Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Cyrillic)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Belarusian update

The Belarusian standard has been updated in 2007, with some significant changes. Shall we use the new version? The guideline should be updated to make note of this, whichever the decision. —Michael Z. 2008-11-20 07:57 z

I do support this. The usage of BGN/PCGN romanization was the best one when the initial naming conventions had been established, but the national convention revised in 2007 looks to be a better alternative since that time: 1) It is officially adopted by Belarus; 2) It was recommended for usage by the Working Group on Romanization Systems of the United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names; 3) It much better matches the term "national rules", required by WP:NCGN#Belarus. —zedlik (talk) 18:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Take notice, though, this Instruction isn't designated 'for the [currently Belarusian] Geographical Names' for nothing. Also, it is unusable (w/r to the input) on the absolute majority (like 99.5%) of software installations in Belarus, unlike the BGN/PCGN. Yury Tarasievich (talk) 14:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Conventional names

Recently I have received a rough message that saying the slavic surname Hristov is conventionally Christoff, like Joseph or Alexander. For that, I could find only one usage, the rest was Hristov or less Khristov see. Hristov so can someone who has a real experience on the topic contribute to the subject? Manaviko (talk) 12:36, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Manaviko, each article should be under the spelling most commonly used in English for its subject. So you may end up with some Hristovs, Christoffs, and Xristovs, or whatever. And the results are unlikely to follow one particular standard of transliteration, because the different Hristovs have been written about at different times, under different subject areas, and by different people.

Of course, it can be difficult to determine what is most common when the subjects are little written about in English. Move individual articles when there is a good reason to, and avoid making mass changes to satisfy the desire for order, because then you may be working against several other editors’ ideas of what is ordered. Wikipedia resists being perfectly neat and tidy. —Michael Z. 2016-04-05 14:02 z

I never said that the surname Hristov is conventionally Christoff, I just pointed out that if a name or word has a conventional English spelling, that spelling is used. In this case it means that the opera singer Boris Christoff, the boxer Aleksandar Khristov and the football player Gjorgji Hristov have different spellings of their surname, since that is how they have been known. If another Христов with no conventional English spelling turns up, then the transcription rules will decide how to spell it. --T*U (talk) 14:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Здравей, manaviko and thanks for your invitation to give my opinion in this forum. Though my competence for the English language and for the English Wikipedia (to which I never contributed) is extremely limited, I always opposed to the so called "streamlined system" imposed by the Bulgarian authorities without any concertation, which only apes English spelling in a very uncultivated manner and isn't at all scientific (as you point out). I think the whole Wikipedia should use the scientific system of tranliteration (ISO 9), which is the only coherent solution. Of course, this doesn't mean that traditional transliterations like Boris Christoff should be abandonned. There are orthograhic traditions in every language which should be respected. Hubertgui (talk) 16:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I aggree with User:Mzajac & User:TU-nor. Regarding the Bulgaria-related articles, you should use the official transliteration unless there is different most common name for the subject (like Christoff & Khristov). This answers the question for the Scientific tranliteration for Bulgaria-related articles as well. --StanProg (talk) 18:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I have no learned opinion on this specific issue. I would note, however, this is English-language project, and should primarily reflect English-language use. This is what's expected of it by English non-native speakers, anyway, I believe.

Also: a majority of English non-native speakers, world-wide, wouldn't know or care about a myriad of 'national systems'. Why should they? 'National systems' come and go. It's not for nothing we have international standards. Yury Tarasievich (talk) 14:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I like the Scientific system of romanization of Bulgarian. Actually, I do not speak Bulgarian, but I see that Bulgarian is much more consistent in rendering loanwords than Russian. I mean that "h" in Russian is traditionally rendered "г", but modern loanwords have "х"; "la, lu" in words of Latin origin can become "ла, лу" or "ля, лю"; Greek "θ" can become "ф" or "т"; etc. In Bulgarian, "h" almost never becomes "г", "lu" is almost always "лу", "θ" is always "т", and there is never a problem where to use the letter "э" because there is no such letter in Bulgarian. In the Scientific system, twenty-two letters of the basic Latin alphabet are used in the manner consistent with the Bulgarian rendering of Latin words (with the Medieval distinction i/j and u/v). The Latin alphabet was primarily designed to write Latin, a great (if not to say "the greatest") language of the human culture, and today myriads of words of Latin origin live in modern languages. So, these 22 letters in the Scientific system represent sounds corresponding to the sound used for Bulgarian rendering of the letter (the more common if there are two except for "c", where "k" is used for the more common one). The four other letters ("q", "w", "x", and "y") are deleted as redundant for Bulgarian, and four other letters ("č", "š", "ž", and "ǎ") are added. Besides that, the Scientific system is close to the Latin alphabets of related languages. So, it is a brilliant system, and Bulgarians could take it as a new Bulgarian alphabet (instead of or besides the Cyrillic one) if they decide to be more European. (For Russian, it is more difficult to create a consistent system of writing Russian in the Latin script because of inconsistencies of rendering loanwords and intra-language problems. I cannot think of a system of romanizing Russian which would be so brilliant.) But Bulgarians (and Russians, too) are very proud of the Cyrillic script. We can use names using non-English spelling conventions in an English text. So we write Latin-script names in their original spellings. Some originally-non-Latin-script languages have established conventions for writing them in the Latin script: Chinese names are written using pinyin, Serbian names are written using Gaj's Latin alphabet (which is used in fact by the Serbs themselves as an alternative alphabet). Macedonian names are also often written according to the Slavic conventions: Skopje and not *Skopye. So I cannot say that it is linguistically wrong if an author or an editor wants to write Bulgarian names in an English text according to the Scientific system. However: (1) its usage in English-language texts is much rarer than that of Anglicized spellings, and in Wikipedia we tend to use spellings and systems commonly used in English-language texts; (2) there is the Bulgarian Law of Transliteration (2009) that seems to have declared the Streamlined system as the only correct way to write Bulgarian words in the Latin script. Although the author of the system, Lyubomir Ivanov (explorer) aka User:Apcbg once said (before adoption of the Law) that he had wanted to standardize the transliteration into English and not to unify spelling across languages.Burzuchius (talk) 19:19, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Just to point out, wildly off-topic, that Bulgarian can be as inconsistent as Russian when it comes to rendering loanwords: Greek "ch" can be either "х" or "к", Greek "y" is usually "и" but sometimes "ю", Latin "la" is "ла" unless the word was borrowed via Russian, when it becomes "ля" (as in "полярен"). Back on the topic, llthough I, and many others, personally prefer the scientific system, it's not in wide use. We can't build alternative spelling realities here, so I'll just reiterate the common view: stick to whatever spelling is most commonly used for the specific person in English, if none exists then use the official anglicisation. Uanfala (talk) 20:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I have also been invitated to contribute my opinion to this discussion, although I am not quite certain what exactly its particular subject might be. Three points.

