Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikiproject English

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. The aim of this project is, in my eyes, quite simple: it's intended to be a battle-standard under which those from one side of a debate can organise canvassing against the other side. This is clear partisanship; even the title of the project is misleading. I'm going to quote the Board Resolution on Openness: we should be "working with colleagues to reduce contention and promote a friendlier, more collaborative culture". This project does not promote a friendlier atmosphere, it serves only to polarise the project over a relatively minor grammatical issue. RFCs, discussion, and dispute resolution are the way forward here: creating Wikiprojects to organise support will simply create a hostile editing environment. I urge all parties to go back to basics: assume good faith and follow the dispute resolution procedure if you can't agree. The Cavalry (Message me) 20:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject English
MfDs for this WikiProject: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject English Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject English (2nd nomination) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikiproject English

A project ostensibly created to "consolidate the efforts of all Wikipedians concerned about the proper naming of articles on the English Wikipedia", but in reality exists as a central gathering place for people of one side of the ongoing diacritics debates to coordinate efforts to force their WP:POV onto Wikipedia despite a distinct lack of overall consensus on the use of diacritics on this project. Another editor defined this project quite accurately by calling it "Wikiproject Canvass". Many of the comments on the various pages display something of a battleground mentality, and very much an "us vs. them" attitude that runs counter to Wikipedia's goal of being a collaborative project. Examples:
 * From Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_English:
 * I have to congratulate everyone on our recent string of hockey player successes. The hockey/tennis player stuff seemed like such a lost cause just a couple weeks ago. For Ales Hemsky, the vote was 7-6 against removing the diacritics, but it was moved anyway, which certainly surprised me. I can boast of moving the Vietnamese bios and geography to non-diacritic titles -- It's hundreds of titles and took me several months to do. Kauffner (talk) 12:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like we've got a good team working on this, now we just have to a) get a few more members since it's hard to keep up and comment on more than a few talk pages (especially if you're as long winded as I am); and b) start being able to do some s, but I take it the trick there is to get ones that have sufficiently similar arguments so that the expected demand, that each be argued separately, can be summarily dismissed. Who R you? Talk 14:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's mostly 'mother country pride' that's fueling the pro-diacritics push. I've lost count, as to how many times I've been slandered with the label xenophobic. GoodDay (talk) 00:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * From WikiProject English/Articles:
 * "Move request away from COMMONNAME At last check: 6-Support  1-Oppose" - (Emphasis theirs), in regards to Talk:Andrej Gacina
 * "Multiple move request away from COMMONNAME  At last check: 9-Support   6-Oppose move to non-English" (emphasis mine), in regards to Talk:Dominik Halmosi
 * "This is one of the arguments used by the pro-diacritic crowd which they say proves that English uses diacritics; however, this is an Alternative Form rather than English." - (emphasis mine), on a planned move request for Café.

The opinion of project's creator, User:Who R you?, can be summed up by this comment: "Isn't it interesting how the English Wikipedians at en.WP establish policies about determining the English spelling of names and then follow them; unlike the small group of foreign editors who apparently just come here to get their kicks out of disrupting the en.wp and vandalizing our pages by moving them to foreign spellings?". (again, emphasis mine)

This project very clearly was not created as a good faith effort to aid collaboration at Wikipedia. It was created to win a war against the use of diacritics, and is targeted toward like minded individuals to that of Who R you?'s POV.

And before anyone asks, historically I have been supportive of the anti-diacritics opinion, but arguments made by various editors over time has pushed me toward a neutral position - I neither favour nor disfavour their use at this point.

In addition to the main project page, this nomination covers four subpages:
 * WikiProject English/Members
 * WikiProject English/Articles
 * WikiProject English/WPPolicy
 * WikiProject English/WPPolChg

