Talk:Ruble

History and status

The article should include a brief summary of the rouble's history and its current position in regard to other currencies. The New York Times reports that "the ruble remains the world’s second-most undervalued major currency, behind only the Chinese yuan".[1] In its current embryonic state, the article fails to serve our readers. --Ghirla^-трёп- 13:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Russia5000rubles03front.jpg

Image:Russia5000rubles03front.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Exchanging in other countries?

I'm UK. My dad just got told by the russian embasy its illegal to sell roubles here. Post office and m&s do that (ones goverment, one's high street food and stuff). Anyone got proof for the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.85.102 (talk) 15:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Hardly anything to do with the article, but yes. Article 15.25 of the Code of Administrative Offences. If you get caught, the fine is equivalent to 3/4 or all of the money exchanged. No further liability. Exchange operations are allowed only to banks or persons employed by banks (that is the cashiers in the official exchange kiosks).--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 15:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Ivan The Terrible

Sorry for earlier messages, Ivan the terrible was, indeed, represented on the earlier Kopeks. This, however, is an incomplete picture, and circa 1722, he was replaced with Saint George.

http://center.rusmuseum.ru/InetBookNew/georg/7/index.php?menu=4 http://www.statesymbol.ru/currency/20050321/39595552.html

I will make the necessary changes in 48 hours unless objections arise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.134.163 (talk) 06:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Please!

Do not mix "kopecks" and "kopeks" in the same article. This just causes lots of confusion. I don't even know what's the "legal" spelling of this; but no matter what the spelling is, it should be unified. -andy 92.229.78.183 (talk) 05:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree it should be consitent. In terms of a corrrect spelling, the Russian use the Cyrilllic alphabet so tranliteration into Roman text is what is set by convention. Don't even get me started on "Ruble" being used instead of "Rouble". Although it has become poplular in recent years "Ruble" still looks vulgar and illiterate to vme and has nothing to do with regional spelling variations. Dainamo (talk) 08:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, "rouble" and "kopeck" appear to be the translations preferred by the Russian government. Goznak exclusively uses "rouble" and "kopeck", the Bank of Russia's English website is inconsistent and is roughly at 50/50. I tried to start a discussion about potentially changing the name of at least the Soviet iteration of the currency (always spelled "rouble"), but things became unpleasant. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 01:06, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

External link to photos with Rubles and Kopeks (Kopeykas)

Hello, I think that following external link should be reinserted:

• Photos of historic, morden, anniversary Rubles and Kopeykas

I think that the link is useful because:

• link contains a lot of photos with different Rubles and Kopeykas relevant to the article.
• photos cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to large amount of images.
• the external site has educational purposes only (not commercial, without advertisement) and contains neutral and accurate material that is relevant to the article.

(Pavlikovskiy (talk) 21:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC))

If you continue to spam Wikipedia with links to your site, you will be blocked. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I understand you. I try to discuss it, as you wrote to my talk. I added few references to my site in articles where the references are relevant. This article (Ruble & Kopek) has no photos of Rubles and Kopeykas. However, Ruble & Kopek are not abstraction - it's something what people can see (there are thousands different Rubles and Kopeykas). This article has just one external link which is in Russian (I hope that most English reading people can read in Russian as well as in English ). I would say that my reference could be unnecessary (or spam) in Russian version of the article because that article has much more photos and a lot of similar external links in relevant language. Why does external link exist in Wikipedia if they are banned in such cases as this article? I think that my 10 references (in relevant places) was not really spam attack to Wikipedia. Or does the reason is because the site is my ? I hope administrators should make unbiased decisions.

(Pavlikovskiy (talk) 11:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC))

Merge proposal

(november 2010)

Disagree. Russian ruble is a page for a specific national currency. Unless discussion arises, the template should be removed. Metaknowledge (talk) 23:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Etymology

• Any etymological connection with the Indian rupee? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
  • No, no connections, the etymology is very clearly and obviously Russian/Slavic. No distant IE connections, either.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 14:36, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Individual art for copeck/kopeck

kopecks is redirected here, but many Wikipedias have individual article for the coin. See wikidata:Q1415602--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:42, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Кто-то предлагал символ - "Мечь под пузом!" ..

IP ramblings and original thoughts.

Правильный меч д.б. дальше пуза ! А иначе, если как было - вообще без никакого смысла. Очень тупо. А на картинке здесь мужик висит рукой схватившись за скалу. Или стараетца. С доской ? Он маляр-штукатур ? Или там тянули ЛЭП ? Везде бардак! Как всё началось с 70-ых - так всё только падает и валитца. Не до Страны! Нужнее деньги. Ведь - деньги делают всё! А люди - ничего не делают .. просто висят схватившись за скалу .. Или там Кремль ? Он тот мистер Шмитт который на самодельном самолётике к нам так долго сутками летел без дозаправки ?? 176.59.192.224 (talk) 00:50, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Collapsed per WP:NOTFORUM. Mathglot (talk) 20:32, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Featured picture scheduled for POTD

Hello! This is to let editors know that File:Russia 1771 Sestroretsk Rouble.jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for December 3, 2021. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2021-12-03. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:33, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

The ruble is the name of a currency unit in a number of countries in eastern Europe. This one-ruble coin was issued by the Russian Empire in 1771, during the reign of Catherine the Great. It is made of solid copper, weighing just over 1.022 kg (2.25 lb), and was designed to be kept in the imperial treasury as metallic backing for the country's paper-ruble issue. Marginally larger than a standard hockey puck, it is reportedly the largest copper coin ever issued. The coin now forms part of the National Numismatic Collection at the National Museum of American History.

