phonems are different from those of English, possibly both charts, for Russian and simplified for English should be placed. But I think they should be added anyway, espetially for names containing zh digraph, like Svitazhsk.--Üñţïf̣ļëŗ (see also:ә? Ә!) 12:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Use Conventional Names

Khrushchyov→Khruschev: in my experience "Khrushchev" is the more conventional name, and the one used in the article about him. Gr8white 23:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

That was a typo, I believe. Thanks for pointing it out!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 01:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to re-define the criteria of conventionality

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The proposal was universally supported. —Nightstallion 22:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The following is a formal proposal to replace the criteria of conventionality outlined in the Conventional names section (permalink) of this guideline.

Place names

A conventional name of a place is the name listed in major English dictionaries and should be preferred over romanization at all times.

Clarifications
  1. If a dictionary lists several variants of the name, use the main one.
    Example: use "Moscow", not "Moskva"
  2. If different dictionaries list different main variants, use the one that's closest to the WP:RUS romanization guidelines.
    Example: suppose one dictionary lists the city of Тольятти under "Tolyatti" and another one—under "Togliatti". "Tolyatti" should be used as it is the variant produced by the WP:RUS guidelines.
  3. The WP:RUS variant must be mentioned in the lead in parentheses after listing the Russian name.
    Example: Moscow (Russian: Москва, Moskva)...
  4. The WP:RUS variant must be a redirect to the main article.
    Example: Sankt-Peterburg redirects to Saint Petersburg.
  5. If such a redirect cannot be set up due to a collision of meanings, a disambiguation page entry should be created instead.
    Example: Moskva cannot be a redirect to Moscow, but a link to "Moscow" is available at the "Moskva" disambiguation page.
  6. Names of places located in Russia must be romanized from Russian. If a place has a name in another official language, it is mentioned in the lead.
    Example: the name of the city of Уфа is romanized "Ufa". The Bashkir name "Öfä" is mentioned in the lead, but cannot be used as the main title.
    Rationale: spelling of names of Russian places used in English sources is normally derived from the name in Russian, as local languages are rarely employed in international communications.

People

A person's conventional name is defined by the criteria outlined below. When spelling is selected based on one of these criteria, it must be documented on the article's talk page. In absence of verifiable documentation, romanization produced by the WP:RUS guideline must be used.

  1. If the person is an author of works published in English, the spelling of the name used in such publications should be used. When multiple spellings are used and no single spelling clearly predominates, use the one closest to the WP:RUS romanization guidelines.
  2. If the person's preference of spelling of his/her name in English is known and can be documented, that spelling should be used.
  3. If the person is the subject of English-language publications, the spelling predominantly used in such publications should be used. A preference is given to publications in the area in which the person specializes. When no single spelling predominates, use the one closest to the WP:RUS romanization guidelines.
    Example: the article on figure skater Александр Геннадиевич Зайцев is located at Alexander Gennadiyevich Zaitsev (not "Zaytsev"), because "Zaitsev" is the English spelling used by the International Skating Union, Figure Skating Federation of Russia, and in other publications about the person (ref).
  4. Selecting the most frequently used variant based on a search engine test is not acceptable.
  5. When in doubt, use WP:RUS.
  6. The WP:RUS variant must be mentioned in the lead in parentheses after listing the Russian name.
    Example: Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev (Russian: Михаил Сергеевич Горбачёв, Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachyov)...
  7. The WP:RUS variant must be a redirect to the main article.
    Example: Nikita Khrushchyov redirects to Nikita Khrushchev.
  8. If such a redirect cannot be set up due to a collision of meanings, a disambiguation or name page entry should be created instead.
  9. Titles of disambiguation and name pages are always romanized using WP:RUS.
    Example: the name page listing people with the last name of "Зайцев" is to be located at Zaytsev, despite the fact that names of some people listed on the page are romanized differently (e.g., Alexander Gennadiyevich Zaitsev).
    Rationale: simplification of maintenance of disambiguation and name pages; consistency.
Clarifications
  • It is important to remember that only the spelling of names used in the English-language sources should be considered. If a Russian person is widely known, for example, in France but virtually unknown in the English-speaking world, the title of the article about him/her should be romanized using WP:RUS; French spelling should not be used.
    • French spelling can, however, be used if the person became a citizen of France and that spelling matches the person's official name.
  • Same condition applies to the personal choice of spelling—it should only be used when the person in question has a clear preference for the English spelling of his/her name.
  • In absence of documentation supporting one of the criteria of conventionality, any article utilizing a non-WP:RUS spelling can be moved to WP:RUS spelling. Editors performing such moves are encouraged to leave a notice on the articles' talk pages soliciting documentation and allowing a reasonable amount of time to get a response.

