Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English)/Archive 4

Examples
In a new attempt to enhance the practicality of this guideline (and its coherence with other naming conventions guidelines), I propose an approach where on this talk page we would work with examples, lots or examples - first see if we can agree on these examples, without worrying about how to grasp that in a guideline formulation.

My best guess at this point is that if we have enough examples on which we agree, that the way the guideline should be (re)formulated would be the easiest part, after a certain time.

A German-English example
A month ago someone created Eine Alpensinfonie - today I created An Alpine Symphony as a redirect to that page.

So, for me, I'm quite indifferent whether the one is the content page and the other the redirect, or vice versa - anyway, as far as I'm concerned the present situation is OK, and I see no reason to propose a change.

Any ideas? --Francis Schonken 14:46, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


 * A cursory web search indicates that "Eine Alpensinfonie" is by far the commoner title in use, so I'd stick with that for the content, and keep "An Alpine Symphony" as the redirect. --Stemonitis 08:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * We probably should not use An or Eine in the article title. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

A French-English example
Fin de siècle exists already for some time, current redirects: In this case I have a preference: "Fin de siècle" has a richer set of connotations than the English equivalent/calque; without accent grave doesn't seem too suited to me, and French with hyphens is probably not as current as without. In other words, my present preference is to keep it as it is, only, maybe still add Fin-de-siecle as a redirect. --Francis Schonken 12:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * (French): Fin-de-siècle
 * (Without diacritics): Fin De Siecle, Fin de siecle, Fin de Siecle
 * (English): Turn-of-the-century, Turn of the century


 * Lets keep as is, calquing is the work of the Devil.Cameron Nedland 02:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

A French/English-English example
A bit more tricky - I proposed this WP:RM:


 * Talk:Salomé &mdash; Salomé → Salome – "Salome" appears to be more often used in English than "Salomé", e.g. Oscar Wilde names his play Salomé in French and Salome in English, see Salome (play) for the original text of both the French and English version of this play

Please go vote at talk:Salomé one way or another, this helps making clear how the wikipedia community thinks about the border zones of WP:UE! --Francis Schonken 19:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


 * After a fairly unanymous vote, the page was moved to Salome. --Francis Schonken 09:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

A Norse/Old English-English example
Another WP:RM vote recently initiated:


 * Talk:Níðhöggr/Archive 1 &mdash; Níðhöggr → Nidhogg – Move article back to English name for the mythical creature... editor who moved it claims that if a name isn't common enough in English by his standards that we should use archaic Icelandic instead, rejecting the Use English standard and creating his own. DreamGuy 23:16, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I've been using 10 sources to write that article, 5 of them are in English. None of them uses or even mentions the spelling "Nidhogg" which is now being claimed to be "the English form". - Haukur Þorgeirsson 19:37, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Notification copied here by Francis Schonken 19:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I closed this vote on December 4th as having no consensus either way. Please continue any unresolved discussion from the vote here, not on the associated talk page. JRM · Talk 01:18, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Diacritics, South Slavic languages
I've been searching many Wikipedia: namespace articles for "established" convention of naming the articles with diacritics but I'm confused at the end. So, I'll pose this as a question:

How to name articles with diacritic (non-Western) letters about South Slavic topics?.

The current situation is pretty much a mess. Take a look at e.g. Category:Serbia stubs. Most pages do have diacritic marks on Serbian-specific letters (š, č, ć, ž), but some don't (Kostana, Marko Lopusina). And no, there are no "well-established English names" nor the language(s) have "official transliteration" -- the most common 'transliteration' is mere "drop the diacritics". My proposal for resolving the situation is to create non-diacritic pages redirecting to "diacritic" ones (like Nada Obric). In this way, one gets correct spelling (which matters) but English speakers can relatively easily find the page using solely English letters. But this ought to be listed somewhere as an official policy so that I don't waste my time convincing other editors (most of them from Balkans) to do so for every affected page. Duja 11:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is indeed a good suggestion and it is in practice what is done for almost all articles for locations and people related to European countries which use the Latin alphabet, exceptions are places which have English names separate from the name used in the country, e.g. Nuremberg. There are also some articles, manly stubs, which do not use the diacritics marks but when people get round to expanding them they are usually moved to the version with diacritics by the expander. It is very difficult to get this into the "official" policy, even when there is a broad majority for this, see e.g. Naming conventions (Norse mythology) and the talk page there, and if these moves get posted to Requested moves there are always some people who have never look at the article but start opposing. Stefán Ingi 12:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry for multiposting – Wikiproblems; fixed. OK, I'll see what I can do among the, erm, community of South-European editors about it.
 * It would be far easier to make it an official policy though -- are you referring to the, erm, doubtful 62:48 vote on Diacritics (I only stumbled over it)? Duja 12:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Current article moving policy with voting is IMO also a bad idea. And voting is, for the most part, a bad idea as well. I already moved pages few times without the consensus, fixing obvious mistakes. It makes it difficult to fix things that are more or less obviously misnamed. Duja 12:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I wholeheartedly agree with you, Duja, as can be seen in my latest screed on Talk:Níðhöggr where I use Lech Wałęsa as an example. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 12:28, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah, thus the link to Talk:Níðhöggr ;-). Voted. Noblesse oblige :-). Duja 12:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

A Polish/French-English example
In 1810 a guy was was given the name Fryderyk when he was born in Poland. When he was 20 years old he moved to Paris, hence his first name was better known as Frédéric. The English equivalent of that is Frederic (or Frederick?), nonentheless the wikipedia article is at Frédéric Chopin. That's OK for me, though I could live with Frederic Chopin too. Note that on recordings with the sleeve notes in English the name is most often written with the French accents, so there seems no problem at all to keep the guy where he is now. --Francis Schonken 11:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

An American/South Slavic roots/Belgian-English example
This pianist and composer lives in the French-speaking part Belgium for nearly 30 years: Frederic Rzewski. Nonetheless his first name did not get affected by French accents. --Francis Schonken 11:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

A German/Italian-English example
Crowned Emperor in Rome, he was known in his home country by his German name: Friedrich I. von Hohenstaufen, with a nickname that was the Italian version of Redbeard. The wikipedia article is at Frederick Barbarossa - why not Friedrich Barbarossa? Or Friedrich Redbeard? Or Frederic Barbarossa? Or Frederic Redbeard? etc... I think "Barbarossa" is agreed to be the common name. Whether "Friedrich" or "Frederick" is more suitable as first name mentioned in the wikipedia article name I don't know, but I can live with what it is now. --Francis Schonken 11:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I personally have only heard him called Fredrick Barbarossa.Cameron Nedland 02:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

An Estonian-English example
The Estonian composer Arvo Pärt is known in the Western world usually with the diacritical on the "a" of his last name. Maybe some record sellers have him in the search engine as "Part", e.g. Amazon, but when they show an image of a CD (which nowadays have almost always the title and notes in English), the spelling is always with the diacritical, e.g. "Orient & Occident" at Amazon

So, no, I don't think this problematic, "Arvo Pärt" seems the only logical choice. --Francis Schonken 11:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

A Czech/Bohemian-English example
For similar reasons as the previous I prefer Leoš Janáček above Leos Janacek or Leos Janácek for the article title in English wikipedia. In this case the version without accents has a higher Google result than with diacriticals. Nonetheless, English CD's, concert program notes and books (like John Tyrell's Janáček's Operas) always have the diacriticals, as well on vowels as on consonants. --Francis Schonken 11:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The diacritics will cause fewer mispronunciations.Cameron Nedland 02:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

A Polish-English example
The Polish union leader that later became president is now at Lech Wałęsa. With this one I don't agree: this guy has major press coverage in the Western world, where his name is nearly always spelled Lech Walesa, for example the Time magazine covers shown in Lech's article. "Lech Wałęsa" seems like "Fryderyk Szopen" to me: an irrelevant academic correctness for an article title, while that name, by native English speakers, is without doubt much easier recognised as "Frédéric Chopin".

Consequently, I'll trigger a WP:RM on Lech (to my surprise there doesn't seem to have been one yet). --Francis Schonken 11:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * After a fairly unanymous vote, the page was not moved. --Francis Schonken 07:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * FWIW, whatever correctness there may be to "Fryderyk Szopen" is not of the academic kind. "Chopin" is based not so much on FC's adult life as an expatriate in France as bcz it was the French name of his French father, who was in Poland as an expatriate (and presumably searcher after his lost-for-generations Polish roots). --Jerzy•t 04:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I have to say that I think you are making a lot of work out of something which is not going to be resolved this way. All that will be decided are the names of some specific articles, it is not a way to work out policy. This issue has been discussed for over a year and no agreement has been reached. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:36, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I made some work out of it (but don't exaggerate). Whether in the end it will make the guideline more practical, I don't know. I don't see a "line" in the examples yet, I mean: not something I could formulate in a simple principle. Maybe in the end the examples make us start to see a "line", which might help in a clearer formulation of the guideline. Maybe not, but then maybe a choice of representative examples (that help others in making choices) can be added to the guideline, for instance like Naming conventions (common names) which has several examples, as well of instances where the most "common name" has been used, as of instances where that was not the case. But for that conventions text, the whole, that is the principles and their explanation & exceptions + selected examples, give IMHO an insight in how it works - which is far from how things are w.r.t. WP:UE, which is presently only used to slap other wikipedians on the head with, whatever preference one wants to push.
 * Don't take your failures out on me. I don't intend to "discuss" at length too much. Let examples speak for themselves as much as possible. If the examples bring clarity I'm sure that will make the discussion in the end shorter, while clearer and less emotional. --Francis Schonken 12:26, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

It is not my failure or anyone else's. This issue has turned out to be as is a devise as American English and Commonwealth English. The examples you are dredging up are not going to clarify the situation. The 60% threshold for a consensus for an individual "Wikipedia:requested move" can not be used as an indication for setting a Naming Convention, which must need to be closer to a true consensus than a 60% supermajority for controversial and divisive issues. If I did not think you were acting out of misguided good faith I would be tempted to thing that this was a troll. --Philip Baird Shearer 13:19, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I suppose I think oracle-like assertions ("The examples you are dredging up are not going to clarify the situation") even of less help. --Francis Schonken 13:36, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Another attempt to build a consensus
Clearly as the straw poll shows the Wikipedia community is at present not able to build a consensus over the use of diacritics in article names. Over the last year this issue has wasted a lot of time for a lot of Wikipedia editors and Francis Schonken's latest attempt will IMHO waste a lot more without reaching any consensus. So I have added the following to the page.


 * ''Words with diacritics need not be respelled to contain only the 26 letters of the English alphabet, nor vice-versa; for example, either Zurich or Zürich is acceptable. If agreement can not be reached over the spelling of a word, then consider following the spelling style preferred by the first major contributor (that is, not a stub) to the article.

The first sentence is an adaptation of the current WP:UE "American spellings need not be respelled to British standards nor vice-versa; for example, either Colour or Color is acceptable." The second WP:MOS "If all else fails, consider following the spelling style preferred by the first major contributor (that is, not a stub) to the article."

