Talk:Russian ruble

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of the WikiProject Numismatics, which is an attempt to facilitate the categorization and creation of accurate and formal Numismatism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join and see a list of open tasks to help with.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
Russia Portal
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Russia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] Tselkovyi

Origins of "tselkovyi" ("целковый") name, ? Mikkalai 17:59, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I can find only one original reference to this and wonder how accurate it is. It may be a mistake in spelling from converting the Cyrillics so have not deleted Dainamo 21:19, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • ЦЕЛКОВЫЙ - русское разговорное название металлического рубля.

TSELKOVYI - russian spoken name of metal rouble.

  • ЦЕЛКОВЫЙ from целый(russian whole or safe),it mean not changed to copecs,one rubl as one coin.Sorry for my bad english90.150.141.21 20:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merging of Talk:Rouble into Talk:Ruble

Without prejudice to the possibility of Ruble being renamed back to Rouble, i have merged the histories of the two corresponding talk pages, lest there be confusion about which should be used to discuss the article name. The reason for that choice is that Rouble is currently a redirect; if Ruble is renamed to Rouble, including the talk page in the rename will require one more click. --Jerzy(t) 14:41, 2004 Aug 6 (UTC)

[edit] Commentary on Histories prior to Talk Merge

For the sake of any who find this talk-page's history page to be cryptic, the top two entries shown below were edits made to Talk:Rouble (at this writing converted via history merger into a redir to Talk:Ruble) and the third was an edit to Talk:Ruble).

  • 21:21, 2004 Jul 26 Dainamo m (sp)
  • 21:19, 2004 Jul 26 Dainamo (copy discussion from Ruble)
  • 17:59, 2004 Jun 2 Mikkalai

--Jerzy(t) 14:41, 2004 Aug 6 (UTC)

[edit] Rouble or Ruble?

[edit] Unchanged Discussion from RfD

[The following is as of this edit an unchanged extract from WP:RfD, where (according to the charter of that page) it constituted a proposal that Rouble be deleted with the intention that that title should not be used again. As it was clear no one involved desired that outcome, i struck the request and discussion thru after copying it here. My intent is that the discussion carry on here.] --Jerzy(t) 14:41, 2004 Aug 6 (UTC)

I guess i'm going to make a copy, reformat & refactor (re potentially important tech issues vs. name) it, omit what concerns just the RfD distraction, and intend that to be the place that collects post-move responses. (Hopefully in the next 12 hours.) Not sure why i'm feeling that's important, but if i'm crazy, someone will throw the "clean" version away and we can inspect it in the history if/when it matters. --Jerzy(t) 15:22, 2004 Aug 6 (UTC)

  • Rouble - this needs to be deleted, so that Ruble can be moved here. Unfortunately, user Dainamo copy-pasted the text from Ruble (that obviously deleted the history) and because he has thus made edits to Rouble, it can't be overwritten when moving the Ruble article. Paranoid 22:28, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Why does Ruble need to be moved? It seems to be fine where it is. RickK 04:17, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)
    • Apoligies as I may have done something that is not protocol here, I am not so much of a newbie but still an adolescent on these pages. I was attempting to make the main article on this "rouble" and the alternate spelling "ruble" (used far less and IMAO looks illiterate - Google hits confirm this) TThe history is still there, just on two pages and that can be navigating, but if you can suggest someting better then fine. Dainamo
      • But it seems to me that Ruble is much more commonly used. RickK 22:11, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
      • Rick please demonstrate your evidence. Every source I have ever seen in literature has been "rouble" this I admit is anecdotal (the same as yours). In my main paper based dictionary both spellings are given but the primary source "Rouble" but it may be different in others. To use empirical evidence, I searched both words on Google and "Rouble" has more hits by a long way. Dainamo
        • It's only anecdotal. "Rouble" seems more like a French spelling than an English spelling. And when I do Google searches, I get tons of non-relevant hits. RickK 19:09, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
        • You will get relevant and irrelevant hits on either spelling, ruble totals 228,000 rouble totals 694,000. Also check out http://www.economist.com/research/backgrounders/displaystory.cfm?Story_ID=S%26)H4.PA'%25%0A If The Economist spells it "rouble" that is a bloody big indicator! Dainamo
          • The Russian Ministry of Finance uses both ruble [1] and rouble [2]. The New York Times and Time magazine seem to use ruble. Perhaps it's a North America vs. Europe thing. By the way, if The Economist is to be our standard, then kindly change Calcutta back to Kolkata. -- Curps 00:31, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
          • Associated Press foreign exchange says "ruble" [3]. As of this moment, News.Google.com gives 705 hits for "ruble", only 97 hits for "rouble". -- Curps 00:41, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
          • Wall Street Journal uses "ruble": past 30 days archive: 73 hits, premium archive: 115 hits. For "rouble", zero hits. -- Curps 00:53, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
          • In fairness, we can all find specific examples of ruble and rouble being used by official organisations. It appears that ruble may outweigh rouble in North American and rouble outweighs ruble the rest of the World, but both are accepted spellings. Wikipedia adopts a policy of leaving the spelling in whatever version of English it is written, but this precedent does not apply here, since neither spelling is one or the other. The best policy is therefore to adopt the spelling used by most globally and this is clearly "Rouble" if you do a thorough search from a number of sources.Dainamo 15:15, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Uh, why is this being discussed here instead of the talk page? One or the other is going to be a redirect to the other, so this is not a proposal to eliminate anything from the namespace. It is a request for a temporary clerical deletion, which could have gone to any admin. Hopefully most admins would say "settle which is going to be which, and when there's been a thorough discussion that reaches consensus or failing that reaches a conclusion by a vote, that will be the time to temporarily delete if that's what achieving the agreed-upon configuration requires." Take it to Talk:Rouble! --Jerzy(t) 03:55, 2004 Aug 6 (UTC)