Submitted by Ezhiki.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Comments

  • support in general. Well-thought, so I have no immediate comments. May be later. ...It occurs now that a section about other proper names is due: organizations (sports clubs, businesses), book/movie titles, ec. (recalling an epidemy some time ago of naming/moving to Komitet Gosudarstvennoi Bezopastnosti, Gosudarstvennyj Universalnyj Magazin, Voyska PVO, etc. ) `'Míkka>t 18:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, I realized that other proper names would ultimately require sections of their own, but, unfortunately, I so far failed in my efforts to put together a balanced proposal to that effect. I am planning to continue working on that, though, and, providing no one beats me to it, will submit another addendum when ready. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Seems to cover all the bases and is well-balanced. EdJohnston (talk) 18:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Good concept. Will bring consistency to Russian names on WP. - Darwinek (talk) 18:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - Very well prepared, no suggestions at first reading. Apcbg (talk) 18:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Overall support but, for a person's name, I would suggest using the person's preference first. Bluap (talk) 19:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I thought about doing so, but there are cases when English publications predominantly use a spelling that is known to be different from what the person him/herself is known to prefer (sorry, can't think of a specific example off the top of my head right now). The rationale behind not using the person's preferential spelling in such cases is that an alternative spelling is likely to be better-known to readers and conforms to the spirit of the principle of least astonishment. As for the cases when person's preference matches the spelling prescribed by other clauses of this guideline prescribe, the order does not matter then as the result is not affected.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Overall support, but I don't like the Togliatti/Tolyatti recommendation. In my opinion, etymology of a placename should also be incorporated in the criteria for such cases (taking precedence over WP:RUS). The same should perhaps apply to the person names. --BeautifulFlying (talk) 00:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Actually, this is more of a hypothetical example. While many dictionaries list "Togliatti" as a valid variant, I have never seen one that used this spelling as primary. Considering that Tolyatti is the only city in Russia that has this dilemma, I included the clause in question just to be on the safe side in case this ever comes again (which, if it happens, would be for a much less prominent place, so defaulting to WP:RUS should not cause undesired problems).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 00:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
      • I disagree that this is just a hypothetical example. There are many placenames (broadly defined, that is including towns, rivers, lakes) in Murmansk Oblast and Karelia for which the Russian spelling was derived from Finnish/Saami. If reverted back to the Latin spelling using WP:RUS, they in many cases will loose the true original spelling: Куэтсъярви (Kuotsjarvi), Раякоски (Rajakoski) - just to name a couple that I found on the map. I'm sure there are more examples of the kind in other areas. --BeautifulFlying (talk) 01:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
        • The question is, in which cases the original spelling should have priority? Perhaps that ought to depend on the political status of the relevant (non-Russian, Roman alphabet using) language in the regions concerned. If the Karelian or Sami language has an official status in the respective territory, with road signs etc. written in those languages along with Russian, then one might contemplate giving priority to the original Karelian or Sami spelling. If it's Russian people there using place names of Karelian or Sami origins then it's Russian place names and WP:RUS should have priority. It would seem that rather the latter is the case. That's why e.g. the Russian version 'Vyborg' (never mind its origins) seems preferable to the Karelian 'Viipuri'. Apcbg (talk) 13:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Support looks very good to me.--Kuban Cossack 17:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Goudzovski (talk) 10:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Makes sense to me although I have always thought of that place as Togliatt1 ;-). Spartaz Humbug! 21:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Support This is very useful. I just had a case where my English language sources all were consistent, but did not match the WP:RUS. --Bejnar (talk) 22:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
I have added the section to the guideline; it is now in effect.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Letter ё following ж, ш, ч and щ, suggesting to transliterate as "o", not "yo"

I am surprised this has not been discussed.

