Talk:Caron/Archive 2

The sudden changes
Ok, I've been bold and closed the poll and archived the talk page. If you would like to complain, go ahead, I'm sorry if this has caused any inconvienience. The poll was overdue to be closed, had no consensus and was all over the place. I'm going to resubmit the move request and keep a close eye. Please bear with me. - FrancisTyers · 00:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Right, the poll is up, I'm not going to vote, as I made this mess and redid the poll, I would encourage all parties to read:


 * Unicode Technical Note #27 Known Anomalies in Unicode Character Names
 * Google Groups - sci.lang - Peter T. Daniels explains

Please remain civil, and please consider the above sources before airing your opinions. - FrancisTyers · 00:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * A note to newcomers, if you have questions, please read the archive first. - FrancisTyers · 00:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Further note, as with the reminder to remain civil above, I would request that all participants refrain from making disparaging remarks about the users and inventors of the term 'caron'. Labelling them "computer geeks" is out of line, and I would strongly encourage the closing admin to disregard votes from incivil users. Lets keep this nice and friendly. - FrancisTyers · 01:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It could be interpreted as impolite, but I think whoever wrote that simply intended to convey the fact that the name was recently coined as jargon by people in a particular technical field (computers), who were not experts in the subject in question (linguistics and typography). —Michael Z. 2006-07-07 01:43 Z 


 * It may have been so intended, but was incorrect in that assertion. The source quoted indicates it was coined by experts in pre-computer typesetting, so... assume good faith, remain civil, but question authority (why isn't that phrase in Wikipedia?  Grumble.) &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 14:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it is somewhere :) Or maybe it is implied :) - FrancisTyers · 15:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It's here - WP:IAR +Hexagon1 (t) 04:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Is there any documented verifiable reference to the term prior to the period of early Adobe development work on PostScript and PostScript fonts? If so, I haven't seen it cited here, and it's not in the article... AnonMoos 06:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * When I wrote "monolingual American computer geeks" I wasn't attempting to "slur" anyone, but rather to give a brief vivid description of the social context from which "caron" in all probability originated. I'm American myself, and would admit to some geeky tendencies, and I actually have a fair amount of respect for the abilities of these individuals in their main area of endeavor.  Unfortunately, these abilities do not generally include a knowledge of Eastern European cultures and traditions, nor a familiarity with linguistic terminology.  Since early Adobe developers botched French "Guillemet" (giving "Guillemot"), it's not too surprising if they pulled a non-standard term for "hachek" basically out of thin air -- but that doesn't mean that we have to follow their example.  AnonMoos 06:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Requested move (redux)
The outcome of this poll was no consensus - bogdan 16:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

caron → háček – háček is the name found in the linguistic literature, along with the name cited by Peter T. Daniels, co-author of The World's Writing Systems. - FrancisTyers · 00:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

As has been pointed out below, as a note to the closing admin, the previous move poll, which was closed as described above, can be found here. Apologies for not noting this sooner. - FrancisTyers · 15:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

This poll will close at 0:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC) - Pending RfC input.

IMPORTANT NOTE : This article has been listed at Requests for Comment.

Survey

 * Add #Support or #Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with  ~ ''

Support

 * 1) This is the name that appears in English dictionaries. —Michael Z. 2006-07-07 00:53 Z 
 * 2) Support This is the name for the symbol that I learned in my Linguistics studies 30 years ago, and I never heard of 'caron' until today. --  Donald Albury ( Talk )  01:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Háček is the term that is widely accepted and attested, while caron appears to be a neologism that hasn't yet caught on, particularly in linguistics. --Chris S. 01:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support As noted above, this was the name for the symbol I learned in my Linguistics studies 15 years ago, so the term háček was still in wide use in that field then. I had also never heard of the term caron until this discussion opened.  My support has been increased with the new evidence from the Unicode standard that caron was in error.Derek Balsam 02:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Once again, the word "caron is not an "error". It is a word found in international standards and industrial standards prior to the publication of Unicode and ISO/IEC 10646. The Unicode Technical Note calls it an "error" because Ken Whistler doesn't like it because he learned háček when doing linguistics in California some decades ago. Evertype 08:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support per http://www.unicode.org/notes/tn27/. +Hexagon1 (t) 04:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support a move to háček, the normal English term for this mark. --Cam 04:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support, the correct name. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 09:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support wikipedia should use dictionary words as names for things whenever possible. Caron is not in any printed dictionary; háček is in many unabridged dictionaries. Additionally, from the unicode link above, it seems as if the consortium made up a word of some unclear French derivation. For those of you who think google is the ultimate authority on things internet, try looking for caron without unicode. Compare that to hacek without unicode or haemophilus.  — Chris Capoccia  T&#8260;C 14:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment It is not the case that the Unicode Consortium created this word, so that is not in itself a reason not to prefer caron. While caron may be a neologism, it seems to date to the 1970s; the use of háček in English is earliest attested in the OED in 1953, which as I have said is not a particularly impressive pedigree. Oxford is certain to enter caron in the dictionary at some point, too. Why wouldn't they? And as I have also said, the Unicode Technical Note about caron being a "mistake" likely reflects the opinion of Ken Whistler, who was trained in linguistics in California and certainly learned the word háček when he encountered it. That too is not a reason to prefer this diacriticked borrowing over the much more "English" name caron Evertype 19:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It wasn't invented by Unicode, it seems to have been invented at Adobe. Has anyone ever found one single verifiable reference of use of the term which does not stem from work at Adobe in the early-to-mid 1980s??  If so, it's not documented as such in the article.  If probably being invented by monolingual [removed slur per above. - FrancisTyers · 08:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)] without much knowledge of Eastern European languages or of linguistics makes a word "English", then "caron"[sic] is "English" to the hilt -- otherwise I'm not really sure in what respects it really qualifies... AnonMoos 23:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * P.S. Would it be Original Research to speculate that the same guy at Adobe who came up with Guillemot also perpetrated "Caron"? AnonMoos 23:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support -- "Caron" seems to have been invented out of the blue by some unknown and probably unqualified individual at Adobe in the 80s, while linguists have been using "hachek" for many decades. I would support either "wedge (diacritic)" or "hachek" -- but not "caron"[sic], a neologistic term of unverifiable origin and unknown etymology which has in fact not been generally used by those who are most knowledgeable in the subject-areas involved. AnonMoos 23:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment "Seems to have been invented out of the blue" and "unqualified" are a bit unsubstantiated. Folk etymology at least suggests that the word may be a fusion of caret and macron. Evertype 08:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * And in this context "folk etymology" really means unsubstantiated guessing on a level with "Port Out Starboard Home", or the various explanations offered for "whole nine yards". AnonMoos 08:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If it is a neologism, it still has an origin. Do you have a more plausible etymology? Evertype 09:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong support. I am the former 85.70.5.66. I have just created an account. Given the number of edits in the last few days on 85.70.5.66, I hope I am not new enough for my vote to be discounted. The common argument that hacek is not an english word is based purely on the feeling of some individuals that if it doesn't sound right to them it's not english. If they object that the origins are czech and it can't be english if it's czech, I would beg those people to return robot to where it belongs and invent some purely english word, preferably ending on -on. Robot is also not an english world but a czech one. Like robot, hacek was used in english dictionaries and literature for a long time, and the fact that someone quite recently created a neologism that is heavily used in the computer/typesetting industry doesn't mean that the non-IT world prevalence of "hacek" should be ignored. Plus, I would like to ask some of the linguists here to explain the origins of the ending -on in english words, I suspect that the words like car-on are not english in its origins at all (maybe except from hardon), but they just sound better. Using a term because it "sounds" more english is not really a good idea. Azmoc 09:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Striking out vote from anonymous user. - FrancisTyers · 08:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * In fact, you can check my IP, most of the participants are covered by nicks and therefore more anonymous than me. I also participated in the previous discussion, and I think that I can confirm that my IP didn't change since then. I don't see a reason for my vote to be discounted. Would you please un-strikeout my vote? 85.70.5.66 09:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't see nothing in the guideline about striking out votes on straw polls if they are from IP users. AfD, RfA etc are for sure different, because they concern the structure of wikipedia community and you should be a part of the community to participate on the decision process, but this is a content dispute and I think that my support is valid as it is supported by an argument. However, the main argument for you is that the straw polls guideline doesn't mention ignoring votes from IP users. 85.70.5.66 09:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I registered, I hope my vote counts now. Azmoc 09:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Weak support: Change from Weak oppose. I'm not an expert, but if the origins were in Czech, and term is widely used, I'd be OK to make this the main term. Making up an English word for something which exists in a foreign language sounds like something the Académie française would do. Stephen B Streater 09:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose. Háček is not an English word. č is never found in English words. Caron certainly has caught on in the field that concerns itself with alphabets, which is typography, not linguistics.--Prosfilaes 03:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Refer to Derek Balsam's response in the discussion section. +Hexagon1 (t) 04:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Háček isn't an English word. It may have some currency, and for that reason, it should redirect to this article, and this article should say "Caron, or háček". --Node 07:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Wikipedia editors often fall into the trap of looking for the right answer, rather than accepting that opinions differ and presenting them all without favour. Personally, I don't feel that the primary entry name should be a non-English word when an English word exists (which is why there is an entry on Beijing rather than 北京). But where multiple names are in use then I feel that the introduction should note all of them, rather than try to conform to one group's idea of "right". I observe "hacek" is used in the Unicode document, for example, and my dictionary uses "haček". Later in the article is the place to write of controversies (all sourced of course), and to indicate (if it is the case) if particular groups have strong opinions. The disagreements here surely mean that the only consensus can be to list all the names; endless seeking after consensus usually means that there is an attempt to exclude one opinion rather than list all of them neutrally. Or so it seems to me. Notinasnaid 09:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC) (Supplement: having looked again at the (Chambers) dictionary, I guess that it does bless haček as an English word. Not, I observe, Háček. I think we should be very careful in rejecting the view of dictionaries in favour of specialists who can't agree.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notinasnaid (talk • contribs)
 * 3) Still Oppose. It now appears to me the the correct English term may be hacek or haček, rather than háček.  Because of that ambiguity, caron may very well be the most common English term, whether or not correct.  Hence I oppose the move as specified.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 14:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, WP:MoS does not insist (or, as far as I can tell, encourage) English words borrowed from another language to have the diacritics from that language. Names, yes.  Terms, no. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 14:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I also think you should have copied the votes from the previous unclosed discussion. &mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin: Previous discussion (closed today) is here Septentrionalis 15:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Continue to Oppose; prefer use of English term, whatever its history. (and why should I have to say this three times on one issue?) Septentrionalis 15:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Háček is the English term, according to most linguists. +Hexagon1 (t) 04:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose I have always heard it referred to as the caron with the non-English form as a mere side fact. WP:UE. Charles 18:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Strongly oppose I do not think that it is a good idea to redirect this article to hacek or haček or háček or hachek. While that term does appear in the OED, its attested there only from 1953, which is not the noblest of pedigrees. General knowledge of the names of diacritical marks has a lot to do with character set technology, and for good or for ill, the name caron is not ever, ever going to go away. I am of course a fan of international standards, and am happy to conform to them wherever possible. It is certainly possible here, where there are four competing spellings for the alternative. I will note that the document referred to on the Unicode site, which states that "it should have been called háček" reflects the view of its three authors more than anything else, and one of those was trained in the US as an Americanist linguist, which is why he naturally prefers the term háček, because Americanist linguistics tends to use that term. This article should stay under the name caron. For my part, I am going to ask my friend Hugh McGregor Ross if he can help shed light on the earliest attestation of caron in standards, so we can clarify that much in the article as well. At the end of the day, BOTH of the words are neologisms new to the language. One is a borrowing from Czech not attested in the OED before 1953. The other seems to be a coinage (rather than a borrowing), perhaps based on the names of other typographical symbols, caret and macron. which seems to date from sometime in the 1970s. Neither of them seems to have an absolute claim of precedence over the other. I prefer the name caron because it is the formally standardized name. The trend is certainly for people concerned with fonts and keyboards and other aspects of character set technology and typography to use the standardized name. Further, it is simply simpler. It has one spelling, not three or four, and isn't festooned with non-English diacritics. I went to university. I learned the word háček. Later I learned the word caron. I don't believe as some have suggested that "in most linguistic literature the term háček prevails". Most linguistic literature doesn't discuss the names of diacritical marks. Typographic literature discusses the names of diacritical marks, and in that world, the term caron is prevailing. We should not add to the confusion by changing the name of this article. Evertype 09:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose as per Evertype. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose : In Czech, háček means 'little hook' ... In Slovak it is called mäkčeň ... in Croatian and Serbian kvaka or kvačica (also 'small hook'), katus ('roof') in Estonian and hattu ('hat') in Finnish so it seems a bit Czech-centric to use their term as the main definition. Stephen B Streater 08:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC) - change to weak support. Stephen B Streater 09:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The term has now become common in English and is found in many English dictionaries, including the Oxford one. Most linguists agree that it is the common English term, most typographers do not, and prefer caron instead due to it's use by the Unicode Consortium. +Hexagon1 (t) 08:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose: I prefer the English term when it exists. And this sign exists not only in Czech, but in Slovak, Slovenian, Croatian, Serbian, Lithuanian, Lavian, Finnish and Estonian too. Švitrigaila 11:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Háček is the English term, follow the discussion instead of voting blindly please. It's found in Oxford dictionaries and most linguists use it (as opposed to typographers, who prefer caron). +Hexagon1 (t) 01:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose: I had a pretty good idea what a caron is when I was invited to this survey.  I had no idea what a háček is until just now.  As far as I can tell caron is the much more common term in English.  ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Háček is the most common English term, caron seems more common on the Net because of Unicode propagation, and even that is just limited to computers. Most linguists prefer háček, it's taught at uni's, it's in Oxford dictionaries, it's found in most linguistic literature. +Hexagon1 (t) 01:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose: since this is called something different in every language that uses it, let's title the page under the most widely and commonly used term in English, even if some professional linguists proscribe the Czech term. Jonathunder 16:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Háček is the most common English term, caron seems more common on the Net because of Unicode propagation, and even that is just limited to computers. Most linguists prefer háček, it's taught at uni's, it's in Oxford dictionaries, it's found in most linguistic literature. +Hexagon1 (t) 01:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, keep title "Caron", official name used in Unicode character descriptions, and most common name used by English speakers, regardless of etymology. — Jul. 9, '06  [17:57] < [ freak]&#124;[ talk] >
 * Háček is the most common English term, caron seems more common on the Net because of Unicode propagation, and even that is just limited to computers. Most linguists prefer háček, it's taught at uni's, it's in Oxford dictionaries, it's found in most linguistic literature. +Hexagon1 (t) 01:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, Hacek is not an English word, nor is caron a neologism. Caron is the English name for the character and therefore the article should remain here. -- Jordi&middot; ✆ 18:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Háček is the most common English term, caron seems more common on the Net because of Unicode propagation, and even that is just limited to computers. Most linguists prefer háček, it's taught at uni's, it's in Oxford dictionaries, it's found in most linguistic literature. +Hexagon1 (t) 01:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - an English word, seems to be commonly used.--Aldux 01:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Háček is the English term, follow the discussion instead of voting blindly please. It's found in Oxford dictionaries and most linguists use it (as opposed to typographers, who prefer caron. +Hexagon1 (t) 01:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose for several good reasons given above. Thumbelina 17:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, those reasons are very persuasive indeed. +Hexagon1 (t) 01:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose — why use the Czech name when the diacritic is used in several languages? Caron is a more general term. — Gareth Hughes 23:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Háček is the English term. It's found in Oxford dictionaries and most linguists use it (as opposed to typographers, who prefer caron. It's taught at universities and is in linguistic literature. +Hexagon1 (t) 01:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * CommentLet's face it. Wikipedia is full of incompetent people who look at two words and say .. yup, this sounds more english, I will pick this, without even looking at the discussion. That's why wikipedia will never work as an encyclopedia. Azmoc 00:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Neutral. I agree with both sentiments. Háček is certainly not an Enlish word and shouldn’t be used for an article title if a more common English word exists. However, Caron is fairly inappropriate as well because by my impression it’s not used outside of the Adobe-influenced circles. This is not a frivolous problem for Wikipedia, but unfortunately this particular diacritic is not used enough by English speakers to warrant a more common English name, and I am equivocal. I’ll let the democratic mob decide. — Jéioosh 09:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment As an alternative, I have been thinking of wedge (linguistics) or wedge (orthography) wedge (diacritic)?. It seems neutral enough, and it can be used to describe the usage, controversy, and history of háček and caron. --Chris S. 19:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment It's not "Adobe-influenced circles". It's the name the character bears in the Universal Character Set, the name it bears in ISO/IEC 8859, and (I must check this) also the name it bore in ISO 6937 (the first edition of which was published in 1983). The UCS is on everybody's computer now. And so are tools which tell the user that "č" is "c with caron". Evertype 19:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Per this site, 'caron' in ISO 8879 mapped to 'hacek' in ISO DIS 6862.2 in Unicode Version 1.0. For example, unicode 010C was called 'Ccaron' in ISO 8879 and 'LATIN CAPITAL LETTER C HACEK'in ISO DIS 6862.2. --  Donald Albury ( Talk )  00:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That "site" states plainly "May 1, 1996: This file is obsolete. It was made for Unicode Version 1.0, and has neither been updated nor verified for use with any subsequent version of the standard. Use this data entirely at your own risk.". Unicode 1.0 usedd "hacek" and this was changed with the merger with ISO/IEC 10646, which used standardized character names (that is, names which were already part of other formal standards (ISO/UEC 8859 if not others). ISO 6862, by the way is a "Mathematical coded character set for bibliographic information interchange". Evertype 07:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Add any additional comments
 * Please check http://www.unicode.org/notes/tn27/ before you vote.
 * U+02C7 CARON
 * U+030C COMBINING CARON
 * The "caron" should have been called hacek and combining hacek. The term "caron" is suspected by some to be an invention of some early standards body, but it has also been claimed by others to have been in use at Linotype before the days of digital typography. Its true origin may be lost in the mists of time.
 * I thought I'd include the relevant text to simplify following the discussion. Stephen B Streater 11:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, please note that this document reflects the view of its three authors more than anything else, and one of those was trained in the US as an Americanist linguist, which is why he naturally prefers the term háček, because Americanist linguistics tends to use that term. Evertype 11:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * repeatedly archiving the move discusson and then almost immediately restarting it is achiveing nothing and is an insult to those who have already voted. Plugwash 00:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry you feel that way... did you vote in the last discussion? I felt, and I hope some people would agree with me that the last discussion was getting bogged down in personalities rather than facts. Furthermore, the amount of incivility seemed to me at least to be causing issues with communication. Regardless, the poll had already over-run without consensus, and there were two options, either to keep it open for longer or close it as no-consensus and re-open it. I decided on the latter, and although I would be happy for my actions to be criticised and reversed, I still believe I did the right thing. - FrancisTyers · 01:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Prosfilae's comment: "...the field that concerns itself with alphabets, which is typography, not linguistics". Alphabets are certainly a subject of typography. But typography does not lay sole claim to the subject of alphabets. Alphabets are indeed a proper subject of linguistics and always have been. Per Wikipedia's own article Linguistics, "The study of writing systems themselves is in any case considered a branch of linguistics." Writing systems are part of any linguist's education, and linguists have often been the inventors of writen systems such as the IPA. So it's simply incorrect to say that linguistics is not the field concerned with alphabets. Derek Balsam 03:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Then let's note that the linguists behind the IPA don't agree on háček as the name either; if you turn to page 184 of the 1999 edition of the Handbook of the International Phonetic Association, you'll see it called "wedge; háček", IMO because they recognized that háček was not a proper English name for anything. Anyway, linguistics may study writing systems, but rarely at this level; a caron is merely one symbol in one writing system to them, but something a typographer working on pan-Europeans fonts works with day in and day out.--Prosfilaes 05:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Riight... so you're saying that printing machines should have more of a say in what a book made of, since they work with it day in, day out. No, that doesn't make any sense. Typography is simply the layout of the written expression of speech, it couldn't have more to do with linguistics. How can someone study writing systems and ignore diacritics? Ok, I'll learn Japanese, but I'll only learn every fifth kanji stroke, everything else is just a minor detail. Just to give any idea what difference diacritics make to the word háček in Czech: háček vs. hacek . Ignoring this as a minor detail is absurd, especially for a linguist/typographer. And if háček isn't a proper English name, why is it taught in universities, why is it in academic books? Why does the term caron seem to be confined to the internet, and mostly due to the Unicode name (which is acknowledged as an error)? PS: I've worked with fonts before. I din't care what the symbols were called, or anything about them. I just imitated their general shape. I may have produced thousands of diacritics, never knowing what they were, and how they are used. A linguist has to know this, that's his job. +Hexagon1 (t) 07:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, printers know a lot more about what a book is made of than a writer does. How many writers know the first thing what glues bind books the best, or what papers are good for what purposes? You can study writing systems and ignore a particular diacritic the same way you can study poetry and not be familiar with every poem. Unless a linguist works with Czech or a few other languages, there's no reason for them to know the first thing about a caron, and even a scholar in writing systems has no need to obsess over one diacritic in one writing system. I can't imagine how you edited fonts without knowing anything about what you were working with, but I can't say it says much for your scholarship in the field.


 * The Unicode name did not come out of nowhere; it's used in the Adobe name lists that predate Unicode, for example. That acknowledgement doesn't have the full support of the Unicode Consortium, as Cam points out below. lists the letters used in English; as you will note, č isn't one of them. An English name has to be written using English letters, and even in the most broad sense, č isn't one of them. Why is it, that of all the IPA characters given names by the Handbook of the IPA, the caron is the only one not unambigiously given one name? Again, I suspect it was because neither wedge nor háček were satisfactory, since wedge was too ambigious and háček is just not English.--Prosfilaes 08:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If they don't want to know the first thing about the háček, why then are they at the háček/caron page at the Wikipedia? And languages change, foreign words are adopted. A millenia ago, the letters é, á etc. would have no place in English either, but today they occur in many words borrowed from other languages. And if háček isn't English, I'll ask again - why is it taught in universities, why is it in academic books? Why is in dictionaries? The note isn't an offical Unicode document, but it's written by 3 very prominent linguists/typographers, and important enough to be released as a Unicode Technical Note. PS: You'll note that Adobe is a computer company. Per my post above, I belive 'caron' is restricted to computers, and derivatives of the Unicode standard. +Hexagon1 (t) 15:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It isn't correct to say that the UTN was written by three "very prominent linguists/typographers". Ken Whistler was trained in Chinese and Americanist linguistics, but Rick McGowan while he speaks Japanese and has studied writing systems is "just" a programmer, and Asmus Freytag is a physicist. All are friends of mine. None work as linguists currently and none of them has ever been a typographer. If you want the opinion of an actual "prominent linguist/typographer" associated with the Unicode standard, you can ask me, and I prefer caron to háček or haček or hacek or hachek. Evertype 07:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Mr. Everson, I fully respect your authority on this matter, but your explanation "if you want a prominent person's opinion, ask me" is not a really good argument and I think that you know that. Would you please clarify why you prefer caron to hacek? Is it because it sounds better in English than hacek? Or is there another reason, better than personal preference? As I already said before, I don't think that words ending on -on like caron, coupon or encephalon are "english" in their origins. 85.70.5.66 08:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If Rick McGowan has studied writing systems his opinion is valuable, and the fact that the other two are not prominent linguists doesn't detract the fact that their opinion was considered valuable enough to be considered a Unicode Technical Note. While you are a linguist, you are focused in the computer fields of typography, in which the term caron prevails. (Mostly due to the Unicode standard) At universities, in dictionaries, in most linguistic literature the term háček prevails. +Hexagon1 (t) 08:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Please pay attention. Of course all three of them have studied writing systems. Everyone associated with Unicode has done at least some study. Ken is the trained linguist. He's the one who strongly prefers háček. Your appeal to authority was to those three, and because they are "prominent linguist/typesetters". Only Ken has a degree in linguistics, and none of the three are typesetters. A Unicode Technical Note is, by the way, informative, and is not a part of the formal standard in any way. You suggested that the opinion of a person associated with the Unicode Standard who was a linguist and typesetter was important, and a bit tongue-in-cheek I noted that I disagree with Ken. He likes háček; I like caron. BOTH of the words are neologisms new to the language. One is a borrowing from Czech not attested in the OED before 1953. The other seems to be a coinage (rather than a borrowing), perhaps based on the names of other typographical symbols, caret and macron. which seems to date from sometime in the 1970s. Neither of them seems to have an absolute claim of precedence over the other. I prefer the name caron because it is the formally standardized name. The trend is certainly for people concerned with fonts and keyboards and other aspects of character set technology and typography to use the standardized name. Further, it is simply simpler. It has one spelling, not three or four, and isn't festooned with non-English diacritics. I went to university. I learned the word háček. Later I learned the word caron. I don't believe that "in most linguistic literature the term háček prevails". Most linguistic literature doesn't discuss the names of diacritical marks. Typographic literature discusses the names of diacritical marks, and in that world, the term caron is prevailing. We should not add to the confusion by changing the name of this article. Evertype 08:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If they teach háček at uni, then that's the proper name. Caron is a neologism used by die-hard typesetters. You yourself said you learnt the word caron after you learned háček in uni. I'd prefer the acedemic name, and this is a Wikipedia, not a device to promote linguistic change. +Hexagon1 (t) 00:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Caron is not a neologism; it's over twenty years old, almost as old as any example of "háček" in English, and the OED apparently lists the first usages of "háček" as clearly foreign words. It's not typesetters who came up with caron, it's typographers, the people who actually worry about the pieces of foreign letters the most. Given that caron is in common use on the internet, I fail to see why using it is promoting linguistic change any more than using any other word.--Prosfilaes 01:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Twenty years old is actually less than half as long as the use of hachek in English -- and most of the people who have been using "caron" have been lazily following along behind Adobe corporation documentation, directly or indirectly. AnonMoos 13:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You see that's exactly it - "is in common use on the internet,". Not in linguistic literature. Not taught in universities. Not in Oxford dictionaries. The only reason caron propagated this far is because of the Unicode standard's mistake. +Hexagon1 (t) 01:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hexagon prefers háček because he's Czech. That's fine, but the rest of the argument is bogus. Clearly there are two words in use for this diacritic. I have edited the article to reflect this. In linguistics, háček is preferred, though linguists also use the term wedge and inverted circumflex, inverted hat as noted in the article. In typography, caron is now the preferred term, probably because of the use of the term in International Standards like ISO/IEC 6937, ISO/IEC 8859, and ISO/IEC 10646. Hugh McGregor Ross is looking through his files now to see if he can find anything specific, but he does recall discussion about the name during the preparation of ISO 6937. And stop saying that Unicode made a mistake. It's not a mistake. Unicode used names from ISO/IEC 10646, and ISO/IEC 10646 used names from pre-existing ISO standards. Evertype 14:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, foreign words are adopted. But the general trend in English is to drop diacritics, even ordinary ones from Spanish and French. You'll note that a Google search on Dvorak brings up an article on Antonin Dvorak on the first page, and (more tellingly) Dvorák, Antonín on the second. Even on names, the caron is dropped. If this were hacek versus caron, I might be arguing a different way.--Prosfilaes 16:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I would agree that diacritics tend to be dropped, which is probably why the OED lists "hacek" as an alternative spelling, along with "háček" in their dictionary of the English language. - FrancisTyers · 16:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, well if the internet says so. Never mind the countless books and people who spell it the correct way. Also you'll note that the háček isn't found on the default US nor UK keyboards yet, which may be a major factor preventing it's adoption on digital media, causing use of caron on computers, as opposed to linguistics-oriented literature which by far favours the use of háček over caron. And diacritics may be dropped, so what? But what has this got to do with this vote? Are you arguing that we should move this article to "hacek" because at a certain point in the future, the diacritics from háček may or may not be dropped? +Hexagon1 (t) 04:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The reason why it's not on the keyboards and not in the common single-byte character sets designed for English is because it's not an English letter, and the webpage of Michael Everson, which lists the characters of the alphabets of European languages, does not list it as a letter. Háček is not acceptable because it's not an English word, and it's blatantly not an English word because it uses a letter that's not used in English. The last thing English needs is another random addition to its orthography.--Prosfilaes 04:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You seem a bit confused. Háček is not a letter, it is a diacritic. --  Donald Albury ( Talk )  10:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but č is a letter. If you proposing that háček leads the introduction of a new productive diacritic into English, I find that far more horrifying.
 * Well that's fascinating, but this isn't a vote whether to adopt háčeks into English orthorgaphy, it's a vote on where the article should be located. Háček is an English word. It is found in linguistic literature, university lectures, dictionaries, etc. (I'm stating that for the third time, it is a point you have repeatedly ignored). Caron is limited to the field of computers, it was invented early 90s by Linotype. Caron seems to be the more common term on computers simply because of the Unicode Consortium's mistake of labelling the háček as such, instead of the correct term 'háček', but in academic circles (notably in the field of linguistics), háček is by far the more common term, with caron being about as common as "the v-shaped inverted hat thing". +Hexagon1 (t) 08:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually if you simply Google "caron ˇ" you get 16,300 hits, and if you Google "háček ˇ" you get 11,100. "By far the more common term"? Evertype 09:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually if you simply bothered to read my post you'd see the sentence "Caron seems to be the more common term on computers simply because of the Unicode Consortium's mistake of labelling the háček as such". +Hexagon1 (t) 00:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

This has probably been mentioned in the past, but the Unicode Technical Note linked above is not official Unicode Consortium opinion, it's the opinion of some experts. (I still stand by my vote in support of a move.) --Cam 04:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Just some interesting references: is a speculative account of why the IPA does not use the háček;  shows that in Unicode Version 1.0, while the SGML used 'caron', the Unicode character name used 'hacek';  shows that 'hacek' was the old name for what is now called 'caron' in unicode;  indicates that 'caron' is the French equivalent of 'háček' and  makes the comment that typographers know the caron also by its Czech name, hacek, pronounced “haa-check”. If 'caron' is French, then the issue comes down to which foreign language term should we use? While it doesn't work in French, 'caron' might be from some cognate of 'crown', which would be a descriptive name for the symbol. --  Donald Albury ( Talk )  10:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I will note that the reference on why the IPA doesn't use the caron would rather assume racism then recognize that the caron is a diacritic, and is wrong in saying that the ezh developed from the yogh (as the essay linked from the bottom of both of those pages will show.)--Prosfilaes 16:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

For those who say that "háček" is not English, it appears in the Oxford English Dictionary (full edition online to subscribers at www.oed.com) with full diacritics. However, it seems like "caron" is the French name as Donald points out above. The word "caron" does not appear in the Oxford English Dictionary. - FrancisTyers · 11:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, English is quite prolific at borrowing. I would note that we blithely use 'tilde' (Spanish), 'cedillo' (Spanish), 'breve' (Latin), 'umlaut' (German), 'macron' (Greek) and 'ogonek' (Polish) as names of diacritics. --  Donald Albury ( Talk )  13:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes; having consulted the OED for the first discussion, I will add, as Francis does not, that they cite four grammars of Czech for háček (oldest 1953); three (and arguably four) of these treat it as a non-English term; and two of them translate it. Septentrionalis 15:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "English doesn't borrow from other languages. English follows other languages down dark alleys, knocks them over, and goes through their pockets for loose grammar. " &mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You are quite right, the etymology is given:
 * [a. Czech, dim. form of hák hook.]
 * And the definition is given:
 * A name for the diacritic {nfhacek}, which is used in Baltic and Slavonic languages.
 * - FrancisTyers · 15:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I forget to note that "Also hacek" is given under the "Other spellings" tab. - FrancisTyers · 15:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

That caron is a French word appears to be pure speculation, and I suspect it's just a wrong-headed guess. The háček is not used in the French language, and the single source cited above has no explanation and no references—probably compiled from Web sources. Does someone have a French dictionary or other real source? —Michael Z. 2006-07-07 14:02 Z 


 * I have checked in a number of French dictionaries and it doesn't appear. However, it should be noted that these dictionaries were in no way as comprehensive as the Oxford English, and I originally checked in the Oxford Shorter (a two volume version, and anything but short) and "háček" did not appear in there. If anyone has access to a comprehensive French dictionary it would be nice to know. - FrancisTyers · 14:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The site that says that 'caron' is French belongs to the Association Typographique Internationale, which presumably has better knowledge of these sorts of things than most web sites. --  Donald Albury ( Talk )  14:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hm. It's not clear what that site says, since the page in question has no title, notes, or references (it also appears to say that "hacek accent" is the only English name). —Michael Z. 2006-07-07 15:35 Z 


 * For what it's worth, caron does not appear to be an entry in the 8th or 9th editions of the Dictionary of the French Academy. (Warning: clumsy navigation) --Cam 14:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Unlike English, French does have an official, authoritatively-defined vocabulary; by definition, French is exactly what the Académie says it is.  Caron is not a French word, despite that a typography site has presented on a web page.  —Michael Z. 2006-07-07 15:35 Z 


 * Also note Hatchek, which does not mention caron as a French synonym [machine translation]. —Michael Z. 2006-07-07 15:37 Z 

But caron is the term used in the French translation of Unicode character names. Evertype 11:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This is not an indication of caron's French origin. It probably just means that the Unicode translators didn't know the name hatchek.  —Michael Z. 2006-07-08 15:35 Z 
 * I didn't suggest that the term had an origin in French. I said that it is a term in use in French. And the French Unicode translators were quite expert so it is quite a claim to make that they were really "unaware" if hatchek actually has currency in French. I do not know that it does. What is its provenance? It is not in my large Collins-Robert dictionary. Evertype 16:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That's funny, I had always had this vague idea, that I am now learning is incorrect, that caron was a French word. It's funny to see that the French wiki actually calls it hatchek!  In fact, it looks like all the languages with this article do, except for Swedish! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't have strong feelings either way, but as the poll seems to be evenly split, we could consider redirecting both to a more neutral name, perhaps caron/háček. Stephen B Streater 11:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, a flood of users just voted without looking at any of the discussion and understanding - frankly - anything. I would agree with the caron/háček proposal. Seems a fair compromise without anyone's head exploding. Meanwhile, I have listed this at "Request for Comment" +Hexagon1 (t) 01:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Neologism
Is "neologism" a proper word from a linguist to describe a word that has not been coined recently (hacek), but rather adopted from a different language, and it's etymology is known? Evertype, last time I checked the definition of "neologism", it wouldn't cover words adopted from other languages. You claim that you are a linguist, do you, however, know the meanings of the words you use? 85.70.5.66 10:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC) (sorry, forgot to logon, Azmoc)


 * See Michael Everson. - FrancisTyers · 11:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Hacek
Evertype and everyone, you can call "caron" English as long as you want, it will not become English (the ending -on is highly suspicious to me, coup-on for instance is french in origin). As the origins of "caron" are dark, and in my experience, things are usually trivial, I don't believe in the french theory nor spanish theory, I believe that there was this guy with the surname "Caron" in Adobe, Linotype or wherever, and his colleagues called the "hacek" caron once, because he worked with it and they just didn't know the real name. Also note that the czech name for the acute accent is "carka", ie it could be a miss-read/spelled version of this in case some typesetter was searching for the name of the "czech" diacritic. The only difference between háček and caron is therefore the way it sounds to the "english" ears. Does for instance the word innuendo sound english to you? What about double entendre? Anyway, would it be more acceptable for you to use Hacek without diacritic? It is being used like this quite a lot, and it would be a reasonable compromise as it would make the word sound more english. 85.70.5.66 01:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Prosfilaes, if you would support a move to Hacek, please move it to Conditional support. 85.70.5.66 01:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It is pretty silly to suggest that "the ending -on is suspicious". It is a Greek suffix commonly found in English, indeed in the name of the diacritical mark macron. It would not be acceptable for me to use háček without diacritics. Evertype 08:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It is pretty silly? Please remain civil. I am not calling your opinions silly either. Back for the topics: as you said, it is a greek suffix. So English does absorb words from other languages, there is no reason why it wouldn't be able to absorb Czech words, as it did with robot and with hacek. The fact that hacek is contained in english dictionaries is sufficient evidence that it has been adopted into English, however it sounds to your ears. 85.70.5.66 08:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * As someone pointed out above, English is a bastard language (in more ways than one), and we probably have more words of Czech origin than simply "robot". I was disgusted before that people were trying to change this into an ethnic dispute. It is not and I won't have it. Incidentally your vote was stricken as you are an anonymous user. - FrancisTyers · 09:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, "silly". The word "silly" is not uncivil. Also the suggestion that caron might derive from "carka" is also unlikely, as the word is čarka. Evertype 09:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh no, you got it wrong again, it's čárka. 85.70.5.66 10:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The diacritic isn't why it's unlikely. The consonant is: čárka is ['tſarka]; caron is ['kærɔn]. Evertype 12:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It has nothing to do with origin of the word, though I do find caron a better English word than hacek, as the pronounciation is unambigious and it doesn't look as unusual. But the diacritics used on háček are simply impossible for English, and no amount of usage as technical jargon will add it to the language, any more than the tens of thousands of English books that have used ∈ make that a word in English.--Prosfilaes 19:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * LOL :) - FrancisTyers · 07:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

"Greek -on suffix commonly found in English"

 * It's somewhat questionable whether there's a Greek suffix -on which is "commonly found in English" in any relevant sense. There was a Greek neuter nominative-accusative singular suffix omicron-nu, which didn't convey any specific meaning in Greek other than neuter nominative-accusative singular.  When this is used in active English word-formation (as opposed to merely being passively carried over from Greek, as in Phenomenon), then it is mainly found in terms for "hard" scientific entities (Proton, Boson, Neon, Xenon, Transposon etc.).  Other ancient Greek endings which could take on the shape omega-nu (such as the present active participle suffix -ont-) don't give really rise to any productive English "-on" suffix with significant common meanings shared between the words to which such a suffix would be attached. AnonMoos 09:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it was all that productive or that it had any meaning of its own. There are plenty of words which end in -on that have a Greek origin. Macron is the relevant one here. My point is that there was nothing particularly "alien to English" about caron. Evertype 09:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, the word is not outlandishly alien to the phonotactics and syllable structure of the English language, and looks sort of like it could possibly come from French or Latin or Greek (though actually it doesn't). So what?  It still doesn't give it a plausible etymology or ascertainable origin... AnonMoos 06:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What is implausible about the folk-etymological suggestion that it could be a fusion of caret and macron? Most etymology begins with such guesswork. In the case of caron, which is doubtless a recent coinage, we will be lucky if we find its actual source though. But have you a better suggestion? Evertype 08:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Enough, already
I voted for 'háček' because that is what I learned when studying linguistics. However, opinion seems to be about evenly split here, which means no consensus, so I say that we make it clear in the article that typographers tend to use 'caron' and linguists tend to use 'háček', and let it go at that. And with that, I'm going to stop paying attention to this overwrought debate. --  Donald Albury ( Talk )  11:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I like this idea. Here's another suggestion I made earlier: redirect both to a more neutral name, perhaps caron/háček. Stephen B Streater 11:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I've moved háček to second position in the first sentence of the article; it had been rather far from the front. Evertype 13:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Might as well move it to ˇ then. -- Jordi&middot; ✆ 13:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Czech is not the only language that uses the caron. The term "hacek" has no notability to speak of. You could have the article under "Hacek" in the Czech Wikipedia, but not elsewhere. --Vuo 14:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Caron is not an English word either. Have you found any dictionaries that list it?  — Chris Capoccia  T&#8260;C 15:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course it's an English word. LATIN SMALL LETTER R WITH CARON. I'm pretty sure that whole string is in English. It's not found in any dictionaries yet. It surely will be. :-) Evertype 15:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The Japanese created a humanoid robot. The whole string is english. Or not? Well.. robot is kinda czech right? What if we create some new word for it.. like... maron. Yes, maron, that sounds perfectly english. And I think I have heard it before, maybe at Microsoft? Or Corel? I don't know, but I am pretty sure it is widely used. Well.. it's not found in any dictionaries yet. It surely will be. :-) I will now move the article "Robot" to "Maron", to make all you geeks happy with the new "geek" word. The above no-consensus supports me in this move. Long live the 1337. Azmoc 00:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Unabridged dictionaries (the ones that are about 6 inches thick) list all kinds of words. Find yourself an unabridged dictionary. Hacek will be there (with some variety of diacritics). Caron will not be there.  — Chris Capoccia  T&#8260;C 16:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think he already acknowledges that, what he is saying is that the word will be included in the future due to the usage. After all, English dictionaries are compiled by usage. - FrancisTyers · 16:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * True, because wikipedia is occupied by geeks who only know the computer-lingo, it is gonna help the new word to become listed in a dictionary. Bravo. Azmoc 00:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Replying to votes
Can we please keep the opinions and comments out of the voting section? If you wish to reply to another person's vote do so outside of the voting section itself. The opinion spouting inside the vote section is what doomed the last votes. -- Jordi&middot; ✆ 13:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Čǎřǒň ǒř Ȟǎčěǩ?
I couldn't resist. Evertype 14:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You are no linguist. You are just a geek :-) Sorry, what you have written about yourself in the article doesnt count. 85.70.5.66 00:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ooh, look! Anonymous ad-hominemism. Evertype
 * I'm sure that Michael Everson does yeoman work in bringing lesser-known languages and scholarship of ancient inscriptions into the relevant computer encoding standards, but that doesn't mean he's a valid linguistic authority on everything -- as seen in some of his standardization proposals which I haven't been that impressed with. For example, N1740: Proposal to encode the Hebrew Tetragrammaton inISO/IEC 10646 seemed to display more of a love of paradox and a bravura technicalistic stretching of the boundaries for its own sake (rather than a deep knowledge of Hebrew or a real desire to improve Unicode). AnonMoos 04:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Be serious. In the first place, that proposal was made in 1998. It wasn't accepted by the committees. I am unashamed. In the second place, have a look at N2840: Proposal to add HEBREW POINT HOLAM HASER FOR VAV to the BMP of the UCS and N2755: Proposal to add QAMATS QATAN to the BMP of the UCS and N2714: Proposal to add two Masoretic punctuation marks to the BMP of the UCS and N2692: Proposal to add ATNAH HAFUKH to the BMP of the UCS before dismissing my contributions to Hebrew encoding. Thanks. Evertype 11:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hehe, I tried to read that accurately using the Pinyin and Czech values - it renders as something like //, anyone who can actually pronounce that gets a cookie, I think it's impossible. :) +Hexagon1 (t) 03:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Neutral solution
Since we are almost evenly divided here, let's try a neutral solution? Something like 'caron/háček' as suggested by Stephen B Streater above, or maybe something like 'háček (caron)'. Or better yet, separate this into two articles, háček (linguistics) and caron (typography) with caron redirection to the latter and háček to the former. The two articles would focus on the linguistic and typographic aspects, for example it's use in standards like Unicode would be documented in the typography article whereas it's IPA transcriptions and use in languages would be documented at the linguistic article.


 * The most neutral solution would actually be "wedge (diacritic)". AnonMoos 04:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I feel this is a case of either/or, to be honest. It isn't acceptable because the other (which depends on who you ask) is in it. Háček may be borrowed into English, but I have encountered caron much more. Each camp seems to have provided reasons as to why the other shouldn't be used. Charles 04:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * There is merit in both sides of the argument. Let's reflect this in the article(s). If there is a genuine difference of use in different places, I'd be happy with two articles. If they are similar, I'd be happy with two rediects to the same article. Stephen B Streater 06:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Come on, guys. There have been three attempts to move this article, none of which has resulted in consensus to move it. Have done. And by the way, "caron (typography)" only make sense if there were other carons to distinguish it from; "háček (linguistics)" doubly so. Evertype 11:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I was just clarifying, but the articles could as easily be at háček and caron respectively. And 'wedge' diacritic wouln't be acceptable, as it suggests that is the most common term, which it's not. And Cfvh, you have encountered caron more on the internet because of Unicode. Dictionaries (incl. Oxford's), universities and most linguistist prefer háček by far. The miniscule field of typography keeps winning the votes because it is far more represented here then linguistics. Splitting the article into two would be the best solution, it would prevent further arguments over the name. +Hexagon1 (t) 12:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Which discipline is more interested in "the thing"? Do linguists discuss it more, or do typographers discuss it more? I'm studying to be a linguist and I can safely say that we haven't covered the intricacies surrounding diacritics, just mentioned them in passing, like "this little thing makes this letter make this sound" etc. - FrancisTyers · 12:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * There are more typographers than there are linguists. ;-) Evertype 14:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * There shouldn't be two articles, because there aren't two items; there's one item, with two names. Relative to linguists, I don't believe that typographers are uncommon.--Prosfilaes 17:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yet typographers concern themselves with "how do i show this thing", linguists concern themselves with what it is and what it means. A linguist doesn't always have to specialize in háčeks, like a typographer can just pass over it. A linguist is like a scientist who discovers an amimal and studies it, a typographer is the one who decides what cage in the zoo to place it at. I cannot believe that such weight is thrown behind the typographers on this argument. Linguistics is an academic field concerning itself with languages, whether written or spoken, typography is simply representing the linguistic symbols. Saying typography is more important then linguistics is like saying that a monitor is more important then the computer. A two-article solution is the best solution here, and Prosfilaes, we'd have one of those twice removed italic bars, (ie. the one they use here with the text being something like "This article is about the use of the háček in the field of linguistics. For it's use in typography, see caron". Or something like that anyway. +Hexagon1 (t) 02:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Go ahead and split the circumflex and other diacritic articles, and then I'll see the split as reasonable. I don't see it as fundamentally any different from any other diacritic.--Prosfilaes 03:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * None of the other diacritic articles are under a naming dispute at the moment. +Hexagon1 (t) 05:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly my point; a naming dispute isn't a reason to split an article.--Prosfilaes 18:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well what's a better compromise? Because this won't go away, if you'll notice there have been three move votes these few months alone, and why? The original mover didn't follow consensus, he unilateraly moved háček to caron, without any support at the time. +Hexagon1 (t) 23:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Live with it, and note the edits which have been made to the article to inform users about the different uses by different communities. The article was moved to caron in September 2005. No one complained enough to try go get it moved back to háčeǩ until March 2006, and despite three tries, people have not been able to achieve consensus to move it. So the name of the article is Caron and Háček redirects to it, and that's that. You fought the good fight. Move on. Evertype 12:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the person who complained enough was me, and that was because I noticed this article only then. There was plenty of opposition to the move, as you'd know if you bothered yourself enough to read the archive. And don't you dare dismiss me! I find that extremely offensive, this is the "free encyclopedia", and talk pages are a forum for debate. Now deflate your ego and come back to the discussion, caron won only by a miniscule margin all the times, and that doesn't mean the case is settled. Quite a few of us (a little under 50%, it seems) are not happy with the current arrangement, or the move votes wouldn't have been initiated. Votes are not final at the Wikipedia, votes are just a means to get current consensus. It would be easy to divide the article, in a similar fashion to how the Politics of the United States article broke off the US article, it's a simple and clean solution, and I have seen articles that use the - "this article is about blank's use in blank, for it's use in blank, see blank" (paraphrased) system before, but I can't recall them right now. +Hexagon1 (t) 14:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You asked for a better compromise. I thought I was being more-or-less friendly when I suggested that sometimes you just have to live with something you don't prefer. Dividing an article on "ˇ" into two different articles seems rather inappropriate to me. Anyway you already have both Caron and Háček. You know, I fought a fight like this recently, about Longcase clock and Grandfather clock. I felt passionately that I was right. For a while there I thought I might lose the vote to move the article. I was prepared to live with that. At the end of the day, I did have better arguments (the term longcase clock predates grandfather clock by 150 years and it is an umbrella term for other kinds of cased clocks) and I did win the day. But I might not have. And I'd have moved on. Hence my advice to you. Evertype 15:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * And incidentaly, you shouldn't have. Wikipedia naming conventions are the most common name, not the correct one. That's why the MS Word article is at Microsoft Word instead of Microsoft Office Word. I was simply saying that the current consensus doesn't satisfy anyone. In any case, I am going to follow your advice, and bury the war hatchet, I have been arguing over this quite some time, and while I still belive háček is the correct term, I don't feel like arguing. This section was an attempt at a neutral compromise, however the háček people don't actually care enough to help my argument in any way, so - meh. How many people fighting over this petty matter haven't even bothered to contribute to the article itself? +Hexagon1 (t) 13:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It's a crying shame sometimes that votes aren't final, because some people are willing to do them over, and over, and over, wasting a whole lot of time over a minor matter. If you've lost the vote, then just let it go. Again, if it was reasonable to have a "this article is about blank's use in blank, for its use in blank, see blank" for caron, then it would be reasonable to have one for circumflex, because the only difference in this regard is the name.--Prosfilaes 19:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No it wouldn't. That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard, circumflex isn't undergoing a naming dispute, caron is. Separating circumflex into two articles would achieve nothing, here it would solve a dispute. How about instead of arguing contributing to the article? You haven't got a single edit there. +Hexagon1 (t) 01:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Neutral solution (bis)
"Wedge (diacritic)" may not be the most common name, but I'm pretty sure it's the name used in the fairly authoritative Pullum and Ladusaw book (can't find my copy right now...) AnonMoos 05:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I checked my Pullum and Ladusaw this weekend, and they indeed call it a "wedge" throughout. Derek Balsam 14:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, they use it. Linguists use several names for the diacritic. Wedge is an uncommon one. (Pullum & Ladusaw don't get everything right, either. They unified yogh and ezh for instance.) Evertype 17:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Pullum and Ladusaw is more authoritative than the backroom boys at Adobe who gave us "Guillemot". AnonMoos 21:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Should we try to put this to a vote, then? And have both terms redirect there? --Chris S. 22:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Please don't. I'll certainly oppose it, and I am sure many others will to. "'Wedge'" is not by any means a common name for this diacritic. Interesting to note that Pullum and Ladusaw prefer it to háček, however. Evertype 12:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Over caron, too, for that matter. If we go by your criterion, then we wouldn't go by caron, then. We won't know if everyone will oppose unless another vote is held. It's worth a try. But I'm not initiating it. --Chris S. 05:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Although, I was invited this discussion, I didn't participate because it seems rather trivial. (FTR, I've only come across háček&mdash;in the UK&mdash;not that that means much.) Just thought I'd say, if wedge is rare, I would be against it being used just as a compromise, as that is just silly.  Surely we can amicably agree to use a vote or virtual coin flip or something.
 * Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley talk contrib 15:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Wedge is nearly a good compromise. Unfortunately, háček has two forms (“ˇ” & a hook form that goes with taller letters like ď or Ľ). Only one is a wedge. Caron is also not such a good name for this same reason.  — Chris Capoccia  T&#8260;C 19:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Neutral solutions (a few more)
On a second thought, the latter could actually work. Oh well. -- EJ 15:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * As a compromise, rename the article to "Háron".
 * Wait for infinitely many monkeys to retype all of this discussion (including archives), and ask them for opinion. After all, "ook" is not that bad name for a diacritic.
 * Move the article to "ˇ".

Linguistic useage

 * 1) In the article, create a subsection about linguistic useage.
 * 2) Include expert quotes that use the word "háček".
 * 3) Expland the subsection to include subsubsections until it is big enough to become its own article.
 * 4) Name that new article "háček". (Was I supposed to include "profit"?) WAS 4.250 16:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The subsection about linguistic usage [sic] is already there, in "Name and etymology" which speaks to that question.
 * Why?
 * What? Split caron from háček? Yeccchh. I'll oppose that.
 * Bad idea, sorry. Evertype 21:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Pinyin

 * (→Writing and printing carons - Chinese usage never reduce the caron)

To satisfy my curiosity, how does a tone mark in a language with rigid syllable structure and no syllabic consonants end up on t, d, or l? -- EJ 16:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It doesn't. The edit was misguided.Derek Balsam 19:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * To clarify: the reduction of a caron only occurs as noted in the section, i.e., in conjunction with "tall" characters. Reduction never occurs with vowels in any usage. In addition, the proposed edit apparently misused "accent" for "tone". Derek Balsam 21:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Now that you quote it: the expression "tall letters" was introduced by me there, and it is also misguided. To begin with, capital letters are tall and get a normal caron (except Ľ). I'll fix it. -- EJ 22:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Guess my "misguided" was misguided. Thanks.Derek Balsam 13:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

christ almighty!
i just came across this page, and i'm truly amazed to see the amount of effort expended over this ... on the other hand, maybe i shouldn't be, as it totally pales in comparison to the fighting over "gasoline" vs. "petrol" (see also "alumin(i)um" and for a real laugh, "cat flap", to which i'm guilty of contributing). at least the other cases are clear us vs british; i have absolutely no idea what's motivating the fighting here.

just the throw some fuel on the fire, though ... my dictionary (Webster's New World, which proudly declares itself to be an "American English dictionary" and goes out of its way to put a star by every word or meaning that originated in the US) has "haček" (spelled as such, no accent over the a) but no "caron" in it (and no star by this word!). Benwing 05:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If you go back and read the archive, you'll see that a good number of people here don't care about dictionaries. Many people (including myself) pointed out that no dictionary included caron, and dictionaries included hacek with various diacritics. Apparently encyclopedias should use industry-created words instead of dictionary words.  — Chris Capoccia  T&#8260;C 12:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, the fact that caron is not in a single dictionary was a large factor in the votes (as well as that it's only prevalent in a miniscule field that is over-represented here), but yet the caron supporters won. There isn't much point in arguing over it anymore, with every vote the typographers will summon more and more oblivious users who will follow Unicode blindly through hell and back. Many users arguing have not even got a single edit in the article. +Hexagon1 (t) 13:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course we should use words that are used in industry over words that are merely prefered by lexicographers who aren't in the industry. If this were the French wikipedia, I might disagree, but English dictionaries are supposed to be descriptions of how the language is used, as is Wikipedia. We should not be dependent on other general reference works. Hexagon1, I'd really appreciate it if you tone down the abuse; a little grace in losing is a useful skill, and dismissing other editors as oblivious and blind is quite rude.--Prosfilaes 18:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The term háček is used by the field of linguistics, as opposed to caron's users, the field of typography. Linguistics is by far the prevalent field, I've never seen anyone with a PhD in Typography, nor do expect to see that anytime soon. The poll was biased towards typographers, of which there is apparently more on Wikipedia, and users that just voted according to whatever Unicode said. +Hexagon1 (t) 06:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 19:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

two articles: systemic bias
this case is typical of Wikipedia's inherent 'online/IT culture' bias. Yes, caron has caught on in electronic typography. I am not surprised that a vote among online junkies (this isn't intended as ad hominem, I include myself in their number) results in an over-representation of the term prevalent in online culture. That's why 'voting is evil': WP:CITE and WP:NOR trump any vote, any day. If standard dictionaries haven't even taken note of the term caron, this simply means that it is still to be considered internet jargon, vote or no vote. That some voters apparently "don't care about dictionaries" is irrelevant, too, since notable English dictionaries are the relevant sources for quetions concerning the lexicon of the English language. Wikipedia happens to be written online, but it is not intended to be prejudiced towards online culture. It still is, of course, but this only means that a conscious effort should be made to counter this. In my humble opinion, caron should discuss the history of that term, how it entered electronic typography from the 1980s etc., while hacek should discuss the actual symbol (why does it surprise anyone that its name should be a loanword, seeing that it is not used at all in English orthography?). I further suggest that Michael Everson should recuse from this debate, being personally involved with the Unicode standard, as he has been known to take Unicode nomenclature (which undisputedly has its own notability) as gospel truth applicable outside the topic of Unicode on other articles. This is putting the matter on its head: It is rather the case that the Unicode consortium attempts to select appropriate terminology. In cases where they succeed, there is no debvate. In cases where they do make an idiosyncratic decision, however, it will certainly have an effect on general usage due to the notability of Unicode, but Wikipedia should not be abused as a platform to actively push this effect. dab (&#5839;) 09:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, this comment was too long-winded. My suggestion is that caron should deal with the symbol in electronic typography, character encoding, font design etc., while hacek should deal with the diacritic as used in various Slavic orthographies. These are rather separate topics, and the article can clearly refer to each other, each taking the other as a specialized sub-article. dab (&#5839;) 10:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I find it absurd to call for the exclusion of any editor just because he's stating a decision that you disagree with. Wikipedia is not being abused as a platform to push anything in this case; a collection of English speaker are choosing the word they feel is most appropriate for the title of this article. ISO-10646 is the international standard, by the world's premier standardization organization (ISO) that provides names for textual characters and symbols. It is the standard, in a way that no source anyone has provided against it is. As such, the names it uses clearly surpass WP:CITE and WP:NOR; they have a prima facie case. The editors have spoken, and do not find your evidence sufficent to rebut that case as supplemented with other evidence.


 * Caron and hacek refer to the same object. There's absolutely no precedent for seperating articles on diacrtics in such a way, and naming disputes do not provide a reason to seperate articles (something that has been established time and time again.)--Prosfilaes 18:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are subject to Wikipedia policies
Regardless of what any Wikipedia user prefers, regarding "caron" versus "hacek", most style issues, content issues, and naming issues, are subject to Wikipedia's established policies. The policy quoted below, as a subsection to this section, is applicable to the caron/hacek issue. If there is discussion of "hacek" in peer-reviewed journals, then that discussion can be cited as a source of information in a Wikipedia article named "hacek". Likewise, if discussion of "caron" occurs in peer-reviewed journals, then that can be cited in a Wikipedia article named "caron". Note also that if there is no such discussion of "hacek", then "hacek" should not be the name of a Wikipedia article, and likewise, no journal discussion of "caron" dooms that word as the article name.

I began studying linguistics decades ago, and earned an MA and PhD in the field. Professors sometimes used the word "hacek" during classroom discussions involving the symbol. They never used "caron". Before today when I looked at this talk page, I had never seen the word. But I don't doubt that there are people who have known the word "caron" for a long time, and have never encountered the word "hacek". Ultimately, I don't care whether "hacek", "hacek (caron)", "caron (hacek)", "caron", or something else is used for the name of the article.

However, here is a proposed solution:
 * 1) If both words are discussed in journals, then use both words in the article name. Let the word with the longer lifespan in journals come first, the other second. At the beginning of the article's lead section, have a sentence telling that both words are used as a name for the symbol. Thereafter, in the article text, use "caron" for all cases where the supporting source text uses "caron", and likewise, use "hacek" for all cases where the source text uses "hacek". (Enjoy peaceful coexistence.)
 * 2) If one word is discussed in journals, but the other is not, then let the word discussed in journals be the name of the article. In the lead section, the other word may be mentioned once as an alternate name for the symbol. However, it will not be possible to "verify" any information on the word that does not appear in journals, so the nonpublished word should not be used in the article, at all, after its one-time-only mention as an alternate name.

Agent X 11:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Can you please keep the words down and not lecture us about Wikipedia policies? If you want to cite a policy, do so tersely and link to the policy. Journals are not the sole source of verifiable information; as I pointed out above, the international standard on the naming of textual symbols uses caron, not hacek.--Prosfilaes 18:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I did not say that journals are the sole source. However, Wikipedia policy indicates peer-reviewed journals as the best source, and self-published sources (including websites) as undesirable sources. If the "international standard" you referred to above is an organization's own website, then it does NOT qualify as a legitimate source under Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia wants third-party publications as sources. Your comment to "keep the words down" is hypocritical, in light of the total number of words that YOU have added to this talk page. According to what's currently in the caron article, the name hacek has been in use longer than the name caron, by about 30 years. If the name hacek is discussed in journals, or other "legitimate" sources, while the name caron is not, then "caron" must be eliminated from the article. Bear in mind that the entire article is subject to deletion. Agent X 13:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No, the entire article is not subject to deletion. I know of no reasonable editor who would delete the whole article. You're welcome to look at ISO and Unicode to learn more about the international standard (ISO-10646) referred to was.--Prosfilaes 20:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability, not truth
Associations/Wikipedia Bad Things One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they must refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by reputable publishers. The goal of Wikipedia is to become a complete and reliable encyclopedia. Editors should cite reliable sources so that their edits may be verified by readers and other editors.

"Verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research, because original research may not be published in Wikipedia. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is thus verifiability, not truth.

A good way to look at the distinction between verifiability and truth is with the following example. Suppose you are writing a Wikipedia entry on a famous physicist's Theory X, which has been published in peer-reviewed journals and is therefore an appropriate subject for a Wikipedia article. However, in the course of writing the article, you contact the physicist and he tells you: "Actually, I now believe Theory X to be completely false." Even though you have this from the author himself, you cannot include the fact that he said it in your Wikipedia entry.

Agent X 11:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)