Talk:Instruction on transliteration of Belarusian geographical names with letters of Latin script

UNGEGN

Disputed phrase:

"It is reported in the press that since October 2006 this instruction is recommended for use by the Working Group on Romanization Systems of the United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names (UNGEGN). The final decision of the UN is planned for a 2007 conference.

Until you provide what exactly was decided in the UN session, you have this reference, sorry. It quotes a Belarussian coartography official. If she is in error, you can contest only by correct (in your opinion) and referenced description, not by deletion.

I don't understand why this undeletion and what am I to "prove". Nothing official happened yet. Until 2007, nothing relevant happens. "Komsomolskaya pravda" isn't a source, in fact this article is worse in un-factuality and ignorance of the subject than its "Nasha Niva" counteropart. And it doesn't contain any usable info, at that.

Site of the Tallinn conference carries no info, besides the general agenda. UNGEGN WGRS site carries no official info about any changes of status of Instruction yet. What exactly was the resolution approved, then? Yury Tarasievich 21:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to "mercilessly edit" these recent additions, both here and in Romanisation of Belarusian, if no reference of the more official nature (originating in UNGEGN) shows up. The complete official status of the Instruction is already there (thanks to no-one but me, btw :)) and doesn't need to be reduplicated on the index page, too. In the spirit of Wikipedia I leave this notification of my actions upcoming. Yury Tarasievich 07:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC) :)

Anyway, why all this excitement? Because of un-informed mentioning of the Holy Lacinka in the article? But everybody wishing to know, may read the Instruction and see by his own eyes, that excepting the carons and "German way" of denoting the iotifying, the IOT2000 isn't "same" as the Latsinka, by a very long way, and doesn't "vindicate" it, anyway. The both newspaper writeups are worthless as an source, as so often happens with newspapers' articles. My earlier reservations on the unknown exact nature of the resolutions stand, too. Yury Tarasievich 07:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Look the item 7 of the Report of the Working Group on Romanization Systems http://unstats.un.org/unsd/geoinfo/ungegn/docs/27th-gegn-docs/wp/WP8_Report%20of%20the%20WG%20on%20Romanization%20Systems.pdf. We can read - "There were no objections to the proposed systems of romanization for Belarusian and Persian". Now look at the special site http://www.eki.ee/wgrs/status.htm. In Version 4.0. in file for Belarusian we can read "The United Nations recommended system was approved in 2012 (X/6)". Now opening Resolution X/6 and reading "The Conference,noting that in Belarus a system of romanization for Belarusian geographical names was adopted in 2000 and was revised in 2007,recognizing that the system is linguistically sound and that it has been implemented in maps and gazetteers of Belarus,recommends that the system, as set out in the conference room paper entitled “The Roman alphabet transliteration of Belarusian geographical names”,be adopted as the INTERNATIONAL system for the romanization of Belarusian geographical names.So,have I answered your question? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalakop (talk • contribs) 22:39, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussion on Belarusian settlements naming

Dear Belamp, please note that you're in the English-language Wikipedia, which has its own rules, naming conventions and procedures you have to comply with. For this wiki, according to our naming conventions (WP:NCGN) it really does matter whether this name is commonly used in English or not. Also, please note what the convention says specifically about Belarus. Second, this name was set by a statutory procedure called Wikipedia:Requested move, the result of which is normally summed up by an administrator. After that you just can't unanimously rename the article. Third, this is not the way we normally rename articles here. Please use the "Move" button instead. See WP:Moving a page. Fourth, per WP:Naming conventions (Cyrillic)#Belarusian), we use the BGN/PCGN system for transcribing the Belarusian place names, not Lacinka or any another Lacinka-like system. Hope you take it into account. Thanks for your time. glossologist (talk) 17:11, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Please, no need to welcome me, it's not the first my contribution to the English Wikipedia, and I'm a long-term editor in here.

First of all, this is not about Lacinka, it is about the only official way Belarusian geographical names can be transliterated. Also, BGN/PCGN is outdated and isn't used in official documents and maps, so using it here is just wrong. It's quite strange to use a system not officially approved neither in Belarus nor by the UN, unlike the official system which I linked is. Maps don't get indexed by Google, especially printed ones, but those using Latin alphabet use this system (or its mostly compatible predecessor) since at least 1998 or alike.

Also, speaking of ‘Move’, it didn't work for Grodno/Hrodna, which is why I worked that around. --Andrew Shadura (talk) 17:31, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

One more thing: even according to BGN/PCGN, the city should be called Hrodna, not Grodno. --Andrew Shadura (talk) 17:40, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

This was just a standard message, I wasn't assuming you were a newbie. Now, this system is surely not Lacinka, but pretty much Lacinka-like. As you're an experienced user you should probably know that Wikipedia is not subordinated to any jurisdiction, except the one of Florida, U.S., where its main server farm is located. Considering specifically the transliteration, there should be a community decision to use this system. So far, it has decided to use BGN/PCGN, which is, by the way, much easier to use and read for an English speaker. By "use" I mean writing article using this system. Where do you expect people to get all these characters with diacritics on their usual keyboard layouts, especially ĺ and ŭ? We don't even have to mention the native English speakers from the U.S. or UK. I assume that most of the folks in Belarus will not be able to write in it. What I personally think we should do is it create a modified version of BGN/PCGN (akin to WP:RUS), replacing "ye" with "e" where the vowel is always soft in native words, e.g. in "це", "дзе", "ве" etc.

Hope you've also read and agreed with the convention that major cities are named according to the most common English usage, i.e., we use Brest, Gomel, Grodno, Minsk, Mogilev and Vitebsk (not Homiel, Hrodna, Mahiliou, Viciebsk and definitely not Biarescia, Harodnia, Miensk etc. --glossologist (talk) 18:13, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Why the obsolete system that was adopted by 2 foreign institutions (not international) for Belarus and accepted by inexistent country (USSR) for more than 20 years,must be used for the romanization of Belarusian,while Belarus has its own system endorsed by the international organization's institution? So,let's write Czech,Croatian,Polish,Slovak,Slovenian cities without special symbols - Tchieske Budeyovitse instead of České_Budějovice,for example.People,be consistent.

Remember:

• 1.Belarus is independent country.
• 2.The 1979's system was developed by two foreign institutions,but not international
• 3.Belarus didn't accepted 1979's system as independent country,so,this system hasn't legal power,and using of it is dumb at least.
• 4.Belarusian language had the system of romanization long before the mentioned system of 1979,that's is common for the transmission of Slavic languages by means of latin alphabet.
• 5.Belarusian system of romanization is approved by the international instituton.
• 6.Names in Belarusian have a preference before Russian (Why don't you write Los Anjeles?Because English is the main language of the nation,that's why)

Tell me,why are you so affable to the Western and Eastern Slav's latin script,and so negligible to Belarusian system of romanisation.?It's almost the same.Notorious double standarts?