Although, I agree with the convention to transliterate ё as "yo" in most cases, ё after ж, ш, ч and щ has another value, it's only used because of the Russian spelling rules but is in fact equivalent to "o". So, if names Хрущёв and Горбачёв were spelled Хрущов and Горбачов (as it is spelled in Ukrainian), it wouldn't make any difference in the Russian pronunciation. ч and щ are always palatalised, so letters ю, е, ё я and и don't palatalised them further. On the other hand, letters ж and ш are always unpalatalised and letters ю, е, ё я and и don't make them so. My point is, letter ё should be transcribed as "o" when in Russian, it follows ж, ш, ч and щ, thus making Gorbachov, Khrushchov, Pugachov(a), etc.

Some will argue, that this has been discussed, I beg to differ. Let me give an example: letter combination "ch" is transcribed in Russian as ч, when it matches the pronunciation but Charlotte is transcribed Шарлот(т) or Шарлотта to render the actual pronunciation. I suggest to amend the rule for combinations of letters ж, ш, ч and щ followed by ё and transcribe them as zho, sho, cho and shcho. --Atitarev (talk) 00:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Add ц to that list. While it makes some sense to consider the soft vowel letters as orthographic conventions rather than good pronunciation indicators, keep in mind that in English there is no real difference between chov and chyov. Would we neutralize all distinctions of hard/soft vowels after unpaired consonants? What about вращать, which would be pronounced identically if spelled вращять? — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 06:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to ask where this suggestion comes from and why is it even important for this guideline. We are looking at the romanization guidelines—a set of rules that is primarily based on transliteration (not transcription!) and which is intended first and foremost for standardization of the written form of the words written in a non-Latin script. The purpose of romanization is not to show a word pronunciation as accurately as possible (that's what transcription is for) and it is not to show the original spelling as accurately as possible (that's what transliteration is for); it is to create a system that would allow for standard and predictable practices of converting non-Latin scripts. WP:RUS in its present form does that job quite nicely. To complain that WP:RUS does not show pronunciation correctly is, in my opinion, just as silly as to complain, for example, that IPA rendition of a word completely screws up that word's spelling!
While any romanization system normally contains elements of transcription, I don't really see the need for inventing those elements ourself. Every single item currently in WP:RUS is either directly borrowed from the BGN/PCGN romanization system, or is adopted based on observed romanization practices. Is the "ё as 'o' after ж, ш, ч, and щ" rule a normal practice? Is it a part of some other commonly used romanization system? Can you show examples of English-language sources using this convention? Returning to perennial Mr. Gorbachev, how is spelling his name as "Gorbachov" justified? Why intentionally create a confusion by using the same spelling as a different (and also common) last name "Горбачов"? How is standardization improved by this? What are the benefits of tracking down and changing numerous references which would stop conforming to WP:RUS if this new rule is adopted?
All in all, the most important question is "in what way does this new rule benefit Wikipedia"?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the proposal. It correctly reflects Russian pronounciation. Use of "yo" after "ch" does not reflect neither Russian pronounciation nor spelling. For "Gorbachov" for example Google returns 374000 entries and for "Gorbachyov" only 6620. Cambridge Encyclopedia uses spelling "Belorussian SSR" and "Belorussian language" rather than "Byelorussian" etc.--Dojarca (talk) 14:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Does anybody even bother to read any of my comments? I think this is the fifth time in three days I am trying to re-iterate the main point: romanization has very little to do with pronunciaton and it is NOT intended to show pronunciation correctly. Its main purpose is to provide a scheme for standardization. In any case, if you folks are serious with this proposal, by all means go ahead and formally submit and announce it.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Wait a minute, Горбачов is a possible Russian name/word? Then we definitely shouldn't go with the proposed change. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 19:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Yup, it is. I actually had a neighbor with this last name. A quick Internet search would also show that the name is valid (although you'd have to sift through a lot of Ukrainian-language references).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Горбачов is a variant of Горбачёв and is also the spelling of president Gorbachev (Gorbachov) in Ukrainian, Bulgarian and other Cyrillic based languages but I think it's still preferable to romanise both versions as Gorbachov. Well, English y stands for ы, ый, ий and й, which is a bit of a problem, if you wished to convert back to Russian from the romanisation.
Ezhiki, thanks for your suggestion and I would appreciate your assistance in submitting a formal proposal. For those who don't know Russian the rules for deciding whether to write ё or о after ж, ш, ч and щ in Russian are sometimes complex, they also depend on whether it is in the stem or the suffix of a word but the phonetic value of either is identical, hence the difficulty in spelling for learners and even native speakers and this is the reason for variant spellings in some names and words. For example, the word "чёрт" (devil) can also be spelled "чорт" as was used by some authors, including Mikhail Sholokhov.
The value for Wikipedia? The knowledge, of course. English spelling Gorbachev and French spelling Gorbatchev, etc. is simply a mistake caused by the lack of a good knowledge of Russian, in my opinion or a rough transliteration without giving much thought to it. You can check the German, Dutch, Swedish, Polish, etc., etc. spellings of the name, including Spanish spelling Gorbachov. All of them have just an "o", not e, o or yo (jo). (Note that some languages use j to transcribe ч - tsj - Dutch spelling Gorbatsjov is actually equivalent to Gorbachov, not Gorbachyov).I am not suggesting to change volumes of references but a correct alternative spelling should be provided and could be used for future romanisation. Chinese names have changed romanisation many times over a long period and is now brought to standard Hanyu Pinyin. I think it's only positive. E.g., Qing Dynasty was spelled Ch'ing, which now can be confused for a different phoneme in standard Mandarin. --Atitarev (talk) 21:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
There's no question that in article namespace and in the article on Mikhail Gorbachev that we will use the spelling Gorbachev. It's the most common way that English speakers spell it so no change in our policy of transcription would warrant a change in spelling Gorbachev.
Naturally, the transcription system of Wikipedia is a slightly altered form of an existing transcription system and this already skirts WP:NOR. A really important question to ask is whether any transcription system transcribes ё as o after unpaired consonants. If not, then it really is OR to transcribe it as such and another reason to not implement. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 00:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Ƶ§œš¹, some systems obviously use this romanisation in English (less frequently) and other roman based languages. Not sure I understand you 100%, especially your last sentence. --Atitarev (talk) 02:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

