Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English)/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Petitio principii

This edit begs both questions at issue. Most of those who would use letter forms uncommon in English also assert that English, Icelandic, Croatian, and so on, use the same alphabet, not distinct "Latin-based alphabets". They are wise to do so; there might well be consensus to extrude such spellings if they were admitted to be distinct.

"Latin-based" becomes particularly interesting phrasing when addressing thorn (letter), which is a rune, not based on Latin at all. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

There is, however, a potential compromise. This leading paragraph is largely redundant with

Similarly, names originally in a non-Latin alphabet, as with Greek, Chinese or Russian, must be transliterated, to ensure readers will understand them. If there is no usual English form of the name, use a generally accepted system of transliteration.

two pargraphs below. Merging would shorten the lead, and cause it to start with Use the most commonly used English version of the name of the subject as it ought to. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

If this compromise is adopted? Does that mean names like Teemu Selänne, will be replaced by Teemu Selanne (which is the most common usage, in English)? GoodDay (talk) 17:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It would continue to straddle the issue of whether to consider diacritics English letters or not. (It may reduce the amount of "Latin alphabet" bafflegab; but no change will eliminate that while nationalists wish to force their native spellings upon us.) If Teemu Selanne is most common, and supported by standard references, this guideline supports it now. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I can hear the pro-dios screaming now. GoodDay (talk) 17:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I made the suggestion above to use Latin script, which is the most appropriate wording, I think, but that found no consensus. Since there are still people puzzled by the ambiguity of "Latin alphabet", I wanted to clarify that the 23 letter alphabet of Cicero was NOT intended. Could someone suggest a better alternative which resolves this ambiguity? Jasy jatere (talk) 18:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I would remove the controversial sentence, by taking out the first paragraph and expanding the third to

Similarly, names not originally in a Latin alphabet, as with Greek, Chinese or Russian, must be transliterated into characters generally intelligible to literate speakers of English. If there is no usual English form of the name, use a generally accepted system of transliteration. The native name should generally be included in the first line of the article, with a transliteration if the English name isn't one; redirects from non-English names are encouraged. Where there is an English exonym for the subject, it should be mentioned, even if it is not the most common English name; exonyms should always be at least considered for the title of the article.

Tweaks of this wording are doubtless needed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a very good initiative. I might suggest to take out Meissen from the examples, since the other examples are better known and subject to less discussion. Disclaimer: this is not intended to be an argument for or against sz, it is simply about the number and clarity of examples. Maybe ol'pal Victor Emmanuel can also go, he is not the most widely known guy eitherJasy jatere (talk) 20:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The point of Meissen, as far as I am concerned, is that it is a mere orthographic difference, as distinct, say, from Florence, and that (since we have looked into it) it is one where English usage is almost unanimous. I think Victor Emmanuel, as opposed to Emanuele has the same quality. We should have some such example; which one is less important. Can you think of a better one? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Used Aragon/Aragón for the Meissen case. I first thought that Zurich would be a good example, but the page resides currently at Zürich (which I find incorrect). I am not sure what Victor Emmanuel/Vittorio Emanuele is intended to show. Maybe use another monarch with only one name? What about Isabella of Castile, who has an extra l in English? Then again, maybe not use royalty at all, since they have their own NC... Jasy jatere (talk) 22:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Aragon is unquestionably overwhelming English usage; Zurich may not be, although it would be a good example of an exonym. So would double entendre and Cracow. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I know one thing. I've been trying to get 'diacritics' completely off NHL team articles for months. So far? no dice. Masterhatch was correct, the pro-dios moved articles to dios & put dios in their content (years ago) without discussing it first. As Masterhatch said, it was an underhanded takeover. GoodDay (talk) 18:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Here we go again, it was all a plot to sneak it by everyone. You watch too many spy movies or something. -Djsasso (talk) 18:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You can wipe out my posting (if you want). I'm not gonna win this. GoodDay (talk) 18:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Borderline cases

This section is vague; and is currently being abused in move discussions. The intent seems plain: Use the most common English name; even where there is some tendency to adopt local names, as with Torino during the Olympics, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Do not guess what English will adopt, look at what it has adopted. On the other hand, mere google results are rarely enough. Tests using www.google.com are subject to many systematic errors, and to chance; unless they are overwhelming, consult standard secondary sources and see what they use. I suggest rewording. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

reliable and verifiable sources

I wonder in how far reference to WP:SOURCES is appropriate in the context of UE. The problem is that we are not dealing with the factual content of the sources (Is Göttingen really a town in Germany?), but with the form (Göttingen vs. Gottingen vs. Goettingen). I think WP:UE should state that sources which are authoritative for language use should be given, which may or may not coincide with their reputation for fact-checking. Two examples to illustrate this

bbcsinhala.com is one of the most reliable sources on the ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka and clearly passes WP:SOURCE, but the level of English is appalling
Mary Shelley is surely a good source for the use of English, but Frankenstein should not be cited as a source in medical and biological articles

This is not a huge problem as the intended meaning should be clear to everyone, but as an encyclopedia, we should strive to be as accurate as possible. Any suggestions how to cope with this? Jasy jatere (talk) 21:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I would consider the sort of sources mentioned at WP:NCGN to be good sources here: encyclopedias, the Oxford guides and Cambridge histories, the general usage of the press. If we can get a well-sourced statement on usage, so much the better, but they will be rare. If general scholarly usage is Göttingen, and I think it is, that may be the best we can do. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No established usage

I would like to talk about the current wording of this section in regards to Zoran Zigic or Zoran Žigić and other similar names from Eastern Europe. If the name does appear in English texts in both formats which should be used? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 20:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

It will likely be the latter, due to the fact that English Wikipedia is stuck with diacritics. GoodDay (talk) 20:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with GoodDay. The current version of the guideline seems to be pretty clear about this:

When there is no established usage of the term, more consideration should be given to the correctness of translation, rather than frequency of usage.

The 'correct' version seems to be Zoran Žigić in this case. Jasy jatere (talk) 16:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

As we are not talking about no usage just little usage, How do you conclude that Žigić is more correct than Zigic? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It says correctness of translation. Translation involves two languages. From this, I infer that it is not the correctness in English that is intended here, but the correctness in the "other" language, otherwise the other language would not be referred to. This fits well with the heading of the section, since in the absence of established usage in English, there will be no cue to decide what's correct in English hence correctness cannot refer to English. From this, I conclude that the intended meaning is "philological correctness", because I cannot think of any other way how this sentence could make sense. To drive the point home, the "other" language for the case you mention is Serbian, there is no "correct" rendering in English, so that we fall back on the "correct" rendering in Serbian, which is Zoran Žigić. Jasy jatere (talk) 09:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Giving this a bit more thought, it appears to me that the gentleman normally would use Cyrillic letters. In that case,

Names not originally in a Latin alphabet, must be transliterated into characters generally intelligible to literate speakers of English. Do not use a systematically transliterated name if there is a common English form of the name. You state above that there is no common English form, so the systematic transliteration must be applied, which is Zoran Žigić Jasy jatere (talk) 09:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