I have removed my original third sentence from the previous attemt, which was an attempt to adapt the WP:UE phrase "However, any non-Latin-alphabet native name should be given within the first line of the article (with a Latin-alphabet transliteration if the English name does not correspond to a transliteration of the native name)" because this has been added with other words since I originally proposed this compromise. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:36, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't agree with your new paragraph, so I removed it. Simply said: there's no consensus to push it that way. If you fear to waste time with the approach "by examples", then I wouldn't invite you to take part in it: just make up your own mind. I can't guarantee any results re. the guideline formulation, but I see that any WP:RM vote in the end has a "result" (whether that result is qualified "consensus" or not), in the end an article is at one place or another. Pushing your preference, after having established that all previous attempts did not result in anything is obviously a loss of time too, while simply, there's no consensus about it.
 * re. "...style preferred by the first major contributor", I wouldn't apply it in this case. It was applied -against what I'd proposed- in WP:CITE. A few weeks later the person pushing the formulation was on my user talk page asking I'd comment on the RfC conducted against him, based on the interpretation of "...style preferred by the first major contributor". So I think "...style preferred by the first major contributor", is not the way forward, if other techniques to achieve consensus (like WP:RM) are available. --Francis Schonken 12:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

After a year of this there is no consensus available via WP:RM or consensus building on this page. WP:RM uses a very low threshold for consensus and in every case where there is a debate there is no agreed method for deciding which style of spelling is the "best" one. So any WP:RM debate only applies to that page. Further when we tried to hold a straw poll about the issue there was no consensus.

The wording I have added does not say that one has to use the first contributer only to suggest that is is used if no other agreement can be reached. This does not stop a vote in WP:RM reversing it for specific pages. The wording is from the AE CE section of the WP:MOS and works well in disputes over different English spellings and words Eg color/colour or petrol/gasoline or tram/street car. So the wording does not stop you putting up test cases (although I think them a waste of time).

I am going to reverse your removal. If someone else (other than you) delets the two sentences then so be it, I will not put them back again. This is nothing against you but it seems the easiest way for us to agree to differ. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * So, pushing your POV in the guideline whatever the odds? Presently there's 50% of the people involved who want it in (that is you), and 50% of the people involved who want it out (which is me). Which can only be called "consensus" in a very confused way ("it seems the easiest way for us to agree to differ" - what a convoluted nonsense). If no consensus, it goes out. --Francis Schonken 12:43, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

No Francice I am trying to avoid a revert war with you, please read what I wrote. I said if another person agrees with you and delets it I will not revert it. Seems to me that I an not "pushing [a]  POV in the guideline whatever the odds". But as you and I dissagree all that is happening now is that we are getting into a revert war. --Philip Baird Shearer 13:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It's not up to you to make the rules of how consensus works. And re-invent them every time we meet. You removed some of my stuff from Naming conventions (names and titles) saying I had not been successful in building consensus prior to making the change (quote: "You have not built a consensus to do this so please do not make any changes to the article until you have built a consensus to do so." diff - note that the change in question had been notified on the talk page of that guideline and on current surveys without receiving any negative comment several weeks before I operated the change). Now apply the same principles to yourself. --Francis Schonken 13:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Hello! I concur with Francis Schonken: this is probably not the way to go about arriving at consensus on this.  As well, there's a distinct difference between rendering different dialectic spellings in English (e.g., American/British, et al.) and words with non-native derivation.  In absence of any consensus I support inclusion of variants, not exclusion of one or the other based on what may or may not be a subjective instigating preference.  Including this is not a modus vivendi: discuss it here and arrive at consensus here first.  E Pluribus Anthony 13:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * tx, let's return to reasonable arguments. --Francis Schonken 13:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I am also in favour of including common variants on the first line of the article. This is nothing to do with that. This is to do with whether the page should reside under the name Zurich or Zürich and how to minimise disputes over the name of the article. --Philip Baird Shearer 13:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * We agree to disagree; these numerous issues are inextricably linked. Until consensus is reached (or identified) on these issues, and there is currently none, discuss them here before amending conventions. E Pluribus Anthony 21:24, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Haukurth's proposal
When considering a title change for an article it can be useful to consider some of the following questions, though none of them settles the matter definitively.


 * What spelling did the first author of the article use?
 * What spelling do those who have contributed most extensively to the article seem to prefer?
 * What spellings are used in the references used to write the article?
 * What spellings are used in other reference works which treat the matter in similar detail?
 * Are there any technical issues involved? Have they changed in the past? Will they change in the future?

Try to work with other regular editors of the article in question towards solving the question with consensus or a compromise. If outside attention is needed a move request can be filed and a vote started. Votes are usually a poor framework for building consensus so consider using that option only when all else fails. Try to stay cool and maintain a sense of proportion - the title of the article is far less important to the reader than the contents of the article.

(moved here for discussion by Francis Schonken)

What has this to do specifically with "use English"? Rather seems stuff for naming conflict or for the intro of requested moves. --Francis Schonken 21:20, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, this is quite general and might belong elsewhere. But it's the "use English" convention which seems to be the most flammable part of our article naming scheme (being vague and disputed) so I thought it would be at home there. These are thoughts along similar lines as Philip's live-and-let-live idea and I feel they might be helpful.


 * But if you think this is out of place then that's fine, I'm not going to press the issue. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 21:32, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Hello! What's good for the goose may not be for the gander.  I believe another meaning of 'live-and-let-live' may be to let sleeping dogs lie: discuss proposed changes (that may or may not be NPOV) before amending or adding to Wp conventions and (given long-standing controversies) only when consensus is reached or IDd with them. E Pluribus Anthony 21:40, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Neah, just boldly edit the thing. Someone will revert you if they don't like it. And there's no consensus on the present convention anyhow - or at least no consensus in how to interpret it. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 21:43, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Noted. I sometimes agree in shaking the tree to see what falls from it ... just so long as you're not injured in the process.  If the fruit is forbidden, so much the better.  :)  E Pluribus Anthony 21:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Standardized names across all wikis?
Is an alternate that might be better than having language-x-ized articles all over the place, and making life oh-so-difficult on transwiki bots and other automated validity tools, as well as difficult on search engines.Kim Bruning 03:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't understand what any of that means. —Michael Z. 2005-12-6 04:18 Z 
 * If you use the same name for an article in all languages (at least when refering to proper nouns), you get the added advantage of being able to find the artice quickly in all languages, and you'll be able to translate between articles that much faster. Kim Bruning 04:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Do you mean the article titles only? I couldn't see this working out.  There would be too much resistance if I moved Taras Shevchenko to Тарас Шевченко, or Beijing to 北京, for example.  —Michael Z. 2005-12-6 04:34 Z 


 * Which is probably petty, because redirects take all the pain out of that. Of course, if there's some way that redirects *don't* take all the pain out... then that's interesting. Kim Bruning 04:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, there's the title at the top of the page and in the browser's title bar. If you browsed a bunch of articles on Chinese cities, you'd have a hard time going back to a particular one in your browser's history, unless you can read Chinese.  —Michael Z. 2005-12-6 05:07 Z 


 * So instead of redirects, we need actual aliases (hardlinks instead of softlinks, in unix parlance). Hmmm. Kim Bruning 05:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

IMO we should definitely not have corresponding articles use identical names over all Wikis. For instance, the city of Geneva should be (and is) described under en:Geneva, fr:Genève, de:Genf; London under en:London, fr:Londres, it:Londra, nl:Londen; Brussels under en:Brussels, nl:Brussel, fr:Bruxelles, de:Brüssel, es:Bruselas, ru:Брюссель; etc. Interwiki links exist, and allow finding corresponding articles in various Wikis even if the article name is not identical: see for instance the "In other languages" section somewhere on the above-mentioned pages, usually at top or left depending on which skin you are using. -- Tonymec 04:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I concur with Tonymec. E Pluribus Anthony 15:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Giving "native versions"
I would like to tentatively propose (or at least see what other people think about the idea) that the requirement to give "native versions" of article names should only apply to proper names, such as personal names, names of organisations, and placenames. I am particularly inspired to this by the experience of the article on Baklawa, where at a previous stage of the article's evolution, the first paragraph consisted mainly of a list of names in bold type, many of them in scripts most of our readers probably can't read, and what's more all of them being more or less versions of the same word. Where we are just talking about a "thing" like a kind of food that is found in more than one country (thus leading to nationalistic demands for "all" the "native versions" to be included if any are), and for which there is one or more more-or-less established English names do we really need to give these foreign-language variants in all their multi-alphabetic glory?

I recognise that where what we are giving is a name of something that's not well known in English and the English name is therefore little more than a transcription of a foreign name, the situation may be slightly different (e.g. Mujaddara). Any comments? Palmiro | Talk 17:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * In the case where there are many possible names or name variants it's often better to relocate them to a separate subsection (perhaps linked to with a footnote) rather than cluttering the first paragraph. That's what seems to have happened in your example. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 17:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Mm, so should the guidelines explicitly recommend something like this? Palmiro | Talk 17:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Definitely. How about:
 * If the list of word variations &mdash; by spelling (see hookah) or by language (see baklava) &mdash; is awkwardly long, e.g. longer than a single line:
 * a section at the bottom of the article should be dedicated to variations in spelling/language,
 * there should be a link from the top to the section alternate forms, and
 * a single term should be used throughout the article.
 * Thoughts? --Mgreenbe 18:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Seems fine to me. My only beef is with the third point which may not apply in every case. For example if we're discussing what is basically the same dish but known by different names in different countries it might be expedient to use the local name in a subsection discussing a particular variant and another local name when discussing another local variant. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 18:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * That could be the case sometimes. Actually, I think Hookah is fine as it is; my objection would be if we then had Arabic, Hebrew, Syriac, Farsi and Turkish (or whatever) versions of argilah and shisha. Palmiro | Talk 18:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Look at résumé for a somewhat messy lead sentence. Generally the reader is more interested in content than terminology-wrangling. Let's try to codify some common-sense recommendations while avoiding instruction creep and being too rigid. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 18:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Instruction creep was also my worry. Perhaps something along the lines of:
 * "For the sake of concision, it may be helpful to move the list of word variations to a separate section; see Baklava for an example of this. For the sake of clarity and consistency, articles should use a single form whenever possible."
 * No more instructions, just advice. If it would help, we could be more specific in the second sentence, saying "Naturally, if circumstances call for a specific form, by all means use it." I don't think there's a need, though. --Mgreenbe 19:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay - no-one has objected that something like this be included and several of us feel that it's a useful point. I'm inserting a short note into the convention. Feel free to improve, of course :) - Haukur 15:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Hawaiian English in Hawaii articles
I propose that it is acceptable and preferred, as mandated by the Hawaiian English standard (solely co-official with Hawaiian in the State of Hawaii), to use full proper Hawaiian language spellings (including okina and kahakō) in every instance of a word of Hawaiian origin in Wikipedia articles, except specifically in situations where a proper name (e.g. Hawaii Five-O) omits the detail. This includes the State of Hawaii's official names for itself and its political terms and units (which differ from the United States national records&mdash;a note of this can be made where relevant). Article titles should also be appropriately rendered this way, with the flexible exception that (until Wikipedia either uses &#X7B;&#X7B;unicode|template&#X7D;&#X7D;-style Unicode character resolution for the display of article titles in HTML, or until the okina becomes displayable for most computer users) article names can use a simple apostrophe (') for okina, with existing redirects for (`) and the absence of the okina altogether (where there is no confusion among minimal pairs), and additional redirects (also without confusion of minimal pairs) for article names without okina nor kahakō. The &#X7B;&#X7B;okina&#X7D;&#X7D; template can be used for each instance of the okina&mdash;this template also internally uses the &#X7B;&#X7B;unicode|template&#X7D;&#X7D;, which forces even obselete browsers such as Internet Explorer to scour each system's installed fonts for any font that includes the okina character. Browsers such as Firefox do not have this problem, but the user must still have a font such as Arial Unicode MS or Code2000 that contains this character. In practice, Hawaii-related articles and Hawaiian names and terms in other articles are already steadily integrating these conventions into article texts, as per Hawaiian English. For those who may dispute the appropriateness of using Hawaiian English and not American English in these contexts, it should be noted that: - Gilgamesh 07:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) The United States has no federal official language, and American English is a standard adopted individually by states.
 * 2) Hawaiian English together with Hawaiian is the official language of the State of Hawaii.
 * 3) Though Hawaiian English is partially reliant on American English, plain American English itself is not an official language of Hawaii.
 * Indeed. As far as I can see this is already our policy :) Any national variety of English is allowed and Hawaiian English is preferred for Hawaiian topics just like Indian English for Indian topics. You should add a note to that effect in here. We don't really need a long note in the use English page but maybe the part on national varieties should be reworded a bit to make it clearer that it's not just a question of US vs. UK spellings. - Haukur 16:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay, I went ahead and rewrote the relevant paragraph to be more explicit and, in my opinion, less weird. We usually don't refer to redirects as "articles" for one thing. Please improve as needed. Does this look acceptable to you, Gilgamesh? - Haukur 17:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I see Philip shortened the paragraph a bit and added a link to the MOS. I think he's right - it makes sense to basically treat this in one place and link to it from other places. Any details about Hawaiian English specifically are best treated there. The only point we really need to get across here is that the rule holds for article titles as well as article content. I think the color/orange (colour) example illustrates that nicely. - Haukur 17:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