(resetting ident) In response to Atitarev's comments, here is my reply. First of all, yes, I will help you to submit a formal proposal (it's not rocket science, but there are a few things which are easy to miss). Before we go that route, however, I really, really, really (and did I mention really?) want you to consider the important facts I am about to lay out before you. Some of them are not entirely obvious.

  • First of all, I'd like to re-iterate the importance and rephrase what Aeusoes1 said above—romanization is an important, but not the most important thing. Since this in the English Wikipedia, "common English usage" is always given the highest priority. For details, see WP:UE, but what this means for your proposal is that regardless of changes to WP:RUS, regardless of how WP:RUS is worded, regardless of whether or not WP:RUS even exists, WP:UE will take priority. Re-using the Горбачёв example, regardless of what changes are made to WP:RUS, the article will stay at Mikhail Gorbachev, because that's the spelling used by the overwhelming majority of English sources. Now, the "use English" imperative can be pretty vague on a good number of occasions, but I myself take pride in that we were able to balance the requirements of WP:UE and WP:RUS pretty well, at least as far as human names and toponyms go (see WP:RUS' criteria of conventionality). Anyway, the bottom line is that romanization is always secondary to common English usage. If your proposal passes, the only change you are going to see in Gorbachev's article is the change of italicized romanization that follows Gorby's name in Russian. If you think that's worth the effort, I ain't gonna judge you :)
  • Regarding your preference to romanize all Slavic names using one scheme, that's precisely what the WP:CYR initiative tried to do and failed. Slavic languages have a great many similarities, but it's the differences that make coming up with one scheme (which would not be purely based on opinions and original research) impossible. At this point, a separate romanization scheme exists for those languages that need to be romanized. Feel free to resurrect the discussion at WP:CYR if you think that not all of the options have been explored.
  • Regarding your note that, for example, using "y" to represent a variety of Cyrillic letters hinders back conversion, I would like to re-iterate once again that unambigous back conversion is not the primary goal of romanization. Back conversion is the issue that pure transliteration schemes are supposed to take care of (they don't always do a perfect job, but that's a topic of another discussion). Romanization is intended to create a Latin alphabet rendition of a word written in a non-Latin alphabet. A word in Cyrillic should correspond to precisely one romanized version; back conversion is unimportant. From Wikipedia's point of view—we need to be able to unambigously convert any Russian word to a romanized equivalent (i.e., if I am looking for an article about a (fictional) village of "Щёкинская", I should be able to go to "Shchyokinskaya" and be confident that this article does not exist if there is nothing there. In the absence of a romanization scheme, the article could be at Schekinskaia, Shyokinskaya, Shhëkinskaja, or whatever other crazy spelling the original author placed it at—there is no way to know if the article truly does not exist or if you are just missing it because you can't guess the spelling). We don't even have the need for back conversion because the original Russian spelling is supposed to always be available right there in the article.
  • Regarding your statement that French spelling of Gorbachev... is simply a mistake caused by the lack of a good knowledge of Russian, I refer you back to #1. This is the English Wikipedia. It uses the English language. If the English version of a Russian name/word is perceived as incorrect by the speakers of Russian, that's not the problem of the English Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not out there to change the world. It is not out there to decide for the Anglophones which version is "correct". It is not out there to promote "new and improved" terms. It is there to report existing knowledge, using existing terminology and naming conventions or, in the lack thereof, use existing procedures to generate terminology where it is not firmly established.
    • A subpoint—whatever spellings are used in French, German, Swedish, etc., they are irrelevant here because English is what matters the most in the English Wikipedia.
    • Another subpoint—alternative spellings are only "correct" when they are either commonly used in English along with another, main, spelling, or when they are generated using the established procedures (think BGN/PCGN romanization scheme for romanization of Russian as an example).
  • A note for Aeusoes1—could you please not use the terms "transliteration", "transcription", and "romanization" interchangeably? While there are obvious common traits to all three concepts, it's the differences that we are discussing here. Lack of understanding of finer points is exactly what encourages editors to continue proposing neverending "improvements" to existing romanization scheme. By using precise terminology we'll do ourselves a favor by reducing the number of such inquiries in the future.
  • To clarify Aeusoes1's last sentence to Atitarev—what he means is that if there is no precedent of romanizing "ё" as "o" after unpaired consonants (i.e., if no other documented romanization scheme uses this rule), then we would be ill-advised to accept it, because doing so would be original research. I'd like to add that while original research is not always avoidable when Wikipedia guidelines are being discussed or even adopted, we should nevertheless try minimizing its use as much as possible.