First, the English-oriented Streamlined System is not just the Bulgarian national system for the Roman transliteration of Bulgarian language. It is now also both the official US and UK system for the Romanization of Bulgarian (since 2013) and the official UN system for the Romanization of Bulgarian (since 2012).

Second, it should be noticed the actual Russian and Ukrainian national systems for the Romanization of Russian and Ukrainian languages are also English oriented rather than based on the Scientific System.

And third, while the Bulgarian personal names are now overwhelmingly transliterated by the Streamlined System, persons are asked in the process of issuing identity documents to declare if they accept that standard Roman spelling of their names and if not, given the option to have their names transliterated in a way of their choice. Few people use that option, for a variety of reasons. For instance, one of the former foreign ministers Иван Станчов has its family name rendered as Stancioff rather than Stanchov, the former form being traditional for his family as one of his ancestors was a merchant trading with Italy and spelling his name in that manner. So in the case of Христов, this family name is now rendered as Hristov, but the family name of the singer Boris Christoff is popular in that particular form of his choice.

That said, I believe that the present Wikipedia arrangements for the Roman transliteration of Bulgarian names are adequate. Apcbg (talk) 12:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

In Russia, there is no single national romanization system. Many organizations use English-oriented systems, but different in some details. On the other hand, the Federal Service for State Registration, Cadastre and Cartography uses a variant of the Scientific system: [1]. Sometimes, odd spellings are introduced: librarians use "shh" for "щ", the passport system used "tc" for "ц" from 2010 to 2013...Burzuchius (talk) 10:49, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Dear Burzuchius, I meant above the system used in the Russian passports; otherwise you are right there are several other systems for the Romanization of Russian, including the peculiar one that could be seen on the Moscow street plates in 2014 (see Gazeta.ru and Muhamedov), don’t know if those plates still look the same today. I like better the Streamlined System for Russian but that’s just my opinion, probably off topic here anyway. Apcbg (talk) 14:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Why is this proposal still in the discussion process?

After at least 10 years, are we any closer to implementing some form of this? Rovingrobert (talk) 23:19, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Convention

Can someone check if this is following the convention here - Aleksey Malchevskiy Shyamal (talk) 14:17, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

latinisation of slavic languages

Hello people, because of unscientifical transcription of Bulgarian one is confused about the name and the voice and also for the pronounciation of the written name. for the bulgarian Boris Christoff is not a really good example there must be something difficult for example Cvetan Cvetanov. Manaviko (talk) 17:55, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Problem with transliteration of Belarusian geographical names

I am procedurally closing this RfC with no result because it started with a non-neutral statement and with the proposal:

Should Instruction on transliteration of Belarusian geographical names with letters of Latin script be promoted to a guideline?

which led editors to respond, "articles cannot be guidelines".

There is no prejudice against starting a new RfC as formulated by Kazimier Lachnovič:

I assume it's clear that the users here are discussing the following guideline proposal: The geographical places of Belarus are named according to Instruction on transliteration of Belarusian geographical names with letters of Latin script. It's a formalized sentence, not an article.

Cunard (talk) 22:50, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

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.

---

see English Wikipedia vs. Reality --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 14:59, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Should Instruction on transliteration of Belarusian geographical names with letters of Latin script be promoted to a guideline? It has been a de facto guideline by the United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names (UNGEGN) since February 2013. Let us formalize it now, and thus align with how we treat other languages.--W (talk) 21:25, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

It definitely should be recognized as a guideline to stop the absurdity with English names of Belarusian places in English Wikipedia. I believe that the guideline should be like this: The geographical places of Belarus are named according to Instruction on transliteration of Belarusian geographical names with letters of Latin script. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 08:36, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, these guidelines are well-crafted and reflect what Belarusians call these places. English Wikipedia should move beyond the old Imperial names for these places. There is nothing particularly English about the old (mostly Russian) names, just historical circumstances. Ijon (talk) 10:08, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

It is unhelpful that Wikipedia has its own transiteration rules for Belarusian geographical names and ignores the standard now widely adopted in Belarus. A simple example: all articles about Minsk Metro stations are using the spelling used neither in Metro maps, nor Google maps etc. It makes their editing pointless - they will confuse users from the very first word. Or try to find Polotsk on the Belarusian Railways website! Prioratising outdated, less common forms makes articles confusing to uninformed users and discourages Belarusians from engaging with Wikipedia.--Nieszczarda2 (talk) 21:51, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

• No. First, articles cannot be guidelines.

Second, our principal audience is monoglot English-speakers - people who have no knowledge of Belarusian or any other Slavic language. The BGN/PCGN system is based on guidance of the British and American governments and is targeted specifically at English speakers. The official instruction contains a number of conventions that are likely to be confusing to people unfamiliar with Slavic languages.

For example, it uses ⟨ch⟩ for [x]. The natural English rendering of ⟨ch⟩ is [tʃ]. For example, it uses ⟨c⟩ for [ts]. For monoglot English speakers, ⟨c⟩ means either [k] or [s], or - at a pinch - [tʃ]. For example, it uses ⟨j⟩ for [j]. For monoglot English speakers, ⟨j⟩ will be [dʒ] or [ʒ].

In all three cases, the rendering by an English speaker will be completely different from that intended. Moreover, the more natural transcriptions of these sounds (⟨kh⟩, ⟨ts⟩ and ⟨y⟩) are used in transcribing other similar languages such as Russian and Ukrainian, and in the BGN/PCGN transcription system that we currently use. And that's before we get on to the accents on consonants that monoglot English speakers are likely to ignore completely.

