Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Proper names/Archive 1

Resolving placename disputes
Text moved in from Village_Pump:


 * One more thing, can someone add something on ways to resolve disputes over placenames? Thanks. -- Viajero 15:32, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * I'd work on this request. I looked about for a proper place to put it and came up somewhat empty. I suppose under the "Style" or "Edit" pages maybe? - Marshman 23:27, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC) OK, I started a "Style" page for Proper names at Proper_names. I'll work on it for awhile - fair bit of ground to cover - and others can, of course add ideas as they see fit - Marshman


 * See also Naming_conventions_(places) and its Talk page. Chris Jefferies 11:59, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Alta Mexico
An article about Junipero Serra should say he lived in Alta Mexico not the U.S. state of California because the latter entity did not exist at the time of Junipero Serra Um? Maybe not the STATE, but certainly the Mexican possession of California. What the heck is Alta Mexico? Maybe Alta California, anyway. RickK 04:54, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * The point is: there is a correct historical name and it is not the U.S. State of California. You could edit it to the correct term, and that should not give rise to any disputes (one would hope ;o) - Marshman 17:20, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Proper names of "things"
Proper names of people, places, and species are taken care of, but that leaves any thing (as in "person, place, or thing") that has a proper name. For example, there is an ongoing debate about the name of the French national flag, which is known variously as "the tricolor", "the Tricolour", "(le) tricolore", etc. We could use some guidelines on "things" as well. -- Jeff Q 22:09, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Things are no different in this regard than "places" (which are in effect "things"). The French national flag would be "the Tricolor", as the term is referring to the name of a specific thing (like a specific person or place); "the tricolor" would be anything with three colors, as in "Gemany's flag, like most in Europe, is a tricolor". - Marshman 22:30, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * If "things" should be treated the same as "places" in this regard, the article shouldn't distinguish between "place names" and "personal names". A "place" may be a "thing", but there are many "things" that aren't "places". Perhaps it should say "Names of people" and "Names of things", or "Names of other things" (the latter version following the species section)? Also, my research (see the above-mentioned French flag debate) suggests (but doesn't verify) that formal English usage has no officially-preferred term like "the Tricolor", although some Americans feel it should, just as some Britons feel that "the Tricolour" is the official English term. -- Jeff Q 00:45, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * The operative word is "names" not persons, places, or things. I am not going to disagree with you; there is plenty of need for improvement in the article (when I get time, I'll attend to it if someone else does not first), but the rule is: whatever the noun is (and people, places, and things comes from the definition of a noun), it will take first letter capitalization if it is a proper noun&mdash;the name of something or someone. I have no idea what an "officially-preferred" term would be (in general, language does not work that way, although there might be official listings of geographical names), and yes Tricolor vs Triclour relates to American vs. Brit usage of English; but both start with uppercase 'T'. At Wikipedia (English Edition) both would be correct and may simply depend upon who wrote the article. The rule there is not to bother to change to your preferred spelling - Marshman 01:43, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * What I mean by "offically-preferred" is cited in a respected reference work, which I consider better than general guidelines that are often ill-recalled and frequently flouted in practice. (Consider the Wikipedia "article titles should be all lowercase except..." policy as an excellent example of an institutionalized flouting of standard practice, which is, incidentally, okay by me.) As an example, Merriam-Webster Online cites, among its entries for federal:


 * 3 capitalized : advocating or friendly to the principle of a federal government with strong centralized powers; especially : of or relating to the American Federalists
 * 4 often capitalized : of, relating to, or loyal to the federal government or the Union armies of the U.S. in the American Civil War
 * 5 capitalized : being or belonging to a style of architecture and decoration current in the U.S. following the Revolution


 * This strikes me as a carefully-researched official statement on when to capitalize "federal". I made a modest search for such a reference for "Tricolore" but found only the lowercase version, with no explicit statement about its capitalization. Obviously, this is not definitive, but neither is any Wikipedia article, for that matter. Therefore, I edited the article to reflect the research I had done, which appears to have been more substantial, with respect to the spelling and capitalization of "tricolore", than other contributions to that article thus far.


 * By the way, I didn't mean to impune your efforts to date on this article. I just thought it'd be a good idea not to leave people hanging when they come looking for rules on something like "tricolore" or "the Federal Government", which are not people's names, place names, or biological designations. Please take whatever time you need to make any changes you think are advisable. If I really have a problem with it, I can and should do it myself, eh? &#9786; -- Jeff Q 04:55, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * No problem. I'm happy ;) or 8^0 . You explained things better this time. I think by "official" you really mean "authoritative". I'd regard Miriam-Webster as authoritative (providing an opinion based upon experience and research) but not "official", the latter implying establishing rules or providing opinion based upon granted authority ("I'm right because I'm the government"). I think it should be "Tricolor" just as one would say "Old Glory" and not "old glory" in referring to our flag. But maybe I'm old fashioned. I find "errors" in Webster's Dictionary on occasion. - Marshman 05:45, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Hey, "new-fashioned" is often overrated. &#9786; If I find an authoritative source that cites a use of "Tricolor" or "Tricolour" in the same proper-name fashion of "Old Glory", I'll capitalize them in a minute. -- Jeff Q 07:02, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

official administrative territorial divisions
i don't think there might be any divergence of opinnions on how a country names its administrative divisions. - there is that "non interference in internal affairs or something" that i think renders the name of an administrative unit immune to "neighbouring state version of a sovereign state's internal affairs or something" -- Criztu 28 June 2005 13:41 (UTC)

ß and Þ
I removed the ß-directions. I feel somewhat bad about this since they were actually quite well written. But I don't see any discussion or vote establishing a consensus for this and opinions are clearly split, see Talk:Großglockner for example. Also note that the same logic could be used to legislate Þ out of Wikipedia - even though the consensus among those editing articles on Icelandic topics seems to be to use it. I would actually support Philip's recent note on including alternative ascii-versions but I think we should discuss it before we insert it into the guide. It was reverted where he inserted it on WP:UE. Paragraphs inserted on WP:UE and WP:MOS to ban ß, Ð and Þ have also been reverted (by myself and others). I would have reverted this incarnation of the ban earlier if I had noticed it. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 21:22, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * We actually had a pretty good consensus in the Manual of Style when I added that and still have a substantial majority, but German-lovers (non-Swiss, anyway), Icelandics (who, you can bet, don't allow foreign letters in their wiki), and a few others continue to treat English Wikipedia as an international wiki. Perhaps one day I'll join them in pretending that the English alphabet encompasses the entire Latin-1 character set and name my first-born child Æþöñéß. --Tysto 00:58, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I am cool with the removal of the ß directions. I wrote them, actually, after Tysto brought the subject up and I saw myself in the minority. (I like ß, too!) However, since then there has been a lot more discussion and today I would be somewhat more of an ß-advocate, so I actually regret having done such a good job formulating a policy that I am not quite comfortable with. Thanks for removing my contribution! Incidentally, at the video store I saw an English DVD with music by Johann II Strauß that used the ß on the cover. If it's good enough for a mass-marked DVD then it's good enough for WP!  Arbor 07:23, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

There is currently a proposal to make a Wikipedia naming convention about the "Thorn" (Þ} character, at Naming conventions (thorn). Interested parties are invited to comment. Elonka 02:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Currencies
I like Æþöñéß, incidentally ;), and support the use of ß and similar Latin alphabet characters. I'm here on a different note, though: Whether currencies (euro, Japanese yen, ...) are proper names or not. This should be discussed and implemented into this page. My take is that they most clearly aren't. &mdash; Nightstallion (?) 08:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Surnames including prepositions?
I noticed that in Alain de Cadenet, the source includes.

I think that should be.

A survey of the category, looking for similar names, suggests some people agree with me, but others do not. I have not yet found something to indicate which is preferred. Can someone point me to such, or should it perhaps be added here?

An idea I had was that names such as "de Cadenet" should be placed by the categorizer under both "C" and "D", and in the case of variants of "de", (d', di, du, etc) perhaps all those should be grouped in a special section before "D". Even leaving aside that that may not be theoretically (editorically) correct, it would involve some work, likely a lot. . . --SportWagon 16:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, a few partial answers to my own question. It turns out "De Cadenet" would be classified under "D", but "de Cadenet" gets classified under "d", in a category on the last page, containing only the single entry.  That seems wrong.  The Categorizer is using an inappropriate collating sequence.  Before verifying that, I tried adding both variants, and the entry under "C" disappeared, and I found none under "D" (obviously, now).  But during that test I did not look for the "d" heading.  And I don't want to muddle the history further right now just to verify what actually happens(ed).--SportWagon 17:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Wait, no. I can say to force the alphabetization, but the entry title will be used in the Category listing, I believe.  An example doing that is  in Jacqueline du Pré--SportWagon 17:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Now I see Categorization_of_people might be closer to where this information should be?--SportWagon 17:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Complete answer for me is now in Categorization.--SportWagon 18:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This is an issue that librarians and archivists have clarified and refined since the invention of library catalogues. There is a good discussion at Authority control.  The authoritative source on the standard form for proper names in English is at the US Library of Congress (which is also followed by the British Library and most other English language libraries.  Returning to the question at hand, the LOC gives the Established Heading as "De Cadenet, Alain" and lists "Cadenet, Alain de" as an alternative (not the Established Heading).  To be honest, I was surprised by the result, but it's a good idea to follow a conventional authority in lists and article titles.  --SteveMcCluskey 14:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * That answer doesn't surprise me. Well, it surprises me a little that "Cadenet, Alain de" is given as an alternative.  (I.e. at all)--SportWagon 16:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(proper_names) below regarding a proposal for alphabetizing surnames with particles. kcylsnavS 14:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

First letter capitalization
A person where I work spells the surname as deRose. And since this person is an attorney, there are legal court papers file as deRose. Perhaps there should be indications that there are exception to the first letter is capitalized rule. --NYC 23:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, there are other people who spell their names like that. -Pgan002 01:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Also consider bell hooks and danah boyd. Both spell their names with no capital letters, yet the bell hooks article has survived years with no capital letters in her name, and editors refuse to allow even any mention in the (incorrectly titled) Danah Boyd article that her legal name has no capital letters (anytime this information is put in it is quickly reverted). I think there needs to be a policy specifically allowing idiosyncratic capitalization of at the very least personal names and pseudonyms. There was a stalled discussion of this on the WP:MOSCL talk page. —pfahlstrom 22:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Any pointers as to conventions for transliterating Tibetan proper nouns?

Tibetan has 5 silent pre-scribed letters (g, d, b, m, 'a) and 3 superscribed letters (r,l, s) that can come before the main ('root', 'radical') letter of a word when romanized. So the letter that is actually pronounced first may come second or third letter of the word as written in Roman letters. Any thoughts on whether the convention should be based on 'geography' - that is,order from left to right (i.e. first letter, even if not pronounced, is capitalized)- or on 'timing', i.e. first letter to be pronounced, the radical, is capitalized? Comparisons with similar problems in romanizing other languages would be appreciated. Example:  the name pronounced "Tsondru" to be transliterated as Brtson 'grus or brTson 'grus  ? Cheers, Charles Manson

Related poll on diacritics
A more focused poll on diacritics has been started, to address the very specific issue of whether or not diacritics should be used in the article titles of Polish monarchs. Interested editors are invited to participate, at: Talk:List of Polish monarchs. --Elonka 17:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for a renaming
I propose to change this article to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (proper names). Any comments/objections? jguk 12:31, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. This isn't linked to from the Naming conventions page either. Nor does it have a "naming conventions" template. I don't know the group of pages well enough to determine whether it's redundant or seperate or what, though. --Quiddity 21:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposed convention
The proposed guideline Naming conventions (geographic names) is up for acceptance or amendment. Your voices would be welcome.

It makes suggestions on the treatment of alternate names in text which are more detailed than the section on Place names here (especially the case of multiple local names) but are not inconsistent with this page. A cross-link may be in order. Septentrionalis 18:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Lowercase names
Is there any consensus on what to do when the person goes by a lower case name? Does it matter if it is their legal name? I'm thinking specifically of an issue at Danah Boyd, but there are other examples. There is also a mention of this above, but no response. - cohesion 00:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see evidence of a consensus, though the bell hooks article has survived non-capitalized for years, which may be evidence. —pfahlstrom 22:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Though one has to consider that regular contributors to an article are usually somewhat invested into the subject at hand, hence they are more likely to give preference to typesetting eccentricities, rather than subjecting them style guidelines. It's hardly ideal, but regrettably happens quite a lot. There appear to be no past requested moves at Talk:Bell hooks (and its archives), so while the article is often cited in similar discussions, it probably never had one with broad input of the community (through Requested moves or an RfC) of its own.- Cyrus XIII 23:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There may be no past move requests, but this absence of move requests has been preceded by much discussion of the capitalization, as you can see. If it ain't broke, don't fix it—when an article about a notable subject does just fine for multiple years without having a prescriptive guideline applied, that's evidence that the guideline is not considered applicable. Now, I agree that it is a general rule in English that personal names are capitalized. But this guideline here does not even address the standard variations that allow for names such as L. Sprague de Camp—and if those variations are allowed, why should others not be? It's a question of markedness—names that have initial capitals are unmarked; they're what people expect. But sometimes the use of historically unmarked terms in place of marked terms can be controversial, such as with sexist language. If someone specifically marks their name by decapitalizing one or more letters that would traditionally be marked, re-unmarking the name could be seen as discriminatory.
 * Anyway, my point is that this guideline seems just to be saying to capitalize proper names, just as any student learns in elementary school. It does not seem to be saying to capitalize proper names even of those people who prefer that all or part of their names not be capitalized. —pfahlstrom 05:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I support following what the subject of the article calls him/herself, per BLP. Kyaa the Catlord 22:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * My own opinion is that it's not about how they refer to themselves, but about how they are best known in major reliable sources. --Elonka 23:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources has to do with factual information, not style decisions. Whether we capitalize someone's name as they choose is a style decision. We don't follow the New York Time's manual of style just because it's a reliable source. The two issues are not the same. - cohesion 00:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it could be interpreted to be a question of fact rather than style—if the capitalization is considered as essential as what letters are used to spell their name (and with the subjects in question, this is indeed the case), then that's a question of accuracy. In the case of danah boyd there are reliable sources for both capped and uncapped forms, and when there are reliable sources for both sides, should Wikipedia go with the one that outnumbers the other, or the one that is actually correct? —pfahlstrom 02:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia should follow the conventions of English, in order to distinguish proper nouns in text and make it accurate and readable. Even if someone refers to himself or herself by lowercase names, those should be capitalized on Wikipedia.  Unlike "danah boyd" and "bell hooks", which are lowercased by perhaps only hundreds of people, names like "Sprague de Camp" are not exceptions.  They are whole classes of names that follow a rule used for centuries and accepted for all names by virtually all speakers of English.  Such names come from a foreign language (in this case, French) in which "de" means "of" and, as in English titles, is not capitalized.  We follow the convention of capitalization by capitalizing the translated names from languages that do not have capital letters, such as Mandarin.  Unlike derogatory language, such as "fag", capitalizing a name is not meant to be offensive.  Unlike sexist language, such as "house maid" or "air hostess", there is no underlying association with a particular group of people or stereotypes; on the contrary, the rule treats everyone equally.  If a dozen people in the world prefer to be referred to by a lowercase name, this is just a whim in spite of society at large.  There is no good reason for society to honor that whim.  Distinguishing proper names makes text much less ambiguous and more effective.  Conversely, any English speaker would be slightly confused at reading two words that appear to function as a proper name but are in lowercase.  Names that function as common nouns, like "bell hooks", are even more confusing.  I agree that the Manual of Style is not definitive about capitalizing proper names, but I think the above are compelling arguments for capitalizing names. -Pgan002 23:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to revive this discussion and make a proposal to change the MoS, because the "Danah Boyd" article remains an extremely problematic case, and it seems unlikely that the continuing controversy over it will be resolved with anything other than a change to MoS to accommodate people who are known by lower-case names.

Reasoning for the general case:

While not common, there are notable individuals who are known by names which are presented entirely in lower-case. Currently, MoS contradicts itself by advocating following "common usage" in one place, and imposing capitalization in another. Allowing lower-case names for articles about/referencing these individuals would resolve this contradiction. It would also maintain a principle of "least surprise" for readers familiar with the subjects of those articles, and as a by-product probably reduce the number of ongoing debates concerning the presentation of names in those articles. Additionally, allowing properly-referenced use of lower-case names would remove a potential avenue through which NPOV and BLP could be violated (by removing an implied view of what is and is not a "proper" name for a person, and a means by which content disrespectful of a living person might otherwise be permitted on Wikipedia).

Proposed change to policy:

This paragraph:

"Personal names are the names given to people, but can be used as well for some animals (like race horses) and natural or man-made inanimate objects (like ships and geological formations). As proper nouns these names are always first-letter capitalized, and transliterated into English spelling but generally not Anglicized or translated between languages."

Should change to the following:

"Personal names are the names given to people, but can be used as well for some animals (like race horses) and natural or man-made inanimate objects (like ships and geological formations). As proper nouns these names are usually first-letter capitalized, and transliterated into English spelling but generally not Anglicized or translated between languages. When a person is commonly known by a name which is not first-letter capitalized, and multiple reliable sources verify the non-capitalized usage, do not capitalize the name."

Possible objections and replies:

Objection: Some organizations (e.g., newspapers) have style guides which impose capitalization in the same way as the current MoS; these are reliable sources on Wikipedia, and their usage should be taken into account.

Reply: Their usage should be taken into account, but "reliable" should not be confused with "authoritative". Just as other sources are preferable to newspaper articles in other fields (e.g., if several peer-reviewed scientific journals contained information about a science-related topic which contradicted an article in the New York Times, the information in the peer-reviewed journals would be used by Wikipedia in preference to the newspaper article), great care should be taken in reviewing available sources.

Objection: Given the above, it's impossible to reliably determine which sources to follow.

Reply: It's hard in some cases, but not necessarily impossible. As in the example above of peer-reviewed journals conflicting with a newspaper article, it is often possible and, in fact, easy to render a judgment between sources (e.g., a secondary source is to be preferred to a tertiary source, and a source with authority in a specific field is to be preferred, within that field, to a source with only general authority). In cases where the correct usage is ambiguous or contentious, an RFC should be used to establish consensus for Wikipedia's usage.

So. Thoughts? Ubernostrum 10:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think it would be appropriate for participants of the Boyd mediation to pursue any guideline changes that may apply to the scenario that is still being mediated on. - Cyrus XIII 13:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see anything inappropriate in my comments above; the endless nature of the debates (which seem to pop up pretty reliably at regular intervals), and now the mediation, over that article seem to point out pretty clearly that the MoS has problems with lower-case names, and changing the MoS is not in any way within the scope of that mediation, so why wouldn't it be appropriate to point out the problem with MoS and propose a remedy? Ubernostrum 14:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, note that pfahlstrom's example of bell hooks lends some precedent to this notion; in that case, the use of a lower-case name on Wikipedia flatly contradicts the MoS guideline, but appeals to reliable sources (no less than the Chicago Manual of Style, allegedly on hooks' insistence, recognized her name as lower-case) have so far carried the debate. Accommodating the occasional person who is verifiably known by a lower-case name (see also the lower-case title, but not lede -- a contradiction which could be resolved by this change -- on k.d. lang) in the MoS would seem to be a logical step from there. Ubernostrum 04:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the wording of Ubernostrum's proposed revision to this guideline is a good start and agree with the underlying reasoning as he has expressed it, in addition to my previous arguments. I also reiterate that the current guideline is silent even on common lowercased name particles; this (as well as CamelCase names involving particles such as in LaKisha) should be addressed in any revision. I write this while recognizing that my opinion may carry little weight since I am currently unwilling to back it up by active participation in the process, due to my reasons expressed in my latest comments on the danah boyd talk page. Best wishes. —pfahlstrom 22:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

A bit more explanation
After spending a while away from the Boyd article and thinking about this more in depth as a general problem, I think it reduces as follows.

The prescription that personal names "are always first-letter capitalized" creates an unresolvable tension between WP:MOSPN and other Wikipedia policies, leading to unnecessary arguments and edit wars:


 * When a person is verifiably commonly known by a name which is, in whole or in part, not first-letter capitalized, a tension exists between WP:MOSPN and WP:COMMONNAME; MOSPN says to capitalize, while COMMONNAME says to use "the most common name".
 * When reliable sources identify a person using a name which is, in whole or in part, not first-letter capitalized, a tension exists between WP:MOSPN and the paired policies WP:V and WP:RS; MOSPN says to capitalize, while V and RS say to follow verifiable, reliable sources.
 * When a living person is known by a name which is, in whole or in part, not first-letter capitalized, a tension exists between WP:MOSPN and WP:BLP; MOSPN says to capitalize, while BLP says to "get the article right".

The result of this is that articles about such persons can and do easily devolve into perpetual edit wars (Danah Boyd would be the canonical example here); when there is tension or contradiction between policies, multiple conflicting arguments can be made, and the very real possibility is introduced that an article will never stabilize on one usage, instead being tugged back and forth according to which choice of policy backing is favored by a majority of editors at a given moment, or remain a hotbed of controversy as different editors argue positions which are, though contradictory, perfectly justifiable according to the particular policies to which they choose to give greater weight.

To prevent these problems, some form of resolution to this intra-policy tension is necessary. MOSPN seems the most appropriate candidate for change:


 * Altering WP:V or WP:RS to, in effect, allow for non-verifiable information or the ignoring of reliable sources would fundamentally change the operation of Wikipedia and open up a very tangible slippery slope to less-verifiable or unsourced information, hence these policies should remain as they are.
 * Altering WP:BLP to, in effect, allow "getting the article wrong" would, again, be a fundamental change, and would, again, open up a slippery slope, this time to articles disrespectful of living subjects; hence this policy should remain as it is.
 * Altering WP:COMMONNAME would resolve the tension between that specific policy and MOSPN, but would not resolve the tension between MOSPN and other policies; hence this policy is not the most appropriate candidate for a change.

This leaves MOSPN as the best candidate to be altered: amending MOSPN to allow personal names to omit capitalization -- when such omission can be properly verified and sourced according to other Wikipedia policies -- would resolve all of the above tensions with the least impact on Wikipedia itself. The change to the policy's wording proposed above seems to me to be the minimal change necessary to effect this resolution, but I'm not in any way wedded to that particular wording.

Does anyone have strong arguments for/against this proposal? I'd like to get it to the stage of asking for actual votes one way or another, but getting arguments out in the open for discussion is a necessary first step. Ubernostrum 01:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that amending MOSPN seems to be the best alternative, for the reasons you give above. If there are numerous reliable sources that give someone's name in a non-standard style, and the person has declared for a particular style, BLP and COMMONNAME are pretty clear, leaving MOSPN as the one that needs to be changes. WP needs to reflect reality, not dictate it.--SarekOfVulcan 13:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no need for an amendment, as WP:BLP/WP:COMMONNAME and the Manual of Style deal with different things, which are content and formatting respectively. Hence no scope for any sort of "reality" distortion, especially when stylistic quirks are still mentioned/described in the respective articles (i.e. in the lead). - Cyrus XIII 19:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Cyrus, by that argument you really ought to be over at MOSTM arguing for "Ipod", "Itunes", "Ebay", etc.; given your logic, there's no reason for MOSTM to have the specific exception for their capitalization, since "Ipod" and "iPod" are the same thing and a note in the lede about the "stylistic quirks" would do just as well ;)


 * Or maybe -- just maybe -- there's some precedent for the idea that an absolute "always first-letter capitalize" guideline can be problematic? ;) Ubernostrum 05:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I support Ubernostrum's proposal above. I agree that there is a conflict between the referenced policies and I agree that adjusting MOSPN is the most practical, reasonable, and compassionate solution of which I am aware. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 06:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed with Ubernostrum's proposal as well, for all the reasons stated above. --Charles (Kznf) (talk) 13:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I see no reason that the current guidelines need to be changed. Ubernostrum's proposal was mainly to deal with one article, that of Danah Boyd.  Changing guidelines because of one user's interest in one article, is not a good idea. We should stick with Wikipedia's current policy, which is that Wikipedia follows the lead of outside sources. --Elonka 16:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree whole-heartedly! The problem is that although that is what you added to the styleguide, that has since been edited out (without any consensus) by Cyrus XIII, in this edit and then tightened even further in this edit.    I definitely support a reversion (to your version) of the policy to include an emphasis on reliable sources. --Charles (Kznf) (talk) 17:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "Without any consensus" is somewhat misleading. I proposed said change on the guideline talk page, yet without any replies for weeks. Maybe editors who would have been likely to comment felt that they had already discussed the issue ad nauseum at the mediation Elonka mentioned, I don't know. In order to get at least some additional input on the matter I nudged an editor with whom I share an agreement to keep each other posted on stylistic matters to offer his two cents, which he did. A full month after the initial proposal, I applied the change, which to me still only smoothed out a minor inconsistency among our many many style guides. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 11:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Related move discussion
There is currently a discussion about whether the page at Vossstrasse should be moved to Voßstraße. Interested editors are invited to participate in the discussion at Talk:Vossstrasse. --Elonka 00:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

"biblical" or "Biblical"?
Should the existing guidelines cover capitalization of forms of the word "Bible", which generally is capitalized when referring to the Judeo-Christian scripute, or not? John Carter 18:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The capitalization of scriptures is already covered in Manual of Style (capital letters), so it's safe to assume that any words derived from their titles are to be capitalized as well. Has there been any discussion on this elsewhere? - Cyrus XIII 19:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The current discussion is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible. John Carter 19:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Foreign-language name scripts: Limit?
If the subject of a biographical article is of a non-English or non-British background, it is often the convention that their name in the article is followed by a foreign-language script which spells their name in order to reflect their ethnic background. Examples of this would include Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (first note), Ariel Sharon and so on.

