Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Romanization of Ukrainian

Untitled
Has this new proposal been discussed anywhere? What is the reasoning behind the change? —Michael Z. 2006-07-13 03:43 Z 
 * This is a policy proposal, not a policy yet. You summarized transliteration systems of Ukrainian providing the set of existing transliteration systems, and, as a next step, I see it valuable to propose a single transliteration table which summarized the preferred transliteration rules of Ukrainian of this wikicommunity. The need for such clear policy is driven in part by permanent name flipping like "-iy" into "-y" into "-yy" into "-iy", which seems to be counterproductive. KPbIC 04:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, but we should discuss it some before making it look official.


 * I would propose a very minor change from the current status quo. With all of the usual exceptions (conventional English names, scientific transliteration for linguistics, etc):


 * Use the Ukrainian National system to reproduce the official romanized Ukrainian place names. We already do this.
 * Use the simplified BGN/PCGN system for other proper names in prose. This is familiar from many academic and popular books, intuitive for anglophones to read, and reasonably compatible with Russian and Belarusian transliterations in Wikipedia.  It is a very minor change from what we do now, but our current practice conforms to no independent standard.
 * Use the full BGN/PCGN system for precise transliteration (e.g. first line of an article). Also a minor change, becoming standardized.


 * The two systems are very close. Adopting the national system across the board would have the advantage of internal consistency for all Ukrainian articles, but it has the odd-looking transliterations щ = sch, and зг = zgh.  It could also transliterate precisely just as well as BGN/PCGN could, if we decide we need Zaporizhzhia, Luhans’k, and Sim”ia to show how words are spelt, in addition to just naming Zaporizhia, Luhansk, and Simia in the body of an article.  On the other hand, the BGN/PCGN system has a very long tradition in English-language Ukrainian literature, and is also used for other languages in Wikipedia.  I'm not even completely sure why, but my gut favours BGN/PCGN.  —Michael Z. 2006-07-13 04:42 Z 
 * There is no simplification for ЖЖ, ЧЧ in the last official transliteration system: "3. Транслітерація прізвищ  та  імен осіб і географічних назв здійснюється шляхом відтворення кожної літери латиницею.") --Serhii Riabovil (talk) 15:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

It was not my intention to present this page as an approved policy. WP:CYR is still under discussion and I see this page as a part of WP:CYR.

My inclining toward the National system is driven by the desire to use a system easily recognized by native English speakers. Based on my experience, English speakers are more comfortable with “i” than “y” when facing such letters as “я”, “ю”, “є”. English speakers are also puzzled by a set of consonants, which are common in Cyrillic, like “zhzh”, “shch”, and the simplifications implemented in the simplified National system seems very reasonable to me. I also value the fact that the National system is the official system approved in the Ukraine, following the work of a Committee of professionals. Having in hands the BGN/PCGN system they still found preferable to agree on a slightly different transliteration system for contemporary Ukrainian language.

I recognize the long-standing use of BGN/PCGN in English-language Ukrainian literature. However, I don’t see valid reasons to stick with some custom-made modified BGN/PCGN system. If something has a well established name, regardless of whether it’s BGN/PCGN, or some modification of it, or something else, we agree to use that well established name. But we need a transliteration system for something which is not well established. And for this we should better use a well established system. KPbIC 06:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure whether understand your last point correctly. Simplified ALA-LC and BGN/PCGN systems have been used in academic literature for decades, giving us a well-established precedent.  For example, Kubijovyč's two-volume Ukraine: A Concise Encyclopædia uses the modified ALA-LC system for Ukrainian and Russian names, and explains it in detail.  —Michael Z. 2006-07-13 12:45 Z 


 * In my view a well established system is a system (1) with clearly documented transliteration rules, and (2) with established presence in practice. BGN/PCGN, the National system, the simplified National system, ALA-LC, and Kubijovyč's system satisfy such criteria. But when you are writing about “simplified BGN/PCGN” I’m not sure which particular system you keep in mind.
 * In short, I'm advocating to nominate the National system as the preferred system of Ukrainian transliteration from Cyrillic to Latin. Somebody may say that it's too bold to call for one system for all purposes, but I see overwelming benefits of such recommendation. People say that "for every two Ukrainians there are three hetmans". Currently, there is similar situation with transliteration systems. I think we better fix it. KPbIC 19:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Details
For the sake of comparison (feel free to add more words):

