Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English)/Archive 10

I really don't get it
Can anyone explain to me how the result at Talk:Verónica Boquete at all comports with our guidelines here? Doesn't WP:DIACRITICS say "follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language"? All but one source found so far spells her name without diacritics, but yet I could get no consensus to follow this guideline. Powers T 23:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know why I have to repeat this all the time: It's a question of register. Sports organisations and many newspapers drop accents. Encyclopedias and dictionaries don't. It is a well established principle that reliable sources are not automatically reliable for everything. Common sense must be used. When a sports organisation writes a name without accents, it says nothing about whether encyclopedias write it with an accent or not, so it cannot possibly be a reliable source on this.
 * As I have pointed out repeatedly, you are fighting against the status quo from roughly 4% of Wikipedia's articles. Hans Adler 23:36, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * That's ridiculous. They drop accents because it's not common English. And sites like the ATP/ITF do use diacritics in place names that are used regularly in English and then don't for the common English names. Saying they are not a reliable source for the people they represent is simply a blatant falsehood. Those tertiary sources like encyclopedias often source their articles to those very organizations. Plus this wikipedia deals with direct sources... you show me a dictionary with the name Verónica Boquete so we can all say it's a great source. You can't. Show me her name in Encyclopedia Britannica while you're at it... you can't. They are not sources for her or most players. The NY Times is, the Boston Globe is, so are the ITF and WTA plus countless others. It is not the status quo in tennis articles, just the work of a very passionate few mostly secondary English speakers trying to abscond with the English alphabet. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * As you have been told before, that's not what the site's policies currently say. That's why this requested move was defeated. Hans, please drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Absconded Northerner (talk) 23:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Is it me who is trying to rename 4% of Wikipedia's articles? Hans Adler 10:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The part I really don't get is why diacritics attract so much interest when the subjects are exceedingly obscure sports figures. We have open diacritic-related RMs for Turkish cities and for former Vietcong, but they get no equivalent level of interest. Kauffner (talk) 00:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That's probably because their names are in European languages. Nobody seems to care very much about non-Europeans, fewer even are capable of understanding how diacritics work in Turkish, and an even greater number are downright intimidated by the character set in Vietnamese. National Geographic has it about right. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 00:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * All I'm saying is that the language in this guideline seems quite plain to me, but there seems to be a contingent that insists that anyone who has diacritics always has diacritics, even the majority of available sources drop them. Powers T 02:17, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 03:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know if you are unable to understand a nuanced argument or if you simply close your ears when you encounter one. If you are unwilling or unable to acknowledge reasonable arguments that contradict your opinion and keep aggressively denying that they exist, then at some point you will be taken to task for the resulting disruption.
 * While "anyone who has diacritics always has diacritics" is a reasonable approximation to what we do in practice because the exceptions (such as Vietnamese names or names of Americanised people) form a tiny minority among our articles, as an absolute rule this is clearly a minority position and rarely argued in the recent diacritics discussions. You are setting up a strawman because you know your arguments don't hold water against the actual majority position, which is to follow general English usage in other reference works, not in random barely reliable sources.
 * People lose their accents when their names become household words in English. This is very rare and happens only to the cream of the most notable people, such as Napoleon (not: Napoléon). All other names from any of the more commonly encountered foreign languages keep their accents in all high-quality reference works, lose them systematically in many reliable sources that are less concerned with niceties of typography, and are treated inconsistently by quality sources that operate under time pressure, such as the New York Times. By spelling Verónica Boquete as Veronica Boquete in a reference work, we would claim that she is as important as Napoleon. I am pretty sure she isn't, as I have never heard of her. A lot of people who I have actually heard of have articles in Britannica, and they are all listed their with their names spelled correctly, i.e. with all applicable diacritics. That applies to the 1911 version as well as to the modern online version. The only diacritic-dropping that I have seen in Britannica article titles was for Vietnamese names. Webster's Dictionary of Geographical Names confirms, for place names, that this is how English reference works operate. Hans Adler 10:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * While sources such as articles in Britannica are worth considering for article titles, but Britannica has its own eccentricity and if it is in a minority then its usage should be balanced against usage other reliable third party English language sources when deciding on an article title. In the case of other article titles then we should rely on reliable English language sources. For people who play at Wimbledon we have to use the reliable sources that are available and if the common fashion in reliable English language sources such as upmarket newspapers and books that specialise in tennis and tennis biographies drop accent marks so should we, if they keep the accent marks so should we. I find your statement "By spelling Verónica Boquete as Veronica Boquete in a reference work, we would claim that she is as important as Napoleon." strange we should rely on what is used in reliable sources and not interpose our own editorial opinions on the issue otherwise by analogy anyone who's biography on Wikipeida that is not Anglicised -- such as Lech Wałęsa -- is by that definition not important. Luckily if we stick to common usage in reliable English language sources then we do not have to make such editorial judgements. Also we do not need to speculate on why reliable sources retain or drop accent marks all we have to do is label our articles using the title that reliable English language sources use and we will meet the criteria that we have set ourselves event if that results in a name that some editors think is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philip Baird Shearer (talk • contribs) 11:33, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Usagewise, Britannica is not in a minority among encyclopedias and other English reference works. That's the whole fucking point. While I wouldn't be surprised to learn that there exist a few badly edited specialist reference works here or there that drop diacritics, so far none has ever been put forth by the diacritic dropping zealots. And of course Lech Wałęsa is a lot less important than Napoleon. (You are less important than Jesus. Now report me for insulting you.) And his name has had a lot less time to become incorporated into English. And the current trend is to not come up with special English spellings or adopt the French spelling, as English speakers used to do. The current trend is to write Frankfurt rather than Francfort, München rather than Munich, etc. The same trend exists in may other languages, because in a globalised world this simplifies things. Hans Adler 11:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Britannica may well be in a minority among reliable English language sources. I find your tone interesting "diacritic dropping zealots" is the opposite of that "diacritic retaining zealots"? I think that for article titles we should use the name that is commonly used in reliable English language sources. Your argument "his name has had a lot less time to become incorporated into English" will be reflected in the usage. We do not have to speculate on this we can look reliable English language sources and see what is used and reflect that usage in our article title. -- PBS (talk) 15:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no reason to follow the majority of reliable English language sources on usage. The majority of reliable English language sources is not organised into articles that try to give a concise overview and begin with one or more summarising paragraphs. Nobody wants to rewrite the Barack Obama article so that it starts: "Last week, the president ...". Maybe you are an adherent to the practice of Cargo cult encyclopaedia article writing? Hans Adler 15:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Kind of a moot point, isn't it, since Britannica doesn't have an entry on Veronica Bocquete. Powers T 12:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not a moot point because Spanish names never lose their diacritics in any respectable English-language reference work, as you can verify by looking up any person with an accent from a Spanish-speaking country on Britannica. They all keep them. Show me what you think is a counter-example, and I will provide you reliable sources showing (1) that the diacritics are not present in Spanish, either, or (2) evidence that the person has moved to the US. Hans Adler 13:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * José I Bonaparte Britannica: Joseph-Bonaparte ;-) Or perhaps Spanish Wikipedia shoudl be forced to drop its usage of diacritics on names that are not originally Spanish ;-) We have found in the past that when we write naming conventions that use rules like "Name nominal, major realm" there are always exceptions to the rule (King of the Scots, Alfred the Great). You are making a statement that "Spanish names never lose their diacritics", but we do not need a rule like that because if it is true it will be reflected in usage in reliable English, and for those exceptions then they too will be covered by usage in reliable sources. Equally we do not need to decide whether or not Vietnamese names should or should not always loose or keep their diacritics, as we can follow the usage in reliable English language sources and that will reflect usage in English and make Wikipedia both accurate and accessible. We could have a house rule like the Economists, but as a follower rather than a leader we can piggy back on whatever is determined as the correct style by the majority of reliable English language sources (and hence use verifiability rather than truth as our guide) -- PBS (talk) 23:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

As I've said many times, I don't believe this guideline accurately describes our actual practices as regards diacritics, and ought to be changed accordingly. Hans summarizes the actual situation well.--Kotniski (talk) 11:33, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It baffles me why you do not think that we should be guided by the usage in reliable English language sources for the names of articles, when in other areas you argue that we should. PBS (talk) 11:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I've explained this many times before. And this isn't particularly in relation to names of articles (that's another thing I keep saying - this guideline should be renamed simply "WP:Use English" and apply to all parts of articles). With diacritics, the best sources we might imitate for our encyclopedic purposes (e.g. Britannica) do use diacritics in the way we do; so we are being guided by sources, as a matter of general practice. Of course, we're much bigger than EB, so we can't point to EB's actual spelling of many of our article subjects, because it doesn't mention them, but that's no reason to follow different spelling conventions for those subjects - to do so is to introduce pointless and misleading variation that wuold make us a worse encyclopedia.--Kotniski (talk) 11:59, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Why is it worse to follow what is used in the majority of English reliable language sources? I see no point in following what Britannica does if it is no in line with common usage in reliable English language sources. -- PBS (talk) 15:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Because we are an encyclopedia, aiming to convey information to people. Diacritics do that, without doing any harm to our mission except to annoy a few people who "don't like" them because they think they look foreign. This has all been explained countless times before.--Kotniski (talk) 15:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Because in this particular aspect the common usage in reliable English language sources is not in line with the common usage of high-quality reliable English language sources and in particular English language reference sources. Dropping accents is trivial to do if you don't like them. Adding them after they have been dropped requires research. That's why mid-quality English reliable sources such as the New York Times, which have to work with what they get from the news agencies (which drop all accents for stupid technical reasons), only try to restore them in those languages with which their staff is most familiar, and do not even manage to do that consistently. (See the New York Times manual of style for details.) High-quality English reliable sources such as scholarly books generally include all accents as their authors and editors do not have to work under the pressure of a deadline. Hans Adler 15:34, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * If what you say is true then you will support using reliable sources as they reflect usage in English, but I suspect you are giving yourself lots of wriggle room: Only if the reliable sources spell words the way I agree with are they high-quality reliable English language sources, if they do not spell words the way I think they should they are low-quality English language sources. -- PBS (talk) 14:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I might say rather that if they are not high-quality encyclopedias, then they are not a guide as to exactly how high-quality encyclopedias should write. In fact, not even EB is necessarily a guide to how Wikipedia should write - if we've got a style that works well for us (and isn't a complete innovation) then we should follow it consistently, except where there's a concrete identifiable reason to deviate.--Kotniski (talk) 07:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The guideline isn't totally wrong, just misleading because it wasn't written with spelling/typography disputes for barely notable subjects in mind. WP:DIACRITIC asks us to consider three kinds of sources: The sources used in the article, a quarter century of books, and encyclopedias. But the vast majority of subjects does not appear in any book, let alone in an encyclopedia. The guideline does not say what to do in that most common case. This makes sense if the disputes were once primarily about the spelling of Napoleon, Zurich, Göttingen or Besançon. But the anti-diacritics crusade of a handful of sports fans who apparently have never seen a proper English encyclopedia has changed this. Hans Adler 11:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I suppose that's true - the section "No established usage" is tucked away at the end as if it was relatively unimportant, whereas in fact it describes the far more general case.--Kotniski (talk) 12:01, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The idea that there's "no established usage" for a major league award winner is laughable. I found a number of sources, the majority of which supported spelling her name without diacritics.  Powers T 12:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what I mean, "no established usage" misleads into making people think this only applies to really obscure people and places, whereas in practice it's applied (though not always with total consensus as to where the line should be drawn) to subjects as well-known as Walesa, Mitterand, Schroeder and Gdansk. You have to be a Napoleon, an Aragon or a Mexico to get treated differently. --Kotniski (talk) 12:59, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * All of the names you have mentioned have "established usage" in English. It may be split but the names have an established usage in reliable English language sources. "no established usage" is for names that do not appear in reliable English language sources. -- PBS (talk) 15:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is basically the point I'm making. When there is what you call "split" established usage, we follow the rules which are given in the section titled (misleadingly) "No established usage". It's actually the cases where there is established diacritic-less usage (like Napoleon and Zurich) which are in the numerical minority, so it's they that should be presented as the exception, not the other way round.--Kotniski (talk) 15:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 17:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Are you agreeing that article titles like "Gdansk" which is far more common than "Gdańsk" should follow common English language spellings used in reliable sources and be placed under the article title of Gdansk? If not why make an exception for Zurich and Napoleon Bonaparte ? -- PBS (talk) 14:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Because those forms of the names are so well-established in English that it would look and sound weird to spell them or pronounce them in the diacriticked form. As I say, there may be disagreement about exactly where to draw the line (you might think Gdansk and Krakow are well-established enough to be written so; Britannica, from what I remember, even puts the umlaut on Zurich), but the current wording of this guideline misleads quite badly as to where the line is in fact drawn.--Kotniski (talk) 07:24, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * In the case of Zürich, I'm afraid I'd have to disagree. I wouldn't dream of writing Zürich without an umlaut (I'm English) and most reliable British sources that I've seen follow suit. To say it's "so well-established in English that it would look and sound weird to spell them or pronounce them in the diacriticked form" is simply untrue. In America, possibly. In Britain, definitely not. We tend to use accents where they are used in the relevant country. Maybe we didn't once, but we do now. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Every sports figure appears in published English without diacritics. This is the convention of sport writing, a usage that is just as established as anything with Napoleon or Aragon. Kauffner (talk) 00:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Almost no Reliable Source uses diacritics. The idea that WP should be some kind of bastion of outdated usage is ridiculous. This is the English Wikipedia, and titles should reflect standard English usage. Absconded Northerner (talk) 01:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Wait, what? "Outdated"?  What universe did that come from?  Using the wrong letters or ignoring important diacritics is an old practice (though it is very much an American practice nowadays).  Computers made it increasingly hard to write things properly for nearly half a century because of restricted character sets (ASCII, the American character set having been inflicted on much of the world during most of that period), which made things worse for a while, but writing things correctly is not an obsolete practice. By the way, there is no such thing as an "English alphabet".  Modern English words use a selected part of the latin alphabet in their orthography, but not all words use that small subset and not all words are of English origin either.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 04:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree with you when you say that "no such thing as an English alphabet" as do the authors of 100s of books that have "English Alphabet" in their title. If what you say is true about technology, then why do primary sources now over 200 years old such as Treaty of Orebro strip the accent marks off some words such as "Orebro" but leave it on words such as "d'Engeström"? Could it be that these decision are made for reasons other than simple technological expediency? The big advantage of following the lead set in reliable English language sources is that we do not need to speculate on what is as you put it "correct" nor do we have to speculate on why it is done -- as such speculation which only leads to different hypothesise and disagreements which can not be resolved -- instead all we have to do is follow where the sources lead, as editors acting good faith can usually agree on common usage while disagreeing on whether that usage is "correct". - PBS (talk) 14:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. I can't believe anyone can claim with a straight face that there's "no such thing as an English alphabet". That's so bad it's not even wrong. Absconded Northerner (talk) 15:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The big advantage of following the lead set in reliable English language sources is that we do not need to speculate on what is as you put it "correct" nor do we have to speculate on why it is done, Snap. Same goes for using diacritics universally in names of all foreign nationals. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 15:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Getting back to Ms. Boquette. I found, surprisingly that the NY Times dropped the ó, although I have a copy of their style guide, that says to keep spanish diacritics. I did not find a 'critical mass' (IMO) of sources on the internet to support using the ó over the simple o. So, I would have to describe the article titling in this case to be defined 'by consensus', rather than by strict rule of commonname. Since she has moved to the US, she may have dropped the ó. I don't see any evidence of her correcting the spelling. Since she achieved notability in Spain, there is a case there to use the ó, but not much evidence of its use in the American or English Internet media. Had I an !vote, I would have supported the spelling using the simple o on what evidence I did find. That said, I am not opposed to the current spelling, but I don't think we should be establishing precedents.

Maybe we need to publish a list of moves of these types of articles, so that a more wide discussion occurs on the naming? If we are to do it by consensus, then we should always attempt to get the widest consensus. Especially since the evidence is not large. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 16:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Just directed by a veteran editor who is going around changing everything to accent graves, acutes, umlauts, diacriticals and hypercriticals, and marks that I don't know the names for. None of them are used by ordinary Americans (Okay, maybe Canadians and Australians and English). Nor are they easily produced on my keyboard. I know. I know. Encyclopedias and dictionaries. But none of these are used, recognized, or nameable by ordinary American readers. Nor do they know how to pronounce them, once viewed (yes, we tell them in dictionary-speak at the beginning, if it's the titled article, but not ordinary imbedded words). Doesn't that say something? I'm certainly not the first to suggest WP:UE. And I won't be the last. Student7 (talk) 12:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll bet Mrs. Bucket uses diacriticals when writing her last name. It would appear that everyone ignores them. As well they might! Student7 (talk) 12:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Is it really our job to feed ignorance? Our job is surely to correct ignorance. "I can't easily reproduce it" (yes you can if you try), "I can't pronounce it" (so what?) and "none of these are recognised by ordinary American readers" (who, according to surveys, don't even know where many places outside America are, let alone how to spell them) are really not good arguments for not using diacritics where they should be used. Obviously we shouldn't go overboard (especially for transliterated names from languages like Vietnamese and Japanese, which can become unreadable if all the diacritics are added), but umlauts, graves, acutes and the like which are used on names written in a language which is commonly written in the Roman alphabet shouldn't be a problem for anyone. It's been stated many times before: "use English" does not mean "remove all accents". -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No, but it does mean "do what English-language sources do". And we failed to do that in the case I mentioned at the start.  Powers T 15:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, we do what a majority of English-language sources do. Which does not necessarily (or even commonly) mean removing all accents. If it does in a specific case then it does, but too many editors seem to have the opinion that accents should rarely or never be used because "they're not English" and/or "Americans don't understand them", which is simply untrue and/or irrelevant. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no reason why we should do even what a majority of English language sources do. We should try at least to do what some English-language sources do - but as to which ones, we can pick the style that best suits our encyclopedic purpose – and good evidence that we've got it right is provided by the fact that other renowned encyclopedias, such as Britannica, treat diacritics in the same way that we do, and not in the way that this misleading guideline would have us do.--Kotniski (talk) 18:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * In many tennis article names we do not do what "a majority" of English-language sources do. In fact in looking for a direct source of how a person's name is spelled in English, quite often we handle it the exact opposite...ignore English language sources and go with foreign language alphabet sources. And we are not Encyclopedia Britannica (EB). We do use EB as an occasional tertiary source but many items listed in wikipedia are not listed in EB. For those items EB is useless as a source at all since we need first-hand citations. It's also not an opinion of editors about accents/diacritic usage. The fact is they are rarely used in English and when they are used, over time they tend to disappear, like in "cafe." If there are "no" English sources for a word or statement i.e nothing in sports organizations, the press/media, magazines, tv... and then nothing in tertiary sources like EB...then we must look elsewhere. That is the time we look at different alphabets like Swedish and use their spelling until such time a source in English can be found. We don't do it the other way around and push English to the background while raising Russian, Chinese, and hieroglyphics to the forefront. That's what other language wikipedias are for. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not see any advantage to putting diacritics in titles. If the title is not typeable, it is harder to search for and harder to link to. The form with diacritics can appear boldface in the opening. If you check Google Books or Google News, diacritics are nowhere close to majority use for anyone who is likely to have a bio on Wiki. You occasionally see French, Spanish and simple German diacritics in published English, per New York Times Stylebook. In practice, the Times usually drops out even these diacritics. More extreme diacritics, such as Slavic, Scandinavian and Vietnamese, are well outside mainstream English-language usage. Since common name is our practice elsewhere, not using the common name in this situation misleads the reader. Kauffner (talk) 02:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As has been said before, we are not a newspaper or sports website, and we do not have to imitate their styles. By including diacritics, we convey more information than we would otherwise: given that we all know that both diacriticked and diacriticless forms are possible in English, people can deduce the latter from the former, but not the former from the latter. The diacritics also provide information about the pronunciation. Anglophones know that certain diacritics are commonly dropped in English, so they are not going to be misled by our using them. What would be most stupidly misleading, however, is to do what some people would have us do (and what this guideline can be read as implying) - use diacritics for some foreign names but not others, based on counting how many sources of which type we can find using one style versus the other in each individual case. That way people are going to assume that certain names don't have original diacritics when they do. (Obviously we should make exceptions for cases like Napoleon and Mexico, which have been fully anglicized.)--Kotniski (talk) 09:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * We don't have to imitate any particular style... but we need first hand English sources for everything. It's not a question of conveying more info as we also put the foreign diacritcally spelled name in parenths after the proper English spelling. I have no idea why foreign spellings and alphabets are being forced upon us in this English wikipedia when English sources tell us how to spell a name in English. As for pronunciation diacritics are not needed in English since our 26 letters have always been pronounced in a variety of ways. We have always been flexible. Makes it tough on foreign students but that's the way it works here. It's not stupid to use diacritics in some names but not others... it just depends on the sourcing. Some names through a multitude of English sourcing still retain their diacritics. Some do not. It's always been a case by case thing. But to use a foreign alphabet when we have most English sources spelling a name within our 26 letters is crazy. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * There's a really easy solution to this. It's called a redirect! Searching's not a problem, as diacriticked versions will appear as well (try searching for "Zurich" and see what you get!). It is simple rubbish that Scandinavian and Slavic diacritics are "well outside mainstream English-language usage". What's the mainstream? The redneck on the Clapham omnibus? Or the person with a certain amount of education and respect for other cultures? We are not in the business of catering for the lowest common denominator. I would agree with Vietnamese diacritics, since they are transliterated from another alphabet, but for words from languages commonly written in the Roman alphabet we should use the diacritics as properly used. In addition, as I have said before, I believe this is a WP:ENGVAR issue, as diacritics are commonly used by reputable publications in the UK. Americans do seem to have a bit of an aversion to them that is not shared by other English-speaking peoples. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Not many readers use redirects. They don't make much practical difference. When thousands of English-language sources don't use the diacritic, and only Britannica and Columbia do, then I'd say it's outside the mainstream. Vietnamese is not transliterated. The Vietnamese alphabet really has all those funky diacritics. Kauffner (talk) 12:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I create the diacritic redirect just as easily for those who feel the need to spell in a foreign language. It's simple rubbish to imply that Scandinavian and Slavic foreign letters are in mainstream English usage... they are not. They are not taught in schools unless you are learning a foreign language either. It's also not a question of respect. I expect Serbian books to spell English names in their own fashion... it's fine with me. I have Polish family members who add diacritics and change spellings of English names to suit themselves. That's also fine. I have seen plenty of Canadian, UK and Aussie sources that use no diacritics, and what you might think are reputable sources others might think stink and vice-versa. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * So what exactly is your problem with Wikipedia using diacritics? They may not be used by the majority of English sources; but they are certainly used by some (and good ones at that); and they seem to serve our encyclopedic purposes best. What exactly is the problem people have with this, except that "it looks foreign" and therefore somehow makes them feel uncomfortable? --Kotniski (talk) 10:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It IS foreign. But on occasion we do use foreign words in English. I'm ok with that even if it's split 50/50 in English sources. But English will eventually remove those diacritics like it does on words like cafe and nee. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