End of copied material.

[edit] Refactored Discussions for Further Comment

[edit] Technical Issues

On 2004 July 26-27,

  • Paranoid 22:28, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC) requested RfD for Rouble to accommodate rename of Ruble to Rouble, believing copy-pasting the text "obviously deleted the history". Para wants the deletion since Rouble, having been edited, can't be "overwritten".
It is true that a copy-paste operation omits to copy the history, but it is potentially confusing to call it deleted, since it still exists on the page the text was copied from.
The reason a rename (using the move page) of Ruble back to Rouble is prevented is not really the fact that it was edited (tho that would be sufficient to prevent it). (And tho deletion, in the sense used on RfD, is theoretically a cure, it not an acceptable one; more a little below abt that.) Saying an existing target must be a "historyless redirect" is closer to the truth, but that still leaves out part of the requirement. Actually, no one can rename to an existing page title, unless that page is the redirect created by a previous rename exactly in the opposite "direction".
--Jerzy(t) 02:32, 2004 Aug 7 (UTC)
  • and Dainamo pointed out that "TThe history is still there, just on two pages and that can be navigating, but if you can suggest someting better then fine."
Yes, the history remains there on the history page of the redirect. That situation is often permitted to persist, but there is something better, which is getting it where rightfully belongs, in the history of the article; that's better bcz there's little hint in the article-page history of where to find the additional history, and not everyone's up to hunting it down. --Jerzy(t) 01:48, 2004 Aug 8 (UTC)
  • But the most important misconception here is one i've already mentioned parenthetically, that the deletion requested would help. The fact is that deletion via RfD is exactly what would lose the history, in practice permanently. The history goes when the page it applies to goes, and unless it's undeleted before the time when its undeletion is not longer possible, it's gone for ever. --Jerzy(t) 01:48, 2004 Aug 8 (UTC)
  • My main point here has been to avoid propagating misconceptions, but it'd also be good to broaden the awareness, to some colleagues who've been put in a position where the subject is raised, of what we do about cut and paste edits:
  1. The history of a single article is divided between pages A and B, and we want A to be the title of the article.
  2. A temporary deletion of A is done by an admin, without going through any of the deletion-vote pages.
  3. A move of B to A (renaming of B as A) is done, making the former history of B the only history of the new A (and leaving a redirect from B to A as the entire history of B).
  4. The deleted version of A is undeleted. The effect is sometimes immediately visible, and sometimes takes something like 12 hours to appear: the two histories, and the two sets of old versions, are now listed on the history page of A; sometimes there are nicely sorted by time-stamp, and sometimes the next edit forces that change.
Besides those necessary steps, my own practice in doing merges is to make "step 1&onehalf;" reformatting each of the old histories into a passage on the talk page, indicating which edit was done under which name. Without that, it's tricky and confusing to figure out more than what text existed after a given edit; with the two histories, and a little practice, its not too hard to see what change a given edit made in the text of whichever page (of the two formerly separate pages) that particular edit was applied to.
--Jerzy(t) 01:48, 2004 Aug 8 (UTC)