HOAX regarding Hawaiian English
The writing of user Gilgamesh, above, is a HOAX. Wikipedia wants "no personal attacks", but encourages focussing on what people have written. Therefore, I am not attacking Gilgamesh, but rather, the hoax perpetrated through what he wrote above, and elsewhere in Wikipedia. In particular, Gilgamesh wrote above:


 * 1) Hawaiian English together with Hawaiian is the official language of the State of Hawaii.
 * 2) Though Hawaiian English is partially reliant on American English, plain American English itself is not an official language of Hawaii.

HOWEVER, as pointed out in May 2006, by user Bugmuncher, on the Hawaiian English talk page, The Constitution of the State of Hawaii does NOT specify "Hawaiian English", but rather, it specifies "English" as the first official language of the state. Therefore, Gilgamesh's writing is FALSE on both points. Bugmuncher supplied the following URL which exposes the LIES written by Gilgamesh. http://www.hawaii.gov/lrb/con/conart15.html

I added, to the Hawaiian English talk page, the following quotation from the constitution, in order to further expose (for those who don't click on links) the FALSE writing of Gilgamesh:

"OFFICIAL LANGUAGES

Section 4. English and Hawaiian shall be the official languages of Hawaii, except that Hawaiian shall be required for public acts and transactions only as provided by law. [Add Const Con 1978 and election Nov 7, 1978]" (italic added for emphasis)

The italicized portion of the quote PROVES that Hawaiian is NEVER REQUIRED unless there is a specific state LAW making such a requirement. As of today, the Hawaii Revised Statutes have NEVER REQUIRED Hawaiian for any purpose whatsoever.

The writing of Gilgamesh is a complete HOAX perpetrated on this talk page, and elsewhere in Wikipedia, as regards "Hawaiian English" being an "official language" of Hawaii, and any "mandate", or "standard", "to use full proper Hawaiian language spellings". The Wikipedia article that Gilgamesh referred you to, "Hawaiian English", was one that he wrote himself, and which contained the same HOAX. I tried to get the false article deleted, and some highly educated users, including Angr, Andrew Levine, Arthur Rubin, and GassyGuy, essentially agreed that Gilgamesh's hoax was "rubbish". Unfortunately, a user with very rude and dishonest writing, Calton, and the admin who made the call, Sean Black (both of whom apparently live in Japan), failed to acknowledge the hoax. I hope that all users and administrators who see this will make better choices than Sean Black did. Since Sean Black failed to delete the Hawaiian English article, I used Wikipedia's verification policy to justify my own deletion of the HOAX. I deleted the false statements --- the entire bit, except for one line that Andrew Levine had correctly de-falsified --- and added some true statements. So to see the original hoax that was written there, by Gilgamesh, you have to get it through the page history.

Agent X 01:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Naming conventions (common names)
I think we've done some good work on updating this guideline lately. But another equally important project page is the "common names" guideline. I think it needs some work to more clearly reflect the opinions of Wikipedians. So please come on over, people and have a go at improving it! :) - Haukur 15:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Proposing "Spelling according to first edition in English"
Proposing to add the following to WP:UE:

(v0.1) When in English there are two variant spellings of the same title of a book, film, etc..., use the version of the title according to the first full edition in English, unless when this version of the title is barely remembered.

Oddly, if this would become an acceptable part of WP:UE this says something in the diacritcs debate too (in the subject-specific range), if applied to, for instance, this example: --Francis Schonken 14:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Salome (play) - First edition In English spells "Salome", subsequent editions sometimes spelled "Salomé", also in English;
 * Salomé (1923 film) - This film, based on the play, was first published in the USA, as "Salomé"; later, when it was published outside the US, it was known there as "Salome", apparently also in English-speaking countries. (see IMDb link in article about the film)

So what would "The Canterbury Tales" appear under or any book that was first published with a spelling different from the common modern spelling? --Philip Baird Shearer 14:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * You have a point, although I'm not sure whether it applies to The Canterbury Tales (see, for instance, page XV of this PDF - first "complete" publication would be Thynne's 1532 edition, but it's not clear what spelling of the title is used there - and whether it differs from the first "modernised" edition from 1737/1740).
 * Is "modern spelling" defined in English? I mean, is that term unambiguous? E.g., from what period on would spelling be "modern"? "Common modern spelling" at least seems tackish to me, as there are at least several "common" modern spellings, according to Manual of Style. If, however, the concept "modern spelling" would not be provoking more controversy than it would solve, a formulation in this sense might be attempted:

(v0.2) When in English there are two variant spellings of the same title of a book, film, etc..., use the version of the title according to the first full edition in modern English, unless when this version of the title is barely remembered.


 * Anyway, for the Canterbury Tales, as probably for many other old books, I don't think the addition "modern" would be strictly necessary. Is, e.g., (the) Tales of Caunterbury as version of the Title "well remembered", in comparison to the version The Canterbury Tales? --Francis Schonken 16:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Early Modern English, which seems better defined than "Modern English", is maybe useable, in this sense:

(v0.3) When in English there are two variant spellings of the same title of a book, film, etc..., use the version of the title according to the first full edition in English (for pre-1650 books: first full edition in English printed after the Early Modern English era), unless when this version of the title is barely remembered.


 * Would that work? --Francis Schonken 17:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't have a strong opinion on this but it strikes me as likely that many people will prefer using the title of the best known edition to that of the first edition. - Haukur 17:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I would say modern spelling came in with the general acceptance of dictionaries as we know them today. When was the first generally accepted dictionary introduced and used?

Is there a policy on movies released on different sides of the pond with different names?

For many centuries most educated English speaking people could read French, Does this mean that if a book was well known in English with a French name that only a translation of the name is acceptable. EG would this mean that "Le Morte d'Arthur" must be moved to "The Death of Arthur" or to it's original title "Le Morte Darthur"?

I don't think that guidelines on a title of a book needs to spelt out here in UE. It crosses too many other guidelines and will lead to more not less arguments. For example if a book is first published in New Zealand in hardback which sold <1,000 copies with CE spelling in the title but is best known in the American paperback addition using AE that sold in the millions and if the article with written using a title with the American spelling then, this suggested guideline would see it moved to the NZ spelling. This breaks common usage and probably the MOS's advice on national spelling. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Philip, you come to about the same conclusions for books as what I just wrote at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_%28films%29 re. films: no need to make new rules, for borderline issues that are (and have been) solved, without making them into a "problem", by a combination of common sense and existing guidelines.
 * Nonetheless, I'd appreciate if WP:UE would give some indication, specifically for books, *when* a title is translated to English and *in which cases* it isn't, for example: most of Alexandre Dumas, père's books are at the English equivalent of the title - I even used that as example in Naming conventions (definite and indefinite articles at beginning of name); now recently *exactly* the example I used to indicate a difference in the use of the definite article between English and French (Queen Margot) was moved to its French title: La Reine Margot is certainly not more English than the Les Trois Mousquetaires, yet these are still in all peace at their English equivalent, The Three Musketeers.
 * In sum, I think something should be done regarding the randomness with which titles are at their foreign original, or English equivalent.
 * Note, in this context, that, for example, for operas the "translation" issue is settled in Naming conventions (operas); and that just now in Village_pump_%28policy%29 someone remarks that for books naming conventions are not really elaborated.
 * Shouldn't we start work on that, e.g. Naming conventions (books), elaborating the *short* and apparently insufficient paragraph Naming_conventions (which also doesn't mention how to handle book subtitles in article names, on which I could give only an *intuitive* answer at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions)? --Francis Schonken 13:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Francis's recent additions
Francis has recently added two paragraphs. The first one reads"There appears no issue to this question as long as it is described in terms like: 'When the native name of an entity contains characters with diacritics some Wikipedians prefer to use those diacritics in the relevant article title, even in cases where they are more often omitted in English texts. Others prefer to apply the most common principle throughout.' However, treatment by topic often easily yields result, for example:"

The second one is an example about some asteroids. I read this first paragraph as saying that nobody takes issue with the paragraph "When the native . . . principle throughout.". This is the exact paragraph which Haukur has repeatly inserted into the common names guideline and just as often is has been removed by Francis. He has exspressed opposition to it repeatedly, e.g. at with the words "I have two reasons why I wouldn't do it (1) the "dispute" might get solved in a few weeks or months, and then the paragraph is incorrect (and might get forgotten, and then used to resuscitate the dispute, etc); (2) It adds unnecessary volume to this guideline, essentially saying "on this topic we have nothing to report" - in that cas, IMHO, leave it out." and at with the words "I also can't agree with: [Haukur's paragraph] while I don't fit in either category:"

So what is going on? Don't these objections still apply? Stefán Ingi 20:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * "No issue to a question" means: "no outcome to a question", or: "the question remains unresolved" - not what you read into it.
 * The rest of your remark is quite valueless, while based on misunderstanding, so I won't go into that, in order to give you the opportunity to reformulate.
 * All the objections you quote still apply, even more since it appears not too difficult to solve each and every diacritics question that has come up. So, is there still a diacritics question? I don't see any. I only see persons that try to formulate the diacritics question in an unresolvable format. A.k.a. making problems where there are none. --Francis Schonken 00:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, thank you, this makes everything a lot clearer. It's just that I had never seen this expression before and it confused me. As for the rest of your comment, it is of course a lot easier to resolve problems when they are split down into smaller chunks. I'm quite happy to agree with you that it's easy to resolve the diacritics question in each individual case (or rather in small chunks of related cases) but I worry that my willingness to do that relies on the fact that almost all the relevant moves have gone the way I want. This might also be related to the reason why Philip removed the section. Take care, Stefán Ingi 11:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I have removed this addition because it does not sit comfortably in either Naming conventions (use English) or Naming conventions (common names) and have passed on the information to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects so the people who edit that page can decide whether the WP:RM move was justified, and if they want to include it in their guideline. If they do then it can be added to WP:RM like that of WikiProject Rivers etc --Philip Baird Shearer 00:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * That's not enough IMO. It needs to be directly or indirectly available from the base Naming conventions page, in such a way that that someone trying to decide what to name an article in the first place, and with as little as possible assumed knowledge of Wikipedia, will find it. Andrewa 15:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I propose the creation of Naming conventions (astronomy) and I'm surprised one doesn't exist already. Surely there are some recommendations somewhere buried in some project? :) - Haukur 15:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm a bit surprised too. But it's not enough to create it. It also needs to be accessible. I support the creation of a new naming convention, assuming we can't eventually find one buried in some inaccessible backwater of our enormous project namespace (actually, Minister, you can't bury anything in a backwater,...). Andrewa 15:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