This discussion is getting very confused. There appear to be three basic camps here:
 * a) Always use diacritics wherever they are used in the language from which the name originates.
 * b) Never use diacritics, even when they are commonly used in English-language sources.
 * c) Only use diacritics when they are commonly used in English-language sources.

Is this correct? My personal opinion is that b) is unsustainable and unnecessary. It would put us in a ludicrous situation where even people from English-speaking countries (e.g. Peter de la Billière) who use diacritics in their names would have them removed in their articles. The fact that many such people exist shows just how misguided the "there are no diacritics in English" argument is.

The problem with c) is determining what common English-language usage actually is. As we can see from the above discussion, different people have different ideas. Should we not use diacritics because newspapers and websites often don't bother? Should we follow usage of one English-speaking country over another? Should we not use them because many English-speakers don't understand how to pronounce them and cannot find them on their keyboards? Although a native English-speaker who does not speak German, I still always spell Zürich, for example, with the umlaut and regard the spelling without the umlaut as rather weird. I therefore find the allegation that "foreign" spellings are being forced upon us to be rather a strange one. Nobody forced it on me: I use it as being the correct spelling of a foreign word. A foreign spelling being forced upon me would equate to being told I have to use the foreign "color" instead of my own native "colour", for instance. A foreign spelling of an English word, as opposed to a foreign spelling of a foreign word. Not the same thing at all. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I should just point out that, although (a) is the option I support and which Wikipedia generally applies, it isn't quite "always" - there are exceptions such as Napoleon and Aragon, where the form without diacritics (and often an anglicized pronunciation) has become so established in English that we would use it in preference to the original form. I suggest that Zurich is perhaps somewhere on the borderline.--Kotniski (talk) 11:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * In other words, you actually support c), which merely says that sometimes we use 'em and sometimes we don't, depending on usage in reliable English-language sources. All we need to negotiate, then, is where the line is drawn.  Powers T 11:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Although my personal preference for my own use is a), for Wikipedia usage I would suggest c), with a tendency towards a) if it cannot be determined that there is an overwhelming preference for non-use of diacritics in reliable English-language sources across all English-speaking countries. This would lead me to favour spelling Zürich (no idea why that seems to be so commonly used as an example) with an umlaut, as I really don't think there is overwhelming evidence that English-language sources usually drop it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess I never see it spelled Zürich but I admit I never researched it to find out. I am more familiar with names of players in tennis and that is a different can of worms as far as sourcing. Tennis is governed by the ATP, WTA and ITF. Its Major tournaments are Australian Open, French Open, Wimbledon and US Open. It has international events in Davis Cup, Federation Cup and Hopman Cup. There are 100s of other tournaments. Results and articles are written in the NY Times, London Times, and ESPN. 99% of the time no diacritics are used in a players name from any of these sources yet people around here insist on diacritic usage in their names. Often a player will have an English website where throughout that website even THEY spell their name without diacritics, yet we still have editors here insisting we use their foreign alphabet birth spelling. Their rational...EB and dictionaries use diacritics. Well unless you are a super-superstar your name won't be in those places so as sources for tennis players they suck. Plus we don't want tertiary sources anyway unless we can't find an original source. I always put their native spelling in parenths after their English spelling so that readers can see how it's spelled in their native alphabet. I also create a diacritic version of their name that redirects to the English version for those readers more comfortable in spelling with their native alphabet. So I'm for choice "c". Heck I could even compromise and say to use diacritics if even 40% of the time English sourcing is found to use them. But less than that 40% threshold and we use the English alphabet in this English Wikipedia. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm still not seeing your motivation - what good does it do to drop the diacritics?Kotniski (talk) 09:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Motivation?? Good? I'm not sure I'm following your logic here. Why don't we use hieroglyphics instead of English letters? Because it's not English. Same with other alphabets. It would be good for scoring in basketball if they changed to rims 5 feet in diameter. Of course it wouldn't be basketball anymore. We could use diacritics on everything to help in pronunciation...of course it wouldn't be English anymore. We normally have 26 letters... that's it. We drop Russian letters in favor of English too. Occasionally we borrow "foreign" words, which for a time retain their diacritics but over time English usage usually removes them. Plus English wikipedia requires English sourcing. If we can't find English common usage sources, it's then that we look to foreign sources, not before. My ancestry is Polish... well all my relatives dropped the diacritics and non-English letters upon coming to the US and Canada because it was not English. Relatives that were born here and went back to Poland changed their names to fit in with the Polish lettering system. What is so hard to understand about this? Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * One answer could be that we would be using the principle of least surprise. If the large majority of sources do not use diacritics, most readers will reasonably expect our article title not to use diacritics. Ask yourself, would most English wikipedia readers expect it to be Novak Djokovic or Novak Đoković? Jenks24 (talk) 10:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * With Djokovic I agree we shouldn't use the original spelling, since you can't see Dj from Đ. But I see nothing wrong with surprising a few readers by writing Šibenik rather than Sibenik, for example - once they realize that we're a fairly serious encyclopedia which (like other such works) uses that style, they'll stop being surprised and become grateful for (or at worst indifferent to) the extra information we're supplying them with at no extra cost.--Kotniski (talk) 10:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * One of the main problems I am having with Japanese articles is that the authors turn them into "Japanese lessons" which usually turns the text off WP:TOPIC. Who cares if the -do suffix is used and not -noh? No English-speaker, that is for sure!
 * Meanwhile, over here, we have some people trying to teach Americans (primarily) some facets of French, Spanish and German. c-circumflex? I am familiar with the "hat" from mathematics. But what is the upside-down "hat" called above in Sibenik? And do I really need to know?
 * To reword a quote from Animal Farm, some languages are good (Japanese), others are "better" (European?) Student7 (talk) 13:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No, you don't need to know what it's called (unless you want to increase your knowledge, which is rather the point of Wikipedia, although I grant you that the article on the city isn't the place to talk about language and pronunciation). But you do surely need to know it completely changes the way the letter is pronounced! And that omitting it would be extremely confusing (leading to us ignorant English-speakers saying "Sibenik" instead of "Shibenik"). I'm fully aware that there are plenty of people in English-speaking countries whose response would be "who the hell cares how it's pronounced - it's foreign and therefore isn't important (and by the way, where's Croatia?)", but I would hope that most of us here are rather more educated and less ignorant and obnoxious than that. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There's a big difference between Vejvancicky and Vejvančický (btw, the word — my surname — has nothing to do with the English language). The first is a nonsense sequence of letters, the second is correct (an important fact for an encyclopedia) and reveals something about the sound of that name. That is noted and respected by significant English reference works (see an excellent summary at User:Prolog/Diacritical_marks), but it can be hardly respected by some (mainly sports) editors here at Wikipedia. I can live with that, but it is in my opinion a step back. They don't really need to know. Moreover, the terrible wiggles squiggles could apparently damage mental state of an average English reader or destroy the English language. I respect that. Not long ago, there was an attempt to find a way out of this endless circle of the same arguments, see Naming conventions (use English)/Diacritics RfC. It failed and we start the same discussion again. In the meantime, some categories look like a bad joke, names are chaotically split without any order (this applies almost exclusively to sports related categories). Maybe there was something wrong with the proposal, but I can't find out what it was. In any case, I don't believe that we can find a consensus. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There is indeed a big difference between the two words. The first one is made up of English letters while the second has two strange symbols that have nothing to do with the language. This is the English language wiki, and we should Use English on it. End of. Absconded Northerner (talk) 07:44, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not an English name. The only way to satisfy your requirement is to delete all articles about foreigners. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What? We have Russian alphabet language names spelled in English. We have Chinese alphabet language names spelled in English. We have Arabic alphabet names spelled in English. Why would we need to delete Polish or Swedish alphabet language names spelled in English? I see no problem. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:07, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Polish and Swedish is written in Latin script and there's no need to transliterate (see also Latin_alphabets). As for the Russian, Chinese and Arabic scripts, the transliteration is unavoidable, of course. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 10:34, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No, they are not "Spelled in English". These names are not English. They are transliterated to the Latin alphabet, but they are not English, even if you remove all the diacritics. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:15, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Fine. There IS a need to transliterate then since we don't use those letters as is shown in the countless transliteration sources for these names. We use the English alphabet not an alphabet being thrust upon us by foreign editors. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Excuse me Fyunck, but I'm English, my native language is English, I don't even speak any other languages beyond the most basic level, and I fully support the use of diacritics. Am I a "foreign editor"? You may not agree with my point of view, but please don't dismiss those who oppose you in this way. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, It wasn't directed at you. It was directed at the person who was throwing his own pompous statements around. Ditto for OpenFuture. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Ironically, I am a foreign editor, and I think we should follow the sources. :-) --OpenFuture (talk) 21:38, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Well...Vejvancicky doesn't think we should follow the English sources unless he gets to pick and choose which sources agree with him. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no need to transliterate. You may desire it, but there is no need. I don't think unreasonable argumentation and claims with no validity is going to help this debate. We need to get some sort of grounding in reality and reason here. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:38, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There is if you want to spell in English. If you don't that's fine. But wiki requires English sources. If the names in those many English sources spell it in a foreign alphabet then that is what we can use here. If they spell it in English then spell it here in English. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, you can't spell it in English. English for "Björn Borg" is not "Bjorn Borg". It's "Bear Fortress". English for "Tomas Tranströmer" is not "Tomas Transtromer" it's "Twin Cranestreamer" (or possibly "Twin Codliveroilstreamer", if you wanna be funny). --OpenFuture (talk) 04:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I would say you are incorrect. Some English language sources have been spelling it Bjorn Borg for 40 years and when he shook my friends hand I distinctly heard Bjorn not Bear. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:30, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, and what you hear is not English. It's mispronounced Swedish. And what you read is not English. It's misspelled Swedish. "Bjorn" is not English for "Björn". The English for "Björn" is "Bear". And that's a fact. So your arguments that the English Wikipedia should use English is based on a misunderstanding from your part. Which is of course also why nobody else supports that standpoint. This is not a discussion of English vs Non-English. It's a discussion of diacritics vs no diacritics. Removing the diacritics from a foreign word does not make it English. "Bjork Gudmundsdottir" is no more English than "Eg verd nu ad kvedja i kvold" is English for "Ég verð nú að kveðja í kvöld". Once again and hopefully for the last time: Foriegn languages, be it words or names, do not become English because you remove the diacritics. OK? --OpenFuture (talk) 06:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I go by English sources not what you are telling me. And saying "nobody else" supports that standpoint is incorrect. If you'd like to put up an article on Bear Fortress though, be my guest. It's why in English words like café become cafe or général becomes general. You may call it wrong but others do not. Whether someone goes by Paweł Kołodziej or in English, Pawel or Paul Kolodziej, it's the same thing. And with a last name of Armstrong are you telling me that when I go to France they will spell and call me by Monsieur Brasfort? No... they call me Monsieur Armstrong. And if I tell them I spell it my own way, ΦΨΩ™₣, but it's pronounced Armstrong I wonder how they will spell it there? As I said from the beginning, if the multitude of English sources spell it with diacritics then I have no problem with it here in an English wikipeida. If the English sources don't spell it with diacritics then I do have a problem with it being spelled with them. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No, they won't call you Brasfort. They will continue to use your ENGLISH name. But badly pronounced. Which is my whole point. They will not translate it to French.
 * "it's the same thing" - Yes, and that thing is not English. "Kolodziej" is not English. It is not clear to me if you understand this or not. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * For my family, Kolodziej is the correct English spelling though you say it is not English. It has worked out just fine. And in historical journals and newspapers and even books printed in Michigan that's how we spell it. You can spell your name however you like but we spell iours Kolodziej in the States and Kołodziej in Poland/Austria. Now maybe the terms you are using for what is English still mesh with that, I'm not sure. But it is a fact that Kolodziej is spelled correctly in the States even though it is spelled Kołodziej in the homeland. Maybe it is not English, but it is the correct spelling using the English alphabet. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * How immigrants choose to spell their name in the US is obviously up to them. But we are not talking about people living in the US here. We are talking about foreigners who have foreign names.
 * "It is the correct spelling using the English alphabet." - For somebody living in the US and spelled his name "Kolodziej" on official US papers, then it would be correct to say that this spelling is correct, yes. But that is not the issue here. Compare for example the "discoverer" of the Kensington runestone, Olof Ohman. He was born in Sweden, and his name is spelled Olof Öhman. But when moving to the US he chose to drop the umlauts. That's up to him. Therefore the Kensington Runestone article spells his name Ohman. But he could have chosen to spell it Oehman, or take a new name, perhaps a translation of the name, or simplified it (OK, hard in this case, pretty simple already, but there are cases of Shumachers who changed their name to Shoemaker, for example). That would then be his official name. But what is a correct spelling is still up to him, and not to you and not to "English". Neither Ohman, Öhman or Oehman is English. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually it's up to the English speaking people to decide how to spell anything at all in English. It is their language and they can do what they want. Neither you nor I have much to say about that. And you say it's not the issue here but in some cases people have come to the US, dropped their diacritics when writing their own names in English and yet still we have people here fighting to use their foreign alphabet. Unless rules are overturned here at wikipedia, if I see names that are English-sourced without diacritics that's what I'm going to use. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's still not in English. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * lol...I think this one is going nowhere fast. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That is correct. As mentioned above, "Bjork Gudmundsdottir" is no more English than "Eg verd nu ad kvedja i kvold". It doesn't become English because you remove the diacritics. It is still unclear to me of you understand this or not. Until you understand it, we won't get anywhere. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * ditto. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:23, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Until you understand that the English language doesn't use these symbols, there's no point continuing this. I really can't believe we're wasting so much time listening to non-native English speakers telling us what English is. Absconded Northerner (talk) 08:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand that English doesn't use these symbols. Once again: Non-English names are not English. I really don't understand what it hard to understand with this. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This is the English language version of Wikipedia, on which we use the English language - hence the name. That means English symbols and none of this non-English nonsense. If you want to use foreign symbols, do it on a foreign wiki. Absconded Northerner (talk) 09:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The only thing I want, is for you and Fyunck to understand that non-English names are not in English, and does not become English because you remove the diacritics. It's vital that you understand this for you to be able to participate in a constructive discussion on the issue. Do you understand this? --OpenFuture (talk) 10:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's like talking to a brick wall... You're just wrong about this. Please stop embarrassing yourself. Absconded Northerner (talk) 10:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, so "Eg verd nu ad kvedja i kvold" is English. Good to know. At least we agree on that it's pointless to continue. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As I said, you're embarrassing yourself. Stop introducing pointless strawmen. Absconded Northerner (talk) 10:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not a straw man. You and Fyunck claim that when you remove the diacritics it becomes English. That claim is incorrect. Neither "Bjork", "Bjorn", "Stromback" or "Eg verd nu ad kvedja i kvold" is English. This is a fundamental and important fact. Discussion about this issue is impossible if you refuse to acknowledge fundamental facts about reality. We won't get anywhere as long as you have these unrealistic and absurd positions, and therefore your views will in the whole be ignored. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually I was not saying it automatically becomes English by removing diacritics. I say we use English sources. Now, by those sources using a word repeatedly it enters English lexicon and becomes English as with an Exonym. That's the way English works. You can't simply stop the process and say don't let that word become English. If you hand me a new fruit called a beebo in Sweden and I mishear and tell the US it's a beeloo and soon all the major sources start calling it a beeloo, that'll soon be the English word for beebo. That sort of thing has happened many times. And with personal names and talking and writing in English, and having 26 letters to play with, the US isn't going to say "hey you" and write "that dude" over and over, so the US compromises and tends to drop diacritics rather than spelling the name phonetically. That's the word that tends to enter English sources and the English vocabulary. Not always, but almost always. I certainly didn't mean to imply we "only" use English here, we do however use English sources. I'm not sure why this is so hard for you to grasp. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Of course it's a bloody strawman. We're saying that the current policy of using reliable sources should be followed, while you're trying to convince us to cover the English Language with non-English symbols. Until you learn to read policy, understand it, and stop making pointless arguments you should stay away. I believe there's a Swedish language wiki, and I suggest you edit there if you don't like the rules here. Absconded Northerner (talk) 11:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No, that's not what you are saying at all. You said, and I quote: "This is the English language version of Wikipedia, on which we use the English language - hence the name. That means English symbols and none of this non-English nonsense. If you want to use foreign symbols, do it on a foreign wiki." That's a completely different position that "Follow the sources". Both you and Fyunk has argued that "only English" should be used, which is an absurd position. "Follow the sources" is not an absurd position, so if that's the position you want to defend that would be a big step forward. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Read back through my comments in the previous topic and this one. Then apologise. Then stop bothering people. Absconded Northerner (talk) 16:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I assume though that this is your way of admitting that you were wrong, and distancing yourself from the quote above. However, it is very difficult to have a constructive discussion when one persons arguments consist mainly of insults, so it would be better if you engaged in consensus building and followed WP:NPA instead. Thanks.
 * In any case, it seems that we can then now lay this to rest? Nobody is any more claiming that accents and diacritics should never be used on Wikipedia? Nobody is claiming that you get English by removing diacritics from foreign names? Good, that's one step forward. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I assume that this is your way of admitting you never bother reading anything before blessing us all with your massive intellect? It is very difficult to have a constructive discussion when one person's arguments are uninformed by what other people have already said, and it would be better if you paid attention instead. Thanks. Absconded Northerner (talk) 17:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I was searching an article in "edit" mode, for a word, using Mozilla/Firefox. Could not find all instances of a word because of the accent marks. IMO, this is not a good thing for an English keyboard. Student7 (talk) 15:32, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you mean Ctrl+F function? I search thousands of items (English or non-English) using this function, and it was never problematic. What about trying copy-pasting? According to this logic it means that we should delete all accent marks from Wikipedia. I can't support that, as the English tourists misled by wikipedia may be lost and starve to death in the forests under Děčínský Sněžník, while searching Decinsky Sneznik. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:23, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Luckily most English tourists have their trusty smartphones so that when they google English Decinsky Sneznik it comes up with the Czech alphabetic spelling of the word. That way they wouldn't have to worry about some lowly idiot in the street directing them to a tattoo parlor. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Tell that to the steady stream of tourists who show up at an obscure village near my parents because they think it is some other similar but diacriticed famous town. Agathoclea (talk) 22:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Better have a talking-to that guy in the street. :-) Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the information. I know little about smartphone, but it looks that the clever machine can provide correct information to a reader, so I (and the English speaking tourists) can sleep safely and Wikipedia can stay nobly confused :) --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 05:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