Hope this helps.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The Oxford Style Manual supports this proposal. This is so authoritative and widely used, that Wikipedia should just adopt it verbatim. See quotation at Talk:BGN.
By the way, different variations are still used in different contexts, of course. Obviously, the conventional Gorbachev is transliterated literally from the normal spelling Горбачев, not from the school-book Горбачёв. I still think it's most appropriate to use a conventional or simplified transliteration for identification and natural reading in the body of an article, but to use the precise, standardized, reversible transliteration (i.e. Gorbachöv) once in the leading line, next to the original Cyrillic, where the transliterated name is serving a completely different function. —Michael Z. 2008-10-21 22:26 z
I was actually nurturing an idea that we should get rid of alternative romanization (i.e., any romanization not matching the title) in the lead line completely. It is just one romanization variant, after all, and, as you noted, it may not be ideal for some situations as compared to others. What do you think about a compact, inconspicious infobox (perhaps even collapsible), that would list all major romanizations/transliterations? Maybe we should even throw IPA there as well? Search engines will then use this information to index the article more properly, bot owners would be able to run bots that would automatically create redirects based on the data in the infobox, it's entirely possible to write scripts that would populate such infobox based on the original Russian with just one click, and in the end more users would be able to find what they are looking for (and not have to look at ugly leads where most space is occupied by what at the first glance sometimes looks like gibberish). This way most concerns regarding alternative transliterations will be addressed, and the current system can be retained as is (because it is working remarkably well now that the conventionality clause is in place and is formally acknowledged to have priority) without us having to go through a crapload of articles just to make sure that we switch to using "o" instead of "yo" (something that I still am not seeing used in academic publications much, even though OSM is recommending it).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 23:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good in principal. I recall that there's a biography template which includes hidden data, including alternate names, which could be used as a model or extended—or perhaps the names part can be broken off into a general-use template. There's also a Unicode standard for codifying transliteration schemes by name and automating them.[1]
I do like having one consistent technical transliteration always present next to the Cyrillic name, for the benefit of a reader who wants to know “how is that spelled in Russian?”, but doesn't read Cyrillic. If we have this, then it may as well be compatible with the default transliteration scheme we use for names which don't have an established “conventional” translit. If it is hidden in a template, then it should be designed so this part is revealed in a print version. I guess different versions of the project or registered individuals could use a style sheet to reveal their favourite translit. —Michael Z. 2008-10-22 15:16 z
Well, if we move out all possible transliterations to a box, those few readers who don't read Cyrillic but still want to know how a name is spelled in Russian will catch up with this practice once the box is widely deployed. Perhaps even the original Cyrillic should go there, because, frankly, most readers don't give a damn about it anyway (whether it is followed by translit or not). Anyhoo, that's a proposal that needs to be brought up with affected WikiProjects. I'll try to find time to make a draft box so there is something for the people to look at while considering the proposal. The details can be worked out later as comments pour in (if they do). If you have any further insights/ideas, I'll be most happy to hear them out.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Federal Migration Service rules

