Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (standard letters with diacritics)/Archive 2

I object to this proposal
 Currenty there is no vote ongoing to determine the attitude of the community towards this proposal. Stefán Ingi 15:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I object to this proposed guideline on the grounds that it is unnecessary, onerous, and a waste of time. Diacritics should be used throughout English Wikipedia, period. Proper names are spelled correctly or incorrectly. Let the arbiter of correctness be the people with whom the proper name originates. This encourages the use of diacritics in all naming conventions, and suggests that the English Wikipedia now suffers from a surfeit of unnecessary traffic on the subject, including this proposed guideline and any like it. -- Mareklug talk  17:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. This proposal is not useful. "10 reliable publications that are fully in English" just to be able to correctly spell the name of some small town in Central Europe or that of some poet who isn't even known in the English-speaking world? Come on, this is silly. If there is an English form of a name with a well-established pronunciation, that should be used (Rome, Venice, Munich etc.). If there isn't, the original spelling should be used, including diacritics. That's all the policy we need on this matter. u p p l a n d 20:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Likewise object to this proposal, on the excellent and comprehensive grounds given above. The proposal is impractical, unnecessary and patronizing.  logologist|Talk 10:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * One should consider that at the moment Naming conventions a policy states:
 * "Convention: Name your pages in English and place the native transliteration on the first line of the article unless the native form is more commonly used in English than the English form." (Naming conventions (use English))
 * Convention: Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things. (Naming conventions (common names)). Which goes on to say "When choosing a name for a page ask yourself: What word would the average user of the Wikipedia put into the search engine."
 * Neither of these conventions suggest using names with diacritics, unless the name with diacritic is the most common usage in English. This is not usually the case. However there is disagreement on this issue. There is a summary of the disagreement on the Naming conventions (use English). This proposal is an attempt by Francis to try to resolve the disagreement. --Philip Baird Shearer 00:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * tx, that's how I intended it. --Francis Schonken 09:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * No need to "resolve the disagreement," given Wikipedia's capability for redirection. logologist|Talk 09:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * True.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Object. I don't think i should object without noting that i'm wowed by the thoroughness of the proposal. But as one who tends to overwrite, impressing me in that way is probably a bad sign, no matter how admirable the effort is in the abstract. Francis's tone on this page is irrelevant to the merits of the proposal, so it's important to ask whether the impression of the proposal as "patronizing" is really about the proposal or the talk page. My current take is that the proposal is impractical, and probably in itself patronizing. I sense a need for something that better reflects my impression of the outcome of the Zürich debate, but i doubt this is it. --Jerzy•t 03:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Jerzy, thanks for your comment. The only one using "patronizing" against the proposal had been Logologist, to which I hadn't given much attention (for obvious reasons: spelling these out: Logologist is one of the most "patronizing" wikipedians when it comes down to using Polish spelling/translations in all sorts of contentious places, see for example how Logologist "decides" about the Polish version of the Polish Biographical Dictionary here - the Polish notice board talk page -, then overrides discussions on the talk page of the article by simply moving ) FYI, my own major problem with the present version of the "diacritics" guideline proposal is that it is too complex. Doesn't help to say that language issues can be very complex, wikipedians want simple (or: simplistic) guidelines. Which probably won't happen for diacritics, while IMHO it is not possible to formulate the basic principles in a simplistic way. So, my next best solution is to split off as many particular issues that have "simple" solutions as possible (by language, by character,...). --Francis Schonken 09:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * To be effective, the proposal needs a simple "Summary" paragraph at the top with general rules, rather than immediately launching into complex language. --Elonka 16:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll register my object vote here as well. Name the page correctly and include a redirect with the common, non-diacritical spelling. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 21:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry to inform you but this isn't a vote.
 * Further, what would be "correct" according to your POV, Meißen porcelain or Meissen porcelain? If you're a fan of votes, there's one going on at Talk:Meißen porcelain. --Francis Schonken 21:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I support the spirit of this proposal. However, I insist that the procedures listed here must be simplified.  Specifically, we need to use some kind of a simple lexical procedure (to consider the criteria for diacritics word by word).  I propose to use major English dictionaries to determine the correct usage, where available.  Some of my ideas will come from the discussions we had at Japanese-MOS and a subsequent mediation (mentioned by Freshgavin below) and would like to make some suggestions based on such experience.  I understand this is not a vote, and so would like to join discussions to improve this proposal.--Endroit 22:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I might have already stated this above, if so, sorry for repeating myself, but I object and agree that Wikipedia should use diacritics throughout and always. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) Seen this already? 19:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Object. Many non-English topics have no "common English name" -- in some cases Wikipedia is the first extant English-language reference. Mandating that we be forced to mangle names in these cases is ... at best, confusing.  –Aponar Kestrel (talk) 04:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong support. It seems to me that every opposer is Polish. One ethnic community cannot dictate its terms to Wikipedia, hence their votes should be discounted. They are not authorities on proper English usage. I'm going to list the whole vote as a sample of Polonization. -- Ghirla -трёп-  07:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Your argument is just plagued with fallacious statements and prejudice. First, the last time I checked I wasn't Polish. Second, the English Wikipedia isn't exclusively for native English speakers. Third, being a native English speaker doesn't make anyone an authority on the usage of the English language. Contrarywise, not being a native English speaker doesn't disqualify anyone from having a discussion on the proper use of the English language. I think your proposal to "discount" the votes submitted by the Polish people (even if it wouldn't serve any purpose but to insult them as decisions here aren't reached by vote but by concensus) just gives us a view into the type of mindset that doesn't respect foreigners as equals or their culture as valuable...I'm not surprised at all that you "strongly" support this proposal. Rosa 00:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Anyway, I tried to follow Elonka's suggestion above and reworked a bit: made the the intro section less complicated (just showing the main thrust of what this is about), and moved the technical details to the body of the text. And added a "in a nutshell" formulation. And gave a more elaborate description of the "level" of applicability of this guideline in the "Criteria" section. Hope all this satisfies some of the concerns expressed above. --Francis Schonken 10:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem with this proposal is not the layout of the text, it is the content. That is the concern that most people who have registered opposition in this section have raised. Of course I have no problem with anybody improving the layout but I still object to the content and this cannot be made into a policy until some attempt is made to show that this has community support. Stefán Ingi 13:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow. Are you just ignoring me, or are you claiming (with no evidence whatsoever, I'd add) that I'm Polish? Because, um, I'm not, by any definition of the term. And I'd add the same (given a cursory inspection of their user page and contributions, which admittedly may not suffice) for users Uppland, Jerzy, and Doug Bell (all objectors above): as far as I can tell, not even most of the objectors here are Polish! –Aponar Kestrel (talk) 07:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * And I'd like to register an additional objection: as written it seems to imply that the ‘okina should be used in Hawai‘ian article titles but the kahakō should not, which is... er, counterintuitive, to put it mildly. (Macrons are necessary in some languages to write them properly, contrary to the statement in the proposal.) –Aponar Kestrel (talk) 07:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Tried to work away the problem you mentioned (macrons are apparently used outside IPA...) --Francis Schonken 09:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Support I strongly support this proposal. Sure English uses diacritics sometimes, but in most cases, diacritics are omitted. Wikipedia has a policy of using the most common English name "Name your pages in English and place the native transliteration on the first line of the article unless the native form is more commonly used in English than the English form." and a well established guideline that says "If you are talking about a person, country, town, movie or book, use the most commonly used English version of the name for the article, as you would find it in other encyclopedias and reference works." Everying points to the avoidance of using diacritics in article titles unless that is the way it is most commonly written in English. I don't even see why this is an issue. It is pretty clear cut if you ask me. Wikipedia is pretty clear about using the most common English name for article titles (for a multitude of reasons). It is quite rare to see words in English that are more common with diacritics. I think it is reasonable to avoid diacritics in the title and use diacritics in the first sentence of the first paragraph. That way, the most common English spelling is used for the title and the reader can see the native spelling of the word. this debate has been carried over recently at Jaromir Jagr. Basially, virtually every English internet outlet does not use diacritics in his name. Local media and the vast majority of English reference books don't use diacritics either. Why should wikipedia be different? Masterhatch 04:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Support but there needs to be more emphasis on the point that in all cases where an article title includes diacritics, it is absolutely essential to include either a redirect or a disambiguation page link from the form without the diacritics. It would also be a good idea to mention category sort keys (which work differently from piped links to articles) should be stripped of diacritics; see Categorization. Gene Nygaard 03:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Naming conventions (standard letters with diacritics) --Francis Schonken 08:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry--I overlooked that. The other point I made is almost covered too, but should be reworded.  What it says is "This guideline does not apply to redirect pages, which can (and should) use diacritics to ensure that all popular variations of a name's spelling, still redirect to the proper article."  This misses the most important case; when the article's name does include diacritics, it is essential to have a redirect (or a link from a disambiguation page) which does not have diacritics.    As written, it only discusses redirect pages which do include diacritics.  Gene Nygaard 12:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Please proceed – it's not as if this proposal is owned by anyone. Note however that, for example, Vitoria redirects to Vitoria-Gasteiz and not to Vitória. The case is explained at Naming conventions (precision). --Francis Schonken 13:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Support I support the proposal as an effort to bring English use and Anglicisations into Wikipedia. It is English Wikipedia, not Czech, Polish, Finnish, French, German, etc. Charles 15:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This encyclopedia is English but foreign terms aren't.Rosa 00:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose An encyclopaedia's purpose is to enlighten about subjects foreign to us, like foreign cultures and how they manifest themselves differently to our own culture, like through the use of a different language. Therefore, not using the native name constitutes a loss of information for all of us.Rosa 00:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