Guys,the USA and anglo-saxon world aren't the centre of the Universe and the world.Please,take into account our interests,too.Wikipedia is free encyclopaedia,let us be free in choice of transliteration of Belarusian geonames. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalakop (talk • contribs) 19:18, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Dalakop. While I understand your frustration, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedic source and does not use the equivalent of original research to influence English language usage of geographical terms already in place. Greece is Greece; Moscow is Moscow; Kiev is Kiev despite native language naming conventions (and transliteration thereof). When/if you can prove that the English speaking world has shifted its conventional spellings of geographical locations (mass media, common search engine search terms, etc.) a case can be presented per location. The conventional English spelling of geographical locations are the conventional English spellings regardless of when and from where they emerged. Where there are no established spellings, logic must prevail (see Glossologist's comment on the matter). Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:22, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello,Iryna Harpy Major cities (voblast capitals) are named according to the most common English usage. All other settlements are named according to national rules (exceptions may be discussed case by case).OK,then I had to revert "raion cities" and villages names backwards according to the rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalakop (talk • contribs) 01:55, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Please see the Voblasts of Belarus page, Dalakop. It list both the old Voblasts and the current six, along with their capital cities. Various other links can be found from this page. Where there are no accepted English variants listed, Belarusian transliterations can obviously be used. The object in question is trying to maintain naming conventions that can be followed by readers AND contributors. Remember that in trying to create your own convolutions you may find that there are already entries referencing that same town, and you'll simply end up penalising yourself and others working on expanding projects surrounding Belarus if you haven't made collaborative decisions as to the naming convention... So, unfortunately, yes, it will probably take some work to even decide on the spelling. Changing things as you go, according to your own decisions on what is correct and what is incorrect, will end up being counterproductive. Links will be broken, etc. It doesn't even serve you own purposes to make executive decisions on behalf of everyone else. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:58, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello,Iryna Harpy.Look https://reporter.by/pdf/03_2010_EN-20198.pdf ,p.7 http://www.unaids.org/en/media/unaids/contentassets/dataimport/pub/report/2008/nasa_belarus_2008_en.pdf ,p.63. Why the supranational organization can't be an example for Wikipedia?I don't sincerely understand,why readers AND contributors easily read west- and south-slavic geonames and names-surnames,but have a greeeeeat difficulty with Belarusian geonames.And please,give me the full list of "convenional geonames" of Belarus.Because I deem Glossologist unfairly reverted such names as Byhaŭ,Asipovičy,Zeĺva,etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalakop (talk • contribs) 13:29, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

You're a mind-reader, Glossologist. There's a major problem with the lack of Wikipedia directives on a Romanized transliteration system for Eastern Slavic languages. I left a message on the Romanization of Ukrainian talk page regarding updating that page to reflect the prominent and accessible WP:RUS Wikipedia standard last month and still haven't had any responses. I'd also checked for Belarusian equivalents and found entries as befuddling as the Ukrainian ones: in fact, leaving a message there was my next port of call.

Contributors are using IPA or whatever occurs to them as being the 'best' system. While I may know that BGN/PCGN is the accepted system, the pages are so verbose with all the world systems being listed (including transliteration tables) that you'd be lucky to come out of them being able to remember who you are. Consequently, an outstanding problem with nomenclature has arisen due to a lack of uniformity with multiple entries for the same person or geographical location, not to mention the ridiculous amount of time spent in reverting 'amendments', arguing the case on 20 different pages. BGN/PCGN is fine as a starting point, but it needs to be refined and laid out as an official Wiki standards page per language, not hidden in generalised Wikipedia articles. For my money, I'd rather outlay my energy once on collaborating on getting a Wikipedia standard table for both languages than keep going through this headache regularly. Nomenclature issues could be argued on the relevant pages rather than being scattered over a plethora of individual article talk pages and user talk pages. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:50, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes,you are right.It must be discussed and revised hardly.I see several reasons,why:

1.A great number of the names you call "conventional",are transliterated from Russian,but not Belarusian.Why don't you understand,that conventional geonames were developed during USSR times,which ideology strived to create "soviet people" on the basis of Russian nation.There was a great neglect for the languages of the other nationalities.Nowadays we are independent,and all Belarusian geonames must be transliterated from Belarusian(it's like to start transliterate American cities'names from Spanish,but not English - Nueva York instead of New York).

2.I have no clear response till now,why west- and south slavic variants of latin script are accepted in Wikipedia (and people understand it),but Belarusian mustn't be accepted under no circumstances.It has almost all the same special letters (as in Czech,Slovak or Croatian),that reproduce the same sounds.

3.English transliteration isn't able to reflect all the peculiarities of Belarusian language.

I see the most compromisable variant - Write the names of voblasts' cities and some largest cities,which names are known to English readers,in English latin script with transliteration from Belarusian.Other names (raion cities,villages,streets,raions of cities,metro stations,etc.) must be written according to the Instruction on transliteration of Belarusian geographical names with letters of Latin script (2007). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalakop (talk • contribs) 09:28, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Would you please achieve consensus first before reverting edits of other users. Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:37, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Would you please read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NCGN#Belarus? Major cities (voblast capitals) are named according to the most common English usage. ALL OTHER settlements are named according to national rules (exceptions may be discussed case by case). National rules are https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instruction_on_transliteration_of_Belarusian_geographical_names_with_letters_of_Latin_script. What wrong have I done? Mahilyow and Babruysk I left untouchable. Revert my edit back, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalakop (talk • contribs) 15:59, 7 October 2013‎ (UTC+2)

I do not really care how the cities really get transliterated. I just noticed that you started edit-warring in articles I have in my watchlist. Would you please read WP:CONSENSUS first, reach consensus (up to now, there was a clear opposition to your edits), and only then start editing. Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:51, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, as Dalakop says, there actually is a consensus, and (while I don't really agree with it regarding major cities) it's you who is acting counter-consensual. Please fix the article to comply with the consensus. --Andrew Shadura (talk) 14:58, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, indeed, it says Belarusian transliteration system should be used everywhere except major cities. What's wrong with that then? --Andrew Shadura (talk) 14:10, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

(I was asked to cross-post my comment regarding this from User talk:Ymblanter#The correction of the Mogilev region's cities'names). While the Instruction on Transliteration is a regulation adhered to by the government of Belarus, the rest of the world is not obliged to use it. Wikipedia in particular uses the BGN/PCGN system, which is far more commonly used and understood in the English-speaking world (of which the English Wikipedia is a part). The Instruction's renderings are welcome to be included in the first line of the articles, but the articles' titles should be per BGN/PCGN.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 7, 2013; 15:35 (UTC)

It's not only government-adhered, it's also worldwide recognised and recommended by the UN. --Andrew Shadura (talk) 17:21, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Also, please don't forget this page has been written before the revised version of the standard came out, which is why it was not recommended at that time — the first version was significantly worse than the final. --Andrew Shadura (talk) 17:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

"Being recommended by the UN" is not a criterion defining common usage in English. The UN's audience is international (and so it seems is the audience targeted by the Instruction), which is to say the UN systems try to cover Cyrillic transliteration needs for all Latin alphabet-based languages. In the English Wikipedia, however, conventions specifically targeting Anglophones have a greater weight, and the BGN/PCGN system has been around for quite some while and is the one most widely used in English. It's the same thing with the Russian transliteration—the UN uses a system based on the Russian GOST, but the fact remains that it is not terribly suitable for use in the English Wikipedia.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 7, 2013; 17:49 (UTC)

Rationale for proposal:

We seem to have reached another impasse by using emotive thinking over rational thinking. Policy guidelines are just that: guidelines. The Ukrainian section suggests fairly much what the Russian section does: that the preference for geographical naming conventions defer to more popular English naming conventions as they currently stand, and bearing in mind authoritative English sources. For example, Kiev is presented as, "Kiev (Russian: Киев) or Kyiv (Ukrainian: Київ {{IPA-uk|ˈkɪjiw)... on the Dnieper River." As a Ukrainian, I would prefer it be called Kyiv and that the Dnieper be called the Dnipro, but that is not serving the interests of English Wikipedia.

To elaborate, I have been involved in many linguistic research programmes and can assure you that trying to 'teach' English speakers in the manner being adopted is, as I pointed out in my earlier comment, counterproductive.