If Zoran was a Croat (using Latin script), the first paragraph would apply, with the correctness in Croat being decisive Jasy jatere (talk) 09:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

It's an old argument on English Wikipedia, which I fear will never be solved. GoodDay (talk) 18:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

If there is no established usage, I'd go with the diacrits. Readers who don't know how to interpret them will get about the same information from either version, but readers familiar with the Serbian writing are not mislead. Remember to create a redirect, though. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

If there's either a paucity of English usage of a name or term, or a degree of balance between original and "Anglicised" orthographies, I'd be inclined to go with the former. The trouble is, this quickly turns into a slippery slope, where the "local" editors cite one such original-spelling instance as reason for their favourite case to get similar treatment (or, proof of victimisation if such isn't forthcoming). Alai (talk) 20:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with Jasy jatere last comment interpretation of the first paragraph, and would like to know how (s)he comes to that conclusion. Jasy jatere 2nd from last comment is exactly were I have problems because although there is no one common name, "Zoran Zigic" is used in English articles and it is the from that "the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not really sure where you want to get at. Do you think the distinction between established and unestablished is not useful? Or are you suggesting that transliteration rules should have no bearing on article names? Could you restate your position with regard to Viktor Kovačić (a largely unknown Croat with diacritics), under the assumption that English people have not had a lot to say about him, but refer to him as Kovačić and Kovacic? BTW, I am male. Jasy jatere (talk) 14:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Doing some google-grade research on Viktor Kovačić, usage looks somewhat mixed, but there certainly are quite a few that preserve the S-C orthography, so in such cases I think you have a fair point. In the extreme case where someone gets no mentions at all in reliable English sources -- and setting aside any issues that throws up about the notability threshold -- I certainly think we should be using the original spelling, not coming up with our own "de-diacriticising" scheme. The trouble is when people start using such cases as "precedent" for other cases, citing it as evidence that "Wikipedia's own style" is to use diacritics regardless of whether reliable English sources do. Alai (talk) 02:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

In extreme case where someone gets no mentions at all in reliable English sources there is a strong case for arguing that the person is not notable for the English Wikipedia. However even if they are notable we are not debating that point, Viktor Kovacic who is mentioned in English reliable sources with Google Scholar and Books about twice, I would probably put that in the "leave the name at whatever the original author used" category. However in the case of Zoran Zigic or Zoran Žigić then the person is better sourced because they are a war criminal who stood trial in an international court. One solution would be to do the same, and say that the name should remain as it was wen the article was created, as is done in the WP:MOS for national varieties of English when there is no clear indication of what English spelling to use. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that notability is itself language-dependent, but it does seem such an extreme case that that flag would certainly be raised. I'd be strongly opposed to the "first spelling used" rules being employed in such a context. It's supposed to be the method of last resort even in the "national varieties of English" question, and where employed it always comes uncomfortably close to vindicating a degree of article "ownership". Original or "official" spelling seems to me to be a much more neutral sort of default, at least as regards the antics of Wikipedia editors. Alai (talk) 19:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no official spelling in English, there is only established usage. Why not use the first come rule when there is "No established usage" as it would certainly cut down squabbles about names? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 21:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I was not referring to "official spelling", but to usage with some sort of official status as a name (such as, say, forms of the names of countries). It serves no purpose to cite established usage, when we're specifically, by hypothesis, discussing cases where there is none. Your suggestion would most certainly not "cut down squabbles", it would just move existing ones around, and create a few more (where articles at demonstrably wrong titles are alleged to be unmovable due to article-owners citing the proposed 'we were here first' rule). My suggestion would cut down on disputed cases (insofar as it's possible to characterise what people will in fact dispute), and has a basis in objective fact, and customary practice elsewhere, as opposed to on-Wiki behaviour. (And potentially poor on-Wiki behaviour, which this would at least marginally incentivise.) Alai (talk) 04:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you think of a hypothesis were there is no established usage, and "where articles at demonstrably wrong titles are alleged to be unmovable due to article-owners citing the proposed 'we were here first' rule"? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't that the wrong tense? There are no such cases at present, because there's no such rule. But for the sake of illustration, look at the debate over Novak Djokovic, where numerous people argued in favour of what was demonstrably wrong according to the current convention, and imagine if they had such an additional "argument" to employ. And in cases where the article was created before Unicode support, diacritic supporters would of course cry "foul!" if such an argument were used. Alai (talk) 10:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Philip, I fear that "no etablished usage" is not the good section to look for a solution for the Zoran case. Zoran has to be transliterated from Cyrillic. The second paragraph of the first section deals with this. Systematic transliterations have to be used, unless it is common usage to use an unsystematic transliteration, such as Tchaikovsky. From what you say above, Zoran does not seem to fall in the category of Tchaikovsky Jasy jatere (talk) 11:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is about the wording in this section, so citing this section as justification for its wording seems like a circular argument to me. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you suggest a new wording. Which sentence would you like to change and how? 80.135.146.226 (talk) 18:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

As candidates for "systematic transliterations" go, "Zoran Žigić" would be rather trivial: it's just flipping from one Serbian script to the other. The question is then, whether Gaj's Latin alphabet itself requires further "transliteration". If using the form of the name commonly found in reliable English sources were to be consistently applied across the board, almost all Serbian (and Croatian) names would be tranliterated by dropping diacritics, converting non-standard letters into digraphs, etc. So, I don't think that one can really argue that doing something different for those few cases where there's not an established convention, is exactly being "systematic". Alai (talk) 10:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Further rationales

I'm wondering if we should add more rational arguments to our current justification of policy. It's always much better to convince than simply browbeat someone with another wiki-acroynm There are a couple that I can think of:

1) One of wikipedia's problems is credibility. We can build a free source of all of humanity's knowledge, but if it is not trusted, it is not (as) useful. Using suprising, idiosyncratic, or pedantic titles harms our credibility. When a collection of amatuers adopts an idiosyncratic convention in the face of professional and official English usage, it is a reminder that we are, in fact, a collection of amatuers. This is especially true when the surprising title is driven by "nationalistic" concerns. If users learn that a apparently "bizarre" set of characters is vigorously maintained by a group of chiefly nationalistic editors, they may start to wonder what other biases are vigorously maintained by that group of editors.

2) One of wikipedia's (potential) strengths is its usefulness to translators. With interwiki links, translators (of all levels) can instantly crack difficult terms and especially proper nouns. I've had this experience repeatedly with translation into Chinese. My dictionary didn't have the characters for "Minneapolis", but by going to the english wikipedia article on the city and clicking on the zh: link, I could instantaneously find the coventional chinese translation for the name. This goes for translation into English as well. With article titles, we immediately display the conventional name for a subject, such that a prospective translator can discuss the subject (in print, at least) with "native" fluency.