There is an issue at Shilpa Shetty where various editors feel that her name should be translated according to the Hindi script which reflects the country in which she lives, as well as the language she is most known for speaking in her movies. This is opposition to the current usage of the Tulu transliteration of her name, which other editors feel should remain as Tulu is her mother-tongue. A proposed compromise to include both transliterations has been rejected because apparently it is the 'English' Wikipedia and only one foreign-language script should remain. This cannot be true in the case of the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad article. Also, the editors apparently cite Wikipedia "convention" that subject's names can be transliterated only in the language of their mother-tongue: is this true?

What are the current conventions in matters such as these? Is it appropriate to compromise and include both transliterations? Would it also be ok to include IPA and ITRANS transliterations, etc? Thanks, Ekantik talk 18:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It's so redunant loading the article with so many scripts. It is the English Wikipedia. Her mother tongue is Tulu, so that's exactly what we should mention.
 * You say, "...the Hindi script which reflects the country in which she lives, as well as the language she is most known for speaking in her movies."
 * A) "Reflects the country in which she lives"? Who determines that? According to whom? She speaks nearly 10 different Indian languages which reflect the country in which she lives. So what? Should we mention all of them there?
 * B) "The language she is most known for speaking in her movies."? - first of all, the foreign script has nothing to do with her profession, but her identity and particular native language. As for her films, she has acted in Hindi, Tamil, Telugu and Kannada language films, so here comes the same question: Should we mention all of them there?
 * The answer is definitely no. Her mother-tongue is Tulu, and that's what counts and that's what matters, according to me. Comments?
 * Best regards, Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  23:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Shahid, this is about forming a consensus to setting a standard for Bio articles across all of Wikipedia. Please address your arguments accordingly, not frame them according to the scope of one article. Your first sentence betrays your lack of knowledge in how bio articles are written in Wikipedia; on the contrary there are many articles that present several transliterations of the subject's name. You have not addressed the point about several well-known bio articles including of various scripts (example: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad), and your point about this being the English Wikipedia is redundant. Your argument about mother-tongues are also redundant, because perhaps it has no consensus? Where is the consensus that foreign scripts of subject names should only be in the subject's mother-tongue? What are the currentc conventions observed in Wikipedia?
 * A) This is obviously silly. Nobody is advocating for a complete list of languages to reflect the country which she lives. Please stop producing strawman arguments. As far as I am aware, it is the convention to include foreign scripts based on the general nationality of the subject. In this particular case since Shetty is Indian and the national language of India is Hindi, the script should naturally be Hindi.
 * B) Again a redundant argument. That was an ancillary point brought up for discussion.
 * So far your responses have not been impressive nor have they addressed the subject of my query, neither have you commented about any possible compromises. Again, this is not about what you want or what you think. This is a page meant to discuss the standards across all of Wikipedia. Please discuss accordingly and refrain from modifying arguments to suit your specifications for only one bio article. Your idea(s) will only apply if you have a WP:CON. Currently you do not have that. Regards, Ekantik talk 23:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Nor do you have. Laughable, you are criticising me, as if you are here to decide on these points. So let me quote you, and tell you that: this is not about what you want or what you think. While I'm also not a big fan of your work on here, I respect you, so please show respect too.
 * "In this particular case since Shetty is Indian and the national language of India is Hindi, the script should naturally be Hindi." - again, laughable... There are tons of Indians who don't even speak Hindi. I come originally from India, there I graduated from school, but I don't speak Hindi (I do understand though).
 * Your points are not valid, and the fact that you are throwing different Wikilinks of different policies doesn't impress me either. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  17:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

How About Name of Major Streets and Squares in the cities ?
Shall we also name them according to English naming? F.e. what to do here : Tavisuplebis Moedani, Tbilisi, shall we better use Freedom Square, Tbilisi ? Steelmate (talk) 22:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think this is already covered in the section on place names. 217.28.2.84 (talk) 05:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Listing of multiple proper nouns
Alone, Washington County would have the "county" capitalized since it is part of the proper noun. But what about Washington, Lincoln and Smith Counties? Should "counties" be capitalized? --Holderca1talk 19:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

certain special things
Are names of military operations considered proper names? What happens if the name is different in the original language to the one used in English?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 00:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It looks like you're in WP:MILHIST; those guys are usually the ones I would ask. They're very good with language. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 00:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The convention there is "An article should generally be placed at the most common name used to refer to the event". However, the most common name is not always the correct name, usually because the common name was coined, often by media, before the correct name of the operation in its country of origin was known, i.e. it is literally improper--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 00:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Capitalization discussion at the manual of style
For all interested parties, there is a discussion going on right now at the Manual of Style about whether or not to capitalize people's names against their wishes (like bell hooks and danah boyd, for example). -- Irn (talk) 17:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

lowercase personal names
Per the recent changes at MOSCAP regarding the use of lowercase personal names, I think we should look into revising this line: "As proper nouns these names are always first-letter capitalized". I would recommend simply addding an exception like "except when individuals does not want their personal names capitalized and the lower case variant has received regular and established use in reliable third party sources." Or something to that effect. -- Irn (talk) 02:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Since no one is responding (and a notice was posted here about the discussion at MOSCAP [and in light of the above discussions]), I'm going to assume that no one objects. If no one has raised any objections in a week, I'll just go ahead and change the page to reflect the changes made at MOSCAP. -- Irn (talk) 01:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Foreign personal names
''Personal names are transliterated into English spelling but generally not Anglicized or translated between languages.
 * ''Aleksandr Sergeyevich Pushkin (Алексáндр Серге́евич Пу́шкин) was a …
 * Canute (sometimes Cnut; Danish Knud'') is the …

To cite from the Wikipedia article on Proper nouns:
 * The meaning of a proper noun, outside of what it references, is frequently arbitrary or irrelevant (for example, someone might be named Tiger Smith despite being neither a smith nor tiger-like). Because of this, they are often not translated between languages, although they may be transliterated—for example, the German surname Knödel becomes Knodel or Knoedel in English, not Dumpling.

Two changes proposed:

1. The Knodel/Knoedel/Knödel example points to article space. It is not a good idea to have guidelines point to article space, because the article can change at any time. In addition, if a notable German politician, say, were called Knödel, then we should actually write Knödel in their BLP, and not Knodel or Knoedel. I propose we delete this paragraph, retaining at most the bit about not translating foreign names.

2. Do we have a guideline for when to give names of biography subjects in foreign scripts? I can't find one. If we don't have one, I suggest it would make sense to give the name in the foreign script (in the lead, in brackets and after the Romanised spelling), whenever the subject was born in the country that uses the foreign script. For example, in the BLP of Vijay Amritraj, his name appears first in Roman letters, and then in the script of his region of birth. Today, the man lives in America. In the BLP for his son Prakash Amritraj, who was born in California, we don't give the name in foreign script. This may be due to the article being less well developed, but it also makes some sort of sense. Prakash Amritraj is still a recognizably Indian name, but as he was born in the US, his name would have been recorded in Roman letters on his birth certificate. In such cases, editors should still have the option of giving the name in foreign script as well, but I'd suggest this should only be done if the subject has strong links to his family's country of origin and his name is frequently seen there, written in the foreign script. It obviously would not make sense, for example, to give the name of a third-generation Russian American who does not even speak Russian himself any more in Cyrillic script in his BLP.

Does the above make sense, and would there be any objections to updating the guideline text accordingly? Jayen 466 17:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable. But many people leave their country of birth as a result of persecution and don't want to be associated with it or are persecuted in their own country. Hebrew is the official language of Israel, would we therefore translate the names of Muslims living or born in Israel into Hebrew?Momento (talk) 22:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think we would. Note though that Arabic has official status in Israel. Jayen 466 09:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess we'd have to word it in such a way that in countries with multiple official languages we use the script of the ethnic group, or region, that the subject was born in. Jayen 466 09:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As for cases where someone grew up as a member of an oppressed minority, I can see that using the script of the oppressors, for want of a better word, might be considered offensive, especially in a BLP. Should we include a sentence to that effect? Jayen 466 09:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * How would we establish this oppression - by comments made by bio subjects? Hating or fearing an oppressive government is not the same as hating the script used in that country. Are there any instances of this that we can point to, or is this just a guess about a hypothetical situation?   Will Beback    talk    10:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Background - the issue of non-latin script came up today in regard to Prem Rawat, who was born in India and has a large following there, but who now lives in the US and is a US citizen. He has been known by several Indian names or titles in his life. The discussion there is at Talk:Prem Rawat and Talk:Prem Rawat   Will Beback    talk    23:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What is your view on the matter, Will? Jayen 466 09:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Jayen is making two proposals. Regarding the first one, I think that the quotation is clear, but possibly unnecessary. As for the underlying principle, oftentimes a foreign name is simplified in common usage by removing accents. It's not our job to "fix" common usage, but just to reflect it. Regarding the second issue, I think Jayen makes a good case for a general principle. Basically, if someone is born in a country that uses a non-latin script, and has a name native to that language, then we should include the name in its original script. While I agree with Rumiton, below, that veribiability could be a problem in some cases, there are so many editors familiar with foreign languages that in practice I don't see a significant problem. A benefit would be to aid in transwiki linking, as it'll be clearer which individual is being discussed. Regarding Momento's issue about refugees from oppression, that doesn't seem like a common issue. This is just a guideline and if an individual found the language or script of their birth country to be repugnant then it could be removed from their article. We don't need to draft guidelines that cover every possible permutation.  Will Beback   talk    20:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Seems to me that Wikipedia works because of the number of editors who can read the articles and spot the errors and POVs as they creep in. Allowing foreign script in an English language article reduces the number of editors. I can see cases where misleading script could stay for months before being picked up. Rumiton (talk) 11:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * We do have editors that know the languages concerned. Giving Cyrillic transliterations for notable Russians is pretty standard in WP, same with Chinese proper names etc. Jayen 466 14:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Re the first case, note our article on Gerhard Schröder (thus spelt) and note google news, which shows that many quality media publications, including the Times, the Financial Times, the New York Times, the Guardian, the Independent, the International Herald Tribune use the original spelling with the umlaut at least half the time, or even exclusively (at least in this small sample). We have to remember that we are an encyclopedia and therefore should commit to the most educated usage, which is to include accents on French names, umlauts on German etc. The variant spellings ("Gerhard Schroder", "Gerhard Schroeder" etc.) can be set up as redirects, so users will see the most correct spelling. I think that is current practice anyway; it would be hard to argue the principle that we should have a redirect from a correct spelling to a wrong spelling. Agreed? Jayen 466 23:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The issue of accents is slightly different than the issue of scripts. These should probably be two separate threads. Anyway, this is the English Wikipedia, so whichever spelling is most common in English should be used. Cologne is the name in English, but Köln is the "proper" spelling of the name. If it's a close case, such as the Schröder example abovce, then we should retain the accents. However there is also a problem with folks adding accents where they don't belong. Here are two examples that I've dealt with in the past. Richard Ramirez never spent a day of his life in Mexico, though he is of Mexican descent, and never spelled his name with an accent. Despite that, some editors were moving the article to "Ramírez". They believe that is the "correct" spelling in Spanish, even though it isn't used by the subject. Likewise with Roman Polanski. He hasn't lived in Poland since he was a young man, and in his films and printed matter he spells his name without an accent. Yet editors insist that it should be spelled "Polański" because that is how it is spelled in Poland. So this is a delicate matter. We need to both honor the most common usage and the usage preferred by the subject, while also keeping in mind the most correct version when one is known.    Will Beback    talk    00:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Regarding the naming of articles, Naming convention is the main guideline. It says:
 * Use English words
 * ''... The choice between anglicized and native spellings should follow English usage (e.g., Besançon, Søren Kierkegaard and Göttingen, but Nuremberg, delicatessen, and Florence). Often this will be the local version, as with Madrid. Sometimes the usual English version will differ somewhat from the local form as in Franz Josef Strauss; ...
 * So if a name has become common in English without accents, then it seems consistent to use that version.   Will Beback    talk    06:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well done. There is also WP:UE, which is linked from Naming convention. I never cease to be amazed at how it's always possible to come across another guideline page that one has never heard of. I note that WP:UE mentions that "The native spelling of a name should generally be included in the first line of the article". I'll get back to you when I've had time to read through these pages. Jayen 466 21:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, there's always one more guideline. I see that WP:UE says:
 * The body of each article, preferably in its first paragraph, should list all common names by which its subject is known. When the native name is written in a non-Latin alphabet this representation should be included along with Latin alphabet transliteration. For example, the Beijing article should mention that the city is also known as Peking, and that both names derive from the Chinese name 北京. 
 * That seems to address this exact issue.   Will Beback    talk    21:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Re the second case, I think you are right; this is a guideline, it is not cast in stone, and the rest should be left to editors' discretion and WP:BLP. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 23:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, the verifiability of foreign scripts can be a significant problem in real life: A tragic case.  Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 23:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Luckily, WP articles are easier to change than tatoos.   Will Beback    talk    00:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

People known only by initials plus surname
Is there a guideline on how to present these? Should it be A. R. Rahman, A.R. Rahman, AR Rahman, A R Rahman, or something else entirely.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think Naming_conventions_(people) applies. It seems A. R. Rahman is the preferred spelling. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 22:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Luxembourg example
The Luxembourg example doesn't really work any more, because the article on Luxembourg has changed since this was written. (Yet another reason why linking to article space from guidelines is not such a great idea ...) I've reinserted the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg in bold in the Luxembourg lede the way it was half a year ago, but that still does not match our description of the article here. Will adust the wording here to match Luxembourg, but unless someone is prepared to keep an eye on this, we should consider our options. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 22:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The Knoedel example
We started discussing several issues above. Perhaps it will be easier to take these on one at a time. The following passage:

has several problems:


 * 1) It links to article space.
 * 2) Knoedel does not (necessarily) become Knodel or Knoedel in English, as the example of Gerhard Schröder illustrates.
 * 3) Whatever else it says is really common-sense.

Would we lose anything of value if we deleted this part of the guideline? Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 22:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * One reason to have policies is to have a brickbat for the Wikipedians without common sense. Although substituting an example without diacritic would be simpler. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Members

 * If an article is about an entity that has other places as members (see Council of Europe, for example), the listing of those places (that is, the members) should follow the official English version of the listing provided by the umbrella organization, whether politically correct or not. These would, of course, link to the article name used at Wikipedia.

Is this desirable? It comes close to requiring official names, and (as the example should make clear) one purpose of this is the campaign to say FYR of Macedonia as often as possible. This page should not assist ethnic point-scoring. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Lowercase names still capitalized at the beginning of a sentence
I made this bold edit. Your feedback welcome. Mike R (talk) 21:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Stage name/real name
I see in some articles the article will lead with the real name followed by the stage name, and others will start with the stage name followed by the real name. Does the MOS say which should be used ? I see notes about the most common known but Ringo Starr article starts with his real name but obviously his stage name is the best known. --Cameron Scott (talk) 23:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Middle names in article text
When someone is most commonly known without their middle name, would it not be proper to use and/or link the commonly known name and not the full name? The Proper_names seems to apply here though it only refers to article titles, not in the text of articles."However, if the person is conventionally known by only their first and last names and disambiguation is not required, any middle names should be omitted from the article title (emphasis mine)." The question arose when reviewing Order_of_Nova_Scotia, especially Sidney Crosby and Anne Murray, though I have seen it in various other places including references to Arnold Alois Schwarzenegger, aka Arnold Schwarzenegger. Seems like unneeded confusion to me. &mdash; MrDolomite • Talk 15:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The link text doesn't have to be the article title; that's what masking is for. But since the indicated section is citing some notable inductees, not quoting the whole roll, I would use the recognizable form. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

MoS naming style
There is currently an ongoing discussion about the future of this and others MoS naming style. Please consider the issues raised in the discussion and vote if you wish GnevinAWB (talk) 21:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The vote appears to have ended; in any case the link to vote above no longer links to any section titled #Vote. kcylsnavS 14:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Alphabetizing, or What Is The Surname?
I dunno where to put this, but I wish to suggest the following policy regarding alphabetization of lists of people. I didn't want to re-invent the wheel but couldn't find anything on enwiki that provided this info. If it's already here please let me know. I also didn't want to re-invent the wheel when perfectly good wheels are already working so I've followed the recommendations of the Chicago Manual of Style - because if they don't know how to do it, no body does.

The suggested policy is at User:RiverStyx23/Surnames but let's have the discussion here (or wherever this topic get moved to). Thanks for listening. kcylsnavS 23:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Ethnic names
At Naming conventions (languages), it is suggested that the name common to a people and their language should be used whenever practical. The current wording is,


 * Where a common name exists in English for both a people and their language, that term is preferred, especially when borrowed native forms involve different prefixes or are otherwise not transparently related. For example, Germans and German language, with redirects at Deutsch and Deutsche; also Tswana people and Tswana language, with redirects placed at Batswana and Setswana. The template Infobox NC name may be used to list the various affixed forms, as at right for Tswana.

Since this affects more than just languages (though, in general, languages are named after peoples or places rather than vice versa), IMO a redirect to the language conventions should be included here. Perhaps s.t. like,


 * Peoples and their languages

Where a common name exists in English for both a people and their language, that term is preferred, as in Swahili people and Swahili language rather than Waswahili and Kiswahili.

Any objections? — kwami (talk) 21:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * A couple days now and no objections, so I'll add the line. — kwami (talk) 20:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Largely redundant, except for the link, but harmless. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

referring to people with widespread use of stage names within the article
I am not sure this is the right place, but what is the practice for referring to people with stage names such as Muddy Waters or Brotha Lynch Hung or DJ Premier within the article itself? Where we would normally use a surname "Bush did X" to maintain professional writing, it is certainly not appropriate application to write "Premier did X" or "Hung did X", is it? Active Banana    (bananaphone  20:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

RFC: restructuring of the Manual of Style
Editors may be interested in this RFC, along with the discussion of its implementation: "Should all subsidiary pages of the Manual of Style be made subpages of WP:MOS?" It's big; and it promises huge improvements. Great if everyone can be involved. N oetica Tea? 00:50, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

new addition in the middle of a content dispute
I am removing a new section added by Dicklyon, per WP:BRD. While he asked for opinions in the "capital letters" guideline, he not received yet any reply, and he is neglected to mention and the changes would allow him to win a content dispute in which he is involved.

{{quote|1=

Compounds with proper names
Proper names are often compounded with generic terms to make phrases that may be interpreted as referring to a specific object or concept – for example, Labrador retriever (a specific dog breed), Murphy's law (a specific adage), Halley's comet (a specific celestial body), Venturi effect (a specific scientific effect), Gouraud shading (a specific algorithm), Morse code (a specific encoding), Cairo ring road (a specific road). Do not over-capitalize – it is Wikipedia style to treat the entire phrase as a proper name only if it is almost always so treated in high-quality sources. (Such compounds are often found with the generic term capitalized, as if the entire phrase is a proper name, in publications of specialist groups that tend to name and organize their topics. In writings of and for the general public, on the other hand, more often only the name part is capitalized, and the phrases are treated as descriptive.)}}

This section is hand-tailored to help Dickylon win a content dispute in Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style.

The examples are at odds with the cited articles: our article Labrador Retriever has always been capitalized. Halley's Comet has always been capitalized, even when it was called Comet Halley. Dickylon is currently trying to move it to Halley's comet, so that it will his example. This looks too much like a half-baked text thrown together in order to win an ongoing content dispute. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, I wrote the section first, and asked for comments on the talk page WT:Manual of Style (capital letters) before choosing Halley's comet as the first test case to try to get some comments and discussion. I said all that there.  I have no particular interest in winning at Halley's comet, and it's not a content dispute.  It's a style matter.  Let's discuss it civilly, as I've trying to do, OK?  Dicklyon (talk) 21:18, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, see why the examples are wrong.


 * "Murphy's law" is a bad example because most books capitalize it by a wide margin, which a simple google book search can confirm. Looking at the 25th anniversary edition of the original Murphy's Law, you can see that it was coined and intended to be used as a proper noun. You opened a few days ago a move request in Talk:Sturgeon's_Law, which probably gave you the idea to insert this example. However, all sources capitalize that law, giving a perfect counterexample of what you were proposing.


 * "Cairo ring road" doesn't show in ngrams. It has about 50/50 usage in books, and there are very few books. And it was originally capitalized, but you moved it 14 minutes before inserting it as an example in the guideline, saying "commonly lower-case in sources". (I think that you are not conscious of how bad this looks to other people). The main problem is that it contradicts Naming_conventions_(U.S._state_and_territory_highways), which says that all US highways names have to be capitalized (treats them like proper names, apparently). Anyways, this was a tricky one, turns out that the road's official name is "Ring Road". I made a request to move it to "Cairo's Ring Road" Talk:Cairo_ring_road.


 * The examples that agree with with the majority of books are
 * "Morse code"
 * "Gouraud shading"
 * "Venturi effect".


 * I suggest building a text from these valid examples. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What's with the digression about the ring road? For one thing, why is Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(U.S._state_and_territory_highways)" being applied to it since it is in Egypt, which the last time I checked was no where near the U.S.?  For another thing, the road is labeled quite clearly on the map.  True, the whole circular thing does not have that name, but whole chunks of it do. In case there is any question about the translation, if you plug "ring road" into google translate, you get الطريق الدائري, the same name as on the maps. But is it the same as on the ground?  Here is a photo of the exit sign . Not an imaginative name, but if the proper name of this road is not Ring Road, I will eat Tahrir Square.  Neotarf (talk) 18:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Personal names in prose and lists
We have the articles "Martin Luther King, Jr." (as I expected), "Babe Zaharias" (a surprise to me, perhaps a mistake) and "Mary Decker" (no expectation). Suppose that they are adequately titled and that their lead sentences provide more complete information.

Is it sometimes right to use "King, Jr." alone in prose or in a list? Or is "Jr." used only when "Martin Luther" is used?

In prose and in lists, should (Didriksen) Zaharias be piped Babe Didriksen regarding achievements under that use name, such as athletic competition at the 1932 Summer Olympic Games?

Should Decker (Slaney) be piped Mary Decker Slaney where listed as a winner of some event late in her career? Should her biography read "In June 1997, the IAAF banned Decker ... Throughout her later career, Slaney had suffered ...".

