User talk:Rahcngierof

From your choices of username and your choices of target, it's fairly clear who you are.

The foreignchar templates do serve one small purpose: they improve the ability to search for Wikipedia pages under some circumstances (some international versions of Google will search for both "Würzburg" and "Wuerzburg" if you specify either, but others won't... Google seems to behave differently depending on the country of origin of the person doing the search). They also satisfy some of the people who would otherwise wish to vote to revert to diacritic-less titles. And finally, there was a certain consensus to keep them; at least, the last time there was a sockpuppet campaign to remove them, a lot of users participated in reverting.

I'm a bit impatient with Philip too, but it's not a reason to restart disruption. -- Curps 20:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Article content should hardly be influenced by Google's behaviour. And diacritic-less titles have long been rejected anyway, Philip's continuing disruption notwithstanding. I don't see a need to satisfy people who want to dumb down the encyclopedia. And most of the users who participated in reverting the last time seemed to be just following your lead and did not consider the subject matter at all. See Template talk:Foreignchar where Lupo says: "Let's get rid of it; probably best by clearing the template and then removing it. Hey, we could even enroll one of User:Diacrit's sockpuppet bots to remove them!" And Tobias Conradi says: "everybody can copy paste difficult letters in the browser bar to know more about them. Reading article of german cities right now very often starts with this IMO annoying Foreignchar template." Docu suggests "that the template be left in the articles, but blanked". Unless such opposition is countered by overwhelming support, this should not be introduced. Rahc 21:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Is it just a coincidence that you started again at the very moment I left the above message? -- Curps 20:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, did so before I saw your message. Rahc 21:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)