"First catch your hare" I suggest that you raise the issue on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects and with a group of like minded individuals see what can be done. However normally a "new naming convention" is not needed because the issue of page naming within a scope of a project is covered in the project page. For example the WikiProject Military history states "Articles should be called something like Battle of Gettysburg or Siege of Nuremberg. "Battle" and "Siege" are neutral terms and are preferred to "attack", "slaughter", "massacre", "raid", etc..." or WikiProject_Rivers says "River articles may be named "X", "X River", or "River X", depending on location and most common usage. "X river" and "X (river)" are not recommended. ...". --Philip Baird Shearer 19:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I must disagree here. Yes, we should seek to involve the Wikiproject. But the desired outcome is a guideline that has been approved in the normal way, and is accessible through the more general guidelines so as to maximise the likelihood that someone looking for it will find it. Provided this is done, whether the details of this guideline are in the Wikiproject page, as a section of a more general guideline, or in a seperate guideline doesn't concern me. I don't think it matters in the least. I support creating a new guideline because it will do the job, and because there seems to be resistance (for reasons that mystify me) to incorporating this material in the more general guidelines. Andrewa 13:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, there are two different things:
 * Whether and where it should be included in astrology-related project and/or naming conventions pages;
 * Whether it can be used (as a reference) in the guideline that (until now) centralises info on use of diacritics.
 * The first point is taken up by Andrewa elsewhere, thanks! But anyhow, that wasn't something to be sorted out on the WP:UE talk page.
 * For the second point, some questions are to be answered:
 * Is the example of the 10-odd planets stable? I mean, is there any chance that in the (near) future, the WP:RM multiple page move on these planets would be reverted? - Otherwise, of course, it would be not so interesting to use it as an example. We could wait till the astrology-related NC is fixed and meets community approval. That it would annihilate the WP:RM decision on these minor planets with diacritics seems however very unlikely to me, the consensus on the collective WP:RM vote was outspoken.
 * Would it be an instructive example? When it illustrates that the "no consensus" situation re. diacritics is not as hopeless as it seems, I don't think anybody would doubt it being an "illustrative" example. Maybe it could be balanced with an example of where there was a community decision not to apply diacritics. I don't have a series example on that, except if the three Leopold/Léopold kings of Belgium would be seen as a series (Leopold I of Belgium, Leopold II of Belgium, Leopold III of Belgium) - if they are used as example it would however be best to retrieve the Village Pump section where that was discussed & decided a few months ago.
 * Also Salome, Salome (play), Salome (opera) and Salomé (1923 film) could be used as a sort of "series" example, most of them with an "explicit" community approval (see also wikipedia talk:naming conventions (films)). This example is also illustrative that a "one strike" solution (i.e. a solution that propose diacritics in all cases or alternatively in no single case) wouldn't really work.
 * Do we accept such examples to be used on the guideline page, as the most appropriate guidance the WP:UE guideline has to offer presently, as long a "general formulation" of the involved principles seems to elude? No secret, also on this question I'm positive. If you can't grasp it by rules (which on top would have the disadvantage of risking to be instructions, a.k.a. near to instruction creep) - then list a few illustrative examples.
 * --Francis Schonken 15:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Disagree with most of this, but I'm beginning to see the problem, and perhaps a solution.


 * Firstly, WP:UE is as good a place to discuss the first issue as anywhere. The question is, should we have a guideline at all? So far, we have a very strong consensus that the diacritics belong in these particular article names. The only vote against, before or after the poll, has been that of a malfunctioning bot. We also have a strong likelihood that the issue will arise again, and that without a guideline we'll just be re-inventing the wheel. So that's a no-brainer IMO.


 * Secondly, these questions to be answered are irrelevant to the matter under discussion. The first (might this decision be reverted?) is the whole point of having wider discussion before making this decision a guideline. Yes, of course the decision might be reverted with this wider participation, there'd be little point in seeking this wider participation otherwise. Let's take that a little further: If the decision on guidelines is that including the diacritics is not a good direction, then it should be reverted. That's the idea of a guideline. We follow it.


 * The basis of these questions seems to be the theory that we need to come to a consensus on this whole mess before we can have a guideline on astronomical features. If there was a good prospect of consensus soon on the larger issues, then it would be sensible to wait for the more general guideline. But it's not the only way.


 * It's a principle of heuristic to attack any tricky problem from all angles. So, why not try biting off a small chunk and solving it? That's the opportunity we have here. Let's take it. Andrewa 21:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Are diacritics part of everyday English?
This has possibly been said before, there has been so much said before that I may have missed it...

Following the question about minor planet names, see Talk:657 Gunlöd, I began to ask myself, are there any other occasions when I, as a native speaker (writer), would use a diacritic as a normal and unaffected part of my writing? I found two cases in which I would: cliché and flambé both look wrong without the accent, and are current Wikipedia article titles. See Talk:Flambé, also of course List of English words with diacritics and English language. Andrewa 15:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I was leafing through my Webster's 3rd Int'l 1981 printed edition just now, p. 258-259 there are the following:
 * böttger ware (named after Johann Friedrich Böttger)
 * bouche and bouché (not interchangable)
 * bouche fermée
 * bouchée
 * bouclé or boucle (interchangeable), but apparently always bouclé yarn (PS: Oxford English Minidictionary has only "bouclé")
 * On other pages of Webster's:
 * Always without accent: premiere, siege, chassis,...
 * Always with accent succès de scandale, succès d'estime, succès fou, fin-de-siècle (always with accent and hyphens), cliché (two entries, both with accent), clichéd, flambé, flambéed, château, château d'eau (which seems to have another meaning than in French),...
 * Interchangeable with diacritic or without: château d'eaus or chateaux d'eau (plural of "château d'eau" - wondering whether there isn't a typo involved),...
 * Note that in the Fin de siècle article someone remarks that "The expression often occurs in English prose without the grave accent" - which is different from what Webster's would have. --Francis Schonken 16:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Another contributor has just commented at Talk:Cliché that they regard the diacritic on that article name as correct. Andrewa 13:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It's also a misleading question. Neutral Point of View isn't a part of everyday English, but a Wikipedia article can be held to higher standards. If we agree that diacritics play a part in the quest for accuracy (and we don't), then we should strive for them. Everyday English is a red herring in that debate. Arbor 13:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I could have expressed it better.


 * The situation is simply that a decision has been made, by due process, on the naming of a few asteroids. Several of those involved searched for a relevant naming guideline, and were surprised not to find one. Rather than repeat this search and discussion for every new article on a minor planet whose name includes a diacritic, we seek to implement such a guideline.


 * Resistance to this seems to centre on the assertion that diacritics are in some way contrary to the general principle of using English in article names, and by the intensity of some of the comments, I'm guessing that there is fear that this is the small end of the wedge, and may lead to proposals that other article names should also incorporate diacritics.


 * I don't think this is the case, but in any case, I think we should have a clear and accessible standard for the naming of astronomical features, and that it should be to follow the IAU guidelines, which in these cases means including the diacritics. Andrewa 14:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Dispute or discussion?
I've put some more headings and a TOC into the article to make it a little easier to navigate.

In the headings I've used the word discussion rather than dispute. This is with two things in mind:


 * We've been a long time without consensus on some of these, and need to try some other tacks. Taking the heat and personalisation out of the discussion is one I recommend.


 * In the meantime, this convention remains in use (not just a proposal), and needs to be as useful as possible.

We're all here to build an encyclopedia. Winning arguments can be a help to this. But trying to win them is more often a hindrance IMO. See rhetoric, User:Andrewa/creed. Andrewa 15:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I think replacing dispute with discussion might indeed be a good idea for the reasons you outline. - Haukur 15:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

See the Monty Python argument sketch. It is not a discussion it is a dispute because after more than a year of discussing the situation we are no closer to agreement on the issue. The section quite rightly says dispute. It is on the talk pages we discuss the dispute. --Philip Baird Shearer 15:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree that Monty Python is an excellent insight on the current process.


 * If you find it more helpful to think of it as a dispute, I'm not going to revert. Actually, I very rarely revert anything. IMO the past year's discussion here hasn't been particularly productive, in that it hasn't left the guideline in a particularly useful condition. IMO the current version is neither clear in what it covers, nor in what it says, and as an inevitable result people are reluctant to refer to it. IMO the current process is unlikely to improve things.


 * So, I recommend you try something new. Backing off on the confrontational model would be my first choice, but it's not something anyone can impose on you. Andrewa 17:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * We have an article on The Argument Skit for those not familiar with it. One of its key insights IMO is that sometimes people seem to enjoy arguing, even when they are losing and complaining. But this point is made with Pythonesque logic (as are many, many others), and IMO no article can do it justice. Andrewa 23:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

But back to the subject at hand, I think that you really need to read ALL the archives to this talk page. I have suggested a compromise based on the wording found in the MOS for the great AE/CE divide, ... (See An attempt to build a consensus) and although he is on the other side of the divide, so has Haukur Þorgeirsson, but there are still a lot of people who do not want to compromise on the issue of "funny foreign squiggles" (to nail my flag to the mast). One positive move is that since I wrote the compromise suggestion, the guideline does now to include explicitly the point that all common spellings should be in the first section (but unfortunatly it can of course be argued that Ubeda and Úbeda are the same spelling :-. When I included the full compromise text on the project page it was deleted by two different people almost immediately see above . --Philip Baird Shearer 00:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify, I have read ALL the archives. I thought I'd implied that above.


 * Agree that the idea of including all common spellings early in the article is a good one, and of having matching redirects. I don't think this is very clearly expressed currently however. Andrewa 12:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I do indeed support some sort of compromise and I think we made some progress towards it in the last year. As Philip says it helps to include all alternative names/spellings in the article text and that does include spellings with and without diacritics. Some of my ideas for compromise include:


 * Local government. The people actually writing the article should have more say than outsiders coming in to "correct" the spelling. Philip emphasizes the role rôle of the first major contributor while I'm thinking more along the lines of deferring to all major contributors. "But", you might say, "that could encourage people to make major contributions to an article just so they can have their way with the spelling!" Well, yes, but if that would get a spelling warrior to make contributions to articles then that's a perfectly acceptable side-effect :-)
 * Live-and-let-live. Keeping the peace is more important than maintaining completely consistent naming across our article space. We might have an article at Zürich and another at 1st Battle of Zurich without the inconsistency killing us.
 * Check the sources. If the references used in the article overwhelmingly use one spelling then that's a pretty solid argument for using that spelling in the article. Again, this could possibly encourage people to find good sources which use their preferred spellings but that's an acceptable side-effect.
 * Check other reference works. That's often more workable than Google searches.