Ending "-iй" is not common; ending "-ий" is much more common (червона/червоний). The later is given as "-yi" is the National system, which is the best way to represent "-ий", as it looks to me. I may prefer "simya" over "simia", but, again, the idea of going according to personal tastes is very wrong. I’m strongly advocating for sticking with a professionally established system. KPbIC 06:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Transliteration of the letter щ
The guideline for the transliteration of the letter "щ" as "sch" makes no sense, even in the light of an "attempt to make sense to English-speakers." In literary (official!) Ukrainian, "щ" is pronounced as "shch," NOT as "sch" (which implies the Russian pronounciation of "щ"). Yes, some Ukrainians pronounce it the Russian way, but why reflect dialectal or bad grammar in our spellings of Ukrainian words? Consequently, what is the point of simplifying the information for English-speakers if the information is false? I'm going to revise this policy. Cossack 00:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but if you look at official Rada website about the official Ukrainian-English translation, they transliterate щ into sch and not into shch. See here. —dima/talk/ 04:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't trust the Ukrainian government on this one, funny as that may sound. If you look at the Kiev metro map, the "transliteration system" used is utterly random, erratic, and basically "от балды." I'm also fairly certain the vast majority of materials will use "shch," including those on Wikipedia (see Viktor Yushchenko, Slobozhanshchyna). Maybe the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences has better recommendations for the transliterations of geographic names? Cossack 00:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * As this policy stands, it explicitly states that it is based on BGN/PCGN romanization system for Ukrainian, which uses "shch" for "щ". Unless someone wants to challenge that, there really is nothing to argue about.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This is incorrect. The policy says that the system "matches the simplified National transliteration system". According to the system Cyrillic "щ" transliterates as "sch". It was reflected in the policy until Kazak unilaterally changed it to "shch" on April 22, 2007.
 * It should be noted that the transliteration system applies to Ukrainian establishments that lack traditional English name. Many establishments with traditional English names were historically transliterated according to BGN/PCGN or other systems, and it often results in transliteration of "щ" as "shch". (See Romanization of Ukrainian for details). However, for new establishments we are going in pair with the Ukrainian government which adopted the National transliteration system in 1996. --Novelbank 00:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Be it as it may, you (as well as Kazak) should bring this up at the Ukrainian portal for discussion. Neither of you should go around changing a guideline unilaterally.  Remember, this is not an article, this is a guideline, so the one thing that matters above anything else is consensus.  If there is no consensus, then discussion is in order.  I personally don't care what you folks decide to use for romanization of Ukrainian; all I care about that one system is consistently used.  Using BGN/PCGN for some things and National transliteration system for others is confusing to readers, inconsistent, and does not allow for standardization (which is of utmost importance in a project such as Wikipedia).  Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 12:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know, if you want to take a look at the official transliteration, the people who take care of Ukrainian passports should answer your question. They have way more responsibility than the people who create websites, who can afford to screw up and not face any responsibility for it. — Alex(U 23:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

According to the last official transliteration system Щ is spelt as SHCH --Serhii Riabovil (talk) 15:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposal status
I've changed the page header to make it clear that this is a proposal, and doesn't correspond to current practice, with a link to Naming_conventions_(Cyrillic). It's already a problem that we have that guideline and NAME. —Michael Z. 2008-09-27 06:50 z 

Rewriting the guideline
Per my note at the notice board, I've decided to clean up the transliteration advice to make it non-redundant, consistent with standards, and suitable to be declared a real guideline. I'll consolidate everything here, leaving behind only links or the barest summaries at WP:CYR, and WP:NAME, where only naming regulations belong, and not details of transliteration systems.

I won't diverge from the substance or spirit of current practice or the guidelines in place. But I'm going to totally rewrite the text. Thanks for your patience with my efforts. —Michael Z. 2008-10-22 22:34 z 


 * I've moved the rewrite into place. The older version with its history can be found at Romanization of Ukrainian/Archive 20081024.  New romanization tables are subpages:


 * /BGN/PCGN transliteration table
 * /National transliteration table
 * /Linguistics transliteration table


 * The suggested romanization is the same as before, only with a clear reference to standards. I've also added some editorial advice below, which may also be applicable to romanization of other languages.


 * If this can remain stable, then I will replace the redundant and out-of-place guidelines at WP:NAME and WP:CYR with links to this page. —Michael Z. 2008-10-24 22:14 z 


 * I've done the latter. —Michael Z. 2008-11-05 03:56 z 

Update to the National 2010 system
Now both Ukraine and the UN use the National 2010 system, for all romanization. Place and personal names will mostly appear in news and references according to this system. It is very close to the BGN and National 1996 systems that we have been recommending, so differences in romanization will be few and barely noticeable.

I propose that the official system supercede these two, unifying the romanization for general use and for place names, and simplifying the guideline.

Questions? Comments? Objections? —Michael Z. 2013-05-02 02:15 z 


 * I have also updated the table above for comparison. —Michael Z. 2013-05-02 02:23 z 

Library of Congress romanization for references
I propose that we add a guideline recommending the Library of Congress (ALA–LC) system be used for transliterating Ukrainian in references, including titles, authors, publishers, etc.

This system is used by practically all English-language libraries, academicians, and publishers in the world (the British Library started using it nearly 40 years ago). When a reader sees a reference in Wikipedia, the name may as well help them find it elsewhere. —Michael Z. 2013-06-21 16:13 z 

Is anyone keeping this page updated?

As it stands, I found it extremely difficult to find the standardised transliteration style used for English Wikipedia. Compare this page to the Wikipedia Russian transliteration standard page. I found the Russian one without any difficulties & it's all laid out ready to use as a reference dependent on whether it's basic, linguistic or technical.

I'm still clicking around trying to work out whether to use this or hidden from plain sight somewhere on this page! Having encountered variations of ï as "yi", "ji", "i" alone in various articles and items, I don't see how an English reader will recognise the a word/name in one article as being the same word/name in another. I think we all comprehend that Ukrainian words/names basically go in one eyeball and out the other for Anglo-Celtic speakers already. Compounding polysyllabic words/names with variations on the transliteration defeats the purpose of informing readers. I know I'm confounded.