This looks to me like a policy looking for a problem. We don't need more policy. Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley talk contrib 10:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the community is too divided on this for now.Rosa 00:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I object because there is nothing here worth objecting to. No one will have trouble finding an article.  No one will be unable to read the article.  Since it's only about pedantry, this is a case where an ardent and active minority forms a consensus.  WikiPedia cannot be as consistent as a 20th century encyclopedia.  Since the official policy is (necessarily) nebulous, rightness or wrongness is in the eye of the beholder.  As articles are revised, more and more of them are hit by diacritic pedants who change the article names.  Someone put a macron on [[Hōei]]; who's going to undo it?  I put an acute on [[Aeroperú]]; who's going to undo it?  (I was resolving little 'a' and capital 'P', and sumbuddy tossed in acutes, so I moved it.)  I noticed a few days ago that two articles on similarly named Nazis were [[Rudolf Hess]] and [[Rudolf Höß]].  Umlaut is one thing, but eszett has traditionally been verboten in English.  The question of whether to call him Höß or Höss or Hoess or Hoss (Hoß and Hoeß are laughable) has been decided.  And why not Heß?  He's well enough known that sumbuddy changes him back to Hess.  The few where there are disputes  are usually resolved by removing the diacritic, but the vast majority of diacritics stay.  That's wikiconsensus. — Randall Bart 11:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * As long as we're being pedantic, I am using "diacritic" in the typographic sense. In French ö is an o with a diacritic, but in German it's an o-e ligature and in Swedish it's a different letter, though it's derived from the German.  The ß is a confluence of ss and sz ligatures.  The ð is derived from d with a diacritic but considered a different letter.  The þ is a completely distinct letter; akin to theta, but derived (like the other runes) from Italic alphabets.    — Randall Bart 11:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

ä, ö, å
What to do with Finnish ä, ö and the Swedish å in article titles? Aren't they allowed? My keyboard has them, but I know there are many whose doesn't. Finlandais 14:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I would follow the lead of English-language newspapers that were writing about whatever word had those letters. If the English-language newspapers routinely included the special diacritics, then I would title the Wikipedia article in the same way.  If the newspapers didn't usually include the diacritics, then I would leave them off of the Wikipedia article title.  If the subject just never gets written about in anything English-language, I would probably leave the diacritics off of a Wikipedia article title, but I would include the proper spelling with diacritics in the body of the article. If you can provide a more specific example, I'd be happy to take a look at it. --Elonka 17:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no rule here on wikipedia on whether to use the diacritics in titles or not and there have been, and still are, long arguments about this. However, diacritics are allowed in the sense that they are used for many article titles, e.g. the ones you are asking about are used in Norrköping, Jämtland and Fucking Åmål, but they are nowhere explicitly allowed. One way of deciding whether to use them in a particular case or not is to look at similar articles and see how the question has been resolved there. If you are interested in seeing an argument develop, you can look for outside help, e.g. here or on Requested moves where contested moves should be put up for discussion. Stefán Ingi 17:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I am asking for those FINNISH alphabets, not Swedish. All examples given above by Stefan seem to be Swedish. Finlandais 15:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Try Väinämöinen, which is at the location with the diacritics - which is also clearly the most common way to refer to him in English so that should be uncontroversial. Generally you should probably use diacritics if you want to be consistent with the current situation, the exception is if a Finnish person is mostly known for something like playing football abroad where his name may be consistently spelled without diacritics. But even then some people will prefer to use diacritics on Wikipedia (see Jaromir Jagr, though he's not Finnish). Haukur 16:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I've created a proposal for Finnish proper names at Naming conventions (Finnish), as Finnish letters are different from diacritics. Elrith 14:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Umlaut and ß sources
At German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board/Umlaut and ß I've been putting together some examples of how English language publications deal with ß and umlauts. Would anyone like to contribute? Discussions using reason and argument have so far only ended in stalemates, and I am hoping that if we can agree on how the matter is usually dealt with in printed English it might give us some clues on how to do so at Wikipedia. Saint|swithin 11:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

another related poll
There is currently a survey about moving article page names here Talk:Marián Gáborík and here Talk:Teemu Selänne. Feel free to come voice your opinions. Masterhatch 19:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC) (polls closed)
 * A suggested move and related debate about whether to name an article "Meissen" or "Meißen" is ongoing at Talk:Meissen. Interested editors are invited to participate. --Elonka 00:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Most accurate form.
Why does this have to be a big deal? Use the most accurate form of a name unless theres an overwhelming reason not to, and use redirects to make sure users that can't easily input diacritics can find the article. Everybody wins. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 06:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) Redirects don't just happen.
 * 2) You seem to be making a false assumption that when versions with diacritics and without diacritics exist, and with varying number of letters with diacritics on them, that the one which is the most cluttered up with diacritics is somehow "most correct". That simply is not true.  Gene Nygaard 06:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, redirects do not solve most of the problems with hiding information from searches of various kinds (including find on page), and they do not solve problems of category sorting being all messed up.


