Talk:Romanization of Russian

message: The examples given ("Krestyansky" & "Vyuga") do not fall under "commonly accepted convention".  An example of what's commonly accepted would be Gorbachev, which, if one is to follow the rules outlined in the article, would be spelled Gorbachyov.  As the former, not latter, variant is in widespread usage, it is a good example of what's commonly accepted.  "Krestyansky" and "vyuga" are definitely not on the same level.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 14:51, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
:Gorbachev definitely pronounced Gorbachov in Russian, not Gorbachyov.--Nixer 21:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is not about pronunciation (although it contains elements dealing with it), it's about how the word is written.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 04:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And if you see anywhere "Gorbachyov" it is not right. --Nixer 22:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure why you are so convinced that "Gorbachyov" is incorrect.  Uncommon, perhaps, but definitely not incorrect.  The only reason why "Gorbachev" is used more often is because of the Russian tradition to replace "ё" with "е" in pretty much all printed texts ("ё" is still always pronounced).  From your arguments it very much looks that you are confusing transcription with transliteration.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 02:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you insist Gorbachyov is correct? There is no such tradition and this does not indicate the pronounciation. With Gorbachov English-speaker will face no troubles.--Nixer 08:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Because "yo" is how "ё" is transliterated, if you want to both convey the original spelling and not to confuse the reader with conventions such as "yë" (this was discussed at length on this very page—please see above).  Again, we are talking about transliteration (how words are written), not transcription (not how they are pronounced).  The only reason "e" is used in "Gorbachev" is because in Russian texts "ё" is usually replaced with (but not pronounced as) "е".  I am sure if it was not for that, "Gorbachyov" would have been more common now.  It's the same thing with Khruschev, by the way.  And please note, that I am not proposing to replace "Gorbachev" with "Gorbachyov" in the articles (the latter is not common in English, and its use will be against Wikipedia policy), but merely state that it is an exception because of the traditional use (which is exactly your point).—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 15:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I definitely don't like v'yuga over vyuga or viyuga; as a matter of fact, the convention to use ' in place of Ь/Ъ is best to be axed. DmitryKo 21:21, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverted soft sign examples

message: I had trouble understanding this article. Thanks for teaching us alliteration, but don't use lllaaarrrgggeee words. They complicate my brain. Thanks.
:Hm... While I'm all for clarity, (a) articles about linguistics pretty much have to use certain terms of art to be appropriately clear and precise and (b) people who don't like lllaaarrrgggeee words might not want to try transliterating Russian lest they suffer from head explody. -LlywelynII (talk) 02:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undecodable Gibberish 

message: In the past, I've tried to rewrite the intro as an encyclopedia article, but I think I've failed.  I respect the work that has been put into this, but:
This article is:
* Several transliteration methods, mixed together
* English spelling of Russian proper names, mixed in too
* A prescriptive guide for Wikipedia
* Almost as many exceptions as rules
This article is not:
* A clear description of any of the established standards for transliterating Russian
* Supported by cited sources
This should be turned into a description of transliteration standards, with a simple table.  It can also describe English spelling of Russian proper names (which is not the same as transliteration; please see the example at Romanization of Ukrainian#Conventional romanization of proper names).  —Michael Z. 2005-12-14 08:14 Z
:Actually, Michael, based on the heated discussion I had yesterday, I'll be splitting this article into the actual encyclopedia article and into the status quo policy page (it is a huge problem that an article in the main name space is referenced by an internal Wikipedia policy).  The policy page then will be a sole subject of the discussion at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Cyrillic) (in the Russian section), and the article can finally be properly re-written (to cover all major existing translit systems and cite sources).  If you or anyone else have other suggestions, please post them here.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 13:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is this article? 

message: --Nixer 14:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No need to shout, really.  Also, I challenged every single line of your "work", providing explanations of my corrections along the way.  You, so far, failed to respond to most of them, and the arguments you provided to the ones you responded to were far from convincing.  You revert of my edit also broke a great number of fixes, so I won't be surprised if your "work" will continue to be reverted by outside editors.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 17:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  DONT REVERT MY WORK! 