3) It is implied by our article naming policies and guidelines that titles are generally the most common usage. This follows not only our own policies, but adheres to the traditional understanding of reference works. Why do we consult Britannica and dictonaries for arguments on usage convention? Because we understand that encyclopedias and dictonaries are the repository for what is considered to be conventionally correct. The implied factual claim of our titles in en:wiki is that they are the conventional English names of the article's subject. When our titles do not follow English convention, they are untrue and inaccurate.

I'm wondering if there's any comments on the validity of these arguments, and whether or not they are strong enough to include in the policy? Erudy (talk) 23:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, as for 1, isn't it better if readers are warned about potential biases upfront? I don't buy 2, as we try to list all reasonably well-used spelling in the lead. And 3 is essentially a restatement of our policy. I don't think we need to make much of an argument for the use of conventional English names - the trouble is in the case where there is none, or there are multiple equally plausible versions. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't the best way to warn readers about potential bias on content is actual bias in format. If anything, I think that giving up on the naming issues may well just encourage further "ownership" of an article by particular groups or factions of editors. If you don't believe that there's the need to make the argument in favour of conventional usage, take a look at Talk:Novak Đoković (sic). There, you'll see a great deal of opposition to such, arguments latching onto the "diacritics disputed" section of this guideline as licence for all the Serbo-Croatian orthography one could eat, and a lengthy laundry list of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS arguments, which one might take as a "to do" list, where in many of these other cases conventional usage is being cheerfully ignored in favour of local (in one sense or the other) preference. Alai (talk) 00:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I think Stephan may misunderstand 2: we try to list all reasonably well-known names in the lead; but we use the most well-known one in the title (where, in Erudy's case, the Chinese name could be found even by readers with no Chinese). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Erudy, I simply don't know what to say. Let me begin with this: I come from Croatia, and I don't see anything - as you've put it - "bizarre" about the alphabet of my language. It is a Latin-based alphabet, with five extra characters compared to English. (English has - incidentally - four extra characters compared to Croatian: q, w, x and y.)

Let me also tell you this: there's nothing "professional" nor "official" about writing "Goran Ivanisevic" instead of "Goran Ivanišević"; it's more like sloppy, and it's worse than that if it's done intentionally. The "tradition" od jettisonning "funny" characters in English is due to nothing more than: 1) technical limitations of conventional printing technology where such characters were not available as recently as a decade ago, 2) writing for local audience; a newspaper in Alabama simply won't bother. This is all understandable; it happens in other languages too.

However, Wikipedia is something quite different: there are no technical limitations in that respect, and there is a global audience, if ever there was one. I can't stress this enough: English Wikipedia is not an American or British encyclopedia, it is a world encyclopedia; at least I've always seen it that way, otherwise why would I take part in it? We are "nationalists" and "amateurs" in the same vein as National Geographic is. Yes, Ivanišević. Yes, Đoković. Yes, José María Aznar. Yes, Herðubreið. My nationalism is quite odd... And that's what's the central problem with your argument: it is not only logically and factually incorrect, it is not only insulting: it is hypocritical because it attempts to paint globalist, worldwide views as "nationalism" and general irrationality, while promoting parochialism under the guise of "tradition" and "professionalism". GregorB (talk) 21:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

GregorB you wrote "English Wikipedia is not an American or British encyclopedia, it is a world encyclopedia", I disagree in so much as it is an English language encyclopaedia and we should follow English language usage (not in Croatian or any other foreign language's usage). How do we know what English usage is? We follow he advise in WP:V as we do for all content, we look at the references and wider English language sources and follow their lead, so that we comply with the naming convention policy so that "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.". If (to use your example) "Goran Ivanišević" is the most common spelling in reliable English language sources then we ought to use that spelling and if it is "Goran Ivanisevic" then we use that, or any other combination of letter that reliable English language sources dictate. If we do that, we follow the Wikipeia policies. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 22:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an English language encyclopedia, but there are no reasons to write "Goran Ivanisevic" that are intrinsic to English language; it's just common usage (two different things). But this usage has been heavily influenced by two factors I mentioned, none of which apply to Wikipedia. (Please don't get me wrong here: the city in Italy would still be Florence, not Firenze.) My point is this: Wikipedia is a world encyclopedia. It just so happens that it is written in English; a millennium ago it would be written in Latin. There is no good reason to maintain usage conventions that are not mandated by the language itself and are particular to English-speaking countries such as USA and UK, if we were to maintain a worldwide view. National Geographic and many other publications intentionally depart from "most common spelling in English usage", and for a reason: this is precisely because they strive to be reference material. Inasmuch as Latin-based alphabets are involved, I think we should depart too, as a matter of policy. GregorB (talk) 22:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Another issue. Whether we like it or not, nowadays Wikipedia is determining what is the most common usage. What is written in Wikipedia is most common. So I find this argument a little bit outdated. At least in cases like this, that most English media use ASCII version, Wikipedia should use original version. I do not see problem that some might not recognize Ivanišević, if they search for Ivanisevic. And that's the basic rule.--Irić Igor -- Ирић Игор -- K♥S (talk) 09:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

It may someday be true, as User:Iricigor claims, that Wikipedia will determine usage, but not yet. And the policy is now to use whatever is the common English usage. Contrary to the claims of some, this is not a "world encyclopedia" any more than is the Italian wikipedia. Sure, more people use it, as is their choice, but if non-English speakers come here, they should play by the rules. And yes, GregorB, technical limitations have been largely eliminated, but that is not the only limitation. The vast majority of English speakers like their text with minimal diacritics. This is self-evident to anyone who reads a variety of English-language material that covers world topics.

Look, guys, we are familiar with your arguments. And they're not wrong, per se, but they are irrelevant. Personally, I don't mind diacritics; I just read past them (I feel differently, however, about non-English letters, e.g., ß and þ.) But most native-English speakers feel differently, and it is for them that this Encyclopedia is being written. We are trying to disseminate as much knowledge as possible, and if someone decides to not read an article because they are uncomfortable with the non-English markings, then we have failed in our task. (And please, don't tell me that we fail them when we give them "incorrect" spellings. They're not incorrect spellings, they're English spellings.)Unschool (talk) 00:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The question of whether Wikipedia is a world encyclopedia or not is perhaps irrelevant; at any rate, it belongs to those tho read it and write it, whoever they are. I'm well aware of the way diacritics are treated in mainstream English usage; maybe Wikipedia will exert some influence in that respect, maybe not - personally, I don't really care. What is really hateful to me is the idea that diacritics should be stripped from Wikipedia just because USA Today (or what have you) won't bother. I must bring up National Geographic for the third time (and a link to their style manual): why would they choose to make their readers uncomfortable? Is this reason applicable to an encyclopedia? If not - why not? GregorB (talk) 08:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

GregorB, I think I know what your annoyance at having diacritics "stripped" feels like. I'm guessing it's the same kind of annoyance other people feel when every imaginable linguistic group demands that their particular orthographic idiosyncrasy be recognized and catered to, even at the expense of the comprehension of the larger community.Erudy (talk) 00:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