 * Redirects also do not solve problems of all the squiggles being eyesores. They are of some help in solving problems such as distinguishing between Ð and Đ, where the difficulty is that our eyes either cannot make the distinction, or that we don't know which is which even if our eyes do see a difference.


 * To most English speakers, all a bunch of diacritics means is " I guess I'm supposed to pronounce this funny". So unless it is something whose pronunciation is familiar, the squiggles are of no help.  In fact, I'll just not even pronounce it to myself, and it gets into my memory as a blur of letters.  Then when I come across some different incomprehensible gibberish, which actually might not even remotely resemble the first one other than being about the same length of word, my brain just lumps the new one together with the old one, and pretty soon I don't remember which was which and don't retain any information about either unpronounced word. Gene Nygaard 06:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I responded elsewhere on the dropping of diacritics reflecting a limit of technology, not a preference translating to proper English usage. To Gene's points...
 * redirects—totally agree, if someone is using diacritics in the title, then they are obligated to insure all the appropriate non-diacriticalized redirects are created
 * find on page, etc.—it's a bit of an inconvenience, but installing keyboard support for the language in question goes a long way; also, since the proper spelling appears in the title, one can just cut and paste that into a "find"--since the article most likely will have the diacriticalized syntax, anyway, it's only the title where they are being dropped, making the search argument invalid in the first place
 * jibberish and confusion—if we all stuck to the proper spelling in the first place it would be a lot less confusing for everyone; the real confusion is titles according to one convention and then articles written in keeping with another convention; that makes no sense; confusion would be minimalized if the diacriticalized version were always used since that's the one that is accurate. Everything else (transliterations from Latin script into other Latin script in particular) just reduces comprehendability.
 * readability—Firefox, for example, allows enlarging the text regardless of what the web page says about size (fixed or not)
 * if pronounciation is an issue, then someone should record a sound-bite so people can hear it, the other alternative is to cite the pronounciation using the correct symbols for that purpose (which, trust me, is a whole lot more confusing for the average person than just some diacritics!)
 * —Pēters J. Vecrumba 21:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * sigh* You are assuming that the "proper" spelling is the one with diacritics and you are assuming that the removal of diacritics is the improper spelling. You are also assuming that the reason for the removal of diacritics in English is because of technology. Sorry, but the "proper" spelling in English is the most common spelling in English, whether that includes diacritics or not. Whatever the causes, whether it be due to technology or some other cause, the fact remains that in a large number of cases, most i would say, English drops the diacritics in both type and writ. Wikipedia has a policy of following the most common spelling in English--the spelling that is most recognisable to English speakers-- and if we were all to follow that, there wouldn't be this discussion. The solution is simple in every case. If the most common spelling in English uses diacritics, then wikipedia should too. If the most common spelling does not include diacritics, then wikipedia shouldn't either. It is a case by case situation and every article should be looked at separately. This is a really simple solution that follows common sense and wikipedia guidelines and policies already in place. Masterhatch 19:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Good points. The claim about "limits of technology" is hogwash, a minor factor in a limited number of cases.  The fact of the matter is that it is a quite legitimate and proper option to choose to use the English alphabet when writing in English, and English-language books, newspapers, magazines, television, pamphlets, brochures, and whatever often choose to do so, even though they are quite capable of including diacritics when they choose to do that.
 * Many people such as Vecrumba misstate the usefulness of diacritics in determining pronunciation. For one thing, all they mean to many English-language users is that this is a signal that we are supposed to pronounce this in some strange way, with no clue as to what that is, and then they are often surprised to learn that they should pronounce it the same way they'd learned to pronounce it when it is written without those diacritics.  Furthermore, the same character doesn't necessarily have the same effect on pronunciation in different languages—and even within a single language such as Norwegian, there are quite significant regional variations in pronunciation in words spelled exactly the same way in any of those places.  Gene Nygaard 12:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to elaborate on the "page names should reflect pronunciation" issue. This argument is used very often. I think it is irrelevant. English speakers, whether American, British, Australian or whatever can't pronounce "Clijsters" (as in Kim Clijsters). "Clijsters" is both the correct spelling in Dutch, as the spelling used in international tennis tournaments. If the spelling were to indicate how it's pronounced, we shouldn't hear something that in Dutch would be written Claaistejs or Cleestes (or whatever) over and over again when the name is pronounced in tennis tournaments in English-speaking countries, or in whatever country where Dutch pronunciation rules are no common knowledge and/or where the sounds that need to be produced to pronounce "Clijsters" are no part of the usual sounds produced in the local language. English speakers don't know how to pronounce "Clijsters". English speakers have no reference for the "ij" sound in that name, while it is a sound that doesn't exist in English. The rules about when and how to pronounce an "r" are different in English and Dutch. Live with it. The pronunciation info (if any) goes in the body of the Wikipedia article, per Pronunciation. The article name should not be based on pronunciation, while Wikipedia is a written source, so it is based on how names are usually written in English. If a diacritic is usually used in written English, Wikipedia should do the same in page names. If it usually isn't, then also Wikipedia should do the same. If it's difficult to establish common usage in written English, pronunciation is not something that should interfere in the decision on how to name the page with the content, while that aspect is really irrelevant.
 * Page names and pronunciation