Is anyone willing to collaborate on sorting this page out in order to emulate the comprehensible Russian entry (WP:RUS)? Note that I left a similar missive on Romanization of Ukrainian talk page last month and still haven't had a response from anyone. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:21, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Names of people
There are many people in Ukraine who speak Russian, as we all know. However, it isn't clear whether we should give these people's names in Russian or Ukrainian, or both. This is especially true for article titles. Most pages that I can find provide only the Ukrainian name, even of those who grew up Russian-speaking. I feel like we should specify on this page whether to use Russian or Ukrainian transliteration. RGloucester — ☎ 19:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * For article titles, the spelling predominantly used by reliable English-language sources should be used (which may be based either on Russian or Ukrainian spelling, or on something else entirely). If there are no English-language sources, then the name should be romanized using the WP:UKR guideline (i.e., using this table with this in mind). If there are English-language sources, but there are too few of them or they all use different spellings, then it's a good idea to use the variant that's used by the sources covering the person's subject area and is closest to what WP:UKR would produce. And, in my opinion at least, names of Ukrainian people should be transliterated from Russian only in cases when only Russian-language sources are available (i.e., there's nothing in Ukrainian or English). Also to remember is that no matter what method is used, there are bound to be abundant grey areas, especially with less notable (but still notable) people.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 25, 2014 ; 20:27 (UTC)


 * As an example, I recently translated Gennadiy Trukhanov from the Ukrainian Wikipedia. It is just a stub at a moment, and I'll work on fleshing it out later. Regardless, I've found Hennadiy, Gennady, and Gennadiy, all in various English-language sources. He himself is a native Russian-speaker. I decided on "Gennadiy", since that is what the English-language website of the Odessa city administration uses, but I'm not really sure, to be honest. RGloucester  — ☎ 20:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That would be the grey area I mentioned :) Frankly, there is little to be done in such situations apart from considering all sources at hand and making the choice you think is the best. If you are completely unsure, just use WP:UKR—it's not like the article cannot be moved to a more appropriate spelling if one surfaces in the future.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 25, 2014 ; 20:57 (UTC)
 * Well, as you've already used the title using 'Gennadiy', I wouldn't worry about it too much at this point. It can, as Ezhiki pointed out, always be redirected to 'Hennadiy' (which would be the correct Ukrainian transliteration). According to the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, he's definitely Hennadiy. Let's just see whether an more consistent WP:COMMONNAME conventions evolve over time. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that Rada website uses the Ukrainian because it is the official language, not because of his own personal choice. His own personal website uses the Russian. I normally would've used the Ukrainian, but I didn't in this instance only because of his website and the Odessa website. RGloucester  — ☎ 15:09, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * As a bio, self-identification plays a large part. Considering WP:GNG, however, there would be no entry for him but for his office. My only concern at this point would be that the article only comes up in google searches under 'Gennadiy Trukhanov', but not in searches using 'Hennadiy Trukhanov'. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:58, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Notice: changing to the National System 2010
Okay, User:KPbIC proposed using the National system back in 2006 (top of page), and I came around and proposed it again in 2013. Since there’s been no objection, and the 2010 version of the National system has been officially used for all purposes for eight years now, I am going to wait another month, then be bold and change the guideline as follows:


 * Use the Ukrainian National 2010 system for general romanization and geographic names.
 * Add a guideline recommending ALA/LC romanization for bibliographic entries, since this will be compatible with modern usage in virtually all English-language libraries and publications of the last forty-three years.
 * Continue using Scientific Transliteration for linguistics.

Please comment, or not. —Michael Z. 2018-07-31 19:38 z 
 * First comment is that this would require editing and/or moving thousands of pages. Someone would need to do it. Second, Iryna Harpy left a comment in the above topic which nobody answered in five years.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:35, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Ymblanter, I don’t think this would require editing thousands of pages, and it probably wouldn’t require moving any, since it is subordinate to the naming policy.
 * Perhaps thousands of pages have Ukrainian names and words transliterated. Some portion of them, maybe fifty percent, have transliterations according to the most common name in English. Some portion of the remainder, maybe fifty percent, have have transliterations that already conform through coincidence, because much of transliteration is universal (e.g., Taras Shevchenko). Some portion of the remainder, maybe fifty percent, have transliterations that don’t conform to this policy at all, and will have to be edited anyway. The remainder can be edited whenever someone is editing them.
 * This change in policy would have insignificant effect on the state of pages needing edits. It may actually improve it, slightly, since few editors are aware of the policy, few people are familiar with the BGN/PCGN system it currently recommends, and new edits about Ukrainian places and people are likely to be entered using the National system, since that’s how Ukraine and the rest of the world officially transliterates Ukrainian. —Michael Z. 2018-09-29 16:20 z 
 * I will reply here in a month.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:37, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

I went and did it: diff. —Michael Z. 2019-11-19 19:58 z 
 * Sorry, I apparently completely forgot about the issue.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)


 * No worries. Didn’t sound like there were any serious objections. —Michael Z. 2019-11-19 20:13 z 
 * Some has to go through the articles and to check the differences between romanizations. I will do it for district / district centers, but I am not sure I can do it quickly.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you. The National System was already the rule for place names, so exceptions are probably incidental and few in number. —Michael Z. 2019-11-19 20:26 z 

Explicit soft sign and apostrophe
This: is official rules? In official version ''2. М'який знак і апостроф латиницею не відтворюються.'' Микола Василечко (talk) 19:44, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * An apostrophe may be used when more precision is required
 * A double apostrophe may be used when more precision is required


 * Not official. Wikipedia suggestions, although we mainly don’t use them. I will clarify it. —Michael Z. 20:49, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Promoting this page to a naming convention
This advice page has been stable for a long time and is widely used without contestation. Can we agree to promote its status? Are any changes needed for this? (Perhaps it is too detailed in its suggestions for style, &c., and a convention should be pared down to the most minimal romanization method.) —Michael Z. 14:03, 29 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I suppose this is both a naming convention (about determining spelling of titles that have no single most commonly used spelling), and also part of the WP:MOS (supplement to the style manual regarding spellings in the lead and text of articles). —Michael Z. 14:08, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