1. English speakers are predominantly monolingual and truly look at geographical names (and people's names) in Languages Other Than English (LOTE) seeing everything Dfhgbeivleictnwqzzz (or any random configuration of vowels and consonants you'd care to throw together) unless they recognise them visually.
2. Due to the nature of the evolution of English spelling (an extraordinarily high number of borrowed spellings from other languages over the centuries), the average English reader recognises words by form and reads ahead via this method, rather than the phonetic reading deployed by other European languages. As such, they are dependent of visual signifiers far more than we would be. I don't know which of you live in English-speaking countries but, having lived in Australia for decades, I've Anglicized my first name, but my surname remains a stumbling block. If I'm waiting on an appointment, I really have to stay alert because, when I'm called out, I have to watch for the glazed expression in the eyes of the person reading out my name to know it's my turn. At best, they'll get out the first syllable and either stop with their mouths hanging open or will try to make it up as they go along. Either way, it just gives them a headache and they're not interested in learning about where my name is from, how it was transliterated, and why it is pronounced the way it is pronounced.
3. Neatly following on from point 2, attempts to introduce an alternative spelling as a political device is simply a big "FAIL". Using Wikipedia:NCGN does make sense as it doesn't preclude any ethnic group from using their own consensus-formed spelling as the alternative, but does make searches for English readers easier and prevents inconsistency. The Belarusian page dedicated to the transliteration of geographic names contradicts the BGN/PCGN romanization of Belarusian, i.e. Geographic:
   Е е = Je je; Ё ё = Jo jo; Ж ж = Ž ž; Й й = J j; Ц ц = C c; Ч ч = Č č; Х х = Ch ch; Ш ш = Š š; Ю ю = Ju ju (or as iu after consonants); Я я = Ja ja (or as iа after consonants).
   Compare this with BGN/PCGN:
   Е (е) = Ye (ye); Ё (ё) = Yo (yo); Ж (ж) = Zh (zh); Й (й) = Y (y); Ц (ц) = Ts (ts); Ч (ч) = Ch (ch); Х (х)= Kh (kh); Ш (ш) = Sh (sh); Ю (ю) = Yu (yu); Я (я) = Ya (ya).
   Now if you can't see how disparate the conventions are and imagine what it is like for an English reader to be able to discern between the standard transliteration used in Wikipedia and the geographical nomenclature as not resembling anything they can relate to, I'm stunned. Why would they even know that there are two different systems in use?
4. Inconsistency breeds contempt (followed by disinterest). Would you give up trying to read about the Indian city of Ichalkaranji if the naming convention jumped from Ykhŭlčaranyў to Jčalkjoretiužo from article to article dependent on the interest group, their agenda and which version of the name they considered to be the correct one (aside from having to figure out what the transliteration system they were using)? Would you even know what to look up? Do you feel that they would be teaching you an important socio-political lesson or completely confounding you? I'm entirely in agreement with Ymblanter regarding not really caring about how it's transliterated so long as the transliteration remains consistent from article to article and people don't continue renaming things as they see fit (most particularly when they end up breaking wikilinks in the process).

Therefore, again, I propose that:

• This entire discussion be moved to the relevant talk page; and that Done
• a list (or table) of current conventional names be added to the top of the relevant page;
• in doing so, it will be more than the handful of people who know about the discussion here who can enter into the dialogue so that something resembling true consensus can be attained;
• it will be conducive to finding other, English-reader friendly methods of working in the Belarusian names. These can be worked out in a practical manner (as has been done with the Kiev example above - also applicable to Lvov and Kharkov which use redirects and acknowledge the names used under the Russian and Polish Empires as being the same cities identified under those names as a fact).
• That no changes to naming conventions in place are to be made to existing articles unless/until consensus is reached on the geographical naming conventions talk page which will, in turn, be displayed in the list of the actual reference article. If anyone starts disruptive editing by changing names not accepted, this allows editors/contributors to revert without being hounded by pointing to the talk page in question in order that the case be discussed there.
• That every change to the list be discussed on a case by case basis. Adopting one form over the other for one geographical location does not automatically mean that carte blanche has been given to revise all locations according to the one system given preference in that case. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes,we will seek the agreement,but the great impediment is the presence of double standards.Look https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_the_Czech_Republic, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_Slovakia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_Croatia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_Slovenia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_the_Republic_of_Macedonia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_Poland. Just example: České BuděJOvice,Prešov,Belišće is too difficult,according to your proves it is simpler to write Czeske BudeYOvitse,Preshov,Belistche.Please,be consistent in your statements.You should or accept Belarusian latin transliteration,or just make the revision to simplify other 'difficult' latin scripts.The ignoring of this inconsistency starts to infuriate.Why don't you read this names as Cavcnjhklddf?It looks like your preconceived opinion to Belarusian system of transliteration and immoblility to changes in the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalakop (talk • contribs) 21:36, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Dalakop, I don't think you've actually understood a single point I've made. Like Ymblanter, I don't actually particularly care which system is adopted but it must be consistent and the decisions must be reached by consensus. Please do not simply stumble into articles and impose your preconceived notions of what is 'right' and what is 'wrong' on existing articles. Personally, I have no vested interests in any of the Belarus pages. My only interest lies with doing the right thing by the readers and by other editors/contributors. Seeing that so much time and energy is expended on going over the same problems arising constantly, I think it would make sense to have a section/table as a reference for standardising the nomenclature of Belarus geographical sites (that is, an easily accessible list). I'm happy to adhere to whatever decisions are made so long as they're made in an orderly, consensual manner. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:26, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

You don't seem to be grasping how ludicrous the whole proposal is. If, suppose, tomorrow the US government comes up with a system of Cyrillizing places names in the United States and the system is subsequently adopted by the UN, what do you think are the chances that Wikipedia users in Belarus, Russia, Ukraine, etc. will immediately rush changing their article names from Вашынгтон/Вашингтон/Вашингтон to, say, "Уошингтон" and from Чыкага/Чикаго/Чикаго to "Чикагоу"? One would be laughed away for even considering it, even if you soften it by applying it only to the names of smaller places. Your proposal is perceived my Anglophones in exactly the same manner. Each language has its own customs and rules for dealing with foreign place names and legal regulations of foreign countries seldom make any impact, and even when they do, it's never in the short run. Neither English-language speakers nor English Wikipedia editors jump up and clap in excitement every time some country out there comes up with a new system of romanizing its place names, nor do they rush in droves to immediately move all articles to their new spellings.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 9, 2013; 15:28 (UTC)

I see,but Iryna said he has no vested interests in any of the Belarus pages.Think,the majority of English readers do the same.So,my proposal was not to change the rules of writing the well known Belarusian names,but to use it for unknown.I think most people in Belarusian Wiki don't care too how to write - Goldsboro or Goldsborough.And we speak about different things.You've mentioned transcription,but not transliteration.Don't confuse this meanings.Belarusian wiki uses right transliteration WВaАshШiЫnНgГtТoОnН "as is",since there is no recommended international system for (US)Eng-Cyrillic transliteration.But English Wiki ignores existing Bel-Latin transliteration system recommended as international."Уошынгтон" - is a transcription.In fact,Englishmen will say "Хроднэ,Махільйоу" instead of "Гродна,Магілёў". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalakop (talk • contribs) 22:36, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

While I'm interested in the discussion, I must admit two things. First, Dalakop's arguments are too weak and emotional, and — really — unconvincing. There's a need for something else to convince people to use the proper transliteration system. Second, this conversation stays on my talk page for too long, please move it somewhere else. --Andrew Shadura (talk) 22:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion was moved to Talk:Instruction_on_transliteration_of_Belarusian_geographical_names_with_letters_of_Latin_script.Please,go there,and try to give a really unemotional,strong and convincing argumentation (not like childish 'it is difficult to reeaad'),rather than to blame mine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalakop (talk • contribs) 23:22, 9 October 2013 (UTC)  Done

If I were able or had time, I would. However, don't get this as a personal attack, it's not. If you really want to achieve something from this discussion, you need to provide proper arguments, which you don't. If you think my recommendation is rubbish, do whatever you want, but the way you act currently turns me away from the discussion even if I actually want to achieve same things as you do. --Andrew Shadura (talk) 06:39, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, as you see, Dalakop, you're not winning anyone over even if we'd like to see the names of places in our home countries disassociated with Russian occupation. Many geographic regions of Belarus (Voblasts, Raions, Lakes, tourism, etc.) are currently being developed from stubs right now. I've been helping out with formatting and everyone else involved has automatically used English naming conventions already established with no disputes. Details of the native names are inserted into the lead of each article. The point is that the common interest is to make this information as accessible to English readers as is possible.