Regards, Resolute 02:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Also to add, the project creator and a supporter's comments regarding this project: User talk:Who R you?. Just another sign that this is not a good faith project. Resolute 02:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep – I wasn't aware that Wikipedia was for the censorship of Freedom of Speech; I could have sworn that there was something somewhere about it being WP:NOTCENSORED; but, I guess maybe that only applies when showing sexually offensive pictures or morally objectionable materials, but collaboratively talking about what we think the problems are with Wikipedia, now censorship of that type of horrible free thought must be swiftly dealt with. One has to wonder if this perhaps has anything to do with the fact that the long tide of anti-English article moves may be being interfered with by a group of (up until an hour ago) 5 people that recognize that Projects like WP:Hockey have been hijacked for the opposite purpose by others.  Perhaps Resolute is offended by our unwillingness to skulk around in the shadows like vermin; perhaps (s)he has a problem with conversations happening in the open, a problem with our unwillingness to be like vile repugnant scum and sneak around on IRC and email.  Well, to anyone that has a problem with my willingness to stand-up for what I believe in and my willingness to speak my mind; Fuck you! .  I think I mentioned already that the project should be kept. —   Who R you?  Talk 03:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for making my point for me. And thank you for putting your motivations for creating this project into this discussion, in your own words.  You made my case far better than I could. Regards, Resolute 03:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Is there a difference between discussing article titles at this location, as opposed to discussing them at WP:EN or WP:Hockey? Every project is for purpose of getting people with similar interests to collaborate. We already have WP:LIBERALISM, WP:Conservatism, and WP:Environment. That English should be used exclusively for article titles is policy, so this aspect of the project should not be considered as a "side" in some debate, or as a divisive position. Editors have opinions about stuff, they put these opinions on project's talk page, and so what? Kauffner (talk) 03:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a very big difference between the projects you link to whose aim is to improve articles on those topics and a Wikiproject created specifically to violate WP:CANVASS and to make a WP:POINT. It is a huge violation of the Five Pillars to create projects to push a POV and create a voting block. As for "That English should be used exclusively for article titles is policy" there is no policy that states that. The guideline of WP:UE actually gives a large number of examples of when this isn't the case. -DJSasso (talk) 03:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Support deletion Existence of diacritics in the larger Wikiproject is already a contentious continuous area of circular discussion at WP:UE, where no consensus has at all emerged. In fact, there is deadlock as deadlocked can be. There is little need for this forum deliberately created to promote drama and division where harmony and collaboration ought to prevail. The creator of the project seems to think "foreign editors ... apparently just come here to get their kicks out of disrupting the en.wp and vandalizing our pages by moving them to foreign spellings". Among the bad faith comments he has made is this diatribe. The project's goals appear on the surface to be founded on policy adherence, and to "reduce the amount of unproductive time spent by all editors dealing with the constant rehashing of these issues". Yet the policy area is deadlocked as nobody can agree to a change; it seems a fairly transparent aim of the 'project English' to provide coordination to [divisively] continue to push for a change of policy to remove diacritics, whilst failing to do so in the short term seek to go after articles whose long-standing names are target for change. There also seems to be a scheme by at least one of the proponents to remove articles of people presumed notable in their own countries by our very own criteria but for the fact that their names are foreign. It just happens that most of these subjects have diacritics in their name. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 03:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * PS. This rant really does say it all for the divisive bad faith motivations of the project. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 03:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Or perhaps I should take offence at your statements that I am entitled to have "no opinion whatsoever" and, I suppose I would assume that you would be implying that it was therefore your right to dictate my thoughts and actions; would that be a correct interpretation since I am actually quoting three of your words, word-for-word?—  Who R you?  Talk 22:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - This encyclopedia has no place for single-issue voting blocs masquerading as wikiprojects, particularly ones who regard their opposition on that single issue "vile repugnant scum". FYI, I have no opinion whatsoever regarding diacritics. Reyk  YO!  03:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * ...and this proves beyond any doubt that is is just a little POV-pushing club. Reyk  YO!  04:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course, if one doesn't take the statements completely out of context, one sees that "… our unwillingness to skulk around in the shadows like vermin, …" and "… our unwillingness to be like vile repugnant scum and sneak around on IRC and email." in fact doesn't refer at all to "our opposition"; unless of course you're saying that you know for a fact that the people participating in these RM discussions on the 'pro-diacritic' side are sneaking around in the shadows, using IRC and email to co-ordinate their 'voting block'; in which case I might actually be inclined to direct statements at others, rather than stating what actions I am unwilling to take and what my opinion would be of "our" actions if we were to act in such a devious manner.
 * Meh. Your rants are pretty nonsensical. I can tell by the hyperbole, and having read a few rants in my time. In the midst of you accusing the pro-diacritic "side" of everything under the sun, inviting Resolute to go forth and multiply, and screaming "I will not be silenced!" when told not to set up a votestacking club, you've slipped in a statement about how you don't want your votestacking club to behave that you expect me to believe isn't just another dig at your perceived enemies. Fine. Whatever. Like I said, I don't care one way or the other about diacritic marks in article titles- but I do recognize a sham wikiproject when I see one. And I don't need to be able to make complete sense of a bunch of apoplectic raving to get a feel for the general mindset. Reyk  YO!  23:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll take it that your reply translates into 'you can tell what I'm thinking from the tone of my writing'. Correct me if you'd phrase it differently.  And again, you'll notice that I didn't address my comment at Resolute, rather I addressed it "to anyone that has a problem with my willingness to stand-up for what I believe in and my willingness to speak my mind"; and that stands, on and off Wikipedia; I would hope that you would all have that opinion, otherwise we may all be lost, with far greater problems than anything WP related. —   Who R you?  Talk 00:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Huge violation of the spirit of Wikipedia and a detriment to trying to work together in a collaborative environment to solve issues. This is clearly an attempt to get around WP:CANVASS and as Reyk mentions its quite obviously a voting block masquerading as a wikiproject. -DJSasso (talk) 03:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The irony in this when this project is being put up for deletion because of canvass issues is unbelievable. -DJSasso (talk) 05:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It might've been seen as canvassing. But, there was really no call for favoring either side. GoodDay (talk) 07:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, personally I don't see a problem with promoting the usage of english on this Wikipedia & promoting the english sources, too. GoodDay (talk) 03:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete the OP makes a perfect point that this is indeed one sided, against many Wikipedia policies. Keeping this will only instill more drama than already exists, and I get a feeling of bad faith from the creator. (Also, don't WikiProjects have to go through an approval process? Did this one pass somehow?) Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Appears to be a bad-faith creation and an attempt to circumvent normal dispute resolution processes. From the name, it appeared to me at first to be a WikiProject used to work on articles about the English language, like grammar and stuff like that; however reading through the project pages this is clearly and blatantly an attempt to coordinate efforts to WP:GAME the normal dispute resolution processes.  No statement on the whole diacritics debate per se but the behavior of the people who created this thing is highly questionable.  -- Jayron  32  05:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Blatant bad faith canvassing violating almost any policy you care to mention. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: As literally written, the project's purpose identifies it as a group interested in enforcing Wikipedia's policy on article titles. Although there is nothing inherently wrong with this (though it may be a bit ambitious for one group to try to build expertise in all article title matters, and a name such as "WikiProject Article Titles" would fit better), with the tenor of the current discussion (as quoted above), it is on the cusp of becoming yet another page to host the repeated assertions of those interested in discussing how diacritics should be used. And although that's fine too if that's what editors want, I suggest there are sufficient existing venues to discuss this topic, and other topics related to article titles. isaacl (talk) 08:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a group interested in enforcing one particular interpretation of policy. One interpretation that does not have consensus, and in fact if anything is in a minority when it comes to actual practice. It is therefore not enforcing policy, but enforcing one particular viewpoint. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. While apparently worded neutrally, the evidence is pretty clear that this "Project" is designed to be pointy and push a specific non-policy, non-consensus, POV. It is against the collaborative spirit of Wikiprojects, and of Wikipedia in general. (I have no position on the diacritics issue, other than that it needs to be resolved in a spirit of cooperation and respect, and not as an "English speakers vs foreigners" battle) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. I am generally on the "anti-diacritic" side of the fence (though I don't believe the issue is so black-and-white) and I agree with those above that such a one-sided project does nothing constructive for the encyclopedia and only serves to make diacritics discussions worse. Jenks24 (talk) 09:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I regularly notify national wikiprojects (mainly WP:CZECH) about relevant AfDs or RMs. I realized it could be problematic after the Swedish enclave arrived to the Diacritics RfC. However, the national projects work on a different basis than this WikiProject English. They are open to various opinions and nobody says that when you are Czech you must !vote in accordance with some 'national interest'. However, I can imagine that my notifying could be, under certain circumstances, considered as WP:CANVASSING. On the other hand, the creator of this project suggests to ignore 'pro-dios' editors who might join the membership in the project, which speaks for itself. There's nothing open and collaborative on this project. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: Isn't it better that people trying to push this convention do so openly in project-space, where it is open to scrutiny and discussion? We have groups like the Article Rescue Squad, which clearly attracts a group of editors with a certain, non-consensus view of the deletion policy, but have decided that it's better to allow them to organize where there is a formal process and oversight.  This is similar. Buddy431 (talk) 10:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No desire to harass at all, but I must offer a word of defense for the Article Rescue Squadron. In my experience, I'd say their aim is not to act independently of deletion consensus or advocate any view in a "non-consensus" way, but to improve articles so that the consensus would be to keep them - I see that as working *for* consensus -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete; it was created in bad faith, not to support wikipedia decision-making but to get around the irksome problem that there are many people who disagree with the founder's interpretation of policy - apparently the only way to get around that problem is to avoid the existing debate on the policy page, and to set up a new page to canvas like-minded people to participate directly at RMs &c. As the nominator suggests, this "wikiproject" can only deepen the us-versus-them mindset, and drive us further from consensus. bobrayner (talk) 10:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: Every Wikiproject should be open to every editor and every editor should feel welcome in every project. This one however would make me uncomfortably to join as I would not feel welcome as a contributor, as I'm racialy and linguistically different. It would create a divide, a them and us which is not what Wikipedia is about. I think, the project is born out of frustration over the direction the hockey project is taking in regards to naming conventions rather then a true wish to have such a project. I don't think, this move would solve the problem there! Calistemon (talk) 11:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak keep I agree that, as construed, I would not want to join this project. As it is construed presently, I do not support its continuation. I do, however feel that we have a group of non-English contributors who are also voting in a block. Rightly or wrongly, I think that concerns me, and we need some balance. I therefore must agree with some aspects of the free speech defence. I'd rather it be out in the open. I'd like to see this project re-purposed. We need to be concerned about usability, openness and standards in the area of English usage, translation, transliteration and the like. If it were a group that includes those interested in the usage of English on Wikipedia, and determining a reasonable course between the contradictory/competing policies of spelling foreign-originated names on Wikipedia, I would support that. We are missing something here on Wikipedia, as it has become two camps. Not healthy. A re-purposed project, well, I think it could include those in the project presently, and even those who disagree mostly, if it were thus re-purposed. Listing articles for which requested moves are ongoing is useful, especially in the current environment. The endless debates on use English, etc. are interminable. I'd appreciate a group that can focus the discussion at one place. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 15:32, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you point to a project or page where the voting as a block by non-English editors is being co-ordinated? Having the same opinions is completely different than voting as a block and canvassing votes which is what this group is doing and I have seen no evidence that the opposite is happening anywhere. The centralized place to have these discussion are on the policy pages themselves. Creating yet another place to have these discussions only makes the situation even more fragmented. -DJSasso (talk) 15:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There has been canvassing by non-English editors, you know that. I'm not as ticked off as you, that's all. Not sure whether to leave it in the open or not? There may be some benefit byhaving it be in the open, where it can be discussed. But, does it start a bad precedent? I'm not sure. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 16:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Heh, I can tell you that the best way how to find a diacritic related RM is occasional checking of talk pages of Dolovis and his collaborators (I don't watch the pages and I don't check regularly so I don't participate at all the RMs :)) It is so stupid and shameful that I can't find appropriate words for it, but it seems to be the only way how to do something in recent situation. I was even tempted to ask the group if they can let me know about future RMs but I resisted :) @alaney2k: I can speak only for myself, but I can assure you that I'm not a stupid kid who needs to win disputes in such a dishonest and despicable manner. Believe it or not, all my actions are transparent and run on-wiki. You have my word, that's all I can do. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not feel canvassing is as evil as some think. I think it's basically normal behaviour. We should not pretend otherwise. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 16:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Canvassing is bad and is blockable. What it does is stack the deck with one side of a position and negates the ability to have opinions presented from a wide range of positions. It is counter to working together in a collaborative environment and creates a battleground mentality that doesn't help already tense situations. -DJSasso (talk) 18:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That's an extraordinary statement of fact, and makes me wonder. Sometimes there is not enough perspective. It seems like we are kids, and we need our moms (the admins) to tell us to get out and play. Work out some of that negative energy. Motivation seems easily misdirected... I agree with the wiki rules, don't get me wrong. (They are of course a whole semester's worth of reading, unfortunately. And a lot of us don't read user manuals, including Wikipedia's.) &#x0298;  alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 19:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Discussion as part of a bid to resolve the issue belongs at either the relevant policy page or on the Village Pump. A project, coordinated by a user (ultimately a group of users), who display a very strong negative reaction to those who do not share said view will be unlikely to feel welcomed. Resolute 15:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree in principle, but we seem to be ping-ponging at the moment, between diacritics and use english, are we not? &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk )
 * Which block of voters do you have in mind, alaney2k? Personally, I'm English, so I'm a little surprised to see my !vote being written off as a mere foreigner; that tactic has sadly been used among the anti-diacritical rants on article talkpages but we shouldn't let it spread to XfDs too. I do respect the intention to bridge the divide between the two camps, but I feel this wikiproject is part of the problem, not part of the solution. bobrayner (talk) 15:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Probably was a mischaracterization on my part. I've seen canvassing and I should not extrapolate. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 16:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. I would support the WP:MOS in following English language sources (and therefore generally avoiding diacritics). But a "Project" like this with a misleading title and a single, partisan aim is not the right way to go about it. Moreover the behaviour of some of the project's members is troubling - not in itself a reason for deletion, of course, but not indicative of a net gain to the encyclopedia. Kim Dent-Brown  (Talk)  16:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Supporters convinced me otherwise in this MFD. causa sui (talk) 17:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. I can see some potential benefit of a neutral project where editors can get together to discuss the issues at hand in a way that actually improves the encyclopedia. This isn't it, and with its current title and focus it never will be. Splitting people into partisan projects can only serve to make an already tricky situation even worse. Alzarian16 (talk) 17:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Obvious WP:POINT issue. A WikiProject with this name that actually was devoted to improving articles regarding the English language would be invaluable. This current incarnation is little more than a WP:SOAPBOX.  Cjmclark (Contact) 20:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Without reading all of the above, I think the nomination and delete !votes should not be calling for "Delete", but Close down and archive. Deleting bad ideas dooms us to repeat them.  It sounds like this wikiproject is functioning in part like a de-facto proposal, and if so it should be treated as one.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Resolute lists sections from the WikiProject English/Articles page as an example of..., I take it the implication is some nefarious action by daring to list projects which the WikiProject members believe violate WP:EN, WP:UE and other sections; and yet WP:Hockey, whose Participants list includes and  has a nearly identical listing of these same discussions, with an entry in the HOCKEY section (added by this entry, and before that this entry), immediately followed by the section HOCKEY, which transcludes Template:Article alerts columns that apparently uses  to maintain their list of RM, Deletion, and other ongoing discussions.  But I assume Resolute doesn't have the same problems with this listing as he apparently does with WPrj:English's articles list.  And given the last part of Resolute's post here, I suppose it's best if I break my comments up into small managable chunks. —   Who R you?  Talk 23:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And I guess I must assume that the "unless you're talking about WP:Hockey" is implied in this added statement, by DJSasso, on that very topic. —  Who R you?  Talk 01:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You keep talking about wp:hockey like its some big group organized to push diacritics. Quite the opposite the group is completely split on their use. In fact as many people supporting their use in the hockey project have opposed them at your discussions. And if you actually read the guidance of the project you would see that we actually suggest removing them in more cases than we suggest using them. -DJSasso (talk) 03:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And yet, WP:Hockey's policy is regularly cited as the justification in numerous move discussions; I'll look for some links to those postings if you believe that isn't the case. So while you, on one hand say that there is division in WP:Hockey as to how to handle diacritics (and I assume we can translate that to 'no consensus'), on the other hand WP:Hockey's pages declare policy involving the use of diacritics, and those policies oppose the policy sections I've listed below and cited in every conversation we've had on this topic for the last month.  Off the top of my head, from previous diacritic discussions, I see Nurmsook, Ravenswing, Resolute, User:Alaney2k (Whom I fully acknowledge [if memory serves] votes each discussion on its merits, [regardless of the fact that he's agreed with me, I believe once]), and yourself in hockey's members list that I recognize from these discussions.  I'm actually surprised that I don't see Prolog's name on the list as my (apparently mistaken) impression was that he was one of hockey's members; I believe I recall him regularly citing WP:Hockey policy as the justification for most of these moves.

Reality is, save for WP:Hockey's private policy, the majority of the arguments can be dismissed as WP:Just don't like it. If people want to have these discussions about why they think policy should change, they should be happening on Wikipedia Talk:UE, etc; my frustration is that these RM discussions happen on one talk page after another, and articles are moved, without citation of any fact, against consensus policy, and against RS. If consensus policy changes, that's a different story; and I'll fight those policies changing because I believe it should be English RS that determine English spelling, not Czech, Croatian, or Polish Wikipedians, (and preferably not English ones for that matter), but I can accept it if consensus of the majority of editors doesn't agree with me. But, I don't accept any editor ignoring RS and deciding facts for themselves, in any circumstance, and I certainly don't accept non-English WP editors deciding the facts about English spelling and that somehow becoming reality. —  Who R you?  Talk 05:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: While the diacritics discussion currently takes place all over Wikipedia, it appears that it must unfortunately take place here in some part as well if I am going to refute some of the accusations levelled against the WikiProject and myself. The following is a copy of the latter part of my post, responding to Resolute's comment that "… there is no consensus …" and "… there is no wiki convention for us to follow …"
 * The truth is that if the we are pushing any POV, it is that policy should be followed, that simply saying 'there is no consensus policy' shouldn't be enough for the consensus policy to be ignored, and that an organized group from WP:Hockey shouldn't be able to overwhelm move discussions and use half-truths and deception to convince closers to move articles to names that don't reflect the English RS. But I suppose this has been another really long post, and since I wouldn't want to lose Resolute I'll start another point. —   Who R you?  Talk 01:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

And I find your mention of "a new flare-up in the diacritics debate" interesting, I'm curious when you think this debate has gone more than a month (or perhaps two) without being an ongoing "discussion"/"battle"; and if you think you've got a timeframe in mind, might I suggest a quick review of the partial list, of conversations that have been taking place on this topic, at the bottom of the WikiProject English existing policies page; just so you don't inadvertently mention a period when a RfC was taking place on the topic. —  Who R you?  Talk 21:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - And now this MFD about a WP:SOAPBOX WikiProject has become a soapbox in and of itself. Isn't this kind of massive time-wasting usually reserved for ANI?  Cjmclark (Contact) 03:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess the fact that you've made your decision means discussion ends. Interesting. —   Who R you?  Talk 04:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Not at all. Simply an observation that the majority of non-!vote comments on the XfD consists of snarky incivility and lengthy anti-diacritic diatribe. The timing of the formation of this particular WikiProject is highly suspect, coming as it does during a new flare-up in the diacritics debate. Couple that with the fact that Wikipedia already has a WikiProject dedicated to ensuring the proper use of the English language in articles (the Guild of Copy Editors), and this particular group appears more and more to be formed for the single purpose of pushing an anti-diacritic agenda. You can dress it up as a group of bright-eyed heroes out to defend truth, justice, Wikipedia policy and the American way, but it looks like a duck to me.  Cjmclark (Contact) 20:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Your reference to the Guild honestly sounds really great; the only problem is that, having just thoroughly reviewed their members list, I've never seen any of those names in an RM discussion. In fact, I've only recall ever seeing one of those names in a diacritics related conversation, and that would be 'Boing! said Zebedee' from their posting above.  If more people responded in these conversations then perhaps the members of this WikiProject wouldn't be so concerned about the fact that the consensus policies are being ignored; and presumably if more people were involved in the discussions the policies wouldn't be being ignored.  The reality is that most of these RM discussions appear to be generally ignored by editors, something I attribute to a seemingly endless stream of conversations on the topic, without any consensus for change, followed by more proposals on the topic.  It appears that the approach opted for by those promoting the use of diacritics is to simply keep bringing the subject up in one forum after another, in hopes that people will either get so fed up with the topic that they'll give in, or that those who oppose will simply stop responding (to things like RMs) just to avoid having to have the same conversation they had last week, or month, or whenever; I'm sure I recall seeing a policy somewhere that frowned on their apparent approach.