Coin design credit: Russian Empire; photographed by the National Numismatic Collection

Recently featured:

• Seal of Indiana
• Northern royal albatross
• Henry Taube

Is it ruble or rouble? (and kopek or kopeck)

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Badly formed RfC that has struggled to find a clear topic and is fairly SNOWy on what appears to be the central question: the title of this article. As an article title issue, there is no prejudice against opening a move request which, if pursued, will make discussion clearer and invite appropriately interested editors. Informal discussion on the title—or content—of this article is still welcome outside of this RfC, but I encourage participants to discuss broader issues around the way Wikipedia treats variant dialects of English elsewhere, possibly on the talk pages for WP:LANGVAR or WP:TITLEVAR. — HTGS (talk) 23:33, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

---

I think it might be worth having a discussion about what the "official" English names actually are. The Bank of Russia uses both "ruble"[2] and "rouble"[3] with no marked preference, Goznak[4], the Government of Russia[5] and the official translation of the Russian constitution[6] all use "rouble". Meanwhile "kopek" seems to have no official support from any Russian source, the Bank of Russia and Goznak both use "kopeck". TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 18:15, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Use Ruble, as that's the only way I've ever seen it spelt. GoodDay (talk) 22:01, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Please don't let's get into shenanigans. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 22:44, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

You're beginning to annoy me. Take your own advice & go on a wiki-break. GoodDay (talk) 22:48, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I am sorry, I have calmed down now. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 05:23, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I actually didn't want this to be a discussion about WP:COMMONNAME, but I suppose I can drop some examples.

British sources generally use "rouble" and American ones generally use "ruble" (though instances of both are always found), for this reason I have decided not to list sources from Britain or the United States, because for every example there will always be a counter-example and it just goes round in circles, so I decided to scrutinise use by notable and generally reliable English publications elsewhere for a broader view.

Al Jazeera[7], The Hindu[8], The Indian Express[9], The Straits Times[10], The Times of India[11], the National Post[12], the Australian Broadcasting Corporation[13], the Business Times[14], the Cyprus Mail[15], The Jerusalem Post[16] and The Irish Times[17] all prefer "rouble".

The Globe and Mail[18], the CBC[19] and the New Straits Times[20] prefer "ruble".

The Sydney Morning Herald[21][22], The Age[23][24], The Australian[25][26] and 1News[27] have no preference for "rouble" or "ruble"

"Kopek" vs. "kopeck" does not appear to be region specific:

Al Jazeera[28], the BBC[29], Reuters[30], The Guardian[31], The Economist[32], the Financial Times[33], The Indian Express[34], The Daily Telegraph[35], The New Zealand Herald[36], The Sydney Morning Herald[37], and The Age[38] all prefer "kopeck".

The Atlantic[39], The Hindu[40] and The Times[41] prefer "kopek".

ABC News[42][43] and Forbes[44][45] have no preference for "kopeck" or "kopek" TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 22:53, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Your WP:CHERRYPICKED links above are not evidence of anything. Here are more cherrypicked links "proving" the opposite of what you say:

"Al Jazeera[46], The Hindu[47], The Indian Express[48], The Straits Times[49], The Times of India[50], the National Post[51], the Australian Broadcasting Corporation[52], the Business Times[53], the Cyprus Mail[54], The Jerusalem Post[55] and The Irish Times[56] all prefer ruble."

Only, of course, it proves nothing of the sort. You must perform proper, unbiased searches to find the actual frequency of use of each term. All of the searches in your previous comment are evidence of nothing and may be safely ignored. Mathglot (talk) 18:01, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I said prefer, I never said didn't use at all, also note I did say "instances of both are always found". I evaluated based on the number of results returned on those sites for each. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 19:08, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Bad RfC Per WP:RFCBRIEF, questions like “We should talk about this some more” are recommended against (and proposer should not assume that the section title is available). Further, the RfC’s premise is clearly being read by some as seeking “official” names that we will use or prefer on Wikipedia, so that should be clarified against. What Wikipedia uses will be determined by common name. If there is an official translation/transliteration we can note that, but it doesn’t sound like there is one, per evidence in proposal. — HTGS (talk) 21:02, 10 July 2022 (UTC) (Summoned by bot)

It did begin as trying to establish what the official names are, but I decided to broaden it out. For example there seems to be almost no support anywhere for "kopek", almost all sources prefer "kopeck". TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 23:54, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

It is not (necessarily) the case that you have a bad goal, but it is unclear what your goal is. An RfC is a very structured sort of discussion, that seeks input to answer a fairly specific question. As is, the article for Kopek already prefers that spelling, so it’s not clear what you would like to change.

FYI: Wikipedia does not have an “official” spelling for subjects of articles, but generally preferences the common English name for article titles, and thus generally for most use of the name. If you want to recognise the official spelling of a word per an official source you should present sources that clearly demonstrate the official spelling according to an official source. If there is clearly an official spelling, we can note it in the lead, body, or infobox. I suspect though, that as this page covers several different currencies, an official spelling might be hard to lay out. — HTGS (talk) 11:31, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

My goal (now) is to establish what the common names actually are. And it seems from my cursory examination that "kopek" has very little support anywhere and that a broader range of English speakers use "rouble" than "ruble". It is a mistake to assume that American English usage is default "common use", since most English speakers do not live in the United States and do not use American English. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 22:31, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Going off Google results:

• On Google Search, the spelling "ruble" has 73.8 million results, whereas the spelling "rouble" has 22.8 million results;
• On Google Books, the spelling "ruble" has 1.29 million results, whereas the spelling "rouble" has 678 thousand results;
• On Google Scholar, the spelling "rube" has 125 thousand results, whereas the spelling "rouble" has 30.7 thousand results.