I conclude that adopting the official instruction would put the preferences of the government of a non-English-speaking country ahead of the needs and interests of our audience. Kahastok talk 16:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Actually, Belarusian situation quite differs from Russian and Ukrainian languages that have (and had in the past) only Cyrillic alphabets. In contrast to them, Belarusian language historically has standardized Latin alphabet as well. So more relevant case here is Serbian, which uses similar accents on consonants and has other differences from English. And the names of Serbian places here doesn't confuse anyone. Unfortunately Belarusian Latin alphabet was prohibited during Russian soviet rule. And now that's a political (not linguistic) decision of pro-Russian government of Lukashenko to introduce Instruction on transliteration of Belarusian geographical names with letters of Latin script instead of official recognition of Belarusian Latin alphabet. Still the differences are too minor to believe that the Instruction is something completely different. I'm not a big supporter of such situation, and believe that as a language with two graphical system Belarusian should be treated the same way as Serbian. But still I should admit that the Instruction is quite a step forward. Moreover User:Чаховіч Уладзіслаў shows above that the Instruction is widely used now in English tourist information about Belarus. So it meets the following requirements from WP:TITLE: 1) Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize; 2) Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 18:16, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Rendering by an English speaker can differ from person to person and is a completely personal matter. Somehow students in a Canadian school, where I have been studying, didn't complain about the pronunciation of Karađorđević and didn't read it as /kɑɹɑˈdɔːɹdeʋɪk/. Canadian teachers, who know mostly only English and French, were fine with reading my papers where I've used a normal transliteration system. English Wikipedia itself is having a colossal amount of articles with names being borrowed straight from the original language and, as I can see, there's not a lot of protests against it as well. Moreover, thanks to the International Phonetic Association, we have the International Phonetic Alphabet, that, as you have demonstrated yourself, is helping a lot to minimize the difficulty of pronouncing a certain non-English name. I see no problem at all with the adaptation of Belarusian Latin alphabet as a system to transliterate Belarusian names just like it's being done with Serbian. Sincerely, Bulhkin (talk) 23:51, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

The Belarusian Latin alphabet is slightly different from the 2007 instruction (cf. what their renderings are of Cyrillic л). But they are very similar and clearly related. Double sharp (talk) 05:32, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support, as this system is actually in use in Belarus: it doesn't make sense that our articles on Minsk Metro stations use a transliteration that is at variance with the transliteration that will actually be seen in the stations. (I presume the idea is that the guideline will be changed to recommend usage of the 2007 transliteration as Kazimier Lachnovič suggests, not that the article itself be promoted to a guideline.) Double sharp (talk) 05:30, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Clarification of support: I mean to restrict this only to cases where the most common English name is the Belarusian name, of course. Double sharp (talk) 04:24, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support. I also support the proposed change of the guideline, because of what you see on the ground.--W (talk) 15:07, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@W: This seems to be a slightly different version without accents, though? Чарнігаў should be Čarnihaŭ if I understand this system correctly, but the sign uses ch to represent Cyrillic ч instead of х like the 2007 instruction suggests. Double sharp (talk) 16:32, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Sometimes accents can be omitted due to technical restrictions (another example of road sign). Anyway Chernihiv is not a Belarusian place (and never was) that's why the Instruction doesn't regulate its transliteration in Belarus. But if it does the correct spelling should be Čarnihaŭ. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 19:03, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@Kazimier Lachnovič: I see; thank you for the explanation! Double sharp (talk) 02:14, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. Yes some Slavic languages use Roman spellings that are not English-oriented. Such are the Czech, Polish, Slovak, Slovene and Croat languages. In a way, such is the Serbian language too, which traditionally uses Cyrillic script but is associated with the Croat Roman spelling through its close relationship (indeed, a sustained merger project) with Croatian. However, that heritage is rather an unwelcome burden and disadvantage in the era of an English lingua franca. For instance, Bulgarian Romanization pracrtice tried several different systems including the Croat alphabet but eventually settled on an English-oriented system, see the relevant Wiki article. So Russian and Ukrainian are moving in the right direction, even if their present English-oriented Romanization systems could do with some improvement. Just my opinion :-) As for the Wikipedia practice, I agree with Kahastok. Best, Apcbg (talk) 18:01, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

  Wikipedia does not choose right directions of any development. There are reliable institutions like the United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names (UNGEGN), that approved the Instruction on transliteration of Belarusian geographical names with letters of Latin script. Moreover, Bulgarian never had a Latin aplhabet, but Belarusian has its Latin alphabet. And that's a big difference. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 19:15, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Wrong. Bulgarian language has been having its own Roman alphabet since 1866, currently used in the education system of Banat Bulgarians.

As for international approval, UNGEGN is fine but what matters most for English Wikipedia is the dominant usage by English language speakers and that is better reflected by BGN/PCGN not UNGEGN. Apcbg (talk) 09:22, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Not Bulgarian language, but the language of Bulgarian minority group, so it's incorrect to state that whole Bulgarian language had the Latin alphabet since 1866. Even from the provided example it's pretty clear that Banat Bulgarian and Bulgarian are quite different. In contrast the first all-Belarusian newspapers and the first all-Belarusian grammars were published in Belarusian Latin alphabet, so that's totally incomparable cases.