None of this is really specific to the diacritics debate but more about naming conflicts in general but I still think the points are worth considering here. I think we have a chance to establish some sort of peaceful live-and-let-live environment on this. What I don't think we can do is getting a consensus on exactly when to use diacritics - that debate has been going around in circles since I first entered it and not a single person ever changes their opinions :-) - Haukur 02:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I support the Live-and-let-live idea, for several reasons. One is, I don't think any of the debatable cases greatly impact the quality or usefulness of the encyclopedia, either way. The other is, we seem to have no choice.


 * I'm beginning to doubt that any of this is helpful in the naming of articles about minor planets. We can't agree what English is, whether or not it includes diacritics, and IMO therefore what it means to Use English is similarly vague. We can't even agree on whether or not it matters what English is.


 * I haven't checked the histories or archives for whether the main players take wikibreaks, but I recommend them. There's a reason for taking them that the project page doesn't mention any more, although Wikibreak still does: If a policy decision (however minor, or major) is likely to be reversed without you, it's generally best to let it happen. Andrewa 12:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Article titles for books in foreign languages
There is currently a discussion at Talk:Polish Biographical Dictionary. The question is whether the title of the page should be "Polski Slownik Biograficzny", or "Polish Biographical Dictionary". Has this kind of "book name" debate come up before? How was it resolved? Elonka 17:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sure I was not the first to mention it. I said something about it above regarding Queen Margot/La Reine Margot. Shortly after that I started the Naming conventions (books) guideline proposal, which effectively contains a Title translations section. Could you indicate whether (or not) that can help solve your question?
 * Intuitively I would say: use the English title, while: "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, (...)", as indicated in naming conventions, the "official policy" regarding page naming.
 * The English version of the name of the dictionary appears to be used, e.g. a reference to the 18th volume of the Polish Biographical Dictionary on this webpage (see Fabian Luzjañski short bio on that webpage); this is not a reference to the S. S. Sokol one-volume dictionary. --Francis Schonken 18:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * FYI, I've just expanded Naming conventions (books) a bit, for books that have no printed English translation (yet). --Francis Schonken 19:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Quotes in secn "Disputed issues"
I conv'd the single quotes to double quotes w/ intervening blanks, to avoid confusing apparent merging of the single quotes with the quoted character. If that's not satisfactory, put the two characters each indented on its own line, w/o any quotes. --Jerzy•t 04:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Letters representing themselves should be italicized, without any quotation marks. I'm updating the last section.  —Michael Z. 2006-01-26 13:27 Z 

Jogaila of Lithuania/ Władysław II Jagiełło
Can I ask for mediation in a dispute, Talk:Władysław II Jagiełło. It concerns the naming of the Lithuanian ruler Jogaila, who also became King of Poland, as Wladislaus II. The current title is Władysław II Jagiełło, which, along with other rulers of Poland, violates general wiki rules for naming monarchs (although Polish users a little while ago agreed amongst themselves to Polonize the names of all Polish monarchs, moving all the articles in correspondence with this decision). This I personally have little objection to (although others might), but Jogaila was not even Polish nor solely a Polish ruler, and the latter means he is not governed by "rules" "agreed" for Polish monarchs. Moreover, the two variations of his Lithuanian name, Jogaila and Jagiello, are the most common forms in English, not Władysław II Jagiełło. I moved the page to Jogaila of Lithuania. I may or may not have been wrong in the first place for moving it, but I saw this as uncontroversial, as my experience has taught be that it is far more common to refer to him by his Lithuanian name Jogaila, or the corruption thereof Jagiello, and seemed sensible on almost every other ground I could think of. This was objected to by some Polish contributors. Eventually, it had seemed that compromise was reached with Jogaila (Władysław II), but then another Polish user with admin powers (Piotrus), whose intellectual integrity has been far from obviously displayed, reverted this back to the absurd name; moreover, he posted a link Polish wikipedian notice board, and this means that the discussion has attracted more people wishing to Polonize the name than others. Opinions seem hardened, good counter arguments are not being advanced, and the convo now is producing more heat than light. I'm very busy ATM, and am quite anxious to resolve this, but I can't see it happening. Can someone help mediate? Thanks. - Calgacus 16:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, seems a difficult case...
 * Do you want mediation as in mediation and/or mediation cabal? Maybe we could see first if some prior steps in dispute resolution wouldn't be more fruitful?
 * I had a glance at the talk at Talk:Władysław II Jagiełło, but I saw no indication there has been a WP:RM yet? Do you know whether the WP:RM procedure has been followed yet on this page?
 * I don't know whether I heard about this king (?) before... Could you tell whether Jogaila of Lithuania would be better in accordance with Naming conventions (names and titles) than Władysław II Jagiełło? Or what would be the name that is best in accordance to that naming conventions guideline in your view? (please give a short explanation why too). If this person would *not* be a king or any other sort of nobility (?), could you indicate which wikipedia page name would be the best in accordance to Naming conventions (people) (likewise, with a short clarification of the choice if possible)?
 * --Francis Schonken 17:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * If one holds by the wikipedian legal fiction that Lithuania was more lowly ranked than Poland, the correct naming according to wiki rules would be Ladislaus II of Poland, or at least Wladyslaw II of Poland. But these rules have already been ignored by Polish users wishing to name articles with pure Polish names (without title). If they hadn't done so, there would have been no dispute. - Calgacus 17:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, looking around a bit myself too:
 * Question: was he "Grand duke" or "Grand prince" or what was he as highest position in Lithuania?
 * Was he ruling king or king consort as highest position in Poland?
 * tx, if you could enlighten a bit! --Francis Schonken 17:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

PS, compare (for example - but I don't know if the comparison makes sense) Friedrich III of Germany (Hohenzollern): The wikipedia page of this person is at "of Germany", not because in his days "Germany" was more important than Prussia, but while in Germany he was emperor, and in Prussia he was king: the naming conventions guideline considers the office of "Emperor" more important than that of "king", so he's named after the country where he was Emperor. --Francis Schonken 18:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * He was, by English-speaking convention, Grand Duke/Grand Prince of Lithuania, which is Великий князь in "Russian", the "official" language of the Lithuanian establishment; it was the highest office of Lithuania, and the highest royal term available in the Russian-speaking world except Tsar, and meant "Great King" (князь or Knyaz is actually cognate with English King). He was offered the hand of the Polish royal heiress Jadwiga (Hedwig), and thereby became king consort too, but he used the title "King of Poland", and is recognized as King of Poland by historians. Wiki guidelines (I'd say wrongly) considers Grand Prince lower than king (meaning any Grand Duke/Prince (soon to be emperor) of later medieval Moscow/Russia is regarded as lower than the king of Navarre). He later lost or gave away (depending on how you look at it) his lordship of Lithuania (including most of western Russia) to his nephew Vytautas, but remained in some respects his overlord.   - Calgacus 18:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

If I remember well "Knyaz" is usually translated as prince (the monarchical type of prince, like Prince Rainier). So no, English wikipedia would definitely consider "King" above "Knyaz" - even if in Lithuanian language there would be no equivalent for Król/Koról/(King). See also the big table at Royal and noble ranks. --Francis Schonken 18:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I am aware of that, but that is not the crux of the argument. I'm already acknowledging that wiki conventions would have him as "Lasdislaus/Wladyslaw of Poland", but he isn't being called that: simply, Władysław II Jagiełło. - Calgacus 18:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, --Francis Schonken 19:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) the language issue is however the really hard part (for Polish that is). Some time ago I initiated a WP:RM on Lech Wałęsa - the request was blown away (see talk:Lech Wałęsa)... So, I don't think it would be easy to change Władysław to Lasdislaus or Wladyslaw (for a German ruler, for instance, translating Friedrich to Frederick would not provoke controversy...)
 * 2) "of Poland" appears to be more in line with Naming conventions (names and titles) - but for Polish rulers, the specific Polish naming conventions would normally be perceived to have precedence. Note that for instance, also Frederick I, Holy Roman Emperor is not at "Frederick I of Germany" or wherever his most important realm was.
 * I'm giving up for the moment. The whole thing is too tiresome, and I'm sick of the treatment I'm receiving. However, my views haven't changed. So, please message me if there's ever some kind of vote. Thanks for your help. - Calgacus 21:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, there seems to be a lot of prior history to this issue: I wished I could recommend you a WP:RM, but if it's still the same people on this issue, that would likely only result in increase of turmoil, rather than a clean vote result... --Francis Schonken 19:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Guidelines for the spelling of names of Polish rulers is "inactive", so can't be really used as guideline (its talk page filled with inconclusive discussion);
 * List of Polish rulers, is not a guideline but a wikipedia article page, but it seems as if it is presently used as if it were a guideline;
 * There's a whole Ladislaus/Vladislaus/Wladislaus/other variants discussion at Talk:Ladislaus (but if you ask me: indecisive discussion in the end, seems like just a bunch of people all trying to push their POV, without the least bit of will to come to a consensus).
 * Francis, thank you for joining our discussion. There are quite a few talk pages and archives you may want to dig through. Regarding your questions about Władysław, most of them have been addressed (or at least, discussed) at Talk:Władysław II Jagiełło.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I am very interested in being kept informed of this issue. I too have seen many examples of the Polish Wikipedians (especially Piotrus) building an "internal consensus" among themselves to Polonize article titles to non-English names, and then proceeding without agreement from the rest of the Wikipedia community.  I can see that some of these issues are borderline, such as whether to include an "L" or "Ł" in an article title.  But even though I am a Polish-American (my father was born in Warsaw), I would still rather see the non-diacritic versions as article titles, for a variety of reasons including consistency with alphabetizing in categories.  And in the case of where an article title is Polonized to something that is completely incomprehensible to the average English reader (see the debate on "[[Talk:Polish Biographical Dictionary|

Polski Slownik Biograficzny]]"), I have been insisting on an English-readable version of the title. Another example of an article title which (I feel) needs to be changed is here: Okopy Świętej Trójcy.  In the English-language Wikipedia, article titles must be understandable (and pronounceable) to the average English reader.  Elonka 20:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Elonka, perhaps you'd like to quote those examples? Wherever possible, I have tried to advertise the issue to all interested parties. The monarch naming proposal was advertised at RfC and WP:Naming conventions (not the talk but at main section, proposed conventions). John k also posted it at a few other places, IIRC. The fact that most often then not our problems don't attract non-Poles is kind of unfair to use for accusation that we are POV-pushers. As for Okopy..., this is a village's name - do you want to translate the name of a village??--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

If you feel like, have a look at: --Francis Schonken 21:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Naming conventions (standard letters with diacritics) (started today; didn't get any further than some rough draft of "scope" and "rationale" sections - feel free to contribute!)
 * Naming conventions (thorn) (on which Elonka already commented, tx!)

Anyway, I (re-)activated Naming conventions (Polish rulers), which should be the central place for guidelines on how to name articles on Polish rulers, no? --Francis Schonken 17:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The naming system proposal Francis refers above was rejected. However, a new approval poll has begun, to discuss the matter of how to name the article currently at Władysław II Jagiełło. Interested editors are invited to participate, at Talk:Władysław II Jagiełło. Shilkanni 18:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

English Wikipedia's page names for Polish rulers
Please help completing the table below. The table is on a separate page, that opens when clicking the "edit" link below.