If the USATF Hall of Fame officially lists her as Mary Slaney (Decker) —better, if we knew that she was inducted under that name eight years ago— should explicit discussion of that membership say, for example "The first women in the Hall of Fame were ..., ..., and Mary Slaney (Decker) "? What if the Hall of Fame inducts (I don't know) or lists (it's true) under a more formal name such as "Mildred (Babe) Didriksen Zaharias"? If we list women in the Hall of Fame, should it be under that name?
 * P.S. Some reference material, moving from print to digital media, has imposed unique names for people who were once listed under multiple names. It may be nothing but a quick & dirty way to manage all with one database management program, nothing but in the sense that they will gradually restore multiple names.
 * --P64 (talk) 20:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Standards for handling publisher location in citations
I've proposed a consistent WP:CITE standard for how to specify the publisher location in citations, at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. It takes better account of the WP:systemic bias problem than the practices recommended by the Chicago Manual of Style, and other style guides, which seem to always assume that the reader is a well-educated Westerner very familiar with American and European geography. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 21:42, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Concerns over "proper nouns": changing the lead at WP:MOSCAPS
Colleagues, please take note of this new section at WT:MOSCAPS:

"'Proper nouns', 'proper names', and other concerns: amending the lead"

Your contributions to discussion would be appreciated.

N oetica Tea? 00:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Place names with multiple spellings


What should be done with place names that are having more than one common spellings, such as Macau/Macao? Does Wikipedia have any policy to standardize it with either spelling? Or would the same rule for color/colour apply? (In the case of Macau, the FCO, the Macau Government and the Hong Kong Government spell it as Macao in English.) 116.48.165.183 (talk) 12:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * responded here Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_%28geographic_names%29. Please don't start multiple forked discussions. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * Different guidelines may have different policies. It's neccesary to find this out at different talk pages as long as the guidelines are relevant. 110.4.16.158 (talk) 13:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Diacritics
WP:DIACRITICS says "follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language." If we followed that language literally, there would be a whole lot fewer diacritics in titles than there are now. In contrast, this page says, "Wikipedia normally retains these special characters, except where there is a well-established English spelling that replaces them with English standard letters." The WP:Naming conventions (use English) page is obviously the better established guideline, so this one should be revised to conform. Kauffner (talk) 04:50, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This guideline is in line with policy and practice; we use established anglicized spellings like Aragon, but not mere common (mis)spellings of non-anglicized names like Paul Erdős. The rewrite of WP:DIACRITICS is highly disputed, having been opposed by most users that have commented on it. Prolog (talk) 17:19, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Then perhaps you can propose a change over at WP:Naming conventions (use English). That convention is specifically about article titles. The fact that WP:DIACRITICS sends you there rather than here is another cue as to which guideline should take priority. A change was agreed to, and it should done consistently through the guidelines. You must know that we had a big vote on this subject. The guideline here is more pro-diacritic than the proposal that was rejected. The Paul Erdős example shows nothing. We have 4 million titles on Wiki. You can find an example of whatever you want. Kauffner (talk) 17:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * What "change was agreed to"? The rewrite was done without consensus by a now topic-banned user who was at the time heavily involved in a diacritic-related RM. The two subsequent RFCs showed that this view is supported only by a (significant) minority of editors. The problem is there, not here, and the spelling of Erdős's name exemplifies the rule, not the exception. Prolog (talk) 19:31, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Whatever you think of WP:DIACRITICS, WP:UE says basically the same thing: "The choice between anglicized and local spellings should follow English-language usage". That's policy. This page is only a guideline. Kauffner (talk) 11:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * WP:UE is correct, but your interpretation of it is not; the idea that all common spellings of foreign names are anglicizations is contrary to the practices of authoritative dictionaries and encyclopedias, and is not supported by a single style guide. Prolog (talk) 13:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * There are also other guidelines that confirm WP:UE. For example WP:LEAD has a section about Non-English titles saying: "Although Wikipedia's naming convention guidelines recommend the use of English, there are instances where the subject of an article is best known in English-speaking sources by its non-English name. In this case, the non-English title may be appropriate for the article." So, the non-English title may be appropriate when it is best known by its non-English name in English-speaking sources. That wording of this paragraph strongly suggests this is meant to be the exception, only used when the non-English name or spelling has taken over in English-language usage.
 * The prevalence in English-language sources is to be our first consideration.
 * But, I notice that some editors are turning this around and want to use the native spelling and anglicization rules as the prime criterion, trying to brush away any anglicization that is not according to certain rules as "errors". At the same time trying to make prevalence in English-language sources a secondary consideration, only agreeing to a common name without diacritics if it is very prevalent and about a person or place that almost everybody knows.
 * Authoritative dictionaries and encyclopedias are good as far as they go, but they are built on a different model than WP. WP strongly relies on sources (all reliable sources, including reliable media sources), so the prevalence of certain names (or spelling of them) in those sources is what decides (not the 'rules' that other encyclopedias apply). MakeSense64 (talk) 09:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Which brings us back to the verifiability but NOT truth debate. Just because something can be cited to a source it does not be true especially if a source is known for certain limitations. For example a Mexican driverslicence only allows for one middle name. Can we use that as prove that the person only has one middle name? A technical disability of a souce does not make the resulting name a English name more is involved than that. Agathoclea (talk) 12:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah yes. The famous "ignore all sources" rule. Do you really not know that this a style issue as well? It has become much easier to use diacritics in the last few years, but published sources have not gone Unicode crazy the way Wikipedia has. Kauffner (talk) 21:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The reliability of a source depends on the context (WP:SOURCES). We can and should be picky. Reputable reference works are pretty much "Unicode crazy", so our current house style suits our project. Prolog (talk) 22:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The use of diacritics in names that appear more frequently in reference works and scholarly sources makes more sense than using them in names that only rarely appear in such sources. That is the case with most names from sports for example. Sports articles largely depend on news media coverage, which typically does not use the diacritics in the names. The prevalence in English-language sources is then heavily in favor of the non-diacritics spelling. Editors who don't like that are trying to put it away as spelling errors, or mistakes from limitations like in the Mexican drivers license example. But that doesn't really matter, if it is the prevalent name in English-language usage then that's how it is. WP is molded according to the prevalence in the sources we have, not according to the approach that is used in some other reference works. MakeSense64 (talk) 05:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The point again is that WP doesn't have "WP:RS sources" for stubs on Czech or Croatian junior tennis players who have maybe played one international tennis match in Austria. A skimpy website index card like this or this is not a reliable source for a lede like: Filip Horanský (born January 7, 1993) and known professionally as Filip Horansky, is a tennis player from Slovakia. Filip, with partner Jiří Veselý, won the 2011... " when the Slovak language press-sources in the article shows the player playing professionally under his correctly spelled name. Filip Horanský at www.talenty-info.sk "Filip Horanský je najlepším juniorským tenistom u nás." A scholarly English Book The socio economic impact of sports in Slovakia would be a source, but even then with BLPs in Latin alphabet WP spells fully in lede. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "WP doesn't have 'WP:RS sources' for stubs on Czech or Croatian" in which case this is covered in Naming conventions (use English). Whether a "A skimpy website index card" constitutes established usage for the naming of an article is something that can be debated on the talk page of the article. What is not needed is a content guideline giving contrary advise to that of the WP:AT policy and its guidelines, which covers the article title. -- PBS (talk) 10:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

What seems to be the major problem here is that the guidance given here is mixing up guidance given in the MOS which is about content with the guidance given in the Article Title policy and its guidelines (called naming conventions) such as Naming conventions (use English). What to do is already described in MOS:FOREIGN:

The wording in WP:AT mentioned in MOS:FOREIGN is under WP:UE and it says:

A more detailed explanation can be found in the WP:AT guideline (naming convention as such guidelines are termed) Naming conventions (use English). So why repeat it here in slightly different wording (which causes confusion)? I suggest that all of the text is replaced with:

As far as I can tell this should not be a controversial change because it is clear that the current wording should not be controversial but a summation of the main MOS page. That it is being misunderstood suggests that the current wording is not correct. -- PBS (talk) 10:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * But the use of correct spelling for living peoples' names is encouraged. We cannot have a guideline that says "The use of diacritics (such as accent marks) for foreign words is neither encouraged nor discouraged" without making this clear. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:03, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * How do we assess the "correct spelling" for a person's name? We do it by consulting reliable verifiable English language sources as recommended in MOS:FOREIGN. If verifiable English language sources use diacritics for a name so should Wikipedia. Basically MOS:FOREIGN says use the name as spelt in the reliable sources used to verify the content of the article. If it is the name is in the article title then that is worked out using the rules in the WP:AT policy. What additional information should this guideline add that is not already in MOS:FOREIGN? -- PBS (talk) 17:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * We generally assess the correct spelling (no need for " ") for a foreign name by looking at original language sources.
 * Where does MOS:FOREIGN guide people to use reliable sources for names? Where does it specifically say not to rely on tabloid/sports sources for things they were never designed to be reliable on? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I just put my foot in it for no good reason at MOS:FOREIGN. There is no guidance there. What additional information that is needed is (put very simplistically) guidance to sports fans to either spell Living People's names correctly in sports BLPs, or not get upset when a French/German/Finnish/Croatian etc. editor comes along and adds a reliable source for spelling. Somehow somewhere in all the WP guidelines we can either encourage correct spelling of BLP names or we by default encourage misspelling - which of these is the objective? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * There is a need for quotes around "correct spelling", because you are trying to say that there is a "correct spelling" independent of reliable sources. This is an invitation to WP:OR.
 * Correct spelling is correct spelling - Frédéric Vitoux (writer) is correct spelling vs Frederic Vitoux (tennis) which is incorrect spelling. If there's any " " marks going around anything as original research it'd be the attitude of some WP editors that "Frederic Vitoux (tennis) is "correct spelling in tabloid sources", it doesn't get more OR than that. The whole point of having a diacritic section here is to avoid this in an encyclopedia. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it best if we salami slice the wording that is here and see how much we can agree on. First of all why retain


 * as neither sentence has anything to do with BLP articles. -- PBS (talk) 16:48, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Qui tacet consentire videtur, ubi loqui debuit ac potuit I am removing those examples. -- PBS (talk) 12:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I am not silent, simply not in your time zone. Please take it as read that you do not have consensus to remove anything from MOS which will help avoid Frédéric Vitoux (writer) vs Frederic Vitoux (tennis) type situations. And I don't think qui tacet is good procedure when discussion is going on. Rather than remove, replace with better examples. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:28, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I will not take it as read. If you object to something either being added or taken away from this guidance if it is unclear, unhelpful or contradicts other guidance then you have to explain why. In this case you have not explained how the wording I am proposing to delete helps clarify the situation. If you look at the guideline Naming conventions (Norse mythology) it will explain to you why Ægir is where it is, but NC(NM) is out of date as it has not been updated since the introduction of Reliable sources to WP:AT in June 2008. These two sentences I propose to delete are to do with naming conventions not with the MOS. This is part of the MOS not a naming convention. Mix the two is confusing. So what is your explanation for keeping these two sentences? -- PBS (talk) 16:06, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As above the reason I object to you deleting the content is that I do not think you should unilaterally remove anything from MOSPN which will help avoid Frédéric Vitoux (writer) vs Frederic Vitoux (tennis) type situations. At the moment that gives an example of when to use a diacritic (or rather a diphthong outside normal modern English) with Ægir. Rather than remove, I would prefer to replace with better examples. We want to give naming examples of diacritics, then perhaps more familiar in English is the one that usually gets cited Beyoncé Knowles (per birth certificate, 1981). I personally, if it was up to me, would also include Frédéric Vitoux (writer) vs Frederic Vitoux (tennis) as an example of what not to do, and not to go on OR chases looking for "Frédéric + [non-notable surname]" in diacritic-disabled sources to arrive at "Frederic." That would actually be a useful guideline, because at least 50% of mistakes reoccuring on WP seem to happen on the basis of the belief that given name and surname must be verified together in combination for non-English given names and surnames. Or indeed tell people that it's okay for just use a reliable French source in the first place. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:55, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It is not OK to use birth certificates as a source unless it has been published in a reliable secondary source (seeWP:PSTS "primary sources that have been reliably published" and for living people under WP:BLPPRIMARY). It is not OK to use split sources for first name usage and second name usage, that would be a syn ("Peccavi" as Sir Charles James Napier would have put it). It is not OK to use foreign sources if a name exists in English sources (MOS:FOREIGN WP:AT), that would end up with names like Wien and Napoléon Ier. -- PBS (talk) 09:11, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

What happened?
A few days ago WP:MOSPN used to have instruction/guideline to spell people's names accurately even when sources (like tabloids) don't. I see it was Kauffner who removed it and Prolog restored it and it was removed again. Who agreed that it should stay removed? This was performing a useful function. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:50, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there an answer to this question? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've restored the status quo consensus version prior to Kauffner/PBS removal. This needs discussion and needs to have something better in place before a major deletion of this kind. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I responded with the initial comment to this thread (see below) at 17:45 on 22nd. You chose to ignore that and post put a second question here at 2:18 on 23rd. You have not restored the status quo consensus version because this gives different advise to that on the main page of the MOS. I have proposed salami slicing the text in the previous section and to date you have ignored that comment. I am now going to act on it Qui tacet consentire videtur, ubi loqui debuit ac potuit -- PBS (talk) 12:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * "spell people's names accurately even when sources (like tabloids) don't" sounds like WP:OR to me. If you mean that tabloids are not reliable sources, then that is a matter for WP:SOURCES. What MOS:FOREIGN says is "For foreign names, phrases, and words generally, adopt the spellings most commonly used in English-language references for the article, unless those spellings are idiosyncratic or obsolete." References in the article should be reliable ones or the information based on them should be removed (under WP:PROVIT). -- PBS (talk) 17:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * PBS.
 * It could be if someone is determined, yes, but if you think it's a license for OR then improve the wording to say "spell people's names accurately [according to reliable sources for others with the same surname] even when sources (like tabloids) don't". That should be obvious, but if it isn't then insert it. In any case it isn't a proposal, it's an expression of intent - I am one of those who would like Living Person's names spelled accurately even if they are French, it isn't wicked is it? :)
 * As regards WP:SOURCES does WP:SOURCES currently give good guidance on spelling of foreign surnames? Where? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Numerous other guidelines recommend that we follow the spelling that is "general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language": MOS:FOREIGN, WP:EN, WP:UE, and WP:DIACRITICS. Yes, media sources count as RS for this purpose, according to EN. This is a secondary guideline. It is supposed to summarize what the major guidelines say, not undermine them. UE should certainly trump it, since that is a policy. This was just a sleepy little guideline until recently. Kotniski made this change back in 2009, and it was years before anyone else noticed. Kauffner (talk) 04:11, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Kauffner. I would still like to know the answer to that question earlier: Are you in favour of allowing François Mitterrand to stand with diacritics? No long explanation needed, unless you prefer to give one, just a yes/no would be fine, more would also be fine. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:58, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Kauffner only some news media sources count as reliable sources. For example The Sun does not, but The Times does. In ictu oculi to answer your question about " allowing François Mitterrand to stand with diacritics" There are two separate questions there are you talking about within an article or an article title? For the former you have to look at MOS:FOREIGN for the latter WP:AT, both says follow the former says follow the usage of sources used in the article and the latter say follow usage in reliable English language sources. -- PBS (talk) 16:48, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi PBS
 * In the case of François Mitterrand I'm asking Kauffner whether he is in favour of François Mitterrand standing as title, since I know he is in favour of names with diacritics appearing first in lede.
 * As regards MOS:FOREIGN yes it says follow the usage of sources used in the article and WP:AT says follow usage in reliable English language sources in the title . And both of these are potentially insufficient guidance for BLPs where a significant number of the 899,000 BLPs on en.wp do not have proper footnotes (where a sports editor is unable/unwilling to access a Slovak newspaper article to verify a BLPs name), or do not have reliable English sources that combine (i) reliability about someone's sport appearances, (ii) reliability about someone's name. Do you disagree with this observation? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "where a sports editor is unable/unwilling to access a Slovak newspaper article to verify a BLPs name" is a huge assumption. — <span style="font-family: Courier New, monospace ;font-style:italic">V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 00:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ohms Law, normally WP:AGF would require only "unable", however unfortunately one of the disturbing things about what I've witnessed following the history of the tennis names / hockey names saga is accurate redirects created from for example Slovak names, which indicates that "unable" is not the only factor at work here. Which is extremely regrettable, and shouldn't impact WP:AGF going forward, but is part of the landscape of the last six months. I'm not impressed. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * PBS, sorry, do you disagree with the above observation, specifically that a significant number of the 899,000 BLPs on en.wp do not have proper footnotes (specifically for the person's name in their own language) and do not have reliable English sources (again specifically for the person's name in their own language)? In ictu oculi (talk)


 * You are still mixing up the advise at WP:AT and WP:MOS. Article titles are derived in a different way from the usage within any article apart from those that are about the subject of the article title. For example if there is an article on a treaty and the sources about the treaty call a plenipotentiary by one name then that is the name we tend to use even though the biography on the person may be under a different name. When I look at the article Tony Benn I do not see that there is a footnote specifying what his name is. Instead the article is named under the name used in reliable English language sources. To understand why he is known as Tony Benn gets one mixed up in politics and to use of his "official name" would be a political statement, so using the name that is commonly used in reliable English language sources sidesteps the POV issues. On the other hand if one is talking about his election to Parliament in the early days then it is quite acceptable to use his name as it was recorded at the time, and will be present in sources of that date (hence the use of redirects). You are suggesting that we have a rule that overrides usage in reliable sources. Please read this comment which I recently added to article titles, it may help you understand why this is a retrograde step. -- PBS (talk) 12:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * There is no need for a "proper footnotes (specifically for the person's name in their own language)" if the issue is the Article title then we title our articles using the subject's common name in reliable English language sources. If there is disagreement on what that is then there will be a "Requested move" section in the talk pages where the evidence is examined, there is no need for a "proper footnote" about this on the article page. If it is about usage in an article then usage in the reliable sources in the article cover the form of name to be used. These are usually English language sources in line with WP:V. I do not see where "proper footnotes" because if there are no reliable sources in the article then this comes under Notability and an AfD. If the only information available about a BLP is in a foreign language then the sources in the artile will reflect this and those presumably will give a spelling in the foreign language (whatever that is). Introducing a new rule that tries to bypass verification in reliable sources is in my mind contrary to policy (specifically WP:V and WP:AT). -- PBS (talk) 12:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * We do not title our European BLP articles using the European living person's common name in otherwise reliable English language sources when there the English sources may be reliable on the topic area but are not reliable on the spelling of his or her name. To say otherwise would require either that we only use Chicago MOS or at the minimum NYTimes/Economist MOS sources, which barely exist in English popular print media or that we deliberately introduce incorrect information to WP.
 * I am perfectly aware of the difference between article titles WP:AT and article content WP:MOS, as above: the problem of mispelling of BLP names occurs in both title and content, the problem needs to be addressed in both WP:AT and WP:MOS. Maybe I have not made clear what the root problem is that is being addressed here? My question: what happens when a BLP is borderline notable and appears only in English language sources which may be reliable for other things but are not reliable for the spelling of the BLPs name? This is the problem. Please kindly show me where, other than the diacritics section here which you appear to wish to remove, assists with the problem. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I asked, PBS, sorry, if you disagreed with the above observation, specifically that a significant number of the 899,000 BLPs on en.wp do not have proper footnotes (specifically for the person's name in their own language) and do not have reliable English sources (again specifically for the person's name in their own language) and you said that you do not see where "proper footnotes" because if there are no reliable sources in the article then this comes under Notability and an AfD. Let me clarify. If you look at a European living person sports stub you will invariably find borderline notability. Correct. However those 899,000 BLPs have made it and are here. Now, sports stubs, have notability in sports sources, not in the Times literary supplement. If we follow sports sources as an authority on spelling we get WP:CONSISTENCY problems like Frédéric Vitoux (writer) vs Frédéric Vitoux (tennis) (currently at Frederic Vitoux (tennis). What is your solution to address this? Or, where in the AT or MOS (both) is this currently addressed. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Have you read the section WP:CONSISTENCY? It has nothing to do with what your example of two Vitoux (CONSISTENCY link to "Consistency within articles" which is a subsection of "National varieties of English"). Wikipedia is source driven. If that throws up inconsistency across articles then we allow those incontinences because we follow WP:Verifiability not truth. You are still persisting with language like "the problem of mispelling of BLP", you are presenting a POV which is often not supported by the sources. Our Policies and guidance says follow the usage is sources (See for example Using sources). Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia it is not an innovator but a follower.  -- PBS (talk) 16:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello Philip, it generally isn't a good idea to address people with "have you read ____ ?" if you want to be listened to, but in this case I thank you for noting the shortcut doesn't lead to the place in MOS I thought. Yes I have read MOS, and I thought that WP:CONSISTENCY linked to "consistent with the titles of related articles" at the top, so thanks for pointing that out. However consistency within articles is still relevant if you have articles on given names and surnames and families. Your tone "persisting" isn't particularly helpful either, I've stated the problem and you haven't addressed it other than by noting that MOS contains two consistency instructions. Given that WP:MOS says "consistent with the titles of related articles" what is your solution to Frédéric Vitoux (tennis) (currently at Frederic Vitoux (tennis)? Reliable sources on the French given name Frédéric show that it is Frédéric. Frédéric is a name used by NYTimes/Economist MOS, and used for all Frédéric's on WP. Are you arguing that because a tennis player called Frédéric fails to get into NYTimes/Economist that his name Frédéric isn't Frédéric but Frederic? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:32, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Addition of "see detail at FOREIGN", (what detail?)
Also, a reminder that your change to MOSPN doesn't have consensus and you should remove it. Not least because there is no "detail at FOREIGN", it isn't there. You could say "general principles at FOREIGN", but all in all this looks likely to redirect people from following relevant WP:IRS and being "consistent with the titles of related articles" if a foreign name is involved In ictu oculi (talk) 03:32, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * What change to MOSPN? -- PBS (talk) 08:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Your addition here. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I will not remove it as several other editors including yourself have edited the text. -- PBS (talk) 15:26, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As you wish. Then I'll return that line to status quo myself. Okay? In ictu oculi (talk) 18:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No it is not "Okay". The change has been accepted with edits by other editors and no one but yourself has objected to the change. Further you have not explained what it is that you object to given that it include nothing that is not said in the main MOS guideline, and puts come clarity on what is a confusing paragraph that mixes article titles (of no relevance to this content guideline) and content. Indeed I do not see what it is that you think is being preserved by keeping the text I deleted. What is it that you think that says is an addition to the current main MOS guidance? -- PBS (talk) 14:52, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * And, again, how does MOSFOREIGN fix Frédéric Vitoux (writer) and Frederic Vitoux (tennis)? How does MOSFOREIGN address the deletion of spelling from e.g. Czech BLP names by anti-European names editors? In ictu oculi (talk) 14:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * What does "anti-European names" mean? -- PBS (talk) 15:26, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It means among others editors who delete the diacritics on Czech citizens in the lede of articles which are sourced with Czech language sources, and also editors who approve of it. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * MOS:FOREIGN makes it clear that spelling should be based on the sources within the article unless the spelling in also used in the article title in which case it defers to WP:AT. So looking at Frederic Vitoux (tennis) there are three things to do. The first is to AfD the article if the sources are not reliable ones. The second is that MOS:FOREIGN does not apply to the spelling because the name in question is also the article title so WP:AT applies specifically WP:UE and its guideline Naming conventions (use English). Internally what should be done is to follow the guidance in MOS:FOREIGN and use the spelling used in the article title. Now I have no idea if the reliable English language sources on this man meets the threshold of enough "reliable English-language sources to constitute an established usage"(or for that matter if French sources are enough for notability), but lets assume that there are enough. If so then for example, the lead could be better structured as


 * The advantage of such a layout is that not only does it meet policy requirements, but it also informs the reader of the usual spelling in English and this format also covers cases where a person comes from a nation state such as Spain where their name may be spelt several ways.-- PBS (talk) 15:26, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If that meets "policy requirements", why is it different from WP:OPENPARAGRAPH?