@Necrothesp in reply to the comment that starts "No, you don't need to know what it's called..." Spelling Zurich as Zürich changes the pronunciation to German not English (if one knows what the dots over the u are supposed to sound like in German). If the word was to be transliterated into English it would be "Zuerich" (which is closer to the German pronunciation than English). This is not something that is commonly done because English speaking people do not pronounce the name of the city the way the Germans do. Likewise do you (Necrothesp) pronounce Mousehole, Southwark and Shewsbury the way they are spelled? (I don't I say /ˈʃroʊzbri/). As you must know, English people get very used to American tourists mangling place names because they pronounce them the way they are spelled ((not their fault it shows they can read) and asking for "Worcestershire source" in a standard English accent in the USA tends to get a confused look from a waiter). Placing accent marks in article titles (and hence in bold in the first line of an article) that are not usually pronounced by English people that way and not usually included in reliable sources may allow a person educated in the use of accent marks, to pronounce the word as it is pronounced by a native of the subject of an article, and at the same time be completely incomprehensible to other English language speakers because it is not the way English people pronounce the name (Think of Inspector Clouseau pronouncing "room" as "reum"). I think it is much better to use the spelling as frequently found in reliable English language sources and then if the native language spelling is different place the native language and native spelling in parenthesise after the English spelling, that then give the reader full information about English language usage and that of the host language. -- PBS (talk) 03:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Which is what I said! Use reliable English language sources. Always our policy. No need to make a special case for diacritics (i.e. never use them because they're "foreign") as some seem to be demanding. However, it should be taken into consideration that reliable sources in the UK and the US (and no doubt in other English-speaking countries as well) do often seem to differ on this issue. It is my experience that the British seem to be more receptive to "foreign" spellings than the Americans. For instance, while we in the UK used to use the spellings "Marseilles" and "Lyons", as Americans still often do, we have not commonly done so for many years. The Zürich issue is similar: I have usually seen it spelt with the umlaut in British print sources and the spelling without looks weird to me. Yes, I'm sure opponents could dig up umpteen British online sources that spell it without the umlaut (the BBC doesn't use the umlaut, for example) and it's a borderline issue, but it's certainly not true to say that English-language sources always spell it without the umlaut. Arguments that diacritics should never be used in English Wikipedia because they're foreign are misguided and diverge from our usual naming policies. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * (Thread has become (just become?) a bit out of hand and "someone" might consider starting a new one.
 * I don't think most Americans (or Australians, or NZ-ers, or Canadians, or British) can read an "accent acute," know what it means, why it is there and how it affects the pronunciation. And neither do I for non-French language examples above.
 * What audience EB is aiming for is irrelevant. We aren't aiming for that audience, per se. We don't have professional, paid editors! Nor are we aiming for the college crowd, per se. I admit that I don't know where the "target audience" is defined. But for general level material (places, for example), aiming at the general literate online public seems reasonable. But except for language articles, not at language aficionados. Student7 (talk) 13:24, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, most British adults should bloody well know what French accents mean, since we've all done O Level/GCSE French! Frankly, I don't think there's a great deal of point starting a new thread, since we're quite clearly not going to agree. We may as well just continue doing what Wikipedia has always done - follow the reliable English-language sources and argue over the borderline cases! But we should certainly acknowledge that "Use English" certainly does not mean "get rid of all diacritics even if the reliable English-language sources do use them". -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * But that leaves us with the original reason I started the thread. We have a name where the vast majority of English-language sources drop the accent, but yet I could not get consensus to drop it from our article's title.  There's a disconnect here between practice and policy.  Powers T 19:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * LOL... yep. That's what always happens with this. All factions write a bazillion words and when it's all sifted we're back at square one where practice and policy don't match up. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem was that Boquete is a borderline case and they will always provoke arguments. You're never going to get away from that. Others disagreed with your assertion that an overwhelming number of reliable English-language sources dropped the accent and pointed out that sports writers are not exactly known to be the greatest users of the English language and their writing therefore shouldn't necessarily be taken as gospel. The operative word here was "reliable". This wasn't a case of going against our usual practice but a fundamental disagreement by some editors with your position. I should point out that I'm fairly neutral on this particular issue (i.e. re Boquete) and am merely stating the facts as I see them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well first off, we consider sports writers reliable sources for information on sports, don't we? We have featured articles on sporting events and sportspersons, whose references no doubt largely comprise the writings of sportswriters.  So why discount those writers' reliability in this singular case?  Second of all, even if we do consider sportswriters unreliable for purposes of orthography, that ignores the direct evidence presented by her own team's website, which I would think would be among the most reliable of all possible sources.  Powers T 15:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I said sports writers are not well-known for their skills with language, not for their knowledge of facts about sport. Which team's website are you talking about? The Russian team she currently plays for, from a country that doesn't even use the Latin alphabet, or her former American team, from a country which does not appear to much favour diacritics even when they are used in other English-speaking countries? And let's also remember that sports teams' websites are also written by sports writers! The UEFA website, incidentally, does use the accent. As I said, this is a borderline case and not as cut-and-dried as you are presenting it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Obviously I meant her former American team's site; the Russian team's site would not be a good source for how to spell a name in English. I love how you discount American sites en masse because they don't "appear to much favour diacritics" -- it's awfully convenient to recommend ignoring any source that disagrees with you because they disagree with you.  Powers T 12:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Just as you are discounting the UEFA website presumably? As I said, I really don't care how Ms Boquete's name is spelt in her article, so there's really no need to attack me and assert I'm discounting sources that disagree with me, since I have not expressed an opinion about this article. I'm merely pointing out the faults in your argument that normal Wikipedia practice is being disregarded in this case. The debate was held in the proper place, on the talkpage of the article in question. A majority of other editors disagreed with you and the article was not moved. You seem to be saying that this was against standard Wikipedia practice. I'm saying it wasn't, as this is a borderline case and not as obvious as you are presenting it. Standard Wikipedia practice is to follow a majority of reliable sources, but always allowing for WP:ENGVAR (which means appreciating that the name of a non-American should not be determined purely by American sources if there is evidence from non-American English-language sources that the non-use of diacritics in her name is not universal). -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:14, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Although the "how to spell in English" is still a misnomer, the name doesn't become English, it's still Russian, just transliterated. This should be obvious, but it isn't (see debate above) so I'm just pointing it out here, for accuracy. :-) --OpenFuture (talk) 15:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd never say there is no such thing as English alphabet because there is one indeed. It is also correct that diacritics do not feature in the language's orthography. My question is, since when did an orthography have to contain every symbol that was permitted and accepted in the language? Sasha Vujačić is Slovene but /ć/ is not a symbol of Slovene and I have been the one to keep this on my watchlist to stop pro-Serb enthusiasts removing his sourced Slovene variation (Vujačič). Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 17:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem here is gaining a consensus that all will observe. I have been enlightened about O-level French for Brits. Didn't know that.
 * Most of us would agree on the use of references/footnotes. Because of the consensus, that can be enforced. And when tagged, if no footnote is forthcoming, most editors would support the removal of the material after a reasonable period of time.
 * Not much agreement here. For me personally, I would not change a marked word back, but will certainly never insert one, unless I had copied it from somewhere. The problem is consistency within an article. If I insert "Zurich" someplace, there will have to be a person or bot that "cleans that up." Too obscure for me. Student7 (talk) 21:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Diacritics in European ice hockey bio articles - A solution?
I participate in many RM discussions related to using diacritics in the ice hockey biographies of European players. It was noted somewhere that "concrete situations are the soil from which our policies and guidelines grow", so I jump from discussion to discussion along with two groups of editors. The groups, the names and opinions of the editors are basically the same at each RM: There's a group of (mainly North American) hockey fans/editors (only the ice hockey bios are affected by this long-lasting dispute, as far as I know), who always vote for a title without the accent marks. The other group (mainly Europeans) always vote in support of the accent marks. The votes are still the same and the result depends on various factors (it is not always the strength of arguments - the arguments are on the table for long time and they are just repeated in various combinations). One never know what result to expect (it's a lottery), but the actual result for this encyclopedia is an inconsistent mess. After the RM at Marek Zidlicky (won by the "anti-diacritics group") and a short congratulation at User_talk:Dolovis we've moved to Talk:Milan Jurčina (a Slovak playing in the NHL). At that RM you can find an interesting idea to move "all pertinent hockey-related pages", as "the current road (RM to RM) is a long bumpy ride". What do you think about the situation? Is there any way how to resolve the problem?

An important note: I'm a supporter of the "pro-diacritics" opinion, which is — I believe — clear from my previous comments and actions in this area.

--Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 13:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I would propose that we should freeze the articles with or without diacritics in their current guise. "Both sides" ought to submit to a moratorium on page moves instead of engaging in this perpetual tug of war, which is frankly disruptive. Whichever group that can create the largest number of articles (adhering to DYK size criteria) in their preferred format "wins". ;-) At least that way, the encyclopaedia is the winner, with a larger number of articles being created by either side. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 14:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not a bad idea, and I would agree. The problem is how to check the new articles and the size. For example User:Dolovis is a prolific creator of one line stubs (I have nothing against their creations, a little information is better than no information) and it would be difficult to force them to create DYK size articles or prevent them to continue in their style of editing. I'm not sure, but you are right that this fight has to be stopped. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, to be honest, making a size rule would heavily favour the better-known players or players who play in N. America. Local Slovakian players' articles are more likely to remain stubby for longer. Nevertheless we ought tojust call for all the regular suspects to sign up to a binding moratorium on proposing and voting on such page moves for an indefinite period. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 01:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Has anyone ever suggested a widget/preference that automatically strips all diacritics when the page is displayed?--Boson (talk) 18:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That's it! Just like the image filter, a "diacritics filter", at the option of (and customizable by) each user.  That way, those of us who would like to read English Wikipedia in the English alphabet can turn off the diacritics, and those who want to read English Wikipedia in other alphabets can do that.  Neutron (talk) 20:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a good idea. If people want to self-censor their information, and dumb it down without limiting others access to it, that's fine. I think this is an excellent idea, and I'd strongly suggest you raise it at another forum (WP:VPT, perhaps)? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 15:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it could help to resolve this issue in a peaceful way, but it is a complicated question affecting a large part of the project and millions of our readers. It shouldn't be as controversial as the image filter poll, however, think about the possible weak points or gaps in a possible new setting/preference. I'm not sure if the readers (English speaking or non-native English) fight with the accent marks similarly as the small group of editors at this forum. On the other hand, the English Wikipedia is read globally and the opinions on using diacritics differ significantly, which is evident here, among the people who create and maintain this project. Another question is if it's possible technically, it could be more complicated than we can imagine. I agree with Piotrus, we should copy/move this part of the discussion or start a new one at WP:VPT. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, for one, it would be helpful if you didn't distort the comments made on the Jurcina talk page, Vejvancicky. My comment, in its entirety, was "While on the face of it I support such moves, on the grounds that WP:COMMONNAME should trump the fanaticism of a vocal minority for non-English usages, this move will be futile without securing the consensus to apply this to all pertinent hockey-related pages."  I did not propose any such mass move, and the "bumpy road" comment was not mine.  That being said, I would heartily support any consensus that ice hockey-related articles were not, in point of fact, exempted from WP:COMMONNAME, an official Wikipedia policy which explicitly holds that "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." That being said, your proposed solution is, frankly, farcical.  Questions on policies and guidelines are settled with debate and consensus, not through sideshow competitions.  Ravenswing  20:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * What gives a self-acknowledged group of Europeans, for whom I must assume English is a second language, the right to dictate how English speakers must spell English. You seem to be incapable of comprehending that we know we spell names of people differently once they move to English speaking countries.  Marek Zidlicky, Milan Jurcina, and all the rest chose to move to English speaking countries; part of the price of that is that their names get spelled without diacritics.  Please, if you think this is a major deciding factor on whether or not these people will accept the $10 million a year contracts they're offered to come here to play hockey, or whatever sport, please let them know that they should turn down the offer and stay in their homelands; no doubt they'll be heroes to their countrymen for defending the precious diacritic.
 * But the fact is (at least based upon my knowledge, as one of them, of English speakers), we English speakers are unwilling and uninterested in learning how foreigners spell and pronounce words, names, etc. Oh, perhaps for a few, as a hobby, that's not the case; but for the mainstream rest of us, we simply don't care.  Do whatever you like in your country, spell with upsilons (ʊ) and gammas (Ɣ), omegas (ɷ) and macrons (ū), write in Sanskrit for all we care, just don't think that you're going to dictate to us that we must do the same in English.  Our English speaking societies determine the spelling of our language for ourselves; it's done initially by our press and by our publishers; thus the reason that, it is the policy of en.WP to determine what the English RS use as the common English spelling and follow that.
 * Those proposing that en.WP title our articles in foreign languages often imply that our sports press are incapable of accurately determining the foreign spelling of these names due to publication deadline restrictions; but what you obviously fail to understand, is that if our press had any intention of writing in a foreign language, we are quite capable of setting up computer databases to ensure that proper diacritics are added; we don't; not because we can't; not because there isn't enough time; but because we speak English and English doesn't use diacritics such as those. Different story if we're writing about some foreigner in some foreign land, then we're likely to hardly ever discuss them, so nobody really cares if the odd extra scrawl is added to the name, partially in respect of their foreign culture, and partly as indication that they are of little or no importance to us; but when talking in English about people resident in English countries, the standard is no diacritics.
 * If your name has diacritics and you're planning on moving to an English speaking country, either accept the fact that your name will not have diacritics here, or don't and don't come here; the choice is entirely yours; we really don't care one way or the other. But please stop the disruption of bimonthly proposals to change en.WP into foreign languages; there is a HUGE list of other wikis where you can do that.
 * I propose that we correct all the article titles, move them all to English (as determined by the preponderance of the RS), in accordance with the policies established by consensus, and stop wasting everybody's time arguing one proposal after another to change existing policies in this area. —  Who R you?  Talk 02:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not the issue. There seems to be no real consensus one way or another about what we should do with the articles globally; there is certainly no consensus to mass move them to namespaces other than the ones they occupy at present. What you suggest will escalate and enflame. I feel the "right" solution must be one that preserves the peace and minimises disruption by perennial page move requests and battles. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 02:37, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The majority of the articles in question appear to have been created with the English spellings, as per the English RS. It then looks like a small group of pro-diacritic, (as Vejvancicky says) European, therefore ESL editors have moved them to the non-English names.  And while this appears to have been successfully achieved primarily because most of the editors that care about en.WP being kept in English don't seem to find out about these RMs until long after the fact (since most editors apparently don't spend most of their time on WP checking things like the RM lists).  It would appear, now that more people have gotten fed up with this anti-English crusade being carried out, that some want to say, Okay, hold on, we got away with a lot of non-consensus changes, let's just call a halt to things the way they stand now; but, I for one, have no interest in that.  Perhaps you should have avoided trying your big July/August proposal to ignore all RS and spell en.WP in a foreign language; but you didn't; and while I couldn't have cared less about the issue prior to seeing that kind of ridiculous anti-English sentiment, it is now simply a bone of contention which I believe should be corrected; and which I am confident that the vast majority of English editors will agree should be corrected to reverse some of the harm being caused to en.WP.  And so now those of us that oppose these anti-English attitudes will have to waste our time trying to correct the random inconsistency that has been created all over en.WP by a small group of ESL editors ignoring the policies and moving articles to foreign spellings. — Who R you? Talk 03:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You're disingenuously trying to blame me for something that happened long before I joined this circus. Judging from your rhetoric, you seem to feel that diacritics are utterly alien and are happy to continue the flame war until diacritics are banished from en.wp. I don't know whether it will get you want you want, but please be my guest. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 03:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It isn't any one proposal, nothing wrong with one person thinking diacritics should be used and suggesting a policy change. But as the partial summary of past conversations about diacritics, at the bottom of Talk:Milan Jurčina, indicates, this conversation has happened literally thousands of times; and in every case there is no consensus to change the existing policies.  And, (again as per that list), policy is eminently clear that on English Wikipedia we use the English spelling as identified by the English RS.  And yet all of these various articles have been moved to non-English spellings at the same time that these proposals to change policy are failing to achieve consensus.  As for an RfC, you don't mind if I put together a proposal first do you?  Rather than just winging it with the simple policy clearly says follow English RS so I'd like to propose that we follow policy; not that that isn't the jist of it.  And I have no problem with diacritics for (for example) Köln, despite that fact that when I was there last it was Cologne even in German (which is likely why the article is still here in English); but the pro-diacritic side fails to comprehend that your proposing that English Wikipedia articles be titled in non-English.
 * I seems that you (a euphemism which I use only to shorten the description of the pro-diacritic forces but which is honestly not intended as a WP:PA) think that it's no big deal, but you fail to understand that you are asking us (the English speakers of the planet) to tell all the English speaking children that use en.WP as a resource that they are misspelling Milan Jurcina if they write it as such; you are asking us to tell them that English media are incompetent morons incapable of properly spelling a persons name; and you are asking us to tell them that they are idiots if they don't (on top of everything else we expect them to learn) learn not only these hundred, or potentially thousand, odd extra symbols, and learn to be able to recognize them, write them, type them, correct them when they see them misused, but also that we expect them to learn the linguistic significance of these scribbles.
 * And while that's likely fine for you as a Czech or Slovakian, we of course deal with a lot more countries that a few little Baltic states; so we will also expect our children to understand, differentiate, and properly pronounce e é è ė ê ë ě ĕ ē ẽ and ę in English (okay so that's only "e" which has what three possible pronunciations; "long-e" as in "keep", "short-e" as in "kept", and silent "e" as a modifier of another vowel as in "came" vs "cam"), plus all the other diacriticized forms of "e" in Czech/Slovak; oh ya, and in Spanish; and then there's French, and of course there's Italian, and Greek, and I'd be willing to bet that someone who has even the faintest interest in linguistics (which I pretty obviously don't) could add substantially to that list. So, briefly, if English has 5(6) vowels, with roughly 15+ different sounds, and then we add 9 possible diacritics (which some will argue are technically part of the latin character set since they are, somewhere or other, used in languages also based on Latin), then that would be really roughly (&thinsp;5 × (&thinsp;9 + 3&thinsp;)&thinsp;) = 60 vowel sounds.  Add to that diacritics on the remaining 20 consonants and then multiply that out by the 5, 10, 15 languages that English draws it's words from, and the 100 odd countries that people immigrate to English speaking countries from, and you start to get into thousands, if not tens of thousands, of possible pronunciations for everything in English.
 * My response is, not gonna happen! Couldn't care less how much you whine and complain about it, oh, boohoo, if these people didn't move to English speaking countries their names would be spelled differently on Wikipedia (actually of course, if these people hadn't moved to English speaking countries their names wouldn't appear in en.WP at all).
 * I seriously would like to respect your national pride, and it certainly isn't about trying to offend any foreign person or country; but, if you want to come to the country where they speak my language, you're going have to accept that the people that speak English are going to decide about things like speaking English (spelling included). —  Who R you?  Talk 05:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I observe that this conversation (above and below me here) seems to be acquiring a rather sarcastic / condescending tone, so I think it unwise to continue in this conversation which isn't going anywhere but down the pan. My national pride has absolutely zilch to do with anything in this debate. My country doesn't use diacritics. Hell, it doesn't even ordinarily use Roman script – that's if you consider 99.9% of its citizens. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 05:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * And given that you now tell us that your country doesn't even use the Latin character set, just what makes you think that you can tell all the English speaking people of the world how to spell English. Or is it simply that you enjoy harassing and disrupting others by trying to dictate to them how their languages should spell things.  Why don't you provide us the examples of where your language spells English names in the English form with Latin characters?  How about you provide the link to Jimmy Wales', or Bill Clinton's, or Ronald Reagan's pages on your wiki so we can all see how this isn't just a case a you coming to the English wiki to intentionally disrupt and create problems. —   Who R you?  Talk 12:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Gosh, how I detest smart-arses! The city I was born in country belonged to one country when I was born, and belongs to another one today. In addition to living in my birth city for quite a few years, I have lived for over a decade in the UK, nearly a decade in France and 2 years in the Czech Republic. I am trilingual. I will have you know that 'Bill Clinton', 'Ronald Reagan' and 'Jimmy Wales' are spelt exactly the same as that in French and the Czech Wikpedias; not all Wikis are as stupid as Latin WP by spelling Jimmy wales 'Iacobus Wales'. Now it's time for me to STFU, as I clearly know nothing. --  Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 14:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Atleast Dolovis is using the RM route, in having these hockey player articles moved to their english-sourced names. If memory serves me correct, alot of these player pages were moved to their non-english names (i.e diacritics) without seeking consent or via an RM. They were moved to their diacritics titles, rather unilaterally & (if I may) quite arrogantly - with summaries along the lines of 'moved to the correct name'. GoodDay (talk) 04:37, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And it looks like some of those moves were taking place shortly after long disruptive discussions on proposals to change the existing policies failed to achieve consensus, while some apparently decided to just go ahead and move articles regardless (See this 2006-2007 discussion and this March 2007 move for example). Apparently some think no consensus for change translates into consensus against the status-quo. —   Who R you?  Talk 05:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Quite aside from anything else, there's an important point to be made. I - and I expect a number of others on the so-called "anti" side - am not "against" diacritics.  What I am is for WP:COMMONNAME, supposedly a policy of this encyclopedia, to be respected and enforced.  Any name or usage where diacritics prove to be the most commonly recognized form of the term in English-language sources should, of course, be the one used by the English Wikipedia.  The issue is really quite that simple.  Ravenswing  05:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * We couldn't possibly be arguing to follow policy established by consensus, could we? —  Who R you?  Talk 05:37, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You are suggesting that a diacritic needs to have more than 50 percent usage on Google Books or Google News to go into the title? This never happens. Kauffner (talk) 05:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Certainly never going to happen for Books/News written in English about people living in English countries. Of course if you'd like to look up a foreign person in a foreign country, say like François Mitterrand, perhaps surprisingly you'll find that both the majority of the RS and English Wikipedia use diacritics.  Isn't it interesting how the English Wikipedians at en.WP establish policies about determining the English spelling of names and then follow them; unlike the small group of foreign editors who apparently just come here to get their kicks out of disrupting the en.wp and vandalizing our pages by moving them to foreign spellings? —   Who R you?  Talk 12:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Would you mind assuming good faith and not accusing people of vandalism just because you disagree with them. I'm an English Wikipedian (i.e. actually one from England, not just one who speaks English) and I generally favour native spellings, although obviously I bow to consensus (which, incidentally, we haven't got with diacritics or we wouldn't be having this discussion). Claiming that all (or even most) English-speaking people oppose diacritics, as you seem to be doing in several posts above, is inaccurate and without any evidence whatsoever. "If your name has diacritics and you're planning on moving to an English speaking country, either accept the fact that your name will not have diacritics here, or don't and don't come here." Oh really? Tell that to General Sir Peter de la Billière, to give one example plucked out of the air, who is as English as I am (although presumably of immigrant origin somewhere along the line, as are many people ultimately) and uses the diacritic on his name. Inaccuracies, misrepresentation, insults and generalisations get you nowhere. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you should try checking your facts first next time. Isn't it interesting how when one actually reads the sources in that article one finds out that, in fact his name isn't spelled with diacritics, and the only reason you were misled into believing that it was is because some  decided with this move in Sept 2005, to ignore all the RS and create his own spelling of this guy's name.  And of course if this user had bothered to follow Wikipedia policies and checked the RS, he might have realized that all the RS references linked to the file show the spelling as Billiere (sans diacritics).  But apparently people deciding to get creative with the English spelling of peoples names isn't a new thing on en.WP.
 * It appears that this user was confused and didn't understand reality, that while the general was (it appears) originally French Canadian, and therefore had a non-English name (as is French), that his name included foreign letters (such as with diacritics); but then the general apparently moved to England and, as all 11 of the britsh documents and the 3 pages of Amazon books show, when one moves to an English speaking country (even if when they're moving out of a bilingual country where they were a part of the non-English portion of the country) upon moving to an English speaking country, the diacritics are dropped, as they were for Peter de la Billiere (even thought the "de la" is a pretty good give away to the fact that his name sure as hell wasn't English to start with). But you'll notice that, upon moving to an English only country (that is to say upon moving away from French/English bilingual Canada to unilingual English Britian) his name changed and the diacritics were removed (as evidenced by all the RS documents accessible through his article).
 * Not to worry, I'll do an RM to fix the ridiculous move back in 2005 when the article was changed so as not to match the sources; it appears that, like so many of these moves, some editor just decided that he was going to make up the spelling that he though would be cool, perhaps because he saw it written somewhere in some foreign language, and just went ahead and moved the article. And by all means, please do tell me where I said that all English speaking people oppose diacritics.  And while you're at it, feel free to see if you can come up with an example of where someone uses diacritics in an English country and the RS actually backs you up on it.  Meanwhile I'll add the RM template.  And, of course, you're mistaken when you imply that there isn't any consensus on diacritics; there is a consensus policy that says Use English and follow the English RS; what there isn't is there isn't consensus to change those policies, but the fact that there isn't consensus for change does not mean that the existing policies don't still exist; and, until there is consensus to replace them with something else, there is de facto consensus for the existing policies; and that de facto consensus is Use English, follow the English RS, etc.
 * Meanwhile, feel free to show everyone a scan of an American passport, or immigration document or green card, or a British travel visa, or a Canadian landed immigrants card, or an Australian entry visa that uses diacritics; but the fact is they don't, the systems don't accept anything other than basic English characters (and in the case of Canada the French diacritics used in French, and in the case of the US the diacritics used in Spanish), and even then they're rarely used. But as the argument has been the last three times it has occurred and as it is now this fourth time, the policy is en.WP uses English RS to determine spelling.  If you would like to move an article to a spelling that uses something other than the basic English set of Latin characters, you provide English RS that supports the foreign spelling; you don't post how your gut feeling and WP:OR have convinced you that it should be spelled in a foreign language and you don't just go ahead and move it and leave it to others to have to fix your mistakes and point out again and again and again and again that the policy of English Wikipedia is that we follow English RS. —   Who R you?  Talk 16:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Over the top claims can easily make you appear very, very silly. In this case, you seem to be concluding from the spelling of de la Billière's last name without accents in some sources and in the body of the article that that's the official, most correct spelling. But which spelling of his name is more likely to have been checked and, if necessary, corrected by him? The one on a random website (britains-smallwars.com), the one in military dispatches (one would expect the same technical restrictions as for wire news here), or the one that is printed on the cover pages of books authored by him, or the one with which he signs? On cover pages the critical word appears in the following variants: "Billière", "BILLIÈRE", "BILLIERE". The last version is entirely consistent with his name being spelled with the accent grave, since according to some variants of traditional typography accents on capital letters are always dropped. Where I could look inside the book, his name was always spelled with the accent. In one book I even found a facsimile of his signature, complete with the accent. Hans Adler 19:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, you seem to be labouring under the misconception that Peter de la Billière is a first- or second-generation immigrant to Britain. Well, you can read about his family here. It's a Huguenot soldier family, part of which emigrated to England around 1700. French always having been familiar to educated English people, and of high social prestige, there was no pressure whatsoever to change French names. I know it's different in the US, but if you want to edit an international encyclopedia you need to be open to things being slightly different in other countries. Hans Adler 19:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * One thing though. This is not the International Wikipedia, it is the English Language Wikipedia. It happens to be read and edited by an international audience but that does not make it an international encyclopedia. Those from other countries have to be open to the fact we don't do things their way or from an international pov. Canada, US, UK, and AU have English language differences that we must respect and work around... and we do, taking it article by article. But we use English here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, this is one way in which knowing only your mother tongue can make you appear silly: by not fully understanding the meaning of English words of Latin origin such as "international". (Hint: think of it as inter-national. What you are referring to would be called interlingual.) This is the international English-language encyclopedia. And it is well established that for Canadian or British subjects etc. we use the Canadian or British variant of English, respectively. Since Peter de la Billière is a British citizen, British English is what we need here, and absolutist claims about English that hold more or less for American English but are plain wrong for British English are not helpful at all. (Of course, claims about English that hold for no variant at all, such as the claim that English simply does not use any accents, which is contradicted explicitly by the Oxford Companion to the English Language and implicitly by just about every English dictionary, are even less helpful.) Hans Adler 21:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And this is one way that your comprehension appears silly. You didn't seem to understand that I was correcting your "international encyclopedia" comment. If you'd like to call it an international English encyclopedia that's acceptable by me. I should have added international (or multi-national) to my wording I agree, but to simply call it an international encyclopedia with no other modifier is also incorrect. And I have no qualms about using British English wherever needed. If in British English sources it is universally spelled Peter de la Billière, and we are going by British English in that article, I would have no problems using it. And I never said English uses no accents. I would say English rarely uses accents and when words are brought over, in time they usually lose their accents/diacritics. English just has no use for them. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You were 'correcting' the following comment of mine: "I know it's different in the US, but if you want to edit an international encyclopedia you need to be open to things being slightly different in other countries." It's clear from context that by "other countries" I was chiefly thinking of Britain. Things that are clear from context, such as "English-language" in this case, don't have to be mentioned. That's a very fundamental aspect of how language works, and you have little chance of arguing away your mistake by pretending it doesn't hold in this case. Anyway, it's pretty clear from your 20:40 statement that you got confused about the distinction between international and interlingual, since you contrasted "those from other countries" with "Canada, US, UK, and AU", as if they were not other countries. Not a big issue at all, and only the fact that you made this mistake while purporting to correct me makes it rather awkward for you. Hans Adler 22:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It was not clear and those that follow may or may not realize you were limiting your conversation to the UK. It is fundamental not to assume, especially here on wikipedia where things can break down so quickly, so I corrected your mistake. And you seem to like throwing in words like "silly" and "awkward" as if those will help in conversations. I assure you they do nothing but lower you down in the eyes of others as seemingly petty and disdainful. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I never cease to learn new things from Wikipedia discussions. Here is my 'mistake' sentence again, together with the preceding one: "French always having been familiar to educated English people, and of high social prestige, there was no pressure whatsoever to change French names. I know it's different in the US, but if you want to edit an international encyclopedia you need to be open to things being slightly different in other countries." I was aware there are some editors with ADHS and similar problems, but I didn't know that some editors are able to mask really serious problems such as inability to read a sentence in the context of the immediately preceding one to the extent that you are obviously doing. Congratulations. Hans Adler 10:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The name is not universally spelled with the accent in British English sources. The reason is the usual one: Some sources have technical problems and some just don't care about such niceties of spelling. But Wikipedia does not have these technical problems and all encyclopedias care about niceties of spelling, so we have no excuse for dropping diacritics that belong in a name. Hans Adler 22:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Interesting. Do even half the British sources spell it with an accent? Maybe even 40%? At least then you'd have something other than a pov to bring to the table. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * And, the context of this whole conversation is?... "Diacritics in European ice hockey bio articles". And if you'd read all the other sets of conversations that have gone on in this regard you'd recognize that, much earlier in the conversation (long before yet another fork of it started here), the comments were that i) there are exceptions, ii) the de facto ban on diacritics in common English (regardless of specific exceptions) never included French, iii) the conversation here, and where it was carried over from Talk:Marek Zidlicky to Talk:Milan Jurčina which then linked to the new creation of this thread to whine and complain, was always about following the English RS.  By all means, if the majority of the English RS spell Billiere as Billière then his article's title should have the accent grave, and if, as a quick review of all the sources linked from his article, it is continually spelled without, then the common English spelling is de facto without; I really don't care which form it takes, what I do care about is that whatever form it takes be based upon and supported by the RS.
 * I see at Talk:Peter de la Billière the argument of late is, well, sure the book covers don't actually have the accent, but that's because of "… a typographical reason: A lot of typographers, though not all, subscribe to the rule that French accents on capital letters are always dropped." And again, it comes back to the same thing it's come to in every one of these conversations, cite the English RS that shows that the most common English spelling is with diacritics and (hopefully) everyone that's currently opposing any article that has diacritics in the title immediately says, then en.WP should have diacritics to match the most common English spelling as demonstrated by the English RS.  But the fact is that, even for a name of French heredity, most of the sources seem to spell it without the accent grave; including the cover of his own autobiography and the cover of his "personal account" where the photo includes, presumably the official version of, his military nametag which doesn't have the accent.  And of course it'd be nice to just be able to trust another editor that says, well I've looked it up in such and such and it's spelled like so...; but past experience with some of the editors(admins) who keep moving these articles to diacriticized forms is, that on those rare occasions that they do cite some actual backup, a review of the documents that they've cited, as backup up for their actions, generally ends up not saying what has been claimed, or the claimed WP policy ends up actually just being something created by the editor/admin in question with the apparent intent of deceiving other editors; which makes it rather difficult (and rather stupid) to AGF.
 * But then let's look at what this conversation was actually about, shall we. Rather than providing the 1 in a million exception that proves the rule, perhaps you'd care to comment on the conversation that was actually taking place; not about French accents (which were previously acknowledged with regard to potential exceptions), but rather the addition of the Ž, ý and č in the article titles for Marek Židlický and Milan Jurčina to name just two examples.  Did you have the great British citation that supports the use of these diacritics as part of the most common English spelling of names?  Because as the argument has been from the very start, no one seems to be against diacritics on article titles where there is substantial English RS to demonstrate that diacritics are part of the most common English spelling, it is rather the recent policies of editors (developed quietly in private little groups) to move articles to titles with diacritics, in some cases (Zidlicky) where not one English source uses them.  Or were you also arguing that English sources such as Newspapers, the NHL, the guy's hockey jersey, are an indication of the incompetence of everyone else but that, as a wikipedian of superior intelligence, your (meaning their) decision as to spelling is the determining factor and to hell with the sources.  Perhaps you can clarify what you've decided the policy is on determining article titles (since apparently English RS and the most common English spelling are out); or should I just AGF that you're so much more brilliant than everyone else, and are able to properly divine English spellings of Foreign names without sources, so I should just trust whoever wants to come up with a new spelling.  See I think there's a difference between assuming good faith where someone does something that could be a mistake and continuing to trust someone after a review of prior comments has demonstrated a tendency towards lies and deception (and hopefully the fact that I've never communciated before with either Necrothesp or Hans Adler will lead them to recognize that I'm obviously not talking about them in that regard). —   Who R you?  Talk 09:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Putting aside Who r you's laughably arrogant and angry response to my polite request to refrain from attacking other editors, which one must presumably put down to inexperience and possible immaturity and simply serves to illustrate my point further, I shall just point out that De la Billière's name is spelt with the accent in his own books, on the Amazon page and in Who's Who (whose entries are written by the subject). He clearly spells his own name with a grave and since he is a native English-speaker we should follow suit. As to English-speakers not using diacritics, try checking the Oxford English Dictionary, the bible of British English lexicography, and see how many words of foreign origin retain their diacritics when used in English. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * There's nothing to salvage this conversation. It's uncivil, and it's going around in circles. And I'm glad I'm not the only one to find User:Who R you? arrogant and immature. THE END-- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 01:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the conversation has deteriorated, but add User:Hans Adler to the arrogant/immature stack. END #2 Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