It would then appear that the spelling of "ruble" is far more commonly used than "rouble", to a degree of it being between twice and four times as common. Grnrchst (talk) 11:06, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

So you're just going to blindly accept American English. This is why we need to branch off, there is no answer otherwise. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 17:10, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Read WP:LANGVAR and WP:TITLEVAR, which form part of the editorial standard or a policy in this project. — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:35, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Unrelated rant

I'm just going to give up, Wikipedia is just a fundamentally broken project beholden to the whims of the American popular press's spelling preferences. I tried, but the sheer intensity of linguistic bias is just too immense for me to cope with. Goodbye. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 16:42, 25 July 2022 (UTC) Well, an encyclopaedia is there to explain popular terms, isn't it? — kashmīrī TALK 17:12, 25 July 2022 (UTC) I use British English, so I take exception to the idea that I'm somehow linguistically biased towards American English. I was hoping you could help contribute to a consensus on the issue but if this is too much, then goodbye I guess. Grnrchst (talk) 18:37, 25 July 2022 (UTC) There is no consensus to be reached. This website is just a cesspool of falsehoods and bias ("ruble" IS American English whether you acknowledge it or not). I have tried extremely hard, but it is pointless to even try. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 22:12, 25 July 2022 (UTC) The English Wikipedia has four times more pageviews originating from the US than from the UK, and as many US pageviews as from all other countries combined (sic!). Do you think that a crusade against American spelling would make sense? — kashmīrī TALK 23:12, 25 July 2022 (UTC) In that case just spin off a non-US English version and tag articles that have equivalents. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 00:05, 26 July 2022 (UTC) If you want us to maintain two pages, at Ruble and Rouble, then you’re in the wrong place. Wikipedia is inclusive of all dialects of English, and seeks to include the greater number of English speakers, not segregate people to different dialect versions. If there is an article explicitly written in British or Commonwealth English, then you should change rubles to roubles there. Otherwise, for general usage we currently prefer ruble. This does not exclude British readers, but if you feel that this is such an important issue that England needs its own encyclopaedia, you are welcome to start your own elsewhere. MediaWiki is surprisingly easy to install and use, but you will need to host your own website. — HTGS (talk) 01:46, 26 July 2022 (UTC) I'm saying there should be a non-US version of Wikipedia as a whole. The site is clearly altogether far too American-centric to the detriment of non-American topics. There are separate Serbian and Croatian Wikipedias, and Serbo-Croat as a whole is a far tinier percentage of the world population than even any single standard form of English. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 07:56, 26 July 2022 (UTC) There being separate Serbian and Croatian Wikipedias is actually a point of contention, following a scandal in which the Croatian Wikipedia was discovered to be under the control of right-wing nationalists. (Also a big difference between the Croatian and Serbian languages is that they can use different scripts, where different variations of English still use the Latin script.) Personally, as someone that speaks British English among a number of other languages, I frankly don't see the need for a separate British English Wikipedia. Whether or not there is systemic bias around non-USian topics is a topic for discussion elsewhere, not in a talk page about a Russian currency. Grnrchst (talk) 08:21, 26 July 2022 (UTC) I would like to point out there is a Scots Wikipedia, so there is a lot of precedent. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 08:53, 26 July 2022 (UTC) Not only is Scots a different language from English, but there has also been controversy with an American that doesn't speak Scots writing articles there in psuedo-Scots. I don't see how this makes a case for a separate British English Wikipedia. But again, that's a discussion for a different talk page, not one about a Russian currency. Grnrchst (talk) 09:03, 26 July 2022 (UTC) There is a LOT of debate whether Scots is or is not a dialect of English, gallons of ink have been wasted on the topic. I would not know where to begin anyway. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 09:07, 26 July 2022 (UTC) Hey, I think you’re worrying about the wrong stuff. Whether or not Wikipedia uses rouble or ruble just isn’t that important in the scheme of things. I’m not in America either, and I also don’t use American spelling in my daily life, but the fact that the article is at Ruble just doesn’t bother me. There are more important things to do. If you wanted to go about changing every article about Colors you’d be here forever, and you’d just be wasting everyone’s time as well as your own. There’s so much that you could work to improve for a global encyclopaedia that isn’t just changing regional spellings. — HTGS (talk) 23:18, 25 July 2022 (UTC) I find it utterly perplexing that somebody can get so worked up about the letter "o" that they'd denounce Wikipedia as a "cesspool of falsehoods and biases". It's especially strange to me as someone that speaks the Russian language and can read the Cyrillic script, that an argument about the transliteration of a single letter can get this heated. Grnrchst (talk) 08:32, 26 July 2022 (UTC) It is indicative of the more general failings of this project, and this is what has got me frustrated. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 09:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC) As it has been already said, this is not the place to discuss Wikipedia biases. Also, participation in this "failing project", as you've termed it, is entirely voluntary, so please don't feel forced to contribute to articles with a spelling you don't like. — kashmīrī TALK 09:37, 26 July 2022 (UTC) I'm just burned out. I tried very hard, but it is clear to me these two standard dialects with extremely differing spellings and turns of phrase cannot co-habit, they have to be separated completely. Most English speakers do not live in the United States. I have tried extraordinarily hard, but there is nothing to be done. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 10:51, 26 July 2022 (UTC) I'm an English speaker that doesn't live in the United States and I see no problem with the two "co-habiting", they're really not that different. To be quite honest, I think this is just a case of making a mountain out of a molehill. If this is really affecting you in a bad way, please take some time away and find some way to relax. There's no need to burn yourself out arguing about the letter "o". Take care. Grnrchst (talk) 11:19, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

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.