Maybe we should inscribe the principle of "pronunciation info goes in the body of the article, and doesn't influence the page name" in the Naming conventions policy. What would you think about that? --Francis Schonken 09:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It's less clear for Cyrillic, Greek, Chinese, etc.; that said, such a principle would go a long way to eliminating the confusion and conflicts created by "transliterating" Latin-script names to alternate Latin-script which never succeed more than marginally replicating the "native" sound (or simply stripping of diacritics with no regard to the sound). As Wikipedia is a reference, there is no reason not to follow other modern references in using the native Latin script name for article naming. It makes no sense to transliterate, for example, Władysław to "Vladislau", then redirect from Władysław, Wladyslaw, Ladislas, Vladislav, Ladislau, etc. and then (stupidly and needlessly) argue about which bastardization of the native syntax (transliteration) is the most "accurate" or most "popular." (And when there is disagreement over what an appropriate transliteration is, it's naïve to believe that pronounciation won't come into the argument.)
 * I would agree with Masterhatch more if it weren't already completely accepted practice (including Wiki) to write names in their native syntax in articles. Titles using the native Latin script would eliminate, not cause, confusion--and would conform to, not ignore, current reference titling.
 * The "most common spelling [transliteration] in English" and "proper English usage" are not synonymous, which is the underlying basis for Masterhatch's (understandably) sighful response. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 18:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Haven't looked at this in quite a while. About "The claim about "limits of technology" is hogwash", that would be anyone who doesn't know linotypes and the limits of hot lead technology, technology that was only started to be converted off of in the late 70's. Linotypes, being machines to assemble molds for type to be poured, had limited capability/slots for non-standard English characters (or anything non-standard other than the language it was set up for). Just passing through. :-) V ЄСRUМВА  ♪  03:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

something funny
I was walking through Costco yesterday and I happened to notice that there was an authentic autographed Markus Naslund sweater up for sale. It was a little too rich for my blood, but I had a boo anyway. I noticed something kinda funny while admiring it; there were no diacritics in his own personal signature (or anywhere else in the literature for that matter). My point? Many wikipedians who seem determined to ram diacritics down the throats of English speakers often say, "Wikipedia should write the names the way the actual people write them." These same wikipedians also claim that dropping the use of diacritics means the name is spelt wrong. So, did Mr. Naslund spell his own name wrong on a $500 sweater? I still maintain that the most common spelling in English be used for article titles. Masterhatch 17:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * AIEEE!! Costco as a reputable source! :-) Really, in the end, one can't argue that "Jānis Čakste" (first president of Latvia) is "wrong" because "Chakste" was a popular transliteration at one time. (This is actually a significant problem with Latvian surnames which were still often transliterated according to German orthography for "English consumption" into the second half of the 20th century.) As I've stated, "anglicization" and "English usage" are two completely different animals, and the Wiki preference should favor current English reference usage over historical anglicizations (plural intentional, as there is no consistency/consensus in that arena). —Pēters J. Vecrumba 18:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * P.S. I will say for the record now that should I ever be famous enough to merit my own article, I request "Pēters Jānis Vecrumba" as the title, not "Peters J. Vecrumba" (which is how I sign documents—in the U.S.—and is not my "real" name). I know, someone will insist on seeing the "diacriticalized spelling" on my (Brooklyn, New York) "birth certificate," and so it starts... :-) —Pēters J. Vecrumba 19:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's usually the POV-pushing nationalistic or in other ways chauvinistic editors, or those just plain anti-English or anti-American or whatever, who argue that what you use is irrelevant, as they did in Arpad Elo discussion and many others, and presumably would argue—but haven't even done so because they haven't discussed it at all—in hundreds of still-misnamed articles which have had diacritics slapped on with a totally unreferenced and undiscussed move, and that whatever we use should be determined by the "original spelling", which is in this case by your self-admitted birth certificate spelling. OTOH, your personal choice and feelings about the matter are not and should not be determinative, either. What matters is most common use in English. As you pointed out, there likely exist many cases which could prove your use of the proper English spelling without diacritics, and with some evidence of usage with diacritics as well, then it becomes a matter of choosing from among the legitimate alternatives in picking the one to occupy the one slot available for the article's name. Gene Nygaard 12:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

