User talk:Rahc

Well, some people did consider Google searchability to be an important factor. And having a small bit of text at the top is not so disruptive, it's a very common Wikipedia practice: for instance, at the top of London there is a disambiguation notice for the other cities and towns named "London". This is true of many other articles too (such as Berlin).

People weren't merely following my lead: it wasn't me who invented the "foreignchar" template or added it to articles in the first place. There was some discussion somewhere (which I didn't even take part in), and particularly for names containing ß there was some opposition to using this in titles, and "foreignchar" emerged as a compromise. Yes some people dislike "foreignchar", but you are selectively quoting only those people in an attempt to portray "foreignchar" as a unilateral change in the face of strong opposition, when in fact it is you who are trying to impose a unilateral change to a stable status quo by using sockpuppets.

You're not some newbie, you know as well as I do that in an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, the only sustainable way to make progress is to discuss and reach consensus and occasionally compromise. Unilateral changes only lead to revert wars and waste everyone's time. We are on the same side when it comes to diacritics, so why waste each other's time? Internationalization and universal support for Unicode and multiple fonts are an ever-increasing trend, so time is on our side. In the meantime, as I mentioned above, disambiguation notices are common at the top of articles so surely a "foreignchar" notice in small font can't be so intolerable. Why not choose patience and constructive editing? -- Curps 21:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)