RFC: Romanization of Ukrainian as a guideline in the Manual of Style
I propose designating Romanization of Ukrainian as a WP:guideline and supplement to the WP:Manual of Style, with the shortcut link MOS:UKR. —Michael Z. 03:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Seems to be a followed standard, don't see why this couldn't be a MOS guideline. C LYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 04:40, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Support : However, even if there is overwhelming support here I might add that this should follow Policies and guidelines. It would seem this should be brought to WP:Village Pump/Policy (VPPOL). --  Otr500 (talk) 13:17, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I've added a please see to VPP. C LYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 19:28, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, Mzajac already put one there. C LYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 19:33, 2 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - Looks proper, and it seems to be the standard of what is followed already, which is always a plus, suggesting it already has community support. Fieari (talk) 06:29, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Things that already are followed as guidelines should have a guideline tag, and this is a style matter so that would make it part of MoS. The page would need to move to WP:Manual of Style/Romanization of Ukrainian.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:01, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Support It's already widely used so it should really be a guideline. FusionSub (talk) 12:10, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Proposed amendments/corrections to Wikipedia's Ukrainian romanization system
Note that the Ukrainian national romanization system is designed and intended for common (international) Latin transcription and better be adjusted for use in English. The proposed changes will make the romanization system more logical, consistent and reversible, and the transcription will be more correctly pronounced.

In general and as a whole, the proposed English transcription, compared to the currently used Ukrainian national romanization system, is about as common for Ukrainian place names |+%22kamianske%22+|+%22kam'ianske%22+|+%22sloviansk%22+|+%22slov'iansk%22+|+%22yevpatoriia%22+|+%22kamianets%22+|+%22kam'ianets%22+|+%22oleksandriia%22+|+%22yenakiieve%22+|+%22kadiivka%22+|+%22izmail%22+|+%22feodosiia%22+|+%22kolomyia%22+|+%22yuzhnoukrainsk%22+|+%22boiarka%22+|+%22avdiivka%22+|+%22chuhuiv%22+|+%22novoiavorivsk%22+|+%22kupiansk%22+|+%22kup'iansk%22+|+%22balakliia%22+|+%22pereiaslav%22&lr=lang_en&filter=0&nfpr=1 |+%22kamyanske%22+|+%22kam'yanske%22+|+%22slovyansk%22+|+%22slov'yansk%22+|+%22yevpatoriya%22+|+%22kamyanets%22+|+%22kam'yanets%22+|+%22oleksandriya%22+|+%22yenakiyeve%22+|+%22kadiyivka%22+|+%22izmayil%22+|+%22feodosiya%22+|+%22kolomyya%22+|+%22yuzhnoukrayinsk%22+|+%22boyarka%22+|+%22avdiyivka%22+|+%22chuhuyiv%22+|+%22novoyavorivsk%22+|+%22kupyansk%22+|+%22kup'yansk%22+|+%22balakliya%22+|+%22pereyaslav%22&lr=lang_en&filter=0&nfpr=1 (excluding Kyiv and Mykolaiv, which will be exceptions, per WP:COMMONNAME), 2–3 times more common for Ukrainian surnames |+%22korniienko%22+|+%22hordiienko%22+|+%22serhiienko%22+|+%22zaiets%22+|+%22matviienko%22+|+%22pidpryiemets%22+|+%22musiienko%22+|+%22oleksiienko%22+|+%22saienko%22+|+%22nikolaienko%22+|+%22andriienko%22+|+%22zaiats%22+|+%22kolomoiets%22+|+%22ukrainets%22+|+%22onopriienko%22+|+%22ovsiienko%22+|+%22kompaniiets%22+|+%22mykolaienko%22+|+%22kryvosheia%22&lr=lang_en&filter=0&nfpr=1 |+%22korniyenko%22+|+%22hordiyenko%22+|+%22serhiyenko%22+|+%22zayets%22+|+%22matviyenko%22+|+%22pidpryyemets%22+|+%22musiyenko%22+|+%22oleksiyenko%22+|+%22sayenko%22+|+%22nikolayenko%22+|+%22andriyenko%22+|+%22zayats%22+|+%22kolomoyets%22+|+%22ukrayinets%22+|+%22onopriyenko%22+|+%22ovsiyenko%22+|+%22kompaniyets%22+|+%22mykolayenko%22+|+%22kryvosheya%22&lr=lang_en&filter=0&nfpr=1, and 5–6 times more common for Ukrainian personal names |+ukrainian+%22mariia%22+|+%22nadiia%22+|+%22nataliia%22+|+%22lidiia%22+|+%22yevheniia%22+|+%22anastasiia%22+|+%22yevdokiia%22+|+%22yuliia%22+|+%22sofiia%22+|+%22viktoriia%22+|+%22zoia%22&lr=lang_en&filter=0&nfpr=1 |+ukrainian+%22mariya%22+|+%22nadiya%22+|+%22nataliya%22+|+%22lidiya%22+|+%22yevheniya%22+|+%22anastasiya%22+|+%22yevdokiya%22+|+%22yuliya%22+|+%22sofiya%22+|+%22viktoriya%22+|+%22zoya%22&lr=lang_en&filter=0&nfpr=1. Moreover, the proposed transcription provides more common spelling than any of the accepted standards for romanizing Ukrainian.

1. Transcribe ї always as yi so that it won't be transcribed the same as й and і and wouldn't be read as one of these. Instead, it will be pronounced correctly, and the transcription will be more unambiguous and reversible. Yet this spelling is less common.