English Wikipedia NHL team pages & diacritics
NHL teams don't use diacritics on their euro-players jerseys, we should respect that. Futhermore, the euro-players in the NHL have consented (haven't disputed) their names being anglonized on thier NHL jerseys. IF the euro-NHLers (past & present) consented, why can't the pro-diacrtics & supporters do the same, at NHL team pages? GoodDay 23:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Turkmen spelling
It's hard to keep the correct spelling of all those Turkmen names you see in the media since the death of Saparmyrat Nyýazow. All the sources used by journalists are in Russian, so Turkmen names have to be translitterated from the Latin alphabet used by the Turkmen language to the Cyrillic used by Russian, and then retranslitterated into Latin alphabet. You can see the result in the first footnote of the article Gurbanguly Berdimuhammedow. Official Turkmen internet sites are themselves written in Russian, and sometimes translated in English, but they are not written in Turkmen, since the Turkmen people has no right to access internet. But I think we succeeded to keep on with the Turkmen spelling. The result can see here, for example: Turkmen presidential election, 2007.

There's still one black hole: Saparmurat Niyazov ' s article itself. It should be renamed into Saparmyrat Nyýazow at once. There is no reason to keep the English translitteration of the Russian translitteration of his name. I'm already hearing the usual argument I hear really too often on Wikipedia: "The custom is Saparmurat Niyazov. We can't go against the custom." That's a very week argument. Errors can be customs. Once a misspelling is made in one source, every media repeat the error again and again, and one day you discover on Google there are 2290000 articles containing "niyazov", 721000 containing "niazov", 33600 containing "nyazov" and only 20400 containing "nyýazow"!! Well, those 20400 are right, and the other are wrong. We can change the custom if we change the article's name.

Another bad reason to keep the "Niyazov" spelling is that "Nyýazow" is to difficult to spell because of the accent on the Y. This is not true. Every name of foreign origin with accents are spelled with their accent on Wikipedia. See John C. Frémont or Charlotte Brontë for simple examples. Or event Rudolf Slánský to find one with exactly the same letter. And don't tell me it's not English, I know it is not. Foreign names are by nature not English names. And if you write the name with a misspelling, the redirects are here to conduct you without any effort to the correct spelling. There is absolutely no drawback for the reader to rename the article.

That's why I propose to rename the article into Saparmyrat Nyýazow.

Švitrigaila 00:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * FOR THE RECORD, because of its significance to these discussions: The proposed move failed.  (Note also that it wasn't because of my arguments, since I did not participate in that discussion.  Should it come up again and I know about it, I will likely join the considerable existing opposition.)  Gene Nygaard 13:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

One more voice . ..
I must say, I'm a bit stunned by the amount of discussion on this matter. Like most (regardless of which side they are on on this debate) it seems to me to be a matter of common sense. I agree with those who say that the most common English spelling should be used, regardless. And just now, as I was typing this, a thought occured to me—an argument, if you will.

I think it's safe to say that, in matters of translating names into English from Chinese or Arabic, that there's probably no one who proposes that we should use the "native spelling" of the name, simply because it's impossible (and of course, please don't tell me that "spelling" doesn't exist in Chinese—you get my point). Well, you know, if every language in the world came with its own alphabet or grapheme-system or whatever you want to call it, we wouldn't even be having this argument. We would simply recognize that, this is the English-language Wikipedia, and it's silly to try to use the spelling conventions in the English Wik, because they have no meaning here.

Well, I think that's true now, in our current situation as well. "Õ" and "ɮ" and "þ" simply have no meaning in English. Oh, supporters will argue, "But that's the correct spelling", to which I say, "you are correct . . . and irrelevant". If this was the Wikipedia Internationale, then I would, by all means, support the use of characters as they are portrayed in native languages. But people, this is the English Wikipedia. Yes, there are some "foreign words" in English that use diacritics (though none, I am sure, that use "Þ" or "ß"). But that is because, for whatever reasons, that particular convention has arisen. Who are we to change that? Is Wikipedia going to be the fountainhead of a revolution in English spelling? Is that the goal here? You know, though it's not exactly the same thing, in a way, starting a new spelling convention on Wikipedia would seem to violate the prohibition on Original Research, n'est-ce pas?

One other thing. Frankly, I think that, from what I have seen on article discussion pages, the majority (though not all) of persons supporting "foreign" spellings are non-native speakers of English. I would not be so rude as to go into the Spanish or French Wikipedias and tell them how to spell their articles, and if I did, I'd expect to be shown the door. You know, one of the problems in reaching consensus on this issue is that the majority of Wikipedians are average, ordinary folks (I think the breadth of articles is quite demonstrative of this). They have little or no interest in these matters of policy. But non-English speakers, almost by definition, probably have a higher level of education—and interest in such esoteric matters as language naming conventions—than the average English speaking Wikipedia users (Please do not start telling me about your degrees. Yes, thousands of English Wikipedia users are highly educated.  My point is merely that, the average Joe and all kinds of English speakers come together here, whereas the average Ivan or Guido is less likely to visit the English Wik; therefore the average educational level of English speakers is probably lower). But if the English speaking masses were aware of these debates, the consensus would be overwhelming, I dare say, easily 90% (at least, of American users) would squash the practice of employing non-English characters.