The Russian Federal Migration Service (Russian version of INS) has their own rules for handling transliteration of Russian names [2]. It is very close to the ours but more precise. Maybe we should follow them? at least for the names?

Одним из способов отображения российских имен на английском языке является транслитерация, представляющая собой процесс простого замещения букв русского алфавита на соответствующие буквы или сочетания букв английского алфавита.

При этом гласные "а", "е", "ё", "и", "о", "у", "ы", "э", "ю", "я", соответственно, замещаются на "a", "e", или "ye" (после "ь", например: Vasilyev), "i", "o", "u", "y", "e", "yu", "ya" (см. таблицу) 


┌─────────────────────┬──────────────────────┬───────────────────┐

│А     а       а      │Л       л      l      │Ч      ч     ch    │

│Б     б       b      │М       м      m      │Ш      ш     sh    │

│B     в       v      │H       н      n      │Щ      щ     shch  │

│Г     г       g      │О       о      o      │Ъ      ъ     ..    │

│Д     д       d      │П       п      р      │Ы      ы     y     │

│Е     е       уе, е  │Р       р      r      │Ь      ь     .     │

│Ё     ё       уе, е  │С       с      s      │Э      э     е     │

│Ж     ж       zh     │Т       т      t      │Ю      ю     yu    │

│З     з       z      │У       у      u      │Я      я     ya    │

│И     и       i      │Ф       ф      f      │                   │

│Й     й       y      │Х       х      rh     │                   │

│К     к       k      │Ц       ц      ts     │                   │

└─────────────────────┴──────────────────────┴───────────────────┘


Так называемые дифтонги - сочетания гласной буквы "и", "й" - отражаются следующим образом: 


   "ай"      - "ay"                 "ый"      - "y" (yy)

   "ей"      - "ey" или "yey"       "эй"      - "ey"

   "ий"      - "iy" или "y"         "юй"      - "yuy"

   "ой"      - "oy"                 "яй"      - "yay"

   "уй"      - "uy"


Сочетание "ая" при окончании фамилии (например: Красовская) - "aya". Фамилии, созвучные с именами, писать аналогично имени (например: ALEXANDR - ALEXANDROV).


