View text source at Wikipedia

Talk:Belarusian ruble


Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Their designs are very similar to the Euro banknotes

[edit]

Uhhh ??? --AliceBzh (talk) 19:31, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 11 September 2022

[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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved back to the stable title per discussion below. (closed by non-admin page mover) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:45, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Belarusian rubel → Belarusian ruble – The Currency Guy moved this page from ruble to rubel and changed all instances of kopeck to copeck, claiming that it is the accepted spelling. The official website of the President of Belarus uses the spellings ruble and kopeck, as does the National Bank of the Republic of Belarus (at least in January it did, the page will no longer load for me). The article also used the spelling ruble since its inception in 2005. Bayonet-lightbulb (talk) 03:05, 11 September 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 04:38, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The National Bank infact uses the spelling "copeck", not "kopeck". I find it quite odd that in this instance you are citing national banks when in the case of the Polish złoty bank usage is not enough for you. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 03:09, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The World Bank, the IMF Encyclopaedia Britannica and the New York Times all cite "rubel". TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 03:38, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What about ruble vs rubel? EmilySarah99 (talk) 07:02, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect their English website was translated from the Russian version of their site instead of directly from the Belarusian one. Belstat uses rubel TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 07:34, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per common English name, NBRB usage, and nom. NotReallySoroka (talk) 01:37, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That just opens another can of worms because American English and Commonwealth English use different spellings and one cannot be said to be "more common" than the other. One of the advantages of "rubel" is that it avoids this issue entirely by siding with neither. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 01:41, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Belarus has been notified of this discussion. – robertsky (talk) 04:39, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Numismatics has been notified of this discussion. – robertsky (talk) 04:39, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support as English WP:COMMONNAME and https://www.nbrb.by/engl (national bank website) opens for me (MOS:TIES). Also, as a reversal of an undiscussed move. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 15:15, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Requested move reversed

[edit]

Page move request was made out of spite and not genuine concern for content. Have reverted. "Rubel" is used by multiple reliable sources (World Bank, IMF, Belstat etc.), aids in disambiguation from other currencies with similar names and is neutral with regards to different forms of English (the debate between "ruble" and "rouble" is rooted in differing standardised dialects, Wikipedia is supposed to prefer no national form of English, and choosing one or another translation is bias when a neutral alternative is available). The reliance on the National Bank's website is curious considering this move request was made in response to another move request. In that case the move-suggester was against using the form used by the Polish National Bank, even though that form is used by all reliable English sources. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 10:44, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TheCurrencyGuy: Use WP:Move review don't just unilaterally revert a closed move you disagree with. In the mean time please revert your move—blindlynx 19:24, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I attempted to engage but very little evidence was put forth in favour of the opinion of the move-requester. Consensus does not mean a mere vote in a popularity contest, it demands evidences and discussion. I do not believe the move request was made in good faith as it seems to have been a retaliatory move against a move request I had made on a different article. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 21:10, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As someone involved in the discussion you don't get to make that call. Talk to the closer or the challenge the move. But please move it back to the stable title in the mean time—blindlynx 13:25, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bayonet-lightbulb has since stated that it was a kneejerk reaction and that they no longer support the RM. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 17:20, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TheCurrencyGuy: If you want to move a page, and you believe consensus has changed since the prior time a page was moved, you are free to open up an RM. Keep in mind, however, that while consensus can change, proposing to change a recently established consensus (such as this one above) can be disruptive, particularly so if it's to re-litigate the same question without new sorts of arguments being made. If you disagree with the way the closer summarized the discussion, you are free to seek review at WP:MR, but please do not move the page against the close of the RM based on the claim that the good-faith closer was incorrect in their closing summary. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:50, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]


I reverted a few edits so that the spelling in the text matched the title—blindlynx 15:33, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Russian language

[edit]

As a Belarusian IP address I propose we remove it instead of pointless edit warring.

Who is for and who is against? Explain why.

I support the removal for the reasons I already explained in my edit summaries. 178.120.1.221 (talk) 01:43, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See User talk:178.120.60.5. Russian is one of the two official languages of Belarus. The majority of Belarusian use it as a first language. Materialscientist (talk) 01:56, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about the currency specifically, not the country in general. 178.120.1.221 (talk) 02:00, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And this specific currency is for a country where Russian is an official language. The template documentation for the currency infobox states that the template should list "all official languages of the issuing authority". In this case, Belarus is the issuing authority, and the official languages of Belarus are Belarusian and Russian. Therefore, the Russian name must stay whether or not it physically appears on the currency. - ZLEA T\C 03:09, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]