[edit] Title Controversy

  • The title had long been Ruble.
    • Dainamo changed it to Rouble (using a bad method discussed above but irrelevant here). (Did he redirect Ruble there? Probably, but should be checked and included in this chronology.)
  • Someone made Rouble into a redirect to Ruble (and reverted Ruble back to an article if it had become a redirect).
    • The action shifted to WP:RfD at 22:28, 26 Jul 2004 when Paranoid proposed deleting Rouble and giving that name to the article currently at Ruble, probably because of preferring "Rouble" as the title (rather than for repairing the history problem).
  • RickK 04:17, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC) says it "seems to be fine where it is", apparently preferring the existing name "Ruble".
    • Dainamo explicitly argues for applying again the change of title to "Rouble" that they previously made: 'I was attempting to make the main article on this "rouble" and the alternate spelling "ruble" (used far less and IMAO looks illiterate - Google hits confirm this)'.
  • RickK 22:11, Jul 28, 2004 responds "But it seems to me that Ruble is much more commonly used. "
    • Dainamo counters, 'Rick please demonstrate your evidence. Every source I have ever seen in literature has been "rouble" this I admit is anecdotal (the same as yours). In my main paper based dictionary both spellings are given but the primary source "Rouble" but it may be different in others. To use empirical evidence, I searched both words on Google and "Rouble" has more hits by a long way.'
  • RickK 19:09, Jul 29, 2004 says 'It's only anecdotal. "Rouble" seems more like a French spelling than an English spelling. And when I do Google searches, I get tons of non-relevant hits.'
  • Curps 00:31, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC) joins the discussion, saying "The Russian Ministry of Finance uses both ruble [4] and rouble [5]. The New York Times and Time magazine seem to use ruble. Perhaps it's a North America vs. Europe thing. By the way, if The Economist is to be our standard, then kindly change Calcutta back to Kolkata. "
  • and also, at 00:41, 2 Aug 2004, saying 'Associated Press foreign exchange says "ruble" [6]. As of this moment, News.Google.com gives 705 hits for "ruble", only 97 hits for "rouble".'
  • and at 00:53, 2 Aug 2004 saying 'Wall Street Journal uses "ruble": past 30 days archive: 73 hits, premium archive: 115 hits. For "rouble", zero hits.'
    • Dainamo 15:15, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC) responded 'In fairness, we can all find specific examples of ruble and rouble being used by official organisations. It appears that ruble may outweigh rouble in North American and rouble outweighs ruble the rest of the World, but both are accepted spellings. Wikipedia adopts a policy of leaving the spelling in whatever version of English it is written, but this precedent does not apply here, since neither spelling is one or the other. The best policy is therefore to adopt the spelling used by most globally and this is clearly "Rouble" if you do a thorough search from a number of sources.'

Jerzy(t) 03:55, 2004 Aug 6 complained at that point that the discussion belonged back on the talk page of the article in question, not on RfD. (He carelessly referred to Talk:Rouble, tho Talk:Ruble is more appropriate since the article is still at Ruble.) Later, he did a history merge (no content merge needed) to consolidate the two talk pages into one. Then he struck out the RfD discussion, putting a copy here, and eventually producing this refactoring, and taking most of a day off starting about now. --Jerzy(t) 02:32, 2004 Aug 7 (UTC)

Jerzy, I am almost speachless as to your efficiency and excellent administrative judgment in the actions you have taken concerning moving and presenting the above discussion. Well done and thank you. Dainamo 11:39, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)


  • I would like to side with Dainamo and propose that we adopt "rouble" as primary spelling. While existing argumentation is suffcent to make the change, I can suggest another one. The spelling "rouble" is more accurate fonetically, since in russian rouble is called "r-oo-bl'".