 * Which would require:

And you haven't dealt with the question. What is your fix for WPMOS "and consistent with the titles of related articles" requirement between Frédéric Vitoux (writer) and Frederic Vitoux (tennis)? Why is the writer at diacritics and the tennis player not when both are called Frédéric Vitoux? What is the justification for going against WPMOS "and consistent with the titles of related articles" on this? In ictu oculi (talk) 18:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * And btw. In answering the question you may wish to also Google search [site:en.wikipedia.org Frédéric]. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * what question? -- PBS (talk) 19:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The MOS is not the place to look for this, you have to look at WP:AT, consistency is a legacy left over from before article titles were based on reliable sources (it used to be based on all sources both reliable and unreliable). While consistency is of some use for certain areas such as WP:NCROY it was never intended to cover situations like this. If you think otherwise ask at Wikipedia talk:Article titles because what you are suggesting doing is ignoring sources in favour of rules made up by editors in the interests of consistency has been rejected in lots of areas including WP:NCROY, see for example a current conversation at Wikipedia_talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility). It is also a double edged sword. Take your favourite Frédéric Vitoux example. If consistency is desirable then why not ignore the sources in Frédéric Vitoux and move the article to Frederic Vitoux in the interests of consistency? This is why this idea has been rejected in favour of source based naming, because it encourages people to ignore usage in reliable sources. It can also becomes a method to reinforce older bad decisions and it is contrary to the idea that consensus can change. -- PBS (talk) 19:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Philip
 * You say "If consistency is desirable then why not ignore the sources in Frédéric Vitoux and move the article to Frederic Vitoux in the interests of consistency?" Two reasons.
 * (1) the English and French sources in Frédéric Vitoux are both reliable, and the English-only sources in Frederic Vitoux (ignoring the French ones) are sports sources. And
 * (2) because if we Google search [site:en.wikipedia.org Frédéric] we'll find what looks to me like 400-500x French Frédéric articles. Should all 400-500 be moved simply because one of them plays tennis and is not mentioned in Google Scholar sources? Isn't it OR to assume that because he's not mentioned in Google Scholar that this Frédéric is different from all other French Frédérics and needs to be considered as "Frederic"?
 * (3) Le Parisien and various French newspapers mention the tennis Frédéric as Frédéric, and the article itself is sourced with Fédération française de tennis FFT - Reconversion joueurs de tennis - Le bilan de compétence "Frédéric Vitoux : Union nationale des joueurs professionnels de tennis (UNJPT)"
 * Yes that's right, when English sources are lousy, then use French sources:


 * Do you still want to move Frédéric Vitoux (writer) to agree with Frederic Vitoux (tennis)? In ictu oculi (talk) 21:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I did not say I wanted to move either of them. It is you who are interested in a form of consistency which is a complete misunderstanding of how guidance given in the WP:AT policy (as demonstrated by the links above to recent conversations on this issue -- I can provide many more if you want to read them). The full quote from Naming conventions (use English) is


 * (1) Yes the correct approach in this case is to hold a WP:RM and come to a consensus over whether or not "there are too few English sources to constitute an established usage". If it is agreed that there are two few "English sources to constitute an established usage" then foreign language reliable sources can be used to determine the best article title to use based on those foreign language sources. This has nothing to do with consistency between articles, but everything to do with consistency between Wikipedia article titles and the identifiers used in reliable sources to identify the subject. We are biased to using English language identifiers from reliable sources because those are the identifiers that most English language readers will look for and feel most comfortable reading (as they do reading articles that use the national variety of English they are most accustomed to reading).
 * (2) Each article title has to rely on the sources available for that title. See my comment higher up about WP:SYN. I think your second argument relies heavily on SYN and therefore can be put to one side.
 * (3) Of course to be consistent you can not use similar quality French sources to justify a spelling that you dismiss in English as unreliable. If a certain quality English source is dismissed as unreliable it is disingenuous to then use a similar quality foreign source. What ought to happen if the English sources are dismissed as unreliable and no better foreign sources are provided to replace them is that the article should be AfD. If it survives an AfD on its English sources then that would mean the English sources are reliable. -- PBS (talk) 14:44, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I am glad to see that you are starting to approach the question on how to agree on the most suitable name for an article title by following the steps laid out in WP:AT and the more specialised guidelines that supplement the policy. -- PBS (talk) 14:44, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Philip, you might want to step back and think about the assumptions you're making about other editors when "I am glad to see that you are starting to approach". Everyone editing in this area already understands these points, you might want to exercise WP:AGF in the direction of a little humility if you consider yourself a teacher to others. As regard (1) and (3) obviously that's why I said it. As regards (2), whatever you may think of "consistent with related titles" this kind of check is very useful as a reality check. As the result in this case demonstrates. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:08, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Contrasting phrases in MOS and MOSPN
Picking up on Kaufner's recent question, I think we should take a look at this: This is quite a difference. The first sentence says that we adopt the spelling we find in the English-language sources for the article. The second sentence makes using English spelling into the exception, and retaining diacritics the normal rule. This can only create confusion. If an editor finds English spelling of a name in the sources for an article then he can use that spelling based on MOS. Another editor can come along and argue that it is not "established English spelling" and we "normally retain special characters" and revert it based on MOSPN. And the tango can start. MakeSense64 (talk) 14:25, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * In MOS:FOREIGN: "For foreign names, phrases, and words generally, adopt the spellings most commonly used in English-language references for the article, unless those spellings are idiosyncratic or obsolete."
 * Here in MOS:PN about diacritics: "Wikipedia normally retains these special characters, except where there is an established English spelling."


 * This guideline should only add guidance that is specifically necessary for "Proper names" that does not contradict the guidance given at MOS:FOREIGN. Therefore I propose that we delete all the text in the paragraph from and including "Non-English proper names ...". -- PBS (talk) 20:33, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, clearly the examples given in that paragraph refer to the use of names in article titles, so at best they belong in WP:UE not here in MOS, which pertains to the use of names in the body of articles. These examples create the impression that the spelling of foreign names in other articles should be taken from the title of the BLP for that person. That is not the case afaik. If some other article about mathematics mentions Paul Erdos and the English-language reference used for that article spells him without diacritics, then we retain this anglicized spelling even if his BLP article is kept at Paul Erdős. If Aragón is mentioned in an article and spelled with the diacritic in the English-language source(s) for the article, then we retain that spelling even if the article about Aragon is kept at the anglicized title. This is about staying true to our sources and being neutral towards diacritics (we neither remove nor add them). Correct me if I am wrong. MakeSense64 (talk) 06:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Quite so. -- PBS (talk) 15:33, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * This guideline is (and should continue to be) in line with policy and established practice. Who actually makes spelling decisions based on commonness in an article's references section? All users seem to agree on using the best sources available, even if there is often disagreement which sources those are. Furthermore, WP:SOURCES and WP:RS call for using sources that are best suited for the context, so the silly instruction creep on MOS:FOREIGN may well go against a core policy. It should be removed per WP:BURO. Prolog (talk) 10:56, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * If this guideline contradicts the central MOS page then this guideline should be brought into line with the central MOS page. If you think that the central MOS page is not following policy then raise that issue there not here. The key paragraph in MOS:FOREIGN starts "Spell a name consistently..." and I don't see how you draw you conclusion that its wording is "against a core policy". -- PBS (talk) 15:33, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Very few English-language sources (like dictionaries and encyclopedias) have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy when it comes to the proper orthographic presentation of foreign names in English. Yet, MOS:FOREIGN claims that all English-language sources are reliable regarding this matter. Even on a MOS subpage, consistency with core content policies is more important than consistency with the MOS. Prolog (talk) 16:15, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What are the "core content policies" you are referring to? You write "proper orthographic presentation of foreign names in English" what is proper? --PBS (talk) 00:18, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:SOURCES is part of WP:V. What is proper is defined by the sources that qualify as reliable and relevant; not by any of those that don't. Prolog (talk) 19:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see how WP:RS has anything to do with MOS:FOREIGN. Yes, we try to use the most suitable sources for our articles. And we use the spelling of names found in those reliable sources. The idea that we should change the spelling of names appearing in a certain article (can be any article) according to the title at which the article for that particular name is kept, is flawed for a number of reasons:
 * 1)It puts us in the problematic "improving on our sources" position.
 * 2)It wrongly assumes that there is only one "accurate" or "correct" name for something. That is often not the case, quite frequently there are several "alternative" names or "alternative spellings" of that name, it is only that an article can have only one title. Thus, a certain title having been chosen for the article does not imply that all other renderings of the name are "inaccurate" or "wrong". In fact an alternative rendering may be more accurate or common within the specific context of the given article. Changing the spelling would then remove relevant information. That's why we normally retain the name found in the English-language sources for the article. We are not supposed to do OR in order to decide whether an alternative rendering is more relevant or not in the article context, we just follow our reliable sources. As a simple example, we have an article kept at Aragon, but that doesn't imply that Aragón is a "wrong" spelling of that name. So if we find it spelled "Aragón" in the English-language source(s) used for a certain article, then there is no good reason to alter that spelling. In doing so we retain the natural variety of spellings that exist in English-language, rather than reduce it to just one spelling.
 * 3)It would create a lot of extra work for editors. It would mean they will have to verify (and possibly) alter the spelling of any foreign name or word used in an article they are working on. It means that when an article about foreign name gets moved to a different title, all the occurrences of that name in other articles will have to be corrected according to the new title. And it also means that cites showing the altered spelling of a foreign name will need to be found and added to the article, because otherwise it violates WP:V. We don't want to change spelling of names without any cites showing that spelling, do we?
 * Bottom line: retaining the spelling found in the English-language source(s) for a certain article is only reasonable. It is also the only way to remain "diacritics-neutral". Wikipedia should not be used as a vehicle to advocate the introduction and use of more native spelling into English-language usage. MakeSense64 (talk) 06:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Under discussion
I have put an "under discussion" tag at the section, so that ideas about the problems with the phrasing of this section are kept to one place. MakeSense64 (talk) 10:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I've let others do revert-to-status-quo before, but this latest Contrasting phrases in MOS and MOSPN tag by MakeSense64 I reverted myself. This MakeSense64 is your personal view based on your conviction that Wikipedia doesn't use diacritics and that WP:UE doesn't give Søren Kierkegaard as an example, and that François Mitterrand isn't an example on WP:OPENPARA. Don't edit-war it back in.
 * I ask you again:
 * Have you looked at en.Wikipedia?
 * In ictu oculi (talk) 10:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Personal names section
This is a questionable sentence: "Most recent personal names have but one correct spelling, although presentation (use of initials, middle names, nicknames, etc.) can vary and still be correct." I can agree that recent "legal names" have only one correct spelling, but for "personal names" there can be many alternative spellings and transliterations. For example Serena Williams is spelled Serena Viljamsa in Latvian. "Serena Viljamsa" is not a correct spelling of her "legal name", but it is a correct spelling of her "personal name" in Latvian. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * When you read about the history of Latvians and how their names were forcibly translated it is understandable that they now go the total opposite. Funny enaugh it make total sense that SW is a female "Viljams". Agathoclea (talk) 07:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, the mentioned sentence is demonstrably wrong. In many countries with Cyrillic alphabet or Asian scripts it is common for an English spelling to be rendered next to native spelling on passports and even birth certificates. People who immigrate may also discover that their official name gets rendered into a new spelling. So personal names can have more than one correct spelling. I am adding a "dubious" tag so that we can resolve this. MakeSense64 (talk) 06:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I live in a bilingual zone. My name has two different spellings, both valid and correct, and I use them interchangeably in documents. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * All right. Actually, just going through some of the examples found in our List of passports it is easy to see that most of the world population has more than one correct spelling for their personal name.
 * I think we should change the phrase in question to something like: "Recent personal names can have more than one correct spelling, often depending on the place of birth or residence, and presentation (use of initials, middle names, nicknames, etc.) can vary and still be correct."
 * Does anybody have a better idea? MakeSense64 (talk) 16:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Opportunity to restore to 18 March
I think any objective editor would recognise that there's a discongruity if it takes 7 days of push and pull over a RM for a French tennis player called Frédéric to be allowed to join the other 4,900 French Frédérics on en.wp (see results for Google [site:http //en.wikipedia.org Frédéric "a French"]), and yet a single editor here can abritrarily delete or rewrite the MOSPN guideline at whim, which has been in place since 2009 without anything approaching discussion, let alone consensus.


 * (cur | prev) 11:09, 3 May 2012‎ Kauffner (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,062 bytes) (+185)‎ . . (Restore to version by Ohms law (talk | contribs) at 04:03, 26 April 2012) (undo)
 * (cur | prev) 10:57, 3 May 2012‎ Prolog (talk | contribs)‎ . . (6,877 bytes) (+660)‎ . . (rv - no consensus for this rewrite, keeping the hatnote) (undo)
 * (cur | prev) 07:39, 3 May 2012‎ MakeSense64 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (6,217 bytes) (-845)‎ . . (→‎Diacritics: removing conflicting phrase per Talk) (undo)
 * (cur | prev) 03:18, 27 April 2012‎ Ohms law (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,062 bytes) (-29)‎ . . (Not a bad idea, but the sentence didn't really make sense with that change. Is it the "well-" part that is most important? Let's talk on the talk page.) (undo)
 * (cur | prev) 02:59, 27 April 2012‎ In ictu oculi (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,091 bytes) (+29)‎ . . (→‎Diacritics: restoring removed [well]-established English spelling [that replaces them with English standard letters].) (undo)
 * (cur | prev) 04:03, 26 April 2012‎ Ohms law (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,062 bytes) (+11)‎ . . (→‎Diacritics: Single paragraph; replaced "foreign" with "Non-English" (I think that "foreign" tends to reinforce an us vs. them attitude wrt diacritics)) (undo)
 * (cur | prev) 23:05, 23 April 2012‎ Boson (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (7,051 bytes) (+1)‎ . . (→‎Diacritics: Sp (a->an)) (undo)
 * (cur | prev) 21:17, 23 April 2012‎ Kauffner (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,050 bytes) (-54)‎ . . (→‎Diacritics: section should not argue with itself) (undo)
 * (cur | prev) 16:38, 23 April 2012‎ Philip Baird Shearer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,104 bytes) (+248)‎ . . (→‎Diacritics: Put back the section about the MOS) (undo)
 * (cur | prev) 02:33, 23 April 2012‎ In ictu oculi (talk | contribs)‎ . . (6,856 bytes) (+649)‎ . . (restoring status quo text prior to removal by Kauffner and PBS. This has been in the MOSPN for too long to summarily remove without consensus) (undo)
 * (cur | prev) 09:21, 22 April 2012‎ Kwamikagami (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (6,207 bytes) (+1)‎ . . (→‎Diacritics) (undo)
 * (cur | prev) 09:21, 22 April 2012‎ Kwamikagami (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (6,206 bytes) (0)‎ . . (→‎Diacritics: run-on) (undo)
 * (cur | prev) 09:16, 22 April 2012‎ Philip Baird Shearer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (6,206 bytes) (0)‎ . . (→‎Diacritics: change words to names) (undo)
 * (cur | prev) 09:14, 22 April 2012‎ Philip Baird Shearer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (6,206 bytes) (+21)‎ . . (→‎Diacritics: MOS:FOREIGN  (undo)
 * (cur | prev) 09:12, 22 April 2012‎ Philip Baird Shearer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (6,185 bytes) (-641)‎ . . (→‎Diacritics: Replace current wording with guidance to look at the relevant section in the MOS) (undo)
 * (cur | prev) 13:01, 19 April 2012‎ 115.240.89.202 (talk)‎ . . (6,826 bytes) (-243)‎ . . (→‎Place names) (undo)
 * (cur | prev) 13:42, 20 March 2012‎ Prolog (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,069 bytes) (+4)‎ . . (partial rv - anglicized spellings are certainly "well-established") (undo)
 * (cur | prev) 12:07, 20 March 2012‎ Kauffner (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,065 bytes) (-34)‎ . . (→‎Diacritics: well established --> established; Allows for greater conformity to policy at WP:UE. See talk.) (undo)
 * (cur | prev) 17:17, 19 March 2012‎ Prolog (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,099 bytes) (+63)‎ . . (rv - incorrect, as the Paul Erdős example shows, and no consensus for this change) (undo)
 * (cur | prev) 16:22, 19 March 2012‎ Kauffner (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,036 bytes) (-63)‎ . . (→‎Diacritics: "Wikipedia follows the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language." see Talk) (undo)

Dear Kauffner, MakeSense64 May I kindly request that you please restore the content on diacritics to 18 March 2012, and if anyone wants to change what has stood since 2009, have the decency to do an RfC. If you like, gentlemen, you may reuse the winsome Miss Knowles invitations I sent out 2 weeks ago to the 100 editors who had commented in diacritics RfCs. I (and the others in that RfC) could have taken the tack of simply coming here to MOSPN and deleting/editing MOS we didn't like. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * This is the second time on this page alone that you have put in a new section heading that makes it more difficult to continue the conversations in the previous section and make it look as if your comment is not a continuation of the previous one in this case the section Contrasting phrases in MOS and MOSPN.


 * If you look at the dates on the these edits:
 * Talk page: diff 17:39, 20 April 2012‎ Philip Baird Shearer (talk | contribs | block)‎ m . . (91,023 bytes) (0)‎ . . (→‎Diacritics) (undo)
 * guideline: 09:12, 22 April 2012‎ Philip Baird Shearer (→‎Diacritics: Replace current wording with guidance to look at the relevant section in the MOS)
 * That was a wait of over a day between making a statement on the talk page (with reasons) that I intended to make such an edit and executing the edit to the guideline!


 * It is thanks to you and your cherry picking of phrases from different guidelines, that brought me to this page. That you could read it in such a way to contradict the advise given on the main MOS page in a section that can be accessed via MOS:FOREIGN makes it clear that this guidance needs to be updated. This was being discussed in the section above Contrasting phrases in MOS and MOSPN, but you do not want to use the wording in place at the moment:
 * Wikipedia normally retains these special characters, except where there is an established English spelling.
 * but to go back to the wording that says:
 * Wikipedia normally retains these special characters, except where there is a well-established English spelling that replaces them with English standard letters.
 * And also to delete mention of link to MOS:FOREIGN and some wording copied from the main MOS (placed here by me to make it clear what the main MOS says). Wording that I did not copy from FOREIGN, but seems to be under debate here, is that MOS:FOREIGN states:
 * For foreign names, phrases, and words generally, adopt the spellings most commonly used in English-language references for the article, unless those spellings are idiosyncratic or obsolete.g
 * against the older incompatible wording of "well-established English spelling".


 * Iio: do you really think that guidance is improved when a subsidiary guideline gives advise that can be taken out of context and used to contradict the guidance in the main MOS page? If not why do you want mention of the main MOS page section removed from this guideline? -- PBS (talk) 16:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Philip
 * Firstly, for everyone's benefit, it would be very helpful if you would recognize that yours/Kauffner/Makesense64/Ohms Law represent a minority view among WP Users as evidenced by the all but universal use of diacritics in BLPs (estimate approx 199,800 of 200,000 BLPs which could carry diacritics according domestic nationality as stated in article do - the exceptions being either for very specific reasons such as residence abroad, personal preference, or disruptive edit histories) and not just BLPs. The physical evidence of the de facto state of en.wp is against your view/preference on this. The majority/de facto state of wp may not be "right," but at least it would be helpful if you would recognise it.
 * Do you recognise this? not a long discursus on some detail please, but is this broadly correct or not?
 * Secondly,
 * the recent page history above wasn't an invitation for you to state your POV again, it was an invitation to Kauffner, Makesense64, or indeed yourself, to restore the status quo of the MOSPN article. If someone, or 2 or 3 people, want to make changes to MOSPN on diacritics, then they should not do so by unilateral changes to long standing status quo and edit-warring to keep those changes in, instead they should initiate an RfC and invite all editors who have expressed an interest in the subject, as I did. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:14, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * My POV is that the names used in Wikipedia articles should follow usage in reliable sources what is your? My POV is that peripheral MOS guidelines such as this should supplement and enhance the main MOS page and not contradict it, what is yours? -- PBS (talk) 00:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Philip,
 * Would you please have the courtesy to address a straight question. (we already know that your view is that sources which are diacritic-disabled are reliable for names with diacritics, you have stated this repeatedly, and I see no value in rehashing that, mine is the opposite, but you are entitled to your view) But that isn't the issue here, the issue is unilateral changes/deletions to MOSPN, and apparent unwillingness to acknowledge the de facto view of en.wp Users as shown by real current article naming practice.
 * Please answer the question:
 * Do you recognise this? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * While you're so busy demanding answers from others perhaps you can find some time to answer my "Ivanovic" vs. "Janković"  diacritics question to you over at BLP which you still haven't answered after almost two weeks and despite several request? Surely you wouldn't ask of others to "have the courtesy to address a straight question" and not do so yourself as that would display a blatant double standard? --Wolbo (talk) 11:17, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Wolbo, did that question come before or after I asked you why you had been following me and deleting sourced' accurate spellings from living person ledes, a question you refused to answer. So how does you refusing to answer for your edits justify Philip Baird Shearer refusing to answer. As regards my opinion on Serbian names, it changed during the BLP discussion as I was misinformed going in, I was under the mistaken/outdated impression that Serbian = cyrillic, Croatian = Latin. I now know that is incorrect. I have said elsewhere that if a Serbian Ivanović lives in Switzerland and a Serbian Janković lives in Serbia that may be a difference, but I don't know what else you want me to say, WP:UE indicates use of Latin alphabet where Latin alpabet exists and I don't agree with anglicizing one Ivanović because they move to Switzerland either. de.wp has not renamed her, so there's not prima facie evidence that being resident in Switzerland anglicizes Serbian citizens names.
 * Anyway, now seeing as you're here and asking questions and I'm answering, how do you feel about the question I'm asking Philip, because it applies to you as well. Do you recognise that your view of how en.wp should be is out of step, radically, with where the articles are? Do you realise recognise that you are swimming against the tide? (irrespective of whether the tide is right or wrong). Yes/no. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Iio: the changes were not unilateral, they were proposed here on this talk page and made when no objections were made. As proposed be before the changes they were to make this page reflect the guidance on the main MOS page. You reverted, I put back the new text as addition to what was there already. I would remind you that this page is about all giving guidance for all proper names, including places such as Zurich and Gdańsk/Danzig, and dead Brits such as Charlotte Brontë -- not just about BLP articles. Do you think that guidance on this page should supplement or contradict the main MOS page? What is your specific objection to the text that it is now in the section and has been edited by a number of different editors? -- PBS (talk) 13:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Philip
 * It's very bad form to ignore a question 3 times and 3 times ask a series of other questions. Please avoid any appearance of WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT and address the question.
 * As regards your other comments: the meaning of the word wikt:unilateral is one-sided. What that means is that if 4 editors who have a long edit history against what is now, like it or not, en.wp norm on diacritics come to the MOSPN diacritics guidance and start editing it down or deleting it, as you did, that is "unilateral". You were clearly asked to stop above. You were asked, and are being asked right now to stop, restore. Telling the person asking you that you are not being asked won't cut it.
 * And as regards your latest question: Do I think that guidance on this page should supplement or contradict the main MOS page? You know already that I personally think the guidance on this page as it was was completely in line and fine, and that the contradiction is based on your reading of MOS and that, you Philip are out of synch with how other users read MOS, and even if I didn't think that, I would still not think that with your expressed opposition to "international wikipedia" that you are the best editor to be making that call.
 * Now,
 * I ask again, a straight question, please, do you recognise that your view of how en.wp should be in regard to preferring diacritic-free English sources over diacritic-enabled ones is a long way from where 99% of en.wp BLPs de facto are?
 * Would you please have the courtesy to answer a sincere question.
 * Yes or no is fine. Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:44, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you still beat your wife? "Yes or no is fine. Thanks." The answer to you question is I have no idea what the opinions of the thousands of editors who edit BLP think about using reliable sources to decide on the usage proper names in all articles (which is what this guideline is about). I do know that it is widely accepted that the content of Wikipedia should be sourced based an not on the opinions unsubstantiated opinions of editors on what is correct. It is summed up in the phrase "Verifiability not truth" near the beginning of the verifiability policy. Now that I have answered you question please the three related questions I put to you. (i) Do you think that the content of  Wikipedia articles should follow usage in reliable sources? (ii) Do you think that peripheral MOS guidelines such as this should supplement and enhance the main MOS page and not contradict it? (iii) What is your specific objection to the text that it is now in the section and has been edited by a number of different editors? -- PBS (talk) 11:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Philip, Asking someone what they think, asking if they agree with something yes/no is not a "do you still beat your wife" question. You are being asked a straight question, about what you think, I am trying to establish how you understand the de facto state of diacritics on en.wp. I am asking what your view of en.wp is. Please, which is it? [a] or [b]. As for your questions:
 * [a] You believe that the majority of the BLPs on en.wp which could have diacritics do.
 * [b] You believe that the majority of the BLPs on en.wp which could have diacritics don't.
 * (i) Yes the content of Wikipedia articles should follow usage in reliable sources - including French and Czech where English sources are unreliable
 * (ii) Yes peripheral MOS guidelines such as this should supplement and enhance the main MOS page and not contradict it - which is why your edits should be reverted.
 * (iii) My specific objection to the text that yourself and other anti-diacritics editors are edit warring into MOSPN is that it goes against (i) and (ii) above. But more than that it's that you shouldn't be making these changes without an RfC.