I think you're misreading the outcome of, for example, the use of pure, regional Latinka for the Balkan states. English readers simply find it confusing and are possibly not even able to be able to find the information they want due to being so immovable regarding the issue. Having looked through the number of hits to areas I'd imagine might be of interest, I've been surprised to find that they actually attract surprisingly (or unsurprisingly) little.

I've certainly been able to build up a fairly comprehensive list of existing English Wikipedia naming conventions for geographical locations in Belarus and, if anyone is interested, I'm willing to put together a table in the next few weeks and post it here with a view to transferring it to the top of the article page once it's been discussed. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:22, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

So,if you are really targeted at discussion and compromise,I can say,that present situation doesn't seem convincing to me,too.You use the "reason of simplicity" only for Belarusian (probably,Ukrainian) not doing anything to simplify other hard for English-speakers latin scripts.It seems to me inconsistent and discriminative.Also,it seems unfair to use the obsolete system,which developed by 2 foreign institutions for Belarusian and use it for transliteration,while there is a system, developed by country itself and approved internationally. I convinced that international level is higher than the level of local institutions.I would really give up,if this system isn't recommended by the international organization.But if you want to leave the situation unchanged,just know,there would be no consensus.PS.Anyway,for better searching,we can give BGN/PCGN variant in brackets.And yes,waiting for sheet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalakop (talk • contribs) 19:55, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, that makes one person who is interested in my setting up a list to be discussed. Like everyone else, I have more than enough already on my Wikipedia plate (and far too much IRL). Unless at least a couple of others are going to even bother looking at it, I'm not going to put the amount of time and energy it requires into creating it... and the status quo, being continued arguments, reverts and justified irritation from all sides, will remain as stands. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:45, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I will certainly have a look if you create the list.-- (talk) 12:56, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Cheers, Ymblanter. Hopefully, there are a couple more who'd like to have a centralized list for the sake of consistency. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:33, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I want to see table,too! Халера!

I'm really losing my sense of good humour as I try to compile a table. For everyone's edification, here's why...

I present you all with a few examples of how edifying various articles and stubs have become as a result of everyone following their own ideological principles rather than attempting to employ a rational system for translation &/or transliteration. See Loyew with the Dnieper being spelled as Dnepr (sheer genius! Let's throw in a Russian transliteration just to spice it up). See the linked stub to Loyew Raion (in itself virtually unintelligible). See the list of "Subdivisions of Gomel Region, Belarus" template tacked onto this stub with its fascinating spellings of various raions. In fact, take a look at the Gomel Region entry which only acknowledges Gomel as the title of the article while everything else is Homieĺ Voblasć (which also has the Dnepr flowing through it, as well as boasting Čyrvonaje Lake in the Žytkavičy Rajon) and read the entries for the 'rajons' within its administrative catchment area. Oops, I forget that Gomel is referred to, finally, under 'Tourism' and the 'See also' sections at the end. Enjoy clicking on the Gomel Province (disambiguation) link in the 'See also' section: it will take you to this disambiguation page. Gomel Province or Homiel Voblast (thinks the English reader). Homiel MUST be something else entirely, after all, the official tourist guides and everything else online spell things completely differently: Osveyskoye, Verhnedvinsk District, Vitebsk Region, Komarin, Braghin District, Gomel Region, Vysokoye, Kamenets District, Brest Region, Khotimsk, Khotimsk District, Mogilev Region, Dzerzhinskaya mountain, Dzerzhinsky district, valley of the Neman river, etc.

Great tactic using standard transliteration for some things (Dnepr & other geographical features and sites already long established in the English language?) and ! It's all as clear as mud but, so long as you get to use Łacinka, that's all that matters. Oh, yes, the English reader are really going to get excited about this opportunity to 'learn' Łacinka!!!??? Ever heard of the English expression, "Cutting off your own nose to spite your face."? No? Then take a good, hard look at the Frankenstein's monster you're making of Belarus out of some high and mighty principles. That's the definition of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Please note that, although the Gomel links have been broken for some time by someone changing them to Homieĺ, I haven't fixed them as I know someone else will come charging through & will break them again within a couple of days. Хочете толку, чи хочете продовжувати цю кашу? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:00, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that already two years ago, when I was creating missing articles for towns of Mogilev and Gomel Regions.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:35, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Fixed some of the things you mentioned (but obviously not all of them).--Ymblanter (talk) 09:43, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

This discussion is getting way too emotional. Let's get back to some simple facts:

* The Instruction on transliteration (...) is only the official standard within Belarus itself, and has been proposed as the official transliteration for use in United Nations documents. Other than that, there is nothing 'official' about it. Therefore, there is no valid reason to impose its use upon the English-language Wikipedia.

* The BGN/PCGN romanization (as mandated by Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Cyrillic)#Belarusian) is far more comprehensible to English speakers than the Instruction on transliteration (...). It's not only the rare modified letters such as ĺ and ŭ, but even more so the phonetic values of unmodified letters that will likely confuse English speakers. Who, apart from those familiar with Polish or Romanian, will guess that <ci> represents /t͡sʲ/ and not /si/? The BGN/PCGN romanization of Vitsyebsk for <Віцебск> is infinitely more intuitive for English speakers than Viciebsk.

Therefore, I see no reason to change anything to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Cyrillic)#Belarusian. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 10:37, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy,there is no need to write proverbs in Ukrainian in the Belarusian topic.Yes,I want an order,but the compromise order.TaalVerbeteraar,read,please, http://www.eki.ee/wgrs/rom1_be.htm and http://www.eki.ee/wgrs/res/res_10_6.htm. Where do you see that the system is recommended for the UN documents?I see it recommended "to be adopted as the international system for the romanization of Belarusian geographical names".BGN/PCGN romanization hasn't more officiality because of its easiness for English speakers.And don't forget,I'm the English reader and speaker,too,like many other people not only from the US,the UK,Australia and so on.So,the using of this reason isn't much persuasive.And the tactics is the same - "names,known to anglo-saxon world" - and no matter they've transliterated from Russian.It's like to start using Chinese names'variants of American settlements instead of English names,think you wouldn't have been very happy about it.And yes,why do you write Belarus,but not Byelorussia?Byelorussia was also well known to "English speakers"?How did you do such unimaginable shift of your consciousness?--Dalakop (talk) 23:52, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Cheers, Ymblanter. I'll be fixing as much as possible as I continue to collate the list for the final table. I just want those constantly thudding through promoting Łacinka to get a sense of what a mess they're creating. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:10, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

The majority are completely with you, TaalVerbeteraar. Further to the logic of the BGN/PCGN romanization, adhering to WP:NCGN is of the highest priority. Unfortunately, there has been ongoing 'input' from those who think Łacinka ought to be prioritised. There seems to be a failure to recognise that it isn't just Belarusian that has to wear English naming conventions. Moscow was Latinised long ago and is recognised as Moscow. Has anyone tried to change that to some unknown convolution completely alien to and English reader? Greece, Turkey and Hungary's names are unrelated to their native language, but that is how they're recognised in English. Kiev remains Kiev, not Kyiv.

Many new geographical stubs with Łacinka naming conventions are being created at the moment (including the article name). Rather than continued arguments on disparate talk pages (if those who keep tossing in Łacinka even bother to try to discuss the issue there), the idea is to create a table of standardised geographical naming conventions at the top of this article. In that way, we can revert and point to this article's table as being the Wikipedia MOS for Belarus with a minimum of edit warring. Any grievances can be aired in this centralised talk page. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:10, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Firstly,Dalakop, it is abundantly clear to all and sundry that, by no stretch of the imagination, are you anywhere near being a native English speaker/reader. As such, you cannot be deemed to represent the interests or understandings of an English-speaking/reading audience (that is, the majority of those who use English Wikipedia as a resource). Secondly, English Wikipedia has its own MOS. If you can pull up an English encyclopaedia, newspaper or other common source for an English audience with entries for geographical locations in Belarus in Łacinka, I'll eat my hat.