But most native-English speakers feel differently, and it is for them that this Encyclopedia is being written. - is it? I was under the impression that we were writing an encyclopaedia for all English speakers - be it as a first, second, or 'n'th language. And I honestly doubt that anyone is not going to read and article because of the presence of diacritics, or even 'non English letters' (although þ *was* an English letter up till the printing press, and probably still would be were that not introduced, and ß is more of a ligature than a letter.) I see naïve and café almost as often as naive and cafe, and imagine they would be more common were people not lazy. --Neil (talk) 11:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

One more comment, more of a side note: I find the idea of using "English sources" for matters of style problematic in principle. An example: "100 m" (as in "100 meters") is correct, and "100m" is incorrect, according to both WP:UNITS and ISO 31. But IAAF, FINA and IOC all use "100m" (on their respective web sites at least). The point is this: ISO 31 trumps everything (by convention, whatever - it doesn't really matter why and how), and IAAF, FINA are all wrong. Otherwise we'd have "100m" in articles about swimming and athletics, and "100 m" in articles about, say, architecture. Doesn't make sense. One should source the rules themselves, not their outcomes. GregorB (talk) 12:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Use English?

Can anyone point me in the direction of any discussion (in the archive?) as to why English should be prefered? That is, in many contexts, at least in British English usage it is not unusual to use a foreign title (for instance in the title of Proust's 'À la recherche du temps perdu', which is currently located at In Search of Lost Time), and IMHO it should be Wikipedia policy to put articles at a foreign title, where the title has substantial usage in English. However, I acknowledge that this probably has been discussed many times before, and do not want to rake over old ground - hence my request. --Neo (talk) 21:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Why use English in the English Wikipedia? It's a real puzzler, that one... This discussion starts on-wiki at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (anglicization), and before that, on the mailing list. And continues to this day, where people will confidently present their own Alice-in-Wonderland definitions as to what "English" is, to make application of this convention impossible or meaningless. (See links in the previous section.) However, the current convention (in the odd instance where it actually gets followed) is not to use English not matter what, but to follow what's commonly used in reliable sources that're published in English. This is vague enough in practice that I'd personally be in favour of an element of presumption in favour of original names and titles. (I assume that original is what you intend where you say "foreign".) This would of course also be tremendously vague in application, since one still has to draw the line somewhere as to what's sufficient use in English, and people with "their" article on the wrong side of wherever that line falls might be even less happy than they are at present. (Or, all the more determined to insist that it not be.) Maybe this is worth kicking up to the village pump, since discussion at individual pages and here has proved less than decisive so far. Alai (talk) 22:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

There's simply too many Naming linguistic conventons. GoodDay (talk) 23:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

interesting bit from NC:Indic

I found the following sentence on NC Indic, which might also be a good recommendation for UE

Personal, organisation, and company names in current and recent usage should generally be romanized according to the nameholder's preference, if that can be established.

Could be of relevance for scholars on the one hand and sports people on the other hand. Comments?Jasy jatere (talk) 12:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

That's roughly in line with my thoughts about "official" names. The question is, should this have any bearing on the NCs in general (currently it does not), and secondly, how does it interact with "common names". Personally, I'd be happiest to use it in instances where a common name is difficult to establish, or where two (or more) names have a reasonable claim to be a conventional usage in English. Using it to override the common name I'd be opposed to. Alai (talk) 18:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The order "Use common name; if no common name, use preferred name" seems sensible to me. Jasy jatere (talk) 08:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to think through the implications before deciding if it is a good idea, but even so "preferred name" is not sufficient as it does not define who's preferred name. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

above, it is the nameholder's preferred name. Jasy jatere (talk) 10:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It must be said, that while that's probably relatively easy to discern for countries, large organisations, etc, it might be less obvious for individuals. I can all too readily envisage move discussions which proceed along the lines of, "s/he's a [Z]ian, obviously s/he prefers the correct [Z]ian script", "his/her English website uses a different spelling, with digraphs/without diacritics/etc", "obviously the work of the Anglophone technocracy and their inability to type correctly". Alai (talk) 13:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

See, for example, Talk:Franjo Tuđman, where it is being argued that this guideline applies only to cities; and that the fact we say that there is dispute about German, Icelandic and Faroese names discriminates against Croatian. I shall be adding Franz Josef Strauss back to avoid the claim that this guidance applies only to cities or historic names. We should say the same things about German and Icelandic as about anything else; I propose to remove the poll from 2005, and the following sentence, and retitle. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I've seen about of that discussion as I can take for the time being, I'm afraid. I'd agree with the above changes; it's worth noting the disagreement over such matters in the context of "beware of sensitivities"/"avoid over-dramatising"/"stuff happens", but it's misleading if it's presented in such as way that could be read as being some sort of exception the established convention of using English (and the common name, and reliable sources). One might also question whether the three-year-old poll even covers cases like the above, where the presence or absence of diacritics requires an entirely different spelling. Perhaps the whole issue needs to be revisited by the community at large to see if consensus has changed, or is any clearer. Alai (talk) 19:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Septentrionalis and Alai that the reference to the vote can be removed since it does not elucidate anything about UE. Same goes for ßðþ. What kind of new title would you suggest, Septentrionalis? Jasy jatere (talk) 15:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to put Modified letters, so we don't ignite the "What is a diacritic?" dispute. If anyone has a better idea, feel free; but do change WP:COMMONNAMES, which links here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

(left)"Personal, organisation, and company names" are determined as follows

Personal name - from the passport governed by the United Nations Convention Travel Document (UNCTD) which has replaced the 1951 Convention Travel Document for refugees.
Organisation name - from its Constitution or Charter (assuming public)
company name - from its incorporation by the state in which it is created via its legal advice per name registration process--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 21:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but "are determined" in what sense? The above isn't our current convention, and nor does it appear to be what Jasy jatere is proposing. Alai (talk) 22:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The passports have to comply with the international convention. The international convention requires the name to be written in English in addition to the issuing country's language. The matter of the system of transliteration is left to the issuing country, but it has to be readable outside its own borders.

Organisational names also use English in their international dealings, such as business cards and internet cites. These are legal and copyrighted symbols of the organisation.