Now, I still would like to know, for everyone's benefit, it would be very helpful to know if your edits agree or disagree with the view that yours/Kauffner/Makesense64/Ohms Law represent a minority view among WP Users as evidenced by the all but universal use of diacritics in BLPs (estimate approx 199,800 of 200,000 BLPs which could carry diacritics according domestic nationality as stated in article do - the exceptions being either for very specific reasons such as residence abroad, personal preference, or disruptive edit histories) and not just BLPs. The physical evidence of the de facto state of en.wp is against your view/preference on this. The majority/de facto state of wp may not be "right," but at least it would be helpful if you would recognise it. Could you please answer the question. Which is it? [a] or [b]. You must know whether you think 200,000 BLPs which could carry diacritics do or don't? If you don't know what you think who does? In ictu oculi (talk) 21:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * [a] You believe that the majority of BLPs on en.wp which could have diacritics do.
 * [b] You believe that the majority of BLPs on en.wp which could have diacritics don't.
 * (a) I can not answer your questions for two reasons because it is badly phrased (1) what does "could have diacritics" mean as any word could have diacritics. (2) I do not have the time read all the BLPs on Wilipdia. (b) I do not think your questions are relevant here because this a general guideline.
 * (i) I am glad we agree on that.
 * (ii.1) What in my edits contradicts the main MOS page? Do you object to:
 * (ii.2) " "
 * (ii.3) "The use of diacritics (such as accent marks) for foreign names is neither encouraged nor discouraged, for details of how decide on the appropriate usage see the section Foreign terms in the MOS."
 * (iii)"yourself and other anti-diacritics editors" Since June 2008 have I made any statement anywhere that an any article title should not follow usage in reliable English language sources? What is it in this edit that is "anti-diacritics"? -- PBS (talk) 07:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Philip
 * (1) "could have diacritics" means could have diacritics, like Francois Hollande or Lech Walesa. It doesn't mean BLPs that couldn't have diacritics.
 * (2) "I do not expect thave the time read all the BLPs on Wilipdia." - then perhaps if you have no idea how the reality of en.wp is then perhaps it would be good to at least survey them before you rewrite of the MOSPN which affects them.
 * And, no as far as I know I have not seen you make any statement anywhere that an any article title should not follow usage in reliable English language sources, but given that you view diacritic-disabled sources and tabloid MOS and website sources as more reliable than Chicago MOS and foreign ones that's something of a redundant issue. The more important issue is whether your definition of reliable is correct.
 * Anyway, on the basis of the above reply (2), you need to do some reading of wp before you next make changes to MOS in this area. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:07, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that advise on what I should or should not read and what actions I can and cannot take, would be better placed on my talk page. Do you object to at the top of the section under discussion? -- PBS (talk)
 * Philip
 * Talk about changes you make to MOSPN should go here on WT:MOSPN.
 * Maybe once you have had the time to look at en.wp and have a better idea of how many diacritic-titled articles there are and how they are sourced then perhaps you may not still want to add that, but for the time being after this series of unilateral changes and knowing your strong views against reliable non-English sources then no, I don't think you should add anything without obtaining consensus of all who have expressed concern. Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Iio unless you are willing to give substantive objections to the additions and changes, made by several editors, it is not going to be possible to reach a consensus. I did not ask if you objected to me editing the page. I asked you whether you object to being at the top of the section under discussion?  -- PBS (talk) 12:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I feel most uncomfortable at this rash of unilateral changes. A reversion to the 18 March version appears to be the best way forward, so we can all get together, propose, and discuss. Please remember that editors become confused and sometimes stressed when guidelines are subjected to ongoing instability. Tony   (talk)  03:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Tony what exactly is the guidance that you think was changed to which you object (for the changes I made see ii.2 and ii.3 above)? -- PBS (talk) 07:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I concur that Kauffner and PBS should not rewrite this guideline without proper discussion and buy-in first. I have repeated Ohconfucius's restoration of the longstanding version for now. An RFC or other appropriate discussion has been invited; there's no need to try to get the change by just edit warring it in. Dicklyon (talk) 04:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * More than two editors have been editing this guideline, so if you are going to list editors please list them all. What has been rewritten? -- PBS (talk) 07:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Does everyone understand that the diacritics issue will not be resolved here? If a major proposal is turned down for the most directly relevant guideline, the next step is not to go find some minor guideline and sneak the rejected proposal into the text. This guideline should our summarize our policies and major guidelines. WP:UE, MOS:FOREIGN, WP:DIACRITICS, WP:UE all say to follow the spelling used in English-language RS. The current diacritics section of this guideline advises editors to "retain" foreign language characters, but also refers them to MOS:FOREIGN, which of course says the opposite. Kauffner (talk) 06:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Kauffner
 * Yes I understand that the diacritics issue will not be resolved here, which is why I'd prefer the MOSPN left according to status quo. I don't believe MOS FOREIGN says the opposite, I believe that you and Philip are misreading it.
 * Can I ask you the question that I've been asking Philip
 * You probably have a clearer view of what (i) how many BLPs could take diacritics (e.g. Francois Hollande could), and (ii) what % do.
 * What % of BLPs do you think, by your estimate, which could take diacritics currenty do take diacritics?
 * I know what my estimate is, I'm interested to know what your estimate would be.
 * Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 09:07, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This MOSPN is not about BLPs, we have the more specific MOS:BLP for that purpose. It is also not about article titles, we have a specific policy page for that at WP:TITLE. MOS:FOREIGN covers the use of "foreign names, phrases and words generally". MOS:PN is a subpage of MOS, so it does not cover the question of article titles. It is about names appearing in all our articles. The general principle is to retain the spelling found in our English-language sources for the article. That is in line WP:NPOV and WP:V, two basic pillars of WP. We are not supposed to "improve on our sources". As such, the current phrasing here at MOSPN is contradicting MOS:FOREIGN. Per WP:POLCON we need to fix that, and until that is done it is the higher-up page or policy that is to be used (because these more general pages are more widely watched). So we have to use MOS:FOREIGN until we can agree on how to fix MOSPN.
 * Restoring the March 28 version, is not an option because that doesn't fix the POLCON.
 * So what options we have? 1) Delete the paragraph, as the usage of diacritics in proper names is already covered in MOS:FOREIGN and there is no need for duplicate policies or guidelines (this is what PBS suggested and I implemented after there was no objection for more than a day). 2)Rephrase the section so that it does not contradict our other policies and guidelines.
 * It is obvious that MOSPN has not been widely watched and has been edited without any prior discussion on several occasions. Actually the current Talk page is all the Talk since 2003 on this page, and we can see that significant changes to the text have been slipped in. The Paul Erdos example has been there for many years, but it's easy to see that this section now says something very different from what it said back in 2007 or 2005. It is also not in line with the latest concensus that reconfirmed WP diacritics-neutral position: Naming conventions (use English)/Diacritics RfC
 * If we go for rephrasing then I would suggest something like this: "Foreign proper names written in languages which use the Latin alphabet often include characters with diacritics, ligatures and others that are not commonly used in modern English. Wikipedia normally retains the spelling found in the English-language sources for the article." (changed text in bold). This is more neutrally worded and in line with what MOS:FOREIGN says. The examples (if any) should also be changed because this is not the policy page for article titles. There should be an equal number of examples showing diacritics retained and diacritics not retained (we need to write guidelines neutrally). MakeSense64 (talk) 12:06, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * MakeSense64, while asking Kauffner, you're welcome to answer the same question:
 * According to your own estimate (i) how many en.wp BLPs exist which could take diacritics? (ii) how many don't?
 * Be interesting to hear your view. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * And how is that relevant here? If you want to discuss the use of diacritics in BLPs, then you should ask that question on a Talk page related to BLPs. Here you are at MOS:PN. Why is it that you go on trying to digress from the real question on the table: how to solve the policy conflict we have found between this page and the main MOS? MakeSense64 (talk) 13:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi MakeSense64,
 * Why is it relevant to ask for your view?
 * (1) Because you are one of the most active editors against current wp practice of giving French spelling to French people, etc, on wp.
 * (2) Because you attempted to add WP:TENNISNAMES as a standard for BLPs who play tennis.
 * (3) Because you are here changing MOSPN.
 * On this basis it's relevant to ask if you have looked at en.wp and have a view, or whether like Philip, "I do not expect thave the time read all the BLPs on Wilipdia." -
 * Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * (1) I have not seen any | naming convention that asks us to use French spelling for French people, and if there is one then you should discuss it on that page. You can then invite me on my UserTalk if you want my input on it.
 * (2) Yes, I wrote an essay about "tennis names" and if you have anything to say about it then you can always do so on the Talk page there.
 * (3) The change was made after a change was proposed and there was no objection. You may want to (re)read WP:BRD. Now that the change was reverted, those who did revert are supposed to engage in discussion and try to find a concensus. If the reverting editor(s) do not engage in discussion (or only bring red herrings), then it is assumed that they have dropped their objections to the proposed change. That's the normal procedure. MakeSense64 (talk) 16:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone object to   appearing at the top of the section "Diacritics" in this guideline? -- PBS (talk) 08:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. For the reasons given above. Please don't read an objection and then say "does anyone object". Why is it so important that you Philip Baird Shearer have to come here now and change MOSPN? What is the urgency? In ictu oculi (talk) 08:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You have written lots and lots, but It is not clear to me what your substantive reason for not wanting  at the top of the section. Please could you explain. -- PBS (talk) 10:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "You have written lots and lots" yourself Philip. My objection to you making any changes to this MOS is that you are edit warring. Plus Boson's objection below, plus Dicklyon's and OhConfucius' objection above. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You accuse me of edit warring, yet I have only made two edits to this section of the guideline, you have made more! Do you have any substantive objection to the header line? (Others can explain their objections for themselves and we can see if a consensus can be reached) -- PBS (talk) 11:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I strongly object. This is not at all the purpose of that template. --Boson (talk) 09:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you will find it is, for example it is used in the section "Peoples and their languages" immediately above the current one. The problem is there is a bug in the template that places the string "main article" instead of "main page" in front of the link because it starts MOS: instead of "Wikipedia:" or "WP:". If the following was in place (until such time as the template is fixed) that said ", would that answer you objection? -- PBS (talk) 10:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No, that is not the correct use of Main, and if it is incorrectly used elsewhere, that should also be changed. Use of the template would imply
 * that MOS:FOREIGN is a sub-article of this page;
 * that MOS:FOREIGN deals only with diacritics;
 * that the contents of MOS:FOREIGN is summarized here in full.
 * To the extent that the "Main" template should be used at all in project namespace (which might be contentious), its use would be appropriate if the whole section on diacritics in relation to proper names were given its own page (possibly entitled "Diacritics in proper names"). Whoever created such a sub-"article" would have to ensure that its contents contained the same information as was consensus in the Diacritics section here (which could then be re-written in summary style). Since the section is very short anyway, it seems unlikely that a sub-article would be deemed appropriate. --Boson (talk) 11:46, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Main seems to be used very inconsistently. E.g. in WP:MOS we see "Main" being used in the first section about "article titles" and it points to WP:AT policy page, which is definitely not a sub-article of WP:MOS. Then in the next section "Section organization" the "Main" template is used again and there it points to the sub-article Manual of Style/Layout. Besides Main I see See and seealso being used intermittently without any clear pattern as to why one template is chosen over another. MakeSense64 (talk) 15:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, the template documentation is pretty clear: When a Wikipedia article is large, it is often rewritten in summary style. This template is used below the heading of the summary, to link to the sub-article that has been (or will be) summarised.  This template can also be used in the Category namespace, but the preferred template for categories is Cat main.   This template is not to be used as a substitute for inline links or as a "see also". Its usage should be restricted to the purpose described above.


 * If we expect editors to read and comply with "our" guidelines, perhaps we should also read and comply with other peoples's documentation. If people did that, perhaps we wouldn't have different templates being used indiscriminately for the same purpose. --Boson (talk) 20:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Dicklyon your wrote "rv to status quo; conversation has been invited, in case Kauffner wants to rewrite policy" what do you mean by "in case Kauffner wants to rewrite policy" (this is a guideline not a policy)? When you made your revert you reverted much more than any changes that Kauffner had made was that intentional if so please explain what you other objections were.-- PBS (talk) 08:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * PBS, I wonder whether you might make formal proposals here for what you believe should be altered in the current version. Tony   (talk)  11:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Fundamentally I think it is a bad idea if a sub-guideline like this is worded in such a way that it can be misinterpreted so that it contradicts the main MOS page. I am not the only one, to hold this view see for example this posting at Talk BLP by Mike Cline. So I am looking to place into this guideline wording that makes it clear that this guidance should be read to supplement and enhance the main MOS page and not contain wording that is phrased in such a way that it contradicts that guidance. I am not sure what you mean by a "formal" proposal. If you mean one proposal take it or leave it, then I think that is not a good idea. It is much better to salami slice it and see if we can reach an agreement for each incremental change. Do you have any objection to including a hat note as described above? -- PBS (talk) 13:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Philip,
 * At this point it is evident that you do not have consensus to "salami slice" MOSPN.
 * You have also been asked to remove your MAIN MOS FOREIGN template.
 * Is there a reason why you have not done so?
 * In ictu oculi (talk) 00:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As there is clearly disagreement over the current wording and the proposed wording, unless we salami slice the wording how do you suggest that we reach a consensus? -- PBS (talk) 07:15, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As I suggested before, by doing as I did and issuing 100 invitations to the discussion. 100+ users have expressed a view on diacritics in the last 6 weeks, mainly against your view that English tabloids and websites are reliable for the spelling of European names. You initially attempted to make your changes not just unilaterally, but privately, without even notifying that discussion. You could actually just restart it, and attach the edit summary from your removal of the diacritics paragraph and the other key edits you. Or could invite all 100+ to a new discussion, or even just the 30+ that turned up for the last one. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Was there this much discussion when the current wording was added or was it just slipped in? Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The last large edit to guideline at 16:29 on 13 February 2009 by Kotniski. Kotniski is on a wiki break because editorial disputes at WP:AT see the link at the top of Kotniski's talk page for details. There was no talk about the bold change on the talk page (but silence is taken to be consent). -- PBS (talk) 11:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * PBS, my revert only affected the one paragraph that you and Kauffner have been trying to change.  Yes, others made edits, too, but they were mostly in trying to undo or moderate your changes, it appears.  It didn't look like any consensus was emerging from this thrashing of the guideline, and several editors had suggested taking it back to the stable version, or had done so already; I looked and agreed.  I'm just saying that if we want to change it, we should work that out here, not by warring on the guideline page. Dicklyon (talk) 06:18, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Dicklyon substantial objections to the changes that I made (because at the moment it seems that your objections are procedural)? -- PBS (talk) 17:36, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

"normally"
Makesense64. I ask you again, before you go making further edits/deletions to MOSPN, specifically the line of contention "Wikipedia normally retains these special characters," and the word "normally," what is your understanding of what WP currently normally does? If you have no idea of what wp de facto status quo MOSPN, or if are unwilling to say what de facto current wp status quo of "normally" is, should you be editing on MOSPN when other editors are asking yourself, PBS and Kauffner not to? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Rather than discussing this sentence (which is contentious), lets concentrate on issues that should not be. Can agree that this guidance should supplement and enhance the main MOS page? -- PBS (talk) 11:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * PBS,
 * Unfortunately you can't avoid explaining what it was about this key sentence you tried to delete that led you to attempt to unilaterally remove it. You say it's "contentious", which suggests that you do intend to try removing it again. But you're not willing to discuss how it is contentious. So what is the reason you want to remove it?
 * (A) Meaning you think it's not true?
 * (B) Or you think it is true, but shouldn't be true, if the status quo is wrong in your view?
 * Could you please explain your edits.
 * In ictu oculi (talk) 14:26, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * @IIO. I don't know if you realize it, but your participation in this discussion is looking more and more like stonewalling. You are all the time insisting on "status quo", but not really addressing the policy based points that are brought on the table. You even removed the "under discussion" tag I had put on the section, as if you don't want to discuss it or don't want others to discuss it.
 * If you still don't know what we are talking about, the contrasting phrasing we are trying to fix (and why) is explained right in the beginning of the "Contrasting phrases in MOS and MOSPN" section. So, that's where you can pick it up if you have useful suggestions or questions. Remember, this is not about BLP or RM discussions, MOSPN is about the use of proper names in all articles and is a subpage of MOS. As such the guidelines expressed in these MOS pages should at least "rhyme" and not contradict (or be open to interpretations that contradict the main MOS). As you can see in an edit that PBS has cited here, even uninvolved editors and admins have pointed out this problem with contradicting guidelines in MOS. Do you agree with them, or do you think there is no problem? MakeSense64 (talk) 05:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure the "conflict" people are trying to harmonize is really much of a conflict. But if we want to harmonize things better, the other alternative, discussed for example at this diff in 2008, would be to revert PBS's revert of 24 Sept. 2008 and go back to Kotniski's version that was there for about two months. As he points out, it was a better description of WP practice, and also seemed to represent what most users preferred, which is to use orignal Latin-based spellings and diacritics except when there is a well-established English alternative. Dicklyon (talk) 06:42, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * To be clear the diffs Dicklyon has highlighted are for the main MOS not for here. -- PBS (talk) 07:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Dicklyon,
 * Thank you for that informative comment. I agree there's no conflict, I would be quite happy to revert PBS' 2008 edit, in fact, unless there's a better proposal to be RfCed removing that edit would remove a lot of uncertainty and timewasting on wp re diacritics and allow editors to work from Chicago MOS sources without disruption. Very helpful comment, thank you. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Even that has problems. There are plenty of well known tennis players whose own professional organizations spell their names using the English alphabet, where the English press spells it using the English alphabet, where they chose a registration name using the English alphabet, and where some even have their own personal websites with their names and signatures using the English alphabet... yet they still get moved to a Latin alphabetic title because in their home country it's spelled that way. And no one steps up to rectify these problems. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:04, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * @Dicklyon. To change the wording on the main MOS would require a discussion on the Talk there. But I notice that the main MOS Talk has 128 archived pages, so it is quite clear that any edits there have been widely watched and broadly discussed. Thus it is not quite feasible to turn it back to 2008 version. From the Talk page here we can see that there are no archives, so very little discussion has taken place here. In fact, the amount of discussion since Kauffner started the "Diacritics" section is almost matching the amount of discussion that took place from 2003 - 2011. The more reasonable way to harmonize MOSPN with MOS is to change the phrasing here, so that it does not contradict MOS (or cannot be interpreted that way). One way way to do so would be this:
 * Current phrasing: "Wikipedia normally retains these special characters, except where there is a well-established English spelling that replaces them with English standard letters."
 * Harmonized phrasing: "Wikipedia retains these special characters, if they are used in the reliable English-language sources for the article."
 * In other words: we do not remove diacritics if a word or name is spelled like that in the source(s) for the article, but we also do not add diacritics if they are not in the reliable sources for our article. That is the only way to be "neither for, nor against diacritics" as is stated in the main MOS. We do not try to ban English spelling from wp, do we? MakeSense64 (talk) 07:38, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * MakeSense64 "We do not try to ban English spelling from wp, do we?" - this is almost verbatim PBS comment from 2005, and that is what makes your joint attempts to change en.wp from its defacto Chicago MOS to a sports sources MOS. Yourself, Wolbo, Fyunck, PBS seem all to have the same problem in that you have convinced yourselves that the "English spelling of München is Munchen," not Munich. Where did you get this idea?
 * We do not try to ban English spelling from wp, München is at Munich, but wp does have various reliable sourcing requirements that keep Zoë Avril (French) and Zoë Ball (British) at the same accurate, reliable-sourced based orthography. Which is why I keep asking you to look at wp, and why you keep refusing, because as you lament on your talk page, wp is already covered with diacritics. Yes it is, your lament is confirmation of exactly what MOSPN says. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * How can you possibly argue that "PBS seem[s] have convinced [himself] that the "English spelling of München is Munchen," not Munich. Where have I ever made such a claim?


