Talk:Romanization of Belarusian

A fact from Romanization of Belarusian appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 16 February 2006. The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that romanization of Belarusian, the transliteration of Belarusian-language text from the Cyrillic alphabet to the Latin alphabet, is distinct from writing in Łacinka, the historical native Latin alphabet of Belarus?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2006/February.

Wikipedia

Belarus

	Belarus portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belarus, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Belarus on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BelarusWikipedia:WikiProject BelarusTemplate:WikiProject BelarusBelarus
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Writing systems Low‑importance

	Writing portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page.Writing systemsWikipedia:WikiProject Writing systemsTemplate:WikiProject Writing systemsWriting system
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Examples

The examples table needs one or two more words, to demonstrate the transliteration of the letters х and й, and perhaps with ю or я at the beginning and in the middle. —Michael Z. 2006-02-13 23:32 Z

isn't it: ROMANIANIZATION of Belarusian?

I think is write in this way to mention.

Romanization means conversion to the Latin (Roman) alphabet. Romanianization, or Rumanization, is something else. —Michael Z. 2006-02-14 22:39 Z

Anonymous, I reverted your revert to an earlier version. My original edit summary covered the problems with table formatting, but I didn't mention some other problems: that the new location of note references changed the scope of the notes which applied specifically to Łacinka, and not to the Cyrillic letters in general, and that the table formatting made the main article headings pile up on the right side of the tables in my web browser (Safari/Mac). —Michael Z. 2006-02-14 22:51 Z

I don't understand the reason of the undeletion. The message I deleted wasn't based on any official info, was misleading and promotional. None of the other systems' entries carry a promotional message with them. This isn't a comparison of systems but an index. So why undeletion? Yury Tarasievich 21:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Could someone help? Two articles (BGN/PCGN romanization of Belarusian and Romanization of Belarusian) contain different information regarding Ь (ь). By the first article this latter should be converted to "’" (apostrophe), but according to the second article — not. Ang15 (talk) 19:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to the source, the soft sign in the BGN/PCGN romanization system should be represented by an apostrophe.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 24, 2011; 19:58 (UTC)

I'll correct the table then. Ang15 (talk) 20:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Romanization of Belarusian. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:14, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Romanization of Belarusian. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090824062135/http://unstats.un.org/unsd/geoinfo/9th-UNCSGN-Docs/E-CONF-98-CRP-21.pdf to http://unstats.un.org/unsd/geoinfo/9th-uncsgn-docs/e-conf-98-crp-21.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]