RFC on hockey names
There has been a brewing issue at WP:RM over WP:HOCKEY recommendations and how they should be applied over WP:COMMONNAME and WP:UE. Basically the hockey recommendation is that Diacritics shall be applied to all player pages, where appropriate as for the languages of the nationalities of the players in question. This is in fact a mandate that does not allow consideration of any other policy on naming. I think we need to resolve the issue of which naming convention we use for ice hockey players. Is it the one for the names of everyone else based on existing policy and guidelines, or do we have a blanket exception for one project? Vegaswikian (talk) 00:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This looks like a case of a local consensus, which can't override COMMONNAME. --FormerIP (talk) 02:07, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * In agreement. COMMONAME can't be overidden. GoodDay (talk) 02:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course it can. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 03:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * In the situation of diacritics, it shouldn't be ignored. GoodDay (talk) 04:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not being ignored. WP:COMMONNAME specifically says "ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined by reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources". Simply stripping diacritics off a letter is a common mistake as such the name is inaccurate. Now if the name is properly translated I have no problem with them being removed. But that isn't the case in the vast majority. -DJSasso (talk) 13:07, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You, like others, seem to be confusing ambiguous or inaccurate with English. The dropping of foreign diacritics from names is the normal method of translating a name to English; retaining the same basic letter forms that exist in the English language.  If the person in question wants to instead translate it in a manner which more clearly retains the vocalization of the name, while more dramatically changing the spelling of the name, that is their choice; if that's what they want to do then they can take the appropriate steps, depending upon the circumstance (Speak with the media involved, request if of their employer (like the NHL), etc).  But fortunately, regardless of all other considerations, it's not our problem as wikipedians, the sources, the press, the publishers, etc make those decisions and then publish what they have decided, in accordance with normal English practice, is the English version of the name; if you don't like it, go talk to the media and try to get them to change; don't ask that Wikipedia try to establish the policies of the English speaking world, all that happens as a result of that is that Wikipedia becomes foolishly out of touch with the realities of the English world.  If you're look to create an Encyclopedia for all the people in the world trying to learn ESL, invest even more of your time at simple.WP and invite all your level 3 & 4 English speakers to join you in your efforts. —   Who R you?  Talk 03:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately that is not correct. You can't randomly do something to translate a word, there are rules to translation. For example ö in one language becomes oe in English not o like you would promote. We are an encyclopedia, we present the facts, we rely on accurate sources. When we don't rely on accurate sources we look like the fools. It is our job to separate the accurate and reliable sources from the non-accurate ones. We have a higher standard than a sports reporter racing to get a story in by the midnight deadline. This has nothing to do with trying to help ESL learners, this has to do with providing accurate and correct information in an encyclopedia, that is after all what they are for. -DJSasso (talk) 04:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Their de facto names are what the media and other RS use. That is what their English names become; it may not be "correct", but it is reality.  It doesn't matter if your name is technically "Böb", if we call you "Bob" a thousand times and you don't correct us, your de facto English name is Bob.  We provide the foreign (what you would call accurate) spellings of their names in parentheses in the articles lede (as consensus policy directs).  Our policies are to title articles what the English reader is most likely to expect, what they have seen in press countless times, what they will be looking for. —   Who R you?  Talk 08:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "That is what their English names become" - They do not have English names. Full stop. Andrej Mleczko is a Polish name. That is contains zero diacritics, and that English -speakers therefore can easily spell it correctly does not make the name English, it is still Polish. It is not even an English spelling, as that would require transliteration (to something like "Andrei Mletchko"). Every time you talk about removing diacritics as making the names English, you show that you still do not understand the issue. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If the most reliable sources on spelling (which necessarily excludes some sources which blindly strip diacritics) show that the name includes diacritics, then removing them doesn't make a title English; it makes a title wrong. bobrayner (talk) 14:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Most of us try to be welcoming of foreign cultures and of immigrants; and I may have a problem with those that aren't; but that does not mean that we need to surrender our language so that others may dictate to us it's spelling and character set composition; nor that we need to force future generations of English speakers to not only learn our language, of somewhere between 171,476 and 988,968 words plus, in most cases, at least one foreign language (not to mention the large percentage of our population that speak at least one more foreign language on top of that because it is/they are their hereditary language(s)); and also now to submit to this small group of internet dictators and accept that your children, and their children, will no longer learn a language of 52 letters (26 × 2), but that they will now be compelled to learn, understand, memorize, and learn the pronunciation of hundreds of additional symbols. This is nothing short of agreeing to harm them and make their lives vastly more difficult. The majority of this push appears to come from a small group of Czech editors that wish to increase the English alphabet to include a whole range of extra symbols and verbalizations. And while they only concern themselves with their small personal nationalist agenda, we must consider the big picture and recognize that it isn't just the 200 or so added little combinations from the Czech language that we're talking about, (not that I'd suggest agreeing to that), but we, of course, as English speakers, operate on a global scale and so we have pressure to include Polish, Vietnamese, Latin, Spanish, Italian, French, German, Dutch, Netherlands, Iceland, Hawaiian, Korean, Japanese, Chinese, off the top of my head as I'm typing. I don't agree to sell future generations down the river just to appease those that yell and scream and whine the loudest. Personally, I'd like to see us move towards a ban on these constant move wars and policy proposal battles; to have the opportunity to concentrate on editing articles and trying to improve en.WP. I wonder if there is community support to put forward a proposal, with a sunset clause for 2014, to, following the adopting of the single last policy change, ban proposal of new changes to WP policies which, in any way, involve diacritics, to confirm that our policies are that names must adhere to the name/spelling that is used by the preponderance of the English RS, and to block from editing (for rapidly escalating periods of time) any editor that moves an article or starts an RM (either to diacritics or away from diacritics) without substantial talk page documentation of the RS statistics with the proviso that, actual cited RS are the only salient point in determining spelling (i.e. a move); that it doesn't matter what your argument on the topic is, good, bad, or otherwise, nobody's going to respond to your issues because only one thing matters, and that is the most common English spelling in English RS. Harsh, but it appears to me to be warranted. Reality is that those that have a problem with the spelling most commonly used in the English RS should be approaching those RS to change how they spell things, not badgering the rest of us with their arguments about why we Wikipedians should ignore the RS and increase the size of the English language. Thoughts? —  Who R you?  Talk 02:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Personally, I've commented at many a discussion on diacritics and RMs involving moves to&thinsp;/&thinsp;from article names containing diacritics; and I've been more than a little frustrated by the apparent leeway permitted WP:Hockey and others on this point. Reality is that a large number of the WP:Hockey crew pushing article renaming, and all the numerous discussions that have taken place regarding diacritics, are ideas being promoted by ESL editors using the global nature of the internet to try to dictate, from their homelands on the other side of the planet (from North America), what English spelling and practices will be for the English countries and speakers of the world.  Those of us that live in English countries, and those of us that are native English speakers, know full well that diacritics do not exist in our society and are not a part of our language.  I'll try to respond to the exceptions when the people that don't understand the realities of our society mention the individual exceptional cases, which they have continually attempted to use in past discussions to imply the opposite of what we all know to be the truth, which is that we don't use diacritics in the English language and that this is the English Alphabet; not ŧĥĩş.

And while WP:IAR is the 5th pillar, the 1st pillar is that Wikipedia is not an experiment in anarchy and the 2nd pillar is that things are sourced. Consensus policy has been long established that spellings are determined by the sources, here on English Wikipedia spelling is determined by the most common name in the English sources. You've tried, and countless others have tried, to change that, with regards to diacritics, and there is no support for it; so instead, we have WP:Hockey claiming that their private policy is to ignore RS and establish their own foreign spelling (the topic of this RfC I believe) and we have continuous ongoing RM battles to move hundreds, and over time thousands, of titles away from what the English RS present as the most common name despite the fact that consensus has continually refused to accept that proposal; basically, we have people, doing through the back door, what has already been posted as unacceptable at the front door; and that is not what IAR is about. And apparently you think that it should be okay with us (the English speaking countries of the world) if you re-write our language slowly, rather than all at once. Personally, (and I recognize that I'm the hard-ass case that simply won't bend on principles, even a little), I don't accept that we should ever depart from the sources, period. Since the sources spell it "François Mitterrand" and not "Francois Mitterrand", we spell it that way; since the sources spelled it "Boris Yeltsin" and not "Бори́с Никола́евич Е́льцин", we spell it that way; since the sources spell it "Marek Zidlicky" and not "Marek Židlický", we spell it that way; the foreign spelling still exist in the articles, that's where I was able to copy the non-English spellings from, but what we tell our English readers is that the most common English spelling of the name is what appears as the title of the article, as in the case of the above three examples and as should be the case for every article. If we spelled Marek's or Boris' articles the other way, we would be lying to the readers, we would be saying that the foreign form was the most common English name for the person/thing; but that isn't true, and the fact that you, and your friends, WP:Just don't like it that English doesn't use diacritics is, quite simply, not our problem; we don't write en.WP to satisfy the nationalist sentiments of Czechoslovakia, Croatia, Poland, Bosnia, or any of the rest; we write en.WP for the English readers, and while many people around the world have learned to speak English with varying degrees of skill, we don't write this to appease the ESL readers, they have foreign language wikis for them to use if they want to view things written in foreign languages; if they want to view things written in English, they are welcome to read, and if their English is good enough and they have some sources to cite, to contribute to, en.WP; but we shouldn't be lying to them, telling them that English contains the "Ž" or the "ý" any more than we should be lying to children in English speaking countries and telling them that their language contains these things which their language doesn't. The English alphabet is not
 * We should follow English sources as this is English language Wikipedia. Also, as an 'english only reading layman', I don't understand those diacritics & see no educational value in them. GoodDay (talk) 03:07, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Retain status quo for now. Nobody uses the transistor radio these days. People have moved to higher quality music sources; hell, they don't even listen to media files with 128k bit rate these days, preferring instead 320k or VBR. Just because some users don't feel the need for a hi-fi or an iPod, doesn't mean the world should be stuck with tranny radios. In that same vein, encyclopaedic accuracy ought to prevail. WP:IAR, a pillar of this encyclopaedia and one of our shortest policies mandates "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." That's what we should do. I might support a more nuanced approach, such as removing the diacritics of those players who have become naturalised citizens in one of the officially monolinguistic anglophone countries, but removal of diacritics on a wholescale basis is disruptive and detrimental to this encyclopaedic cause. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 03:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * transistor radio was a fad, it was and remains a wireless it just took time for the cousins to get with the programme [sic]. :-) -- PBS (talk) 04:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It certainly does make things clearer when one understands that you consider English to be an piece of out of date rigidly designed technology, and bizarrely view the antiquated use of diacritics as the new cutting edge technology. Apparently living in Czechoslovakia has left you out of touch with the real world.

and lest you wonder if this is anything extra, it isn't, this is certainly not the entire Unicode character set of tens of thousands, and this does not include Greek, Cyrillic, Armenian, Hebrew, Arabic, Devanagari, Bengali, Gurmukhi, Gujarati, Oriya, Tamil, Telugu, Kannada, Malayalam, Thai, Lao, Tibetan, Georgian, Korea Hangul, Japanese Hiragana, Japanese Katakana, or Chinese Bopornofo. This is just the Latin alphabet which everyone keeps saying Oh, but English uses the Latin alphabet and so does my foreign language so you have to spell things the way I spell them in my language.; but the reality is that English uses the Roman subset of the expanded Latin alphabet; in other words, the top two lines (depending on your screen resolution).


 * That fact that you learned English in Hong Kong and now live in the Czech Republic and lived in England and therefore know perhaps a couple of hundred different language symbols doesn't mean that the English countries of the world are willing to penalize English speaking children the same as you have chosen to do to yourself. We recognize that it is a great linguistic improvement to dispose of diacritics and instead use letter combinations to cover the full range of sounds in our language.  Regardless of your inability to comprehend that, we know that it is a vast improvement over the alternatives; and a likely reason why hundreds of millions of people all over the world have chosen to learn English in addition to their own languages, you may have noticed that (with the exception of the undoubted rare exceptions) no one on the planet is learning Slavic languages except those in and around the borders of those countries.  There is no reason for English speaking children to learn the Slavic alphabet or to view it as anything more than the foreign language that it is; despite the continual efforts of 15 or 20 Czech editors. —   Who R you?  Talk 05:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You are merely alienating yourself from those whose support you covet. Nothing can do your cause more damage than xenophobic ranting personal attack like the one immediately above and elsewhere. I would wager that more than one editor who has been supporting you up to now may well be regretting lining up so close to you because they will now be tarred by the same brush. I'm not suggesting that you become a Buddhist monk, but you clearly have have some serious issues, so please deal with them before you come and pollute this wiki any more with your toxic waste. You and your 'Wikiproject:English' are not part of the solution but one of the major problems. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 06:16, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The thing is, I'm not looking to win a popularity contest. Either people will agree with my interpretation of the facts and the policies, or they wont.  I can be an asshole in real-life too, and if it bothers people they're welcome to their opinion; but unlike you, most of them don't follow me and post on my talk page or do things like join WikiProject English, apparently in hopes of antagonizing me.  But here, in Wikipedia, Resolute starts and MfD to delete WP:WikiProject English because a group of 5 editors have the audacity to discuss things like what RMs are talking place, what current Policy is, and what potential recommendations for policy change should be.  Apparently some think it a problem to discuss things openly and in public, rather than being sneaky and underhanded, working behind closed doors, through email, IRC, etc.  And yet miraculously it's never questioned how large groups of people, that have never edited a particular article, suddenly appear to cast their votes to move them to non-English forms, and this is deemed to be unquestionably ok.  But maybe a few dozen people will decide to cast their !votes to keep the wikiproject, regardless of whether or not I'm a prick, and that way people can still publicly discuss concerns and try to stop the group that surreptitiously works to move pages to foreign languages, contrary to policy. —   Who R you?  Talk 09:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * PS I'm not aware that "ŧĥĩş" is a word in the lexicon of any language, so it's patently absurd. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 03:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Congratulations on your ability to recognize when someone provides an intentionally absurd example. Very good.  You should be very proud of yourself.  No doubt soon you'll begin to be able to recognize blatant sarcasm.  Well done.  And of course "Ľubomír Višňovský" isn't a word in English, any more that "ŧĥĩş" is in any other language, the difference of course being that we do, at this point anyways, have an article titled one of these two non-English strings of gibberish.  Are you able to grasp the correlation?  Oh, I'm sure you'll get it. —   Who R you?  Talk 05:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