message: Hello. I keep discovering acute accents placed systematically above the letter immediately after the stressed vowel in cyrillic script, and not that vowel itself. Often, the letter following the stressed vowel is actually a consonant, which surely leads to some confusion or amusement with the readers. Please participate in this discussion — as yet, only my humble opinion has been voiced). //Big Adamsky 17:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Emphasis markers in transliterations

message: Is the UN system based on GOST but modified, or did the UN adopt the GOST system verbatim?  Is there any reason to add a UN column to the summary table?  —Michael Z. 2006-02-14 20:28 Z
:Good question.  The UNGEGN 2003 report states that the UN recommended system was approved based on the GOST, but it makes no mention of any modifications (I reckon there weren't any).  Problem is, GOST actually offers two tables, which slightly differ from one another.  I've been working hard trying to find the official text of the original GOST, but so far it eludes me.  There are plenty of knock-offs around the net, but none of what I've found so far looks trustworthy, and different versions don't always match.  Until we have the text of the original GOST on our hands, it's difficult to say which variation UN adopted and if there were any modifications.  I'll continue with my research, however, and will post here when/if I find anything.
:On the UN side, we can try locating the publication titled Fifth United Nations Conference on the Standardization of Geographical Names (Montreal, 18-31 August 1987.  Vol. I. Report of the Conference, pp. 40-41).  I never tried finding it; but it may be readily available on the net and may provide insights as to whether the GOST system was modified or not.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 20:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Ezhiki, http://internet-law.ru/gosts/gost/45002/ 77.11.95.224 (talk) 19:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  UN & GOST differences 

message: I refer to the version of the article as edited on  June  2006
There seems to be some confusion in the article about GOST 7.79 (2002) .... which is(?) non-existent, but GOST 7.79 (2000), as stated in the paragraph text exists. Contrary to the wiki statement, this is not an adoption of the ISO 9 - 1995. ISO 9 transliteration is a 1:1 mapping of Cyrillic characters to the Latin letters of the Unicode set + some combinations with diacrtitcs. I refrain from editing, as there may be some further fine points I am unaware of. MGTom 13:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GOST and ISO 9 .... different?! 

message: GOST standarts can be found at GOST 7.79-2000 (in russian). Its purpose is an unambiguous transliteration of Cyrillic script by Latin alphabet and a possibility of reconstruction original cyrillic text, particularly for transmission via computer networks. This rules do not apply to a phonetic romanization. I'm going to bring to accordance this article. GreLI 10:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  About GOST 

message: Adding a link to Russian transliteration service at http://www.latkey.com/translit to the main article. It matches wiki guidelines as it's free and dosen't contain any advertising content. Some of the links do contain Google AdSense advertising content however, so review of those links suggested. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DanIssa (talk • contribs) .
:Sure there are other inappropriate links, people just keep adding them, you know. Those need to be removed too, you can help. It does not matter if it's "free" or "useful". Linking to download sites for Microsoft Office plugins to use the online service of a company is not appropriate. There is no encyclopedic content on the site, and it does promote other products of that comany. If you reference  and the corresponding user contributions, you'll see that there were repeated attempts to place links in several articles, despite all warnings not to re-add them (including the ignored warning on your own talk page). Not only to the transliteration service but also to the company main page, with link descriptions promoting the keyboard stickers. You will not add any more links to latkey.com, i-keyboard.com, or related domains. Femto 13:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russian online transliteration 