I tried proposing a solution, but no solution is acceptable, because Wikipedia seems determined to stew in its pit of linguistic insanity.TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 17:07, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Request for comment

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is a clear consensus that this should be treated as a normal ENGVAR issue. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:00, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

---

Generally, and excluding special situations such as direct quotations or words as words, should the nomenclature of currencies commonly called ruble (e.g. the Russian or Soviet currencies) be:

• Option A: ruble
• Option B: rouble
• Option C: Native names wherever applicable (e.g. "rubel" for Belarusian ruble)
• Option D: This is an engvar problem, and should be solved according to our pre-existing rules regarding English variants

Thanks, NotReallySoroka (talk) 07:32, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Weak support A because "ruble" is a stable nomenclature for our articles for a long time before an editor decided to change it to "rouble". However, I admit that it is a relatively weak argument, so I would greatly welcome sources and arguments favouring the other three positions. NotReallySoroka (talk) 07:33, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Nominator's comment: This RfC is impelled by the multitude of r(o)uble-related changes made by a certain editor with whom I have been involved in the past, as well as the several RMs (e.g. Talk:Azerbaijani rouble) that I made over these changes. NotReallySoroka (talk) 07:39, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

You're trying to make a WP:CONSISTENT argument, but CONSISTENT does not apply across discrete topics, only to multiple articles on essentially the same topic (e.g. Kyiv should not be spelled "Kiev" on side articles like "Demographics of Kyiv"). Different national currencies are discrete topics.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:28, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: There are quite a few r(o)ubles, such as the Azerbaijani r(o)uble, for which there are few RSes in English. My RfC does concern those currencies. Thank you. NotReallySoroka (talk) 08:23, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

• Weak support Option A per WP:COMMONNAME. It really should be Option D but I guess it is too late now for WP:KEEP to apply. Pandora's Box has been opened. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:05, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Option D (Changed my !vote in the light of subsequent comments.) --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:57, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

  @John Maynard Friedman: see below.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:29, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

• Option E: Use the spelling most common in English-language reliable sources, for the case in question. WP:COMMONNAME. E.g., for the Belarusian currency, it is provably "ruble" by a very wide margin [57][58]. (PS: Option D is out of the question, since this is not a US versus UK (or other English-language variety) matter. Someone is confusing spellings in different languages with spellings in different English dialects, and there is no evidence at all very little evidence of a dialectal English split on this question. In a meta-search of dictionaries, I did run into one dictionary which claimed ruble was more common in American and rouble in British English, but it is a learner's dictionary and is thus a questionably reliable source per WP:CHILDRENSLIT.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:28, 23 November 2022 (UTC); rev'd. 20:41, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
  • The certain editor did manage to turn up some rather venerable UK sources that used rouble (as well as the /en versions of .ru pages). So "use the spelling most common in English" leaves too much room for argument, if another like-minded editor appears on the scene. Interestingly, Google Ngram shows "ruble" outranking "rouble" 2:1 in 1995 but level pegging by 2020. (So I have stricken my claim of common-name and weakened my support for A.) So I doubt that its an en-uk v en-us dialect issue, but rather more one of author's personal preference. FWIW, wiktionary deems "rouble" to be french and "ruble" to be English. The Russian pronunciation is at wikt:рубль and sounds to me more like ruble than rouble. Blatant OR of course. In all honesty, I doubt that there is an obvious answer to this one. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:06, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
    • And another editor, GoodDay, demonstrated the TheCurrencyGuy's examples were cherrypicked and had counter-examples using ruble in the same publications. N-grams do not leave much room for doubt, and is why to use them, and to check them with specific currencies. If ruble ends up being the most common name for most of the currencies, then it's also the most common name for the general topic at Ruble and the page should not move or have the spelling changed in the body copy; just note rouble as an alternative spelling in the lead.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:29, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
• Lean D, but persuadable to A, if the evidence is there. Contrary to what SMcCandlish stated above, the situation with ngrams is not nearly so clear; query formulation and interpretation is tricky. What should one make of these mixed, and in some cases contrasting results, depending on how you formulate and constrain the queries?
  • ruble,rouble,rubles,roubles,
  • thousand rubles,thousand roubles,
  • convert rubles,convert roubles, and
  • ruble,rouble,rubles,roubles (AE only) vs. ruble,rouble,rubles,roubles (BE only)

Mathglot (talk) 21:51, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

This is why to search for specific currencies, to rule out idiom ("all the ro[u]bles", etc.): ruble clearly dominates for the Russian currency, too: [59][60].  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:40, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

And Soviet rubles: [61][62].  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:43, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Support Option A - the common name certainly seems to be ruble in English sources and there seems to be no need to change it to rouble. BogLogs (talk) 06:49, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

• D This is absolutely an ENGVAR case. I challenge anyone to find a British (Or Australian or Canadian or New Zealand) news source that uses ruble, or an American source that uses rouble. — HTGS (talk) 22:29, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
• D – ENGVAR case. American sources go almost exclusively with "ruble", while British sources have a tendency to use "rouble". British sources tend to be about 1/3 "ruble" to 2/3 "rouble" (see e.g. Financial Times, BBC, and The Guardian using a google search of their sites), so going just with "ruble" (Option A) would also be fine. --Guest2625 (talk) 10:47, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Looks like it is better to do a "rubles" v. "roubles" search of American and British news sites. With the plural search, which is the way news stories would write about the currency, it is more clear that it is a ENGVAR situation (i.e. "rubles"/American, "roubles"/British). --Guest2625 (talk) 11:09, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

• D – ENGVAR and also WP:TITLEVAR. — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:03, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
• D – ENGVAR issue to do with the pitfalls of phonetically transcribing from Cyrillic into different dialects of English. In North American English the letter "u" more often than not produces a long "oo" sound (as in "drive-thru"), whereas in other forms of English the letter tends to produce a short "uh" sound (as in "pun"). CorwenAv (talk) 22:00, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

  This is a strange point to make; a ruse is a ruse and a run is a run in most English dialects. The spelling variation in ruble and rouble is more akin to color vs colour. — HTGS (talk) 11:08, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

  It most reminded of the North American pronunciations of "Stuart" and "Tudor" (originally spelt "Stewart" and "Tewdor" before being transliterated into phonetic French to seem more august, the original pronunciation is retained in most forms of Commonwealth English), Personally I would prefer if the archaic spelling "rooble" were used, but this has fallen so far from favour that it stands no realistic chance of being used. A Russia-related example in which the pronunciation (though not the spelling) differs between American and Commonwealth English is "Moscow", in North American English this is pronounced more akin to the German "Moskau", whereas in Commonwealth English it is more similar to the French "Moscou". CorwenAv (talk) 11:56, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

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.