 * Also please do not quote me out of context. Prior to June 2008, all sources and not just reliable sources were used to determine article titles. Since we adopted usage in reliable sources, I have been in favour of using usage in reliable sources to determine article titles. It was the introduction of that requirement (tying AT into V and NOR) that simplified the decision process. However this guideline has nothing to do with article titles. It is to do with names in the text of an article. Iio Do you, or do you not, think that the guidance here should supplement the main MOS page or contradict it? -- PBS (talk) 15:11, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Philip,
 * as before for the fourth time I think that guidance here already supplements the main MOS guidance which you are misreading - even though your previous edit to MOS which Dicklyon pointed out is not a helpful edit and should be reverted.
 * I also think that the rule that other editors have to answer 10 questions of PBS, for every 1 question you refuse to answer is tiring and in bad faith. I heard your answer "(2) I do not have the time read all the BLPs on Wilipdia." But because you continue to push for this line to be deleted I ask you again. And this time if you wish to maintain the courtesy and assumption of good faith you have been shown so far, then you should please give a straight answer
 * In your estimate, recognising that you do not have the time read all the BLPs on Wikipedia.
 * (A) the majority of BLPs that could use diacritics (eg François Hollande) do so, even though in your view they should not.
 * (B) the majority of BLPs that could use diacritics (eg François Hollande) do not do so, only a minority do.
 * Please don't fill this space with more bytes raising reasons not to answer.
 * Please show good faith. Answer the question, like others answer your questions. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:55, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

You are confusing this MOS page with WP:AT and the naming conventions. This MOS page is to do with the names within a page and more specifically not biography pages, because it if is a biography page as the main MOS page says "Spell a name consistently in the title and the text of an article. See relevant policy at Article titles; see also Naming conventions (use English)." (MOS:FOREIGN). Now if you would like to talk about the usage of François Hollande in the first article which links to François Hollande it is List of French people and AFAICT the use of François Hollande is unsourced. -- PBS (talk) 17:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's right. WP:NLIST states that "every entry in any such list requires a reliable source attesting to the fact that the named person is a member of the listed group.". So that list of French people is seriously flawed.
 * We have many articles where no name appears in the title, but a lot of foreign names appear in the body of the article. That's when we turn to WP:MOS to decide how to spell them. For example 2012 Australian Open is an article that contains lot of names. Editors have been adding diacritics to some of these names, but there are no cites showing that spelling, since all the 31 refs used for this article spell the names without diacritics. This goes against WP:V. That's why MOS:FOREIGN says that we should rely on the spelling found in the English-language sources used for the article. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Moved per MakeSense64 request

 * @IIO. Edits like this are really unhelpful as they break up the normal flow of discussion by undercutting what other editors have written before you. They also make it looks as if they are signed by another editor. A short answer can be inserted, but longer pieces should be added to the bottom of the ongoing discussion. Otherwise it becomes very difficult for editors who want to read the previous discussion. Please move your edit, so that we can try to make sense of it. MakeSense64 (talk) 10:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm replying to your comment under it, but happy to move MakeSense64, I see no problem with

The problem only exists for those who misread MOS:FOREIGN to imply that wikt:spelling automatically includes loss of diacritics. So for example "Francois is the English spelling of François" (sic) which isn't what MOS:FOREIGN says, or intends, otherwise it could hardly say

It is this second section which could more appear a clash with MOSPN, since MOS:FOREIGN says "wp doesn't encourage or discourage X" but MOSPN says "wp Wikipedia normally retains these special characters." But again, what is the clash? The clash only exists if one assumes that sports website and tabloids count as "verifiable reliable sources in English" and most wp editors recognise that British, American and Australian tabloid sports pages and ranking websites are not reliable sources for correct diacritics of "foreign" names, even if they can get Zoë Ball, Rudy Vallée and Chloë Grace Moretz correct. But this is interpretation, you, Ohms Law and Kauffner (though he has stood out) evidently don't have the same interpretation of MOS, so as Chairman Mao I ask you to Seek truth from facts, look at wp BLPs (as the section you have been most involved in re diacritics) and tell me, do you see a forest of ugly Czech diacritics, or do you see clean prairies with not an accent on the horizon? It's a simple question, and we both know what the answer is but it will help all of us for you to say the answer outloud. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Now,
 * MakeSense64,
 * Does
 * en.wp
 * currently
 * have
 * lots
 * of
 * diacritics
 * In ictu oculi (talk) 10:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. Let's take this in baby steps. We will use your example of Munich. We have the article at that title and a redirect at München. But that doesn't mean that "Munich" is the only spelling we should use in other wp articles that mention that city. Actually "München" is used 8119 times on wp, while "Munich" is used 29971 times in other articles: . Let's look at an example Angelika Niebler, it says she is born in "München". Why? Because the English-language source for the article says so: . This is correct per MOS:FOREIGN, which asks use to spell foreign names, phrases and words according to the spelling found in the reliable English-language sources used for the article. Do you agree so far? MakeSense64 (talk) 12:41, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. Let's take this in baby steps. We will use your example of Munich. We have the article at that title and a redirect at München. But that doesn't mean that "Munich" is the only spelling we should use in other wp articles that mention that city. Actually "München" is used 8119 times on wp, while "Munich" is used 29971 times in other articles: . Let's look at an example Angelika Niebler, it says she is born in "München". Why? Because the English-language source for the article says so: . This is correct per MOS:FOREIGN, which asks use to spell foreign names, phrases and words according to the spelling found in the reliable English-language sources used for the article. Do you agree so far? MakeSense64 (talk) 12:41, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The (fairly crappy) website non-source says "München" first then "Munich" MakeSense64
 * websites, whether www.itftennis.com/ or http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en are not reliable sources, they are piles of bytes put together much like Wikipedia with little proofreading or quality control. This particular piece of "unreliable sources" had both "Munich" and "München." Because it wasn't a reliable source, it was a website.
 * Angelika Niebler's article now says "born Munich"... and FYI "München" as a town name for Munich is not used 8119 times on wp. Please look.
 * Now,
 * MakeSense64,
 * Does
 * en.wp
 * currently
 * have
 * lots
 * of
 * diacritics
 * In ictu oculi (talk) 13:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You can go on bringing the same red herring, but your question cannot be answered unless you define what is "lots", and unless you can explain how somebody can count the diacritics on en.wp before everything has changed already.
 * Back to MOSPN. I didn't create or edit Angelika Niebler and it's clearly a stub. But, I just picked out one of the many people who are "born in München". You say the article has no reliable sources, then where did you get it that she is "born in Munich"? You are editing articles without bringing sources for the information you add or change?
 * Let me ask another simple question. Do you agree that MOSPN is a subpage of MOS? And do you agree that MOSPN is about the use of proper names in all articles, not just in titles or in BLPs? MakeSense64 (talk) 14:18, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, MOSPN is a subpage of MOS but you are misreading MOS and your reading isn't shared by other editors, except PBS etc. See below. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:40, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you also answer the second part of the question: do you agree that MOSPN is about the use of proper names in all articles, not just in titles or in BLPs? MakeSense64 (talk) 06:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * And the real red herring is that Munich is a example of a true exonym not a case of "let's drop some diacritics because I refuse to get it right" Agathoclea (talk) 20:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't bring up the example of Munich, IIO did. And where did you see me say that we have to drop diacritics? All I have been talking about is that we should neither add nor remove them, we use the spelling we find in the reliable sources for our article, per MOS. MakeSense64 (talk) 06:05, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * MakeSense64, all the example demonstrates is that you found it easier to take the time and trouble to search through 10,000s of examples on "Munich" to seek out 1x example of a User having inadvertently copy-pasted "München" from a badly edited EU MP website into a stub, rather than simply answer the question, "yes okay in ictu I admit it, 99% of BLPs in en.wp do use diacritics, but they shouldn't do, because English tabloid newspapers and sports websites don't."
 * What's preventing you admitting this. It would be easier to take this approach seriously, and take your readings of MOS seriously, if you would just come out and be straightforward about admitting the de facto status of en.wp In ictu oculi (talk) 02:40, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It has been pointed out several times to you that MOSPN is not about BLPs only, and it is also not about article titles. You didn't refute the point and don't answer questions in that regard (see above), yet you go on pushing a question that is not really relevant here. Now you are even telling me how I should answer your question. You also go on quoting things inaccurately and credit people with things they never said. Nobody has mentioned "English tabloid newspapers", so where did you get that? Maybe it's time for you to (re)read WP:TPG and WP:TPNO. You have crossed the line so many times here, that we better start wondering if you here with the intention of reaching concensus, or just stonewalling.
 * You say that we are misreading MOS. There is nothing to misread about: "For foreign names, phrases, and words generally, adopt the spellings most commonly used in English-language references for the article, unless those spellings are idiosyncratic or obsolete.", and it is fair to assume that a guideline page with 128 Talk archives has been widely watched and represents the current concensus. Let me ask you this: 1) Do you think that sources using anglicized foreign words or names are using "idiosyncratic" spelling, or is there is also something like conventional English spelling that is to be retained when it is more commonly found in the English-language sources for an article? 2) Do you agree there are verifiability issues if we change the spelling of a word or name in an article without adding an adequate cite for that spelling? 3) Do you agree that English wp prefers English-language sources over foreign sources? MakeSense64 (talk) 08:26, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * MakeSense64,
 * 1) I don't think tabloids and sports websites are "idiosyncratic" I just think they are tabloid.
 * 2) No, I don't agree that there there are verifiability issues if edit using 1x reliable sources vs 100x tabloid sources.
 * 3) No, I don't agree that en.wp prefers English-language tabloid sources over reliable foreign sources, it's obvious, to me at least, that en.wp doesn't prefer English-language tabloid sources and I would hope that you would recognise this too, hence the rather childish (on both our parts) need for me to spell out the question:
 * MakeSense64,
 * Does
 * en.wp
 * currently
 * have
 * lots
 * of
 * diacritics?
 * Yes/no?
 * In ictu oculi (talk) 10:06, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Nobody is asking about "tabloid" sources, so where are you getting that? Can you answer the questions please? This is my last attempt to get you to address the actual points on the table. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Nobody is asking about "tabloid" sources, so where are you getting that? Can you answer the questions please? This is my last attempt to get you to address the actual points on the table. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Diacritics further discussion
I have altered the hatnote to try to accommodate user:Boson's objections, as much as I can. However with the exception of Boson, AFAICT no other editor has made substantive objections to adding that hatnote to the section called Diacritics. -- PBS (talk) 17:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Philip,
 * Just because people have got tired of WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT doesn't mean you can claim something like the above when they walk away. Several other editors have made substantive objections to your hatnote in that it diverts away from guidance on diacritics to something that gives no guidance and is likely to increase the use of tabloid/sports sources, which will always outweigh Chicago-MOS sources even for very well known BLPs such as Talk:Lech Wałęsa. Otherwise why insert it? The other objection made was to your editing style and the WP:OWNER problem you seem to have with making unilateral and undiscussed changes to MOS pages. Your position doesn't seem to have progressed from 7.Oppose. The proposal actualy say that the général rule "common English spelling" should be replaced with the "native spelling". Is this an English Wikipedia or an international one? I vote use the English language. Philip Baird Shearer 10:30, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC), but like it or not, en.wp has arrived at a de facto situation where what MOSPN currently says about diacritics is correct. BLPs in particular do not follow the majority (inevitably tabloid/popular) sources when spelling living peoples' names. If you have a problem with this, you should reopen Talk:Lech Wałęsa, not seek to push your view through via changes to MOS. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I have asked each person to express their opinions on this issue most have not expressed an opinion, and salami slicing the issue helps to find out what we can and can not agree upon, is not a question of WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT. I have repeatedly asked you not to quote statements made by me (or for that matter anyone else) before June 2008 as the meaning of "common name" was changed at that point. Your statement "BLPs in particular do not follow the majority (inevitably tabloid/popular) sources when spelling living peoples' names", seems to shows that you are unaware what WP:SOURCES says. If you were you would drop the "(inevitably tabloid/popular)" statements in which case are you really saying that if "BLPs in particular do not follow the majority [reliable] sources when spelling living peoples' names" is something that you support? -- PBS (talk) 11:17, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Additional proposal preceding this was subsequeantly moved by its author.--Boson (talk) 16:52, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This does not accommodate my objection. The point of templates is to standardize usage. This is obviously not the intended purpose of that hatnote, whether you use the template or not. We already have See also and Further. It is not the main article in the intended sense and it is definitely not the Main page. Use of the "Main" hatnote is explained at Manual of Style/Layout. We should not try to find workarounds for purported  bugs that are actually design features. --Boson (talk) 22:06, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I do not think it is a good idea to have a section on foreign proper names referring to a "foreign terms" section of a more general guideline. The more specialized issue of foreign proper names should be dealt with under proper names. That should then possibly be summarized in the more general guideline (when the details to be included in this guideline have been resolved). In fact, it is probably not appropriate to regard foreign proper names as a sub-class of "foreign terms" at all. For instance, the guidelines on using foreign or English terms needs to address the issue of using terms like Endlösung as a goal of Nazi policy, and it may be quite right that the policy leads to the English article being called Final solution, rather than Endlösung; however, if there is a German book whose title is Endlösung, then it is right that that name should be used when talking about the German book. If that book is translated into English, then the book should be called by whatever name is given to the English book (possibly The Final Solution, possibly not). The same logic, which determines that different policies are given different weights for special sub-topics (such as titles of books, etc.) should be applied to names of people. In the case of names of people, especially people who are not particularly notable in English-speaking countries and who are not resident in English-speaking countries), it seems natural that the special guideline for proper names should take adequate account of the special issues applying to proper names and that those issues should be discussed and consensus reached on the appropriate talk page. It might reduce the confusion between foreign terms, on the one hand, and foreign proper names/titles, on the other, if we hade a separate MOS guideline on foreign proper names, which could also be included in a separate section in summary style at WP:MOS.--Boson (talk) 22:34, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Since the proposal that this was replying to has been moved, I have now moved this reply to follow the proposal. --Boson (talk) 16:52, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It is a bug. See
 * returns:
 * returns:
 * We could copy all of FOREIGN into here and then add more specific guidance, but the usual way that the guidelines are structured is to add the less specific guidance to the central MOS and guidance that supplements and enhances that guidance in the peripheral guidelines (and that guidance should not contradict the other polices and guidelines).
 * We could copy all of FOREIGN into here and then add more specific guidance, but the usual way that the guidelines are structured is to add the less specific guidance to the central MOS and guidance that supplements and enhances that guidance in the peripheral guidelines (and that guidance should not contradict the other polices and guidelines).
 * We could copy all of FOREIGN into here and then add more specific guidance, but the usual way that the guidelines are structured is to add the less specific guidance to the central MOS and guidance that supplements and enhances that guidance in the peripheral guidelines (and that guidance should not contradict the other polices and guidelines).


 * I think you are confusing guidance about the content of an article with that of the article's title. As part of the MOS this guideline gives guidance on the content. As MOS:FOREIGN say "Spell a name consistently in the title and the text of an article. See relevant policy at Article titles; see also Naming conventions (use English)." This covers all the other cases where a foreign name appears in the text of another article (not in an article where it is the subject). -- PBS (talk) 07:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It is not a bug, in the sense that you mean. The template was designed for subarticles. It became tolerated, though not recommended, for category namespace. In an attempt to fix the problems caused by its (inappropriate) use for categories, changes were made, causing further problems. In an attempt to fix those problems, the most recent edit to the template introduced the "error" (deviation from design) of (sometimes) referring to "main page" rather than to "main article" for project namespace (for which the template was not designed). This then confused others. This demonstrates the problems caused when an attempt is made to fix purported bugs that were actually design features. It would be better if we used the hatnote only for the intended purpose described at Manual of Style/Layout. --Boson (talk) 16:52, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Diacritics further discussion 2
Moving on to the next two sentences that I added to the section: "The use of diacritics (such as accent marks) for non-English names is neither encouraged nor discouraged. For details of how decide on the appropriate usage, see the section Foreign terms in the MOS."

Does anyone have an objection to adding these sentence to the section? -- PBS (talk) 17:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Objection Let it be noted that there is objection to this addition, first because of the content, which is misdirection to non-details, secondly a controversial change of this sort should not be made by an editor with a long-standing conviction/reading/view which is contrary to the peaceful defacto position of most of the articles likely to be affected, i.e. Latin-alphabet European name BLPS. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:16, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you need to read WP:TALK and stop discussing others motives in which in my opinion are implying bad faith. So that someone new to this section understands my position: I think that article titles should be based on usage in reliable English language sources as outlined in WP:AT. I think that usage of foreign names within articles should follow the guidance in MOS:FOREIGN and I think that this guideline should supplement and enhance (but not contradict) MOS:FOREIGN. I would remind you (Iio) that this is a general guideline not a guideline specific to biographies of Living people. Does your Objection statement mean that you think that the current wording here contradicts the wording at MOS:FOREIGN? -- PBS (talk) 12:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not implying bad faith on your part, I would not expect you to share my view that your long-standing conviction/reading/view on diacritics is contrary to the peaceful defacto position of most of the articles likely to be affected, i.e. Latin-alphabet European name BLPS. For all I know you may genuinely have no concept of how many 100,000s of articles your changes would affect. I do understand that when someone who doesn't know a language looks at say category:Turkish politicians they have no idea whether 100% are at Chicago MOS, or just a few. But when I look at the Slavic languages I see 99.99% absolute solid Chicago MOS across en.wp and only a few dozen deliberate tennis and hockey mispellings (deliberate since redirects created away from the correct spelling). But it would help if you would address the affects of your changes. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * See my comments below on "correct spelling". -- PBS (talk) 11:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * (Since you have moved your proposal to a new section, I have moved my reply to it:)
 * I do not think it is a good idea to have a section on foreign proper names referring to a "foreign terms" section of a more general guideline. The more specialized issue of foreign proper names should be dealt with under proper names. That should then possibly be summarized in the more general guideline (when the details to be included in this guideline have been resolved). In fact, it is probably not appropriate to regard foreign proper names as a sub-class of "foreign terms" at all. For instance, the guidelines on using foreign or English terms needs to address the issue of using terms like Endlösung as a goal of Nazi policy, and it may be quite right that the policy leads to the English article being called Final solution, rather than Endlösung; however, if there is a German book whose title is Endlösung, then it is right that that name should be used when talking about the German book. If that book is translated into English, then the book should be called by whatever name is given to the English book (possibly The Final Solution, possibly not). The same logic, which determines that different policies are given different weights for special sub-topics (such as titles of books, etc.) should be applied to names of people. In the case of names of people, especially people who are not particularly notable in English-speaking countries and who are not resident in English-speaking countries), it seems natural that the special guideline for proper names should take adequate account of the special issues applying to proper names and that those issues should be discussed and consensus reached on the appropriate talk page. It might reduce the confusion between foreign terms, on the one hand, and foreign proper names/titles, on the other, if we hade a separate MOS guideline on foreign proper names, which could also be included in a separate section in summary style at WP:MOS.--Boson (talk) 16:52, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I have not moved my proposal. The first discussion was about the use of main as a hatnote. This second section is about the addition of two sentences at the start of the section. -- PBS (talk) 14:52, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Do you have an objection to the first sentence?


 * It seems to me that you are mixing up the article title which is covered by the article title policy and its guidelines (called naming conventions), and the guidance in the MOS which is to do with the names of things when they are not the article title. The MOS is about what to call something that is not the subject of the article "For foreign names, phrases, and words generally, adopt the spellings most commonly used in English-language references for the article, unless those spellings are idiosyncratic or obsolete." This seems to fit in well with the WP:V policy. -- PBS (talk) 14:46, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes I do object to the phrasing of the first sentence, since it appears to reflect what is written at WP:MOS but significantly (though subtly) modifies the consensus wording and reservations at that location. Since this is one of the specialized Wikipedia guidelines that imposes further constraints, as referred to at WP:MOS, we should actually include additional constraints for foreign proper names (especially names of living people), as opposed to any old "foreign terms" or "foreign words". WP:MOS delegates detailed guidance to specialized guidelines (such as this one). We should not delegate back. The wording used should reflect that for foreign proper names, especially for people, we should usually use the spelling actually used by the person concerned unless there is a good reason not to. This is also common courtesy, since deliberately misspelling a person's name will often be regarded as a gratuitous insult unless it can be justified by technical restrictions, such as outdated computer systems or the cost of subsequently implementing Unicode. For such proper names we should also apply stricter standards for reliable sources and use sources such as encyclopedias where available. These additional requirements will probably result in a greater preference for spellings with diacritics for this specialized area, possibly offset by a preference for spellings without diacritics for common nouns (which are dealt with elsewhere).
 * So, on balance, I would prefer to retain the current wording: "Foreign proper names written in languages which use the Latin alphabet often include characters with diacritics, ligatures and others that are not commonly used in modern English. Wikipedia normally retains these special characters, except where there is a well-established English spelling that replaces them with English standard letters."
 * I would actualy prefer to improve on this but see no realistic chance of achieving consensus for any particular version, without wasting an inordinate amount of time and effort.
 * I am not "mixing up" article title guidelines and the MOS though each naturally informs the other.


 * If you did not move your second proposal, it must have been someone else. If you raise several independent issues, it would help if you signed each one. Then I could reply to each one in a separate comment. Some editors object to answers inserted into their contributions (before the signature), because it is then unclear who is signing what. Alternatively, if you move a comment after it has been replied to, it would help if you struck it through (as I did with my reply above). --Boson (talk) 23:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I have miss understood your reply to my query. You wrote at the start of your reply "This does not accommodate my objection." My understanding of that was to you objection to the hatnote. As I had not raised the second two sentences previously I assumed that you were addressing my comment about the hatnote not my comment on the next two sentences. -- PBS (talk) 11:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I object, too. Redirecting guidance on names to guidance on terms doesn't seem like the right answer.  Dicklyon (talk) 04:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Last week I looked in the history of that section and you can see how it has gradually morphed in the current phrasing, which now says something quite different from what was there a couple of years ago. And this has been done without any substantial discussion.
 * This is the text that was in place in early 2009:
 * "In many cases, the common English spelling of a proper name is simply the native spelling with the modifying marks (diacritics) removed; but, quite often, English normally uses the native spelling. For example, Hungarian mathematician Paul Erdős is spelt with a double acute accent, instead of an umlaut as in Paul Erdös, or the unaccented spelling Paul Erdos. Since Erdős has his own article, redirects have been added for both variant spellings Paul Erdös, Paul Erdos. This practice includes ligatures of Latin characters such as Encyclopædia Britannica or the Nordic god Ægir, with redirects from the Anglicised form Aegir and the Swedish spelling Ägir. There are three views, all warmly held, on how to deal with this: always omit diacritics, always include them, or include them only when English usually does. In practice, the last view will concur with one of the other two in any given case."
 * Through several small edits the meaning has been changed in what it says now. I think we should take a look into this. MakeSense64 (talk) 05:59, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi MakeSense64, The early 2009 version "English normally uses the native spelling. For example, Hungarian mathematician Paul Erdős is spelt with a double acute accent, is fine to me." Also I'd be quite happy with some mainstream wp editors having a look into how it changed. But with all respect I am not comfortable with you, MakeSense64, being one of those editors as you are conducting a 2 or 3 man battle against majority en.wp practice. Particularly while you refuse to say here on the MOSPN talk page what you recognise on your own Talk page, that en.wp is covered with European Latin-alphabet personal and place names in their "native" (Paul Erdős) spelling. Someone who seeks to move 200,000+ articles and change text in x000,000 others shouldn't be making edits to MOSPN against the way wp is, no matter whether the way wp is is right or wrong. If you want to change en.wp, nominate Lech Wałęsa for another attempted move and we'll have this discussion there. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:20, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

@Dicklyon, then do you suggest that we include most of WP:FOREIGN here? For example there is a clear distinction made at MOS:FOREIGN between how to handle the main subject of an article and the usage of a foreign term within another article. -- PBS (talk) 11:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

@Iio. The discussion here is to try to harmonise the guidance given here so that it can not be interpreted in such a way that it appears to contradict the main MOS page and the AT policy page. Do you think that adding the sentence "The use of diacritics (such as accent marks) for non-English names is neither encouraged nor discouraged." Would contradict this that guidance? -- PBS (talk) 11:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The diacritics section should conform to WP:DIACRITICS: "follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language". This page should explain Wiki's policies, not revise them. Kauffner (talk) 11:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not quite that simple because WP:DIACRITICS is to do with article titles while this is to do with the content within articles. As such a name may or may not be the subject of the article. I would help if you would explain whether you support the changes mentioned, at the start of this section, so that we can keep the conversation focused on incremental changes. -- PBS (talk) 11:45, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Philip, We've been through this before, and you are still edit-warring policy pages against de facto community consensus with an exceptionally high degree of WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT. If MOSPN and other policy pages really agreed with your (and Kauffner and MakeSense64 etc) personal view of how wp should be you wouldn't need to unilaterally go deleting sections, inserting misdirecting links, and so on. I have asked you whether the de facto state of en.wp reflects your view of how wp should be and you have wasted everyone's time by refusing to answer. Instead of getting your own way by edit-warring changes into policy pages: Have the decency to answer a question:
 * (cur | prev) 11:37, 21 May 2012‎ Philip Baird Shearer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (6,959 bytes) (+39)‎ . . (rv last edit. No clear consensus to remove it.) (undo)
 * (cur | prev) 09:51, 21 May 2012‎ In ictu oculi (talk | contribs)‎ . . (6,920 bytes) (-39)‎ . . (→‎Diacritics: removing misleading "main" link to what is not main, does not have consensus and objections from several editors) (undo)