● "The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language, as you would find it in reliable sources…"; ● the second paragraph begins: "If an examination of the sources in an article shows that one name or version of the name stands out as clearly the most commonly used in the English-language, we should follow the sources and use it. …"; ● consensus there says: "The native spelling of a name should generally be included in parentheses, in the first line of the article, with a transliteration if the Anglicization isn't identical. …". The WP:DIACRITICS section of this policy reads: ● "The use of modified letters (such as accents or other diacritics) in article titles is neither encouraged nor discouraged; when deciding between versions of a word which differ in the use or non-use of modified letters, follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language (including other encyclopedias and reference works). The policy on using common names and on foreign names does not prohibit the use of modified letters, if they are used in the common name as verified by reliable sources." The WP:UE section of WP:Article titles, says: ● "The choice between anglicized and local spellings should follow English-language usage…"; ● " If  there are too few English-language sources to constitute and established usage, follow the conventions of the language appropriate to the subject…", in other words, as long as there are not too few English-language sources to follow, follow the English-language sources; and the WP:UCN (a.k.a. WP:COMMONNAME) section of that policy says: ● "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. …" and ● "… The term most typically used in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms, whether the official name, the scientific name, the birth name, the original name or the trademarked name. …" The consensus of policy in this regard is clear and unambiguous and is repeated in multiple policies. How does one, after repeatedly citing all these sections in multiple conversations, respond to someone else's argument that there is not consensus? Personally, I end up getting extremely frustrated having to repeat all this in discussion after discussion to the same group of people trying to move articles to the foreign language form. It isn't that they don't know that there is clear consensus against what they are doing, rather they've learned that ignoring it, making hundreds of moves, and requesting numerous moves and multi-moves generally makes it impossible for other editors to respond, what ArbCom calls fait accompli; and those that do respond on this topic seem to be compelled to do so almost exclusively, or accept that these moves against policy and against RS will be successful. —  Who R you?  Talk 08:32, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The hockey project's suggestion was a reflection of previous consensus within the project, and it served us well. Alas, a couple people have taken it upon themselves to simply wear their opponents out to create a new local consensus on some articles.  As I've noted elsewhere, I am neutral on their use, but I would take issue with the argument that our guideline is an attempt at overruling COMMONNAME.  The truth is, it doesn't, because there is no project wide consensus on diacritics.  It is a direct result of this lack of consensus that Dolovis was at one point placed under a community restriction regarding moves to and from diacritics.  If you want to argue that recent local results at RM should necessitate a second look at our internal guideline, feel free.  But do not misrepresent the project-wide state of the debate on diacritics. Resolute 04:04, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, and no offence Who R you?, but tl;dr. I couldn't be bothered to even read that text wall, let alone care enough to respond to any of it. Resolute 04:04, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It must be very limiting in life to try to obtain all your information and knowledge in short one and two sentence bursts. —  Who R you?  Talk 06:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The hockey project should follow Wiki conventions elsewhere unless there's a good reason not to. That means COMMONNAME and USEENGLISH need to be applied appropriately. --Bermicourt (talk) 06:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * They are being applied appropriately, per WP:COMMONNAME. "ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined by reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources" Simply stripping diacritics is a common error and not a proper translation, as such its an inaccurate name. Common name says it shouldn't be used in such cases. -DJSasso (talk) 13:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * As stated many times before, you appear to confuse ambiguous or inaccurate with English. Wiktionary: Ambiguous: 1. Open to multiple interpretations. 2. Vague and unclear.; Inaccurate: 1. Mistaken or incorrect; not accurate.; but the fact is that neither of these describe the situation, with media's English spelling of names.  When half a dozen reliable newspapers print a name the same way, there certainly isn't any possiblity of multiple interpretations; on the contrary, your problem is that they are entirely unambiguous, clearly spelling the names, again and again, without diacritics, the same in every case, without any possibility of more than one interpretation; similarly, there is nothing vague or unclear about them, they clearly and unequivocally exclude diacritics, thus the reason that WP:Hockey's guidelines needed to simply ignore the RS and use whatever seemed good to the editor at the time.  If it were a mistake, inaccurate, or incorrect, it would have been corrected by at least one of the sources somewhere along the line, and it certainly isn't reasonable to say that the same error has occurred in every English paper since the proliferation of the printing press; the reasonable, logical, correct interpretation is that all of the English sources spell the names without diacritics because that is English, a language which does not use diacritics (And as always, there are exceptions to every rule, that does not however invalidate the rule). —   Who R you?  Talk 08:32, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Those spellings of foreign names are certainly not ambiguous (except in certain unusual cases which can be ignored here). But they are equally certainly inaccurate; as in mistaken, incorrect, not accurate. These spellings are in general simply misspellings, nothing else. They are not transliterations, as from non-latin scripts, where you try to approximate the pronounciation in a latin script; they are not translations and they are not English. They are just misspelled. You are welcome to argue for these misspellings based on verifibility etc, but it is an undeniable fact for anyone that understands these issues that the spellings are incorrect. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Right on schedule... As I said, Bermicourt, and exemplified by several responses immediately below mine, there is no consensus on whether diacritics should be used in article titles or not. As such, there is no wiki convention for us to follow - only a muddied debate with strong viewpoints on both sides. Resolute 14:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * In fact the policies are crystal clear, they all say follow the RS, on English Wikipedia follow the English RS. The problem for the WP:Hockey group seems to be that adhering to that requirement means that names end up being spelled in English; and that isn't the ultimate goal that WP:Hockey is attempting to achieve.  So the only way to justify creating your own rules is to claim that consensus doesn't exist; but the reality is it does.  This is the talk page for the consensus policy WP:EN, it starts:
 * And Resolute, since you've said that you have difficulty with long passages, the above boils down to there is consensus and that consensus is: "on English Wikipedia we follow the English Reliable Sources to determine names and spelling". Hope that helps. —   Who R you?  Talk 08:32, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I've always looked at the wikiprojects and their guidelines as places where rules have to be set that standard wiki protocol doesn't really cover. In Hockey that's things like player notability, scoring nomenclature, what things are records and what are simply trivia. Things that need more of an expert's understanding. Same with tennis... what tournaments are notable, what colors to use for different tier events, what to put in infoboxes...etc. I don't really do much editing in the hockey pages but what I do find is that there are hockey editors that also edit tennis articles and they often throw in our face the reasoning that since "they" agreed on always using diacritics (against wiki policy) in hockey we should do the same in tennis. Well sorry, it doesn't work that way. I use English alphabet sourcing when I work on articles or answer polls. On some rare occasions the english alphabet sourcing does have a consensus of diacritic usage... so that's what I use. But 95% of the time things are spelled with our 26 letters in English source after English source, regardless of how they were originally spelled in foreign nations. per wiki that's what I use. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see a problem here, at least as regards hockey. The hockey guideline quoted seems to be in agreement with what we do for all other types of article. The only problem, as keeps being pointed out, is in this guideline, which (due to pressure from a few people who seem to have a bee in their bonnet about "foreign" letters) doesn't properly reflect our (and other encyclopedias') normal practices.--Kotniski (talk) 09:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see a problem here either. So why are we trying to change these names to a foreign alphabet? Just because a few people have it in their minds that we don't have enough letters already in English doesn't mean we have to kowtow to their whims. Check the English sources and if the preponderance shows a word with diacritics use it...if not use the English alphabet. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Informed people know that these "foreign letters" are also used in English, especially by encyclopedic sources, as we aim to be. I've really yet to see any argument that eliminating diacritics improves the encyclopedia - they all seem to be based either purely on anti-foreign prejudice, or on personal discomfort or ignorance resulting from not having enough experience with the type of English source that uses these characters. Or a simplified belief that we have to follow the majority of the sources, without thinking through how this might improve (or worsen) the encyclopedia in a given case.--Kotniski (talk) 08:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not an easy issue, but it becomes easier if we ignore all the FUD and nonsense that this discussion for some reason generates.
 * I. Let's first make it clear that the names in discussion are not English names. Claiming that diacritics are not used in English is hence not only wrong, but irrelevant. A foreign name does not become an English name by removing the diacritics. A minimal requirement for a name to be English is that the person in question lives in or is a citizen of and Anglophone country. If the person in question does not do that, the name is not English, and will not become English by removing the diacritics.
 * II. Neither does using diacritics "destroy" English. These arguments, though often repeated, are utter and complete nonsense.
 * So what is then the facts we need to consider, when we get rid of the nonsense?
 * 1. A common misunderstanding is that diacritics are modifiers or special characters or otherwise not important. But in many languages a character with diacritics is a completely separate letter, and replacing the Swedish 'ö' with 'o' is no less erroneous than replacing it with 'a' or 'e'. Bjorn Borg is hence just as wrong as "Bjarn Borg", "Björn Bolg" or "Kjörn Borg".
 * 2. The correct spelling therefore is what the person who wears the name desires it to be spelled. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, this should be according to official documentation, ie birth certificate or similar.
 * It may then seem that we should allow diacritics. But, there is a problem with that:
 * 3. It is hard to verify the correct spelling as verification should be done with English sources. So if we allow diacritics we must allow verification of names explicitly through non-English sources, which is an exception compared to other article names, as they use only English sources. It is also hard to verify it even with non-English sources. How many English people will know the difference between a source in Czech and a source in Slovak? Or a source in Swedish and one in Norwegian? So when we look for verification of a Slovak name, how do we know it's only Slovak sources, etc? Perhaps this is solvable, but it is not trivial. Also, how do we do with names written in non-Latin scripts? They are usually transliterated, and there again we use English sources. Should we really have an exception for non-English names in latin scripts only?
 * This issue therefore becomes a choice between being correct on one side, and being verifiable and consistent on the other. That's not an obvious choice, but Wikipedia in general leans towards being verifiable (although WP:COMMONNAME can be interpreted as to prefer accuracy when it comes to article names). If we want to use diacritics we must first put into place a new policy that deals specifically with personal names, and rules for how to verify non-English names, or clarify the existing one, to get rid of this never-ending debate.
 * --OpenFuture (talk) 11:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The correct use of diacritical marks does not conflict with our policies. Per WP:BLP, "We must get the article right." The spelling of foreign names without diacritics is among the most common errors in English, and people usually want their name spelled right. WP:COMMONNAME does not advocate for common spellings and points out that inaccurate names, even if most common, are often avoided. WP:UE gives good examples of anglicized names, but based on dictionaries and authoritative style manuals, none seem to exist for modern people except for popes, royalty and naturalized citizens who have adopted a new name/spelling. WP:MOSPN provides a more relevant case; the common spelling for Paul Erdős is "Paul Erdos", followed by "Paul Erdös", but we still use the rare but correct double acute. The idea of Googling up the common spelling with foreign personal names is a convenient on-wiki stretch. No serious English-language publication does that. All seem to agree on one thing: consistency. Newspapers and sports writers commonly omit the diacritics, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and incorporates elements from other reference works (like Britannica and Webster's). Those elements include the correct spelling of European names, complete with the necessary marks. Fortunately, this has been the de facto policy here for years. It would be unencyclopedic to apply lower standards for biographies of ice hockey players than for those of famous composers, politicians and Nobel Prize winners. Prolog (talk) 12:09, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Per WP:COMMONNAME "ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined by reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources." Simply stripping the diacritics is an error, not a proper translation. There are situations where the names are properly translated I am sure and in those cases they should be. In the vast majority of cases they are simply stripped which is an error. And per WP:COMMONNAME "inaccurate names ... even thought they may be more frequently used" should not be used. People who continue to claim that WP:COMMONNAME is the be all end all and says to strip diacritics in every instance are simply incorrect. In some cases where names have been properly translated then yes the diacritics should be gone. But I would guess that 90% or more of the the so called common names are not translated correctly simply stripping the diacritics off ö to be an o when in reality the proper translation is oe. -DJSasso (talk) 13:02, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * We are an encyclopedia. Our first concern should always be to get it right.  That some people don't like some letters or diacritics doesn't change the fact that stripping them out of a name is no less erroneous than replacing all 'A's with 'X's.  The resulting pile of letters isn't the same name, it's just a random pile of letters that kinda look like the name.  I can almost understand holding a position against scripts with tone marks but, otherwise, there is no rational reason to randomly exclude parts of the Latin alphabet (there is no such thing as an "English" alphabet) because some readers might not be used to seeing them.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 13:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * We are trying to get it right. That some people want to add diacritics to these article titles simply for personal reasons, doesn't change the fact that adding them to the name doesn't help 'english only' readers. The Wikipedia is meant for the laymen, not the professionals. The accent marks have no educational value. GoodDay (talk) 21:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Often a hockey player in question has moved for career reasons to North America. From that point on, that player is written up in English sources without the diacritics. Rarely is there some prior indication of a translation when the player moves. If the player played in a professional league, and has achieved notability, we can find some sources of the original spelling. But if not, we use the sources we find, which usually do not have diacritics. I think the status of the spelling is ambiguous, and we should be able to have a baseline or regular rule, rather than studying every player in detail, when there may not be any detail to study. The players in question wear uniforms with their names on the back. The names don't have the diacritics usually. Yet, there are sources in other languages with other spellings. Valid spellings in those languages. Unlike those other languages, English use pronunciation marks only in a minority of spellings. In the case of these players, the pronunciation is passed along by media broadcasters, etc. We learn the pronunciation without the diacritics. So the non-diacritical spelling is not really incorrect, if it's basically been adopted and accepted by the player. The player's working documents with the various professional leagues are probably without diacritics. Or at least I would expect that to be the case, rather than the other way. All in all, I think these players have developed TWO common names. I think the non-diacritical spelling is the common one in English unless we find otherwise. What the hockey project has done is try to support both common names in a way that is very fair to European spellings. From a North American English speaking and reading person's perspective, it is -overly- fair. I cannot speak for European English persons, but I think they deal with the diacritics more regularly and use them even in English use. Wp:hockey attempts to accommodate both cases. So we go with the non-diacritical common spelling in the articles, where the non-diacritical spelling is expected, and the diacritical spelling where it can be reasonably expected. Unless Wikipedia adopts some policy to disregard one or the other spellings completely and thoroughly, I think it is a fair compromise for the foreseeable future. There are efforts to develop some standards by the IIHF, but I don't expect this to be anywhere resolved for years. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 15:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * To add on. For those who support/maintain diacritics in the article titles - Why is it 'not enough' to have the dios shown in the opening line of the article intros? GoodDay (talk) 15:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * In my opinion that's because some editors think it is misleading and inconsistent. Take a look at a recently renamed article Ales Hemsky (btw, what does Ales Hemsky mean in English?). The opening sentence reads: Aleš Hemský[1] (born August 13, 1983) is a Czech professional ice hockey forward... - it is a bit contradictory, could anyone tell me what is the name of that person?? Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:47, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * First mention is the full name whereas the article title is the common name, so they are not necessarily the same. See WP:MOSBIO. Kauffner (talk) 18:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Have intro as Ales Hemsky, then in brackets use the non-english name. GoodDay (talk) 17:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I see that it has been changed to that now, but two wrongs don't make a right. It compounds the error made. If anything, it should say "Ales Hemsky (bastardised name) or Aleš Hemský (official name)" -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 01:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't even know how the closer managed to close that move the way he did when there was clearly no consensus in the discussion. Very bad close by the admin. -DJSasso (talk) 17:02, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * He probably went by the arguments, not the votes. GoodDay (talk) 17:04, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Even with the arguments, there was clearly no consensus. -DJSasso (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not certain, but I believe there's a place to protest rulings on RMs. GoodDay (talk) 17:32, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was in my opinion a bad close, but it doesn't matter so much, as the Category:Czech ice hockey players is an inconsistent mess and another crippled name cannot make the situation better or worse. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 17:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, the consensus was determined by considering the strength of the arguments. WP:HOCKEY does not carry the same weight as WP:UE and WP:COMMONNAME.  So the support comments were based on policies that apply to the entire encyclopedia and not just a few selected articles.  That close is why this RFC was started.  Vegaswikian (talk) 19:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * So were the opposes. Common name specifically says not to use inaccurate names which is what all the oppose votes were basically arguing. The close should be undone. Common name did not support their arguments, it actually supports those who opposed. -DJSasso (talk) 19:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No, not really. The Oilers use the name without the diacritics as do the two external links.  Then there are all of the other sources.  So the usage without diacritics is supported and probably meets WP:V, WP:RM, WP:UE and WP:COMMONNAME.  Even the team roster on the wiki was without and had special coding in place to link to the article with the diacritics. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:02, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Per COMMONNAME "ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined by reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources", simply removing the diacritics without translating them properly is an error. As such commonname indicates we should not use the common name even though it is the most used. WP:V is easily met through non-english sources (V doesn't need to be met by english sources). And UE indicates "The use of modified letters (such as accents or other diacritics) in article titles is neither encouraged nor discouraged". So no those policies don't support the close you made. And of course the team roster on the wiki was without them that was part of the compromise that is at WP:HOCKEY, that only the titles of the player pages have the diacritics. You clearly had a strong opinion on this issue based on your comments and your opening of this RfC so you should not have closed that discussion. At the very least it should be reopened for someone else to close. I really hate when admins close a discussion based on who throws around the most policy links and then don't actually read the policies to make sure the people claiming their side is supported by them are right. -DJSasso (talk) 20:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * My last comment on this section. WP:AGF!  Yes, I did a lot of reading.  Do you realize how long it took to uncover the link at the start of this RFC?  This has been an ongoing problem and for the record, I have closed moves going in both directions.  So if I have a bias as claimed, it is that I act on what is in the discussion.  And this RFC is not about this close, but rather how to deal with this issue going forward.  This side track points out why this RFC is needed and why it needs to be closed as other then no consensus.  Otherwise, every close under the competing naming edict and policies will be a bad close for the side that had the differing opinion.  Now let's return to the root of the problem and try to reach a resolution. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The root of the problem is that every RfC has closed at almost exactly 50/50, there is no consensus on diacritics. Common name should be made clear to indicate that however we can't even get consensus on how to indicate that on common name. The real problem is that those who are very much for removing them are just opening RM one after another after another after another to try and tire out the opposition. The proposer of that particular discussion has opened probably about 50 of them in the last few months and all but a few have been closed in the opposite direction of the one you just closed. The only reason it was as close as it was in the discussion you just closed is that most people have gotten tired of having to come by and make the same arguments again that they just made in the last one that was opened by that user and were successful in their last argument. It is a very bad case of IDONTLIKETHEM and IDIDNTHEARTHAT when it goes against them and its getting old having to have the same argument over and over again. This issue has gone to RfC on numerous occasions in all subjects not just hockey which is why I am getting tired of it being labelled a hockey issue since the only reason the hockey project came up with that compromise is because nowhere else on the wiki has been able to come to a consensus and we were getting tired of having these arguments over and over again. Ironically our compromise worked for years until one editor started making a fuss about it. -DJSasso (talk) 20:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * To be honest I feel that we are getting closer to a consensus, and that only patience is necessary now. It may take a year still, but I think it will get there. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I still see quiet a few of the 'hard core' pushing to eliminate diacritics altogether based on the rhetoric; I appear to be on the other side in wanting peoples' names to be shown accurately – that is to use the diacritics form when they exist. However, I feel that if a consensus is to be achieved, policy has to be changed. It may need to be something along the lines of what was achieved at WP:MOSNUM with respect to date formats. A compromise can surely be found where both sides accept that there will be cases where diacritics will be kept and those where they will not, along some clear criteria. This could be possibly along nationality lines, so we would have our own WP:ENGVAR, coupled with WP:TIES and WP:RETAIN. So those who expect total banishment of diacritics and or total uniformity of diacritics forms among Category:Czech ice hockey players are both likely to be disappointed. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 12:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, but it seems to me that the hard core people are getting fewer, and I for one has changed my mind, partly because of the lack of sane argumentation and the never ending stream of nonsense, insults and policy violations that come from one side of the camp. I still think that it is a non-obvious issue, but consistent incivility because you run out of arguments is indefensible. I think what we'll end up with is that Latin language scripts can be used without transliteration (and therefore retain diacritics) for proper names, but that everything else should use whatever form is most common in English language sources. It's going to take time to get people to accept this, and I would not be surprised if we'll see several of the hard core opposition to diacritics self-destruct before we get there. But that seems to be the way it's going IMO. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

You are correct, I have seen a slight shift towards that direction. The site-wide RfC on the issue earlier in the year did show that even a number of the people who opposed that particular wording were supportive of some sort of wording to the effect of diacritics being ok. I guess it will just be a wait and see thing. -DJSasso (talk) 13:17, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Mmmm, I certainly did not take into account the 'crash and burn effect', which is real enough; [in]civility fatigue could also cause the dynamic to alter quite dramatically. I just wonder how much longer it will take, and how much blood will be shed on the way to the promised land... -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 15:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with the above comments by Prolog, Djsasso and Coren, but the fact is that WP:COMMONNAME says: Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources, which is a good and justified argument in the hands of editors opposing the accent marks. I'm afraid their efforts are legitimate and we will have to watch growing inconsistency and the nonsensical, disruptive and repetitive RM voting lottery. This RfC will end and a new RM will start in next few days. We will parrot the same words again and again. Btw, a group of editors (the diacritic opposers) recently created a wikiproject dedicated to the problem of naming the articles on en:wiki, see WikiProject English. I believe their efforts will be better coordinated from now and we could eventually see all the players renamed with new made-up names. The ice hockey players on the en:wiki will be easily distinguishable from other professions, and that will be really encyclopedic :) Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:47, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I've made it a point, to tone down my rhetoric on these discussions/disputes. I hope other editors will make the same attempt, as 'regrettably' there's alot of emotions & sensativities involved. GoodDay (talk) 17:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I speak plainly and directly and some parts of my comments may seem emotionally exaggerated, but I don't want to offend anyone. Feel free to let me know if you feel offended and I'll remove or explain any possible problem with my rhetoric. Our cultural background is different and I'm well aware of that, but I don't think I've said anything totally inappropriate in my previous comment. I don't take this discussion personally, but I'm a bit disgruntled when I see endless repetition and obstruction, without any sensible result. But this is not the most important thing in my life or in the world, GD :) Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 18:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops, that was a indenting mistake by me. My request was ment for everybod, in 'future'. GoodDay (talk) 18:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

What does "Diacritics shall be applied to all player pages, where appropriate as for the languages of the nationalities of the players in question." mean? It seems to me that "where appropriate" means follow the article title policy and follow the usage in reliable English language sources. -- PBS (talk) 12:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It meant where peoples names actually include them. In other words don't make up diacritics. -DJSasso (talk) 12:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * But this is not what is say "where appropriate" implies when it fits in with WP:AT policy and that is based on usage in Reliable English language sources. If reliable English language sources, us the national spelling so should we. If they don't then we should not. -- PBS (talk) 10:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined by reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. - From WP:AT. So it's not so easy as to use the variant which is used the most. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:34, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I can't speak for other 'english only' readers, but TBH - diacritics are 'english only reader unfriendly'. PS- Thank goodness, books with english print 'are not' forced to use them. GoodDay (talk) 06:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think the hocky project should have its own guideline, an issue like this ought to be dealt with more centrally. However, I think the bar for taking out diacritics ought to be pretty high—I think we don't want to move Martina Navratilova to Martina Navrátilová, but when considering a subject with very little coverage in english RS, we need to be careful not to give too much weight to sources that drop diacritics merely for technical reasons. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 20:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * How would you go about determining what is a technical reason and what is simply a decision? When looking at the WTA, ATP or ITF websites they don't use diacritics in the player's names in the bios yet they do sometimes use diacritics in naming the players birth city or residence inthe same infoboxes. So it's not for technical reasons in those cases. I don't know the NHL's reasons. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I, for one, would happily rely on the consensus of Wikipedia as a whole, but lacking any such consensus, we organized a plan that attempted to serve as a compromise option that all sides could live with. And for several years, it worked. Resolute 22:58, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I am inclined to favour including the diacritics after reading the various arguments above. If some reliable sources use them and some don't then I believe the stipulation in BLP has more weight than COMMONNAME. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject English
As far as we can tell, we have had lengthy disagreement on this page, with two opposing camps and no sign of a clear consensus yet. The same is repeated on various RMs and other article-talkpage stuff. So, somebody decided to get around that problem by grouping together folk on one side of the debate only, away from this page, and set up an organised list of RMs, remind everybody in the group to vote on those RMs before the deadline... if that's not forging a consensus and subverting the usual community discussion, what is? bobrayner (talk) 17:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there gonna be a Wikipedia:WikiProject Non-english created? GoodDay (talk) 17:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Has this been discussed on some relevant noticeboard or other area where admins are involved and active? To me even the existence of this group seems to border on breaking policies. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah its almost like it is actually Wikiproject Canvass. -DJSasso (talk) 17:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * At least it's better than offsite coordination; I'll say that the organiser's favour. bobrayner (talk) 18:04, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Is it improper to post about relevant RMs to appropriate projects? That article titles should be in English is policy, not a side. This page is supposed to be about the naming conventions, so is it appropriate to created another location to discuss specific titles. Kauffner (talk) 18:20, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * TBH, WikiProjects-in-general, go against the principals of Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 18:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * A wikiproject designed to push a POV, such as this one, goes against the principles of Wikipedia. Wikiprojects in general are a good thing, as they help further collaboration. Resolute 01:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems that the basic difference of opinion is on the question of whether or not it is a POV to promote the use of the English language on English Wikipedia. Kauffner (talk) 23:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The disagreement lies in whether or not diacritical marks are acceptable in the English language. The debate above should make it patently obvious that there many who think they are not, and that there are many who think they are. Each of those is a POV, and each side has valid arguments.  That is, ultimately, why there is no Wikipedia-wide consensus on the usage of diacritics.  A project designed to push one of those POVs exclusively as the "right" solution is in violation of numerous policies. Resolute 05:56, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I seem to recall Adam Smith already concluded to the effect in The Wealth of Nations. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 01:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * A project to group together editors to specifically target one side of an issue is definitely inappropriate as that is the definition of canvassing. And no it isn't actually a policy, its a guideline. The appropriate place to list these discussions of specific titles is on the Request for move page where a general wide audience will see it, not those specifically on one side of an issue. -DJSasso (talk) 18:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the notification. As I see nothing "un-English" about diacritics, I've just joined. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 01:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Nominated for deletion, please feel free to contribute at Miscellany for deletion/Wikiproject English. Resolute 02:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I figured pro-diacritics editors were gonna join it, in order to neutralize it. GoodDay (talk) 03:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Its a pretty clear violation of the spirit of wikipedia, the five pillars and canvassing. Not to mention that Resolute has historically been against diacritics so your comment isn't close to accurate. -DJSasso (talk) 03:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * My point is: I knew it was gonna be nominated for deletion. I just didn't have the heart to tell its creator. GoodDay (talk) 03:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Why not? You're afraid he'll get even more unpleasant than he already is, and take it out on "vile repugnant scum"? -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 03:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Tautology?
I am reverting these changes for two reasons.

The minor one is for the movement of the section titled "No established usage" Why the move? -- PBS (talk) 07:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The other is that I think that the major substantive change introduced a tautology.

If a name is widely used in English-language sources then isn't that the [common] English language name? -- PBS (talk) 07:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

.