I just want for us (the English-speaking Wikipedians) to be left alone. To be sure, there are some native English speakers who will still continue to favor using diacritics and non-English ligatures, just as there are a few isolates that favor elminating private property or establishing Christianity as an official state religion (I purposely selected wackos from opposite ends of the spectrum). You know, to those non-English speakers who mock the backwardness (they speak of "dumbing down" Wikipedia by eliminating diacritics) of us Anglophiles, let me point them in the direction of the speakers of German, and the fact that they can't even decide amongst themselves how to make use of something that they consider (on some of their discussion pages) to be essential to an accurate article: the "ß". I mean, the rules for using "ß" are different today than they were 15 years ago. So, if we decide that we are going to use German or Swedish graphemes, but then, in ten years, ther Germans or Swedes change their rules, does that mean that we will have to change all the affected English-language articles? I'll tell you what—why don't we just write them in English today and for always.

Whether we realize it or not, though many of us claim to use the "Latin" alphabet, the fact is, the alphabets of the European countries that are based upon Latin have long since diverged, albeit only slightly. The use of "Ł" in Polish and the use of "J" in English and the use of "ß" in German indicates that none of these languages are actually using the original Latin alphabet, and none of them are using the same alphabet. It's only because our different alphabets share a common origin and still look more alike than different that we think that they're the same. But they're not. We should quit fooling ourselves and just spell things written in our respective native languages the way that comes naturally to each of us. Anything else, quite frankly, is little more than an affectation. Unschool 08:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * "English spelling" of foreign proper names doesn't exist. See here for my argumentation about the subject. If I clearly understand you, you would prefer to rename, for example Lech Wałęsa into Lekh Vawensa since Ł and Ę are non English letters? But the Polish pronunciation is different too from English pronunciation. So, if we drop the original spelling, why not dropping the original pronunciation too? Why not renaming  Lech Wałęsa into That guy with moustache, as it is done usually in sign language? Švitrigaila 12:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Just one more thing about what you say about average edicationnal level of English speakers. An encyclopedia doesn't have to put itself at the same level as the average reader. It must be understood by the average reader, yes of course. But it mustn't limit itself to what the average reader can read. It must pull the reder to the high. When the reader find an article on Leoš Janáček, for example, he must find the only correct spelling of his name. After that he's free to use it or not, like every correct spelling of any English word. If the reader wants to write this name on Leos Janacek, or even Leon-Yann a Czech, it's his problem. An encyclopedia won't force anyone to use the good spelling, but it's not a reason not to give it. When the artcle Eris (dwarf planet) says that its perihelion is 37.77 AU (5.65 Tm), I find it normal, even if personnally I have absolutely no idea about what it means. I won't write "Let us alone! Anything else, quite frankly, is little more than an affectation." Knowledge is not relative. If we have the information, we put it in the article. We don't vote about what the reader will think about the information. Švitrigaila 12:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * First of all, no, I'm not proposing to change the spelling of Wałęsa to Vawensa. I apologize for being unclear (and, upon review of my comments, I was a bit verbose.)  No, no, with Walesa, I propose simply maintaining the current convention.  When writing the name of the leader of Libya, we do not write "معمر القذافي", we write Gadaffi or Khadaffi or Qadafi or whatever such transliteration.  But no matter the difficulty in putting the name into English, we do not get too bent out of shape worrying about whether or not it is perfect.  Why is that?  Because we recognize that we can't get it perfect, and that all we have to do is to make sure that we are talking about the correct person.  "A rose by any other name smells as sweet", in other words.  All that matters is that we all follow the same conventions.  And in English, the convention is to spell it "Walesa", despite the fact that it is pronounced something more like "Vuh WEN suh".  I read your comments on the subject, as you asked, and wonder if you read mine.  You say that our conventional English spellings are "not correct".  In this, you are technically correct.  Would you deny that spelling the Libyan leader's name "Gadaffi" is also not correct?  If you don't agree, then tell me, what is "correct"?  If you do agree, then would you have us change the title of the article, and the usages within the article, to "معمر القذافي"?  If not, why not?  My central point is that it is simply a mistake to think that we can employ foreign spellings of names into the English Wikipedia just because they happen to utilize an alphabet which looks like the same one we use, but in fact, is not the same.  Most people recognize this with Arabic, Chinese, Cambodian, Korean, or Russian, but they don't with Polish or Spanish or German because their initial instinct, upon viewing these letters, is to believe that we can, somehow, spell things "correctly", because we appear to use the same alphabet.  But we do not.
 * By the way, where does it end? Must we change the spelling of the "Rome" to "Roma" and "Cologne" to "Köln"?  Do you favor changing all the placenames with Anglicized spellings to their "correct" spellings in their native tongues?  I'm quite curious. Unschool 19:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * These just gave me a clear glimpse of your attitude towards foreign cultures, "I would not be so rude as to go into the Spanish or French Wikipedias and tell them how to spell their articles, and if I did, I'd expect to be shown the door...I just want for us (the English-speaking Wikipedians) to be left alone." How dare you call us rude for expressing our opinions on Wikipedia's proposed guidelines? The English Wikipedia IS NOT exclusively for native English speakers, foreigners aren't second rate users here and my opinion is as valuable as yours whether you like it or not.