message: I'd like to propose my own system of romanisation. First of all, I've noticed that everybody uses 'y' for both 'ы' and 'й'. The easiest solution is to use 'j' for 'й'. It preserves the correct orthography, and clears up confusion. Example: русский = russkij.
It makes everything 100 times easier. Plural adjectives for example: большые - bol'shyje. Otherwise it'd be bol'shye or bol'shyye, which is a complete mess.
Here's how I always do it:
*А = A
*Б = B
*В = V
*Г = G
*Д = D
*Е = JE (Even though everybody uses just 'E', it would clear up any confusion with 'Э')
*Ё = JE ('JO' is okay, just to clear it up for those who don't know when 'Ё' occurs. Just as long as you don't Turn Нью Йорк into Нью Ёрк.)
*Ж = ZH (I've never liked 'J' for this letter: Жана = Jana? Yech. Zhana is so much better.)
*З = Z
*И = I
*Ї = JI (Ukrainian)
*Й = J
*К = K
*Л = L
*М = M
*Н = N
*О = O
*П = P
*Р = R
*С = S
*Т = T
*У = U
*Ў = W (Belorussian)
*Ф = F
*Х = X (The H is already used to define the postalveolar fricatives. Besides, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between Пасха and Паша.)
*Ц = TS
*Ч = CH
*Ш = SH
*Щ = SHCH (I think this is the best option; the other option, 'SCH', could be confused for 'СЧ'. Even thought they're pronounced exactly the same, it would lose the correct orthography.)
*Ъ = - (Dash)
*Ы = Y
*Ь - ' (Apostrophe)
*Э - E
*Ю - JU
*Я - JA (Never drop the 'J', even if it looks prettier when romanised: Мария - Maria; because'И' can occur before 'А': социализм.)
I've noticed some people arguing that transliteration doesn't mean preservation of orthography and that we should transliterate phonetically, but that argument is utterly pointless, in my opinion. If you want phoneticism, we have the IPA. A good transliteration should be able to transliterate back to the original script correctly.
Here's the difference between romanised Russian (my way) and anglicised Russian (the common way): Moskva - Moscow; Russkij - Russky; bliny - blinis; tsar' - czar; Tat'jana - Tatiana; do svidanija - dasvidanya; Rossija - Russia; Smirnov - Smirnoff.
Ladno, tovarishchi, ja poshjel spat'. Zhjena zlaja. 67.186.247.125 22:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your interest, an anonymous contributor.  However, please note that Wikipedia has no place for original research.  The article discusses only Russian romanization systems that have recognition and are verifiable.  While there is no doubt that individuals like you, me, and every other Russian Wikipedian can come up with dozens more "better" and "improved" systems, it does not mean there is place for them in Wikipedia.  I hope this was a sufficient explanation.  Please let me know if you have further questions.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 23:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry to butt in, but I would like to agree with Ezhiki. Unfortunately wikipedia is NOT the place for original research. To make things even more complicated, I've been using yet another completely different system of romanisation, generally based on Central European Slavic alphabets. You can imagine what that's like... Still, for the sake of maintaining peace, I can't use that officially, since it isn't standardised.George Adam Horváth 18:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, "Moscow" is the 'English' name for Moskva, not a transliteration. Like London being "Londres" in French, and you folks calling that German city "Gamburg". And "blinis" is an English loan word from Russian - if someone did start using "bliny" to denote the plural, you can be sure it would take about five minutes for someone to think that it's singular and tack an "s" on the end to make "blinys". Same with "czar" - this is an English word, not a transliteration, and you can complain about "Russia" once you stop calling the UK "Великобритания". Smirnoff is a brand name - I've never seen Cмирнов transliterated as anything other than "Smirnov". Unigolyn 08:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My Own System of Romanisation 