Secondly, please read WP:CYR: specifically the section WP:BELARUSIANNAMES where it is clearly stated that, "Other systems and orthographies, e.g., ISO 9, GOST 1983 and derivatives, Lacinka are not to be used." --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:31, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm a poorly educated African from Zimbabwe,which great grandmother was from Belarus,and now prove I'm not a native English speaker\reader.As well as TaalVerbeteraar or Ymblanter are.And why do you permit yourself to speak on behalf of the majority?Where's this "majority"?And I see you don't understand what this topic is about.Where in the topic I spoke about Lacinka?I agree,you can use no Lacinka,I have no objections. We speak about the Instruction.So,have a look here http://arthistory.about.com/cs/namescc/p/chagall.htm http://www.kreegermuseum.org/about-us/collection/painting/Marc-Chagall_Composition http://survincity.com/2011/03/baranavicy-consolidated-for-support/ http://humanrightshouse.org/Articles/10506.html http://euroradio.fm/en/police-van-rams-crowd-city-day-celebrations-babrujsk-video http://www.pl-by-ua.eu/upload/pl/The Crossborderer No 1_2011.pdf - EU paper,with not only Belarusian instruction,but also Ukrainian Kyiv,Lviv.Think,you don't start denying the usage of the Instruction now.I can't give an example of an encyclopaedia or a newspaper yet,because a process isn't so rapid (nevertheless,it has been started),but the Internet is more flexible,and you can see the examples.So,eat your hat? :D --Dalakop (talk) 02:44, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. There is no original research (which the promotion non-standard spellings is). We are not here to push POV bias. No reasonable sources "yet" ([sic])? Then there will be no eating of hats. You need to read through Wikipedia's policies and MOS properly before you continue your POV push. Stop throwing various specific institutions with their own MOS into a general equation. If you want to 'teach' people, write a blog or join a forum. No more engaging with me here for the moment, please. I simply won't waste any more time on replying to you as I have a table to set up. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:57, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Dalakop, your comparisons do not apply. There is a clear reason why we do not write "Tchieske Budeyovitse" for České Budějovice: Czech is natively written in the Latin script. Therefore, there is no reason to transliterate it, as the English-language Wikipedia is written in the Latin script as well. Belarusian, on the other hand, is natively written in the Cyrillic script and does require transliteration. Do not make the mistake of thinking that the Instruction (...) is also a native writing system of Belarusian. It is not. It is only a system of transliteration and is therefore not comparable to the Czech Latin alphabet.

The reason we do not use "Chinese names'variants of American settlements" is that, well, this is not the Chinese Wikipedia. Probably, the Chinese-language Wikipedia does use Chinese transcriptions of American settlements, though.

And yes, you are an English speaker too, but you are an English speaker who has knowledge of (Latin transliteration of) Belarusian. Most ordinary English speakers (of which >99.9% probably have no knowledge of Belarusian at all) will not know how to correctly interpret a transliteration such as Viciebsk.

For the purposes of the English-language Wikipedia, there is simply no good argument to impose the Instruction. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 10:22, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

District vs Raion vs Rajon

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

And on top of this mess, half of the pages on districts use raion (Brahin Raion), and others use rajon (Naroulia Rajon), and no redirects are available (Brahin Rajon is a redlink). I would personally prefer Brahin District, but for whatever reason our Belarussian friends seem to oppose it. If it is not District, could we at least agree on whether it is Raion and Rajon, so that I could rename all of them and eliminate redlinks in the templates?--Ymblanter (talk) 09:32, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Personally,I convinced it must be Rajon.Rajon is like Voblasts' in Belarusian.Russian:raion,oblast.Look at the Russian and Ukrainian subdivisions.There are oblasts,raions,even selsovets,but not provinces,districts and Soviets of the settlement--Dalakop (talk) 13:03, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, for Russia we use Districts. In Ukraine it is Raion, and there was a long discussion with a large number of semi-active users, where they opposed Districts. In Kazakhstan, it is District.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:47, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Reeally? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subdivisions_of_Russia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia#Political_divisions I don't see districts.In Ukraine it is raion,because the pronuciation resembles Russian - раЙОн.In Belarus it is раЁн.And have a look here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raion - The word "raion" (or "rayon") is often used in translated form: Azerbaijani: rayon; Belarusian: раён, rajon; Georgian: რაიონი, raioni; Latvian: rajons; Lithuanian: rajonas; Romanian: raion; Russian: райо́н and Ukrainian: райо́н. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalakop (talk • contribs) 14:33, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Belozersky District, Pushkinogorsky District, Bezhetsky District, Yeletsky District - good enough for Russia? Districts of Kazakhstan for Kazakhstan. Having said this, I really do not care. If everybody agrees rajon is the most recognizable form in English - let it be rajon.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:24, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Every time you come up with a comment, Dalakop, I end up burying my face in my hands out of sheer exasperation. You're not much of a linguist, are you? The Belarusian, Russian and Ukrainian pronunciation of raion/rayon is precisely the same! Personally, I don't favour the 'j' over 'i' or 'y' as English readers DO, for the most part, read it as being 'j' as in 'joy' or 'Japan'. 'I' or 'y' are more intuitive, although my preference would would, again, actually be for 'y' as it is used to distinguish between the palatalized 'i' and the hard 'i'. It's certainly not a big deal.

Actually, Ymblanter, my next project is to try to clean up the Ukrainian geographical naming conventions as they're nonsensical (raion/rayon makes far more sense as 'district' in English for the readers). The idea, surely, is to create something meaningful to them! The individual language nomenclature can go right next to the English equivalent in the lead. Let's not forget that these conventions pre-date the Soviet Union by centuries (in fact, they go back to the time of Rus' principalities), so why is everyone so obsessed with divorcing themselves from mere words as if it's going to impact on their sovereignty? By all means, make it clear what the structure is from top to bottom level, but let's find a series of English equivalents which the reader can relate to. Well, that's all something for another day. At the moment, we're discussing transliteration systems.

I would suggest 'Rayon' if our Belarusian friends prefer not to defer to current translation and transliteration conventions, Ymblanter. We have, however, only heard continuous non-arguments from Dalakop so far. While he does make a lot of noise and pouts a lot, ultimately he doesn't make a reasonable argument for his preferences. On top of that, he claims that he is from Zimbabwe with some sort of Belarusian ancestry: which hardly makes him a sound representative for the Belarusian contingent here, although those Belarusians who have engaged in the discussion have expressed their disdain for his input and attitude. I think it would be prudent to invite Alexey Ostrometski as he has been developing many of these articles of late. If I see a reasonable argument for NOT following WP:NCGN and maintaining the norms that have been established in this manner, I'll be the first to take it up. The broken links and variations on spelling can wait a couple of days until we've had someone doing more than breaking links have their say. (And, Dalakop, that's not an invitation for you to create more one off accounts in order to say things like, " I want to see table,too! Халера!" We're all wise to that behaviour.) --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:27, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

If @Ezhiki: wants to comment, his contribution would be most welcome.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:32, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy, your accusations are groundless and foolish.I haven't created any account, except mine. So,this way, delete all your additional accounts presented here,I could think the topic is discussed by you and me only.Don't you think I support this idea alone? Its just a lack of knowledge in English among the other users, who supports the idea.And yes,don't show your professional incompetence as a linguist.Look the phonetic parsing of the words before making improper statements.Район [рай'`он],but раён [раён].ЙО differs from Ё,that's why raIOn in Russian and raJOn in Belarusian.And yes,only the lack of proof forces people to blame their opponents and appeal to somebody's personal authority in discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalakop (talk • contribs) 12:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm here per Yaroslav's request. I have no preference as to which convention is adopted for Belarusian place names, but I can explain the logic behind the practices used for Russian, if anyone's interested.