 * About your question, yes, I'm in favor of changing spellings of Anglicised terms to their correct native tongues just as I'm in favor of changing spellings of Hispanised terms to their correct  native tongues. Using local terms to refer to foreign names creates confussion, supposes a loss of information and shows a lack of respect for foreign cultures. Rosa 01:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * In various other discussions, you have shown no respect for the English language, or for the culture of places which use it. You do not admit that we have every bit as much right to determine on our own how to spell things in English as anyone else has.  In various other discussions, you have clearly demonstrated a truly distorted sense of the role of the Spanish language police, the Royal Spanish Academy, and the scope of its authority, and have claimed that it should have some control over our usage here on the English Wikipedia.


 * For example, our Wikipedia article on La Coruna, Spain, is not at that English spelling, nor at Corunna, the other common English spelling. But despite the existence of the Royal Spanish Academy, this Spanish town is also not at the Spanish spelling (which is, in fact, used in the Spanish language version of the town's own website, as well as for the name of its article on Spanish Wikipedia) of La Coruña.  Rather it is at A Coruña.   There is a serious short-circuit in your brain if you can accept the fact that this place can be spelled "A Coruña" in the Galician language and "La Coruña" in the Spanish language, yet for some reason the users of the English language do not have any rights at all, so it would be improper for this place to be called "Corunna" or "La Coruna" in English.


 * Do users of the Spanish language have a right to spell it "La Coruña"? Sure; every bit as much right, and only as much right, as we have to spell it "La Coruna" in English.  Gene Nygaard 03:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * First, the Royal Spanish Academy doesn't have any authority akin to those given to a "police" type of force. I would rather compare it to a council of elders. Please, don't lecture me on the role of the Academy, as until last week you had no idea what it was yourself, whereas I've studied its organization, rules and discussions since childhood. Second, please do not give ill-intentioned interpretations of my arguments regarding the naming conventions. Third, it's fine if we have a different point of view in this issue, but it's not fine for you to attack me personally. Please, refrain from using the  Argumentum Ad Hominem rather than addressing the inherent strength of the argument itself; that's to say, don't use phrases like "distorted sense", "serious short-circuit in your brain", "Rosa's reasoning (using the term loosely)", or "sheer lunacy" when referring to me or my thought process.


 * The renaming of proper names according to their native languages is a process, it doesn't happen overnight and as I've said a couple of times, the Spanish language still has a long way to go on this matter. The Academy certainly doesn't run the Spanish Wikipedia, nor is it a branch of the Spanish government.Rosa 15:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It isn't a process that anybody mandates us, or the editors of any other publication, to participate in.


 * It would be rather easy to disprove your claim that "until last week you had no idea what it was yourself".


 * I'm talking from relevant experiences on Wikipedia, from hundreds of arguments about whether we should use the Ukrainian spelling of something or the Russian spelling, whether we should use the Polish spelling or the Lithuanian spelling, whether we should use the Galician spelling or the Spanish spelling, with a very significant number of the participants unwilling to accept either the fact that the English spelling can legitimately differ from both of them, or even that the English spelling can be the same as one of them and different from others. They are quite willing to admit that spellings can and do vary among other languages, to give any pair of other languages the right to determine their own spelling—yet they insist English should not do the same. Go add up the number of participants in some of those discussions who refuse to accept that the English spelling is even an alternative that could be considered, let alone the proper choice under our naming conventions.


 * And that doesn't even get into the fact that most things don't have any sort of "official" name, that in other cases there is no entity that has ever been granted plenary authority in determining the name of something, and that there are many objects, ideas, people, places, or whatever that have different and distinct "official" names either created by different organizations, or used in different languages, or used in different fields of activity with different professional organizations coming up with conflicting rules, for example. Note that this particular guideline under discussion here is not limited to people, not limited to places, not limited to a combination of the two, but it also includes, for example,  things such as the proper place for the Wikipedia articles on units of measure such as the ampère or ampere, the ångström or ångstrom or angstrom, and the mètre or metre or meter.  Can you guess wehre they are now?  Your odds of guessing right are improved on one of them—not even a redirect or a disambiguation page from one of those original spellings with diacritics, I see! Gene Nygaard 17:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)