Примеры написания наиболее употребимых имен 


                     А

АГАФЬЯ AGAFIA

АГАФОН AGAFON

АГЕЙ AGEY

АКУЛИНА AKOULINA

АЛЕКСАНДР/OB ALEXANDER/OV

АЛЕКСЕЙ ALEXEY

АНАСТАСИЯ ANASTASIA

АНАТОЛИЙ ANATOLY

АНДРЕЙ ANDREY

АНИСИЙ ANISY

АННА ANNA

АНТОНИНА ANTONINA

АНТОН ANTON

АРСЕНТИЙ ARSENTY

АРХИП ARKHIP

АКИМ AKIM

АФАНАСИЙ AFANASY 


                     Б

БОРИС BORIS 


                     В

ВАЛЕРИАН VALERIAN

ВАЛЕНТИН VALENTIN

ВАРВАРА VARVARA

ВАСИЛИЙ VASILY

ВАСИЛЬЕВ VASILYEV

ВЯЧЕСЛАВ VIACHESLAV

ВИКТОР VICTOR

ВИКТОРИЯ VICTORIA

ВИТАЛИЙ VITALY

ВЛАДИМИР VLADIMIR

ВЛАС VLAS

ВЕРА VERA 


                     Г

ГЕННАДИЙ GENNADY

ГАВРИИЛ GAVRIIL

ГЕОРГИЙ GEORGY

ГЕРАСИМ GERASIM

ГЛЕБ GLEB

ГРИГОРИЙ GRIGORY 


                     Д

ДАНИИЛ DANIIL

ДАРЬЯ DARIA

ДМИТРИЙ DMITRY

ДЕНИС DENIS 


                     Е

ЕВГЕНИЙ EVGENY

ЕВДОКИМ EVDOKIM

ЕВДОКИЯ EVDOKIA

ЕФРОСИНЬЯ EFROSINIA

ЕФИМ EFIM

ЕКАТЕРИНА EKATERINA

ЕЛИЗАВЕТА ELIZAVETA

ЕЛЕНА ELENA

ЕМЕЛЬЯН EMELIAN

ЕРМОЛАЙ ERMOLAY

ЕФРЕМ EFREM 


                     З

ЗАХАР ZAKHAR

ЗИНАИДА ZINAIDA

ЗИНОВИЙ ZINOVY

ЗОЯ ZOYA 


                     И

ИВАН IVAN

ИГНАТ IGNAT

ИЛЬЯ ILYA

ИРИНА IRINA

ИОСИФ IOSIF

ИГОРЬ IGOR 


                     К

КИРИЛЛ KIRILL

КЛЕМЕНТИЙ KLEMENTY

КОНСТАНТИН KONSTANTIN

КУЗЬМА KUZMA

КСЕНИЯ KSENIA 


                     Л

ЛАВРЕНТИЙ LAVRENTY

ЛАРИОН LARION

ЛЕВ LEV

ЛИДИЯ LIDIA

ЛЕОНТИЙ LEONTY

ЛУКА LUKA

ЛЮБОВЬ LIUBOV

ЛЮДМИЛА LIUDMILA

ЛАРИСА LARISA 


                     М

МАЙЯ MAYYA

МАЯ MAYA

МАКАР MAKAR

МАКС MAKS

МАКСИМ/OB MAXIM/OV

МАРИЯ MARIA

МАРГАРИТА MARGARITA

МАРФА MARFA

МАТРЕНА MATRENA

МАТВЕЙ MATVEY

МИТРОФАН MITROFAN

МИХАИЛ MIKHAIL 


                     Н

НАДЕЖДА NADEZDA

НАТАЛЬЯ NATALIA

НИКИТА NIKITA

НИКИФОР NIKIFOR

НИКОЛАЙ NIKOLAY 


                     О

ОЛЬГА OLGA

ОЛЕГ OLEG

ОКСАНА OXANA 


                     П

ПАВЕЛ PAVEL

ПЕЛАГЕЯ PELAGEYA

ПРАСКОВЬЯ PRASKOVIA

ПЕТР PETR

ПЛАТОН PLATON

ПОЛИКАРП POLIKARP

ПРОХОР PROKHOR 


                     Р

РОДИОН RODION

POMAH ROMAN

РАИСА RAISA 


                     С

СЕРГЕЙ SERGEY

СЕМЕН SEMEN

СТЕПАН STEPAN

СТЕПАНИДА STEPANIDA

СУСАННА SUSANNA 


                     Т

ТАТЬЯНА TATIANA

ТИМОФЕЙ TIMOFEY

ТРИФОН TRIFON

ТРОФИМ TROFIM 


                     У

УЛЬЯНА ULIANA 


                     Ф

ФЕДОР FEDOR

ФИЛИПП PHILIPP

ФОМА FOMA

ФРОЛ FROL

ФАДЕЙ FADEY

ФЕКЛА FEKLA

ФЕДОСЬЯ FEDOSIA

ФЕДОТ FEDOT 


                     Х

ХАРИТОН KHARITON

ХРИСТИНА KHRISTINA 


                     Ю

ЮЛИЯ YULIA

ЮРИЙ YURY 


                     Я

ЯКОВ IAKOV

ЯНА YANA —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex Bakharev (talk • contribs)

