Talk:Schlußakkord

Eszett discussion and justification for change
I have previously read MS and NC regarding referenced and no consensus had been arrived at, nor any decision made, although i detected a definite trend in articles showed preference for "ss" just from browsing. That is as should be since eszett is not part of ENGLISH ALPHABET, and literally 99.9% of all English speakers have no idea that it represents untranliterated "ss".

You know who Gauss was, right? The same principle applies exactly to numerous Hesses, numerous Strausses, and the list goes on and on. —

See WP:UEIA "When the native name is written in a non-Latin alphabet this representation should be included along with Latin alphabet transliteration." Tiderolls 23:43, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

"Should be", not "must be" and in any case apply only to article the introductory sentence but every other use should be "ss" as per article on the mathematitian Gauss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.35.96.144 (talk) 23:57, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

The Gauss comparison does apply. Eszett should never be used in article titles because almost no English speakers would have any idea what the transliteration is. It should be used, as in the Gauss and numerous other analagous articles, only parenthetically in the in the introductory sentence. There is no need to it elswhere in an English encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.35.96.144 (talk) 00:46, 8 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.35.96.144 (talk)
 * My response to the above (originally posted to my user talk):
 * Thus my directing you to the MOS and Naming conventions. A consensus has been reached regarding this issue that does not match your opinion. Consensus is a dynamic entity and you are welcome to approach other editors at those venues with your view. However, unilaterally making the changes you have been against the accepted guidelines and convention could be construed as disruptive. I would suggest more discussion on your part and re-reading the guidelines; there is apparently some misunderstanding on your part.  Tide  rolls  01:01, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 184, that's quite enough. You've earned your report at 3RRNB. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 01:06, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, for goodness' sake. There's a redirect from Schlussakkord. And it is part of the Roman alphabet. Moreover, 184, you kept changing the letter in the title of a reference article. . . at the British Film Institute! Some of the changes with ß elsewhere in the encyclopedia are due to a German spelling reform a couple of decades ago. But this is a 1936 film - that's how the title was spelled. I think I will go add to the lede that it is sometimes anglicized with ss, but beyond that and provision of a redirect, we do not need to go. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:05, 8 April 2012 (UTC)