Many examples of the usage of UNGEGN-approved transliteration in the most common places (metro stations information boards, street name and highway road signs etc.) are provided above. So dominant usage of BGN/PCGN is not true. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 15:04, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Usage at metro stations, information boards, street name and highway road signs is in Belarus is one thing, worldwide usage by English speakers is something else again. Like I wrote, it's the latter that is relevant to English Wikipedia. Apcbg (talk) 15:21, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Speaking of worldwide usage by English speakers, the United States-based travel metasearch engine Booking.com uses Hrodna, according to the proposed UNGEGN Instruction on transliteration of Belarusian geographical names. In English Wikipedia we can still see Grodno, which is in contradiction with the BGN/PCGN romanization of Belarusian. Thus, the adoption of the UNGEGN Instruction would put the needs & interests of the English speaking audience ahead of the preferences of the third government of a non-English-speaking country.--W (talk) 13:26, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

According to WP:NCGN, the English name of the city, and, consequently, the name of the article, is Grodno. This discussion has no bearing on that issue.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:48, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Europe and North Asia, "Belarus: Major cities (voblast capitals) are named according to the most common English usage". Grodno is the Russian name of the city, that contradicts the most common English usage, according to which it is Hrodna, as shown above.--W (talk) 13:29, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

it is not shown above. The most common English usage is, well, the most common English usage. You can first probe with Google that Grodno is used about hundred times more often than Hrodna, and then refine the argument checking that pretty much every English-speaking medium in an English-speaking country uses Grodno.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:59, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, it is shown above. Please, stop contradicting the facts on the ground & being biased. Probing with Google does not comply with Wikipedia:No original research & Wikipedia:Reliable sources, as "Definition of a source ... piece of work itself (the article, book)". I refined my argument checking with a reliable English-speaking medium, published in an English-speaking country, such as: Laurie Whiddon (2004). "Northeastern Europe" (Map). The Illustrated World Atlas. 1:2,750,000. New York: Barnes & Nobles Books. pp. 148–149. Hrodna inset. §§ E18-F18. ISBN 0-7607-5359-8..--W (talk) 14:43, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Your claim that the usage on booking.com amounts to the most common English usage is absolutely ridiculous (and for me it shows Grodno anyway), and cherry-picking sources which use Hrodna would not help (proponents of Kyiv were cherry-picking sources using Kyiv for 10 years and so far were not able to convince the majority). Fortunately, the article is move-protected, and you would need to present you case to an administrator - who usually would know policies well enough. It however well demonstrates my point - you are part of the disruptive bunch of editors who do not really care about our policies but are here to promote a political agenda.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:04, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Here I show some results from Google books with the conditions "English" and "2010–2020": Grodno 139, Hrodna 29; Vitebsk 164, Vitsebsk 11, Vitsyebsk 9, Viciebsk 5. Burzuchius (talk) 18:41, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Good joke, as the results from Google books are personalized. Thus, they, once again, fail to comply with Wikipedia:No original research & Wikipedia:Reliable sources.--W (talk) 11:28, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

The source above is by Barnes & Noble, which is "the bookseller with the largest number of retail outlets in the United States", that is opposite to cherry-picking. I trully hope that this case is presented to an administrator, who knows policies well enough & refrains from promoting any disruptive political agenda, including absolutely ridiculous ignoring of Hrodna.--W (talk) 11:12, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, this is always great to get a lesson on Wikipedia policies from a user with 55 edits in total.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:58, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support it is an official and internationally recognized guideline that is in active use in Belarus. Ideally, this should be the default transliteration option for Belarusian geographic names on Wikipedia. As a minimum minimorum, every article about a Belarusian place should include the place's name in accordance with the official transliteration standard and a redirect using this standard. Czalex 19:11, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
• Procedural oppose: This RfC does not formally make sense. Instruction on transliteration of Belarusian geographical names with letters of Latin script is an article and cannot be directly promoted to a guideline. One may draft a guideline proposal and create an RfC on whether that should become a guideline. This RfC prompt is also not neutrally worded, as required by WP:RFCBRIEF. — MarkH₂₁^talk 14:08, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

  The beginning of discussion was a little bit complicated, but I assume it's clear that the users here are discussing the following guideline proposal: The geographical places of Belarus are named according to Instruction on transliteration of Belarusian geographical names with letters of Latin script. It's a formalized sentence, not an article. Maybe it would be better to place this sentence in a neutral form at the beginning of the discussion? Just to save time for those users who have already expressed their opinions. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 15:04, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

  Just for the record, I would support this revised statement as well (for the same reasons). Double sharp (talk) 14:12, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support for a prospect guideline based on Instruction on transliteration of Belarusian geographical names with letters of Latin script based on the following:

1. Books. Some books are still published in Belarus in Belarusian Latin script (which is a precursor of the Instruction). E.g. "Śvieciacca vokny dy nikoha za jimi — Vieršy" by Uładzimier Arłoŭ. Minsk, 2012. ISBN 978-985-6991-97-7. See some pages.

2. School. In the 10th grade of school pupils in Belarus are get familiar with the Lacinka, the Instruction itself and do excersises, in which they have use it for transliteration of Belarusian geographical names. See the proper study guide on the website of the National Institute for Education].

3. Ground truth & Travel. All the naming on the roadsigns, information desks, navigation sings is based on Instructions according to the local legislation. Some travel guides or art/culture albums for foreigners are still published using USSR-time transliteration of Russian names of Belarusian places, but rarely if transliterated from the Belarusian name it is made not using the Instruction.

4. Examples from other languages. For a Serbian city Čačak (Serbian Cyrillic: Чачак; and if was a Belarusian city - will be spelled the same Čačak according to the Instruction) we currently have the following articles on Wikipedias:

German: [2] - Čačak (serbisch-kyrillisch Чачак; deutsch veraltet Zazach)

English: [3] - Čačak (Serbian Cyrillic: Чачак, pronounced [tʃǎːtʃak])

French: [4] - Čačak (en serbe cyrillique : Чачак)

Spanish: [5] - Čačak (en serbio cirílico: Чачак)

Portuguese: [6] - Čačak (Чачак em cirílico sérvio, pronunciado [t͡ʃǎːt͡ʃak])

So why it is NOT OK for a Belarusian village "Чачалі" to have a "Čačalі" article on English Wiki, but it is altogether OK for Serbian "Чачак" to be "Čačak" on English, French, Spanish, German and other Wiki's? Partei 22:07, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Who cares? This is the English Wikipedia designed for English-speakers. We must assume that our readers do not speak Belarusian or any other continental European language. What Belarusian speakers do makes no difference to us. Presumably these Belarusian speakers can already read Belarusian in Cyrillic and do not need it transcribing into Latin script.

On the same argument, you could equally propose that we call rename our article on the capital of Belarus to Мінск. After all, that will be found in a lot of Belarusian books. It will be well-understood by Belarusian school children. It will be found on road signs throughout Belarus. And since no consideration is being given to those of us who don't speak Belarusian, there's no reason to put in an alphabet that non-Belarusian-speakers are likely to understand.