Would anyone object if I rename the article and change the spelling to "rouble" through the text? "Ruble" will redirect to "rouble", of course.--Maxx.T 14:51, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'd personally prefer ruble. Nightstallion 15:49, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No personal preference from myself, as they are synonyms. Few inf. from sources which are nearest to me now. Google search produce very close results (although rouble is slightly ahead). Soviet Russian-English dict. (1981) translates "рубль" as "rouble". Russia's English-Russian dict. (1994) says: "ruble=rouble", "rouble рубль". Cmapm 16:41, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As a "ruble" partisan, my opinion need not be treated as impartial, but we've enjoyed 10 months of calm (and presumably efficient work elsewhere) since the matter was dropped in August. Especially since there was a pretty thoro discussion at that time, please consider simply not disturbing the status quo.
(And don't assume that everyone has said all they might have said if the issue had stayed active. Or all they may say if it revives.)
--Jerzy·t 05:47, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Experiences

I can only go by my own experiences but I have never seen "ruble" used in the real world, only ever here on Wikipedia. It is clear that "rouble" is the more common spelling, and this should be borne out by usage. Both Oxford and Collins give Rouble. Why is there any contention? Nicholas 11:54, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Goznak

The article about Goznak is still missing. There's a great article in Russian here: http://www.goznak.ru/news.shtml?id=120, could anyone translate it into English?


[edit] Chervonets

Can anyone provide evidence that "3-ruble gold coin" was ever called "chervonets"? Being a native speaker, I beleive "chervonets" refered to a sum of 10 roubles only. Unless someone can provide evidence, I suggest reference to 3 rouble coin is deleted. --Maxx.T 12:46, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

See [7]. But the story was much more complex. Read also [8] and [9]. — Monedula 08:57, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Poltinnik

I know poltinnik comes from an old Russian word poltina, but not sure of it's roots. If we have any linguists here, would be great to have more detail on this work

--Maxx.T 12:56, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

In Slavic languages the stem "tin-"/"cin-" was related to the meaning "to cut". It is fully preserved in Polish ("odcinek", etc.) and Belarusian. The words of this root are quite common in battle scenes of old manuscripts in what used to be called "Old Russian" language: (warriors in these old times just loved to cut each other) "тяти", "потяти", "потинати", "потяту быти", etc., also preserved in bylinas. "-in" in "tin" is a suffix of the imperfect (incomplete) form: compare: "nachat", "nachinat". "Pol-" is "half-". So, "poltina" is literally "half-cut" or "cut half", whatever. This opinion was expressed, e.g., by Max Vasmer in his Russisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch (If you will look for his book in Russian lang, look for "Fasmer": German V sounds like Russian F.).

BTW, since you seem to like money, there was also "полуполтинник". Mikkalai 21:07, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

As I know, the poltinnik = 50 kopeek, not 50 rubles.--Ctac 19:38, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
90.150.141.21 20:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)now 50 rubls is called полтинник also
Thanks. The article's phrasing was confusing indeed. Fixed. mikka (t) 20:15, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wholesome

From /* Origins */, i set out to

  • rm the defensive "Throughout the world"
  • rm the misleading association between "cutting" to make change and "clipping" to have your cake and eat it too
  • rep "chunk" --> "sliver"
  • rm needless duplication of the two articles lked in the followin, but

I got this far:

The term reflects the common practice of clipping precious metal coins whenever governments succeed neither in deterring that nor in substituting fiat money. A small chunk was cut from a coin by its current holder before the coin was tendered at the full value. Over a period the coins had become obviously smaller, but legally still carried the full face value. Thus wholesome adjective was needed to distinguish the uncut coins.

& ran out of what did make sense in the loosely reasoned old text without having grasped the author's point about why one coin got the wholesome name. Were rubles cut to make change? Were the wholesome rubles edge-milled to combat clipping? Text still needs to be removed from the last 3 sentences i moved here, but i don't understand enuf finish it. In the meantime, IMO the article is stronger without the confusing 'graph.
--Jerzy·t 23:06, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Can we see some evidence that the name is related to coin clipping? I thought the first roubles appeared when they cut large silver nuggets to smaller pieces. They cut smaller pieces from a large nugget and stamped them, i.e. the original roubles were not nescessarily flat, like mordern coins. The whole issue of coin clipping appeared later. --Maxx.T 05:56, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

NO. It refers to it being cut (literally, 'chopped') from a cylindrical rod of silver before stamping rather than being cast. Anyone doubting the possibility and logic of such a process is welcome to find a spoon made of decently pure silver and eat some ice cream with it (caution: you could end up with two pieces or at least something shaped wholly unlike your family heirloom). SILVER IS SOFT, PEOPLE! Aadieu (talk) 13:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Armenian

An anon replaced armenian transliteration:

- | roublu + | roublee

Can anyone verify this change? (I know only one armenian word: "am" What does it mean?) mikka (t) 21:50, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Plural