In all, whatever convention is adopted, it should possess the following qualities: be consistent, be representative of the usage in English, be as specific as possible but without becoming so specific as to be understood only by experts, and be as generic as possible but without becoming so generic as to become ambiguous and useless (case in point: for Russia, we discuss "raions" when describing the concept, but use "districts" when referring to the actual administrative-territorial units; doing so actually mirrors the terms' usage in English). Oh, and the matters of phonetics (something Dalakop seems to be especially concerned about) are really beyond the point unless they are specifically addressed by a romanization system.

Now, before I continue, let me remind of the main differences between transliteration, transcription, and romanization. I apologize to those who already know this full well, but in my experience many editors don't understand these differences and even use the terms interchangeably, which leads to all sorts of problems and wasted time during discussions. Transliteration is conversion of text from one script to another. Transcription is the representation of sounds in written form. Romanization is a system of rules for converting text from one written system to another using transliteration, transcription, or elements of both, and the main goal of which is to arrive to a standardized written form.

Now let's see how this plays out when applied to Russian "район". The particulars and spellings would be different for Belarusian and Ukrainian, but the underlying approach is still the same. Russian word "район" can be transliterated in numerous ways: "rayon" (BGN/PCGN), "raĭon" (ALA-LC), "rajon" (GOST/UN), "raion" (passport system). It can be also be transcribed using various transcription systems, such as IPA or SAMPA. All these variants are valid and neither one is ever better than another; they all may have place in certain contexts and be out of place in another. For the purpose of building an encyclopedia, a BGN/PCGN-based system (WP:RUS) is used most of the time, because that's what's used in the real world most of the time.

That said, there is also another aspect that needs to always be considered, and that's the issue of the loanwords. Some Russian/Slavic words, such as "raion" and "oblast" (and "borsht" and "sputnik") are actually included in the major dictionaries of English (such as the mighty OED). The importance of this cannot be overestimated. Once a word makes it into dictionaries, the spelling recommended by the dictionaries becomes standard, and all other transliteration/romanization variants take a back seat. At this point we are dealing with an English word, and it should be treated as any other English word. Since "oblast" and "raion" are loanwords, that's the spelling that needs to be used regardless of whether we are dealing with a Russian "район"/"область", a Ukrainian "район"/"область", or a Belarusian "раён"/"вобласць". Using "oblast" (a loanword) for Russia and Ukraine but "voblast" (a spelling which is neither a loanword nor corresponds to any major system of romanization of Belarusian) for Belarus makes very little sense no matter from which angle one looks at it. Same goes for "rajon"—why use transliteration in a system which isn't often used in the encyclopedic context when the loanword "raion" is readily available and when the perfectly understandable and mostly unambiguous word "district" does the job most of the time?

I have a lot more to say on this subject, but I'm afraid for many this post has already surpassed the tl;dr limit.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 15, 2013; 16:51 (UTC)

(After edit conflict)
@Dalakop: Actually, I think the difference between Russian район and Belarusian раён has little to do with phonemics, and comes down mostly to different conventions on the spelling of loanwords. Belarusian orthography is generally much stricter in the application of ё, while Russian often prefers йо for use in loanwords and foreign names. Compare Russian Милла Йовович to Belarusian Міла Ёвовіч for the name of actress Milla Jovovich. Rayon/raion/rajon is a loanword, derived from French rayon (meaning honeycomb, department). Its Russian orthography ended up being район and its Belarusian counterpart раён. Linguistically, I can't see a compelling reason to transcribe one as raion and the other as rajon. In fact, per BGN/PCGN, it should be rayon for both languages. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 17:07, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Just wanted to add that when dealing with loanwords, what BGN/PCGN (or any other romanization system) says is pretty much irrelevant—the dictionary spelling should be preferred. The "rayon" variant, however, is also listed in the OED as an alternative (with "raion" being the main variant), so on those grounds using it is not incorrect either. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 15, 2013; 17:16 (UTC)

And this contradiction again,TaalVerbeteraar. Why Jovovich,but not Yovocich?And if you consider it as a loanword,so why there is YAnka Kupala,YAkub Kolas,but not Janka Kupala,Jakub Kolas as it should be? Why English Wiki brings this spelling closer to Serbo-Croatian\Montenegrin language? Where is the fuss about "Oh,we would read it as [ʤovovich]"? JUST EXPLAIN,please.And more,1st meaning of the french word 'rayon' is 'a ray'. But if use your principle of loanwords,we should write it as Latin 'radius', which rayon has derived from.Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky),if WP:RUS is approved for Wiki,why the word 'raion' exists?According to the rules, 'rayon' should be both for Russian and Belarusian. That's why there are reproofs. Just be consistent in Wiki. If the rules are for all, just use RAYON for BEL\RUS\UKR,and obliterate word RAION, which is under rules and 'rus-biased', and no matter it is in OED. If you can't, then add BEL and UKR variants. --Dalakop (talk) 22:11, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, Ëzhiki's observations regarding the logic of the Russian standardization used for English Wikipedia have certainly convinced me that 'raion', 'rayon' or 'rajon' are ridiculous details which don't assist the target audience but, instead, end up confusing rather than informing. Frankly, I'm not concerned with conventions adopted in English Wikipedia for the Balkan countries or for Central European Slavic countries which have long been using one convolution of the Latin script or another.

As already noted, the Ukrainian articles are illogical and I will be working on adopting the comparable Russian system for both geographical AND general transcription practices. The Ukrainian articles suffer from a lack of uniformity in the use of 'y' and 'j', as well as 'Kh' and 'K', as well as 'Zh' and 'Z' and 'ts' and 'c' in particular.

Apologies, Dalakop, if I levelled an unfounded accusation of setting up multiple accounts. It simply struck me as a strange coincidence that someone would set up an account just to make a comment on something which could only be perceived as being an obscure discussion on a talk page which wouldn't attract much traffic.

If nothing else, I'm now convinced that it is worth putting some time and energy into creating a comprehensive table as an absolute reference point to work from rather than simply discussing abstract concepts. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:14, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Dalakop, either you completely misunderstood what I wrote, or you just do not want to understand.

1. You're interpreting the Milla Jovovich example the wrong way round. It was meant to illustrate cyrillization of Latin, not romanization of Cyrillic. I used her (Latin alphabet) name to illustrate how Russian and Belarusian diverge in transcribing /jo/ in foreign words, i.e. Russian often choosing йо and Belarusian mostly preferring ё. Using this as a straw man to suggest that I propose a "jo" transliteration of йо / ё is disingenuous at best.

2. You're twisting beyond recognition my argument about loanwords. I never claimed that the fact that район and раён are loanwords should mean that we ought to spell them as in the language from which they are derived. And Ëzhiki is not saying that either. His argument, in fact, is that raion is a loanword in English as well (a doubly-borrowed word: first from French into Russian, later from Russian into English) and should be spelled according to its usual form in English.