What does that mean? Mexico, and Mexico city are known as they are know in English, whether that is the name used in Spanish is not something we need to consider, just as Spain is called Spain whatever the name is various languages spoken in Spanish. The ponit is that we do not have to consider what is used in foreign language sources only common name in reliable English language sources. -- PBS (talk) 07:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * On the ordering of the sections, surely it's logical that the section "no established usage" should be next to (immediately after) the section on "divided usage"?--Kotniski (talk) 09:37, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Personally I don't see one as a continuation of the other and as such I think it is better off after "Modified letters", otherwise it promotes something that gets mixed up in notability before "Modified letters" which is a much more important section. But I don't hold very strong opinions on its placement. -- PBS (talk) 10:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The system introduced by WAID seems a lot more logical - three consecutive sections on "Established usage", "Divided usage" and "No established usage". And it should be pointed out (since it's undeniably true) that "No established usage" is the one that applies to the (numerically) vast majority of cases.--Kotniski (talk) 10:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * As to "nearly all people and places...", Mexico and Mexico City are among the exceptions, but "nearly all" is still correct - the vast majority of non-English people and places (think how many of them there are) don't have established English names like these, and in these cases we use the original names (except that we transcribe them using a standard system if they're in a non-Roman alphabet).--Kotniski (talk) 09:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I am not sure which of the two changes of WhatamIdoing made you are discussing here. Is it the change to the ordering of sections, or the addition of "If a particular name is widely used in English-language sources". If we are going to discuss this can we keep it within the context of the changes?-- PBS (talk) 10:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * @PBS: What you find to be tautologies, I find to be examples and explanations. It may be obvious to many people, but I do not think it is so for all. Further:
 * If a name is widely used in English-language sources then isn't that the [common] English language name? - Well, IMO, no. The examples given, f ex "La Traviata" is not English, it's Italian. Saying that this is the English name is pretty nonsensical, IMO. In this case (as with most things in the world) there is no "English name", the name is Italian. The same goes for most places and people in the world, who do not have English names.
 * Mexico, and Mexico city...Spain - These are examples of places that DO have English names. Of course then they should be used. But most places have no English names to use. Then their non-English names should be used.
 * It seems to me these explanations are necessary, and not tautologies at all, but that they definitely can be improved upon as they apparently were not as clear as they should have been. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:42, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If the name is commonly used in English language sources to identify something then it is the English name for that something, otherwise how do you judge what is or is not an English name. Is Paris an English language name? -- PBS (talk) 10:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Since it's the same as the French, I guess that's a matter of opinion that is pretty irrelevant. Are we using the English name "Paris" or the French "Paris"? The answer to that is apparently "Yes". But we are clearly using the English "Munich" and not "München". We are most definitely using the Swedish "Almedalen" with only 1360 hits on Google books, most of the guidebooks to Sweden.Ssaying that there is an English name for a park in a small town in Visby would be pretty absurd. I can't see anyone outside Sweden that hasn't visited the park or have a perverse interest in Swedish politics ever have heard of the place. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Precisely, we use the name as is commonly used in English language sources, as such whether a name like Paris is French or English is confusing the issue. Similarly if a painting is commonly called by one specific name in English language sources then that is its name wherever the word originates. If a name is not commonly used in Reliable English language source then it does not meet the requirement we are discussing as an addition to this guideline "If a particular name is widely used in English-language sources". I think trying to argue that one name commonly used in English language sources is a foreign name, and another is an English language name is to confuse the issue of how we source names. If a name is commonly used in Reliable English language sources then that is its English name irrespective of its origins. -- PBS (talk) 10:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * But in most cases no name is commonly used in reliable English-language sources (at least, not commonly enough for us to say that it's an "English" name). In these cases, encyclopedias use the original spelling of the name (assuming it's written in a Latin alphabet; otherwise they transcribe it).--Kotniski (talk) 10:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The point I am making with Spain or Paris is that we do not have to look at another language to see whether it is also a foreign name and the new sentence "However, you should follow this standard even when the name widely used by English-language sources is a non-English name" is either a tautology or an irrelevance when determining the common name in English. Only if there is no established name in reliable English Language sources (from what ever origin) do we need to start to look at foreign language names in which case that comes under "No established usage". Kotniski I think you and I are agreeing, but you are widening the conversation away from the specific changes that WhatamIdoing made and I am trying to address those specific points. -- PBS (talk) 11:00, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, if "Paris" is French or English is confusing since it's the same in both cases. :-) But otherwise it's usually not confusing the issue, IMO. Most names of places and people are clearly not English. Claiming that they are would confuse the issue though. See the diacritics debate where people claim "Bjorn Borg" is an English name, for example. It most definitely is not. So I'm with Kotniski here, in most cases there isn't enough usage in English language sources to talk about an English name. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That is the whole point unlike French there is no official name we do it by looking at what is commonly used in reliable English language sources. So it is not whether Bjorn Borg or Björn Borg is the "correct" English spelling "correct" is what is commonly used. We do not have to look at the original language to decide if the word is of foreign orighin because that is not relevant to deciding on usage in reliable sources and just confuses the issue (Is Paris French or English -- don't care it is what is used in reliable English languges sources and so is the English word) Do the Russians call Moscow something else? It does not matter what matters is what the pace is called in English language sources. If a thing does not have an established used in English but is otherwise notable then and only then do we look at foreign sources. To start to ask the etymology of a word that is commonly used in English is a step beyond the need to decide on what is commonly used therefore: "However, you should follow this standard even when the name widely used by English-language sources is a non-English name". is not relevant and is misleading (think Paris is it a non English name if not why not?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philip Baird Shearer (talk • contribs) 11:00, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem in this case is that many sources systematically misspell foreign names that contain umlauts or diacritics. According to all style guides and reference sources that's an error. It's no big problem for Björn Borg because he appears in sources of the highest quality and even in Britannica, so it's easy to prove what the correct spelling is even in an English context. It's also no problem for bigger cities and rivers because they are listed in Webster's Geographical Dictionary (available on Credo), always with the diacritics with the notable exception of Zurich. And it's not a problem with smaller geographical entities either because the most reliable sources on them use foreign names a lot and therefore spell them correctly. Nor is it a problem with relatively unknown writers, for similar reasons. But it is a problem for relatively unknown sports people, because the people writing about them are generally not interested in niceties of spelling. The result is that we have editors seriously proposing a scheme according to which a foreigner is first spelled correctly as long as their are no English sources, then stripped of his or her diacritics as he appears in low-quality English sources, and then spelled correctly again as he makes it into the New York Times and Britannica. Given that all style manuals agree that dropping diacritics for foreign names is an error or a compromise in the face of technical difficulties, that's ridiculous. Hans Adler 11:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

A good example for the problem is Lyon. "Lyon" is the French name, spelled according to modern French orthogoraphy, and is also how the majority of recent sources, including encyclopedias and Webster's, refer to the city. However, until recently the city was known in English under the spelling "Lyons", which is an old French spelling that fell out of use in France a very long time ago. This spelling also came with a different pronunciation ("lions" as a correct alternative to "lee-own") which did not attempt to mimick the French pronunciation. Therefore it can legitimately be considered a genuine English name for the city. It is also legitimate to consider "Lyon" to be the original French name transported into English texts, rather than the latest English name. With "Marseille" vs. "Marseilles" we have exactly the same problem except that the pronunciation is the same in both cases, so one can say it's just two spellings for the same name. See Talk:Marseille. In both cases, the mere fact that one spelling is the correct French spelling while the other is in a sense a home-grown English spelling is not a reason to prefer the latter when the former is what dictionaries indicate and the majority of modern speakers use. Hans Adler 11:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * @PBS: So it is not whether Bjorn Borg or Björn Borg is the "correct" English spelling  - It doesn't have an English spelling, so discussing what the correct English spelling is makes no sense. It's like discussing the correct way to catch a unicorn. :-) Recognizing this does not confuse the issue. It's when people insist that there is an English spelling that confusion arises.
 * and so is the English word - We aren't discussing words, we are discussing names. I do not have an English name any more than you have a Swedish one, I suspect. Saying "English words" or "English spelling" or "English names" confuses the issue, because it *is* confused. As noted, some places and some people have English names. Such as Munich, Charles the great, etc. Most do not. Misspelling them do not make them English. I don't care if the misspelling is common in English language sources, it is still not an English name. This is a fundamental point that needs to be understood to unfoncuse the issue. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I think this is where we have a problem. It is not a misspelling in English if it is the common name in English language sources (to say so expresses a editorial POV that goes contrary to verifiable English language sources -- if one goes down that path then we retreat several years to before the inclusion of WP:V in the naming process). If this page is meant to be a guidance to how we decide on the name of something based on the WP:AT policy, then a good place to start is with a survey of the usages in reliable English language sources. Trying to decide if it is a foreign name or an English name is not relevant to that decision (eg is Paris an English spelling?). In the example that Hans Adler gives of Lyon or Lyons, the question is not which one do the French use, but what is used in modern reliable English language sources. If they use Lyon then one could say that the older sources are not a reliable guide to current English usage, but if they do not then one can not say that the English usage is a misspelling just because the French spell it a different way. Nor can one say, if indeed Lyon is used in most modern reliable English language sources, that it is a non-English name for a foreign place.

Hans, Wikipedia is not a paper source so we can change a name to reflect the usage in reliable English language sources when they change so can the Wikipdia article title (WP:NOT a paper encyclopaedia or a crystal ball). So yes we can start with the name in foreign sources if the person is notable, we can use the name in American sports journal (but who cares about a minority sport like ice hockey let talk soccer) until they join the English Premier league and the name becomes completely mangled by clubs and newspapers (See the team page at Arsnel, Chelsea, MCFC and MUFC all completely diacritic free). I think you have to get over this hangup, of correct and not correct is all down to ignorance of the authors. I do not think that such judgements should be made by Wikiepdia editors against usage in reliable English language sources. For example see the Treaty of Orebro (Britain and Sweden) where the English and French use Orebro without an Ö, but then include Lawrence Baron d'Engeström with ö, both usages within the text of the treaty. So it is not ignorance or carelessness that dropped initial Ö in favour of O. The thing is, you will find that the English spelling of many foreign places is filtered through French (or Latin), because until relatively recently it was from those languages and not directly from the native European language that the word often entered English usage (Zurich may well be an example of this). -- PBS (talk) 07:51, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It is not a misspelling in English. Nor is it a spelling in English. It is in fact not English. This penny must unavoidably drop before any reasonable further discussion can be had on the topic. Just stop talking about a correct English spelling of foreign names such as "Björn Borg". No such thing exists. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And a misspelling does not somehow magically become a non-misspelling because it was first misspelled in a Latin text as opposed to an English one. :-) --OpenFuture (talk) 08:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It is English if the sources in English and the English people say it is. That's what makes the language so flexible. No matter how many times you say it isn't English won't change that. That's what we use... English sources no matter if they have diacritics or not. But as you say, this penny must unavoidably drop before any reasonable further discussion can be had on the topic. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:09, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Words and names are different things. You can import a word into English. But no matter how many times you'll use "Bjorn Borg" it will not become a part of the English language. It is not a word, it is a name, and will never appear in a dictionary. Claiming it to be English is nonsensical. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It's my impression that everyone except PBS thought these were improvements, both in the logical ordering (so that all sections on usages in sources were grouped together) and in explaining the most common case (that some editor's personal belief that a term widely used in English-language sources isn't "really" English and therefore ought to be translated for the benefit of monoglots is utterly irrelevant). Am I correct?  Shall we re-add the changes?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No and no. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes and yes, rather? Or if you really meant "no" - what are your objections?--Kotniski (talk) 10:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I did mean no and no per my talk above and in the hockey renaming debate. The first is overly wordy and simply boils down to "use the name which is widely used in English-language sources." The second can be a contradiction of the first and will confuse readers and cause more arguing. "Retain their original, non-English names in the English Wikipedia" may or may not be correct per widely used English-language sources. It sort of either we use "English sources/Common English name" or we don't. So I answered his last to queries (Am I correct - Shall we re-add the changes) no and no. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's any contradiction, and the proposed changes will actually reduce confusion and arguing, by explaining the situation better and more explicitly. If there's a common name in English, we use it, even if (according to some people's definition of "English") it's "not English". In the vast majority of cases there's no English name common enough to matter, so we use the original name and don't worry about scraping around for English sources and trying to imitate those. The most common sources of confusion this "guideline" produces are (a) that we might prefer to use one term over another because it seems to "be less foreign", rather than because it's more commonly used in (our preferred register of) English; and (b) that we care very much about how English sources spell a name when there aren't sufficient numbers of them to constitute established usage and we know the original spelling of the name from non-English sources. The changes seem to me to go some way to overcoming these misunderstandings.--Kotniski (talk) 21:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with your first point... we use the English sources. If the majority of those sources spell it using non-English letters then that's what we use. I don't agree with your second point that the "vast" majority have no common English name. Most can be found by simply searching through UK, US, Aussie and Canadian papers, news and books and will be covered by your first point. As they are in tennis where almost all players are covered by WTA, ATP, ITF, Davis Cup, Fed Cup, News, Wimbledon, etc. Hockey and Music have the same types of sources, it's what we use here at wikipedia, and I feel the second section will confuse readers into thinking that those are not enough (or quality) sources to matter. They are and we use them. Some arbitrary number of required sources just doesn't cut it imho. That second section is a contradiction of the first. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * But we don't do that; that's why this guideline tends to mislead. We follow the normal encyclopedic practice of spelling Latin-alphabet names in their original form, even if we don't have English sources that do exactly that with those particular subjects, and even if we have a certain number of English sources that do otherwise (by dropping diacritics, to take the most common example). We certainly use these sources for facts, results, etc., but we don't use them for spelling, when we have more authoritative (though possibly non-English) sources available. I know there are a few interminable warriors who would like (for reasons I can't entirely fathom) to do something different, but this guideline, if it is to exist at all, ought to document what Wikipedia (in line with professional encyclopedias) actually does.--Kotniski (talk) 13:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Therein lies a problem. "You" don't do that but many at wikipedia do. Our rules and guideline do not say what you have written. Perhaps you feel they should but we use English sourcing to arrive at how to spell a name, such as with diacritics. If the English sourcing does not contain those diacritics then we don't either. If they do then so do we. It's quite simple. English sourcing for everything and if for some reason there are none then certainly we shall use non-English sources. What you can't fathom works in the opposite direction for others. I will certainly use the press, books and official organizations for spelling since 99% of the time that's where we get our info. A tertiary source like another encyclopedia is not the best source for wikipedia but we look at those too. However if a name is not in one at all it's useless to us and we look somewhere else for other English sources from reputable places. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * But as has been pointed out ad nauseam in countless discussions, if we actually did what you suggest, we would end up with a worse encyclopedia, since we would oscillate randomly between using diacritics for some names and not for others, thus confusing and misinforming our readers. Thankfully we don't do that, and this guideline should make it clear that we don't. --Kotniski (talk) 11:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * We already know, ad nauseam, that this conversation always ends badly whilst going in circles. It is the guideline we are supposed to follow and many wikipedians do. It is not misinforming our English readers since we use and spell things in the English alphabet. Plus we also add in parentheses the spelling in it's foreign tongue so as to inform readers how to spell the word in it's homeland's language. If we find that English has not adopted a particular spelling that's when we fall back on using foreign languages. It's what we do in English. Then eventually even those foreign letters drop away as in hôtel and général and as has happened with all my own Polish family ancestral names once in the US. English is a very flexible language. You can try and impose on us foreign letters but they won't stick. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I would question why it's flatly stated we use English sources only - even if another source is known to have more accurate spelling. After all, WP:V doesn't exclude foreign sources, and rightly do. bobrayner (talk) 11:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Basically, we follow the usage in English-language sources because this is the English Wikipedia. The article is supposed to be written in standard English—all of it, including the article title.  However, what exactly constitutes "standard English" varies, depending on the subject. La traviata, although using Italian words, is the English-language title for that subject.  We know these Italian words are the English title because we know that all the English-language sources on that subject use those two Italian words as its name.  Looking at the Italian or German sources would not give you any idea at all what the English name for the work was.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Break
All this about "spelling" is making me suspect that we're talking about completely different things. I didn't change a single word in the section on diacritics. The addition is about using whole words that if you looked them up in a dictionary, you'd find in a non-English dictionary rather than an English-language dictionary.

Now I suppose that someone here might think that L-a t-r-a-v-i-a-t-a was just an "alternate spelling" for "the fallen woman" (a literal translation of the Italian words) or that s-h-a-l-o-m is just another way to spell "peace", but I'm betting that most of the fuss above is about whether some person's name should be typed with an é rather than an e. Am I right? Because if so, I'd really appreciate it if you stopped complaining about that irrelevancy, and spent some time reading the actual words in the proposal, which are:

"If a particular name is widely used in English-language sources, then that name is generally the most appropriate. Frequently, this will be an English-language name. However, you should follow this standard even when the name widely used by English-language sources is a non-English name. Many works of art, for example, are known by their original, non-English names: La traviata and La bohème are correctly given their original Italian names, rather than being translated to The Fallen Woman or The Bohemian. Religious concepts often retain their original names in English sources, and when they do, Wikipedia should follow these sources: Adelphopoiesis should not be translated as "brother making", Shalom should not be translated as "peace", and Agape should not be translated as "love". Similarly, nearly all people and place names retain their original, non-English names in English-language sources, and thus should retain their original, non-English names in the English Wikipedia."

Notice the complete absence of any reference to accent marks. Notice the focus on words that you'd find in a bilingual dictionary, rather than on people's names. Do we have any complaints about the specific text? Can anyone give an example of a problem this specific text might create? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I would probably have it more like this:
 * If a particular name is widely used in English-language sources, then that name is generally the most appropriate. Usually, this will be spelled using the English alphabet. However, you should follow this standard even when the name widely used by English-language sources is spelled using a foreign alphabet. Some people and place names retain their foreign lettering in English-language sources, and thus should retain that lettering if shown to be the predominant spelling in English-language sources.


 * Also, Many works of art are known by their foreign, non-English names: "La traviata" and "La bohème" are correctly given their original Italian names, rather than being translated to "The Fallen Woman" or "The Bohemian". Religious concepts often retain their foreign names and spellings in English sources, and when they do, Wikipedia should follow these English sources: Adelphopoiesis should not be translated as "brother making", Shalom should not be translated as "peace", and Agape should not be translated as "love". Similarly, some people and place names retain their original, non-English names in English-language sources, and thus should retain their original, non-English names in the English Wikipedia if shown to be predominant in English-language sources. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This still fails to make clear that we use modified letters (from Latin-based alphabets) even if some variation without them is predominant in English-language sources (unless the predominance is as great as it is in such cases as Napoleon and Mexico).--Kotniski (talk) 18:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Kotniski article names should use the common name used in English language sources. That some people familiar with the name as it appears in non English language sources, prefer that spelling and choose to ignore the spelling in English language sources is regrettable, that there are some people who have fixed ideas on how to spell words in English and ignore usage in reliable English language sources is regrettable, as both views damage the credibility of the project. -- PBS (talk) 06:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * But in most cases there is no sufficiently common name in English language sources. So we do look at how names are spelt in non-English sources. The way the guideline is worded, it seems to be talking about some fantasy world in which all foreign terms and names have established English names. The reality is not like that. I think, if we're not to be allowed to edit it to reflect actual practice (not just our practice, but that of other encyclopedias too), then much of this page needs to be marked "disputed" or some such, to indicate that it doesn't reflect consensus, but a few people's views and misconceptions.--Kotniski (talk) 09:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Fyunck, this is not the right section for spelling. I'm trying to get something in here about whole words, not about individual letters.  We already have a whole section entirely about whether the title should be spelled with the English alphabet.  La traviata is not spelled with a "foreign alphabet"; every single one of those letters is in the English alphabet.  La traviata is a title that uses non-English words, not non-English letters.  Do you understand the difference between a section about "words" and "letters"?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I do, but you also mentioned La bohème which does have foreign characters and your explanation could have been confusing. Now I'm not looking up that particular name so I have no idea what the common English version is but if it happened to be La boheme in most English sourcing then that's what we use. If it's La bohème then that's what we use. Then you have "Similarly, nearly all people and place names retain their original, non-English names in English-language sources, and thus should retain their original, non-English names in the English Wikipedia." That is confusing and just not right either and I would strike it completely. If you want to leave spelling out then keep it simple:


 * If a particular name is widely used in English-language sources, then that name is generally the most appropriate. In English sources many works of art are known by their original foreign names; for example La traviata and La bohème. We keep those words as per English-language sourcing rather than translating them to The Fallen Woman or The Bohemian. Religious concepts often retain their original foreign names in English-language sources, and when they do, we use the names given in these sources: Adelphopoiesis should not be translated as "brother making", Shalom should not be translated as "peace", and Agape should not be translated as "love". People and place names should also follow the same pattern of using the particular name that is most widely used in English-language sources.