(Actually, my guess would be that if you asked the average English-speaker to say Мінск, and then asked them to say Polack, the second rendering would not be more accurate than the first. Though the second would be more likely to result in you being punched in the face.)

It is interesting to note, incidentally, how many of the supporters of this have very few edits on this Wikipedia. The above, for example, was literally User:Partei's first ever edit on en.wiki. This appears to be primarily a group editors coming from the Belarusian Wikipedias and I'd be astonished if there weren't canvassing going on. Kahastok talk 16:37, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Sure they are canvassing. This is the beginning of the story.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:44, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Dear Kahastok, can you please comment on why it is NOT OK for a Belarusian village "Чачалі" to have a "Čačalі" article on English Wiki, but it is altogether OK for Serbian "Чачак" to be "Čačak" on English, French, Spanish, German and other Wiki's? Having in mind that people here in Belarus do know its Latin script and some even use it in daily communication. What's then the cause of the different approaches today? Partei 22:42, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

We do actually follow the BGN/PCGN convention for romanisation of Serbian. But Serbia is a completely different country with a completely different language and a completely different set of historical circumstances. There is no reason why the conventions for romanising Belarusian should necessarily match those for Serbian.

It would seem far more logical to use a convention for Belarusian that match the conventions for languages that are closely related to Belarusian, from countries whose historical circumstances are similar to those of Belarus. Which is to say, Russian and Ukrainian. That goes particularly when that convention actually gives our readers (native English speakers, not native Belarusian speakers) some useful idea of how the word is supposed to be pronounced. The BGN/PCGN guidance achieves all this. The Instruction fails on all counts. Kahastok talk 12:23, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the question which system achieves the goal and which not let my cite the annotation to the National 2007 system (aka Instruction) which was submitted by Belarus to the Ninth United Nations Conference on the Standardization of Geographical Names:

"The system [...] has to take into account the following:

- [...] be understandable by the population of all or many countries in which Roman alphabet is used (the lack of tie-in to the only one single language);

- unambiguity (availability of the only one equivalent for the original sign);

- reversibility (ability to make reverse reproduction of transliterated forms);

- conventionality (the presence of long-termed practice of use).

It is used in the publishing of the normative reference book “The names of settlements of the Republic of Belarus” in six volumes, in producing cartographic and other works, intended for international use."

Then the United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names:

"Recognizing that the system is linguistically sound and that it has been implemented in maps and gazetteers of Belarus,

Recommends that the system [...] be adopted as the international system for the romanization of Belarusian geographical names."

(Just to refresh in memory: the United Nations established the United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names (UNGEGN) in 1959 to promote the standardisation of accurate spellings of geographical names worldwide.)

And so we can see the implementation of the National 2007 system on the example of Belarus' page at [UNGEGN World Geographical Names] Database.

So, for some reason they found it "linguistically sound" and substituted whatsoever system they used before (maybe BGN/PCGN). Maybe keeping in mind the case of Serbia, which has a revised BGN/PCGN 2005 Agreement, containing all those letter-diacritic combinations that National 2007 system has.

Anyway, lets get back to the Wikipedia:NCGN's and go through the [Widely accepted name] guideline. Here we can see, for example [Hrodna] on Encyclopædia Britannica, [Homyel'(almost Homieĺ)] on Merriam-Webster. Some item from "Widely accepted names" are not applicable (e.g. Geographic Names Information System), some items directly encourage to use the names standardized by local governments' agencies (remember [Grodno] page with city name from Polish\Russian but for some reason not from Belarusian). (to be continued) Partei (talk) 00:28, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support. We should trust Belarusian scientists that developed the Instruction, otherwise we will never give a chance to monoglot English-speakers to see authentic Belarusian names. Monoglot English-speakers visit North Macedonia or Serbia and they have to put up with the national system of romanization. Why won't they be able to accept the legitimate national romanization system when they visit Belarus? Da voli (talk) 10:23, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support. The BGN/PCGN is outdated and not very good.

1. In the BGN/PCGN, the apostrophe is transliterated as two graphemes - ’’: Мар'іна Горка » Mar’’ina Gorka. In practice, this rule is never used in English (Maryina Gorka, Mar’ina Gorka).

In practice, the grapheme ’ (ь) is not used in the English Wikipedia: Капыль » Kapyl (correctly Kapyl’), Барань » Baran (Baran’), Лепель » Lepiel/Lepel (Lyepyel’), Новалукомль » Novalukoml (Novalukoml’).

2. It is not possible to reconstruct the original name correctly:

Прыазёрная » Pryazyornaya » Прязёрная/Прыазёрная/Прйазёрная? (National romanization system: Прыазёрная » Pryaziornaja » Прыазёрная).

Байкі » Bayki » Баыкі/Байкі? (National romanization system: Байкі » Bajki » Байкі).

3. BGN/PCGN is not used in Belarus. You will never find here metro station Kupalawskaya, Koz’ma-Dzyam’’yanawski spusk or Rakawskaye suburb.--Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 19:25, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• Procedural oppose, the framing of this RfC is not neutral, as the opening statement includes an argument in favor of the proposal. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:42, 24 April 2020 (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.

Belarusian geographical place names, Part 2

Hi all, I'd like to propose a discussion regarding changes to WP:BELARUSIANNAMES.