Please stop this, Dalakop. You will not advance the discussion by blatantly misrepresenting other contributors' arguments. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 11:01, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

TaalVerbeteraar,your accusation isn't correct. I've made no suggestion that you proposes a "jo" transliteration of йо / ё. Could you show me the line I've done it? I just said that "jo" in Wiki seems not to contradict the rules of English. According to the rules, Jovovich should be written Yovovich "for better understanding" like New York, Yanka Kupala, Yakub Kolas. Why can't you see this discrepancy? Using Jovovich, Wiki uses the rules of Serbo-Croatian, but why it can't use the rules of Belarusian in such a case? The Cyrillic alphabet (with "j" letter) for Serbo-Croatian was invented earlier than the Latin version, so it isn't correct to say about the cyrillisation of Latin, it was also romanization of Cyrillic in some degree. What about Ëzhiki's argument, I have no objection to it, I've said the rules are the rules (WP:RUS), and the article's name as well as further using should be 'rayon' only (yes, it is possible to state a variant 'raion' in brackets in the description), or just use all the variants, if the rules are violated, and maybe sometime the word 'rajon' would be in OED, too. So, I deem, it's you who misinterpret arguments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalakop (talk • contribs) 16:19, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I second the request to stop twisting the arguments to the point of the ridiculous, Dalakop. The Jovovich argument is dead in the water according to WP:UCN. TaalVerbeteraar was merely making a reasonable and valid point in terms of transliteration from English into Russian and Belarusian. Her name, in English, is recognized as being Jovovich due to someone's random transcription practice (in the US Department of Immigration?). It could just as easily have been transcribed as Jowowic, Yovovich, etc. therefore she would be known to English speakers according to the common use in the media by which she is recognised in the English language.

For geographical naming conventions, it is WP:WIAN that applies. Also bear in mind that, according to WP:DIACRITICS, "Search engines are problematic unless their verdict is overwhelming; modified letters have the additional difficulties that some search engines will not distinguish between the original and modified forms, and others fail to recognize the modified letter because of optical character recognition errors." The convoluted forms of geographical names you have jumped on and changed are dependent on English reader's comprehension of various forms of diacritics. Why on earth would you imagine that such forms would be used for searches. In all seriousness, how many do you actually think would have more than their standard English keyboard layout or even be aware that they can change their keyboard layout? You're obsessing over matters that, in the grand scheme of the universe, don't even qualify as inane trivia and are proposing that changes are put in place which simply don't matter, would not figure into their lexicographical comprehension, or even be of particular interest to an English speaker/reader/writer. Divert your energy into something constructive like developing stubs and finding citations in articles desperately in need of them if you want to contribute meaningfully. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:39, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh,how a poor English speaker/reader/writer searches the West- and East Slavic or the Baltic names (which are full of additional symbols) in search engines without changing a keyboard layout?And why the "reliable sources" do its best not to make names easier, but to complicate them. How can you read Encyclopaedia Britannica at all?It's full of diacritis! It is not in interest of an English speaker/reader/writer!Once again you try to oust the contradiction from your consciousness and persuade me I tell nonsense.It's just selective neglect towards ex-soviet norms of romanization. Czech diacritis are OK and cause no difficulties in reading and searching, but Belarusian, which are the same, SUDDENLY look monstrous and impossible to search. Just FACEPALM. Reading WP:DIACRITIS, I see "article titles is neither encouraged nor discouraged", so my proposal mustn't be rejected. And I have no many objections to WP:WIAN. I've made my compromise proposal: to write well-known WAN names as they are in English, but use Instruction for the others (moreover,they can't cause interest of an English speaker/reader/writer) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalakop (talk • contribs) 15:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Are we still discussing district vs raion vs rayon, or are you now discussing smth else? And please also learn how to sign with four tildes.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes,I do.But I couldn't answer Iryna Harpy,who started the off-topic.She's too emotional,and always tries to give me advice,that aren't necessary.She's very hard to have rational discussion with.Girls,such girls :) --Dalakop (talk) 14:31, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you do what??? I'm working on a table as I find time (it'll take a little while as I do have other things to tackle). In the meantime, please stop whining unless you're prepared to create a table yourself. Save your breath for complaining until something concrete is presented for consideration. You'll be welcome to bleat to your heart's content once something tangible has been created. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

We are not really moving on for quite some time already. Would anybody object to adopting the standard term rayon, with redirects from district, raion, and rajon?--Ymblanter (talk) 23:46, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support for the sake of making some sort of headway into consistency of naming conventions. As there seem to be seriously deeply felt convictions about Belarus, Russia and Ukraine differentiating between their sovereign nations by using differing forms of Region, District, etc. I am happy to accept rayon as the conventional transliteration of this division. I would, however, want to qualify the support by stating that it must conform to the English convention of capitalizing it to Rayon when directly associated with the said 'rayon': i.e. Brest Rayon and not Brest rayon. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

  I actually implied capitalization and was not planning to create non-capitalized redirects.--Ymblanter (talk) 04:48, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

  Sorry, this wasn't directed at you! I simply want it on record that it be understood as the norm for anyone who adds or edits entries as there are going to be contributors who aren't as familiar with English grammatical rules and English Wikipedia as are you. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:03, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

  I hate to bring more disorder into an already splintered thread, but I'd rather stick with "raion" than "rayon". The former is listed as the main form in all dictionaries that include this term (with the latter only being an alternative), is more commonly used both in English and in the English Wikipedia, while the latter is ambiguous with this rayon (a much more well-known term). Upsides, I just don't see any. And that's only for discussing the concept. As far as article titles go, what's wrong with using "district" (e.g., "Brest District")? When referred to by name, the "district" moniker is far more common than "raion" (whatever spelling is used) in both Soviet and post-Soviet contexts. Using "Brest" vs. a romanization of Брэсцкі is probably also something worth discussing...—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 23, 2013; 18:24 (UTC)

  As I mentioned earlier, my personal preference is indeed District in the titles.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I've also expressed that District is my preference, and that I'm going to try to bring the Ukrainian entries in line with this standard (although I've been expressly ignored by Ukrainian editors to this point, I haven't started on herding them into a fresh discussion). I was merely happy to go along with 'rayon' in order to expedite the process as Ymblanter is obviously - and justifiably - getting aggravated by the mess continuing in Belarus articles on his watchlist.

I don't see how bringing political interests being served by adopting EU-friendly Latinized conventions will serve the average English reader in any way. In fact it is counterproductive for everyone in that it only adds to the confusion. To be frank, we're only having this discussion as the result of blatant coercion into kowtowing to political interest groups, and I don't believe that Wikipedians should bow to soapbox pressure over their better judgement.

Logic would dictate that, if this is set as a precedent, Voblast would have to replace Region and so forth. In order to avoid being stuck at an impasse again, perhaps this should be simply be turned into a flat vote on whether the standard terminology should favour the English reader's comprehension of geographical divisions, therefore we use District over Rajon/Raion/Rayon, etc.? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I can't agree with Ёzhiki. I haven't found "raion" in OED. Could you give me a scan or a link for this word, please? But I've found a definition of oblast - an administrative division or region in Russia and the former Soviet Union, and in some constituent republics of the former Soviet Union. So, now it must be either voblasts' or region. The same situation, I convinced, is with raion. You can use this words for Russia and USSR (including BSSR) only, but not for Belarus itself. I have no objections to the idea of using words district and rayon for the articles about Belarus as non-biased nationally and linguistically. And think it possible to give a variant rajon in brackets in the definition - (also rajon, also раён and so on).--Dalakop (talk) 16:49, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy,tell me,why the organization, which is predominately sponsored by the USA, adopts EU-friendly conventions? Think,it's nonsense. It adopts world-friendly conventions. And it's proved internationally (including the USA and the UK as members of the UN).--Dalakop (talk) 16:29, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Do we then have consensus for District?--Ymblanter (talk) 19:44, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Hopefully so... although Dalakop seems to be arguing other convoluted interpretations in the section where we're actually voting on consensus for the use of English conventions. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Diffusing politically charged regional terminology by using English terminology

The current page is being used as a directive for the MOS for Wikipedia, but the fact remains that it is, in fact, a technical linguistic guide precisely as stated by its title, "Instruction on transliteration of Belarusian geographical names with letters of Latin script."

Such a concept may be fine for a specialized MOS for an institution that deals with technical linguistic transliteration but does not serve as a reasonable guide for a broader reading audience but would not be used in a general encyclopaedia which calls for an intuitive, English reader accessible and comprehensible terminology. Furthermore, it deals exclusively with the transliteration of names of towns and landmarks and not to geographical administrative divisions of governance.