 * Comment: I obviously understand that WP:AGF apparently doesn't apply to me; but reality is, I follow RS, my proposals and my agruments (as the first paragraph shows) follow RS. If it were as simple as noting the fact that consensus policy is to follow English RS, simply by citing WP:UE, WP:EN, or WP:COMMONNAME, etc, then odds are that the group of people involved in the WikiProject would never have been drawn together as we were; but reality is that whoever has, in the past, been responsible for closing diacritic related RM discussions has, for whatever reason, ignored these comments by those attempting to follow the RS and name articles according to English RS.

As indicated by this comment, posted by one of the WP:Hockey admins on the talk page of the 'crat who closed the Marek Zidlicky RM in favour of the non-diacritic form, these RM discussions were apparently regularly closed by a select group of admins while a regular group of, according to the post, five admins who (in that discussion) "argued passionately" and who presumedly are all members of WP:Hockey. The fact is that one of the members of this WikiProject, whom identifies above,  (who, like all of us, has made other mistakes in the past) has been permanently move banned for having the audacity to follow WP:COMMONNAME, and the other policies, and revert pages moved to diacritic forms where the English RS didn't support the moves; his "crime" apparently being to follow WP:BRD and not properly surrender decision making authority to those editors and admins that have decided that Wikipedia will use diacritics and spell names according to the Slavic traditions, regardless of policy, consensus, or the RS.

The fact is that, while the members of WikiProject English conceptually agree that English Wikipedia should follow the consensus policies of English Wikipedia, meaning in part that the titles of articles should follow the most common English RS, we all vote our own consciences and arrive at our own interpretation of fact, which means we occasionally !vote differently, at different times, and even occasionally revert&thinsp;A each other on matters involving diacritics. ( A – This revision has no visible effect due to this revision in Template:Infobox ice hockey player).

The fact of the matter is that the project was partially in response to voting block tactics from members of WP:Hockey in their efforts to systematically move every Slavic nationality player's article to foreign spelling (obviously, where that spelling differs from English spelling) regardless of WP's consensus policies on the matter and regardless of the RS; rather based strictly on the, against WP:CONSENSUS, repeatedly stated, unilateral policy declaration of WP:Hockey. Maybe tomorrow I'll document some of what I'd describe as the inappropriate voting block and deceptive tactics of WP:Hockey members in some of these diacritic related RM discussions. —  Who R you?  Talk 04:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand what you want to achieve, also I wish you would say it in somewhat shorter posts, but this slighly xenophobic project does not seem the road to success for me. Rather then starting something new that devides the comunity, why do you not revive WikiProject Policy and Guidelines and make a, admittingly difficult, attempt to improve guidlines and make them less ambigous and more enforceable? Calistemon (talk) 04:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If he wishes to try and build an honest consensus, I would suggest one of the village pumps rather than a mostly dead project. Resolute 05:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The irony of all of that text is that you have not posted a single policy-based reason why this project should be kept. Nor have you refuted any of the additional reasons for deletion presented by other editors.  Instead, you choose to continue trying to fight your campaign against diacritics.  That is not what this MFD is about.  It is about a project designed to advocate a single POV position against numerous policies and guidelines, and the fact that you continue to use even this MFD to fight your little war against diacritics shows clearly and plainly what your intention was in creating this project. Resolute 05:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * To promote the use of the English language on English Wikipedia, and to argue that article titles should follow the spelling that is given in the majority of relevant English-language WP:RS, does not go against any policy or guideline that I know of. This project is no more POV than any other WikiProject. We can continue the all the same activity in user space, so what is the point of this MFD? It's pushing a little hobbyhorse, trying to make our views appear illegitimate. The RfC showed 50 percent support for Britannica spelling, with other 50 percent presumably favoring less diacritical use. Now if something is spelled with diacritics in Britannica, we haven't challenged that. Kauffner (talk) 06:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually they have quite vigorously have challenged that reference works don't matter. If you were to continue the same thing in user space you would be blocked for disruptive editing (ie continual blatant canvassing). So the point of this Mfd is to delete a project that very much violates policy and the spirit of this wiki. -DJSasso (talk) 11:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll have to ask you to post a few (i.e. more than one) diffs that prove your claim that we "… quite vigorously have challenged that reference works don't matter." You might have noticed that I back up my statements with links (i.e. links that back up what I'm saying; not links that are totally irrelevant, like some others have done in the past). —   Who R you?  Talk 19:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec)Oh, please let him (User:Who R you?) continue his rant, or we'll be once again be accused of first amendment violations. Let him blaze his trail for 🇺🇸 and the English language. From the discussion above, it seems most people who have at least read through parts of the rants see this project for what it is, and are not fooled by the smokescreen arguments about policy adherence. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 06:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep: While I'm in broad agreement with the POV of this project's members, I haven't been interested in joining; such groups disturb me, and the blatant incivility of the project's creator isn't a selling point. And indeed, Wikipedia has no guarantees of "freedom of speech."  But I thank Buddy for mentioning the ARS, which is exactly the example I had in mind of an unabashed pressure group, comprised of a lot of folks blatantly pushing an agenda, many of whom don't hesitate to host vicious and uncivil "anti-deletionist" tirades on their talk pages.  No one is seriously proposing shutting ARS down.  We don't, of course, guarantee "freedom of speech."  Yet we must not lightly stamp it down, either.  Wikipedia thrives on the free flow of ideas ... not just the ideas you've already decided you approve, not just the interpretations of policies you've already decided you favor.  We ought to think hard, think twice, and think yet again before doing so ... and I'm just as disturbed by the fact that this is running along the party lines, with most of the same folk, as have been commenting in the recent diacriticals-related RfCs and RMs.  If this is indeed a war, as some of the Delete proponents claim, they seem just as willing to raise their weapons and blaze away.  Ravenswing  11:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * ARS is a very different project whose goal are to improve articles that are put up for deletion, there isn't really much POV pushing in that. Article improvement is the main purpose of the wiki and one of the reasons for Afd, to find problem articles and either improve them or delete them. Doesn't really seem like that is a parallel at all other than maybe there are a few people who go to far in it as well. This group is quite obviously about "rallying the troops" to all show up at RMs to overwhelm their opposition who aren't organized. Encouraging groups like this will lead to other groups on other points of views doing the same thing to other topics. It is completely counter to the collaborative environment that the wiki tries to create. I would also point out that you are pretty inaccurate about saying its most of the same folk form the previous diacritics discussions. Only 3 out of 15 (not counting nom) of the deletes are people that I have seen supporting using them, while 3 out of 4 of the keeps are people I have seen at them trying to remove them. So frankly the majority of this discussion is people who actually haven't been involved in the situation. There is even one who agrees with removing them generally but thinks the project is bad. So its not just people who like diacritics that think this project should be deleted. -DJSasso (talk) 11:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I !voted "Delete", but I'm not in the pro-diacriticals camp. I'm actually undecided on the issue, but a large part of me prefers to see article titles using common English spellings where they exist (ie without diacriticals). So no, my !vote was not based on any partisanship, but on my opinion that this project is too confrontational and will hinder rather than help get us towards a collaborative outcome -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete; Wikipedia is no place for political parties, and this is one (barely) masquerading as a project. Disclaimer: I'm very strongly opposed to removal of diacritics for the sake of removing them; but my opposition to this project is all about the "let's overwhelm discussions to get our way" attitude than the substantive matter.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess the basic difference of opinion is that I don't think that promoting the use of English in article titles should be treated some sort of partisan POV thing. It is not unusual that the diacritics targeted have no English-language use whatsoever. Kauffner (talk) 16:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And that right there is the POV. The opinion that diacritics have no English-language use whatsoever. About half the wiki in fact believes that diacritics do have an English-language use if we go by the last few RfCs on the matter. So this project is pushing one of the opinions on what is English. -DJSasso (talk) 16:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I meant that there are no published English-language examples of such spellings as Ľubomír Višňovský, Aleš Hemský, or Milan Jurčina. Kauffner (talk) 22:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Britannica 1911 used diacritics for foreign proper names, the current Britannica uses them (with the notable exception of Vietnamese), Encarta used them, and Wikipedia also uses them de facto (in the sense that roughly 4% of all article titles are foreign proper names that include a diacritic, whereas roughly 0% are foreign proper names with dropped diacritic). Dropping diacritics in foreign proper names has nothing to do with "using English", but it has a lot to do with technical restrictions (see AP style guide), inability to get diacritics right under a deadline when relying on sources that have dropped them (see New York Times style guide), simplistic ideas of the English language, xenophobia and anti-intellectualism. Hans Adler 17:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1911 Britannica says, LODZ (Lódź; more correctly Lodzia).. Our entry title is Łódź. Kauffner (talk) 22:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Just how'd you make up those numbers Hans? Did you read and analyze all 3.8 million articles, determine who had diacritics in their foreign spellings and compare them to WP; or did you just say what you thought people might believe? —   Who R you?  Talk 08:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hans, it's pretty disturbing to lump the AP and NY Times in with xenophobia and anti-intellectualism. I believe I understand your frustration, but the AP and NYT are acting intelligently. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 17:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You're confusing motives. The AP (and, to a similar extent) the NYT play by rules that date from the 70s where technical concerns made handling of diacritics in print a nightmare at best; that the Old Media [tongue firmly in cheek] has been glacial to adopt sufficiently modern technology to allay those difficulties comes as no surprise, that they are even slower to adapt their work methods to use the technology they do now have is just part for the conservative course. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coren (talk • contribs) 17:52, 16 November 2011
 * Do you have any reliable sources for your comments? I do not see how you can speak for these organizations. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 18:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Their style guide specifically say these things Alaney2k which is why he was referring to them. They explain the reasons for why they choose what they choose. His point above seems to me to be that saying "diacritics aren't English look at the sources" is incorrect because these news agencies (ie sources) admit that they aren't using them because of in the one case technical reasons and in the other case deadline reasons as opposed to it being the proper English way to do them. Either way this is getting way off the topic of this Mfd. -DJSasso (talk) 19:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Dj, I own a copy of the NY Times Style Guide, so please point out the page to me. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 19:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe its page 6 or something early on like that if I recall I don't have a copy on me at the moment. This came up in one of the previous discussions on the topic and someone listed the sections for a number of the various guides. I believe the quote is "type fonts often lack characters necessary for consistency". It mentions a number of languages where diacritics should actually be used, Italian, French, Spanish if I recall correctly. And that some of the Slavic languages not as much due to less familiarity for them and being error prone. But as I mention this discussion isn't about diacritics...its about this project which is violating some policies and a number of other things like the 5 Pillars so we shouldn't turn it into another diacritics debate. -DJSasso (talk) 19:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll take a look. Still, I don't think anyone should speak for their motives, etc. That is all just conjecture. Even if technical reasons are their reasons, it's still not stupid as has been ranted about. Why should an organization spend money on something that has not been demanded? Or provided/available? I don't know how well the full Unicode set is supported today, but not that long ago, (i.e. the past decade) fonts routinely omitted those outside the Apple or Windows character set (approximately). It's still a valid consideration, I believe. As we've noted, lots of characters used by Wikipedia itself require up-to-date software. (You still see the chars in boxes) I don't think it's fair to just sum it up as stupidity, and lump it with xenophobia. Absolutely, the discussion is about this group. It's dropped. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 20:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You are completely missing the point. The point was that there is a variety of reasons for sources not to use (some, or all) diacritics, and none of them has anything to do with them 'not being English'. I am prepared to believe that that's the impression that many editors get from the lack of diacritics in so many sources. After all, in one discussion even Jimbo said that in his opinion we should spell François Mitterrand as "Francois Mitterrand", which is absolutely ludicrous given the strong influence of French on English and how the most reliable sources take care to avoid this misspelling. So it is certainly possible for an educated English speaker to be led astray. But I am sure that these people who deliberately choose such a misspelling under the genuine misconception that it's the most proper English spelling do not account for a large percentage of diacritic dropping in reliable sources. Rather, most of it must be explained by one, sometimes several, of the reasons I listed. You can think of this as there being two writing systems for English, a full one with all common diacritics available, as used by academic publishers, reference works and other sources of the highest editorial quality. And a simplified one with just the 26 unadorned letters for informal publications and those which operate under technical or time constraints. Anyone in between must choose between the two, or find a suitable compromise between them. It's a matter of register (sociolinguistics). And just as we don't write part of an article in French (or in a specific variant of English that bears no inherent connection to the subject) just because the only available sources are in French, we also cannot make the register we use dependent on the register used by the majority of sources. Encyclopedias are written in the highest register, and this entails that words and names from the major foreign languages with Latin-based alphabets are spelled complete with all diacritics and modified letters. (Cum grano salis. I am not completely sure, but German ß may be an exception to this rule. Replacing it by ss is certainly more common/acceptable than replacing äö/ü by ae/oe/ue, which in turn is more common/acceptable than replacing them by a/o/u. I believe this is because these replacements are also pretty standard in German itself whenever there are technical difficulties.) When we rely on sources written in a lower register or operating under constraints that encourage diacritics-dropping, then raising foreign names to the correct spelling in the encyclopedic register is just one more common sense thing that we need to do, in the same way that we switch from a conversational tone to a more formal tone when rephrasing a source. Hans Adler 20:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I intended it to be dropped. ;-> I basically agree with you. However, I have to reject this idea of one correct spelling. I think that's a bit of an outdated concept too. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 22:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - This project is firmly rooted in Good Faith. The clearly stated purpose of the project is the concern for the proper naming of articles pursuant to established Wiki-policies. I support the ideal that established Wiki-policies, written through the consensus of editors, should be followed. And when I see this project that wants to help English Wikipedia uphold and enforce its core polices, then that is a project that I wish to openly support. Dolovis (talk) 17:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The purpose you |just altered prior to making this comment you mean? -DJSasso (talk) 17:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Not at all. The wording for the stated purpose of the project was, and still is, to "Ensure that article names conform to English Wikipedia policies". Dolovis (talk) 17:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes it does mention that further down... But the part you commented on appears to be the part you just added. -DJSasso (talk) 18:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Rubbish. Its obvious that you rushed your comment and made a mistake, so why don't you just be a gentleman and strike your comment. Dolovis (talk) 18:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * My comment still applies to what I was saying. You changed the wording of the mission on the page and then came here to say hey look everyone is getting it wrong. Still valid. -DJSasso (talk) 19:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * In fact Dolovis added the words "pursuant to the established Wiki-policy of WP:Article titles including WP:COMMONNAME" to the lede, accurately reflecting the fact that the first point, after the statement he modified leads to, is: "Ensure that article names conform to English Wikipedia policies", the third point is "… fail to meet current English Wikipedia policies and guidelines", the fifth point is "… seek uniform adherence to en.WP standards", the sixth point is "consensus on issues requiring policy amendment", the first subpoint of that refers to "policies and guildlines" (which should obviously read "guidelines"), and there is an entire page that deals specifically with the relevant sections of policy and guidelines pertaining to article naming. Perhaps he didn't reflect on how his actions might be twisted and used against him, but he certainly didn't make any changed that wasn't clearly spelled out in following statements.  The fact is, he fixed my foolish mistake of not recognizing that my words would be stripped down to out of context sentences and select words from the midst of a phrase; perhaps his wiki experiences have taught him to be a little less naive than I; but let's be clear that he didn't change anything save perhaps to ensure that every sentence I've written clearly states "we act in furtherance of existing WP policy". —   Who R you?  Talk 20:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The purpose is not to ensure that article names conform to English Wikipedia policies (and this is obvious even from the choice of project name). The purpose is to enforce one particular interpretation of policy. An interpretation that does not have consensus, and in fact if anything is in a minority when it comes to actual practice. It is therefore not enforcing policy, but enforcing one particular viewpoint. The stated purpose is simply not truthful, and the creator knows this. The project name shows this fact as it's not called "Wikiproject article titles" or similar, but Wikiproject English, reflecting the creators belief that spelling non-English names correctly will destroy the English language. --OpenFuture (talk) 02:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You and your buddies keep making the same claims that there is no consensus and that I'm only following one interpretation, and yet I keep providing word-for-word quotes of the policies and asking you to explain how it is that you're intepreting them and you never respond. I take that to mean that you can't figure out how to twist words like "… follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language …" to your purposes, and you know you'd look like a fool if you tried; so instead you use the common childish tactic of baseless accusation in the hopes that no one will consider your words too carefully.  The difference of course being, I know that the more people consider my words the more likely they are to agree.  But then that can't be done in a pithy one-liner. —   Who R you?  Talk 06:34, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * yet I keep providing word-for-word quotes of the policies and asking you to explain how it is that you're intepreting them and you never respond - "Poppycock", as seems to be the fashionable word for this. I have seen you get an answer about policy at least twice just in the last few days. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The only response I know of is DJSasso's statements at the RfC, with reference to ambiguity and error; which I've provided him with the linked dictionary definitions of the words he's using on two occasions and I haven't seen any response (mind you I haven't looked at that RfC conversation in a day (or even two). Since you claim this has been answered "at least twice just in the last few days", seeing as Wiki has a really neat diff function, and given that I must obviously have missed these two responses which you say you saw, how about you provide us with a diff on one (or both would be really cool) of these.  Alternatively, since it's just a few words, maybe you'd care to just answer the question here yourself.  —   Who R you?  Talk 08:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is one. And you replied to a similar statement here to which I replied here
 * You can not honestly claim to be ignorant about the alternative interpretations of policy. You also can not claim to be ignorant about the fact that this has been discussed a long time without reaching consensus. So please, don't claim you have consensus or policy unambiguously on your side. You know that such a claim is incorrect. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - talk is good and should be encouraged. Plus, there are clearly other pages (especially devoted to countries) where the editors back each other up to promote the country or delete criticism of it. As for OhConfucius, please be constructive and stop baiting people as I've seen you do on this and other pages. Malick78 (talk) 20:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. I do not have a very strong opinion on whether this page should be deleted or not. Of course, if it is kept it cannot run as what it was planned to be: A project for renaming a huge number of articles (roughly 4% of Wikipedia) to get them in line with a specific, faulty, interpretation of policy. Fighting against this massive status quo would contradict both one of the professed goals of the project ("Reduce the amount of unproductive time spent by all editors dealing with the constant rehashing of these issues") and the general principle that policy is descriptive, not prescriptive. I am willing to join that project and help make it a place where discussions about these misunderstandings of policy and the English language can be centralised. So far they have been spread over dozens of individual requested moves (and also some other places), resulting in a massive waste of time. I keep having to write the same explanations over and over in different places, and others have made the same observation. A WikiProject could help to solve this problem. I am sure that this is not what the initiator of this project and many of its supporters intended. I cannot single-handedly transform an anti-precision advocacy and canvasing project into something that conforms to the norms and spirit of Wikipedia, so if this page is kept I will need help from other editors with or without an opinion on the underlying questions. I would prefer that it is deleted, though, because this was a really bad start and I am not convinced that a WikiProject is the right approach anyway. (Compare the nearly moribund WP:WikiProject Rational Skepticism.) Hans Adler 20:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Changing to Mark as historical per Michael Bednarek's convincing "keep" rationale below. Hans Adler 14:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong delete. WikiProjects are not pressure groups. 'Pro' and 'anti' editors should not organise themselves as Wikiprojects in order to legitimise a particular general POV. When we have issues relating to editorial style these should be centrally debated in a properly focused manner. 'Pro' and 'anti' WikiProjects are just canvassing operations. -- Klein  zach  01:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment (Apologies to some for the length) – There's a common argument made here for deletion; to the effect of it seems like a single purpose project focused only on deleting diacritics.  My sense is that everyone in the project agrees that the most obvious circumstance, on en.WP, of intentionally naming articles contrary to policy and contrary to the RS (and what I'd define as contrary to English practice) is the apparent concerted effort to move articles away from their English spellings.  The fact is that the first page of this project was begun 14 days ago today; and it was "brought live" less than a week ago; during that time there have been no less than 6 ongoing RM discussions and an RfC regarding WP:Hockey's policy guidelines on diacritics (plus another diacritic related move discussion that was never even listed on the WikiProject pages), and this MfD; reality is that nothing in the project has had the benefit of time to progress beyond the single topic of the moves contrary to the RS, which all the project's members are highly offended by.