I am personally not very thrilled to replace BGN/PCGN-based rules (developed by Anglophones for Anglophones) with the rules developed by such narrowly specialized government body as Russian Federal Migration Service, even if these rules mostly match. I do, however, believe that we could adopt the list of spellings of the first names as an auxiliary guideline supplementing the conventionality clause (something like WP:Romanization of Russian/Harmonization tried to do), although the list Alex quoted above seems to somewhat contradict itself—it says that the last name which sound like the first names should be written similarly and gives and example of "Alexandr" vs. "Alexandrov", yet in the main table these same first/last names are rendered "Alexander"/"Alexanderov". Still, it may be worth it to format this and submit as a formal amendment proposal.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't agree. Even though the Russian Federal Migration Service is a "narrowly specialized government body", it still is the organ authorized to give Russians their English names — it's the highest authority in determination of the transliteration rules for Russian personal names; just like BGN and PCGN are the highest authorities in determination of what English names for Russian geographical objects should be.
I believe the general rule should be the next: use the most popular transliteration variant when it's possible to be determined; use RFMS system for personal names and BGN/PCGN system for geographical names otherwise. I mean the pure RFMS and BGN/PCGN systems.
The disadvantage of the current situation (when a compromise between between several systems is sought) is that it often produces the forms that never where used before, especially for some rarely used geographical names. Such names cannot be found anywhere else but on large-scale maps and on-line services like Google-Earth, and they are spelled in pure BGN/PCGN system (without any modifications) on them. In the same time the RFMS system is "witnessed" by immense number of foreign passports issued by this organization; of course these forms are poorly represented on-line, but usually they are the ones that are used in non-Russian official documents.
Well, usually. My boss' name is Зайцев, and he has foreign passport for the last name Zaytsev. But in Germany he was given a certificate issued for the last name Saizew. I doubt very much that he'll manage to prove that it's his certificate :-) — Hellerick (talk) 12:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that the pure BGN/PCGN system is not used all that often either; it is usually modified in some form or another. A while ago, as an experiment, I went to a bookstore and pulled half a dozen or so world atlases. The results were pretty inconsistent—while the majority of atlases use some form of BGN/PCGN, more often than not there is a modification of some sort. These modifications, of course, are not documented in the atlases, but they are pretty obvious and mostly deal with using/omitting apostrophes for soft signs and with how the "-ый/-ий" endings are handled. What's more (and I'm speaking from experience here), strict BGN/PCGN spellings occur outside of the atlases far less often than modified BGN/PCGN spellings—that is especially true of periodicals. WP:RUS conventions in those regards are very much in line with existing real-world practices, and changing them now would simply add to the cleanup backlog without achieving much (and possibly creating more confusion than clarification). I don't believe the guidelines in their current form create any serious problems, so why fix something which is not broken? Why create monkey jobs when no apparent benefits are going to surface?
The RFMS system is the whole different can of worms. Like I said before, it is highly specialized and fairly recent. It is definitely not something routinely used in English academic sources. I am not saying there is no use for it at all, but there is no use for a special mention for it in our guidelines. If a person's name is spelled using the RFMS conventions most of the time (which it will be from now on as names romanized using these conventions become more common), it should not be hard to show via the conventionality criteria (i.e., if a person's name commonly used in English happens to be a RFMS romanization, so be it). If that cannot be demonstrated, why should we mandate using a system that recent for, say, people who became known (or even died) well before the RFMS system was established? Take any random person—if a Westerner is to write an academic article about him/her, what are the chances they'll use the RFMS system? Even if we discard this argument, why confuse editors by assigning different romanization systems to different situations? There was a reason modified BGN/PCGN was chosen for everything, and that reason is consistency. We do, of course, have occasional problems here and there, but overall WP:RUS, especially with the conventionality clause, works marvelously: if alternative spelling can be substantiated, we use it, if not, we use the default. Why complicate things any further? Any other system might fix the existing few defects, but it would also introduce defects of its own, possibly on a larger scale.
Anyway, you are, of course, entitled to put together a formal amendment proposal and submit it for community's consideration. I am going to oppose for the reasons above, but perhaps I am not seeing something others would see during the proposal review. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
There is a misprint in the original table (corrected in the examples), it is meant to be Roman 'kh' not 'rh' for Cyrillic 'х'. By the way, this RFMS system is rather close to the Streamlined System for the Romanization of Russian. Apcbg (talk) 05:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

As per current rules, how would Гавриил be romanized? I can't see any rule for ии, but usually it's romanized as a single i (so: Gavril)... --necronudist (talk) 14:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

When was this system published? What preceded it?

As far as I can tell, this system only differs from BGN/PCGN in the application of ё = ye, e instead of yë, ë, and has only been in use for 5 years. The proposal is to apply it to all historical Russian names? Keep in mind that a great many are already covered by the “most common English name” rule. Seems like a very big complication which will show very little practical difference. —Michael Z. 2009-02-10 14:47 z

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Romanization_of_Russian/Archive_1&oldid=1256355012"