Compare: війя, мрії, мрій, герої, герой → viiia, mrii, mrii, heroi, heroi (current) / viiya, mriyi, mrii, heroyi, heroi (proposed).

This spelling is used by Britannica: Mykolayiv, Makiyivka, Izmayil.

2. Transcribe є, ю, я, йо not after consonant letters as ye, yu, ya, yo. This will usually be pronounced correctly, unlike ie, iu, ia, io. This spelling is also more typical for English and much more common.

Compare: Заяць, Майя, Надія, Коломия → Zaiats, |+Ukrainian&lr=lang_en&filter=0&nfpr=1 Maiia, |+Ukrainian&lr=lang_en&filter=0&nfpr=1 Nadiia, Kolomyia (current) / Zayats, |+Ukrainian&lr=lang_en&filter=0&nfpr=1 Maiya, |+Ukrainian&lr=lang_en&filter=0&nfpr=1 Nadiya, Kolomyya (proposed).

Britannica uses this spelling as well: Slov'yansk, Yenakiyeve, Kolomyya.

VSL (talk) 12:19, 16 July 2023 (UTC)


 * The table represents a standard which we can’t change. For article titles, “established systematic romanizations, such as Hanyu Pinyin, are preferred,” per WP:TRANSLITERATE. —Michael Z. 19:37, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * There are Wikipedia's custom romanization systems for Russian, Rusyn, Mongolian. VSL (talk) 21:11, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The Rusyn system is based on the most widely used standard, the Library of Congress system and its conventional modified version. The Russian system is bad because it differs from any standard, for no reason.
 * (The apostrophe is not just non-standard but a conflicting and potentially confusing choice, because in many standard systems it represents the soft sign.) —Michael Z. 21:54, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I see you’re editing the original post so not all my comments are still applicable. This is a breech of etiquette, per WP:REDACT. It is also a sign that you’re making it up as you go along. We don’t need an amateur romanization system, and we sure don’t need one that’s improvised off the cuff. —Michael Z. 03:04, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Don't want to sound rude, but I am not an expert in the Ukrainian language, ill just use the spelling of names and places that are used in the articles/reports I am citing. Scu ba (talk) 18:47, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * As a Ukrainian, I would just mention that, before obtainin an international passport with a Latinized spelling, Ukrainians tend to write our names/surnames in English the way VSL suggests. --Olexa Riznyk (talk) 06:07, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you expand on that or provide a reference? It’s my understanding that the Ukrainian romanization system has been used for passport names since 2010, and there was a separate passport system before that from 2007 (as outlined in Romanization of Ukrainian. —Michael Z. 13:28, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That is not BGN/PCGN 1965, which would give Slov”yans’k. —Michael Z. 02:58, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia should, in all cases and for whatever writing system, stick with International Standard systems. No exceptions except in the cases where there is a commonly-used English spelling (e.g., Lviv, Kyiv, etc.). --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 22:53, 22 July 2023 (UTC)