The list of ongoing RMs is no different from those at WP:HOCKEY, at WP:WikiProject Czech Republic/Article alerts, or WP:WikiProject Slovakia/Article alerts or any of the other places that might have such lists, save perhaps for the facts that we updated ours manually, it's more detailed, and it includes articles for which an RM discussion has not yet been started but which we believe are named contrary to the RS (which we then review, or at least the idea is that we review, to determine what the RS say on the topic).

As for WP:CANVASS, the pretty chart at the top says actions are appropriate if they are: in a scale of limited posting, AND neutral, AND to a nonpartisan audience, AND open and transparent. In terms of scale, I believe the only mention of the project I've ever made has been on my talk page and a couple of mentions on Kauffner's talk page during other conversations; the only public mentions have been Ohconfucius' mention here (to which I responded), and bobrayner's conversation about it which lead to this MfD nomination; I had intended on posting an invitation on the talk pages of everyone that had commented in recent diacritic discussions; but seeing as I was the only member up until 4 days ago, it seemed a little premature to begin widely inviting throngs of people to jump right in on a contentious topic; better to refine some of the pages a little first, or at least get that small group that was currently using the RM list to become members and to get a few logistical issues straightened out.

As to Neutral, it seems pretty clear that everyone argues we obviously aren't, and there's a certain truth to that; but then one must ask &apos;What is Neutral?&apos;; is WPrj:Czech, or WPrj:Slovakia, or WPrj:Poland, or WPrj:Anti-war, or WPrj:Anti-Vandalism? Neutrality sounds great, but it rarely (if ever) exists; so is the proper test the negative test from WP:CANVASS's chart; the not biased test; but their again, we are biased, we're biased towards consensus policy; I think we are all looking for article titles to follow the consensus policies on naming; not unlike our societies expect Judges to be biased... in favour of the law, personally I hope we fire those that aren't. Regarding whether of not the members of the group are biased against diacritics, well, I can honestly say that currently my read of the editors who have signed up is, one who thinks that they should likely all be removed (but I'd say that opinion has likely been hardened by wiki-drama), one who thinks they should be added regardless of the RS (and while I don't necessarily recall it being stated in past proposals, I trust that's only where they exist in the foreign language), and two members who believe that we should be following the English RS and that, if there isn't enough English RS to determine how something is spelled, it shouldn't have an article on en.WP (not without proof that English readers might be interested, and English RS is the only quantitative method I know of to determine that). And Calistemon, personally I feel you're quite welcome to join, particularly if you would like to see us follow RS and follow consensus policy, whatever the RS and policy are, and especially if you believe that policy change should come from development of good, clear, policy suggestions which has the majority consensus approval of editors, certainly regardless of the colour of your skin or linguistic background; on the other hand, if your POV is that we should ignore RS and decide each case on the best arguments of whomever can assemble the largest group of Wikipedians on their side (through whatever methods), I worry that it would cause friction if you argued within the Wikiproject for ignoring RS.

Then there's the criteria of nonpartisan, my interpretation would be that the fact that we don't always vote the same, that we've actually reverted each other's changes, that we've voiced support for alternate POVs from the rest of the group, and that our opinions can changed (where RS supports their changing), all demonstrate nonpartisan actions, despite the fact that we all do hold the same general belief that its up to RS to make the determination. And granted, I've called on people to vote, to add their opinions; but I think one would really have to stretch my words to say that I'm telling anyone how to vote or what their opinions are.