Companies need to use English because of the copyright and patent requirements by the WIPO - World Intellectual Property Organization. There are other similar organisations [1], but all use English as a second language.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, I don't see the relevance of any of this. If someone's not commonly known by the name in their passport, we wouldn't use it at present, and if it's not their own preferred form of their name, we wouldn't use it under this suggestion, either. Are you mooting some further possibility, or are we simply talking at cross purposes? Alai (talk) 00:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, how does one learn of a person's "preferred form of their name"? Usually from media or their solicitor, or PR representative. How does the media learn their name? Usually through research that uses the name in some official form: driver's licence application, application for directorship, authored publications, office holder titles, tax lodgements, etc. If you have a specific example, I can illustrate, but misuse of a person's name in media is a generally regarded as a big embarrassment to the writer/journalist, and they try not to do it by actually confirming the name spelling with the person. --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I pointed out the difficulty with determining "preference" myself. But it would be a fairly systematic error to conflate "preferred" with "official". Let's not further digress onto "misuse", which sounds like another gigantic red herring just waiting to happen. Alai (talk) 01:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me the problem is in defining "preferred". Consider Johnny Cash who preferred to be called J. R. as his parents named him. When he enlisted in the United States Air Force, the military would not accept initials as his name, so he adopted John R. Cash as his legal name. Then when signing with Sun Records in 1955, he took Johnny Cash as his stage name. His friends and in-laws generally called him John, while his blood relatives usually continued to call him J. R. In this case, Johnny is the preferred name, but this came from the individual himself, and was used for copyright purposes by the Sun Records, as well as being the name under which he traded as an artist (in artists Union), and one under which he had to declare his income taxes in addition to the income he may have declared as John R. Cash. One way or another anyone worthy of notability also acquire a name which is in some way their legal name for some purpose or other. Recently this has become known as "branding". A good example is in the case of Prince. Can a person have a preferred name which is not one that they are known for in claiming notability? Yes. I'm sure many notable people have personal preferences in how they are called by those close to them which is not used in public. However, usually names used in public, at least in modern times, are registered trading names, or subject to copyrights also, and lso those which make them notable to the general public.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

To clarify things, I am neutral wrt the inclusion of "preferred names" in UE, but I found it an interesting aspect. As far as Johnny Cash is concerned, he has a name commonly used to refer to him, "Johnny". This trumps everything else. Preferred names only enter the picture if the common name cannot be established, as maybe the case of Zoran Zigic. An example for a preferred name being used against other wp conventions is RMW Dixon (Please do not request a move for that one by the way).Jasy jatere (talk) 15:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

A bot moved it, I hate to say. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Dated stuff

Removed per above section: 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.

There is disagreement as to whether German, Icelandic and Faroese names need transliteration for the characters ß, þ and ð.

Do we need the business about í versus ī? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

one could try to establish who had problems with those letters and when. It might very well be that the technical issues leading to this dispute are obsolete by now, due to the widespread adoption of unicode. There are of course still some letters which do not display properly with all configurations, like ẅ (w with dieresis), but these are extremely unlikely to figure in the title of a page.

To cut it short, remove the section about í versus ī, because it is obsolete for all practical purposes. Jasy jatere (talk) 07:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Fine. We can always put it back. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

There is disagreement on whether the availability of a letter in common fonts should affect its use on Wikipedia - for example whether the letter í (i with acute) should have a different status from the letter ī (i with macron) because the former is more widely available.

Google tests

Please read WP:BIG and the following section. (They are about notability, but the reasoning applies here too: For some topics 183 total hits are indeed a lot.) The problem with 183:102 as google results is not that they are too small to establish notability or English usage, but that less than 2-1 is too close to be confident that this is not one of the systematic errors induced by depending on Google and the web in the first place. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

GoodDay or the Croatians

Should we acknowledge the present state of play, more or less as follows:

Wikipedia often faces a conflict on using diacritics and other modified letters, between two views:

Never use them because they're not English.
Always use them because they would be correct in the local language.

We decide this dispute case by case, in each case doing whatever English normally does.

Comments? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The trouble is that 'whatever English normally does' therefore becomes a point of debate. Can I suggest the following...

Wikipedia often faces a conflict on using diacritics and other modified letters [?in article titles?] with views ranging from no use whatsoever of letters which do not form a standard part of English orthography, to always using the version preferred by the local language. Disputes should be decided on a case-by-case basis, with reference to the standard Wikipedia policies on verifiability and impartiality.

however I suspect that this is essentially saying nothing in a very verbose manner, and I don't think it adds much to the page. --Neo (talk) 14:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

What English normally does is intended to make that the issue (we have ways of resolving that); the usual alternative is to have the issue be What's correct in Foolander?, shading into Racism against Fooland. See, if you can stomach it, Talk:Franjo Tuđman. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

What we can't stomach here is that guys like you showing your linguistic intolerance. En.wiki is not your feud (if you have not noticed so far :( ) neither anybody's else.

What we are trying to emphasize is that we don't insist how somebody was called in some country. We insist on the name that person used himself. and this is where you are persistent in distorting our words. Person has only one name -one that he himself uses. No mather from which language is originally . There are lot of Croats too who don't have Croatian names. But we don't insist on them to be Croatized if the persons don't use that forms themselves. --Anto (talk) 19:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

So now it is "linguistic intolerance" to expect that the English Wikipedia should be written in English, and not Croatian. Noted and logged. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh ,this wiki is in English??? . Oh, I came to wrong place. I thought it was in Hungarian (irony! )

God save us from self-proclaimed experts who believe that they are top-gun ecyclopedians just because they can read and write English. --Aradic-es (talk) 20:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I wonder what purpose the new statement would serve. I fear it would needlessly force users into one of two camps, (pro-dia and anti-dia), a dualism we should strive to avoid.

Furthermore, it does not provide a solution to the problem, or any guideline. It merely says: decide on a case by case basis, which will leave people looking for information none the wiser, but will leave them with the idea that there are kind of two battling camps.

Finally, this policy is called "Use English", not "Use character set [xyzXYZ]", and I think we should get rid of most recommendations regarding character sets. Adopting the use of quality publications should do the same job and save us from these very emotional discussions. The case whether ö is a part of English in some kind of sense will never reach consensus, but the fact that Göttingen is the name normally used in English to refer to a certain city can reach consensus. Jasy jatere (talk) 14:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

To add some positive contribution to the debate, how about

WP:UE does not imply that titles must (not)/may (not) be written in certain characters. WP:UE does imply that the general usage in English publications must be followed, whatever characters are/are not used there.

Jasy jatere (talk) 14:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Wait a sec; I'm not a Croatian? GoodDay (talk) 14:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Changed to or. You are the local representative of one extreme view; they are the current instance of the other. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

First clause needs to be unpacked, or it will be misquoted.

This guideline does not decide what the English alphabet is; English usage does. Wikipedia has no rule that titles must be written in certain characters, or that some characters may not be used. Follow the general usage in English publications in each case, whatever characters are or are not used there.