 * "Wikipedia should, in all cases and for whatever writing system, stick with International Standard systems." There is no such policy, so it shouldn't always stick with and, in practice, doesn't (for Russian, Rusyn, Mongolian). In the English Wikipedia it's better to use the transcription that is more suitable and more typical/common for English. The currently used Ukrainian national romanization system is bad (inconsistent and less reversible), and was not intended for use in English, and is not generally accepted; BGN/PCGN 1965 is better but also not ideal. VSL (talk) 09:52, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * There is a policy that standards are preferred, as I already pointed out. Rusyn does follow a standard as it’s implemented in an authoritative source.
 * The current WP:UKR is not bad, it is good, and it is widely accepted: it has superseded the 1965 system for the BGN and PCGN, and has been accepted by the UN. It is consistent with use in other sources, clear, and easy to use, which is important for us, while reversibility is not (and VSL’s proposal is none of those things anyway). “Was not intended for use in English” is false. It is consistent with English (the 1996 version was explicitly so), using transcriptions like ш = sh, ч = ch, and х = kh that use English orthography for the sounds.
 * VSL’s advocacy of their amateur, inconsistent, and non-standard system is misinformed. —Michael Z. 14:28, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Transcription standards are preferred in Wikipedia but are not obligatory, and prevalence in common use should be more important. And I mean that the Ukrainian national romanization system was not intended for use in English specially, i. e. by design. And by its inconsistency I mean the varying transcription of iotated vowels. VSL (talk) 17:35, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No, it is by design.
 * What do you mean by “varying transcription of iotated vowels”?
 * Varying from what? The transliteration of iotated vowel letters is practically identical to that of the very widely used modified Library of Congress method, and in fact a huge number of words are identically transliterated by these two methods. Its great consistency is a major advantage.
 * If you mean vowel sounds, this is not a phonemic/phonetic transcription system: for that we have MOS:IPA and WP:IPA. This is used for romanization of written text, i.e. transliteration.  —Michael Z. 18:23, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The Ukrainian national romanization system is a common (international) latinization standard, not a Ukrainian-to-English transcription system, so it is not designed for use in English and isn't optimal for it. Transcription of iotated vowels differs word-initially and elsewhere, that's what I mean. VSL (talk) 19:16, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No. “Ukrainian-to-English transcription system” is not a thing. There are international romanization or transliteration systems that use ž, č, š, ch/x, je, ju, ja, and there are English-based systems that use sh, ch, sh, kh, ie, iu, ia, or ye, yu, ya. The Ukrainian national system is one of the latter. It is highly compatible with the other most-used English-based system, the modified LOC.
 * The word-initial transliteration of some vowels is not inconsistent, it is systematic and intended to accommodate English spelling conventions. —Michael Z. 20:43, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Ukrainian-to-English transcription system is a system of orthographic (practical) transcription.
 * The Ukrainian national romanization system is a common system but not English-based like the British and BGN/PCGN systems are. It's just a romanization system that uses the basic Latin alphabet.
 * And such varying transcription of iotated vowels doesn't make sense. VSL (talk) 21:43, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you name some of these Ukrainian-to-English transcription systems? Why are you bringing transcription into this conversation at all? It just confuses things. —Michael Z. 01:06, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The British standard and BGN/PCGN 1965 in fact are orthographic transcription systems as they employ the English spelling system. VSL (talk) 06:39, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No, they are not (phonemic/phonetic) transcription systems. Transcription is the notation of spoken language, like IPA.
 * These romanization systems employ letter-by-letter tables of substitutions to transliterate from written Cyrillic-alphabet text, as do ALA–LC and the Ukrainian National system. Yes, all four are designed to approximate the original sound using English spelling conventions (e.g. ч = ch, not č), but that does not make them transcription of spoken Ukrainian. —Michael Z. 20:14, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * (Yes, the Russian and Mongolian systems don’t follow the policy advice nor conform to any standard. The Russian system is an essay, not a guideline or policy, and should be replaced.) —Michael Z. 14:39, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * While I would prefer that Wikipedia use something that has been internationally adopted for X orthography to Roman alphabet, in the absence of a single accepted standard, then one should be chosen. What I absolutely oppose is a Wikipedia invention (or even modification).  Since Wikipedia articles should always include a name in the original script followed by a transliteration (not "transcription") into a Roman orthography, "perfect reversibility" is not a necessary feature.  What you will actually find in practice is that authors of individual articles (or editors of already-written articles) will use whatever system they know and ignore "Wikipedia preferences".  Just look at the edit wars that have resulted from writing an IPA representation for a Ukrainian name as simple as "Kyiv".  --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 09:19, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * In that case, I would suggest choosing the British standard because its transcription is the most common in English, the most correctly pronounced, and the most reversible. VSL (talk) 10:05, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The British Library switched from the BS to ALA–LC in 1975. —Michael Z. 20:19, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Morning, why don't we have an wp:RFC for such a complex case? -Lemonaka‎  12:24, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I cannot understand why we need to change anything - nor how these changes would benefit anyone.
 * For example, the proposal for ї would, I believe, change Kadiivka to Kadiyivka
 * Simlarly with ю, if the preceding letter in the word before it was a consonant, it could cause someone to change Yurii to Iurii - although it may seem like an impossibility, it is ambiguous without the "beginning of the word" explanation.
 * These alone appear to be a red flag straight away. More thought is needed as to whether 1. we need to change anything, and 2. How to avoid silly things like my second point when making logical rules.
 * This is not something we should be contemplating without a LOT of input from several sets of Ukrainian native-speakers who are telling us the system needs to change. I do not see that, so suspect it does not need changing.
 * I would appreciate VSL explaining where their reasoning comes from, whether they are a native-speaker etc. Chaosdruid (talk) 19:35, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

We have an existing international standard we should use that rather than cook up something new. (i'm saying this as someone who prefers yi, ya whatever in my own work and name), if reversibility is a concern we can always include LOC trans-lit with ligatures and diacritics in the lead—blindlynx 21:07, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

The first thing - I'm not sure that the Wiki allows a such original scientific work. The second: I don't like any apostrophe in Ukrainian romanization. You do not need a apostrophe in words such as batalyon because the Ukrainian language has assimilation by "softness" in roots and suffixes. Beside it, we have hardening of some consonants, so Ruchyi can't have soft readding. The "Polish" way of writing of iotateds (Aliona) is really good for the Ukrainian. The current romanization system would work perfect if it transliterated any letter Й as Y (ИЇ is a rare combination). And YI in all positions is excessive solution because any after-vowel "I" becomes Ї in the Ukrainian (exceptions only at junction of prefix and root). So, keep root-initial YI and simple I otherwise.--Юе-Артеміш (talk) 17:01, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * A bigger problem is "doubled" sibilants: zhzh, chch etc. I propose sch for щ (what is a bit etymological), ssh for шш, zzh for жж, tch for чч (what is a bit old fashioned, like Shevchenko's Datchyna / Denmark).--Юе-Артеміш (talk) 17:42, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * viiia, mrii, mrii, heroi, heroi (current) / viyya [vi'j:а], mrii ['mriji], mriy [mrij], heroi [-oji], heroy [-oj] (proposed by me).--Юе-Артеміш (talk) 17:52, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Indicating stress
The section on indicating stress says we can use an acute accent over a vowel in romanized text, e.g. Zaporízhzhia.

This should probably be removed. This usage is common in native Ukrainian dictionaries and readers (e.g., as Запорі́жжя), but as far as I know is not a convention for use in romanized text. Our universal way to indicate stress for any language in Wikipedia is in phonemic or phonetic transcriptions per MOS:IPA and WP:IPA.

Any objections? —Michael Z. 18:39, 23 July 2023 (UTC)


 * See also Stress marks in Russian words. —Michael Z. 18:41, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ —Michael Z. 14:02, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

RFC/vote: Switching to the BGN/PCGN 1965 standard for general romanization of Ukrainian as a guideline in the Manual of Style
Since there are many opinions for following one of the existing standards for general romanization of Ukrainian, I suggest to switch from the 2010 Ukrainian national standard to the BGN/PCGN 1965 standard, for the following reasons:

1. The BGN/PCGN 1965 transcription is generally more correctly pronounced by English speakers, which is its main advantage and should be the most important argument/criterion in choosing a romanization standard for use in English context.