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Polish rulers) is the place for discussions on the English Wikipedia page names of individual monarchs. --Francis Schonken 09:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

New guidelines which may impact on this and other guidelines
On 2 March 2006 three new proposed guidelines were altered to guidelines with what seems to me very little Wikipedia community participation. Please have a look at the proposed guidelines and contribute to a consensus on whether these proposed guidelines in their present from should become guidelines. See: --Philip Baird Shearer 10:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Naming conventions (standard letters with diacritics)
 * Naming conventions (Czech)
 * Naming conventions (Swedish)

Also please see Naming conventions (hockey) for which there seems not to have been a proposed guideline status before it becames a guideline. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

This last one in particular is an interesting one because does it mean that every sport should have a guideline page on how to spell players names in English? The obvious sport is football (soccer) where many players with diacritics in their names play for some seasons in the UK and there diacritics are often stripped away in fanzies and by the tabloid press. What about tennis and Formula One etc, etc. Why stop there why not have a policy on this for every possible sport and every language combination.

Naming conventions (use English) has been the central point of contact over this issue more than a year and the Wikipedia community is very divided on the use of diacritics. I do not think that having a myriad of pages micro-managing the issue is the way to go. Occasionally there may be a reason for having a specific guideline for a specific topic, eg the discussion on the WP:UE talk page about minor asteroids, but if a guideline page contains information like that of the Naming conventions (Czech) wikipedia is better off without them. --Philip Baird Shearer 13:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Fresh meat arriving
Time to bring some Norwegian POV into the debate, seeing as though the world keeps forgetting we've got us some strange keyboards as well. One point only briefly mentioned here, is the fact that using exclusively English letters alters the pronounciation of the names - and, in some cases, their meanings. An example of the former would be Bjørnstjerne Bjørnson - renaming this article title to Bjornstjerne Bjornson (currently a redirect) would make no sense to anyone familiar with the name (well, yes, but you get the point).

Further, the practice of renaming absolutely everything in English is a phenomenon you've more or less got for yourself - at least to this extent. In Norway we refer to Moscow as Moskva, Gothenburg as Göteborg, Venice as Venezia, Vienna as Wien, Rome as Roma, use the Latin names for the biblical evangelists, and generally prefer using the correct names for things. And somewhere, someone pointed out how the USA isn't known by that name in most non-anglophone countries - we do that too. I merely present these examples to discredit anyone wanting to whine that "Why should we conform and be international when no other language does either?" - because English is extreme in that respect.

Hell, more examples of your translations changing meaning - while we refer to Austria as "Østerrike" - thus translating it - we at the very least keep our translation closer to the original "Österreich" than you. "Austria"? What does that even mean? Østerrike and Österreich mean the same thing in our respective languages. Same thing with Germany. I see the relation to Germania and Germanic people, fair enough, but our version "Tyskland" is still closer to "Deutschland" than you'll ever get.

Finally, Dvořák is a more encyclopedic, correct way of spelling the name of, say, Antonin Dvořák than the anglified version - which, then, would be Anthony Dvorak, or even Tony Warshack. And this is not me being absurd, this is me illustrating exactly how far the anglophone world likes to draw its translations, transliterations and so on.--TVPR 15:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * As a personal opinion I'd say: start a Naming conventions (Norwegian) proposal... or join forces with HJV, Stefan and Jannex at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Swedish) (these wikipedians already mentioned to expand the original Swedish NC proposal to include Norwegian – that is: among other languages with a similar range of characters that are "non-standard" in English). --Francis Schonken 16:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip, I've headed over there. I'm not too happy about starting a whole Norwegian naming conventions on itself, nor am I too fond of having one for hockey players, one for Sweden, one for Spain and so on... there are just too many various countries, and I would very much prefer having one all-encompassing convention stating "Original language form, period". But that'd be a tad blunt, so I'll be more than happy if we get a something as wide ranging as a nordic convention for starters.--TVPR 17:41, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Couldn't agree more with your idea of "Original language form." We're facing the same nonsense in the Polish sphere.  logologist|Talk 19:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree too. I don't like having one policy for every nation and especially not for atheltes from every sport. What naming is used for hockey players should be dicatated by general conventions. Jeltz talk  20:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Universities and Colleges in other languages
I've noticed a number of universities and colleges, mostly French and Spanish, but also in other languages that use the title in the native language rather than the translated title. I would assume that most of these would fit under this convention but I don't want to start a renaming effort without making sure that I'm not stepping on toes or if there is some convention that I don't know about. It's important to note that items in these category are named both in English and the native language. There was a brief discussion here earlier and elsewhere but little progress has been made for consistency. Other insight is appreciated. -- Reflex Reaction  ( talk )&bull; 15:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC) Updated 15:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Category:Universities and colleges by country
 * Category:Universities and colleges in Italy
 * Category:Universities in Brazil
 * Category:Universities and colleges in Mexico
 * Category:Universities and colleges in Spain
 * Category:Universities and colleges in France


 * Some interesting examples -- Reflex Reaction  ( talk )&bull; 15:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Vrije Universiteit Brussel - school officially does not translate nor abbreviate its name
 * Grandes écoles - Consistently named in French
 * École Polytechnique - consistently named
 * Politecnico di Milano - recently renamed - also in this case, the university officially discourages translations of its name. --Raistlin 18:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

One would expect nothing else from a French University! --Philip Baird Shearer 16:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

reliable published sources
I propose a change in the text from "as you would find it in other encyclopedias and reference works" to "as you would find in other reliable published sources"

I am suggesting this for two reasons: --Philip Baird Shearer 16:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) It co-ordinates the text with the Wikipedia policy WP:V. It seems silly to me for this guideline not to follow WP:V policy. As the "verifiability policy" and its guidelines change so this sentence will stay co-ordinated with the policy.
 * 2) The following is not a page name under this UE guideline but it is a reasonable example to use to illustrate the point. In the last 24 hours I have created a page called Chambers Book of Days. There are a number of other different styles of name which can be used eg "Chambers' Book of Days" and "Chambers's Book of Days" and "Chamber's Book of Days" all in common usage. How to decide which is correct, as the original book was published as "Book of Days" and the two major web sites which carry a copy of the original text use "Chambers' Book of Days" and "Chambers's Book of Days"? I choose to use the site of the original publisher who use the title Chambers Book of Days. Now that is not a name taken from "other encyclopedias and reference works" but it is a "reliable published source". So I could link in the new article to pages which used it, I searched Wikipedia for all the references to "Book of Days" and found that there are may other usages for the phrase Book of  Days. One of them was "Book Of Days" (Note the capital "O") which turned out to be the name of a song by Enya. How do I know that there is an "Of" in the name of the song? By referring to her official website, which for this specific factoid is a "reliable published source", but it is not "an encyclopedia and reference work". So using the Reliable sources covers more situations "other encyclopedias and reference works", yet as encyclopaedias and reference works are "reliable published sources" does not stop them being used.


 * I strongly diagree with altering the policy clause that's been there for years because of a single user's argument presented above. Now to their merit.


 * It's no secret that different reliable published sources may use different versions of the same city or person due to many reasons. The authors are not required to make any research to choose a particular spelling they would use throughout their work. So, for many places, people, different names are used at different books. Still, these are all reliable sources. OTOH, the reference sources, like encyclopedias, dictionaries, atlases, are compiled following the analysis of the usage in a variety of sources and use the most common one.


 * Referring to just "published sources" is too ambiguos and is interpretable in varios ways. As soon as the user finds a source that supports his favored version of the name, s/he would change the article. Edit wars will follow with people bringing up sources, all reliable and published. We would have to run a special analysis over all sources and count the usages or something. However, this is already done by the compilers of the reliable reference sources.


 * We should just follow their lead. I am restoring to the stable version. And in any case we need much more than just one user's feeling to change such a crucial policy page in such a drammatic way --Irpen 06:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you're overstating the impact of this change a bit :) My main concern is that quite often Wikipedia is basically the only encyclopedia to treat a given topic. Sometimes it is the only reference work as well. In those cases the guideline shouldn't just break down so generalizing it to "reliable published sources" seems like a good idea. And sometimes we may wish to follow an authoritative work even when it isn't strictly a reference work. And many reference works don't particularly try to capture common usage anyhow. Haukur 08:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia may be the only encyclopedia to treat a given topic but other encycloepdias do deal with the same towns and people. The point is that references source tend to capture common usage among the publications. They summarize publications, not the other way around. Not always they succeed, but at least they try more than authors in general. --Irpen 18:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm in favour of the change. By its very nature, Wikipedia can, will and should encompass topics that no dead-wood encyclopedia can include for size and cost reasons. We shouldn't limit ourselves thus. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 13:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I prefer the broader guideline, as it provides more flexibility. And I'd hate to be stuck with some stupid Britannica name that doesn't reflect common usage very well. Better to be flexible and look at cases individually. john k 15:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I oppose proposed changes strongly. Every sort of trash may be found in published sources. Which sources are "reliable" is always POV and source of contention. Leave the guideline as it is. Anyway, nobody attends to it, as best I know. -- Ghirla -трёп-  17:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I tentatively oppose until I see a clear definition of what makes a reliable source. It is much more easier to identify encyclopedias then 'other reliable sources'. I recently proposed creation of an index of reliabe sources at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/archive8 but there seem to be little interest in creating one. Until this changes, I feel that the change you propose would do more harm and good. Once we have such an index then it may be worth revisiting.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 05:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The discussion of what makes a reliable source should be decided on Reliable sources, this page should just link to that one, which is why it makes sense to make the change.  As another example of why the current wording is not adequate: by the end of the World Cup there will be lots of articles on lots of footballers. Many of these article names will not be found in any other encyclopaedia, but they can be found in other reliable published sources. --Philip Baird Shearer 00:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