Fineness of ruble of 1704

The text currently reads

In 1704 Peter the Great finally reformed the old Russian monetary system, minting a silver ruble coin of weight 28.1 g (0.90 ozt) and 72% fineness; hence 20.22 g fine silver.

with a footnote

Gross weight 433 grains, net weight 312.1 grains, hence fineness 72%.

I have tagged it as "failed verification" because the source does not give 1704 Ukase anywhere in the book? Have I missed something?

(Full disclosure: the footnote originally read

Gross weight 433 grains, net weight 312.1 grains, hence fineness 72%.

but page 168 is about Hamburgish money? How is that relevant?) --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:59, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

References

𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:59, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

"Ruble (American English) or rouble (Commonwealth English)"

This page, along with other pages on other rubles, contains the following line or a variation thereof:

ruble (American English) or rouble (Commonwealth English)

However, this line fails to indicate that "ruble" are also used in other non-American engvars (e.g. Canadian) and that "rouble" is also used in British English, which is slightly distinct from Commonwealth English. Therefore, I am curious as to whether the above line should be eliminated from WP articles that have it. NotReallySoroka (talk) 04:41, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Someone starting from a British (and French) education will use the term rouble and per WP:LEAST should expect that form to be recognised. Whether "Commonwealth English" (which includes en-uk, afaik) is the best term is questionable but I suggest that it is certainly the least worst. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:53, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I mean that, instead of the "ruble (American English)..." phrasing, we could instead say:

Ruble (alternatively rouble,...)

I have used this format for quite a while (e.g. at Belarusian ruble), and I hope that it is adequate. NotReallySoroka (talk) 04:33, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I think rouble should be mentioned simply as an alternative name. See for example Cambridge Dictionary. Mellk (talk) 07:22, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

NRS's formulation hits the right balance for me. It says what needs to said without getting bogged down in extraneous detail. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 07:32, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

"Rouble" - permissible or mandatory for BrE?