2. The BGN/PCGN 1965 transcription is more suitable for use in English and more typical for English as it employs the English spelling system, unlike the 2010 Ukrainian national standard.

3. The BGN/PCGN 1965 transcription is more unambiguous and reversible.

4. The BGN/PCGN 1965 standard is consistent (in the transcription of iotated vowels and й) and simple, unlike the 2010 Ukrainian national standard.

5. The BGN/PCGN 1965 Ukrainian romanization standard is harmonized (regarding the transcription of iotated vowels and й) with the current BGN/PCGN romanization standards for Russian and Belarusian, which are used in the English Wikipedia (with some modifications). Ukrainian shares with Russian and Belarusian a lot of personal names, some surnames and other names and words, and their transcription should not differ depending on the origin or country of residence of a name holder.

It is worth noting that the BGN/PCGN 1965 standard is preferred by Britannica and has comparable popularity in English as the 2010 Ukrainian national standard (the BGN/PCGN 1965 transcription is more common for Ukrainian personal names, about as common for Ukrainian surnames, yet less common for Ukrainian place names).

For comparison:

Надія, Касьян, Тетяна, Таїса, Макіївка, Мар’їнка, Таврійськ, Андрій, Зеленський

Nadiya, Kasyan, Tetyana, Tayisa, Makiyivka, Maryinka, Tavriysk, Andriy, Zelenskyy (BGN/PCGN 1965 standard)

Nadiia, Kasian, Tetiana, Taisa, Makiivka, Marinka, Tavriisk, Andrii, Zelenskyi (2010 Ukrainian national standard, currently a guideline in the Manual of Style)

VSL (talk) 15:44, 5 August 2023 (UTC)


 * No, BGN/PCGN 1965 would give Mar”yinka. —Michael Z. 03:01, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Britannica uses ALA-LC spelling Ukraïns’ka mova in “Ukrainian language,” and a mix including modified LOC for the titles and names in “Ukrainian literature.” —Michael Z. 03:15, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