I propose that, given that transcriptions/transliterations and all other 'trans' nomenclature carries politically volatile implications, all terminological disputes are best addressed by simply substituting them with English counterparts. The English counterparts are not only NOT politically loaded but are more intuitive for the readers of English Wikipedia. All naming conventions should defer to their English counterparts, applicable from top level down to mountain, lake, road, freeway, river, etc. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:04, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I am fine with this.--Ymblanter (talk) 00:44, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I can't agree with it.

1.Other BGN/PCGN romanization systems have special symbols, that shows the pecularities of the language.

2.I see that Wiki uses BGN/PCGN romanization systems selectively.

Look.

• BGN/PCGN for Kazakh - Kökshetaū,but it is written Kokshetau; Äūezov,but it is written Auezov
• BGN/PCGN for Russian - Kuban’, but it is written Kuban; Shakhtërsk but it is written Shakhtyorsk

So don't tell me rubbish about using BGN/PCGN systems in Wikipedia. And I sure you'll never write Shakhtërsk instead of Shakhtyorsk. I see no rules at all. And inconsistency as usual.

Transcription is not politically, but linguistically biased. Where can you see politics? It just shows all the traits of the language without great difficulties for those who uses English.--Dalakop (talk) 16:33, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Dalakop, you are obviously not familiar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, so I will bring up 4 vital issues for you to acquaint yourself with:

1. Threading on talk pages. Your contributions to the talk page/s are difficult to follow.
2. Please read WP:WIAN carefully. You will find the reason for why Kökshetaū is written as Kokshetau, Kuban' is written as Kuban, Äūezov is Auezov, etc. Using just a couple of the tools available (that is, outside of recommended atlases - none of which use Kökshetaū), these are the results yielded for Google news Kökshetaū and Kokshetau, plus Google Ngram viewer for both Kokshetau and Kökshetaū.
3. Please read WP:TEDIOUS, paying particular attention to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS regarding the fact that, ""Wikipedia is behind the ball..." We are not here to foist lexicons, nomenclature and what ought to be on the readers.
4. Finally, please read up on Single-purpose accounts and compare it to your contributions list. I suggest that you that you need more experience in editing English Wikipedia and familiarising yourself with the policies and guidelines and experience with actual editing before you involve yourself with what you think is right and what you think is wrong with the structure of existing Wikipedia norms. I don't think you comprehend how badly set out the Belarus articles are with the use of several spelling variations and nomenclature popping up throughout various sections within the articles, links that have been broken/pointing to non-existent articles (the red links) due to single-minded contributors changing naming conventions without understanding what they're doing, ie. compare Shakhtyorsk to Shakhtërsk. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

It's not fair to be familiar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines until Wikipedia do it itself. So, reliable sources use system for Kazakh: Encyclopaedia Britannica gives Kökshetaū, National Geographic Society gives Atyraū. Here I can see the usage of BGN/PCGN system. So, why Kokshetau? There are many more searching results for Shakhtërsk than 1 result for Shakhtyorsk in Wiki. Wiki breaks the rules of WIAN. So, Wiki helds the policy "how we wish, so we write" towards Bel\Rus\Ukr. You tell me you use BGN/PCGN system for Belarusian names, but it doesn't work for Russian, for example. Ok, Kuban is WIAN and isn't written as Kuban', but show me a reliable source for Gusinoozyorsk (it must be written as Gusinoozёrsk), so I see, this name is beyond the rules. Don't try to elude the greater problem in Wiki, than you can see. That's why I support national instructions, they give uniformity. What about my contribution, have you seen all the pages? I think, you didn't. --Dalakop (talk) 12:52, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Please read the policies and guidelines before returning to carry on about... well, I can't actually really even work out what your point is (other than trying to reinvent the (Wikipedia) wheel). Your 'other contributions' have amounted to changing file images for flags and logos, plus dozens of instances of renaming (changing nomenclature) in articles according to your vision of transliteration/transcription which has created headaches for constructive editors who have to keep reverting the messes you leave in your wake. In no way can your 'contributions' be interpreted as Wikipedia editing. If anything, you are engaged in borderline vandalism. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:35, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Anglo-saxonism in use. Your national institutions developed systems for foreign languages, which distort the norms of these languages. More, this systems haven't been discussed with the states, whose languages were taken for romanization. I see the parallel with the invasions of the NATO members (predominately the US and the UK) in different states, ignoring resolutions of the international community (the UN). "We decided for ourselves, and we don't damn about other opinions" What if Belarus developed system for English, where Washington was Vashyngton and so on without discussion? I think it's not fair to use such the systems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalakop (talk • contribs) 16:18, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Your comparison of the choice of a transliteration standard for an online encyclopedia to NATO invasions of countries is a very valid one. By choosing BGN/PCGN, we have essentially mounted a ground invasion of Belarus. I expect the UN Security Council to adopt a resolution condemning this rogue romanization in violation of human rights any minute now.
Excuse my sarcasm. This is just getting too ridiculous. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 19:13, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations, Dalakop. You've earned yourself the status of "troll". We do not feed trolls. Basically, you no longer qualify as a Wikipedia contributor entitled to having a voice in the consensus process.

Where did this ridiculous business of "Anglo-saxonism in use" come from? "Our institutions"? Whose? A large portion of those contributing to English Wikipedia are not Anglo-Saxons. Certainly, the majority working on articles surrounding the non Anglo-Saxon parts of the world don't have a drop of Anglo-Saxon blood nor come from Anglo-Saxon regions of this planet. Your sweeping generalizations have no validity in this context whatsoever. You seem to be the only one with a flea in his ear. This discussion has not been about conformism to any standard other than that which the reader recognises. English is no longer simply an Anglo-Saxon language: it's a world language.

Good-day, goodbye and good luck to you. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:03, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Have you decided it alone that I'm a "troll", Iryna Harpy? Either as several institutions (BGN/PCGN) decided about the using BGN/PCGN systems and several people accepted it as a norm in Wikipedia. Where's the voting of the community? In such a way I also name you a troll and deliver from voting. Please, blame arguments, but not opponents, its too unwise. And Instruction isn't only Belarusian system , it's a world approved system. TaalVerbeteraar, I just wanted to show egocentrism (or anglosaxocentrism? :), nothing more.--Dalakop (talk) 08:48, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Well your behavior in this thread is certainly trolling. Instead of addressing the point, you see that your opinion does not gain any consensus, and you start discussing your opponents instead, replacing rational arguments with ridiculous statements. Would you please stop.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Ł ł and L l

I'm new here, so i don't know how to edit stuff correctly, but shouldn't it be L l for /lʲ/ (i.e palatalised) and Ł ł for normal /l/? 178.124.104.141 (talk) 09:15, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, 178.124.104.141. Instructions for Wikipedia romanisation can be found here. If you have further questions, please feel free to ask. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:40, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Instruction on transliteration of Belarusian geographical names with letters of Latin script. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090824062135/http://unstats.un.org:80/unsd/geoinfo/9th-UNCSGN-Docs/E-CONF-98-CRP-21.pdf to http://unstats.un.org/unsd/geoinfo/9th-uncsgn-docs/e-conf-98-crp-21.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061017130651/http://kp.belkp.by:80/2006/10/13/doc142060/ to http://kp.belkp.by/2006/10/13/doc142060/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070927011431/http://www.eki.ee/wgrs/rom2_be.pdf to http://www.eki.ee/wgrs/rom2_be.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:16, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Confirmed as correct x 3. Thanks, Cyberbot II. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:28, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Instruction on transliteration of Belarusian geographical names with letters of Latin script. 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/20160116131630/http://lacinka.livejournal.com/50686.html to http://lacinka.livejournal.com/50686.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:40, 5 April 2017 (UTC)