WP:SNOWCLOSEd pointless de facto reopening of #Request for comment, closed less than five months ago.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I am aware that "rouble" is quite the prevalent British English term to refer to the Russian (and Belarusian) currencies. However, "ruble" is also used in BrE (see this BrE ngram where "ruble" still holds it own against "rouble"), and we should note that MOS:COMMONALITY suggests that we use "universally accepted terms rather than those less widely distributed", and "ruble" fits the bill for being such a universally accepted term: for instance, the World Bank Style Guide and the IMF (967 hits for "ruble" vs 43 for "rouble") use "ruble" over "rouble" quite often. Therefore, I propose the following: "Rouble" is an accepted, but not mandatory, alternative orthography to "ruble", provided that an article's English variant (e.g. Commonwealth English) calls for the usage of "rouble". That is, a BrE or CthE page can use "rouble" without any (t)rouble, but it does not follow that a BrE (or CthE) page must use "rouble" simply because a "Use British English" template is slapped on it. NotReallySoroka (talk) 02:23, 24 May 2023 (UTC) Are you proposing an MOS change? Either way, your draft reads to me as being more prescriptive rather than less. How about "Ruble" is the dominant spelling world-wide and is preferred. "Rouble" is a widely accepted alternative spelling. Neither form is mandatory: MOS:RETAIN applies and is not overridden by {{use British English}} or equivalent templates. Is that what you meant? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:17, 24 May 2023 (UTC) @John Maynard Friedman MOS is one place (but not the only place) where my proposal can go. Either way, I do believe that your proposal is better than mine. However, I have a question: does "MOS:RETAIN applies" mean that pages presently use "rouble" should continue to use "rouble", and those which currently use "ruble" should retain the use of "ruble", regardless of the actual engvar template (if any) used? NotReallySoroka (talk) 13:48, 24 May 2023 (UTC) You seem pretty obsessed with this, and I have no idea why. Surely all one has to do is check notable dictionaries. We do not know how many of those instances of "ruble/s" are direct quotes from somebody; ngram results also turn out results for "defense" for British English, will you also be lobbying to change "defence" to "defense"? 92.21.251.88 (talk) 14:20, 24 May 2023 (UTC) Nor do we know how many instances of "rouble(s)" arise from someone quoting a (presumably British) source, and in any case, "ruble" still enjoy a whit of British and international usage. Also, I can sense a notion of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS in your comparison on the "defense" spelling issue; this does not entirely void your points, but... just my two kopecks. NotReallySoroka (talk) 14:32, 24 May 2023 (UTC) I was just pointing out one cannot rely entirely on ngram results to determine whether or not a word is specific to any particular form of English. 92.21.251.88 (talk) 15:52, 24 May 2023 (UTC) Ngrams would still be a good indicator. Either way, your point is taken. NotReallySoroka (talk) 23:30, 24 May 2023 (UTC) @NotReallySoroka: Yes, that is exactly what WP:RETAIN means. "Keep whatever the first non-stub version of the article used, unless there is a consensus to change it." In new articles, we can say that "ruble" is preferred, but not mandatory. Like "labor" v "labour": to my eyes, the former looks illiterate; to yours it is the latter. So "for avoidance of doubt", a slight rephrase: "Ruble" is the dominant spelling world-wide and is preferred for new articles or references. "Rouble" is a widely accepted alternative spelling. Neither form is mandatory: MOS:RETAIN applies and is not overridden by {{use American English}}, {{use British English}} or equivalent templates. Whether the "Guardians of the MOS" will accept yet another rule remains to be seen. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see it refused. It may be best just to have it at the top of the talk pages of this and related articles as a "sticky" {{tmbox}}. After some more evidence of consensus. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:55, 24 May 2023 (UTC) "Ruble"... is preferred for new articles: John Maynard Friedman, what would you say about existing articles? Given MOS:RETAIN and the notion that templates do not override it, it would imply that we should use the first post-stub version's orthography, even if that version was years ago. NotReallySoroka (talk) 23:30, 24 May 2023 (UTC) That's what MOS:RETAIN says. And WP:ENGVAR. And MOS:ERA. And USC v SI measures. And no doubt others that I don't know about. It just saves pointless edit wars. The main exceptions to the rule are (a) a given style has been in use without challenge for a long time, a year: in that case a new RETAIN base line is set; (b) there is a consensus among regular editors of the article to change the status quo. Some you win, some you lose: in this case it really isn't worth getting a topic ban over. Both forms are clearly intelligible to almost all readers. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:50, 24 May 2023 (UTC) Surely this is just akin to things such as "favour" or "colour" and it should be given a rest. The most commonly used dictionary in the UK is Collins and the most widely respected is Oxford; both list "rouble" as the primary spelling. Esteemed sources such as the Oxford Dictionary, the major newspapers, and HM Treasury all use "rouble". Why should this require an MOS demand? It feels as though you simply have a personal preference for "ruble" and wish to see it used exclusively on Wikipedia rather than following actual use. Wikipedia is supposed to reflect usage, not impose it. 92.21.251.88 (talk) 03:58, 25 May 2023 (UTC) I do not seek to dispute the fact that "rouble" is the prevalent nomenclature in BrE (and CthE); rather, my stance is that "rouble" is a regional orthography that should be dealt with per MOS:COMMONALITY. Think about the term "lakh": many RS'es use it, but using "lakh" on-wiki is still discouraged per COMMONALITY, even in articles written in South Asian English; I believe "rouble" is in a similar situation. "Rouble" would still have a place under the engvar sun; John Maynard Friedman's proposal above explicitly stated that neither form is mandatory. That being said, with years of using "ruble" on BrE pages, we have already implicitly established a new RETAIN baseline in favour (see what I did there?) of "ruble"; JMF's proposal merely spells it out loud in Wikipedia-ese. NotReallySoroka (talk) 05:30, 25 May 2023 (UTC) I don't think the lakh analogy is a good one. One could make the case that "ruble" is region specific to North America and that BrE use of it on Wikipedia is an error. The IP editor above mentioned the Collins and Oxford dictionaries. These two dictionaries are widely used outwith the UK while dictionaries like Merriam-Webster are not commonly used outwith North America. For example Goznak, the Russian state mint, exclusively uses "rouble" on their English website because they closely follow Oxford spelling. 109.144.77.107 (talk) 09:19, 25 May 2023 (UTC) I see no compelling reason for a change. Ruble is the US regional spelling, used, quite naturally, also by most US-based organisations. Rouble is BrE, Commonwealth and EU[63] spelling used in a large proportion of international contexts. If Wikipedia was to recommend a particular spelling, then rouble would be a stronger contender.