How's that? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I like it; but there's alot of pro-dios out there, who'll fight it. Also, there's conflicting Naming conventions out there. GoodDay (talk) 15:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Which conflicts? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia: Naming conventions (Chinese), Wikipedia: Naming conventions (Swedish), Wikipedia: Naming conventions (Arabic), for example. GoodDay (talk) 15:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Two of those are {{historic}}. The only diacritics in pinyin Chinese (which very often is usage; it's what we mean by systematic transliteration for Mandarin) are the tone marks, which we do not appear to use for titles, and a good thing too. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 16:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Very good job, PM! Jasy jatere (talk) 16:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I can see some potential of misreading the part "English usage determines English alphabet". People might say "there is an ë in Brontë, so it is part of the English alphabet, so it can also be used in Tiranë". This should be avoided. How about leaving out the part "; English usage does"?Jasy jatere (talk) 16:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

But I like English usage does; it would mean I wouldn't have to say it as often. That's what in each case is for lower down. But each sentence should be self-contained so it can't be quoted out of context. I'll get back to it, unless you have another idea. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

How about Wikipedia does not decide which characters are used for an entity's name; English usage does? Might want to find a better word for "entity"...Jasy jatere (talk) 16:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

in the subject's name? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead. Jasy jatere (talk) 16:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Just curious. Would this guideline call for Teemu Selänne be presented as Teemu Selanne? or for that matter Finnish/Swedish/Czeh etc place-names having their dios removed? GoodDay (talk) 16:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It would depend on what general usage in English publications is. This squashes the anti-dio We must use the 26 English letters, and we may never use funny squiggles, as much as the pro-dio arguments. Are you prepared to settle for half a loaf? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

European-born NHL personel, have their names without dios, in a vast majority (if not all) of English publication. Certainly in NHL magazines, sports sections etc. GoodDay (talk) 16:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Then it would call for a move; and the last RM on Selanne did a fairly good job at showing that English doesn't in fact use diacritics there. Looking at the arguments, we may want to say something about best available sources; the case was made that newspaper usage doesn't count, because newspapers don't know Finnish

Place names depend. If the local name is most used, this would accept it, diacritics and all. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

What I see as a problem here it is that no one of you wants to apply this rule at Kimi Räikkönen, Éamon de Valera, Lech Wałęsa, Carlos Moyà, Guillermo Cañas. For all of them English usage is not like title on Wikipedia. There are thousands of articles that do not follow this rule.

If you try to do that, then we would have another couple of guidelines that avoid this basic one, like we have now with NHL players or Irish names. And each rule with lots of exceptions is not a good rule. --Irić Igor -- Ирић Игор -- K♥S (talk) 22:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem is not so large if there is common English usage, because this guideline says use common English usage so names like Lech Wałęsa should be moved to Lech Walesa. Éamon de Valera is slightly different because it gets mixed up in national varieties of English (the use of Irish language accent marks are taught to all Irish children) and I see no harm in having a specific guideline for that country particularly as in this specific national case the spelling can have strong political undercurrents. The problems occur when there is no clear common usage in English I.E. the section "No established usage". --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 15:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The length mark is taught to all Irish children because Irish is taught to all Irish children, of course. But I can confirm that in many cases, the Irish form of names is commonly in use in Hiberno-English, yes. In extreme cases, there basically is no English spelling: Sharon Ní Bheoláin, say. (She apparently gets quite offended if people ask her what the English version of her surname is, which seems a little precious to me, not so say somewhat sillily inconsistent, given that she's a native English speaker, and has an English first name, but no matter.) Now, this'll doubtless strike the Croatians et al as unacceptable special treatment, but the key thing is that we do have a clear convention for what to do about national varieties of English, ans PBS says. If we want to extend this to all languags, or even to all languages that use some version of the Latin script, that would a very signficant further step. Alai (talk) 17:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Sniff sniff; the English Alphabet (with its beautiful 26 letters), never to have control over the English Language again. GoodDay (talk) 18:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

If anything was ever in control of the English language, it should be charged with being DUI, recklessly negligent, or playing a huge prank on everyone that's been trying to spell it over the last 1000 years. Alai (talk) 00:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

English usage in different kinds of media

I am opening a new section because the discussion seems to drift into that direction.

There's a compromise at Wikipedia: WikiProject Ice Hockey and its 2-daughter WikiProjects, that's currently holding. GoodDay (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

One problem of WP:UE is that different people are talked about by different media. Great novelists with diacritics are more likely to be referred to with their squiggles on their letters than their little brothers in hockey.

It appears to me that NHL/NBA/NFL/etc could not care less about the original spelling of their players, while NYT or BBC do care more about the spelling of the people they talk about (and they talk less often about professional sportsmen).

This implies that a person's name depends on who talks about him, which causes the inconsistencies noted above. It is an interesting point of discussion how to treat those inconsistencies. What if Terve Whätëvër becomes a novelist and people use the diacritics again? What if NYT uses Terve Whätëvër, but the mass of sports media use Terve Whatever?

I must say I tend towards some kind of elitism in this regard and would impute ignorance to sports journalists and go with the NYT. Jasy jatere (talk) 16:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It is always a good sign that compromises can be reached, but this does not solve the general problem. Jasy jatere (talk) 16:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

As for the Hockey articles, I think it's best to stick with the compromise that's being respected there. It helped stop many 'edit wars' & heated discussions. GoodDay (talk) 16:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

No established usage 2

I find this part of guideline a little bit funny. OK, we have established usage for tennis player Đoković so he should be Djokovic. But, for a singer Đoković, since he is still not popular in US, there is no established usage. So the singer's article should use Đoković. Right?

Or even more funny. If he becomes popular in US, we should change his article also. Right?

--Irić Igor -- Ирић Игор -- K♥S (talk) 16:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

You have understood the guideline, and are right on both your observations (with the proviso that increased popularity in the US does indeed lead to the replacement of Đ by Dj). It is not the business of wp to unify English approaches to foreign names or to assure consistency within English usage. English usage is inconsistent, and there is nothing we can do about it but accept it Jasy jatere (talk) 08:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The only think is - wouldn't we only name the article Djokovic if he became famous as 'Djokovic' - that is if his album credited his name as 'Djokovic'. If he used 'Đoković' then we should continue to use this name, wouldn't we? --Neo (talk) 08:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Depends on how other people refer to him. People would most likely use the name on the album, but wp is not a crystal ball. Jasy jatere (talk) 07:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Consider as a parallel almost any German-American name, like Altmann. Some people bearing it are spelled Altmann, some are spelled Altman; yet it is always the same name (in some sense); in some of these cases, although not Altman, spelling differs within the same family. It is not our business to impose the "correct" German spelling, although that is clearly the double n. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

In reply to the initial posting... IMO right about the tennis player, but wrong and wrong (your emphasis) about the singer. The question is, what would ...the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize... (WP:NC in a nutshell), and in that the name has had considerable exposure thanks to the tennis player, the singer's name is likely to be written without the diacritics too.

But yes, if it wasn't for the tennis player, the singer might well have their name written with diacritics for now, and it might change if they became well known. English changes, and so must we as it does, and one beauty of Wikipedia is that we can. In the same way, if Wikipedia had been started a couple of centuries ago, we'd probably now still be finding all sorts of old grammar to change (probably not too much thee and thou, but that sort of thing). This is not a problem, it's an integral part of the project. Andrewa (talk) 22:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that this "Osmosis" from the tennis player to the musician is not a good idea. The fact that Jennifer Lopez has no ó does not imply that all other Lópezes should get rid of their acute, even if JL is the most popular among them Jasy jatere (talk) 09:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

And it doesn't necessarily happen that way. There can be some who spell their name Lopez and some López, just as there are some who spell their name Johnson, some Johnston, and even some Jonson.