And finally there's that things happen transparently and in the open; I trust that only the most fervent of my critics would claim that I am, in any way, attempting to be stealthy, sneaky, or anything but completely in the open, and the same goes for the WikiProject I started. Most of you will have already noticed that Ohconfuscius has "joined" the WikiProject, and regardless of whether that isn't done solely for the purpose of antagonism, she and all editors have access to the pages, so long as it doesn't escalate to the level of vandalism or blatant harassment I personally don't even have a problem with her contributing. Obviously she's not going to convince me that treating diacritics as anything other than foreign is a good or right thing for an English encyclopedia any more than I'm going to convince her that we are right to drop them; but then that's part of why I don't think that Wikipedians are the ones to be making the call. Regardless we are generally within the boundaries of WP:CANVASS, and where we aren't, few WikiProjects are. —  Who R you?  Talk 02:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You say the group is open to anyone and yet you indicate those who disagree with you will be ignored if they join your group. Funny how you are back peddling now that you have been caught in your efforts to create a partisan group to push your POV. The WikiProject is clearly not neutral or non-partisan. It fails in both aspects by a long shot. And you really need to stop writing walls of text, they stifle discussion. Your comments are pretty much the epitome of tl:dr. -DJSasso (talk) 03:05, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've no doubt, if this WikiProject 'somehow' survives this MFD, many pro-dios editors will fill the membership ranks - in order to neutralize it. GoodDay (talk) 06:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Since the name is non-neutral that would require a re-naming. And since there is no consensus on what the policy is on article titles, it's impossible to have a project with the aim of enforcing policy. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - project as it currently stands is contrary to numerous en.wiki policies. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Really? Which ones? Dolovis (talk) 17:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:CANVASS, WP:BATTLE, WP:SOAPBOX...I could go on. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - I'm not especially convinced, reading through this thread, that this project is actually facilitating the improvement of Wikipedia. In fact, what I see this project facilitating is the enforcement of a particular set of English-language naming conventions that have not reached consensus, and creating a great deal of unnecessary divisiveness.  To respond to part of Who R you's most recent filibustery diatribe, he defines "neutral" in such a vague way so as to legitimize the actions of editors in the project by claiming that no one can really be neutral.  I agree that we may have biases we are unaware of when editing, but the group has deliberately and repeatedly gone out of its way to enforce a particular view of English language convention on Wikipedia.  There is a world of difference, and this is just about as far away from neutral as you can get. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 06:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I wish I understood some of the languages of the countries that use diacritics. I'd like to see how Swedish, Finnish & French Wikipedia editors would react, if I tried to force the removal of diacritics from their Wikipedias - In the way that some editors are forcing the usage of diacritics on English Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 06:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? Do you think the Swedish Wikipedia goes around and adds diacritics to English names, like "Bårack Öbäma"? Don't be silly. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Would there be much of a resistance if they did? GoodDay (talk) 07:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * They don't, and the idea is so stupid that it's not on the cards, so there is no question of "resistance". It's like asking what would happen if everyone in Germany would change their name to Adolf Hitler. It's so outlandish that it's impossible to even seriously ponder. And note that this is not an adjustment of pronunciations. English Wikipedia do not change Ingrid Bergman to Ingrid Bearjmahn, which is as close as I could get English spelling to pronounce it like Swedes do. You just strip diacritics. That would be like randomly adding diacritics to English names. As such the equivalent of stripping diacritics would not make Hannah Montana into "Häna Måntäna" (pronounced roughly like Americans pronounce Hannah Montana) but "Hånnah Mäntana" (roughly Honnah Mehntahna). What would the purpose be of that? The idea is beyond comprehension. Nobody in Sweden would even have such a nonsense idea, only English-speakers would have such an idea. (Notable here is UK metal band Trojan, who decided to add umlauts to their O, making the band name into Tröjan, which is Swedish for "the sweater". Also notable is that both Motörhead and Blue Öyster Cult has diacritics in their article names.) --OpenFuture (talk) 08:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * We 'english only' readers, tend to find the diacritics annoying. GoodDay (talk) 08:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I doubt that. You might find them annoying, but I don't think people in general do, even if they speak only English. The popularity of adding umlauts to band names as per above indicates that you in fact find diacritics exotic and cool. Unless of course you want to claim that Motörhead fans and in general highly educated and multi-lingual. ;-) But in any case, Wikipedia does not aim itself to English-only speakers. It aims itself towards everyone who speaks English. And since many native English speakers also learn languages like Spanish or French, and since the number of people speaking English as a second language vastly outnumber those who speak it as a first language, adapting the site purely to English-only speakers seems like a really bad idea. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Bad idea? This is the english language Wikipedia, not the multiple language Wikipedia. Myself & Jimbo are in agreement, 'mother tongue' pride is part of what's pushing dios. GoodDay (talk) 08:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * But it's not "Wikipedia for uneducated people who pretend there are no other languages". You and Jimbo are hardly in agreement on that point. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:34, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This is English Wikipedia, though. Let the French Wikipedia handle the French language, the Swedish Wikipedia handle the Swedish language, the Finnish Wikipedia handle the Finnish language; etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 08:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You are implying that English and all of its lexicon is independent from conventions in other languages. It isn't.  I would prefer we handle English how it is actually used and not some bizzaro-world English you seem to enjoy imposing. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 09:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Well, since you're a native English speaker and you attend University here in an English country, you'll obviously be able to provide us with one or two examples of the English words that demonstrate that the "&thinsp; Ľ &thinsp;", "&thinsp; í &thinsp;", "&thinsp; š &thinsp;", "&thinsp; ň &thinsp;", "&thinsp; ý &thinsp;", are part of the English language, as OpenFuture and 10 others are currently arguing in the RM for Ľubomír Višňovský. And then once you provide those basic examples the whole issue will be resolved, because you'll have demonstrated that these are the letters and symbols that make up the English alphabet.  I'll look for your post and I do hope you'll include the OED or MW link because I'd certain love the opportunity to study and learn these words.  Cheers —   Who R you?  Talk 12:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * @GoodDay: It astonishes me how many times I need to repeat this, yet it still doesn't seem to sink in: "Bjorn Borg" is not English. It's misspelled Swedish. Björn Borg is Swedish, and his name is Swedish and it means "Bear Fortress". If you are to purge English Wikipedia of foreign languages, you need to change all references to Björn Borg on English Wikipedia into "Bear Fortress", or delete all mentions of the man. That standpoint is of course patently absurd, so your requirement to let the Swedish Wikipedia handle the Swedish language and the English Wikipedia handle only English language is on the same level as Swedes adding random, confusing and misleading diacritics to all English names. Stop this absurd silliness, it's not getting you anywhere and is just a wast of time.
 * The English Wikipedia will have to handle the fact that non-English people exists, and that they have non-English names. I also have a hard time believing that I had to say that. This discussion is just getting more absurd by the day. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yet another indication of your total lack of comprehension of English society and North American culture. Motorhead is a heavy metal rock band, as such, their goal is to, as much as possible stur up shit and piss people off, it's a heavy metal thing.  Our heavy metal bands wear devil's horns because OUR SOCIETY DOESN'T, our heavy metal bands bite the heads off of doves because WE DON'T DO THAT IN OUR SOCIETY, our heavy metal rock bands dress up in unbelievable outfits because NO ONE ELSE IN OUR SOCIETY EVER WOULD, our heavy metal rock bands use umlauts because OUR FUCKING LANGUAGE DOESN'T.  Rather that coming up with trademarks, which are not words (unless you'd care to provide the link to dictionary entry for Motörhead).  Try going to the dictionary, the English big book of words, and look up all the words with the umlauts, and when you see "Führer", look in the column next to the word where it says English spelling: "Fuehrer" and then look up "Götterdämmerung" and look at the words that say English spelling: "Goetterdaemmerung", and then look up "Café" and see where is says Alternate spelling of "Cafe" and then look up "Façade" and read the part where it says See also "Facade" and then begin to get it through your head that foreign languages don't tell the English people how to spell things, English people decide how they want to spell words that they take from foreign languages.  And then go through the dictionary and come up with your list of words that use an umlaut where the word isn't just the untranslated non-English and then come up with a list of words in the English dictionary that use Slavic diacritics, like the caron, or the acute accent over the "y" or that replace the dot in the "i" with and acute accent or and accent grave or the words in the English dictionary that have an acute accent over the "c" and all the other Slavic letter that you are arguing in RMs are used in English.  It's like trying to explain to a four-year-old why pink elephants can't fly. —   Who R you?  Talk 12:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