Philip; is article Lech Wałęsa (either title or text) according to the orthography supported by the majority of English sources? Yes/No? In ictu oculi (talk) 12:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Whatever the "orthography supported by the majority of English sources" is for or against using "Lech Wałęsa" or "Lech Walesa" this is not the place to debate it, as you are asking a question which is better asked at talk:Lech Wałęsa, because it is a question about an article title, not about the usage within an article where the name is not the subject of the article. This guideline does not cover article titles as it is part of the MOS and not an naming convention. This has been pointed out to you several times, so why do you continue to ask such a question? The reason for including mention of the main MOS page is so that this misunderstanding is not present in this text. If you do not want mention of the main MOS page as a hatenote then I suggest we incorporate text here to make it clear, that names within an article should follow usage in the MOS "Spell a name consistently in the title and the text of an article (see article titles policy), other names within an should, adopt the spellings most commonly used in English-language references for the article, unless those spellings are idiosyncratic or obsolete (see MOS guideline)." -- PBS (talk) 07:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Philip
 * Do you understanding how extremely testing to AGF this is. You attempted to unilaterally delete the diacritics section from MOSPN. You continue to try to change that section, but at the same time you refuse to discuss en.wp reality, real articles, real examples, so why should anyone be persuaded that your changes to MOSPN are beneficial? If you want to persuade me of the benefits of your changes, then choose an East European bio which will benefit from your changes as an example. And the reason I mention "Lech Walesa" is that you are partly right, this is not the place to debate it, I am asking a question which is better asked at talk:Lech Wałęsa, and has been, and has been rejected. If you have the courage of your conviction to make a change to MOSPN, why not submit your change attached to a page rename at WP:RM.
 * In the meantime, why should MOSPN diacritics content be changed without discussion of the effects on real articles? In ictu oculi (talk) 10:35, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * @Kauffner. I have added a hatnote to the page pointing to our AT policies. MOSPN is not about article titles, but about the use of names inside articles. It is an important distinction to be made. Titles are handled differently.
 * @IIO. You go on commenting about other editors and their presumed motives. Please reread WP:TALK, quoting "Comment on content, not on the contributor...". What is it you don't understand about that?
 * @Dicklyon. Conflicting language on two different guideline pages that cover common ground ("foreign names") is something we need to fix. We can change the wording on either page, or on both pages. As a subpage of the main MOS, MOSPN can "supplement" but not contradict what is already on MOS. I have looked at several other policy and guideline pages and adding references to pages that are "higher up" or "further down" seems to be very common. So, I do not see any reasonable objection to PBS' proposed sentences. MOSPN should not be written (or interpreted) in a way that goes against MOS. MakeSense64 (talk) 09:17, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * MakeSense64,
 * 1. As the author of WP:TENNISNAMES your view is known. But the edit you've just made doesn't have consensus, any more than the one PBS' restoral of his edit.
 * 2. The reason I am saying you avoid answering the question is because I have asked it 7 times. You can however change that by answering the question. Does en.wp have lots of diacritics, yes/no?
 * 3. Or you can answer the question for PBS: is article Lech Wałęsa (either title or text) according to the orthography supported by the majority of English sources? Yes/No?
 * While the two of you fail to address the way en.wp is you really have no business editing this section of MOSPN. You're edit-warring a piece of wp's infrastructure. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:39, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Please answer
 * 1)It has already been explained several times to you (by me and by others) why the question you go on repeating is not relevant for the problem on the table, and it is too vague to be answered. To go on repeating the same question that has been refuted is generally not seen as constructive editing. This is the Talk page about MOSPN, not a poll site about "does en.wp has a lot of diacritics, yes or no?". Once again, read WP:TALK and try to stick to policy based arguments that are directly relevant for the discussion.
 * 2)Now you are suggesting that PBS and I are "edit-warring" on this page. Where have you got that idea? Accusations of edit-warring where there is none is also not seen as constructive editing.
 * 3)Where have you got the idea that editors should not try to improve guideline or even policy pages? If problems or contradictions are spotted (like in this case), then we are actually required to try to fix it after proper discussion.
 * It seems to me you are refusing to address or accept how wp actually "works". MakeSense64 (talk) 06:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * MakeSense64
 * Okay, please explain to me how en.wp works so that article Lech Wałęsa is entitled in Polish? This is what I have been asking for all along, that you explain to me how en.wp works with an East European BLP. I am ready to hear how Lech Wałęsa or any other East European bio works.
 * Why do you want to discuss the "title" of the Lech Walesa article here? You can do that on the Talk page of his article or on our policy page about article titles: WP:AT.
 * Why do you insist on discussing BLP here? We have a MOS:BLP for that purpose and you can ask any questions you have about it on the Talk page there. There is also a wp reference desk for your questions.
 * As has been pointed out to you between 5 and 10 times already, this is the Talk page about MOSPN. Do you have anything relevant to contribute to the specific discussion topic here? MakeSense64 (talk) 11:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I want to discuss Lech Wałęsa because it has been warred twice in 2005 and 2011 before exactly the guidance that PBS and yourself have sought to remove. I want to discuss Lech Wałęsa because it's a real article, and a mainstream article and a relevant example.
 * Yes, my contribution is that if you and PBS would illustrate your argument for changes to MOSPN with reference to a real article it would be more convincing. As it is, your editing on MOSPN is in my opinion disruptive, uncommunicative and in your case not unrelated to your WP:TENNISNAMES concerns. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia guidance for naming of articles is covered by the Article Title Policy and its associated guidelines called naming conventions. This is a MOS guideline and is about the use of names other than those used an article's title. As such your wish to discuss the article title Lech Wałęsa on this talk page is out of the scope of this guideline. If you wish to discuss the name of the article Lech Wałęsa then I suggest you do so on the talk page of that article. Please restrict your comments to how we can improve the wording of this MOS page. -- PBS (talk) 18:07, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Philip, you cannot legitimately dictate to other users that they do not consider the impact of changes on MOSPN to articles affected by MOSPN. I ask you, are you willing to discuss the impact your edits to / deletion of the diacritics section here would have on en.wp articles? If yes, which articles are you willing to discuss? If no, why should anyone accept your edits? In ictu oculi (talk) 05:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * MOSPN does not give guidance on article title so changes to MOSPN has no impact on the article title Lech Wałęsa. MOSPN gives guidance on proper name used within other articles. An example of an article that I was willing to discuss was given above in see this edit on 14 May 2012. But if you prefer we can look at the Charlotte Brontë in the article Brontë family. -- PBS (talk) 11:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Apologies, it's difficult to see this among the forest. I'd be very happy with your suggestion to take François Hollande as a test case for your edits. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

AGF
re:Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Proper names. Please comment on the content and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you.
 * MakeSense64,
 * You put this on my Talk page. I assume it relates to my observation that you and PBS are establishing edits to MOSPN by "edit-warring." True it is not at 3RR Edit warring, mainly because others who disagree, including myself, are not responding in kind, but can you say that your edits to MOSPN are being done with WP:consensus? In ictu oculi (talk) 10:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This kind of warnings is supposed to be put on User Talk pages, I don't know why you instantly moved it here. Anyway, I posted the warning not only because of your unfair references to "edit-warring" where there is none. But also because you go on referring to editors who disagree with you as "TENNISNAMES editors" or similar expression. And even though several editors have protested against such characterizations, you are just continuing it. You frequently misrepresent other's words, and just seem to shrug your shoulders when it is pointed out. And you go on repeating the same questions even after it is pointed out that they are irrelevant or on the wrong page. That's why I gave you this agf warning.
 * The edits that have been done on this page so far are perfectly within the normal BRD cycle. But as you point out yourself: "...others who disagree, including myself, are not responding in kind".
 * That's indeed the problem, if bold edits get reverted (by you or "others") then you are supposed to engage in discussion until concensus is found. But you have been hard pressed to address relevant questions, no matter how simple they are formulated, and at the same time you go on insisting that others must answer to your questions that are not relevant to MOSPN. If this continues then it can only be seen as stonewalling and an attempt to wear down editors. Questions? MakeSense64 (talk) 11:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to engage in discussion. This is why I am asking you to explain how wp works so that Eastern Europe names like Lech Wałęsa are in Chicago MOS. How does that work? In ictu oculi (talk) 12:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * See my comment in the previous section about the article title LW. The contents of Template:uw-npa1 should not have been copied here from a user's talk page, so please use Collapse top and Collapse bottom around this whole sub-section as it is a distraction from developing this guideline -- PBS (talk) 18:07, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Apology to PBS and MakeSense64 on one point
The penny has only just dropped on something this morning, I should have realised this a month ago. I have been responding to PBS and MakeSense64 refusal to look at en.wp articles to see whether the MOSPN as it stands (since 2009) is correct and whether diacritics are really there in en.wp with a measure of frustration considering it lack of good faith on their part. It suddenly occurs to me this morning that PBS and MakeSense64 are not refusing to do this out of stubborness or game-playing but simply because they can't. They don't know any language with diacritics, so I might as well be demanding they give an opinion on cuneiform or heiroglyphics. Likewise I imagine PBS and MakeSense64 can't appreciate what it's like for an editor like myself when I see a list of 12 names or 12 places and one of them simply misspelled. Just as seeing a misspelling on an undergraduates' paper we don't expect to see inaccuracies and inconsistencies at this level - in an encyclopedia - and editing means editing misspellings out. That's that, but how do I as someone who can see that articles are 99.9% at Chicago MOS and not only at 30% or 50%, how does this communicate to any other editor who cannot "see" for themselves that East European languages are 99.9% at Chicago MOS? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You are making assumptions about our abilities with languages for which you have no evidence. Your statement "12 places and one of them simply misspelled" is indicative of a problem that you and many others have with what are opinions not facts. It was to move away from this subjective view of what is "correct" that usage in reliable sources was added first to the article titles policy and later to the MOS. Just like the spelling of "color" and "colour" many people have a idea of what is the "correct" spelling of a name, this is particularly true for those for whom English is not their mother tongue. If they are used to seeing a name spelled in a certain way in their own language it grates to see it spelt a different way (as does the alternative American/British spelling to a British/American person). There is no objective way to decide on what is the "correct" spelling, but people of good faith can usually agree on what is the common spelling in reliable English language sources. Using this method of relying on usage in reliable sources integrates well with the content policies WP:V and WP:NOR, and gives editors a bench mark to use to choose a name to use which can be determined objectively rather than subjectively. IMHO the sooner you start to understand how inappropriate the term "correct spelling" is, the sooner we can progress to a consensus on determining how to choose an appropriate name. -- PBS (talk) 11:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Philip,
 * You mention "reliable" for Latin alphabet language names, but how can someone who cannot read any language with diacritics judge whether a source is "reliable" for Latin alphabet language names? This speaks to the first paragraph of WP:RS.
 * Re my apology above, it was a good faith apology and I am making efforts to assume good faith on your part. I had one other editor express to me that the reason he was unable to judge the claim that en.wp used diacritics is when he looked at a category of e.g. category:Czech politicians names he had no clue how many should or shouldn't have diacritics.
 * It is a simple and helpful issue: If we can establish a reference zone where you speak/read any language which has diacritics, then we can concentrate discussion of articles related to a language which you are familiar with. If not we might as well be discussing cuneiform, as I said.
 * Please, don't take this question "personal", you deleted the diacritics section here, but do you speak/read any language which has diacritics? Which one(s)? In ictu oculi (talk) 22:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * @IIO. This was not an apology, this is simply a very condescending piece you are posting there. It is "adding insult to injury" as the saying goes. I strongly urge you to (re)read WP:CIVIL. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It really was an apology. It was labelled as an apology and it was an apology. I had another editor share with me that when they looked at an article with East European accents it was an offputting and meaningless eyesore. I am, believe me, really trying very very hard to square the circle here that there are editors who quarrel with the fact that, rightly or wrongly, and maybe its wrongly, en.wikipedia.org's articles are at diacritics. That was a completely genuine apology. What do you want me to do. Strike it? Delete it? I will quite happily do either. Plus PBS suggestion to discuss François Hollande makes this moot, for the 4th time I apologise that I didn't see it earlier. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not an apology that is needed, it is a change in your behaviour. No more personal comments, no more creating sections when there are already ongoing discussions, no more stating what did or did not happen without diffs. For example this section up to now is a complete waste of space and has nothing to do with improving this guideline, and some of what I am going to write now are things I have written multiple times which you (In ictu oculi) have never indicated that you have read them and understood what I have written. --PBS (talk) 14:15, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The comment "I had another editor share with me that when they looked at an article with East European accents it was an offputting and meaningless eyesore." is the crux of the issue, because natives of an East European such as some of our Polish editors finds a name like Lech Wałęsa written as Lech Walesa an eyesore (see some of the comments at Talk:Lech Wałęsa/Archives/2012/April). As there is no accounting for taste, the simplest resolution is to follow what is used in reliable English Language sources. While two editors may hold their own opinion on which of whether Lech Wałęsa or Lech Walesa is the greater eyesore, if they are editing in good faith they can agree on what is most commonly used in reliable English language sources. Why reliable English language sources because this is an English language Wikiepdia and only English language sources are going to use English spellings. Also because as those spellings in reliable English language sources are the most commonly presented to our English language readers, it is going to look like less of an eyesore to fewer of our readers than using a spelling that is used in a minority of reliable English language sources-- PBS (talk) 14:15, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I did not suggest that we discuss François Hollande because that is an article title which is not in the remit of this MOS guideline (but decided with the use of the WP:AT policy). I wrote "Now if you would like to talk about the usage of François Hollande in the first article which links to François Hollande it is List of French people and AFAICT the use of François Hollande is unsourced." -- PBS (talk) 14:15, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Resuming discussion
PBS wrote: "...I suggest we incorporate text here to make it clear, that names within an article should follow usage in the MOS "Spell a name consistently in the title and the text of an article (see article titles policy),..." This is being contradicted in at least two places: The example of Gdansk is being given in both cases, but I have also seen it in BLP articles. E.g. Baruto Kaito, the article is kept at his wrestlers name, because that's what he is notable for. But in the early career section his birth name is used because at that time he didn't have (or use) his sumo wrestler's name yet. So basically, to stay true to the name(s) we find in the reliable sources for our article, will always be the best way to make sure that we use the name that is more correct in the context of the given paragraph or section. Thoughts? MakeSense64 (talk) 18:33, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In LEAD: "Indeed, alternative names can be used in article text in contexts where they are more appropriate than the name used as the title of the article."
 * In Article_titles: "There is also no reason why alternative names cannot be used in article text, in contexts where they are more appropriate than the name used as the title of the article."


 * I think the MOS recommendation applies to the spelling of a name, not to the choice of an alternative name. Conflation of the two may present problems. I also think we need to retain the principle of editorial judgment. I don't think trying to slavishly follow reliable sources will help very much. In the same article (here and elsewhere) editors may, with good reason, refer to the same person as "Pope Benedict XVI", "Benedict XVI", "Cardinal Ratzinger", "Joseph Aloisius Ratzinger", "Ratzinger", "the Pope", the pontiff, and "he". Similarly, another person might be referred to in different sources as "Elizabeth II", "Queen Elizabeth II", "Queen Elizabeth", "the Queen", "the Queen of Australia", "the Queen of Canada", "Her Britannic Majesty", "she", "her", etc. The appropriate name, anaphoric reference, etc. depend on the context, and the context of a particular paragraph in a particular Wikipedia article will normally be different from the context of the reliable sources we are using for verifying facts. For one thing, the context is a global encyclopaedia, so names that might be appropriate in a local newspaper, however reliable, might not always be appropriate in Wikipedia, but there are many more issues. --Boson (talk) 01:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair comment, but the mentioned WP:LEAD section currently says (about alternative names): "These may include alternative spellings, longer or shorter forms, historical names, and significant names in other languages." (emphasis mine)
 * And this comes in the sentence right before the statement that we can use such alternative names in article text if they are more relevant for given context. So it literally says that alternative spellings and significant names in other languages can be used in the article text where more relevant.
 * I am not convinced this is only for historic names or cases. For example an artist or writer may be known by a stagename or pseudonym, and in later life gets involved in politics under his "official name". Let's assume the article is kept at his stagename title. Does it then make sense to use his stagename in the article section about his political activities? MakeSense64 (talk) 04:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The immediate problem here is that WP:LEAD "alternative spellings" is not understood by non-tennis en.wp editors to include (a) spelling errors "Renéy Lacoste" for René Lacoste or (b) low-MOS Rene Lacoste for René Lacoste. You are seeing WP:LEAD "alternative spellings" but making the leap, that a mispelling or a low-MOS spelling is an alternative spelling.In ictu oculi (talk) 05:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What are "non-tennis en.wp editors"? Constantly trying to typecast other editors is also not seen as constructive editing. Can we ask you once again to stick to the subject matter rather than mixing in remarks about other contributors all the time?
 * A typo that appears in one source (and maybe gets picked up by a few mirror-sources) can be judged to be a wrong spelling. A certain rendering of a name that appears over a wide variety of reliable sources, and used consistently by those sources, is not a wrong spelling but an "alternative spelling", whether we like it or not. WP:LEAD asks us to mention significant alternative names in the lede, and states that it is acceptable to use these alternative names in the article text wherever they are more relevant in the given context. As I pointed out, this goes against the text in the sentence that PBS was proposing, so we should at least discuss that point before we add it. MakeSense64 (talk) 06:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * MakeSense
 * (1) POSSIBILITY NO.1 - you're right, that's what WP:LEAD means, and e.g. http://topics.bloomberg.com/francois-mitterrand/ shows that Francois Mitterand exists as an "alternative spelling"
 * (2) POSSIBILITY NO.2 - you're wrong, François Mitterrand has no alternative spelling, even if Bloomberg spells Francois, and the way the article lede is is correct, so correctly that it is given as an example in WP:FULLNAME and WP:OPENPARA
 * In ictu oculi (talk) 08:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * POSSIBILITY NO.3. - I am right about WP:LEAD, and Francois Mitterrand is found as an alternative spelling in some sources like Bloomberg. But the editor(s) who worked on the Mitterrand article thought that this alternative spelling is not common or significant enough to include in the lede.
 * Remember, WP:LEAD is not saying that we should include every variant or alternative, it is saying that we should include the most significant ones, and that we may also use them in the article text whenever an alternative variant is more relevant in a certain section context. This may or may not be the case, and will obviously differ from person to person, as seen in the Baruto Kaito example. Sometimes it will be very obvious that a certain alternative name is "significant", in other cases there will be discussion about it. I have never edited the Mitterrand article, so I don't know why the alternative spelling was not included, and I also don't know whether it has been discussed on the Talk there. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Then in the case of POSSIBILITY No.3 François Mitterrand and indeed François Hollande should be corrected to include the Bloomberg spelling. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Gdansk is not a good example to use it is under its own special rules which by the way were breached when the article was moved from Gdansk Gdańsk. As Boson points out there is a difference between alternative names are not alternative spellings. What this refers to is don't use Gdansk and Gdańsk in the same article not don't use Gdańsk and Danzig.

The standard way to solve the problem of English language usage stripping diacritics that are present in other languages notable to the subject of an article, is to start with English language usage and then add in foreign language usage (If they are one and the same thing then there is no need to do that) -- See Napoleon Bonaparte. MakeSense64 if you object to that sentence, as it is copied with (minor edits) from MOS:FOREIGN then you must also object the inclusion of the hatnote main page MOS:FOREIGN. Of course alternative spellings can be given in the lead, and we can footnote that if you think the proposed wording could be interpreted to make that difficult. -- PBS (talk) 12:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't object to including the links to MOS:FOREIGN, but I am concerned that the brief summary text we add is oversimplifying things as there seem to be exceptions. We could then end up with contradicting guidelines again, where in discussions one editor could point to WP:LEAD to argue the case that a certain "alternative name/spelling" should be allowed in the article text as well, while another editor will cite MOSPN to argue that we should use the same name consistently in the entire article. Of course this may be just another policy conflict we have to look into, or maybe we need to put a more qualified statement into WP:LEAD so that the possible misinterpretation (if it is one) is eliminated. It is not really a problem that we can solve here on this page, but whatever solution it gets on the other mentioned pages, could affect the summary text we try to add here.
 * Could you point me to the exact place(s) where it is stated that we should spell names consistently throughout the article? I want to have a better look. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Philip, again I feel you may be misinformed about how en.wp is. Please see how François Mitterrand is treated on WP:FULLNAME and WP:OPENPARA. The standard way for 20th Century figures is exactly the opposite of what you describe.
 * As regards 18th Century emperors, yes like other monarchs, leaders, emperors, they have anglicized familiar names. So the article is at Napoleon COMMONNAME, and lede is anglicized, Napoleon Bonaparte. But as regards other Pages in category:French military leaders of the French Revolutionary Wars of 16 article titles (reflecting ledes/content) all 16 are in Chicago-MOS, including François Louis Dedon-Duclos, Elzéard Auguste Cousin de Dommartin, François-Xavier Donzelot, Charles François Dumouriez, Marie François Rouyer, Anne-François-Charles Trelliard, even article Napoleon which uses Chicago-MOS in relation to others. So you statement "the standard way" is incorrect, that is a "non-standard way" for monarchs. As you are aware Napoleon was both a monarch and an emperor, but please look at François Louis Dedon-Duclos, Elzéard Auguste Cousin de Dommartin, François-Xavier Donzelot, Charles François Dumouriez, Marie François Rouyer, Anne-François-Charles Trelliard, thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

François Gérard Georges Nicolas Hollande Apologies to Philip, I did not see above the edit offering to discuss the changes to MOSPN in relation to François Hollande, lost in the fog: recent edit. What will it take to get Philip or MakeSense64 to explain the effect of their edits in relation to a real article example? In ictu oculi (talk) 08:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The edits I have proposed to this guideline are to harmonise its wording with the main MOS page. The changes it will reduced confusion with editors cherry picking phrases out of context to justify a position that is not supported by the central MOS guideline or in the case of article titles the article titles policy. -- PBS (talk) 12:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Philip, you respond to this as "personal", well I'm sorry but I don't see it that way. The only "personal" reference involved is the knowledge that both the editors who have attempted to remove the diacritics section from MOSPN have strongly expressed views against the use of diacritics (as found in en.wp modern Europe-related articles), like it or not views expressed on a RfC about exactly this section of MOSPN one week, and then coming here without discussion and deleting the section informs ones view of the editors view. Not just I but others have made objection to your edits. These objections are not "personal." You have been requested repeatedly that you should explain your edits in relation to actual articles, that you should please explain/discuss the effect your changes to MOSPN will have on actual articles. Why is that unreasonable? In ictu oculi (talk) 22:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I was responding to a personal message from Philip, I now see he has produced Emperor Napoleon as an example above, and this is a start. But monarchs/emperors have their own naming conventions on en.wp. Naming conventions (royalty and nobility). In ictu oculi (talk) 22:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, François Hollande is a much more relevant example. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * @IIO. You are continuing your pattern of starting new sections (below other topics), in what is an ongoing discussion. Please stop doing that. I have seen elsewhere that you know perfectly how to create a subsections, so why are you not doing that here? I am going to continue the discussion where it is much better developed already. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for moving it back up into the ongoing discussion. I am all for looking into practical examples, but I propose to use the examples we already use in this section: Paul Erdos and Aragon. That will be more useful as it may help us to improve that part of the section. It will also mean that we are not solely looking into BLP issues, since MOSPN covers all proper names, not just persons. And it will help us to stay diacritics neutral, since we are then looking into an example that is kept at diacritics title vs one that is not. Can we agree on that? MakeSense64 (talk) 08:57, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, quite happy to move it. And yes, sure, I'd be quite happy with Paul Erdos and Aragon. Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. Then here you go. I already brought up these examples one month ago in this edit . To quote from it:
 * The reason for this is very simple. E.g. Paul Erdős being kept at that title does not imply that it is the only alternative spelling of his name in English usage. For example: Merriam-Webster dictionary spells him "Paul Erdos", while the Complete Dictionary of Scientific Biography (2008) spells him "Paul Erdös" . So there are at least three common and accepted spellings of his name in reliable English-language usage. If we find any of these renderings in the reliable sources for any other wp article, then we don't need to change the spelling we find in our source. We just stay true to our source(s) for the article, which is needed per WP:V.
 * That's also why we have a general rule that when a certain name is chosen to be title of an article, we generally try to retain that spelling throughout that article (with a few exceptions). But, it is not saying that we try to retain that spelling throughout all articles on wikipedia. This also indicates that the alternative names or spellings can be used in other articles.
 * Thus, when two or more renderings of a name are common in English-language usage, then we don't try to reduce that to just one spelling on wikipedia, we retain the variation that exists out there by reflecting our sources. When it comes to spelling, wikipedia is not "leading" the changes, but "following" the sources. If the spelling changes in our sources, then the spelling will also change on wikipedia. If some loanword that currently has diacritics, slowly loses them in English-language usage, then over time wikipedia will start reflecting that change. That's what being diacritics-neutral is all about. MakeSense64 (talk) 12:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * MakeSense64, it seems Paul Erdős article is something of an oddity. But even so, I'm sorry but again you are wrong, and again en.wikipedia.org does not do this. The only significant cluster of articles where the correct spelling and a sports-website misspelling or "English names" (sic) are used are 100+ tennis BLPs where instead of following WP:OPENPARA we have eyesorses like "Saša Hiršzon or Sasa Hirszon, (born 14 July 1972) is a former professional tennis player from Croatia." If you are right then please show me a non-tennis BLP which has been given "English names" in this manner. Regards. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * MakeSense64, it seems Paul Erdős article is something of an oddity. But even so, I'm sorry but again you are wrong, and again en.wikipedia.org does not do this. The only significant cluster of articles where the correct spelling and a sports-website misspelling or "English names" (sic) are used are 100+ tennis BLPs where instead of following WP:OPENPARA we have eyesorses like "Saša Hiršzon or Sasa Hirszon, (born 14 July 1972) is a former professional tennis player from Croatia." If you are right then please show me a non-tennis BLP which has been given "English names" in this manner. Regards. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Names of people
THis is useful advice from Wikinews:Style_guide that I think should be included in the Wikipedia style guide, but whihc I cannot find anywhere in this guide. I propose to add this to section 2 (personal names) of this guide:
 * ''On the first mention of a person in a story, write the person's organization, title, and full name. Try to include a local link or Wikipedia link to their organization and name. Many politicians have local categories and main namespace redirects, e.g., George W. Bush.
 * ''When asked his opinion, American Association of Puppy Lovers President John Doe said puppies were fun and cute.
 * ''On subsequent mentions, mention only the person's significant name without it being a wikilink. For western names this is the last name; many Asian countries use the first name for subsequent mentions.
 * ''Puppies should be treated with respect and well-groomed, Doe added.
 * ''If this person has not been mentioned for a few paragraphs, use a shortened title on the next use to remind the reader.
 * Thaksin Skinawatra was the founder of Shin Corporation. In December 1994, Thaksin became Thailand's Foreign Minister.