But I think you're looking a bit deper than that, and you're entitled to these opinions. Whether Wikipedia is the place to promote them is another thing entirely.

Perhaps I should take a step back and ask you to clarify exactly what you mean by it being not a good idea. This could mean:

(1) that it's not the way you think English should work OR

(2) that you don't think that Wikipedia should follow English in this, even if it does work that way, OR

(3) that you don't think English works that way.

They're all valid opinions. Wikipedia is definitely not the place to promote (1) if that's what is happening. We follow English usage, and we don't attempt to correct it, and that's a very fundamental policy. IMO there's not a lot of chnace this will change, but a bit more chance if your opinion matches (2).

But in either of the first two cases, please be aware that what you are proposing is contrary to current policy. There are two ways forward. One is to invoke Wikipedia:ignore all rules, an even more fundamental policy, and try to get consensus here that Wikipedia would be improved by disregarding existing naming conventions in this case. Hopefully if you succeed in this then you or someone else will eventually get the rules changed to reflect this consensus. But there doesn't seem a lot of hope of doing that here.

The other way forward is even harder. It's to challenge existing policy, perhaps quoting this as an example, and try to get the rules changed. And that can work too, but it's not to be taken lightly.

Finally, if you think I'm wrong about the way English works, this is the place to discuss that. And I'm wrong sometimes, see User:Andrewa/creed. Andrewa (talk) 12:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I fail to get your point. I am not proposing anything, I just pointed out that tennis fans and music fans might use different spellings in English for two persons who are spelled the same in another language. Maybe that would fall under (3) in your list above? Anyway, the discussion is hypothetical since the singer is not popular yet (I think?), and we basically agree. Let's continue this discussion when the singer will have become popular Jasy jatere (talk) 08:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyone have a problem with Sept's edit today?

I like it, a lot. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 18:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Much obliged. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Copying conversation from WP:VPP

There was a lot of information relevant to current questions on this page. Discussion seems to have died down there now, so I'm copying it over. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 17:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Arguments

Here I'd like anybody to list arguments both for and against diacritics and anybody else to try and make direct counter arguments, focusing only on the exact argument made, no history, nos suggestions of compromises just simple arguments. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 19:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

You have stated that your issue with diacritucs is on articles relating to hockey. Please move discussion over to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey, which is a more relevant forum for a focus on a single issue. Horologium (talk) 19:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think this is a hockey issue (whatever the motivation may be for its being raised). In many areas of WP you get people arguing about whether foreign words should appear with diacritics, and we ought to have some uniform principles to refer to. I don't know where the best place to discuss it is, but it's certainly not the Ice Hockey project.--Kotniski (talk) 19:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

That's the whole reason I started this, because a few people deciding something at 1 of many WikiProjects which it could effect doesn't solve anything. I am at the correct place, I am asking people to review a guideline and I wish to establish a seperate guideine regarding diacritics and especially diacritics in people's names. Plus I kind of started this subsection just for arguments relating to diacritics. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 19:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

As others pointed out to you, this is a perennial proposal. Current consensus is that we go by the guidelines you've already seen. It's unlikely to change. If you really want to establish a separate guideline, write one. See if you can get it accepted. VP is good for feeling the waters, and I think you've seen that the waters on this subject are very rough indeed. The next step would be writing your proposed guideline, so we actually have something to give feedback on. -- Kesh (talk) 15:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Point taken, I'll write one when I have more time, should I try one that focuses on diacritics on Wikipedia in general or one that bases itself solely on hockey articles? The Dominator^Talk_Edits 22:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:HOCKEY has already reached a compromise, which Dominik92 disagrees with, thus the debate was brought to a more diverse forum. As far as arguments go, I'll simply echo what's been said many times in the past. This is the English Wikipedia, and diacritics are not part of the English language in most cases. As examples, the predominant spelling of players such as Dominik Hasek and Jaromir Jagr in English do not use diacritics. Frankly, I'd rather go the opposite direction of Djsasso, and remove all diacritics, except as a note in each individual's bio, but the compromise we've worked out at WP:HOCKEY is workable: North American articles don't use them, international articles do. Reso lute 22:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, diacritics are much a part of the English language when it uses foreign words, the players' names are different, they're foreign and use diacritics therefore we should use the normal spelling with diacritics. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 02:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no. One only has to pick up any newspaper, magazine or book written in the English language to see that foreign language names are spelled using English translations. Or, as an example, A google search for "Dominik Hasek", restricted to English language websites yields 59,600 results. A search for "Dominik Hašek" yields 993 results. "š" is not a letter in the English language. Reso lute 05:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't matter, 'š' might not be a letter, but it's part of his name, and translating it into 's' is incorrect, 'š' is not the same thing as 's', in fact it would be more properly translated as 'sh' though that is of course original research. And the English sources used are not reliable for names, if a source is reliable for something that doesn't mean you can consider it reliable for everything else. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 14:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

So, the NHL, NHLPA, ESPN, New York Times, TSN.ca, Globe and Mail, Rogers Sportsnet, etc., etc., etc. are all unreliable sources then? "Hašek" is the spelling of his name in Czech, not English. Your argument is akin to demanding that all instances of Alexei Yashin in the English Wikipedia be changed to "Алексей Яшин" Reso lute 15:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

What is the policy on diacritics?

A case came up recently when the article 'Mihai Şuba' was moved to Mihai Suba. That cases is not interesting to be honest as the person in question is now British but would like to know the policy as sometimes occurs with chess players with diacritics in the name. SunCreator (talk) 14:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

RE to Resolute: Yes, those are all unreliable sources for names. 2. there is no spelling of Hašek in English, that's my whole point! And the example you used is rather weak, I think you know why, there's a difference between the Cyrillic and Latin alphabets, the simple diacritics I'm advocating are part of the same alphabet as English. RE to Suncreator: The policy on diacritics is what we're discussing, there's no real policy, there's a lot of dispute over it, I don't know anything about the person you linked, but I guess it depends on whether he actually changed his name after he became British, if there's no evidence that he did so, I think it's more appropriate to have the original diacritical version. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 22:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind explaining why the New York Times (eg) isn't a reliable source for names? sho y 20:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Why would you consider it a reliable source for names? Where does it say in those articles "Dominik Hašek changed his name to Dominik Hasek"? The article is related to hockey, not naming, see my example above (rather bad one) for a lengthier reasoning. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 21:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to the English language version of Wikipedia. The English alphabet contains 26 character, and includes no characters with diacritical marks, no pictograms, no ideograms. As much as you may wish it, English writers in general usage will transliterate words written in a foreign character set. Would you demand that writers of Arabic, Kanji, and other scripts use English characters for English names? How should articles on the Hindi Wikipedia refer to Dominik Hašek in the midst of their script?