1. The BGN/PCGN for Belarusian language system (1979) is to be used. The geographical places of Belarus are named according to Instruction on transliteration of Belarusian geographical names with letters of Latin script.
2. The renderings of the Belarusian geographical names in the national Instruction on transliteration of Belarusian geographical names with letters of Latin script (recommended for use by the Working Group on Romanization Systems of the United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names, UNGEGN) may be additionally included, if sufficiently different from the BGN/PCGN version. The suggested form of writing it down, in absence of template would be: ...(BelarusianGeoNameBGNed, IOT2000: BelarusianGeoNameIOT2000ed)... A transliteration in the BGN/PCGN for Belarusian language system (1979) may be additionally included, if sufficiently different from the Instruction version.
3. The Russian name and transliteration should also be included.
4. Other systems and orthographies, e.g., ISO 9, GOST 1983 and derivatives, Lacinka are not to be used. See also Romanization of Belarusian, Łacinka alphabet

162.208.168.92 (talk) 18:42, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Can you explain the rationale for the change? (For reference, see Romanization of Belarusian)

The official system is not a good choice for general use, because the European orthography with je, jo, ju, ja, ž, ch, c, č, š is unfamiliar and unpronounceable to most English-language readers. Maybe it should be offered in the infobox for place names if it is used officially (Google maps seems to use a mix of systems in its map of Belarus). —Michael Z. 20:14, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't know that this is a good argument, you could say that Wade–Giles is more natural to English speakers than Pinyin, but we use the latter since it is the standard now. I don't think that English speakers could pronounce places like Thủ Dầu Một all that accurately, but, that's the name, so that's what we use. From what I can tell, the Instruction has replaced the BGN/PGCN standard in Belarus, I'm proposing that our guideline reflect that. 162.208.168.92 (talk) 01:35, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, to be honest, as to using the Instruction on transliteration of Belarusian geographical names with letters of Latin script, I support Michael Z., it's just no good and unreadable with all those weird characters that most of the people will have no idea how to read. It also makes TTSs butcher the names of places and mispronounce them badly, so almost always it sounds nothing like the original name. So in my opinion it's better to just stick to BGN/PCGN romanization of Belarusian and completely discard Instruction on transliteration of Belarusian geographical names with letters of Latin script, that makes places, names unreadable not only for people, but also for TTSs, that people with disabilities for example might use. 

I agree with the point number 3, the Russian name and transliteration should obligatory be included, as Russian is the official language of Belarus. In fact, if you've ever been to Belarus or lived there for any substantial amount of time, you will know that the vast majority of people (>80-90%) speak and use Russian and there is no politics in it or bias whatsoever, that's just the way it is, currently Belarus is Russian-speaking country and Russian on equal terms with Belarusian is an official language of Belarus Belarus's Constitution (Page 6, Article 17).  Russian language belongs to Belarus and Belarusian people, just as English language belongs to Americans, Canadians, Irish, Australians, New Zealanders and so on. And I have no idea why Belarusian people should be ashamed of using Russian and Russian being their mother tongue and why try to pretend that Belarus isn't a Russian-speaking country, it's just as foolish, as pretend that the minority of people speak English in Canada and Ireland.

So as per WP:commonname and per common sense in general, most of the time it makes more sense to use the name of a place in Russian as a name of an article (just as Irish places are titled using their names in English and not in Irish) and names in Russian should be used on equal terms with names in Belarusian. My proposition is to change the first point, so that the geographical name can be in Russian and Belarusian on equal terms, and the second point, so that the Instruction on transliteration of Belarusian geographical names with letters of Latin script be discarded completely:

1. The geographical places of Belarus are named in Russian and Belarusian according to BGN/PCGN romanization of Russian (for Russian) and to BGN/PCGN romanization of Belarusian (for Belarusian).
2. The Instruction on transliteration of Belarusian geographical names with letters of Latin script is not to be used, as it makes geographical names unreadable, not only for people, but also for TTSs that people with disabilities for example might use.
3. Other systems and orthographies, e.g., ISO 9, GOST 1983 and derivatives, Lacinka are not to be used. See also Romanization of Belarusian, Łacinka alphabet

WhiteRusian (talk) 15:29, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your point of view. I'll note that Wikipedia has an established standard for Russian transliteration (Wikipedia:Romanization of Russian) and, to keep things consistent, it would be preferable to use it rather than BGN/PGCN here. 162.208.168.92 (talk) 17:23, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I’d still like to know how widely the official transliteration system is used for place names, and whether it’s actually used officially. I think the guideline should recommend a primary romanization system for consistency, but I don’t believe we need the guideline to ban any other, especially if it does see some real-world use, if only for showing and explaining alternate names, or, obviously, for articles about romanization.

But why use the BGN/PCGN system? This set of systems has limited use in geographic naming, alongside a lot of others, and its implementations are not consistent with each other, even when dealing with the four closely related East Slavic languages.[Be. Ru. Rue. Uk.]

I have a modest proposal, although it may not have a snowball’s chance. The ALA-LC romanization system is broadly used in academic and popular-academic publications and in their maps. It is the most common system in English-language Slavistics, including history, non-technical philology, political studies, and so on: the main system used in our reliable sources. It is also universally used in bibliographic cataloguing, virtually unchanged since 1941. It is one fairly consistent system for these four[7][8][9][10] and other Slavic and non-Slavic languages using Cyrillic,[11] and it has established and codified variations for bibliographic cataloguing (“strict ALA-LC,” either with or without ligatures), for use in running text for words as words and precise representation of names (“ALA-LC without diacritics”), and for casual use of names of people, places, and organizations (“modified Library of Congress system,”). It also happens to be possibly the only viable system for Rusyn, and the modified version also happens to be almost identical to our system for Ukrainian.

Can we consider using ALA-LC romanization for Belarusian? —Michael Z. 23:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@Mzajac: The closed RFC above did provide evidence that the official transliteration system is in actual usage (sign, Minsk Metro): photo is from 2017. If that's still the case, then it makes sense to include it. However, I share the concern that it is not exactly a useful guide for most English-language speakers. And it seems from the photos offered above that sometimes the official transliteration system gets used with accents omitted anyway due to technical restrictions. Not offering an opinion yet, because undecided. Double sharp (talk) 09:50, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Whereas it is correct that the system is somewhat in use in Belarus, it is unheard of outside of Belarus, We should also realize that this group of users, mainly based on alt Belarusian Wikipedia, who are pushing this standard through, eventually want to see the article named Miensk instead of Minsk, which this standard would yield, and I do not see how this would be consistent with COMMONNAME.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:55, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: Neither can I. But even if I am inclined to agree based on this information that this shouldn't be the primary Romanisation in most cases, it still seems to me that being somewhat in use in Belarus implies that the system should sometimes be mentioned, at least in cases like those metro stations. Or maybe I misread the situation as an outsider to it. Double sharp (talk) 10:08, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Sure, I absolutely do not object to it being mentioned in the articles, I just object using them as a primary Romanization system. What happened to the Minsk metro stations was they were mass-moved based on these photographs and schemes published by the metro itself, i.e. primary sources, whereas secondary sources in English do not use this standard - see for example the Minsk metro page on the urbanrail.net site. There is a very strong nationalistic push in the area.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:21, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