What is 'Latin alphabet'?
Our definition of Latin alphabet states that it has 6 letters and classifies all alphabet with diactrics (ą, ć, etc.) as Alphabets derived from the Latin. As this policy states Article titles should use the Latin alphabet, not any other alphabets or other writing systems, this raises a logical question whether an 'alphabet derived from Latin' is considered Latin or not for the purpose of this definition, especially if we define the 'alphabet derived from Latin' as the one using diactrics and note that this policy in the latter section states: ''There is disagreement over what article title to use when a native name uses the Latin alphabet with diacritics (or "accent marks") but general English usage omits the diacritics. A survey that ran from April 2005 to October 2005 ended with a result of 62–46 (57.4%–42.6%) in favor of diacritics, which was a majority but was not considered to be a consensus.'' This would indicate for me that these diactric letters are considered part of the Latin alphabet for the purpose of the WP:NC(UE) definition (otherwise this policy would have to be interpeted as forbidding the use of diactrics in titles, resulting in a need for massive renaming of thousands of articles (ex. Gdańsk or Jäger (military)). Therefore I'd like to propose a change, reflecting our current usage, which would rephrase the policy as follows: Article titles should use the Latin and derived aphabets, not any other alphabets or other writing systems Let me stress that if one disagrees with this change it implies one sees the mentioned thousands of articles in violation of this policy and in need of immediate move.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree with your suggested change. -- Philip Baird Shearer 00:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with the change. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 12:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds okay to me, but maybe a bit redundant since the sense of "Latin alphabet" in the guideline clearly encompasses derived alphabets, for example it refers to "Latin-alphabet languages, like Spanish or French" both of which include diacritics and stuff :) Haukur 12:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Haukur that the change is, technically, redundant, but I reckon it would be a good idea to get it stated solidly so that there can be no doubts. To that end, your suggestion is admirable. --Stemonitis 13:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Disagree:
 * The proposed change is not something that wouldn't affect article naming in Wikipedia (so not "redundant" in that sense), while after such change we'd have to move Leet to 1337 (linguistics) or something in that vein (1337 is derived from "Latin alphabet", even if it deforms, for instance, and E to 3, etc; "Leet" is an "English" word, so that means "1337" is also an English word different from a number, only it is written in a more "suitable" alphabet derived from the Latin alphabet);
 * Piotrus misquoted the wikipedia article Latin alphabet, which nowhere limits the Latin alphabet to 26 letters, the exact quote is "The basic alphabet comprises 26 letters and is used, with some modification, for most of the languages of the European Union, the Americas, Sub-Saharan Africa, and the islands of the Pacific" (my bolding). There's no unclarity. FYI, the article Alphabets derived from the Latin gives a rather limited approach (too much limited to a "unicode" viewpoint, also not listing "English" in the extended tables, also doesn't distinguish between "letters" and "characters"/"glyphs",... and other deficiencies) which makes that article IMHO unsuitable as a reference (currently). In other words, maybe go improve that article (I think it needs a lot of improving), instead of trying to obtain a guideline modification on the basis of such incomplete data.
 * Further, Piotrus builds a contorted reasoning regarding diacritics. Whether a letter has a diacritic or not does not make it "more" or "less" "Latin alphabet". In unicode there's a technical distinction, while diacritics can be added "precomposed" or "combining": although defined in unicode (and "printable" on many systems), the latter type of diacritics can not be used in Wikipedia article names (see naming conventions (technical restrictions)). So, Wikipedia uses "precomposed" letters-with-their-diacritical-in-one-glyph, and not letters separately with diacriticals added to them afterwards – assuming that this "technical" distinction defines letters as "Latin alphabet" or not is incorrect.
 * From Latin alphabet:"Eth Ðð and the Runic letters thorn Þþ, and wynn Ƿƿ were added to the Old English alphabet. Eth and thorn were later replaced with 'th', and wynn with the new letter 'w'. Although these 3 letters are no longer part of the Latin alphabet as used for English, eth and thorn are still used in modern Icelandic." So, in Wikipedia's "Latin alphabet" article eth, thorn and wynn *are* defined as belonging to the "Latin alphabet" (as "other letters of the Latin alphabet", no discussion about that), but, as described, used in Old English, but "no longer part of the Latin alphabet as used for English". Anyway, these are *separate letters* (not only separate glyphs), they're "other letters" from the *Latin alphabet*, and they're not "a-z/A-Z" letters with a precombined diacritic.
 * Please don't try to go always further in the exploitation of the no-consensus resulting from the earlier vote on diacritics. There's no consensus to give all sorts of alphabets "derived from Latin alphabet" an approval that is not covered by the outcome of the earlier vote. The fact that there's no consensus benefits the proponents of forms that are unusual in English enough as it is. Rather we should be working towards consensus, which maybe was out of reach earlier, but maybe today through further analysis (see e.g. this analysis I effectuated on an example given by Piotr), etc... comes closer.
 * --Francis Schonken 14:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I oppose at least the part "derived alphabets". It means such letters that are arduous to write with a regukar keyboard. I am of the opinion that article names should contain basically just such characters that are available in the normal keyboard. So many of the characters of those derived alphabets are not. Shilkanni 17:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * As far as I gather British and Irish keyboards are at least slightly different to North American ones, so your idea would lead to problems. Also, why can't you just use the panel of characters beneath the edit box? The point of these conventions is to make it easier on the eye to read, not easier on the hand to type, and in the case of acute accents and such, that is particularly true. elvenscout742 18:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think the typing issue is really such a big problem, because there should always be redirects in place from the unaccented forms (if that isn't already a guideline, it certainly should be). So, for instance, even if you find it difficult to type crème brûlée, because yours is not a French keyboard, you should be able to type creme brulee and get to the same article. --Stemonitis 07:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem is not so much that of finding and reading articles, though that is frustrating enough, BUT to contribute: to link to right place when writing another article and putting there a link to an article where there are some arduously written or a bit unexpected diacritics. Say, when I am writing an article about Anna of Celje, I actually do not like to bother to check under that workload and having the edit window open, with a bunch of carefully correctured text already almost ready to be inserted, (1) what precise form Casimir III of Poland happens to reside at that moment, and (2) where to find those precise diacriticals used at that time in the article name of dear Jogaila of Lithuania, a rapidly moving creature floating atound in the name space. Actually, knowing that their places may be "weathervanes", I tend to write such using a non-correct version which will however in the future lead in all situations to the correct one and not to a future disambig page, for example. That is the reason why I so often link to "Jogaila of Lithuania"  - to link to a Polish monarchical name is inherently risky business, you do not know where it is in the next blink of eye. 84.251.186.14 09:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to note that not all diacritics are created equal. Diacritics used in the Romance and Germanic languages (French, Spanish, Portuguese, German, the Scandinavian languages to a lesser extent) are fairly familiar in English, and generally are supported by ascii codes (and thus not that hard to write out for those of us with anglophone keyboards). Usually place names and foreign loan words in the English language are written with these diacritics (for instance, we normally see "São Paulo," and not "Sao Paulo"), although not always. Furthermore, I'd suggest that a fair number of english-speakers know, for instance, what an acute accent in French does, or what an umlaut does, in terms of pronunciation. This contrasts with, say, Polish diacritics, which are not in ASCII and are not familiar at all to English-speakers, who have know idea what, say, the little line going through the "l" in the Polish "ł" means. Personally, I would prefer to only use the more familiar diacritics derived from western european languages, and to ignore other diacritics. john k 08:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * "for instance, we normally see "São Paulo," and not "Sao Paulo"" I don't
 * about 20,500,000 English pages for -"São Paulo" "Sao Paulo" -wikipedia
 * about 11,600,000 English pages for "São Paulo" -"Sao Paulo" -wikipedia
 * "I'd suggest that a fair number of english-speakers know, for instance, what an acute accent in French does, or what an umlaut does, in terms of pronunciation." Like to take a bet? If so I'll go down to a pub and ask at half time during one of the English World Cup matches. I doubt if it would be 5% would know either, and that it would be less for both, and next to none for German, French and Spanish squiggles. The only thing to be said in favour of French and German squiggles is they are relativly unobtrisive, because there are relativly few in most words comaired to things like Battle of Điện Biên Phủ--Philip Baird Shearer 10:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * "A fair number of English speakers" is a reasonably mild claim, and your "I'll go down to the pub" comment is completely specious. And I really do think that, when reading a word with an "é" at the end, a lot of people probably do know that that means that the letter is pronounced rather than silent.  Maybe not a crowd of lads watching a football match, but a decent number of people - a large percentage of English-speakers have at least taken a couple of years of French or Spanish, at the very least.  As to your google search, I find that profoundly unconvincing.  I'm not even sure google is really good at determining this - I did a similar search for "Orleans" -"Orléans" and got back a bunch of results that said "Orléans".  At any rate, your position on this is so extreme that all you're doing is giving the victory to the people who like Điện Biên Phủ and Władysław.  There really is a substantive difference between the usage of the basic ASCII/Western European diacritics and the usage of all the others - you frequently see the former in English language sources, and you rarely see the latter.  I don't see how this is debatable.  I suppose we can continue to argue about whether "Sao Paulo" or "São Paulo" is really more common - perhaps I was speaking too strongly, but it's a fact that you see "São Paulo" fairly frequently in English.  You rarely see Polish or Vietnamese diacritics. (And what the fuck is up with bizarre-ass Serbian diacritics like Zoran Đinđić - Serbian is written in Cyrillic, it has no write to force these ridiculous diacritics on us. john k 11:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * John I apologies, It was not my intention to upset you, but to remind you that the majority of potential English readers will not be familiar with most diacritics, and that in many environments "Sao Paulo" will be the version which is read not "São Paulo". As you say "but it's a fact that you see "São Paulo" fairly frequently in English" and I gladly conceded that is true. Also, I agree with you over the look of the word (see below), if not the understanding of the diacritics. --Philip Baird Shearer 14:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * A side issue: only a short time ago Serbo-Croatian was written in both Cyrillic and Latin alphabets, with Croatian still using the Latin, so it's hardly surprising that there are Latin-alphabet transliterations of Serbian names. I don't think any of these languages and alphabets can reasonably be called "bizarre-ass".
 * I'm worried by the idea of a two-tier system of accents which seems to be developing here, with "familiar" European accents being deemed acceptable, but unfamiliar (to Europeans and Americans) accents like Vietnamese being unacceptable. Unless there are technical problems that affect them differently, Vietnamese accented Latin letters deserve to be treated the same as, say, French accented letters. --Stemonitis 12:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. The problem is that while we have a lot of Polish editors ensuring accurate representation of Polish names (like Lech Wałęsa) we have sadly few Vietnamese contributors so many articles on Vietnamese subjects lack the diacritics that they are due (see Trinh Cong Son and its history). Haukur 12:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I was perhaps over-reacting on the Serbian business. That said, the two-tiered system is perfectly appropriate in context of the basic Wikipedia "use common names" rule.  In Western European languages, accents are commonly reproduced in English.  We have relatively easy built-in ways to type them in Microsoft Word, for instance.  The Germanic and Romance languages are also, as a rule, more familiar to English speakers than any other languages, and so people have more of a grasp on what the diacritics mean, as well.  Diacritics in Slavic languages, in Hungarian, in Vietnamese, in various transliterated languages, and in any other languages I may have missed are completely unfamiliar to English-speakers.  This is a genuine difference, and to formalize is it is in line with the basic principal of "use common names." john k 13:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem is, though, where to draw the line. Should Hungarian, a Central European language (i.e. not massively exotic, geographically), be too strange for its accents to be allowed? Hungarian accented letters are pretty easy (much more so than its non-accented letters, incidentally). Are our naming policies really going to follow the Iron Curtain? That that would be a ridiculous anachronism. Trying to quantify how strange a letter has to be before it's unusable, and then dividing all accented letters simply into "good" and "bad" is likely to offend and confuse much more than making a simpler rule that applies to all. --Stemonitis 13:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The Hungarian language is, however, massively exotic, linguistically. Note that Romance and Germanic languages are not only the closest geographically to England, they are the closest linguistically to English (Germanic languages through direct relationship, Romance languages due to the heavy borrowing by English from both Latin and French). Also, again, many more English-speakers have some familiarity with Romance languages or German than do with Hungarian (which, I would guess, very few native English speakers know a word of). john k 13:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm going to ramble a bit here so if you don't like stories that don't go anywhere you should stop reading now :) I think Philip has the right of it, the idea that the typical English speaker understands the meaning of French, German, Spanish and Portuguese diacritics but not those of Serbian or Vietnamese ones is conceited. As for understanding that the 'é' at the end of words like 'café' is not silent, well, I'd almost call that an English diacritic.


 * Maybe, maybe not. It's used in English words, but only English words which were recently derived from French.  The earliest reference in OED to "café" is from 1802, and all the early references are referring to cafés in continental Europe, which suggests it was still seen as an exotic foreign word well into the 19th century.  Furthermore, sure, I'm willing to accept that the "typical English speaker" does not know what accents in French, German, Spanish, and Portuguese mean.  I never said otherwise.  What I said was that "a fair number" of English-speakers do know what they mean, and that the same is not true of the diacritics of other languages.  The idea that the number of native English-speakers who are familiar with French diacritics is comparable to the number who are familiar with Croatian or Vietnamese diacritics is just absurd.  The fact that many more native English-speakers speak a little French or Spanish than Croatian or Vietnamese is both incontestable and perfectly relevant to this discussion, and I don't see where conceitedness comes int it. john k 13:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * And if you actually want to find out what sound the Serbian 'đ' represents you can punch it into that search box on the left and find out in less than a minute that it represents a voiced alveolo-palatal affricate. If you go to the Serbian language article you'll further learn that the nearest English equivalent is found in words like schedule.