You may be interested in this discussion: User:Blindlynx, User:Olexa Riznyk, User:TaivoLinguist, User:Flavius1, User:AlexKozur, User:Trzb, User:Antanana, User:Lystopad, User:Slovolyub, User:Dunadan Ranger, User:Alesjif, User:M. Humeniuk, User:Oleh Kushch, User:Orbitz stop st ro, User:Leon II, User:Propork3455, User:Franzekafka, User:Dr.KBAHT. VSL (talk) 14:05, 6 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Support. VSL (talk) 15:44, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose, it feels very counter productive to use a different standard than what every single romanised sign or news report in Ukraine will be saying, not to mention the official documents such as people's passports. The advantages of the proposed system can be utilised as a pronunciation guide where necessary, but it is better to stick to the official one for the general usage. For instance after almost two decades discussing the Kiev vs Kyiv naming to now adopt a system that is now saying one to write Kyyiv, that does not sound like a good idea. Of course this won't affect Kyiv itself, it is a well rooted word in the English language by now, but this will create many an unnecessary discussion. I am also not sure it is more unambiguous. It certainly is in some instances, but there is at least one case where it is more ambiguous, that is transliteration of зг, disambiguated as zgh in 55-2010, but it will be zh, same as ж, in the proposed one. There is in fact a note about it proposing to use a middle dot to disambiguate, but that looks unusable to anything but pronunciation guides. I am also unsure about using " to represent ', seems a rather academic thing, I am not sure anyone would get how to read the name V"yacheslav vs Viacheslav in 55-2010. And if we have to cherry pick what parts of the system to use, that would be original research on our part, so it is better to stick with a system that does not make you deal with such problems. --Base (talk) 16:04, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * 1. "every single romanised sign or news report in Ukraine will be saying" — this is far from being true. And Ukrainian romanized signs, official documents and people's passports don't matter much because they are not read by a notable number of English speakers.
 * 2. An apostrophe for ь and a quotation mark for ’ may and better be omitted in the transcription.
 * 3. Instead of a middle dot, an apostrophe may be used as a separator character for spelling disambiguation.
 * 4. All these standards don't take into account certain Ukrainian orthography features (disregard the combination ьо, ambiguously transcribe the combinations пг, сг, иа, ие, ио, иу), so, for proper pronouncing and reversibility, corrections to a chosen romanization standard should be made in any case. And correcting a transcription standard is not an original research and is not forbidden in Wikipedia.
 * @Base VSL (talk) 20:48, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose, I am afraid there are way more disadvantages than advantages in switching to this standard.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:19, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This needs to be argued. VSL (talk) 22:28, 5 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Our current policy is also BGN/PCGN 2019, which supersedes the 1965 system. Every one of the OP’s points, 1 through 5 and the last paragraph, is simply wrong. —Michael Z. 19:11, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * All these points are right and valid. VSL (talk) 22:28, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * [citation needed] —Michael Z. 23:10, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I personally prefer Nadiya over Nadiia, but compatibility with official Ukrainian documents and romanization is more important to me. Qq8 (talk) 21:44, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * But does it have any importance for most Wikipedia readers? VSL (talk) 22:29, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Moreover, Britannica is not considered a reliable tertiary source even for plain citing, not to mention changing MoS.
 * Comment. As a person who encountered multiple Ukrainians, I'd recommend considering the question of implying a new romanization standard from multiple angles, more than a plain discussion. The biggest question here is to disambiguate Ukrainian letters i, и, й and ï and their collocations, such as "ий" from each other by English letters y and i (and, perhaps, ï). Since the language is actually pretty similar to Russian, sometimes other variants are also possible (e. g. Зеленський could be pronounced as Zelenskiy, as if the name was actually Зеленськiй) but are not taken into consideration despite they are easier in terms of pronunciation. Here, another thing to figure would be the double y where readers would rather omit one of them and pronounce the plain "й", whereas the Ukrainian national standart requires to write "yi" (and an average reader, I guess, would pronounce it as "йи" due to language inconsistensies). So, I would suggest to look at other variants of romanization of Ukrainian or even create a custom variant similar to Russian that would be more suitable to readers. Eagowl | talk | 06:26, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * * Opinion per few factors:
 * One is potential "name in sources" conflict. For about 3 decades, foreign passports issued by Ukrainian Ministry of Interior had names written in Latin this way - Andriy, Nadiya, etc. Hence whenever books, media and officials abroad cited it, it became de facto standard as per accumulated transliterated Ukrainian corpus. Quick google search for Andriy gives "About 15 900 000 results" while search for Andrii gives "About 10 200 000 results"
 * The hard part is that Zelenskyy became de facto standard in media and official too. Probably other novo-Latin-Ukrainian names are same too.
 * Another factor to take into account - Ukraine doesn't go into UK Commonwealth union. Neither it goes to become N+1 US state. In article Constitution_of_Ukraine there is line -- In February 2019 the constitution was amended to require governments to seek EU and NATO membership. So Ukraine moves towards EU, not UK or US. Hence standard of English should be still readable by Europeans. Yes, it's hard - I live with name Andriy in Finland for quarter of century, and Finns suffer to read it, it's something like Андрію. Swedish-spoken Finns (ca %6 population) read and write it as Andryi.
 * If you ask me, I'd wait for better transliteration system. Existing ones are below acceptable.
 * silpol (talk) 19:28, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * What are the current romanization rules for new passports? I understood Ukraine now uses the new Ukrainian National system for passports, too.
 * The official language of international communication is primarily considered to be English now. In Soviet times, the official romanization system was a European-style one, with ju, ja, je, x/ch, č, š, ž, &c. Since then it has been an English-language-style one with iu/yu, ia/ya, ie/ye, kh, ch, sh, zh (with British y-based having given way to American i-based to some extent since the British Library adopted ALA-LC in 1975). I don’t know what you mean by “standard of English readable by Europeans.” —Michael Z. 21:32, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The 1965 standard is too old, although it is common.  The 2010 Ukrainian National Standard should be used without ad hoc modifications.  While pre-2010 transliterations are still around, contemporary sources are switching to the 2010 standard.  --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 01:39, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. International organizations, for example, sports organizations, now increasingly use the 2010 Ukrainian national standard. A precise Google search for athletes who started their careers after 2000, especially after 2010, shows the superiority of the 2010 Ukrainian national standard over the BGN/PCGN 1965 standard: “Nadiia Kichenok” - 128,000 vs “Nadiya Kichenok” - 73,700, “Viktoriia Onopriienko”, "Yuliia Yuriichuk". That is the trend towards the preference of the 2010 Ukrainian national standard. --Oleh Kushch (talk) 10:42, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Nadiia%2BViktoriia%2BYuliia%2CNadiya%2BViktoriya%2BYuliya&year_start=1950&year_end=2019&corpus=en-2019 VSL (talk) 11:30, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That Ngram is useless because it may represent 80% romanized Russian names and 18% other non-Ukrainian names. First G Books result for the respective names are authored by Yuliya Komska, US professor of German studies, Viktoriya Yakubouskaya, Belarusian artist, and Nadiya Hussain, British TV chef. —Michael Z. 14:21, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. VSL seems to be determined to continuously try to change what we have that they see as broken for "something"; without actually getting any support and instead receiving much opposition (as in other previous threads.) Chaosdruid (talk) 14:31, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose 1965 standard favors not differentiating languages to benefit the Russian language speakers (See "triune Russian nation" ideology, that promotes the idea of Ukrainian and Belarusian as the "dialects" of Russian). It would be a step backwards, promoting a false image of similarity between the languages, and a move against Ukrainians, as 1965 standard was developed not during the times of Ukrainian Independence. 5500lbs (talk) 18:57, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per 5500lbs.--Franzekafka (talk) 12:27, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose as standard but allow if it dominates. As an example, two active Ukrainian tennis player: Lesia Tsurenko and Marta Kostyuk. Lesia Tsurenko is 2010 national standard, and it really dominates with Lesya Tsurenko hardly ever used. Marta Kostyuk is BGN/PCGN 1965, it does dominate but by a small margin, with still many sources on Marta Kostiuk. Overall quite consistently if the official spelling (typically variant used in the passport) is the 2010 national standard one, the BGN/PCGN 1965 version is barely used; if the official spelling is BGN/PCGN 1965, then the 2010 national standard spelling is still decently used. This is a clear sign of domination of the 2010 national standard — NickK (talk) 22:08, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. While not active in these discussions recently those who recognize me know I've been weighing in on transliteration for quite a number of years. BGN (that is, US State Department English language preferences for common place names) switching from "Kiev" to "Kyiv" was a watershed moment. The only thing to be gained by going backwards is confusion. There is no point to transliterating Ukrainian according to a standard to make it appear more Russian-like. Conversely, if an individual prefers to transliterate their name a certain way, that is their prerogative, but it does not impact what standard is most appropriate. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 23:23, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:UKR" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:UKR&redirect=no Wikipedia:UKR] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. JuniperChill (talk) 12:39, 28 April 2024 (UTC)