A complete disregard of the Belarusian Latin alphabet (Lacinka) is pointless: it's widely used in the English-language academic literature starting from the very first anthology of Belarusian poetry in English translation (Vera Rich, Like Water, Like Fire, 1971), the first history of Belarusian literature (McMillin's A History of Byelorussian Literature, 1977), the first and only history of Belarusian Jewish literature (Gimpilevich's Belarusian Jewish Writers...) - the list can be long. Its use is only accelerating: scholars know about Lacinka, they observe that it's used both in Belarus and the Belarusian diaspora in English-speaking countries; they will continue using it because it has always been the only consistent system of rendering Belarusian terminology (with names - personal and geographical, is a different story - mess).

Regarding the geographical names: ignoring the Instruction makes Wikipedia an increasingly unreliable source. I agree Wikipedia articles should provide the transliteration of the Russian forms alongside Belarusian ones for now. Belarusians are making attempts to bring sanity to names of train stations and streets. It is accelerating not because of a nationalist drive, but because inconsistency is inconvenient for everyone, incl. people, tourists and the government. New geographical objects are named in Belarusian and then are transliterated into Russian and Latin alphabet (from their Belarusian form). Wikipedia would be naive to ignore this. There is a dictionary to verify the Belarusian, Russian and Latin-character spelling, so sticking to it consistently should not be a problem.

Re TTS... it's just the matter of time before they learn to do it correctly.

Nieszczarda2 (talk) 10:16, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Broadening the discussion on romanization

1. The scope of this question must go beyond metro stations, geographical names, or even merely article titles (our romanization guidelines are labelled “naming conventions,” but they are used for much more than that). We also have to consider people’s conventional names as used in running text, the presentation of Belarusian words as words, and even the comparison to Russian and Ukrainian names, in contexts where scientific transliteration is not called for.
2. We have to accommodate native and national conventional naming, but also our English-language readers’ need to be able to read and pronounce names and words, and also to compare them to other languages in historical and etymological contexts.
3. Belarusian doesn’t have a single widely accepted romanization standard, and there are even several different Łacinkas. We will have to use appropriate spellings, parenthesized mentions, and multiple spellings in many contexts.

But not only do we have to establish a sensible integrated solution for Belarusian, whether by trial and error or by fiat, at the same time we have a less than satisfactory situation with Russian (having a non-standard system), and there are over five dozen non-Slavic languages with modern and/or historical Cyrillic alphabets based on Russian, many with more than one. Discussions like this one threaten to keep popping up for a lifetime.

What professional encyclopedia uses only a different romanization system for every related language? No matter what we decide here, the bigger picture remains fragmented and our readers are still not served as well in this domain as they could be. We’re lacking not only scores of additional romanization systems, but any unifying editorial direction for using romanization to guide their establishment.

I strongly believe that parallel to this discussion of the merits and employment of Belarusian romanization systems, we also need to have a broader discussion about coordinated romanization of East Slavic and eastern non-Slavic Cyrillic alphabets throughout the encyclopedia. Anyone interested in helping start it? —Michael Z. 14:48, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Rusyn

Which system shall we use for Rusyn (русиньскый язык)? I have found a few. The first is probably better for a general English-language audience. —Michael Z. 00:26, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

1. ALA-LC 1997 (source: ALA-LC Romanization Tables).
   • Widely used in English-language publications and bibliographic cataloguing
   • English-language style transliteration with k͡h, t͡s, ch, sh, shch, i͡u, i͡a; rusyn′skŷĭ i͡azŷk (without diacritics rusynsʹkyi iazyk; modified rusynsky yazyk)
   • Similar to the system used for the closely related Ukrainian language.
2. BGN/PCGN 2016 (source: Romanization of Rusyn, BGN/PCGN 2016 System
   • European-style transliteration with ch, c, č, š, šč, ju, ja; rusyn’skyj jazyk (rusynskyj jazyk)
3. ISO/R 9 (Informationsverbund Deutschschweiz 2001)[12]
   • Euro: ch, c, č, š, šč, ju, ja; rusin’skŷj jazŷk (rusinskyj jazyk)
4. ISO 9
   • Russian-based, one character per letter
   • Euro: h, c, č, š, ŝ, û, â; rusin′skyj âzyk (rusinskyj azyk)

Here’s a proposal for a guideline:

Rusyn

For article titles, use the most common name in English. Use respective guidelines for modern place-names in Ukraine, Slovakia, and so on. Otherwise:

• Use ALA-LC romanization for Rusyn, as described in the Encyclopedia of Rusyn History and Culture: omitting ligatures, and with Cyrillic ё romanized as io (not as ë).
  • For names of people, places, and organizations in running text, romanize ї = ï, but omit diacritics, ь, ъ, and the apostrophe. For initial Є-, Ё-, Ю-, and Я- use Ye-, Yo-, Yu-, and Ya-. In surnames with masculine endings -ий and -ый use -y. (This is usually called modified Library of Congress.)
  • For words as words, and for bibliographic citations, use strict ALA-LC with diacritics and romanizing ь = ʼ, ъ = ˮ, and the apostrophe ʼ = ˮ.
• For linguistics articles, use scientific transliteration

Be aware that Rusyn orthography and romanization varies between the Lemko region, Vojvodina, and Subcarpathian Rus and the Prešov Region.

See also Rusyn language#The Carpathian Rusyn alphabets.