[64] — kashmīrī TALK 09:38, 25 May 2023 (UTC) I am in full agreement. It's a clear ENGVAR situation, like "defense/defence" and "travelling/traveling". It appears IMHO that "rouble" is the international spelling owing to it's support by the OED and Collins. Non-American institutions seeking a worldwide audience tend to go with Oxford in toto while publications by American organizations or specifically aimed at North American audiences often retain some Americanisms even if they use Oxford or Collins in part. 109.144.77.107 (talk) 11:51, 25 May 2023 (UTC) I admit that I am contradicting myself here, but @John Maynard Friedman's proposal here - which I support - is actually to let both orthographies co-exist subject to MOS:RETAIN, which is itself related to engvar rules. This suggestion is independent of my personal "rouble has little COMMONALITY àla lakh" stance; although I still hold this stance, I defer to JMF's suggestion on this debate. We can also start with JMF's suggestion of RETAIN-ment, but instead say that "rouble" is the dominant spelling world-wide ... preferred for new articles or references, and still have existing articles follow RETAIN. NotReallySoroka (talk) 14:39, 25 May 2023 (UTC) In the light of the discussion above (and the very low probability of any new articles), I propose a simpler formulation: The spellings "ruble" and "rouble" are each widely accepted and neither form is mandatory or deprecated on Wikipedia. In existing articles, the MOS:RETAIN policy applies and is not overridden by {{use American English}}, {{use British English}} or equivalent templates. How does that read? (as a hatnote in rouble article talk pages, I really don't see a case to bother the MOS with this level of detail). --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:50, 25 May 2023 (UTC) I support. I do believe that your suggestion should be formally codified - beyond a mere gentlemen's agreement - but right, no need to bother the MOS. NotReallySoroka (talk) 14:53, 25 May 2023 (UTC) I'm not against, but I'm also mindful of the fact that {{use American English}}, {{use British English}}, etc., are there precisely to ensure spelling consistency. For instance, I routinely correct certain India-related articles when an unsuspecting editor adds a word in US spelling. So, let's say that someone decides to add ruble for the first time to Bank of England (which requires BrE); how should we react? What's more important – spelling consistency or PRESERVE? — kashmīrī TALK 18:10, 25 May 2023 (UTC) First and most importantly, per RETAIN, the addition should confirm to existing practice in the article. This is true all over WP, nothing exceptional about doing the same here. Second, as already discussed, neither form is exclusively en-us or en-uk, so there is no basis on which to argue that one form or other is "appropriate" according to whichever flavo[u]r of English is in use. So the primary purpose of the hat note is to say "leave it alone, the 'use abc English' tag does not give you license to march in and change every instance of ruble to rouble or vice versa". --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:01, 25 May 2023 (UTC) BrE dictionaries always cite "rouble" first and AmE dictionaries always cite "ruble" first, always noting the other spelling as predominantly of the other form. As has been demonstrated, most reliable and august non-American sources use "rouble" (The IMF, World Bank, and Encyclopaedia Britannica are all American so are not evidence), so I think it can quite comfortably stated that it is a dialectical distinction. 109.144.77.107 (talk) 19:16, 25 May 2023 (UTC) Well, then we'll disagree, because I see only rouble as compliant with the {{Use British English}} tag. Consequently, if an editor wants to write about the Russian currency in an article that mandates ENGVAR-B, I'll expect them to use rouble. This is unrelated to RETAIN, because I mean situations when the currency term is introduced for the first time. — kashmīrī TALK 21:50, 25 May 2023 (UTC) @Kashmiri For what it's worth, Cambridge dictionary - a British resource - uses "ruble" more prominently. NotReallySoroka (talk) 05:42, 27 May 2023 (UTC) This is cherrypicking, the Cambridge Dictionary is not a popular dictionary compared with Oxford and Collins. If your only evidences are American sources and a single unpopular outlier then your case has failed. 109.144.77.107 (talk) 21:19, 27 May 2023 (UTC) My suggestion is simply to make it clear it is ENGVAR, that editors should use "ruble" if the article is written in AmE (by noting spellings such as "center" or "color") and "rouble" in Oxford/other varieties of Commonwealth English; this would solve the problem by simply requiring consistency in the language used. 109.144.77.107 (talk) 18:49, 25 May 2023 (UTC) In that case my attempt at compromise has failed and we have to hold a formal RFC process that asks whether the ruble/rouble distinction is superior to or subject to ENGVAR. I will not lead it and probably won't participate, as the topic is just too marginal and appears to be only of great interest to two editors (one of whom is banned). --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:45, 25 May 2023 (UTC) @John Maynard Friedman: But there are still scores of page that use "rouble", including some high-traffic ones such as euro. I respect your choice not to participate in such "a formal RFC process", but I believe that this issue is worthy of debate. NotReallySoroka (talk) 06:26, 26 May 2023 (UTC) @Kashmiri We should retain "ruble" in that hypothetical BoE page, since the addition of "ruble" would be a done deal. Be that as it may, since even MOS:RETAIN permits a change in engvar given consensus to the contraryconsensus, nothing precludes someone successfully obtaining local consensus to use "rouble", and having that consensus implemented on the BoE page. Nonetheless, I would personally deem the usage of "rouble" the contextually preferred option (it's Britain, after all), and change "ruble" into that. But the retention of "ruble" - at least for the time being - is how I believe @John Maynard Friedman's latest suggestion would roll. NotReallySoroka (talk) 23:53, 25 May 2023 (UTC) This is overcomplicated given the clear ENGVAR nature of it. All BrE dictionaries list "rouble" as the primary spelling and British organizations use it exclusively (BBC, Reuters, the Guardian, The Daily Telegraph, HM Treasury etc). 109.144.77.107 (talk) 05:07, 26 May 2023 (UTC) BrE favouring "rouble" is a fact that I do not seek to challenge. What I seek to debate is how that fact comes into play with COMMONALITY and RETAIN. NotReallySoroka (talk) 06:26, 26 May 2023 (UTC) WP:COMMONALITY is a confusing piece of text – judging from the opening sentence, it originally intended to address the issues of vocabulary, but then it inadvertently ventures into the area of spelling, which is actually governed by other policies. A point on spelling was added sometime in 2017,[65] based on a brief discussion on the use of archaic spelling (itself with very limited participation). But even this point discusses various spellings existing within a national variety of English, and if applied to the Russian currency, it would actually mandate the use of rouble in BrE context. WP:RETAIN again advises to retain spelling consistency unless the article is tied to a national variety – {{Use national variety}} templates always take precedence over RETAIN and so Bank of England would have to use rouble. It's not overly clear to me what @John Maynard Friedman is trying to achieve by trying to limit the application of RETAIN to currency names. I guess any such discussion should take place at Talk:MOS rather than here. — kashmīrī TALK 08:10, 26 May 2023 (UTC) Since neither spelling is unambiguously associated with either dialect, I had hoped that an acceptable middle way might be to separate it out as an independent issue treated on its own merits. Clearly that idea doesn't have consensus and so I have abandoned it. I have no personal preference either way. Because I am accustomed to en-uk orthography, "rouble" reads closer to the original Russian than does "ruble" (which suggests a a sound more like "rubble") but the latter is now so common that I have ceased to notice. Which is why I am disengaging: this one will run and run and I just don't care that much. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:26, 26 May 2023 (UTC) There is now a thread on this subject at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. 109.144.77.107 (talk) 10:34, 26 May 2023 (UTC) Here is my proposal: "Rouble" is the preferred international spelling due to its use by the Oxford English Dictionary, Reuters, the European Central Bank, and Goznak. The form "ruble" is predominantly North American and should be used in articles written in US and Canadian English. All of the sources provided asserting "ruble" as the "dominant" spelling "worldwide" were American. I have seen Canadian sources use it, so I think it can be said to be North American generally rather than specifically US. There is actually another article relevant to this discussion; Mill (currency), the non-North American spelling is "mil". 109.144.77.107 (talk) 14:08, 26 May 2023 (UTC) This was already discussed to death at talk:Rouble#Request for comment less than six months ago. This is going precisely nowhere. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:00, 26 May 2023 (UTC) Surely that point should have been raised when the author of this thread started it, they seem to be trying to overturn a resolved ENGVAR issue (they started that older thread as well, but seem unwilling to accept the outcome). My proposal is simply a counter-proposal to the thread starter's as was suggested by Kashmiri. The sources the thread starter provided were all American so are not evidence in favour of their viewpoint. 109.144.77.107 (talk) 18:25, 26 May 2023 (UTC) I don't care either way what the final answer is. But consider that the {{currency}} template will have trouble handling it as an engvar issue. Eg, 100 Russian rubles and 100 ₽.  Stepho  talk  00:37, 27 May 2023 (UTC) Yep, thanks for bringing this up. The template seems to pull currency names from ISO 4217, so it may be worth having a discussion there. For sure, Wikipedia can't rely (and does not rely) on the official ISO document[66] as it's inconsistent in currency names.[67] — kashmīrī TALK 08:05, 27 May 2023 (UTC) The original claim NotReallySoroka made was on the basis of COMMONALITY, yet few non-North American sources seem to use it. I checked the websites of the biggest EU central banks (and a few other major central banks such as those of Australia and New Zealand) and they all use "rouble". It would appear then that "ruble" is mainly restricted to North America and that NotReallySoroka's personal preference for it is causing them to fail to see the wood for the trees. 109.144.77.107 (talk) 20:16, 27 May 2023 (UTC) In the last six months NotReallySoroka has opened no less than three discussions on this talk page revolving around the spelling. I think it might be for the best if they were topic banned from touching the word "r(o)uble" in any circumstance as they seem unwilling to acknowledge any argument which would permit the spelling they don't like. A recent edit of theirs changed "rouble" to "ruble" while this discussion was ongoing. NotReallySoroka, please stop, nobody else is so unflinchingly obsessed with this issue. You are bringing disruption into otherwise stable articles based solely on the fact you don't like a spelling. Your recent edit goes against the very RETAIN argument you have made in this thread. 109.144.77.107 (talk) 21:46, 27 May 2023 (UTC) But my "recent edit" is to counter TCG's unexplained change to "rouble". The page doesn't use BrE spelling such as "colour" or "artefact" - "-ize" alone cannot distinguish between Oxford and American spelling - so the engvar is uncertain (i.e. it was plausible that the page was originally written in AmE, CanE, or another engvar that uses "ruble"). In the face of that uncertainty, I have chosen to retain the stable terminology of "ruble" given its stable use on the New Union Treaty page. NotReallySoroka (talk) 23:14, 27 May 2023 (UTC) TCG apparently needed no topic bans despite their "unflinchingly obsess[ive]" fait accompli to change everything to "rouble", whereas I apparently needed a t-ban even when I explained my edits and sought consensus... Either way, I took my two kopecks, you can take the last word. I will post a solution soon - or at an attempt at one - you are welcome to comment then. Until then, I categorically refute all your personal comments on my behaviour. NotReallySoroka (talk) 23:25, 27 May 2023 (UTC) Did a little bit of research. Nobody has informed the Russian project at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Russia. Surely they have an opinion on this. The initiator of this discussion should do so immediately. At Wikipedia:WikiProject_Russia/Economy_of_Russia_task_force there are links to both Russian ruble and Ruble, with a comment to possibly merge them. There is also a link to the obsolete Soviet ruble currency (replaced in early 1990s). At both Russian ruble the first sentence says "The ruble or rouble (Russian: рубль, romanized: rublʹ; symbol: ₽; abbreviation: руб or р. in Cyrillic, Rub in Latin;[1] ISO code: RUB) is the currency of the Russian Federation." At Soviet ruble the first sentence says "The ruble (alternatively rouble; Russian: рубль) was the currency of the Soviet Union, introduced in 1922, replacing the Imperial Russian ruble." Here, the first sentence is "The ruble /ˈruːbəl/ or rouble (Russian: рубль, IPA: [rublʲ]) is the currency unit of Belarus and Russia." Judging by the article titles and the way that they are listed at the Russian project, they are quite happy with "ruble" being used as the main spelling - with "rouble" being listed as an alternate spelling that appears in the real world but not necessarily used on WP. I may be wrong on this - they can tell us once they have been informed about this discussion. Transliteration between non-Latin languages is always a case of multiple people creating multiple Romanised spellings. There is and never has been any one world-wide official spelling. Arguing for one over the other is like asking how many angels can dance on the head of a pin - the question itself doesn't make sense. So we arbitrarily choose one of the more common spellings for use on WP, list the alternatives in the article(s) and move on to more productive things.  Stepho  talk  00:20, 28 May 2023 (UTC) I don't think it's an issue of transliteration. Transliteration is one: rubl'. Instead, we are debating here two historical spellings – one being a French loanword which was historically dominant worldwide until the rise of the US to power in the 1930s[68] and which still remains the prevalent form in Commonwealth English;[69] the other being Russian phonetic transcription which became the preferred form in the US[70] since the late 19th-century wave of Russian immigration.[71] Neither is transliteration; it's all about editors' preferences, which will likely be linked to their region of origin or education. I agree it makes sense to seek an opinion at WP Russia, however with an understanding that editors' preferences there may not always be aligned with Wikipedia's best practices or represent a global point of view. — kashmīrī TALK 10:28, 28 May 2023 (UTC) My apologies - I should have said "transcription", not "transliteration". We are arguing over 2 variant transcriptions - neither of which is world-wide official. I have left a message for the Russian project at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Russia#Ruble_vs_rouble .  Stepho  talk  12:05, 28 May 2023 (UTC)