message: Here is My Cyrillic Romanization System. I made it Seem Slavic because all these letters are Slavic. Can anyone speak Russian Here? Unfortunately,I can't speak Russian. Russian is called Russkij Jazyk in Romanized Russian. In Cyrillic, It's called Русский Яазык.
*А=A
*Б=B
*В=V
*Г=G/H
*Ґ=G (Ukrainian)
*Д=D
*Ѓ=Gj (Macedonian)
*Ђ=Đ (Serbian)
*Е=E/Je
*Ё=Jo/Io
*Ж=Ž
*З=Z
*Ѕ=Dz (Ukrainian)
*И=I
*Ї=Ji/Ï (Ukrainian)
*Й=J
*К=K
*Л=L
*Љ=Lj (Serbian)
*М=M
*Н=N
*Њ=Nj (Serbian)
*О=O
*П=P
*Р=R
*С=S
*Т=T
*Ћ=Ć
*Ќ=Kj
*У=U
*Ў=Ŭ (Belarusian)
*Ф=F
*Х=Ch/H
*Ц=C
*Ч=Č
*Ш=Š
*Щ=Ş
*Ъ=?
*Ы=Y
*Ь=’
*Э=È
*Ю=Ju
*Я=Ja
Does anyone agree with my Romanization system? This Romanization is From [User:CDHgrün] on September 15, 2007.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by CDHgrün (talk • contribs) 22:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't really matter whether anyone agrees with you, as Wikipedia is not a place to publish alphabets you invent. That being said, it's Русский Язык, not Русский Яазык. And Ch (or Kh) used for X is a horrible, horrible idea, which has led to every English-speaker in the world pronouncing Хрущёв as "Krous-chev", which sounds completely different from the actual "Hrous-chof". X is similar enough to the English "H", and Russian lacks any other H-like sound (as people from Gamburg can tell you). As to using diacritics, it kind of defeats the purpose of romanization - being able to transliterate Russian using the 26 letters of keyboards everywhere.Unigolyn 08:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My official Cyrillic 

message: There seems (to me) to be an annoying contradiction between the blurb describing GOST 16876 (1971).
and the comparison table's line regarding the character Э.  (The line for that letter seems to show an accent even in the GOST 16876-71 column.) Personally, I'm a neophyte to romanization of Russian, so I've no idea which is correct, but I wanted to bring this to the attention of others who may know.  Psaux (talk) 03:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for catching that!  It was most likely a typo or a copy-paste error.  The character "" is represented as "eh" in GOST 1971, but as "è" in later GOSTs.  I made the correction.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Accenting conflict between GOST '71 and table

message: When used to denote the old reduced vowels (as in OCS or ORus pre-12 c.), ъ = ŭ; ь = ĭ by the usual convention.  The table does not show this. 70.74.14.67 (talk) 17:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yers in "scholarly" transliteration 

message: Аа Бб Вв Гг Дд Ее Ёё Жж Зз Ии Йй Кк Лл Мм Нн Оо Пп Рр Сс Тт Уу Фф Хх Цц Чч Шш Щщ Ъъ Ыы Ьь Ээ Юю Яя
Aa Bb Vv Gg Dd Ee E'e' Z'z' Zz Ii Jj Kk Ll Mm Nn Oo Pp Rr Ss Tt Uu Ff Hh Cc C'c' S's' S`s` J`j` Yy J'j' E`e` U'u' A'a'
For Ukrainian:
Ґґ Єє Ии Іі Її 
G'g' E´e´ Yy Ii I'i'
For Belorussian:
Ўў
U'u'  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.220.33.64 (talk) 10:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russian transliteration without diacritics 

message: The Latin script section on proposals to adopt a Roman alphabet for Russian in Russia has recently been deleted on the grounds that it was unreferenced. Given that corroborating references could have been very easily found on Google Books (search latinization of russian) this does not appear to be a valid reason for deletion. However, the section might also be challenged on the grounds of being outside the intended scope of the article (regardless of the title), and so I have refrained from reinstating it for the moment. Does anybody have an opinion on this? --catslash (talk) 23:41, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I also think that aspect should stay on WP – better sourced though, but I’m not sure whether it’s best kept as a section here or moved to Russian language, Cyrillic script or Latin script etc., or whether it should be in an article of its own at Latinization of Russian, say, which currently redirects here. The topic should be mentioned here regardless. — Christoph Päper 07:36, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted section 

message: Are these letters (namely іѣѳѵ) really listed in the old ISO? GOST 1971, which are claimed to be the official translation of ISO/R9:1968, does not mention them at all.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 04:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obsolete letters in ISO/R9:1968 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Romanization of Russian. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040604071405/http://lcweb.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/roman.html to http://www.lcweb.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/roman.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:01, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified