Talk:Fritz Straßmann

Requested move over redirect

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page No action necessary. This was the result of a cut and paste move that has since been reverted; the main article has been located at Fritz Strassmann since 2005. Any further move discussions should occur there.--Cúchullain t/ c 15:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Fritz Straßmann → Fritz Strassmann – Article_titles says we should use the English langauge form of a non-English name, where English-language sources agree. Other English-lanauge Web sites do not use the sharp-S character. This is the English Wikipedia and should use the English alphabet in article titles. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Support - This should not be at Fritz Straßmann. Even the Germans themselves have decreed that the 'ß' character is archaic and that 'ss' should be used in its place. I don't understand why you are proposing that his first name be changed from 'Fritz' to 'Felix'. Even if there is evidence that one is the English translation of the other, it is not normal practice to Anglisise someone's name in that manner. I B Wright (talk) 15:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I realize someone with your user ID may not have much use for this concept, but it's called a "mistake". I frequently make them and I regret the error. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:49, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I recognise a mistake (I've made some corkers myself in my time). It was not immediately apparent that it was a mistake.  But all sorted now.
 * The other mistake that you made was to use the template directly in spite of instructions at the template page not to do so.  You should have used  .  The instruction is also on the template once expanded, and should have been seen if you previewed the edit before saving it. I B Wright (talk) 16:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - it isn't quite this simple, (1) English printed sources do often use ß, (2) English sources about Straßmann also do, e.g. Gerhard Wilczek Important Scientists and Philosophers of Our Times 2010 Page 41, Michael Gross Light and Life 2003, Germany and the Second World War: Volume V/II 2003, The Chemistry of Superheavy Elements Page 159, (3) This is the "the English-language Wikipedia" but we do not just use the English alphabet in article titles, nothing could be further from the truth. (4) Germany does still use ß, see de:Fritz Straßmann, (5) this ß issue has been round the block before and there is an RfC somewhere off WikiProject Germany, the data page for which is WP:ß. I don't know where the actual discussion is. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - If indeed there is an established concensus or protocol for handling such characters, then that should be employed in this case. I have had a routle around and there are indeed quite a few articles that use non English characters without any objection being made. I B Wright (talk) 12:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Let's "follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language (including other encyclopedias and reference works)", per WP:DIACRITICS. See Britannica and Columbia. Kauffner (talk) 17:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. The rationale does not account for the fact that many article titles contain non-English characters. Moreover, the assertion that Germans have somehow deprecated the letter ß is completely absurd. The German orthography reform changed usage for certain cases (after short vowels, ss is now used instead of ß), but that's it. The letter very much exists, and there are no serious efforts to "deprecate" its use. Words with long vowels like "Straße" are never spelt "Strasse" (it hurts my German eyes to even look at that). The same applies to proper and personal names of any kind, especially since the reform doesn't even apply to those. --87.78.54.250 (talk) 12:06, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.