References

I can provide full romanization tables and examples. —Michael Z. 22:53, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I do not object, but how do we know the title must use a Rusyn romanization? I guess for places, if they requre Romanization, it is Ukrainian? So it this only for names?--Ymblanter (talk) 12:38, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I presume it will rarely be needed for article titles since modern Rusyn has never been an official language, but we have detailed rules to answer that. I presume it will be used occasionally in article text for talking about the language, for citing sources in the language, and giving local (“alternate”) names of people, places, organizations, and so on. —Michael Z. 15:00, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

It would be ok with me for this usage.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I’ve written a more detailed draft with table at User:Mzajac/RUE. This follows common practice in academic and popular-academic books and journals, keeps it as simple as possible, and offers detailed instructions. I will add some examples, too. Suggestions? If there’s no objection, I’ll move it to an information page in a while. —Michael Z. 17:42, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I am not particularly happy with letter ï, but since reliable sources are using it I do not think we have any choice. For the rest, it looks fine.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:01, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I presume you’d prefer yi, with ye, yo, ya, yu, and й = y, but that would introduce ambiguity and the reviled combinations like -yy and -yyi-. Because Rusyn has never been official anywhere, it isn’t represented by the systems used for cartographic or diplomatic use, nor, of course, a national system. That leaves us pretty much with linguistic/international ji and bibliographic/Anglo-American ï, the only two systems in use with comprehensive language coverage anyway. (For this and other reasons, we should harmonize by adopting ALA-LC across languages.) —Michael Z. 22:17, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I have created the new information page at Wikipedia:Romanization of Rusyn. —Michael Z. 23:05, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Names of Slavic deities - what should I do?

Hello. I work on Slavic topics, primarily mythology. There are few contemporary, scholarly good books in English on this subject. However, most, if not all, that I have encountered use scholarly transliteration. For this reason, I have decided to make this form of transliteration the primary one (see List of Slavic deities), although not all articles are named this way. I also created List of Slavic pseudo-deities and for the sake of consistency I also used the scientific transliteration. However, user @Lembit Staan: changed transliteration system to "normal" one. After that I found that page. Which transliteration should I use given the preferred scientific transliteration in the sources? Sławobóg (talk) 11:20, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Please see also Wikipedia:Romanization. Consistency, sure. Imagine we change all Russian bios and places which are seldom met in English texts into "scientific romanization"... A no-go. Lembit Staan (talk) 11:25, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Are you sure these technical sources show examples of English usage, and not romanized mentions of Slavic-language names? Some clues might be use in a sentence, pluralization or inflection, italicization, etc.

If they are not used in English, then they don’t count for WP:COMMONNAME for the purpose of article titles, and sometimes there is no common English name. We should not feel obligated to use the same romanization system that someone else did to represent a foreign language, to serve their specific readership. See WP:CYRL.

Except in technical linguistics articles, for most source languages we prefer English-language romanization with zh, kh, ts, ch, sh, shch, and not Central European ž, ch/x, c, č, š, šč. Also, use kh and not h for Cyrillic х, because some languages have all three sounds /h/, /g/, and /x/. (Our choice of ie/ye, i/ï/yi, iu/yu, ia/ya, e/ë/io/yo is mixed by language, and sometimes contrary to most common English spelling, but it is generally not je, ji, ju, ja, jo.) —Michael Z. 14:25, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Related: Talk:Dažbog#Requested move 4 June 2021. —Michael Z. 14:28, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

These names are used as "English names". You can see it here (20th century book) or here (2021 book). Indo-European Poetry and Myth: "There is record of a god Dažbog who was identified with the Greek Helios and called Солнце Царь, ‘Tsar Sun’". Only Russian Folk Belief by Linda Ivantis uses English sh, zh etc. For me it is not very problematic, I chose scientific transliteration because it is used in English sources and since I can read diacritics, it looks better and shorter. But then there are other Slavic articles like druzhina... So I'm asking for help. Obviously if we decide to use English-language romanization I will put other romanizations in the notes. Sławobóg (talk) 16:11, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Note your first example is written by Jan Máchal and translated by F. Krupička, and has a page (219) dedicated to explaining the orthography. If you look at the search results in my move request above, you’ll see that Dazhbog is significantly more common in English books, and in Google Scholar results of academic sources (in all languages) it is somewhat more common 315 to 265. Another interesting comparison is with Google Books Ngram. —Michael Z. 17:51, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Okay, so I support switching article names to "official Wikipedia's transliteration". You should have waited with Dazbog suggestion so I can suggest them all at once. I understand that I should use a similar "transliteration" for names from non-cyrylic languages, e.g. Živa -> Zhiva, Černobog -> Chernobog etc. (attestated in Latin only), or Polish Jesza -> Yesha? Sławobóg (talk) 18:07, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Well I thought that you were looking for spellings of new names for a list article or new articles. That well-known one is obvious, and it was last renamed in 2008, so I didn’t think its title affected your current work. Sorry for jumping the gun. Anyway, a move request takes a week or more. But I also don’t think we should rename all articles in one request. Better separately, or in grouped requests for similar names? We should check most common name for each. Our guidelines differ for different languages and there’s no guarantee that won’t have a mix of naming. For all I know, some dieties are associated with West or South Slavic and will be spelled with Euro-style diacritical letters. And I see that Chernobog/Čьrnobogъ is a reconstructed name from Proto-Slavic, so that has different considerations. —Michael Z. 19:20, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Ok, so lets get things straight: I can use/read both transliteration systems. I used scientific transliteration because I think it is preffered in technical sources, I don't know how many results from Google Scholar are good references here. But if Wikipedia prefers an "English-language" transliteration, I don't mind, but then we should use one for all theonyms to be consistent. Živa should be moved to Zhiva as sources usually explain her name as Russian Жива, Polish Żywia, Jarilo moved to Yarilo, Yarovit should stay, as first letter is the same as Yarilo's. First part of Chernobog and Chernoglav is interpreted as Slavic word for čьrnъ "black". Others are not problematic too much because of their East Slavic names. Sławobóg (talk) 17:27, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, not in principle (but probably mostly yes, because your choices sound good to me). For article titles, the most important criterion is often considered to be what is the most commonly used name in English-language sources. That means we can’t decide to use consistent spelling for them all, and may well be inconsistent. If there are more than one common name, then we look at other WP:CRITERIA more. If there aren’t, then we fall back on WP:CYRL, which is complicated by the fact, as you’ve noted, that many or most of these are from many language groups. Am I repeating myself? Apply a bit of common sense (sounds like you’re there), and if no one gets annoyed then you get to name them. I will let you have at it. —Michael Z. 02:58, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me. . We can close this discussion. Sławobóg (talk) 11:36, 6 June 2021 (UTC)