On the current Russian coins, the plurals aregiven as 2 рубля and 5 рублей. Can a Russian speaker please add something to this article explaining the usage of these two plurals. Someone has just changed рублей to рубли, claiming that рублей is in the genitive case. For all I know, that may be true, but it's what appears on the coins and banknotes and it makes sense to put it in an article on the currency.
Dove1950 13:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

The rule is: if you're not referring to any particular number, the plural is "рубли": Что у тебя в кошельке? Рубли. (What's in your wallet? Roubles). If the last word in Russian numeral is "один" (one), then the singular form "рубль" is used: один рубль (one rouble), двадцать один рубль (twenty one rouble), etc. If the last word is "два" (two), "три" (three), or "четыре" (four) - then the plural is "рубля": два рубля (two roubles), двадцать два рубля (twenty two roubles), etc. Otherwise the plural form is "рублей": пять рублей (five roubles), двенадцать рублей (twelve roubles), etc.
However, I'm not sure whether these details belong to the article: it's more about Russian grammar, then about Russian rouble. Azov 08:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that is precisely correct, I didn't mean to offend anyone by changing that, but its just factually not quite precise to say that what you had is the plural because Russian doesn't work the same way with numbers, and it might mislead the reader. For example exists a two ruble coin that is два рубля, and so forth. That said, it might be better just to remove the remark on the plural entirely. Nonbonumest

I (being Russian) got startled by this, and I feel that plural should be given in nominative case. I will leave nominative plural for ruble and copeck at the top and add a paragraph to the spelling section. Doktor 21:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Has nothing to do with the rouble and everything to do with the nature of the Russian language. Our plurals are funny like that (for everything, not for anything in particular). Aadieu (talk) 13:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] devaluation, revaluation, and redenomination

There seems to be some confusion in the article about the words "devaluation" and "revaluation". Devaluation means that the value of the ruble went down (e.g. against the dollar or against gold), while "revaluation" means that the value of the ruble went up. I think that most of the time we should be using "devaluation," though "revaluation" is used much more commonly in the article.

Part of this should be helped by using the word "redenomination" - which does not mean that the value of anything actually changed, only that they chopped some zeros off the end of the numbers. In 1997 the currency was "redenominated" by chopping 3 zeros off, but the value of the specific notes didn't change, e.g. an old (non-redenominated) 500,000 ruble note was accepted the same as a new (redenominated) 500 ruble note. In fact, other than the three zeros, the notes were identical.

January 1, 1998 actually, althought the notes are printed 1997 on them. --Chochopk 23:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Split

Is there still interest to split the article in two? It would be good to see some justification for this. --Maxx.T 09:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes. The Soviet Union and the Russian Federation are two different countries. Thus, the Soviet and Russian rubles are two different currencies. Not the Russian ruble was the only currency that replaced former Soviet ruble at par after the dissolution of the CCCP.Timur lenk 15:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
In principle, I agree, as it is the case for Yugoslav dinar and Serbian dinar. However, the cut off points between Russian and Soviet rubles are a little fuzzy in the currency. Do we distiguish by the state/bank title on the banknotes/coins? Also after the split, each of the "what links here" article must be examined manually to point to the correct ruble. And I think there was at least one succession state that used Russian ruble (explicitly issued by Bank of Russia, not State Bank of the Soviet Union) before they had their own currency. --Chochopk 22:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
In the case of Hungarian korona, the 1, 2, 25 and 200 korona bills with a certain serial no. bear the name of the A-H Bank, but they are considered to be Hungarian banknotes. Thus, I don't think all banknotes bearing the name of the SU are automatically Soviet issues.
SR Yugoslavia is not the legal successor state of SFR-Yugoslavia (though tried to be), and neither Hungary nor Austria was the legal successor state of the A-H Monarchy. In contrast, Russia is the legal (internationally recognised) successor of the Soviet Union, so - theoretically - Russia had the right to issue and regulate its precedessor's money (while e.g. post-1918 Hungary not, that's why the banknotes mentioned above were declared Hungarian or even counterfeit money). Best would be to look up info in contemporary legislative sources. If this is not possible, the easiest (and very practical) way is to consider all banknotes Soviet which bear the CCCP sign, with a note that the circulation and acceptance of the banknotes in the former Soviet Republics from 1991 was limited corresponding to independence and currency reforms.Timur lenk 23:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