But generally, as a rule in future, I will simply take all information from that source with a grain of salt. And in order to have accurate knowledge on the subject, I'll look up cafe and café as well as facade and façade on Princeton University's WordNet&thinsp;3.1 on-line dictionary as a sort of tie-breaker on the issue. —  Who R you?  Talk 06:34, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This thread has moved a long way from the discussion of whether the project page should be deleted. That's the question here; we are not attempting to resolve the diacritics debate in this discussion. PS: User:Who R you? could you cut out the shit, piss and fuck? It doesn't help your case in the slightest but does make the atmosphere here less pleasant. Kim Dent-Brown  (Talk)  12:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Reality check: Just because others who you disagree with make points by pointing out what real-life English reference works do doesn't mean it's a good strategy to make up such arguments out of thin air. The problem with that is that it's too easy for others to prove that you are simply totally wrong. The following are all entries from the online version of the Oxford English Dictionary
 * führer:(also fuehrer) 'noun' a tyrannical leader
 * Götterdämmerung:(in Germanic mythology) the downfall of the gods
 * cafe:(also café) noun [...]
 * facade:(also façade) noun [...]
 * If you enter "fuehrer" into the search form you are directed to the "führer" entry with "(also fuehrer)". If you enter "goetterdaemmerung", you are asked: "Did you mean götterdämmerung?" Also note how the word führer has advanced further on its path to full naturalisation than the word Götterdämmerung. Both words are capitalised in German. While Götterdämmerung is still capitalised in English according to the OED and, according to the OED, cannot be spelled with the usual ö->oe, ä->ae replacements, führer is already spelled with a small initial even though it retains the umlaut, and the usual ü->ue is apparently more standard for this word. The simplistic "just drop the silly foreignness" spellings "fuhrer" and "gotterdammerung" are just wrong in both cases. As to the spellings "café" and "façade", they are treated in precisely the same way as the spelling "fuehrer".
 * Merriam-Webster's online dictionary gives basically the same results, except that for that dictionary "café", not "cafe", is the preferred spelling.
 * These things are in flux, and different dictionaries treat all these words differently based on where they are based, their main market, editorial principles, how old they are, and various accidents. Only one thing is sure, and is stated explicitly in a high-quality reliable source (the Oxford Companion to the English Language): The idea that English doesn't use diacritics is a misconception. English uses them today in imported words from various foreign languages, and it used to use them as a trema in words such as coöperation. Hans Adler 12:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Obviously I made a minor mistake in failing to properly review every point of my source for my comments. I will be sure to future to thoroughly double-check independent sources should I ever again be provided with a claim of fact from Hans Adler; such as the implied standard English spelling of "Führer"/"Fuehrer" and the theretofore unheard of "Götterdämmerung"/"Goetterdaemmerung".  A review of two of my earlier posts to Hans had explained why the common English spelling is "Führer" and had briefly mentioned "café" and "façade".  For example, should I receive a claim from Hans Adler that if one uses OED online to look up “ the spellings "café" and "façade", they are treated in precisely the same way as the spelling "fuehrer". ” ; (that immediately following an accurate statement that searching "fuehrer" returns the foreign spelling "führer", then I will be sure to verify the results of that unreliable source, and I will look up café on OED online and look up façade on OED online so that I can be fully cognisant of the fact that those entries return " cafe Pronunciation: /ˈkafeɪ, ˈkafi/ (also café) " and " facade Pronunciation: /fəˈsɑːd/ (also façade) " respectively.
 * Thanks for providing the OED links (I wasn't sure if they would work outside my university) and the WordNet links. Is there any particular reason why you didn't also link to the OED's führer and Götterdämmerung entries? As to Princeton WordNet, that has precisely the kind of technical limitations which lead many other reliable sources to drop diacritics. When you enter "café" in the search form, you get the following: "Sorry, your search can only contain letters, numbers, spaces, hyphens, periods, slashes, and/or apostrophes." Of course, é and ç are letters, but outdated technologies can't deal with them, so they have to be replaced by e and c. Wikipedia is not operating under this constraint, so we undo this where appropriate. Besides, WordNet is not meant to be used as a general-purpose dictionary. It is a database of connections between words, which is why it has dropped many of the most common words (of, an, the, and, about, above, because, ...) and does not even contain relatively obscure words such as Götterdämmerung and führer. There is no way you can use this as a tie-breaker on whether to use diacritics for these words. The mere concept of a tie-breaker doesn't make sense for your original claim anyway. You claimed that English words never contain diacritics. To refute this, it is perfectly sufficient and satisfactory that the online OED accepts the diacritic spellings of 3 of your 4 example words as correct (in one case as a variant spelling, in one case as the preferred spelling, and in one case as the only spelling). Hans Adler 08:43, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I didn't provide the links because I had instead identified an occasion where you had made an accurate statement. Re: Princeton, I take it that they don't consider any English to contain diacritics; I take it you think that for their latest (2006+) version, they hadn't heard of Unicode; since neither of us has a source, I'd say the point is moot.  As for your example of where Oxford inexplicably lists a foreign language word in the English dictionary, their inclusion of the German proper noun Götterdämmerung Origin: German, literally 'twilight of the gods', popularized by Wagner's use of the word as the title of the last opera of the Ring cycle only leads me to question the security and reliability of their on-line dictionary; personally, I don't generally consider German proper nouns to represent part of the English language. —   Who R you?  Talk 03:21, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "I take it you think that for their latest (2006+) version, they hadn't heard of Unicode". -- Wrong. I think that WordNet has two purposes ("The purpose is twofold: to produce a combination of dictionary and thesaurus that is more intuitively usable, and to support automatic text analysis and artificial intelligence applications."), that for the first purpose they consider dropping all diacritics to be acceptable because Americans tend to be very sloppy about this anyway, and for the second purpose it's a vast simplification for the various (often small) text analysis projects when they needn't care about different forms of encoding. Besides, we don't know whether the current version can handle Unicode. We just know that the huge database hasn't been updated to make use of it.
 * "I don't generally consider German proper nouns to represent part of the English language". -- Yes, it has become pretty clear by now that you have a lot of misconceptions about the English language and no interest in having them corrected. In this particular case, the word actually seems to be quite fashionable in English. I have occasionally seen it in contexts where nobody would dream of using it in German.
 * "[...] only leads me to question the security and reliability of their on-line dictionary" -- If you don't trust the OED's online offering, why don't you try Merriam-Webster's on your four test words? I have done so, and I can promise you that you will like the result even less. Hans Adler 13:20, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * ROFL, now Who R U claims that Motörhead uses umlauts not because they thought they were cool, but to intentionally irate and "stir up shit". Hah! That's a pretty lame claim. It also goes completely against the facts of the matter. No-one added metal umlauts to "piss people off" (the number of people getting pissed off by umlauts are probably very close to three), but to make it look wagnerian/germanic/tough. As mentioned, this debate is just getting sillier and sillier with arguments for stripping the diacritics getting more and more desperate. The argument that is somehow is hard for people that only speak English to mentally ignore the diacritics is equally nonsense. In fact it is the other way around, it's hard for me as a Swedish person to ignore the diacritics that exist in Swedish. As such, I tend to mispronounce Blue Öyster Cult (and coöperate), even though I know that the diaeresis doesn't mean that I should pronounce it "Euh" as Ö is pronounced in Swedish. Hence it's rather harder for us multi-lingual people than those who only speak English, who simply do not know that the pronunciation should change, and hence simply ignores them, usually from ignorance assuming they are irrelevant. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's right OpenFuture, you obviously fully understand that we 80s head-bangers were contemplating the Wagnerian look of the name and viewed the losers of WWII as our tough role models. It couldn't have been that selecting a foreign, non-English symbol, the umlaut, symbol of our parents enemies during the war, what they fought, killed, and died to destroy, that we thought that it would piss them off that the heavy metal that we blared contained a symbol that represented that which they at one time despised.  No, you're right of course; we teenagers were contemplating the Wagnerian influence and wanted to follow in the footsteps of those tough losers that surrendered.  You obviously understand North American culture perfectly from over their in Sweden.  You use the right expression for once at least, "Hah!". —   Who R you?  Talk 06:34, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Firstly, this is mostly the 70's and lastly, I don't have to understand what they were contemplating, since I have their own words for it. Reasonably *they* knew what they were thinking much better than you or I do. And unless you were in Mötley Crue, Mötorhead or Blue Öyster Cult, "we" is inappropriate. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Motorhead – started '75, became popular in North America in the '80s, when I was one of the "we" head-bangers (never expected that my statement could realistically be taken as an implication of being in the band); I explained the difference between trademarks and words in another post. And regardless, bands, of any caliber, are not who we English typically look to for determination of our spelling and language. —   Who R you?  Talk 02:51, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * OpenFuture (and anyone tempted to reply here) - please can we leave this subthread here and not extend it further? This page is to discuss whether or not the project page should be deleted, nothing more. It's not the place to continue the diacritic debate. <font face="century gothic" color="#0E6E2D">Kim Dent-Brown  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0E6E2D">(Talk)  13:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

It begins to become hard to believe that the Wikipedia servers are situated in North America, as one might expect that they might simply explode from such totalitarian, socialistic attitudes; spontaneously combusting merely from being resident in the birth country of democracy while such offensive attitudes and abuses of the basic concepts of justice and reason are perpetrated; all in public no less. Many of the attitudes would appear to be more approriate for servers 120 miles south-east in communist Cuba or a similarly socially corrupt, justice challenged, tyrannical bastion of repression and corruption. —  Who R you?  Talk 06:34, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hans, I pretty much agree with all your arguments above. Trouble is, this is not a page for resolving the diacritics debate. It's about should a specific project page be deleted. Could you, or anyone tempted to reply to your comment above, stop this interesting discussion here and can we get back to the MfD discussion? <font face="century gothic" color="#0E6E2D">Kim Dent-Brown  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0E6E2D">(Talk)  12:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I must say that this is a pretty novel, very wiki approach. Having already decided and rendered your opinion, you wait two days while a good 100 off topic comments are made until two sets of wild claims are made; then, when some sort of support for those claims is demanded, by those who are forced to defend themselves against vague accusations, which the people who oppose our pro-policy view state they find suspect, you, having already decided against the defence, restate your bias, and then appoint yourself as judge to mediate the conversations and direct that responses be limited to... then you refuse to identify as to what they should be limited to other than anything else the defence would like to say for itself.

P.S. And I'll read Hans' post at that time as well.
 * Sorry for having responded to this silliness. Maybe I should react in the spirit of WP:DFTT instead. But the problem is that the anti-precision warriors are spreading the dispute all over the encyclopedia, repeating their faulty arguments (which they must know are faulty because I and others keep refuting them with posts similar to the one above) ever and ever again. Unfortunately some of these arguments look reasonable unless you know a bit about how language works or dig a bit deeper, and they are also attractive for ideological reasons to a certain type of educated editor who should really know better. Therefore not contradicting the Pied Piper wherever he goes may lead to more disruption in the long run. Hans Adler 12:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course I provide diffs of (almost all) statements that I attribute to others; Hans makes accusations about things happening all over the encyclopedia. I guess it starts to come down to whose claims you believe, once you start checking the evidence that is presented to you, and which statements you recognize can't be trusted because other claims have already been disproved.  But then it really depends if you consider it witty or juvenile to opt to call somebody names with a link rather than providing proof with one. —   Who R you?  Talk 06:34, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) If you have any questions that you don't think I've commented on then please ask away and I'll try to answer them. But the fact is that I mostly seem to be seeing more posts from the 'pro-diacritic' editors still arguing their case so its hard not to respond when I'm the only one admonished for going off track, if I have.  I'll be happy to try to answer your questions or explain more specifically what you'd like to know, if you'd care to ask, when I log in again; but for now I've been, along with posting here, reviewing (and a couple comments) at the RM discussions in order to try to present some facts.  Other than that, I've explained what the purpose of the Project is, you're able to review all the posts in the last two weeks since the first page was first started and you can see that the only argument has ever been to follow policy which is follow the RS.  And if you'd care to look you can look at the past RMs and see that is not what has been happening.  I'm not sure what more argument I can provide to assist you to see what you are currently unable to see.  So you'll have some time to think of any questions then later today I'll take some time to try to provide answers. —   Who R you?  Talk 13:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You've made your position very clear and I personally have no further questions that would affect my view on whether or not the project page should be deleted. If you (or anyone else) has further contributions on that topic let's hear them. But let's not re-hash the diacritics debate here. As you'll see, at the moment I'm trying to ask every contributor (not just you) to stick to the limited task of the MfD discussion. <font face="century gothic" color="#0E6E2D">Kim Dent-Brown  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0E6E2D">(Talk)  13:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) @Jethrobot: Since you define following the RS as a POV; and seeing as you're a University man, given that you say "… gone out of its way to enforce a particular view of English language convention", and given that I've listed the relevant sections of policy up above, how about you use your powerful insight, and obviously much better grasp of the English language, to explain it to me. Please, it shouldn't be that difficult to go through 10 or 12 sentences and list the words that are contained in the policy and then provide a clearer explanation, since according to you there is another POV, and presumably another way to interpret the words, please list the words and then provide the alternate interpretation of them.  I'm particularly interested in the interpretation that says, where the English RS says do not use diacritics, WP editors should vote to arrive at a consensus of what they think the RS should have said and then should use that.  I'll be looking forward to reading something clear and specific like that when I sign back on.  Thx —   Who R you?  Talk 12:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * @Jethrobot: please could I ask you not to respond to this here? User:Who R you?, sorry to cut across you but your question above is not relevant to the discussion about whether or not the project page should be deleted. It is of course a relevant question in the diacritics debate but that's not what this page is here to resolve. Can we all stay on track and just discuss the MfD here? <font face="century gothic" color="#0E6E2D">Kim Dent-Brown  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0E6E2D">(Talk)  13:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

&bull; &bull; Krm500 - Member of WP:Sweden (don't know if that means they're Swedish), of WP:Hockey and, according to the edit history creator of the WP:Hockey participants page in 2006; &bull; Darwinek - Presumably Polish from the Polish babel tag and member of WikiProject:Czech Republic; &bull; Sporti - Member of WP:Hockey &bull; Prolog - According to their user page, an editor and administrator from Finland &bull; DJSasso - Canadian, an en.WP admin, simple.WP 'crat, and, according to the user box, a member of the "Ice Hockey Mafia Gang" &bull; Stefan2 - User doesn't say much about themself on en.WP; their primary WP user id appears to be Stefan2 on Swedish Wikipedia &bull; Nurmsook - a Canadian member of WP:Hockey &bull; bobrayner - Doesn't provide much relevant information other than the fact that they're a wiki ambassador. &bull; OpenFuture - The only relevant information is that they appear to be Swedish and to have participated in one past diacritics discussion. &bull; Ohconfuscius - past identified herself as from Hong Kong, (10 yrs [if memory serves]) in Britian, and currently living in the Czech Republic; she most recently (tongue in cheek) identifies as from the United Nations; responsible for having introduced a diacritics proposal in the summer of 2011 which failed to gain consensus support.
 * Statement – I was going to respond yesterday to Kleinzach's comments (regarding editorial style issues being centrally debated in a properly focused manner); but since the statement is primarily just referenced, documented fact, (as tends to be the case with most of my statements which aren't obvious opinion), I'll just let the facts stand on their own:
 * And those centralized debates have taken place, many times, and they have never had consensus to change existing policy and start adding diacritics where the preponderance of English RS do not use them. So instead of having discussions to change policy, groups of editors (who have no activity on the article) begin RMs so now the same debates occur in relative privacy, on the individual article talk pages, these RMs are listed in projects like Project:Hockey, Project:Czech Republic, Project:Croatia and Project:Slovakia; and suddenly groups of editors who identify themselves as being from the Czech Republic, Croatia, Slovakia, and/or Poland (all countries where names commonly use diacritics), or editors who are members of WP:Hockey, appear at these RMs to support ignoring RS and moving the articles to diacritic forms.   You just don't seem to recognize that the 'pro' side has realized that the consensus of editors doesn't support the use of diacritics, so why bother with consensus or policy when you can hijack an RM.   Take the current RM going on at Ľubomír Višňovský; Google reports 74 news sources and 115 books spell the name as "Lubomir Visnovsky", not one spells it the way Wikipedia does, 11 editors currently oppose the move to match RS; they are:

Despite all assumptions, I have no problem with non-English country editors, or ESL editors, or non-English or ESL people, on the contrary I try to be a very unbiased person; but, I do have a problem with it when a group of non-native English speakers resident in non-English countries insist that they know the standards, customs, and practices regarding the English language and that they are going to dictate them to the rest of us because they know the truth and they know what is right; and to have all these people involved, not in a diacritics discussion at the WP:EN talk page where an RfC has drawn opinions from all editors, but on a single article talk page RM discussion, insisting that an article (which doesn't have RS for anything other than the English [sans diacritic] spelling) should contain diacritics, while claiming that the fact that other articles names contain diacritics (as a result of RM discussions such as this one where gangs of editors decent upon the RM discussion) proves that there is no consensus, despite the fact that the only thing that hasn't had consensus has been the proposals to adopt the use of diacritics. It is a total subversion of the process. And the fact is that a small group of editors, in favour of the English spelling of the article titles as determined by the preponderance of English RS, being argued as representing a violation of Wiki policy, is quite simply offensive. If there is an argument to be made, it is that we are compelled to IAR in order to combat other groups WP:GAMING the system to work around the existing consensus of en.WP editors as a whole, and to work around their inability to convince editors to change existing policy.
 * The reality is that the system has been being gamed by the pro-diacritic side of the argument for a long time. WP:IAR trumps some vague they're daring to talk in the open in support of the English language and existing consensus accusations and double-speak from those (majority non-native English speakers) that would dictate how English is spelled and what letters the English alphabet should be expanded to include (or, as they would argue, has previously been expanded to include).  Those of us who dare to speak our minds in support of our own language are repeatedly attacked (Such as being called xenophobic at Talk:Marek Zidlicky, and, of course, several times in this discussion) but since those of us who have the audacity to stand up for what we know to be right, and who dare to read simple English policy statements as they are written, are not children who must scream NPA!, NPA! everytime someone calls us a bad word, we just the take the snide comments, which we would be repeatedly accused for, were we to act equally.
 * The statements of policy are listed here in clear words and the historical proof that our actions have always reflected a goal of following the sources are pretty clearly documented here. If you need more proof you need only review some of the RM discussions, present and past, to know that our arguments have always been against Wikipedians (in many case ESL editors) deciding what the most common English names for things are when directly opposed by the English sources.
 * If, in the alternative, you're going to argue that it doesn't matter what consensus and written policy state, that the pro-diacritic groups have been effective and successful in achieving their fait accompli conversion to non-English (as I would describe it) and, as some of the pro side have argued, that the policies do not prescribe action merely describe reality, then reality is that numerous voting-block groups already exist throughout Wikipedia, they are particularly and consistently active in all discussions involving diacritics, and they heavily and unevenly and unrepresentatively of consensus influence the admin's decisions in diacritics involved RM discussions; and, while I've already made it clear that the purpose of the WikiProject is to seek to ensure that names on en.WP reflect the most common English spelling (which is what our readers are looking for and expect to find), that since it is continually implied (and occasionally outright stated) where I am called a liar, I must then simply argue that WP:CANVASS is descriptive, not prescriptive, that it is common wiki practice for corruption, unfair manipulation of consensus opinion, unrepresentative responses in discussions, and for other groups to secretly conduct their affairs in the shadows through email and IRC, and it is, in fact, preferable that any communications which are going to take place continue to be made in the light of day, which is something I personally have always insisted upon. If you're going to disband the WikiProject, how long will you wait before beginning to decide that none of the former members of that dead project are permitted to state an opinion in the same RM, because otherwise it'd look pretty foolish to have gone to all this trouble to take an action which has no effect except to ensure that no one has any idea what is going on; which will simply create an environment of additional accusations beyond those that already occur on a continual basis.  Since history is often humanity's best possible teacher, I guess I must ask: What happened in the past when Solidarity stood against other Communist regimes? —   Who R you?  Talk 06:34, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Communists..? Seriously? --Conti|✉ 15:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I certainly wouldn't call democratic an environment where a small group of elite Admins, appoint each other, are scrutinized only by their own, lobby to recruit friends to cement their influence, then decide their interpretation of consensus and implement their agenda unless some other faction wishes to disrupt the harmony. The most apropos historical correlation I find on those aspects is the old USSR.  I support efforts to work cooperatively to freely provide information and knowledge to all; don't believe controlling knowledge should be about profit; but there's nothing democratic about WP's processes. —   Who R you?  Talk 08:15, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete, because Wikiprojects are not and should not be lobby groups (and just for the record, I would oppose Wikiproject:Ënglĩsħ as well). --Conti|✉ 15:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete/Close and Mark Historical. It seems clear that the project exists to ensure that more of its editors comment on diacritic issues/move requests/AFD debates than other editors, in an effort to ensure that the project's preferred outcome takes place. It is also clear that the project canvasses and discourages editors who have contrary opinions. It is clear that a battleground mentality exists among its members, most prominently the project creator, User:Who R you?. What cinched it for me was the fact that many of these behaviors took place on this very page, during this debate. Subtle it ain't. It's precisely that us vs. them mentality that saw other wikiprojects shut down over the years - it does nothing but contribute heat to the debate, where light would be of more value. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 15:09, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Clearly a POV project, made worse by the obvious suggestion that Wikipedians from English-speaking countries all support it and that those who oppose it are clearly "foreigners", which (speaking as a Wikipedian from England who speaks no language other than English) is patent rubbish. We do not need a self-appointed project which claims to be concerned with making sure Wikipedia conforms with guidelines and policies, especially when its creator and several of its members have already made it perfectly plain in previous discussions elsewhere that they consider their POV to be the only correct one and are happy to hurl abuse at anyone who disagrees with them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not opposed in principle to a Wikiproject on this topic, but this one is for canvassing and battleground mentality, of which we need none. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 16:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: If you are not opposed to the principle of this Wikiproject, then why would you want to delete it? To state your assumption that this project, which is in its infancy, will be used for canvassing and battleground mentality is contrary to the core guideline of Assume Good Faith. Give the project a chance before you condemn it. Dolovis (talk) 05:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * We don't keep things just because they have good ideas: if they're irredeemable, which this iteration of this principle is, then we delete them. Nyttend (talk) 14:07, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * To piggyback on that: When it's gone as horribly wrong as this one has, it's best to kill it and start over rather than try to fix. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:05, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * AGF is not a suicide pact. One is expected only to make the assumption of good faith when they lack evidence to the contrary.  There are numerous comments in this very MFD, nevermind the project's own pages, which I highlighted in the nomination, that reveal the true intention of this project. Resolute 16:59, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per Ultraexactzz and Heimstern. This isn't a WikiProject in the proper (collaborative, neutral) sense of the word and it seems to be a clear case of "more heat than light." --Philosopher Let us reason together. 20:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: Very obvious that this project was created in bad faith as a way to canvass the diacritic opposition, which really is disappointing. I believe the project's creator, User:Who R you?, has made that evidently clear here. For some reason my username has been brought up twice in this discussion as being part of the "I don't like it" contingent in terms of removing diacritics. Well, that couldn't be further from the truth and it's disappointing to see a user assault another in that way. Further, User:Who R you? seems to think anyone not from an English-speaking country doesn't know how English works and shouldn't have a say in how it is used on the English Wikipedia. Frankly, that is just ridiculous to see and certainly goes against the spirit of Wikipedia. It's too bad that the diacritics debate has turned into such a malicious debate, and sadly it always seems to be the anti-diacritics side that uses these methods to game the system. Alas, just another ploy in a debate that will never see a conclusion. – Nurmsook!  <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk...  20:53, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, Nurmsook, that's because you're part of the nefarious WP:HOCKEY. Because it's one of the few places that has cobbled together a semi-workable compromise on the use of diacritics, its members are apparently "pro-diacritic" by default.  Cjmclark (Contact) 21:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The moves are happening regardless, they're just happening generally without RMs and they're all going towards diacritics (except for the few that mostly members of this WikiProject were involved in). I said in the RfC; personally I wish consensus were simply no diacritic related moves unless documentation of RS is provided, in which case the move is to whatever the RS says. I guess some are either in this for the fun of arguing or they realize that RS don't support most of their moves. —  Who R you?  Talk 07:59, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - this is supposed to be a place to discuss the deletion of a page, but in fact it's a discussion about the behavior of editors. There are other venues for discussing behavior, and deleting the page will not change the behavior the troubles some of those who have weighed in here.  Given the scope this is probably something that should be arbitrated; if ArbCom doesn't like the behavior, let them delete the project pages if they see fit.--~TPW 21:53, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This WikiProject just got started. Deleting it now is akin to aborting the fetus after two weeks of gestation because one somehow *knows* it will grow up to be a Stalinist who spreads dangerous and subversive thought. The proper thing to do here, rather than declare that the objective of the WikiProject is subversive to all that is good and holy about the English language is to see if it gains a following. If the message point of the WikiProject—as the proponents of deleting it seem sure of—isn’t appealing and the project doesn’t gain much if any traction after several months (as measured by members signing on), then is the proper time to clean house of something that just takes up space and is underserving of the nobility the name “WikiProject” confers upon it. But trying to silence something by burning down their meeting place before it has a chance of gaining adherents merely betrays fear of the WikiProject’s message and exposes the underlying motive: to silence unpopular thought before it can spread. So, chill out and see if User:Who R you? can get anywhere with this. Someone who !voted “delete”, above, wrote that the WikiProject discourages editors who have contrary opinions. Fuuuuny stuff, that. And the proper remedy in that editor’s mind is to close down a WikiProject that might gain adherents who advocate English-language practices that are contrary to his. I’ve long held that the proper response to *bad* speech is *better* speech; it’s a lesson some here clearly have yet to learn. Greg L (talk) 03:28, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete We should be discouraging the addition or removal of diacritics except in obvious cases, not facilitating it. The opposition to changes normally is when it is not obvious whether there is a sufficiently widely used English language form without diacritics. (my own preference, by the way, is to omit diacritics whenever possible, but that is irrelevant--if we go by individual preferences, a solution is hopeless. The fact is that changing them is causing a diversion of resources that could be used more effectively in improving Wikipedia where we really need it.  DGG ( talk ) 06:14, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The project is a collaborative counter to countless moves to diacritics made on the unreferenced whims of an editor; when one believes that the RS should make the determinations, it's impossible not to look at an article, verify the references and check the RS, see that the RS don't support diacritics, and then ignore what you know to be wrong. An RM currently exists for Dominik Halmosi and 9 others to be moved to diacritics (in a situation where there is either little or no RS and the notability of all of them, some even in their home countries, seems questionable), and a single RM exists for Ľubomír Višňovský where 11 people oppose the move even though there are 74 news and 115 book sources that spell it without diacritics and not one English source that spells it with.