Any concerns? Ground Zero | t 05:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 1)What do you mean with "in a story"? I guess you mean any section or paragraph in a wp article other than the BLP or BDP about the person in question?
 * 2)We are already supposed to add a wikilink on first mention of a name for which there is a standalone article.
 * 3)Other concern: trying to find "organization, title and full name" for any person that gets mentioned in an article will be a lot of extra work for editors, and in some articles where a lot of names are mentioned it may actually make the article or section rather unreadable. Also: how do you define "full name"? In some countries people can have a lot of middle names and it seems very impractical to me to add "full name" every time the person gets mentioned in "a story" in another article. MakeSense64 (talk) 06:14, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

This section in italics above is copied directly from the Wikinews style guide, and would have to be adapted for Wikipedia purposes. Some of the advice above would not be appropriate, as you point out. Here is my first stab at it:
 * ''On the first mention of a person in an article, write the person's full name, not just the person’s last name. For names from Western cultures, this usually follows the “Christian name first, family names second” format, e.g., “David Cameron” or “Barack Obama”, not “Cameron” or “Obama”. This provides more clarity to the reader and assists with disambiguation.
 * ''For names from other cultures, the standards of those cultures should be used, e.g., “Mao Zedong”, not “Mao”.
 * ''Middle names and honorifics should not generally be included, unless they are important to the context or provide disambiguation, e.g., it is important to distinguish between the 38th and 40th presidents of the United States by including their middle initial, i.e., “George H.W. Bush” and “George W. Bush” respectively, as “George Bush” is ambiguous.
 * ''It may be useful to identify the position of the person, unless it is clear from the context, e.g., it may not be necessary in an article about British prime ministers that David Cameron is the British prime minister because that would be obvious to the context, but in an article about European monetary negotiations, it would provide useful context for the read.
 * ''If there is a Wikipedia article on the person, link the first instance of the name to that article.
 * ''On subsequent mentions, mention only the person's significant name unless this would cause ambiguity, e.g., in an article about U.S. presidents referring to “President Bush”, President Johnson” or “President Roosevelt” may be confusing as there were two men called each of those names.
 * For western names, the significant name is the last name, e.g., use “Australian prime minister Julia Gillard in the first instance, and “Gillard” subsequently. Many Asian countries use the first name for subsequent mentions. 

Comments are welcome. Ground Zero | t 15:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Your advise here does not cover nobility or royalty ("person's significant name" or a person's significant title? (Wellington or Wellesley?) ). It talks about job titles but does not cover the use of honorific titles such as "Sir" which I do not think should be ignored (as is suggested by the wording above). What about titles such as Dr. and for a surgeon Mr.? It also does not cover people who are better known by their first names or nicknames or whatever. It also runs into political considerations as Labour MPs like to be in the house of Lords but do not like to be known by their titles eg Catherine Ashton or Baroness Ashton while for Tory knights of the shire it is as like as not be the other way around, so using certain forms of address makes a political statement (NPOV and all that -- Tony Benn a man of the people or an aristocrat?).  -- PBS (talk) 17:52, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In digging around further, I found WP:FULLNAME which is part of Manual of Style/Biographies. This style guide addresses these issues and others that we have not considered here (e.g., what to do with people who have only one name). I think we could incorporate this useful advice into Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Proper names with a simple reference, e.g, "The guidance provided for the treatment of personal names in WP:FULLNAME should also be followed in non-biographical articles." That is simpler than trying to write a new guideline, and it reflects the wisdom of the Wikipedia community. Ground Zero | t 01:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Diacritics: change to first sentence
I propose to change some of the wording in the first sentence: -- PBS (talk) 07:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "often include characters" to "can include letters modified" -- "often" presents a POV just as "sometimes" (quantifying how common is not needed in this sentence), it is the "letters of the alphabet" not the "characters of the alphabet".
 * "in modern English" to "in English". The modern is implied and does not have to be stated particularly as "modern" is ambiguous.
 * I support changing "often include" to "can include".
 * I disagree with changing "characters with" to "letters modified". This is incorrect. It can apply to characters that are are letters in their own right, though they can be created either by modifying existing letters or by using a separate character. For instance the abstract character "ü" can theoretically be entered as a modified 'u', but this is not normal.
 * I would prefer to leave "modern English", since some characters are commonly used in older varieties of English. It may not be that important, but there is no need to change something that is correct and precise to something that is less precise and arguably incorrect. --Boson (talk) 09:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I also support "can" rather than "often". The distinction between "letters" and "characters" is not all that clear to me. But a gsearch for "letters of the alphabet" gets ~2,600,000 hits, while "characters of the alphabet" gets only ~500,000 hits. So it looks like "letters of the alphabet" is the more common expression. MakeSense64 (talk) 10:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Boston When you write "entered" I think you are confusing a computer process and the use of an alphabet. If one is using a pen and paper how does one "enter a character"? As to the second point, if modern is precise, what precisely does modern mean in "modern English"? If it means English as defined in the article modern English then there are letters in modern English that have not been used for many years eg the long s. -- PBS (talk) 11:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "Modern English" is more precise than "English". I would suggest using something more accurate/precise, such as "present-day English".
 * I don't think it is possible to edit Wikipedia using only a pencil and paper; so "entered" is appropriate.
 * An abstract character such as what appears on your screen as "é" can be thought of as a modified letter (a lowercase E with an acute accent). It can also be thought of as a separate character. When using pencil and paper, the difference may seem trivial. When using computer-based systems like Wikipedia, the differences may not be trivial.
 * Some abstract characters are conventionally treated as separate characters in their own right, but others are not. Different collating rules may apply in different locales (e.g. languages or places). See the Wikipedia article on Å: "Å is often perceived as an A with a ring, interpreting the ring as a diacritical mark. However, in the languages that use it, the ring is not considered a diacritic but part of the letter." By using the original phrasing we include both interpretations.--Boson (talk) 18:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I object to this change for the same reasons I and others objected above and regard these objections as not having been addressed. The status quo wording "often" does not present a POV, it presents a statement of fact, that the reality on en.wikipedia is that Latin-alphabet European languages do include French, Spanish, Czech etc accents and other diacritics. The change would give a misleading impression of en.wikipedia and itself presents a POV in that "can" sounds like 50/50 rather than the 99.999% reality. I therefore intend to revert this edit to status quo of the article unless some convincing evidence can be provided that what the statement says is factually incorrect. For example show 3 or 4 relevant non WP:STAGENAME BLP articles where French, Spanish, Czech etc accents and other diacritics have been removed to produce a "diacritic free" tabloid-MOS "English Wikipedia" version of a living person's name. If examples aren't forthcoming then the statement "can" instead of "often" is evidently POV, in addition to being counter the status-quo of the article and against the reality of how en.wikipedia articles actually are, as opposed to should be. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What percentage of all the words in French language contain letter modifications that are not used in English? -- PBS (talk) 19:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi PBS, I presume you mean "proper names" not "words" since this is MOSPN. The percentage of French proper names which contain letter modifications that are not used in English is zero, since English usually represents French proper names in all cases except for monarch names like the Emperor Napoleon. However, if you mean "What percentage of French personal names contain accents or cédilles which are omitted by some popular English sources such as sports websites and the British red tops or Daily Mail?," then the percentage of names seems to be about 33%. Category:Prime Ministers of France would be a good example. 35 of 109 names should have accents and/or cédilles, and on en.wp 35 of 109 names in fact do have accents and/or cédilles, showing again that en.wp almost always spells European latin alphabet names correctly and fully. But you can pick any category of modern non-Stagename French persons and you will find the same thing. Even in very exceptional cases where there is strong resistance to European names by some en.wp editors, such as Category:French male tennis players all but 2 are spelled with French names. This is how en.wp is, and MOSPN should reflect it, not seek to turn back the clock to 2004 or seek to imitate tabloid MOS like the Daily Mail.
 * Do you agree with my findings? If not then the invitation "For example show 3 or 4 relevant non WP:STAGENAME BLP articles where French, Spanish, Czech etc accents and other diacritics have been removed to produce a "diacritic free" tabloid-MOS "English Wikipedia" version of a living person's name" is still open...
 * PBS, based on the above. I propose we change "often" to "usually" - since the examples I have provided show that en.wp does not "often" use diacritics but "usually" "almost always" This would be a more true-to-reality edit than the one you are proposing. Or we could just leave the status quo. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that you are being a little myopic in you observations. The sentence is not talking about Wikipedia article titles. It is making a statement about "Foreign proper names written in languages which use the Latin alphabet ... " -- that is the set of all foreign proper names (which includes names like Paris, Berlin, and Rome to name but three). Unless more than (say) 75% (or more conservatively more than 50%) of all such words are known to contain accent marks or letters not usually used in English, then "often" is misleading and an inappropriate word in this sentence. -- PBS (talk)
 * Hello PBS, If you don't mind could you please keep personal charges like myopia out of it. You asked for "words in the French language" 'and I answered. As you know there are only a tiny number of Proper noun English exonyms for French place names such as Brittany, Burgundy, Dunkirk, Gascony, Marseilles, Normandy, Picardy, Pyrenees none of which are remotely controversial or need to waste our time here - so what are they then, 0.1% of all French place names? 0.05%? "Paris, Berlin, and Rome" are either not exonyms (Paris), not French words (Roma), or neither French words nor exonyms (Berlin). Why are you asking "What percentage of all the words in French language contain letter modifications that are not used in English?" and when I give you an answer "then the percentage of names seems to be about 33%. Category:Prime Ministers of France would be a good example. 35 of 109 names should have accents and/or cédilles, and on en.wp 35 of 109 names in fact do have accents and/or cédilles," you start talking about Berlin?
 * Now, as for the math,
 * what is 35 among 109?
 * what is 35 among 35?
 * I take it you understand the connection of these numbers to Category:Prime Ministers of France?
 * what percentage of Category:Prime Ministers of France could take accents?
 * what percentage of Category:Prime Ministers of France which could take accents do?
 * You asked the question, and I did a count for you on a representative category. Would you please address the results of the question you asked. Thank you. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

What about "frequently"? It does not confer the notion of "we might allow it" that possibly can be read into "can" but is a simple statement of fact not quite as strong as the original often. Agathoclea (talk) 18:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Iio I think you you are still missing the point of the sentence. It is not about content of Wikipedia articles it is a statement about All "Foreign proper names written in languages which use the Latin alphabet ... " -- PBS (talk) 19:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Agathoclea, in this context I do not thing that there is a "we might allow it" that would be implied by the word "may", and I think that "frequently" is as problematic as "often", just as "infrequently" is a problematic as "sometimes". Unless there is a reliable source that can give us the average frequency overall, (and I do not think that Category:Prime Ministers of France can be seen as representative -- If it were at 33% it is infrequently) then I do not think that a word that implies frequency should be in the sentence. -- PBS (talk) 19:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * PBS,
 * Category:Prime Ministers of France if anything is not just representative but on the low side. I could have chosen category:Czech women in politics: Jana Bobošíková, Petra Buzková, Milada Emmerová, Daniela Filipiová, Milada Horáková, Kateřina Jacques, Irena Kočí, Miroslava Kopicová, Daniela Kovářová, Dana Kuchtová, Jaroslava Moserová, Miroslava Němcová, Vlasta Parkanová, Zuzana Roithová, Džamila Stehlíková, Lucie Talmanová, Pavla Topolánková, Eva Tylová
 * 18 out of 18 with accents
 * 100% of those which could take accents doing so - as almost always on en.wp
 * PBS,
 * The content of the sentence you have changed from "often" to "can" is indeed about foreign proper names, correct, and therefore we can establish that in French 33%, in Czech or Croat more like 60% do. And the article itself is telling Users, "often" wikt:often seems reasonable. Underneath and following this however is the secondary issue of "Wikipedia normally retains these special characters" - which you removed earlier - where the point is exactly about content of Wikipedia articles. You see above that 100% of Category:Prime Ministers of France which can take accents do. Do you agree with these findings. Do you agree that "Wikipedia normally retains these special characters"? yes/no? In ictu oculi (talk) 23:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * We can not "establish that in French 33%, in Czech or Croat more like 60% do", the survey is far too small and is not being carried out in a systematic way by a third party source. The word "can" in this sentence does not quantify the number, and unless you have a third party source that has published a frequency analysis of the percentage of foreign names that use accent marks and letters not usually considered part of the English alphabet the, then you are engaging in unsupported speculation. As to your question to me, it is about another sentence in this paragraph and until such time as it is proposed to change it, it is a distraction from the current discussion. -- PBS (talk) 09:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi PBS,
 * 1.
 * On the contrary, the examples given are more representative than nothing at all, so we have established that whether approx 33% in French or 50% in Czech or Croat, this counts as "wikt:often" and the status quo wording is correct and should be restored.
 * But if you wish to challenge this by all means please then make the survey larger: Category:French people, Category:Spanish people, Category:Swedish people, Category:Serbian people... or the actual categories in WP:AT Category:German politicians, Category:Towns in Brazil, Category:Rivers of Turkey.
 * Or provide a contrary example? You have been invited to provide a single example, 1 article, 1 non-WP:STAGENAME non-change of nationality/residence modern bio which goes against normal en.wikipedia.org article space practice. en.wikipedia can provide categories of hundreds of people virtually ad infinitum to show how en.wikipedia is, but so far you have not provided 1 article to support your view of how en.wikipedia should be?
 * 2.
 * As regards the outstanding question, we would normally expect anyone (i) removing longstanding status quo content, (ii) adding a discussion ongoing box, (iii) adding a redirect hatnote to a different MOS page and (iv) then editing next to the deleted-restored content in related sentences to state their views. So no, as long as your edits (ii) (iii) and (iv) are in the DIACRITICS section then no, with respect how can it be a distraction to ask what your view on the DIACRITICS section you are editing is. I have not touched the section except to restore the earlier removal. You have been editing it again subsequent to having removed the content. It therefore is completely reasonable to ask if you accept that "Wikipedia normally retains these special characters" and no longer wish to remove these words? It shouldn't be a secret what an editor's attitude is to content he has attempted to remove. So please, have the courtesy to answer the question, please. Do you agree that "Wikipedia normally retains these special characters" or do you disagree? In ictu oculi (talk) 10:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The change made by PBS from 'often' to 'can' is a sensible edit to make the phrase both more NPOV and accurate and as such was long overdue. The sentence concerns foreign proper names written in languages which use the Latin alphabet as they are present in these countries and it is not about diacritic frequency in some Wikipedia category. I have seen no analysis to justify using less neutral terms such as 'often' or 'frequent' and I doubt it exists. --Wolbo (talk) 20:12, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have to side with PBS too. I just don't see how replacing "often" with "can" in that position can be used to push the POV that diacritics should be removed. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Enric, it doesn't, not directly. Not as directly as removing the entire section, nor putting a MAIN misdirecting to where there is no more detailed advice (the usual purpose of a MAIN, see above, not my comment). But "can" doesn't soften it, it doesn't say what "often" says, which is the case when circa 33% of French names and 50% of Czech names do. As Agathoclea said "what about "frequently"? It does not confer the notion of "we might allow it" that possibly can be read into "can" but is a simple statement of fact not quite as strong as the original often. Agathoclea (talk) 18:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)" - would you accept "frequently"? In ictu oculi (talk) 18:03, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Wolbo, when you say "I have seen no analysis to justify using less neutral terms such as 'often' or 'frequent' and I doubt it exists" the analysis was there above in the "French 33%, in Czech or Croat more like 60% do" which was demonstrated in the categories examined above. The wikt:often would be true for all European-alphabet languages except Dutch and English. However if you want to pick another category, say category:Swedish politicians, then do so. Also I would be interested to hear if you can propose 1 non-stagename non-change-of-nationality accented BLP which you believe en.wp has right. This becoming a fairly standard question which I have asked those opposed to accents on European names, you may have seen that I asked PBS and MakeSense64. I am seeking to understand what those opposed to diacritics consider a model en.wp BLP article. This will help others understand the changes if any you wish to see made to MOSPN status quo. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Iio: On a scale of 0 to 100 (percent) when you would you expect someone to stop using the word "sometimes" and then start using the word "often"? I would make the division based on a reliable survey at roughly: <=25% and >75%. Also I am getting a little tired of your binary assertion that if someone who opposes your point of view has to be one of "those opposed to accents on European names". I am neither for or against accents on European names (or names of anyone anywhere on the planet), but I oppose you point of view that we should decide article titles on criteria other than the usage in reliable English language sources with the provisos laid out the AT policy and its non-contradictory guidelines. -- PBS (talk) 13:59, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * PBS, I am happy to answer these:
 * 1. On a scale of 0 to 100 (percent) I would expect the use of the word "can" to stop at about 10-15%, "sometimes" to stop at about "15-30%" and "wikt:often" to carry from 30% upwards. I am perfectly happy with status quo wording and since there is no consensus for a change think it should be restored.
 * 2. The context of "those opposed to accents on European names" is evidently "those opposed to accents on European names [here on en.wp]" here in the context of en.wp which is largely predicated on the choice between WP:IRS "the best such sources" and "the majority of sources"
 * 3. you say "I [PBS] am neither for or against accents on European names" - I understand that, but others may not. For the benefit of clearing the air if nothing else, can I suggest again that you please give an example of 1x accented category:Living people article that you agree with? This will put to bed any suggestion that you are not in favour of diacritics.
 * 4. As regards the link you have made to me discussing Saša Hiršzon (English Sasa Hirszon)" lede style, I am sorry what is your point. Do you agree with Saša Hiršzon lede style? or the lede style in WP:OPENPARA?
 * 5. Again my point of view is not that "we should decide article titles on criteria other than the usage in reliable English language sources" my point of view is as stated in the second paragraph of WP:IRS "the best such sources."
 * Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Deciding on an article title is not decided on best sources, it is decided on usage in reliable sources. However putting that to one side for the moment. "What are your criteria for deciding on what are the best English language sources? -- PBS (talk) 09:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ability and willingness to spell things correctly i.e. Chicago MOS which incidently we follow. Agathoclea (talk) 11:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * We do not follow the Chicago MOS we follow the Wikipedia WP:AT policy in deciding the title of an article. Anything that the Chicago MOS recommends is no more binding than say the Economist's MOS, both can be taken into consideration. But as a matter of interest which of these pairs would the Chicago MOS spelling colour state or color state? Londonderry or Derry? Ganges or Ganga? Or any place in Belgium with names two languages? Kiev or Kyiv? Tony Blair or Antony Blair (or another option)? Not so much spelling but alternative names: tram or street car? Big Ben or Clock Tower, Palace of Westminster? Or one of my favourites: Tokto or Dokdo or Liancourt Rocks? It seems to me from some of their replies in their FAQ that many of these things are either found the way our policy recommends "follow the source Luke." or they use an arbitrary rule.. The very last question on their FAQ gives an interesting answer that shows that the CMOS does not consider there to be a "correct spelling" and I am going to quote it


 * -- PBS (talk) 14:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Our main focus is personal names here so I use the only such example you ventured: Tony Blair - In British culture it is a perfect alternative in a non-familiar setting if enaugh people around him will use that name, in fact a British Anthony will often indroduce himself as Tony. In that cultural setting that is perfectly ok. Although some people close to Angela Merkel might call her Angie or another shortform it would not be acceptable to call her such in a non-familiar setting. But we are moving away from the issue at hand - neither of the examples you used came to their spelling by a removal of diacritics - they where different names for the same thing depending on your cultural/political position. On the subject of names and speaking of bi-lingual - In Wales we are bi-lingual (sort off anyway). But a Welsh Dai Jones would still not be called David Jones when crossing the Severn Bridge. 200 years ago he would have. And the titles and spellings in our articles for the most part reflect that shift and in that way putting the subject of an articles in its timely perspective. Another funny thing about the English language is that spelling is pretty irrelevant because what you read and say is only tangiently connected. In other languages spelling has a big influence on how things are said which brings us back to diacritics. They are just as important to a persons identity as the T. in James T. Kirk or the jr. in Sammy Davies jr (on that note I have an elderly friend who is xx yy jr. and when I manage to get back to my hometown in Germany I have my fun with the Germans there trying to get their head around that). Now the whole issue of dropping diacritics was first of all a typesetting and later a computer issue. I remember the time when Govenmentoffices in Germany where struggling to install the software to move from all-caps to normal writing including diacritics. Why? because they respected peoples names and where willing to spend the money to show that respect. And we should be willing to show that respect too. Agathoclea (talk) 19:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi PBS
 * 1. I answered above, 1.
 * 2. I answered above, 2
 * 3. I answered above, 3 and then suggest again that you please give an example of 1x accented category:Living people article that you agree with? Can you please link to where you have addressed this question.
 * 4. As regards the link you to discussion of "Saša Hiršzon (English Sasa Hirszon)" lede style, I asked "I am sorry what is your point. Do you agree with Saša Hiršzon lede style? or the lede style in WP:OPENPARA? Can you please link to your answer if you have addressed this question.
 * 5. As I said my point of view is as stated in the second paragraph of WP:IRS "the best such sources." which in WP:IRS defines "reliable" sources. You ask "What are your criteria for deciding on what are the best English language sources?" my criteria would be as WP:IRS. For spelling they would include ones that can spell Charlotte Brontë, or WP:AT/WP:UE "Besançon, Søren Kierkegaard and Göttingen," and WP:DIACRITICS/WP:USEENGLISH which has "Tomás Ó Fiaich, not Tomas O'Fiaich." and here "Wikipedia normally retains these special characters, except where there is a well-established English spelling that replaces them with English standard letters. For example, the name of the article on Hungarian mathematician Paul Erdős is spelt with the double acute accent,". In other words I am 100% compliant with (i) existing WP:AT/WP:UE WP:DIACRITICS/WP:USEENGLISH WP:MOSPN WP:IRS guidance, (ii) the reality of where those articles on en.wp are.
 * 3. Now, back to 3. Can you please give an example of 1x accented category:Living people article that you agree with?
 * 4. Back to 4. re "Saša Hiršzon (English Sasa Hirszon)" Do you agree with Saša Hiršzon lede style? or the lede style in WP:OPENPARA?
 * Given that you wish to make changes to diacritics content on MOSPN it is reasonable to ask if you can provide examples per 3, and your view on 4.
 * Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, wouldn't it be more idiomatic to write "Some proper names in languages that use the Latin alphabet include . . ."? --Boson (talk) 06:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Beatles RfC
You are invited to participate in an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Beatles on the issue of capitalising the definite article when mentioning that band's name in running prose. This long-standing dispute is the subject of an open mediation case and we are requesting your help with determining the current community consensus. Thank you for your time. For the mediators. ~ GabeMc  (talk 21:37, 22 September 2012 (UTC)