As I wrote in the article, 1992 series bankontes were half Soviet and half Russian, and 1992 series coins were all Russian. --Chochopk 21:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't have the detail date info. --Chochopk 22:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Currency symbol

According to RIA Novosti, the ruble will be getting a currency symbol some time soon — some of the proposed symbols are quite beautiful, while others... aren't. —Nightstallion (?) 22:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. One idea I've seen proposed that wasnt on that page was to use the yat. Personally I think it should just be R since it's easy to type and would require no new Unicode symbol, but apparently South Africa got there first. Haplolology Talk/Contributions 01:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Russian keyboards lack an 'R' symbol, making such simplification redundant. Russian 'r' looks like a latin P, hence CCCP=SSSR (USSR). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aadieu (talk • contribs) 13:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Accents

Where have the accents in рубли́ and копе́йка come from? They don't appear on the coins or banknotes.
Dove1950 21:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Accents don't come from anywhere, they are special symbols utilized, for example, in dictionaries, to indicate which syllable should be stressed. Accents are of valuable help to people who only possess basic skills in Russian and may otherwise not know how words are correctly pronounced. The majority of Russian words in Wikipedia bear accents for the same purpose—to increase the encyclopedic value of articles.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 22:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I can see your point but only if one assumes that people are going to try and pronounce the words by reading them in cyrillic. To me it actually causes confusion if it's presented in the way it is here. Oughtn't such information (which I agree adds to the encyclopaedic value) be added separately so as to avoid the suggestion that the word is actually written as рубли́?
Dove1950 14:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
This assumption (that readers will try to pronounce the words) is made in all Wikipedia articles which use Russian terms in the lead line—accents are always used to indicate stress. Removing accents just because some people might not know what they mean and may accidentally take them for the actual parts of words is kind of the same as removing accents from French words in Russian Wikipedia, just because some Russian readers, who know no languages besides their own, might accidentally take French accents for stress symbols. Both scenarios promote ignorance, not knowledge.
The fact that there are no accent marks in actual Russian letters, and that the accent marks indicate stress, is known to any person who took more than one lesson in Russian. This information is usually presented along with the materials about Russian alphabet. Ergo, if you can read Cyrillics, it is very likely that you already know what the accent marks mean. If you cannot read Cyrillics, you could care less what these accent marks are supposed to represent.
Even for cases where one is trying to match the graphical representation of a word from Wikipedia with that printed on Russian money the possibility for confusion is quite meager. Letter shapes are not modified by the accent marks (as a matter of fact, italicizing Cyrillic letters is much more likely to create confusion), making letter-to-letter comparison easy. Furthermore, accent marks are not used in the infobox, and, of course, they are absent from actual money, which at the very least should clue readers unfamiliar with Russian that the accent marks are optional.
Having said all that, if you can come up with a better solution, I am quite open to hear what it is.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
It may only be a sample of one, but I've been reading cyrillic inscriptions for more than a decade without ever coming accross any mention of accents being used to indicate stress. Where exactly do these accents appear? Accents are not mentioned once in the article Russian language and are only mentioned in the article Cyrillic alphabet in the section on computer encoding.
I don't want to ban the use of accents to mark stress but at the same time they really oughtn't to appear if they aren't a part of the standard orthography unless they are accompanied by a note to explain their appearance.
Dove1950 11:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I have taken some Russian lessons and these marks do appear as an aid to beginning learner. I don't think we have to follow what is written on the note. Sometimes it's all capitalized on the notes, but we don't do that here. Plus, the stress mark provides positive value to this encyclopedia. There are two scripts to write Chinese, although only one of the two are written on the notes/coins, depending on the politics. However, both are presented in Renminbi. --Chochopk 12:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment, Chochopk. I just wanted to add that the accent marks are used not only in study aids, but also in most Russian dictionaries and encyclopedias (which is why we use them in Wikipedia the way we do).
I am also a bit puzzled with Dove1950's notion that he's been reading Russian for years without ever encountering these stress marks. When you see a word for the first time, how do you know which syllable should be stressed? As a native speaker I can often (but not always!) guess the correct stress of an unfamiliar word, but when the language is foreign to you, your chances of guessing it right aren't all that high. I am only asking this out of personal curiosity though; it has nothing to do with the discussion above. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
To answer your curiosity, as I said, I've been reading cyrillic inscriptions. That's not the same as reading Russian.
The real question here is whether, in adding the accents in the way we have, we've confused anyone? I agree that it's very relevant, from a recognition perspective, that we haven't given the word in capitals, as this is how it appears on all modern Soviet and Russian money. Perhaps, for such cases, we should make a special effort to provide a guide to how the word appears on money as well as giving a pronunciation guide using accents? This is an encyclopedia, after all. If we do this, it would be good to have an article to refer to for the accents. As I mentioned earlier, they go unmentioned in Russian language, so perhaps you can suggest where to refer to?<;br>Dove1950 21:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for satisfying my curiosity; your answer explains why you never encountered stress marks before. Back to the issue at hand. This article is about Russian ruble as a currency. The currency has a name in Russian, which should be mentioned in the lead line; accents help readers with correct pronunciation of that name. We cannot alter this name just because some bills or coins show it in a different script and unaccented; after all, currency comprises not only M1, but other monetary aggregates as well. That said, I'd second addition of a section about how the name of the currency looks like on bills and coins any day. If you are able to write such a section, please go ahead; I will be glad to provide any assistance with spellings etc. should that be necessary.
As for your question regarding where to find comprehensive information about accent marks indicating stress, I honestly don't know. As a native speaker, I don't frequent articles such as Russian language or Russian orthography very often, although I admit it was surprising that accent marks weren't at least briefly mentioned there. The only mention I could find in Wikipedia is at Diacritic#Diacritic usage (see the very last bullet in that section). Also, here are some outside links I could find: [10] and [11] (search inline for "stress marks"). I wish I could add more coherent info about stress, but my knowledge does not stretch beyond basics—I am not a linguist after all! I guess asking me to write about Russian accents would be kind of the same as asking you to write about, say, past indefinite tense (wow, it's a red link too!)—you know very well how to use it, but it would not be easy to write about it.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I hope you'll forgive me, but I'm still not convinced that the accents are part of standard Russian orthography. Their use in dictionaries sounds to me like a convention adopted in such works, much as the IPA appears in English dictionaries. Where, apart from in works explaining how to pronounce Russian words, are the accents used? The example in Diacritic#Diacritic usage is presumably used in everyday writing as it allows two words to be distinguished, but is рубли́ ever written outside of dictionaries? Sorry to be a bore on this point but I'd like to be sure that we're not going to get shot down by Russian speakers who've never written рубли́ in their lives (as I suspect may be the case).
Dove1950 19:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry I have not replied yet; please be assured I have not forgotten about your request. I am having difficult time finding relevant information in English. As soon as I find something worthy, I'll post it here; I know the information is out there, it's just the matter of finding it. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Basically 2 standards clash. Numismatic standard: use what is written on the notes/bank. Russian subject: put accent marks. Both standards are logical in their domain. --Chochopk 20:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

