Talk:Informal romanizations of Cyrillic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Merge four articles[edit]

The distinctions between Russian Chat Alphabet, Translit, Volapuk encoding, and Informal romanizations of Russian are confusing at best. There is also material in Faux Cyrillic which has nothing to do with graphic design and typography, but may be related to this topic. Some merging is in order, I think. I don't know which article is best to merge into, but this article's title is the most generally applicable and self-explanatory. Michael Z. 2007-06-18 14:45 Z

This was my foal of starting this article, but apparently no one was interested in the topic and I simply forgot about it while waiting for responses from russian community. `'юзырь:mikka 15:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
From my reading, Volapyuk and translit do have specific meaning, but are not formally defined or standardized. The relevant articles sort of imply that they are formal encoding standards, although I imagine they are almost exclusively applied in an informal and inconsistent way, and combined, as is comfortable for a user. The topic would probably be much clearer if the relationships were described in this single article.
In other words, (although I'm no expert) I think you've summarized the topic better here than any of the other articles. I think they ought to be merged into the structure you've established here. Michael Z. 2007-06-18 16:12 Z
My problem is that I'm no expert either, so I didn't go much beyond obvious summary and minimal references to keep the article from deletion. `'юзырь:mikka 19:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

This situation makes no sense. Of course these articles have to be merged. Hellerick (talk) 15:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal[edit]

As of 2016, we have three articles: Translit, Volapuk encoding, Informal romanizations of Russian (the last one contains Russian Chat Alphabet). Only the first one have interwiki to Russian (it's strange for Russia-related topic to have more attention in English wiki, than in Russian wiki, aha?).

The word translit in Russian and Ukrainian:

  • in narrow sense means a mapping Cyrillic characters into Latin, in which characters are replaced with intention to mostly retain the sound (e.g. 'в'->'v' (sometimes 'w'), 'ш'->'sh', 'ч'->'ch', 'я'->'ya'/'ia'/'ja') — in contrast with so called Volapuk encoding, which intents to retain visual appearance (e.g. 'в'->'B', 'ш'->'w'/'LLI', 'ч'->'4', 'я'->'R');
  • in wide sense means any mapping of Cyrillic characters into Latin, including methods that intent to retain sound, methods that intent to retain visual appearance, mixed methods and other.

Currently Volapuk encoding says that it intents to retain the visual appearance, while translit intents to retain the sound. On the other hand, Translit article doesn't make such distinction and is already bloated with purely-visual-appearance-retaining representations (together with sound-retaining, of course). Informal romanizations of Russian#Russian_Chat_Alphabet claims that Russian Chat Alphabet is a mix of translit and volapuk encoding (which makes no sence, as Translit article already contains most of visual-appearance-retaining representations from volapuk encoding).

I suggest to merge all three into Informal romanizations of Russian. Specifically into Informal romanizations of Russian, as even in Russian words "translit" and "volapuk encoding" have no specific definition (see above on ambiguity of translit; while many Russian speakers don't recognize term "volapuk encoding" at all). Additionally I propose to rename it into "Informal romanizations of Cyrillic" (see rationale there).

Sasha1024 (talk) 17:27, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I started draft for merging (unfinished). Sasha1024 (talk) 01:13, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Volapuk encoding[edit]

It is transliteration, but not transliteration standard, it is rather transliteration chaos. According to my memories, the term originated as a joke from the olden days of e-mail, when typing in Russian font was a HUGE problem, for several reasons. When an ordinary person typed Russian text on latin keyboard, he didn't have any idea of various wise transliteration standards. It was not uncommon that person's ad-hoc transliteration followed the second language learned in school: English, German or French. What is more, when typing quickly without much typing experience (who had it, in times of computer illiteracy?) one easily types similarly looking rather similarly sounding letters. And the text becomes kinda funny: "ETO ochenj smeshnoj tekct, kotoryj BCEGDA nopmalno poluchishj. ECLN cpeshishj ochenj. OH Hazivaetcja Bolapuk!". If you throw in a liberal amount of typos (can you imagine a spell-checker for volapuk? :-), volapuk you will have.

Unfortunately I haven't seen any printed matter that tells this story. `'юзырь:mikka 19:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course, no such standard, as there is no such term (I'm a native Russian speaker and an IT specialist since early 1990s). Let's kill such unsourced en.wiki's volapuk research (please, leave no REDIRECT!), but I have no major objections against content of the article. Such latinizations do exist. гык 22:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Early 90s you are too young, man, to judge. We are talking about 70s. `'юзырь:mikka 03:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
You have Soviet origin, man, isn't it? So what did you say about 1970s? There was no latin translits in USSR till the PC epoch, all ancient computers in USSR used russified EBCDIC or dialects of KOI, you should know it. гык 06:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

So named standard romanizations of Russian[edit]

There is no standards of romanization in Russian Internet. Mikkalai's source says nothing about standards. гык 08:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Requested move 27 December 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 20:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)



Informal romanizations of RussianInformal romanizations of Cyrillic – The contents of this page mostly applies not only to Russian alphabet, but also to Cyrillic alphabets/Cyrillic script in general. Although some language-specific differences exist, they can be described directly within this article; no reason to have separate articles for different Cyrillic languages. This article should be an informal pair for Romanization of Cyrillic, not for Romanization of Russian. Sasha1024 (talk) 17:27, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I started draft for merging (unfinished). (It's both about merger proposal and rename proposal.) Sasha1024 (talk) 01:13, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.