Talk:Batlejka

On 8 April 2021, it was proposed that this article be moved to Batleyka. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Requested move 8 April 2021[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: no consensus. Future requested moves should focus more on frequencies in reliable sources. (closed by non-admin page mover) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 15:35, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Batlejka → Batleyka – Correct transliteration into English Lembit Staan (talk) 15:58, 8 April 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 10:33, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Batleyka is not the only variant of transliteration into the Latin alphabet. Batlejka is more commonly used - according to Google - variant, incl. by the Belarusian diaspora in the English-speaking countries. I suggest making a redirect from Batleyka without changing the article title nor spelling used in the article.--Nieszczarda2 (talk) 16:57, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Batlejka" is the Belarusian language Latinization of "Батле́йка", therefore it is used in Belarusian diaspora. English transliteration is "Batleyka". Do you really want English people pronounce the word as "Batledzhka"? ('j' like in 'juice') Lembit Staan (talk) 17:36, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Belarusians don't "Latinise" their own words. They just use their own Latin alphabet. English speakers can either learn the correct pronounciation of Belarisian words (as they often do with French words, like 'au pair') or prounounce them in their own way (as with 'junta'). Pronouncing batlejka as [batleika] or [batledzhka] are both fine. Nobody expects Belarusians to pronounce English words absolutely correctly; there shouldn't be such an expectation on English-speakers regarding Belarusian words either.--Nieszczarda2 (talk) 16:37, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They just use their own Latin alphabet -The official alphabet is Cyrillic. Using Latin is called Romanization. Belarusians also had Arabic alphabet in the past. So what? - there shouldn't be such an expectation - disagreed. If there are alternatives, I would prefer the one which allows readers to pronounce as correctly as possible. By the way, Wikipedia has rules for transliteration into English from Cyrillic-based languages; see WP:TRANSLIT. Lembit Staan (talk) 16:48, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Using Latin is called Romanization Incorrect: Belarusians use transliteration into the characters of the Latin alphabet, i.e. Romanazation, only for geographical names. For there rest they use their own traditional Latin alphabet if needed. The argument of the only official status of Cyrillic alpabet is irrelevant as the case of Wikipedia not recognising the official Instruction on transliteration of Belarusian geographical names evidences. The case of Arabic alphabet is irrelevant either: the English language does not use it & there is no practical need of it at this point in history.--Nieszczarda2 (talk) 09:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let me recoup the argument and take it further:
1. The form batlejka is more widely used than batleyka - Google helps to verify that.
2. The Belarusian diaspora in English-speaking countries has traditionally used the form batlejka in order to communicate the event to English speakers, see e.g. the Anglo-Belarusian Society's website aimed predominantly at the English-speaking public. The case of the popular use of the term is evident.
3. Arnold McMillin's A History of Byelorussian Literature (1977) mentions батлейка (p.72) as batlejka. - Now we have established that the academic use of this form in English goes back as far as the earliest English-language monograph on history of Belarusian literature.
4. Marion Rutz's One People, One Language, One Literature? Changing Constructions of the History of Old Belarusian Literature (1956–2010), scholarly article published in 2020, uses the same form, batlejka. - Now we have established that the academic use of this form has continued until nowadays.
The case for batlejka is overwhelming. If the current Wikipedia transiteration rules in regard of the Belarusian language prevail, it will expose their inconsistent and unreasonable character contradicting the Wikipedia's purpose and its First Pillar.--Nieszczarda2 (talk) 09:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
batlejka is more widely used. -- False statement (obviously you don't quite undertand how to interpret google search results). Unique google results: batlejka: 84 hits; batleyka: 127 results. And this is even bearing in mind that 'batlejka' is the correct spelling in Polish. Low frequency means that we cannot definitely speak about an established spelling in English. And minuscule Belarusian diaspora has little say in the issue. Lembit Staan (talk) 17:06, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I accept you can determine the number of Google results better. I'll just note that a good proportion of the batleyka results refer to brands (theatre and festival names) transliterated from Russian, not Belarusian; or they are talking about this kind of a puppet theatre in the Russian or Ukrainian context, not strictly about the Belarusian batlejka. I have already shown that the form batlejka was used in the earliest academic works on Belarusian literature and its use has been continues and prevailing judging by the Google Books and Google Scholar search results. Will disregarding the academic literature on this matter help Wikipedia's reliability? Re the size of the Belarusian diaspora... as Prof McMillin wrote about the Belarusian language, Small is Sometimes Beautiful. Basically, Belarusians are all that English speakers have to verify their ideas about Belarusians. Asking Belarusians won't hurt. The Belarusian diaspora is all that the English-speaking public has if they want to experience batlejka: London seems to be the only place in the English-speaking world where it is performed and studied. How then replacing the word batlejka with the representation of its approximate pronunciation, batleyka, will help people to discover batlejka - both performances and knowledge, incl. academic research, about it? I'll leave this convo until/if I find substantially new arguments. I understand that the current Wikipedia conventions allow you to move the article. Well, some battles can't be won for the time being.--Nieszczarda2 (talk) 14:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) may help here. (Non-administrator comment) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 10:35, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think using the formal Belarussian romanization is fine, and there's no overwhelming evidence that one is used over the other.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:01, 16 April 2021 (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.