There's a discussion going on regarding the use of local forms for the titles of currency articles which has suggested we use rigourous transliteration of non-Latin scripts. It's an interesting idea and has some relavance to the current discussion on accents. In the case of this article, it would mean replacing ruble with rubl'. I'm not sure I go along with this, but there is a measure of consistency to it. Any comments? I don't propose to make the change unless it receives significant support but I promised to bring it up.
Dove1950 20:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I would definitely object to such an initiative, but please take a look at WP:CYR (a policy tank for devising unified transliteration guidelines for Cyrillics). If after reviewing it you feel something is missing or should be done differently, please post your comments/suggestions there. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
As I said, I'm not wed to the idea myself. After looking at WP:CYR, I'm struck that the transliteration of ь to e isn't included. Is ruble an isolated example or is this a case of habit?
Dove1950 22:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I've never before heard of the practice of "ь" being transliterated as "e". Such practice is not a part of any major transliteration system for Russian. Could you tell me where it comes from, please?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
This is the only example I know of, so presumably it's not a transliteration. I'm happy as we are but others are clammering for consistency. When the Latin alphabet is used, we use the local form, such as "gulden" rather than "guilder". Should we therefore use strict transliteration when other alphabets, etc., are used?
Dove1950 21:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, if it's a numismatic convention, it should definitely be noted somewhere. It is, however, important not to forget that Russian ruble is first and foremost an encyclopedic article, not a publication in a numismatic magazine. As such, it should use the name under which "российский рубль" is known in English and provide transliteration through the system used in all other articles. Other variants should definitely be noted if they are common in specialized circles, but probably not in the lead.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Headlines

1. The headline of the article should be Ruble instead of Russian Ruble. Only after the breakup of the USSR the term “Russian Ruble” started making scence! This article should give an introduction in the history of the Ruble until the breakup of the USSR and only an overview over the currently existing Rubles.