 * Yes, of course you can. But why not just use "Dj" which is the much more commonly used English form? john k 13:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * A wider point is that while it's true that you won't have any idea how to pronounce, for example, Icelandic 'ú' the point that is often forgotten is that you have no idea how to pronounce the Icelandic 'u' either. There's no way to pronounce words from foreign languages correctly without actually knowing something about those languages. If you don't, then you'll just have to guess based on your knowledge on how the Latin alphabet is used to write languages you know. Sometimes you'll mentally strip unfamiliar diacritics from the word before you make your guess and that's fine. For example when faced with the Vietnamese 'đ' your best guess may to pronounce it as an English 'd'. And by a happy coincidence that's just about correct.


 * Sure. But lots and lots more native English-speakers "know something about" French, Spanish, and German than know something about Polish, Croatian, or Vietnamese.  The canon of great English literature is full of untranslated French, etc. etc. This is a relevant fact. john k 13:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It often seems to me that people gloss over the fact that diacritics mean different things in different languages. For example the character 'ú' is found in Icelandic, Faroese, Slovak and Spanish (among others) and in each case it represents a different sound. The same goes for unaccented characters. Haukur 12:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure. No question.  The point is that some languages or more familiar to English speakers than others.  Complete astonishment and confusion at French accents is much less likely than the same at Slovak characters simply because a lot of English speakers have some experience with French.  john k 13:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, sure, I'll concede that point. But remember that English is what passes for an international language and the English Wikipedia is heavily read (and edited) by people whose native language is not English (like me). For example our articles on Slovak subjects are probably heavily read by Slovaks and other people who are at least a little familiar with the Slovak language. Those people will largely prefer to have the diacritics in place. Haukur 13:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

It is the same with the German car called a Porsche only those who have more than a passing interest in the model know that, it is sort of, pronounced in German as if it ended in "r" in English. Consequently few in English speakers pronounce it the German way (My friends all have Porsches ...). The major reason given for using national spellings in articles is because wrong spellings tend to grate on the reader. I think the same thing happens with diacritics and letter not in the 26 of the English Alphabet, a "ü" can be more easily glossed over than an "ł" can, this may be in part familiarity, but it is also to do with how the diacritic alters the shape of the letter to the unaccustomed eye. The result is that one is thinking about how odd the word looks instead of what the text trying to convey. I think the major problem is that for many foreign editors, editing an article about something they are familiar with (eg a person or a town), for them not to see the correct diacritics on a familiar word is just as distracting for them as it is for a native English speaking person to see them. --Philip Baird Shearer 14:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I would say that a fair number of people kind of vaguely know that "Porsche" is pronounced "Porsch-uh" (at least that's how I'd pronounce it. For us Americans pronouncing something like there's an "r" on the end would mean we'd pronounce it "Porscherrr" with heavy accent on a nasal "r" sound - I assume you're British, and swallow the "r"?) - one sees snobby people on movies and television pronounce it that way, for instance.  They don't know the German pronunciation rules that explain why it is pronounced that way, but I don't think the German pronunciation is a mystery. Of course people generally don't pronounce it that way.  But that's not the same thing at all.  I do think you're underestimating to what extent familiarity with the particular weird foreign squiggle plays a role.  The little line through the "ł" isn't noticeably more intrusive than the sedilla ("ç"), but the latter doesn't look nearly as weird, simply because French is a much more familiar language.  An additional point, related to your comment that people get annoyed when things they know about aren't spelled correctly - for French, German, etc., you're not just going to find foreign editors irritated at the wrong spelling.  You're also going to find Anglophone editors annoyed, because a fair number will be familiar with the foreign language in question.  Essentially, then, I would say that the point at which we should start putting diacritics in titles is the point at which the number of anglophone editors distracted by the lack of diacritics approaches the number who are distracted by the presence of diacritics.  If that makes any sense. john k 16:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think I actually agree with this principle. The empirical problem is that we have almost no way of knowing what spelling annoys fewest people for any given subject. My guess is that people interested in, for example, obscure Polish subjects will generally know some Polish and prefer to avoid Anglicized forms of Polish words. But when a subject or person is well-enough known you can make a case for stripping diacritics. For example I can understand why people might want to move Lech Wałęsa to Lech Walesa because the latter spelling was frequently used in media coverage of the man outside of Poland (partly for typographical reasons, I suppose). I'd still not agree that this move should be made but then I'm a diacritics fan and I think the form with the diacritics is more informative, even if it may be jarring to some. But still, I'll concede that it's a borderline case. Haukur 22:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * A very good observation which I would say explains lots of my corrections.
 * That aside, while I agree with john that some diactrics are better known then others, I would like to strongly disagree that it implies we should divide them into two groups and use only part of them. First, where do we draw the line? French, German - sounds good. Although... are we sure 'ß' is so popular? What about Scandinavian? Spanish? What if - just gusssing - ñ is more popular then ü? Should we judge it on diactric by diactric basis? Should we use a google search or some academic publication as a criteria? What about historical diactrics and changes in time? While I am not saying it is technically not feasible, such a project seems rather like a big waste of time for me.
 * Second, why should we let popularity of a given diactric determine this at all? There is a difference between popularity and notability. The fact that an African town has no article on Wiki while an American village has does not make the African town less notable. Haukur raised a very good point that how many wiki-editors a given language has is an important factor in determining how much this language (and the country POV and such) is represented on Wiki. But the fact that this bias exists should not make us accept it as an 'ok' situation, or even worse, enshrine it in a policy. That Lithuania is over 10 times as small as Poland does not mean that its POV or its language is 10 times less important; they are equal. Same goes for example for Poland versus twice as large Germany or France (and let's not forget that population size is only a part of the factor here, and wealth and censorship in some countries even further lower the number of editors representing that area). Either we treat the diactrics as notable and correct for all languages and don't differentiate between French, Polish and Vietnamise, or we outrule all of them on Wikipedia, but I strongly object to some diactrics being more important then others.
 * Third and somewhat OT. No offence to anybody but I seriously doubt that more then half of English speakers could define diactric or even give you an example (this holds true for all countries - diactrics will not be recongnized by most citizens of any country). Diactrics are strange to most of Wikipedia readers, no matter if they are French or Vietnamise. So the question is whether they are they helpful or not. Here the point about this Wiki being international and about citizens of given country reading en wiki should not be forgotten (this being the biggest wiki of all), and there is of course the disambigs issue, and often the case of having several English variants of a name to chose from, and others. Although if we want to start the debate about diactrics - use them or not - perhaps we should do this in another thread, but I will repeat once again: either we use them all or none at all (or at least that's my view on the possible choices).
 * Finally, let me restate the original question. Since we currently are using diactrics, we should modify the wording of the relevant articles/guidelines mentioned above to make it clear it is ok or not and if we are not sure if this is ok or not, we need to finally decide on it, sooner the better. Having confusing and unclear guidelines is not helping either side.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * My own feeling is that we should follow the lead of the majority of other popular English-language usage, meaning major newspaper and magazine articles. If a diacritic word shows up with diacritics every time the New York Times and International Herald Tribune write about it, per their style guides, then Wikipedia should reflect that.  If English-language newspaper articles omit the diacritics, then we should leave them off the Wikipedia article titles.  If it's ambiguous, and consensus cannot be reached to keep diacritics on an article's talk page, then the default should be "don't use diacritics."  If a subject does become notable later and the newspapers do start using diacriticals, then the Wikipedia article can be moved to match popular usage, as verifiable third-party sources will be easily available. --Elonka 15:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Typically, newspapers have had printing restrictions that limit the extent to which they can use diacritics. I'd suggest not limiting it to media sources - works of reference should be consulted as well, and perhaps textbooks. To Piotrus - Spanish, French, and German would be the obvious languages where diacritics are most used, with perhaps Portuguese added. And I don't see how notability has anything to do with it. The issue is what the "most common name used in English" is, not whether the diacritic is itself notable (which is a nonsensical idea). john k 16:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Going by the usage of the sources used to write the article is often a helpful guideline. Haukur 16:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with John Kenney's take on the situation. Not all diacritics need to be treated equally. Our goal is to achieve good, readable style, not to pursue some objective of fairness which is really irrelevant to letters (cold, unthinking things that they are). As for where to draw the line, the decision should be made on a case-by-case basis, looking at the specifics of each language in question in terms of how unreadable its diacritics and non-English letters are. In some cases, we should decide separately on the consonants and vowels of a given language (for instance, I oppose β, but ö and ü are among the more plausible non-English letters to use).&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!) 03:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I am against the position that we should treat diacritics case by case. We need a clear cut policy. Therefore, all diacritics need to be treated equally. Not necessarily for the sake of objectiveness or fairness, but for the sake of consistency. Otherwise, there always are going to be issues with each case using diacritics. I say we should either have no diacritics in article names or allow ALL diacritics in Latin-based alphabets. I would vote for no diacritics, even common ones such as cedilla. Furthermore, determining the "Englishness" of particular diacritics is not going to be easy and can not see an objective method on achieving this. --TimBits [[Image:Flag of Canada.svg|25px|  ]] 20:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Related poll
A related poll, with several users citing *this* policy as a reason not to use diactrics, is being held at Talk:List of Polish monarchs.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks Piotrus. And I agree, I would especially like to see the participants of this policy page, weigh in with their own opinions on the poll. --Elonka 18:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Huh?
If you are talking about a person, country, town, movie or book, use the most commonly used English version of the name for the article,...


 * Ok... but what about things that are not people, countries, towns, movies, or books?  What about Circumcision, or Voodoo, both of which currently have discussions active on what title is most appropriate?  Circumcision could be used to mean either male circumcision only or circumcision of either gender - but best English usage is male-specific.  It has been requested that Voodoo be moved to Vodou, a name preferred by the members of the religion, who (it is claimed) feel Voodoo is an ignorant and contemptuous term invented by Hollywood.  Other editors claim that the spelling Voodoo is more commonly used in English and therefore should prevail.


 * These are not people, countries, towns, movies, or books. They are a medical procedure (or, in others' opinion, a traditional ritual) and a religion.  Do this article's naming conventions apply?  Shouldn't the above sentence be greatly simplified to, "When discussing any object, person, or phenomena in mainspace, it is best to use the most commonly used English version of the name for the subject under discussion"?  By narrowly limiting the convention to only people, countries, towns, movies, and books, a vast majority of articles describing objects and phenomena are left without any clear direction as regards naming conventions.  What is the purpose of this narrow limitation?  Kasreyn 10:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for new general naming convention for non-English proper names
There is proposal regarding whether only English should be used: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions. You're welcome. --Monk 17:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Poll on some German street
There is a vote ongoing at Talk:Voss-strasse to move that article to "Voßstraße". Shilkanni 17:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

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

Poll on deciding English spelling of the word "Voivodship / Voivodeship"
There has been a multi-month discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Geography of Poland, about the correct English term to use for a Polish geographical region. The consensus was "Voivodeship", so an official request on renaming all the "Voivodship" categories to "Voivodeship" was submitted. However, there still appears to be some controversy, so additional viewpoints are being requested. Anyone with an opinion on the matter is invited to participate, at the CFR poll. --Elonka 01:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)