 * I have now also kept out spelling as per your request. We also have to be careful about what is English and what isn't. We adapt to common usage. If we take the musical "Les Misérables"... the English translation is roughly "The Miserable Ones". We don't use the translation here because it's not most common in English. However the English phrase/word for the musical is simply Les Misérables or sometimes Les Miserables. Though my friends all call it Les Miz. :-) Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * That would be an improvement over what we've got now, which is not providing any of this basic information. As far as I'm concerned, you can add that to the page.  Any minor tweaks that seem necessary to other people can be handled later.   WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * WhatamIdoing I understand what you are tying to do, but I think you are making a mistake. Is "Paris" an English or a French word? We do not have to look at the etymology of words when looking to see if the name is used in reliable English language sources. I think that to do brings more confusion and less clarity. What you are suggesting to introduce just brings in a layer of complication to what can be summed up as "follow the source Luke". Would you like to give an example where the additional text you are proposing, solves problems we have had in naming issues that would not have been solved by the participants in such a debate just following common usage?  -- PBS (talk) 06:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Simply documenting "follow the source, Luke" is a desirable feature. Not everyone realizes that we expect them to follow the sources in this instance.  We write guidelines for the people who, unlike someone with your extensive experience, don't already know what the correct answer is.
 * As for an example, someone's been complaining elsewhere that people are violating this guideline by following the sources, because he personally believes that many of the "foreign" titles could be adequately translated into English (even though no reliable sources choose to do so in those cases). For example, he appears to want Gōzoku translated to "liege", even though nobody's found any English-language sources that do so, and the basic definition we have of the Japanese rank indicates that this is a significantly oversimplified (at the NOR-violating level) translation.
 * So that's my motivation: We have editors who don't already know to "follow the source, Luke".  We therefore apparently need to tell them these basic things.   WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * That example is something that was sorted out without guidance. The problem you will run into here is things that ought to be translated because they normally are, for example Army or University, even if there is no usage in English for that specific institution. Occasionally of course things are not translated into English because there are examples of their use in English eg Associação Académica de Coimbra – O.A.F. but University of Coimbra (and its associated student sports teams that are not notable enough to be mentioned in English language sources). -- PBS (talk) 03:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * That example wouldn't have been a dispute that resulted in an editor claiming the opposite of our actual practice and actual advice if we'd provided adequate guidance here in the first place.
 * I do not understand how your example is a "problem": Whatever that specific school is called in English-language sources, whether that's OAF or University of Coimbra or Associação Académica de Coimbra, is our first choice for the article title.  If our English-language sources refuse to translate it, then we, too, will refuse to translate it, no matter how much you personally believe it "ought to be translated".  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:19, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Move proposal

 * One useful step, I think, would be to rename this page from the slogan-y "Use English" to something more balanced, like "English and foreign terms" (the "naming conventions" is redundant too, as I keep saying, since the principles apply not just to article titles). A lot of the misunderstandings result from people looking at the title and assuming it means that we have an automatic preference for more English-looking or Anglicized terminology.--Kotniski (talk) 09:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I like your idea. I'm inclined to keep the "Naming conventions", but something like "(English and non-English terms)" might be an improvement.  Even something like "(Using English)" might be an improvement.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Kotniski it is better that naming conventions are kept separate from the MOS and vice versa. There is a perfectly adequate section in the MOS on this issue that does not need confusing by the contents of this page (MOS:FOREIGN). I think the current name is pithy and to the point. WhatamIdoing "English and non-English terms" implies that there is a clear distinction between the two difference the trouble is that is not true, many names are not one or the other, as they fall into a grey area between the two. -- PBS (talk) 03:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't really see why we need two separate pages/sections saying effectively the same thing (one that we "use English" in article titles, and one that we "use English" everywhere else) - why not just save space and duplication and just have a single page or section saying that we "use English"? We have WP:Article titles to discuss any of these points that apply specifically to titles. Also, if you think there's no clear distinction between terms that are "English" and terms that are "non-English", then that's a weakness of the present title of this page just as much as the proposed one (the present title implies that there is some "not-English" that we are instructed not to use). I think there are really two issues being covered in fact - one is the (pretty obvious) policy statement that English Wikipedia is written in English (seems to me that if we're going to have policy pages, then that would be a fairly essential one - it could also incorporate ENGVAR, or at least the principles of it). The other (which I'm not sure we need a separate page for - a section at MOS, and possibly a section at AT, would suffice) is how we deal with foreign terms (for various understandings of "foreign") when we may wish to use them.--Kotniski (talk) 09:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * PBS, I agree that a given word could be both English and non-English. But there really aren't any words that belong to no language at all.
 * My suggestion, however, is not an attempt to define the nature of a language. It's an acknowledgement that people have questions about that issue and would recognize such a page title as being relevant to the information they're seeking.   WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:16, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Order

 * Let's take the smaller questions, then: Fyunck, do you object to rearranging the sections?
 * Do you think it's sensible and orderly for the guideline to jump from "Usage according to the sources in Case #1" to "How we handle diacritics" and then back to "Usage according to the sources in Case #2", or is it okay with you if we put the "Usage according to the sources" sections next to each other?
 * Do you mind if we clarify the section headings to specify that the usage that matters is the usage in English-language sources, rather than any other kind of usage? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The placement doesn't bother me one way or the other and it makes some sense to keep them next to each other. There are some reasons to keep that paragraph under "modified letters" but I feel it works slightly better where you moved it. I also have no problem with changing the section headers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Do you think it would be better to have ==Modified letters== first (well, probably after the ==Include alternatives== section), and then the various ==Usage== sections? I don't really care, as long as the usage sections are together.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Imho either way is fine. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * All right. I've made the change, with the order based on nothing more important than what was easiest to copy and paste.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: section No established usage in English-language sources
I have run into this situation many times regarding the names of royalty in countries where those persons have been written about in the native languages, but never or extremely seldom by authors of English. The only mentions in English-language literature of some of these persons has been in a few publications by people from those countries, in translations to English where it has been obvious to me that any knowledge of available English exonyms has been practically non-existant, and/or such exonyms have been considered uninteresting.

How, when writing English, could a Swedish writer know, for example, that there already are established English name forms to use, such as Anwynd (for Swedish Anund) or Reginald (for Swedish Ragnvald), rather than using the phonetically cumbersome Swedish spellings?

My question (just a clarifying example) is this:


 * Simply speaking, if there were one world famous King John of Finland who has been called King John in English literature primarily by English writers (as opposed to non-English writers of English), but also an earlier and virtually unknown King John (never treated by any English authors), current policy seems to say that the article name of the latter (only) should be Juhana I of Finland. If I am interpreting current policy correctly, is that good policy?

I hope I've made the general question clear enough to be discussed. SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I think you have interpreted it correctly, and I think the policy is right. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So you think we would be right in WP-naming such kings
 * Juhana I of Finland
 * John II of Finland
 * ?? Care to explain how that could be a good idea? SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I do. Since one apparently has an established usage as "John II" this is what the name should be, as this is what people expect. Anyone looking for him will look for "John II". The first king has no established usage in English, so anyone looking for him are using Finnish sources and would look for him as "Juhana I". This is no more strange than that Alexander the Great is the title of Alexandros son of Philippos, both kings of Macedon; while Alexandros Zaimis article is called Alexandros. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I see your point and respect your opinion, but feel totally convinced that readers of English always would look for a John first. They wouldn't even know about the Finnish name, unless they knew Finnish, so how could they look for that? SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * First of all, you're supposed to set up suitable redirects so that no matter what (reasonable title) the reader searches for, he'll find it.
 * Second, if no source ever writes about the older king under an English name, then why would they be looking for an English name at all? Surely readers search for things under the names that they have encountered the subject before.  If they've never seen anyone write about "John I of Finland", then they won't be searching for "John I of Findand" here, either.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Re: your first point, of course!
 * Re: your second question, if they knew there was a second John, mightn't they look for the first one? SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Re: the second point: Possibly (not often), but that possibility is easily dealt with by the first point. ;-) bobrayner (talk) 03:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * They'd look for the first one in the List of Finnish monarchs, reasonably. (He ain't there, btw, there never was a John I of Finland, but I do realize this discussion is all hypothetical. :-) ) --OpenFuture (talk) 04:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Because of he way information about Japanese material is spread and the fact that many official translations of a work into English can be obscure, there's a similar situation for several anime, manga, and video games: something has an official name in English, but someone writing about it probably wouldn't use that official name. Even most English speakers writing about it may not use the official name. But the rules have been contrived to prohibit use of the more common name. Examples include Soukyugurentai/Terra Diver (over twice as many Google hits for the Japanese name) and Detective Conan/Case Closed (over three times as many hits when used with anime to avoid bad hits on 'case closed' as a phrase); and even many of the hits which do have the English term include the Japanese term first while this is not true in reverse. Ken Arromdee (talk) 23:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * We don't really care what your favorite web search engine says. That tends to tell you what fans are writing in their blogs.  The real question is, what do your very best English-language reliable sources give as the name?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed at WP:RM: Bande à part (film) → Band of Outsiders
A discussion [and ultimate vote] of interest to participants is taking place at Talk:Bande à part (film).&mdash;Roman Spinner (talk) 08:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Diacritics section needs a link to MOSPN
Can someone please add a see also to Manual of Style/Proper names. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Anyone there? :) Or is it okay if I do it myself? Probably under no usage. "If this happens, follow the conventions of the language in which this entity is most often talked about (German for German politicians, Turkish for Turkish rivers, Portuguese for Brazilian towns etc.)." In ictu oculi (talk) 16:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * There should not be a link as this is a naming convention and Manual of Style/Proper names is a part of the Manual of Style. As such "Proper names" is about content and is a supplement to MOS:FOREIGN which explains when to reference WP:UE.  -- PBS (talk) 17:26, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Is your point that WP:Naming conventions (use English) only applies to titles and therefore cannot link to Manual of Style/Proper names which has no application to titles? In ictu oculi (talk) 17:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The section Manual of Style/Proper names now has a header that links to MOS:FOREIGN which has a link to WP:UE that has a "Further information" at the top to this guideline. I think putting a link from here back to Manual of Style/Proper names would create a circular link that is unnecessary and would lead to confusion.
 * There should be nothing in Manual of Style/Proper names that contradicts MOS:FOREIGN (this is currently under discussion on the talk page of Manual of Style/Proper names), what exactly is it you think is mentioned in Manual of Style/Proper names that needs to be mentioned here? -- PBS (talk) 18:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes you've inserted without consensus a link from MOSPN (which gives guidance encouraging diacritics) → FOREIGN saying "For details of how decide on the appropriate usage, see the section Foreign terms in the MOS." (the wording without consensus), when in fact there are no more details. But you don't want a ← back the other way from FOREIGN to MOSPN. It would be less of an issue if you hadn't attempted to delete the diacritic guidance earlier. I understand that you disagree with the guidance, but it has been in the article many years, it is helpful and it is the defacto consensus of the majority of WP articles. You do not have consensus to direct away from it to "details" in another page which don't exist, and also reject a link back. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:11, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * What is it that you think in that the MOS guideline (Manual of Style/Proper names) needs to mention here in this naming convention? -- PBS (talk) 20:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Moving Trollhunter to Trolljegeren?
In the light of Talk:Trollhunter and WT:RM, I would invite you to improve consensus in Talk:Trollhunter Feel free. --George Ho (talk) 19:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Use non-English words when English sources do

 * See previous Archive 10: Tautology?

I still believe that this guideline needs to explain when we choose non-English titles instead of their translations. Here are my thoughts on it:


 * 1) No experienced editor actually thinks that the article title for the famous opera ought to be at The Fallen Woman rather than at La traviata, because 100% of English-language reliable sources use the original non-English name.  The rule, at its heart, is that whatever English-language sources call a thing is what Wikipedia should call that thing.
 * 2) But we get people seriously confused about this, and who go off telling people that these article titles have to be translated, using some Wikipedian's made-up translation (because there no translation is used in the reliable sources).  Usually, their argument in favor of translation is as simplistic as "But the guideline's shortcut is USEENGLISH, so I have to use words that are found in my English dictionary!"

The previous discussions have had two objections:


 * PBS asserts that we don't need to have this section because everybody already knows all of this, which leaves me wondering why we keep having disputes over whether (e.g.) it's okay to use Japanese words as article titles for Japanese concepts when every single source cited in the article exclusively uses the Japanese terms. I think this usually comes with a side order of being unable to figure out whether or not "traviata" is an Italian or an English word.
 * Someone (not always the same person) tries to drag in the question of WP:DIACRITICS and has to be told three or four times, with increasing bluntness, to please look at the example given and see if he can spot any diacritics in the title La traviata, and upon finding none, indicates that in his opinion, the section on using the title given in English-language sources, even if that title contains words that can be found in non-English dictionaries, ought to either duplicate or contradict the diacritics ("non-English alphabet") section, depending on his POV.

And recently Kauffner has asserted that it's "simpler" to leave people in the dark, which I'll agree with—not better, IMO, but it is simpler to omit useful information. Indeed, IMO a blank page would be simplest of all. It's not, however, what I recommend.

Basically, I think Philip is wrong: we have a problem with this, so we actually need to give this advice. And the other objections are pretty much irrelevant, since they don't have anything to do with the subject at hand. What do the rest of you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Sounds reasonable and reflects English usage. I even know Americans who use non-English words in English context because a translation would spoil the meaning. In European English it is commonplace. Agathoclea (talk) 04:06, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * WhatamIdoing I think you are not representing my point of view as I expressed it (see Archive 10: Tautology?). My objection is that if a name is used in English language sources then is it is the English name or a foreign one? At what point does a name stop being foreign and become English? For example we have an article called The Vache is that a French or an English name (fr:Vache)? Is Hotel a English or French word? Is Zurich an English name for a foreign town or a foreign name for a foreign town? -- PBS (talk) 07:41, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Hotel is an English word because that word is found in every English-language dictionary.
 * Vache is not an English word, because that word is not found in English-language dictionaries. Instead, you'll find the English word cow there to describe that subject.
 * And the whole point of the section proposed is to tell people that since the estate in Buckinghamshire is called The Vache by all of our English-language sources, then the article title needs to be The Vache, and neither translated to "The Cow" nor corrected to "La vache". While this is tolerably obvious to you and me, it is not (as evidenced by repeated questions) obvious to less experienced editors.
 * The exact determination of whether a word is Truly English™ is really unimportant. At no point does this proposed text say, "First, figure out whether the title is Truly English™."  It just says that—whatever language it may or may not be—if the English-language sources use those words, then those words are the correct title and count as "using English" as far as this guideline is concerned.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I am struggle to see why WhatamIdoing's edit was removed, what is being said here is not a tautology, simply giving guidance and examples as a reflection of what en.wikipedia.org's 4 million articles actually do. I cannot see how anyone can quarrel with either the point or the examples selected. Or rather I do not see a convincing argument from en.wp reality or alternative examples advanced against WhatamIdoing's edit.In ictu oculi (talk) 04:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * So far, the only relevant argument seems to be that omitting the section makes the guideline shorter and therefore "simpler", if you believe that demonstrably leaving people confused constitutes a simpler guideline.
 * PBS goes on about the interesting philosophical question of whether the words are Truly English, but since it never requires editors to make that determination, that objection seems completely irrelevant to me. So forme, this boils down to whether we choose to write out what PBS and I have long known the actual practice is, or if we should continue to make this one of the unwritten rules.  I favor transparency and communication myself.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:18, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

For example see this sentence "You should follow this standard even when the name widely used by English-language sources is a non-English name".

Firstly "widely used by English-language sources" is not the same as the wording in WP:UE which says "The choice between anglicized and local spellings should follow English-language usage" or the wording "no established usage in English-language sources" and I think is an undesirable addition.

Secondly if a name is widely used in English language sources it is an English name. If not what is the English name? The point is precisely that we do not need to know that "Vache" is a French word. BTW Did you know that there are at least two islands that have Vache in the name. One of them (in the Southern Pacific) is named after the estate. So even if a translation was given for the one off Haiti Île à Vache, it would be odd to translate the Pacific one because it is named after an English place. But the point is we do not need to know that the word originated in French, the name is what it is in English.

Perhaps wording like this could be used:

I do not think the rest of the section brings any clarity to the issue and also I think that the proposed section says nothing that is not already said in policy short cuts WP:COMMONNAME and WP:UE. It may well be better to append the art example after the sentences in WP:UE that say:
 * "In deciding whether and how to translate a foreign name into English, follow English-language usage. If there is no established English-language treatment for a name, translate it if this can be done without loss of accuracy and with greater understanding for the English-speaking reader." ++ "Many works of art, for example, are known by their original foreign language titles: La traviata and La bohème in most reliable English language sources, rather than being translated to The Fallen Woman or The Bohemian".

-- PBS (talk) 20:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see the main problem with the paragraph that was added is that it is citing too many examples (people will get the point with one or two) and only examples of foreign names being retained. So, it's not neutrally worded and misleads editors into thinking that we almost always keep the foreign name for works of art.
 * To correct that problem, what we need is adding an example of a work of art that was translated. For example we have Mozart's opera The Magic Flute rather than Die Zauberflöte. We have Eiffel Tower rather than La Tour Eiffel.
 * If you keep an equal amount of examples on both sides of the equation, then it will look neutrally worded. MakeSense64 (talk) 05:38, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think that it is desirable to make this sound like it's just COMMONNAME. We should make this parallel to the other sections:   ==Divided usage in English-language sources==, ==No established usage in English-language sources==, and therefore ==Established usage in English-language sources==.  We're talking about three out of three possible cases, not one case of COMMONNAME and two cases of usage in English-language sources.
 * Other than that, PBS's wording would be an improvement over the confusing silence that we have now, and I encourage him to add it.
 * I don't think there is any need to provide examples of titles being translated into English, because those aren't being disputed or causing confusion. Therefore doing so would be unnecessary.
 * On the other hand, I think that the list of examples is somewhat useful, because it identifies the particular areas in which this problem comes up most frequently: religion, people, and places.  I also believe that the pointer to DIACRITICS would be useful ("(For decisions about whether to use the English alphabet (e.g. La bohème versus La boheme) see the above section on modified letters.)") so that we don't have people invoking this section when they don't like what DIACRITICS says.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:52, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Since this is the page about "use English", I don't see why we wouldn't need examples of foreign names being translated in English, while adding several examples of foreign names being kept. I don't object to adding a section about "==Established usage in English-language sources==", but phrase it neutrally and give an example of foreign name being translated like The Magic Flute next to an example of a foreign name that is established in English-language usage, e.g. La Traviata.
 * So PBS' sentence can be further improved like this: ""Works of art, can be known by their translated name (e.g. The Magic Flute and The Flying Dutchman), or can be known by their original foreign language name (e.g. La traviata and La bohème in most reliable English language sources, rather than being translated to The Fallen Woman or The Bohemian")." What exactly is the objection against giving examples of translated names? MakeSense64 (talk) 05:07, 3 June 2012 (UTC)