2. There should be seperated articles about the modern Russian Ruble, Belorussian Ruble etc.

Look here: Belarusian ruble, Transnistrian ruble.  :) Joe I 09:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me, I just wanted to say that there is no need for an article about the “Soviet Ruble”... Nevertheless, I vote for Ruble instead of Russian Ruble.

[edit] Armenian spelling

I took a look at the 1 Soviet ruble note. It looks more like ռուբլի than ռուբլ. But I'm no Armenian expert. --Chochopk 11:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I was not right. Actually, it does not make any sence to say rubli in Armenian but they do, I have asked an Armenian. Ulf-S. 21:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

But according to Armenian alphabet, the letter ի is transliterated to "ee". --Chochopk 22:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The transliteration is i. Sometimes the transcription is ee, but here it does not seem to be necessary. For example the Armenian name Արմինե is never written ”Armeene“ but always Armine. Ulf-S. 09:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Georgian spelling

After brute force comparison, it looks like მანეთი should be maneti. --Chochopk 11:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spam protection filter

For mysterious reasons (spam protection filter) I could not delete the information which does not refer to the Russian ruble but the ruble although it was no problem to copy it and past it there. Can please anybody help me? Thanks--Ulf-S. 12:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't like this either. But it is not the way to dump info to ruble. It should remain a disambig page. --Chochopk 23:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The spam blacklist was triggered by rfcoins.awardspace.com, because the domain awardspace.com had been added to the global spam blacklist. I've added this specific site - rfcoins - to our spam whitelist, which should fix all the problems. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 14:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Time to take off the the "Split to Soviet Ruble" tag?

I haven't seen any discussion on this and the sign has been up there forever. For the record, I'd leave the Soviet Ruble section here (1st tag) and would not be against a "Post-Soviet currencies" article (2nd identical tag)

but only because this article is a bit long, and if the psc's section got longer it would make this article way to long.

I'll take both tags off in about a week if I don't hear back. Smallbones 14:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I vote to split them into two sections. - MSTCrow 10:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
As I said before, splitting the two is a delicate matter. The cut off point on the currency can be ambiguous. (scroll up) --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 13:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1 ruble of 1961 and 5 Swiss franc

User:Sandstein wrote that 1 ruble of 1961 and 5 Swiss franc are "practically identical in size and weight". However, I measured them from my catalog, which has the images at real sizes. 5 Swiss franc is like what the article says, 31.45 mm in diameter. 1 regularly circulated ruble (1961-1991) is 27 mm. It looks like the commemorative 1 rubles are actually the coin in question, measuring 31-32 mm, more or less every year from 1965 to 1991. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 03:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Russia500rubles97front.jpg

Image:Russia500rubles97front.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 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 10:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Russia500rubles97back.jpg

Image:Russia500rubles97back.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 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 10:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Russia5000rubles04back.jpg

Image:Russia5000rubles04back.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 23:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 10 ruble coin

Do these coins actually circulate or are they commemoratives, hope someone in Russia can help with this. Enlil Ninlil 04:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

They are legal tender of course, but very rare and usually kept as souvenirs. I actually got several of them as change, but that was lucky. Panda34 20:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
They are commemoratives, but they do circulate (atleast if we trust my friends in Piter, and why wouldn't we?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.248.115.9 (talk) 21:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, there are two types of 10-ruble coins -- a common one, and a commemorative one. Both types are indeed quite rare/ They are to replace the ageing 10-ruble notes, the most heavily used banknote in Russia, but some unknown (for me) reasons prevented them from being minted or, at least, circulated in quantity until very recently, when they started to appear. There are five such coins in my wallet now, and there is only one commemorative among them, four others are "circulation" type, featuring coats of arms of federal subjects on reverse. --Khathi (talk) 14:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Russia5000rubles04back.jpg

Image:Russia5000rubles04back.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 22:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Russia5000rubles04back.jpg

Image:Russia5000rubles04back.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) 21:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gold Ruble

http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Десять_тысяч_рублей

http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Изображение:450-letieVhozdeniyaBaskirii10000_avers.gif