 * Delete The idea is good, but when the whole point of a group is to engage in conflict (WP:CVU aside), it does not belong, period. Nyttend (talk) 14:05, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow! What a misleading post that is. Shame on you! According to WP:CONSENSUS, “All editors are expected to make a good-faith effort to reach a consensus that is aligned with Wikipedia's principles .” The #1 bullet point on the WikiProject is Ensure that article names conform to English Wikipedia policies. One of the guidelines of that is to just follow most-reliable, English-language RSs. In order to (attempt) to justify deleting the WikiProject, you linked to Counter-Vandalism Unit and append “aside” to it in a manner that *mentions* vandalism but slightly distances itself from that slander. This WikiProject’s stated goals are clear and have nothing whatsoever to do with “vandalism”. What is exceedingly clear is the stated goals of the WikiProject run counter to a sports cabal that ran off to make some of Wikipedia’s sports-related articles inconsistent with reliable sources like Sports Illustrated and The New York Times and the National Hockey League . We’ve had instances where Wikipedia articles were flouting how 99.9% of the RSs spelled the player’s name. The cabal fears discussion that exposes how they flout our core principles. So I’ll meet your hocus pocus misleading link regarding vandalism and raise you with real link that speaks straight to the heart of the matter. Per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS: Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. And, also per Wikipedia’s core principles, a consensus is not decided by nose counts, but by the strength, weight, and consistency of arguments that are best aligned with Wikipedia’s core principles. It will take a closing admin with some brass and patience to close this cabal-fest. I also hope the closing admin reads the shear nonsense of the “Delete” !votes here. It’s clear that all they fear is seeing a discussion venue where wikipedians wake up to what has been going on with some of our articles and discuss what to do about those articles that are not in conformance with Wikipedia’s core policies; namely, that Wikipedia shall follow the practices of the RSs. That is a message point that flies in the face of what a very small group of like-minded fans of European hockey fans are trying to do (have Wikipedia march off and do its own thing rather than follow the RSs). And next time, Nyttend, you engage in a personal attack on other editors by insinuating they are vandalizing Wikipedia, be enough of a man to just say what is on your mind in plain-speak rather than attempt to buttress an argument with a cryptic and slanderous link that relies on that old wiki-trick that amounts to “See, I added a link suggesting my post makes sense and is founded in an important core principle (but please don’t go actually read the link)”. It was that ol’ I made it blue so it must be true-stunt.  Greg L (talk) 16:08, 19 November 2011 (UTC)  P.S. Even if a closing admin goes with the nose-count votes and shuts down a WikiProject before we can even see if it can muster a following, the message about what the sports cabal has been doing to Wikipedia has gotten greater exposure. The efforts of User:Who R you?, though he might not see it, did some good to highlight what’s been going on. Greg L (talk) 16:21, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You're really missing the point, Greg L. Nyttend's comment was hardly a personal attack (refer to some of WRy's comments for an example of that). It was an accurate statement that this WikiProject is intent on providing a single stance on a controversial subject that goes two-ways. Your comment arguing that this pro-dio movement is being pushed by "European hockey fans" is completely inaccurate in is said in more bad faith than Nyttend's comment. No need to get über defensive because someone has stated something accurate as evident by the language and culture of this "WikiProject". And to your last point, the diacritic debate is nothing new and certainly not limited to ice hockey players. If anything, the actions of WRy have showed severe incivility on his part that has resulted in an ANI discussion. – Nurmsook!  <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk...  16:26, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Speaking of asking the closing admin to weigh the value of the !votes, I would make mention of the fact that most keep !votes, including yours GregL, were made basically with the argument of "Keep because I hate diacritics/believe they aren't English". That is a valid opinion in a VP discussion on diacritics, but lacks a policy basis for keeping this project.   Those opining on deletion include people who support the use of diacritics, are neutral, and oppose their use.  That should tell you something about where the "cabal-fest" lies.   Many of the keep !voters have managed only to show why this project is a bad idea. All the reasons for deletion are right here, for everyone to see:  WP:BATTLE, WP:CANVASS, WP:POV, WP:POINT.  This project is not an attempt at collaboration.  It is an effort to overwhelm the opposition to win a "war", in spite of the fact that the community is deeply divided on the use of diacritics. Resolute 17:15, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I disagree with the deletion of this project, as it would be unfair and wouldn't help us to resolve a long-lasting and more important problem: to define a clear and precise rule/policy about using diacritics on en:wiki. Yes, I agree with most of others, I don't like the combative nature of this project and I don't like the arguments of the group; they are monotonous like a broken record and bring (IMO) nothing constructive to the discussion. But on the other hand, they defend a valid Wikipedia policy, the most important part of which (I'm speaking about this particular situation) says to "follow the reliable English-language sources". The policy stands as it is, despite the established practice of adding the accent marks to the names written in Latin characters. Not only our recent experience proved that this is insufficient. If we took the advice of WP:COMMONNAME literally, it could be a real storm, just imagine the disputes over renaming of tens of thousands of articles. The renaming might be in many cases justified by our current policy, but it would brought to Wikipedia nothing but disruption and inconsistency. For the time being we deal with the ice hockey and tennis names (both the sports are popular in Northern America), but the question is more conceptual, even here. I follow the discussions on WT:ENGLISH closely since May 2011 and I'm aware of the previous disagreements. I've noticed a few constructive proposals on the topic:


 * Naming conventions (use English)/Diacritics RfC - closed as no consensus in August 2011. Personally I think that possible negotiations and improvements of this proposal could bring a good solution.
 * Freezing the articles with or without diacritics in their current state to prevent further disruption, establishing firm rules for creating new articles - a short-term solution which cannot help us resolve the conceptual problem, not to mention the persistent inconsistency.
 * Enabling a preference that automatically strips all diacritics when the page is displayed - not a bad idea, but I don't think that a dispute of two small and biased groups of editors should result in a new tool affecting millions of readers. It is impossible.


 * I would like to mention again the term consistency, as keeping consistency is of crucial importance for an encyclopedic project. We can't split articles in accordance with some abstract G-search result or make an exception for people sporting in North American teams, as it would be inconsistent with the rest of our project. Is a search engine or a profession the determining factor deciding about someone's name? I don't think so. Instead of it, we should find an inspiration in the standard practice of reliable and up-to-date English language reference works. However, most of these arguments have been discussed in detail previously. In any case, the editors active in the Wikiproject English have collaborated in a similar manner before, and they can continue either on-wiki or off-wiki. Their efforts are legitimate and any bans or restrictions can't resolve this situation. Just my opinion. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete WikiProjects shouldn't be created or maintained for the sole purpose of POV pushing. Albacore (talk) 17:07, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete A project for the purpose of canvassing, meant to push someone's obnoxious misinterpretation of guidelines, and one of the gazillion forums where this dead horse is being flogged back to a comatose life. ICANTHEARYOU to a cosmic level, and simply indecent at that. Dahn (talk) 17:35, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, I think. As a general principle, active projects shouldn't be shut down absent clear evidence of actual problems. It's too early yet to determine this, so how about waiting six months and let's see? I would suggest to the project members that a rename might be in order, something along the lines of "WikiProject foreign names" or something and to take a nuanced point of view on these matter, but that's up to the project members. Herostratus (talk) 19:59, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as a POV-pushing lobby group more than a wikiproject. --Hegvald (talk) 20:38, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Dëlêtè pröjéct, as we funny furriners prefer to spell it. Thinly disguised löbbying group for a bigoted and divisive cause. Bishonen | talk 23:05, 19 November 2011 (UTC).
 * Can't read your 'vote'. You'll have to remove the diacritics. GoodDay (talk) 23:14, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 15-love for Bish. &mdash; Coren (talk) 23:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * ：:唔該晒. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:15, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BATTLE, WP:CANVASS, and WP:POINT --Guerillero &#124; My Talk  00:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Rename to make way for Wikiproject:English Yeah, there should be a wikiproject English, I would've guessed it existed already, but this is not it. A wikiproject English should deal with, well, English... like language, literature, grammar. This one doesn't deal with English, it deals with titles. This is very similar to some "English only"-effort that claims to be "American." And, by the way, who are the presumed "foreigners"? Australians are &mdash; they're not English. Or wait, the Sioux!... no dang, they live in the same country as... the English? err... speakers. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 09:47, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete/archive: WikiProjects are not canvassing groups. Sceptre (talk) 18:37, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, but rename to WikiProject No diacritics or another similar title. The opposition to the use of unsourced, non-English symbols in article titles should be encouraged, and the so-called policy against "canvassing" was basically invented by one guy back in 2005 or so to further his own agenda. <b style="color:#1111AA; font-family:monospace, monospace;">*** Crotalus ***</b> 21:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow. Just wow. Are you intentionally implying that there's no source for the diacritics used in the articles concerned? There may be reasonable room for debate about how much weight to put on different sources - some which use diacritics and some which don't - but the controversy is not over unsourced diacritics pulled out of thin air. Misrepresenting others' positions is part of the problem (and, specifically, part of the wikiproject); not part of the solution. bobrayner (talk) 21:31, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * In a large number of cases, there are no English-language sources that use the diacritics, and many which do not. The use of diacritics in these cases violates WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RS. <b style="color:#1111AA; font-family:monospace, monospace;">*** Crotalus ***</b> 21:43, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "In a large number of cases, there are no sources that are written as biographies, and many which are not. An article about a person written in the form of a biography therefore violates WP:NPOV and WP:RS."
 * Or maybe not. As Jimbo Wales said recently, we are not transcription monkeys. I think the following is closer to the truth:
 * There are no English-language encyclopedias which drop diacritics from European names. The dropping of diacritics in these cases therefore violates WP:USEENGLISH. Hans Adler 09:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "In a large number of cases, there are no sources that are written as biographies, and many which are not. An article about a person written in the form of a biography therefore violates WP:NPOV and WP:RS." – Was that supposed to be a reducio ad absurdum? If so, it falls short of the mark. I actually agree with no original biographies and think it would make a good policy. Regarding diacritics, while some reliable English sources use Spanish, French, and German accent-marks in names and certain borrowed words, I am not aware of any English-language sources that use Eastern European dirt-lines. <b style="color:#1111AA; font-family:monospace, monospace;">*** Crotalus ***</b> 16:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ever heard of Encyclopaedia Britannica? Would that count as a reliable source that uses the appropriate language register which could serve as a model for us? They used Eastern European 'dirt-lines' at least as early as the 1911 edition, and are still using them today, as in Łódź, České Budějovice, Šibenik. (These are also the preferred spellings in Webster's Dictionary of Geographical Names.) I used cities because they are easier to find than people. Of course this also holds for people such as Jarosław Kaczyński, Ota Šik, Slobodan Milošević, Nicolae Ceaușescu. Hans Adler 17:46, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Wikiprojects are to further collaboration in a specific area, not a specific pov. It's sad to see how in this discussion most keeps are citing as reason for this project to exist their own POV on the issue, only furthering the impression that the project is nothing more than a badly-conceived tentative to get around our core policies. It's sad to see this. Each one of us has his own point of view and opinion, but we have to always recognize that if we have a POV, so does everybody else. We have to accept that the chips (consensus) fall where they do, not necessarily where we would choose to. It might be hard at times, when we're so convinced of our own righteousness in a certain matter. But the encyclopedia prospers on consensus, not our own POV. Ways to distorting consensus are damaging to the project. A voting block, as some above have called this project, is truly damaging to the English Wikipedia. I see no choice but to delete this not-so-disguised attempt at getting around our canvass guidelines.  Snowolf  How can I help? 08:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You are turning the whole concept of POV on its head. WP:COMMONNAME, WP:UE, and WP:EN are supposed to be Wikipedia's core principles, not POVs. I know the English language is not for everyone. But that's why Wiki has projects in other languages. Kauffner (talk) 08:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This projects aim is to strip diacritics. That is a POV that does not have consensus. There is no support for that POV in those policies. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Kauffner, if you don't understand how the English language and its registers work, then the standard English Wikipedia may not be the right place for you. There is also a Simple English Wikipedia where people may have more patience. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and no encyclopedia written in English drops diacritics on European names (except for US immigrants), dropping diacritics on European names is a violation of WP:USEENGLISH. There is no place for a WikiProject whose express purpose is to violate WP:USEENGLISH. One that tries to get it changed directly in order to push a xenophobic and anti-intellectual POV -- maybe. But a WikiProject specifically for breaking a guideline? No. Hans Adler 09:44, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The standard written English language does not contain any Eastern European symbols. Some borrowed words and names have Spanish, French, or German accent characters (e.g. El Niño, François, Führer, Götterdämmerung) but I am aware of none in reliable English-language sources that use the far more complicated and aesthetically displeasing Eastern European counterparts. It's Lech Walesa, not Lech Wałęsa, in English. Those Eastern European things look like dirt-lines to English speakers. (Even though Japanese diacritics are generally more aesthetically pleasing, they are still usually dropped in English sources - e.g. Hokkaido, wagyu). <b style="color:#1111AA; font-family:monospace, monospace;">*** Crotalus ***</b> 16:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Wait, wait, wait.. this is about how pretty the letters look to you? Seriously? It's not about right or wrong, not about who has the better arguments, but what is more pleasing to the eye? I honestly don't even know what to respond to that.. --Conti|✉
 * I suggest that you familiarize yourself with the practices of English-language reference works, such as Britannica and Columbia (Wałęsa). Oxford World Encyclopedia and Webster's Collegiate tried to get it right too ("Wałesa"). Prolog (talk) 17:50, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * So now Britannica is the authority. This is rich. Then we need to get the Greek letters out of the article titles so that $\pi$ can be "pi". Kauffner (talk) 11:53, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for acknowledging that I am right by changing the topic. If you want to have a conversation on how to interpret our policies and guidelines with common sense in disputes that were not foreseen when they were drafted, then we can have that elsewhere. Hans Adler 13:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete bad-faith drama-magnet. Redirects from/to titles containing only a simple subset of the alphabet do the job of guiding a searcher to the relevant article. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">pablo 10:45, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep – Canvassing and block-voting can be much easier seen with this project in place. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as promotion of battleground mentality. It is disruptive and anti-collaborative to organize a faction, disguise it as a WikiProject and ignore those who don't subscribe to the house POV. Prolog (talk) 17:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.