We certainly have a convenience that the additional characters in a lot of European languages are easily depict-able and understandable to readers of the English WIkipedia. That means that on the pages for place and people names, we have the opportunity to legibly depict the name in its native language. But in general usage throughout the rest of the encyclopedia. it is perfectly appropriate that the common English spelling be used. (This is the same reasoning why there are entries for Tonys and entries for Anthonys even though they are the same name. The common usage prevails.) In English you saute, send your resume, and visit Zaire (even though the words are borrowed). Again, try to apply your reasoning to any non-Latin encyclopedia and see what kind of a mess we would have. Can we no longer refer to India, but must use भारत? --Marcinjeske (talk) 00:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

In English you saute, send your resume, and visit Zaire - you should have said "In US English. I sauté, I have a CV not a Résumé (didn't you notice where your wikilink actually goes to??). Dan Beale-Cocks 12:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The Dominator, Reliable Source does not mean a source you like, it does not mean a source you agree with, it does not even mean the source is right. One of the most common problems on Wikipedia is arguments over "truth" and "right". Wikipedia's general solution for preventing such arguments is to just dump the entire arguments over "truth" and "right", instead relying on Verifiable outside Reliable Sources. shoy's attempt at solution here is that, instead of engaging in a personal debate over the "right" or "true" way that names with diacritical marks should be treated in English, we look to third-party Reliable Sources. We instead look at how major mainstream reputable sources actually *do* use the English language and how they actually *do* handle such names. By absolutely any reasonable standard the New York Times is a top tier Reliable Source on the English Language, and in particular a top source on how foreign names are handled in English. The Google search was another prime example - a Google search on "Dominik Hasek" on English language websites yields 59,600 results, "Dominik Hašek" yields 993 results. It doesn't matter who is "right", it doesn't matter what we "should" do, it doesn't matter if we like it or not, the one thing we can agree on is the fact is that Verifiable Reliable Sources show that "Dominik Hasek" is the actual in-practice English rule, and that "Dominik Hašek" is at best a fringe occurence in English. Maybe that is wrong, maybe it is bad, maybe it is rude, but that is the Verifiable Reliable Source information out there. And as a rule Wikipedia bypasses "truth" and operates in a Verifiable Reliable Source universe, even if those Verifiable Reliable Sources are wrong. Sometimes that sucks, but it is a very effective way to resolve most HolyWars. Alsee (talk) 01:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand that it is what reliable sources use, but I still maintain that those are not reliable sources for names. I don't think that a reliable source for one thing is necessarily a reliable source for everything. Another thing is that I don't think making an argument that involves non-Latin characters is valid, diacritical marks are part of the same alphabet, an Arabic or Greek or whatever alphabet is not the same thing. I now truly believe that this dispute is unsolvable, I will continue writing diacritics where they are to be put and no offense but I'm ignoring some WikiProject's compromise (I won't revert anyone who eliminates diacritics from my edits on a hockey page, but I'll keep using them when/if I add new content). The Dominator^Talk_Edits 20:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

A quick survey:

University of Virginia Press: "Use diacritics and special letters correctly in all place-names and names of individuals."
Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library Archival Processing Manual: "Include proper use of diacritics to the extent allowed by the current keyboard capabilities."
Discovery and Invention: Style Guidelines: "Diacritical marks should be retained in proper names and foreign words, even when they are not italicized"
National geographic Society Style Manual: "Languages with Latin alphabets: Retain the original diacritical marks (accents, apostrophes, dots, cedillas, glottals, etc.) in unanglicized words in the following languages: Czech, Danish, Dutch, Finnish, French, German, Hawaiian, Hungarian, Icelandic, Irish, Italian, Latvian, Norwegian, Polish, Portuguese, Slovak, Spanish, Swedish, and Turkish."

I was unable to gain online access to either the New York Times Manual of Style or the Chicago Manual of Style (the 13th edition doesn't seem to address the issue). Bovlb (talk) 00:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

These I can see as being more scholarly sources, better than the NYT which is not reliable regarding the English language at all really. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 13:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we should dismiss the style guides of major news organisations out of hand. Bovlb (talk) 15:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Well if you ever come across the style guidelines let us know, thanks. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 21:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Just kludging the foreign character to something that looks the same is terrible - people should at least try to get a reasonable pronunciation. this article describes the problem of poor internationalization. This Korean WP editor gives good reasons why they don't like the various romanisations of their name.

While the article you link about character-related fatalities was certainly morbidly interesting, it doesn't really have much to do with the present discussion. That was a case of poor internationalization - the software the wife used handled certain characters poorly. (And really, the core problem there is essentially that a spelling error creates such a drastic difference in meaning and for some reason the people involved decided to debate semantics using knives instead of words). If you are interested in an internationalized version of Wikipedia, there is one for many written languages. Although I am unable to view your second link regarding Korean names... that is again a subtly different issue involving disjoint character sets.

What we are discussing here is the way one language's wikipedia references proper nouns like persons and places named in a language foreign to that wikipedia. So far there has been no suggestion that referencing a foreign person (named in a language using an extended Latin character set) using an "english" version of that name will cause confusion as to who is being referenced, so i do not see how the cell phone example would apply. Clearly, it is appropriate to mention the "native" spelling of a name in the native alphabet in the article devoted to that subject. But insisting on "native" spelling elsewhere in the encyclopedia would preclude readers/editors who do not speak/write the foreign language from being able to play their role. You are never going to get a reasonable pronunciation just by having the right characters (the sound differences between even languages that share the same character set are too vast). If you are concerned about correct pronunciation, then a phonetic spelling should be provided on the subject's page.

I hope I am not rambling too much in the above... I think what I want to say boils down to two points:

The Wikipedia for a given language should primarily use that language (and the associated character set) to describe the covered topics. Doing otherwise disadvantages the readers of that Wikipedia by presenting information in a form potentially illegible to them.

An article should refer to persons and places in the same way as the sources it is based on refer to them. Hence it is relevant to acknowledge that for the vast majority of foreign individuals, English-language sources will refer to them with an Anglicized name.

Having looked through a bunch of articles relating to French and Polish individuals (chosen because of my familiarity), I have to admit that current usage on Wikipedia is inconsistent and in some ways more supportive of your reasoning. For example Gérard Depardieu is referred to with the accent aigue over the first e in most pages, although a fair number do use the Gerard Depardieu redirect. Now when it comes to the press, the vast majority of English language press references are to Gerard Depardieu (no accent), with exceptions for some UK (The Guardian) and Canadian sources (and English-language publications in French-speaking countries).

So, perhaps a more nuanced guideline is in order: Persons should be called by the name most commonly used by sources in the context of the current article. It does follow typical Wikipedia practice of shunting difficult questions off onto our sources. --Marcinjeske (talk) 08:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Referring to an earlier comment:

In English you saute, send your resume, and visit Zaire - you should have said "In US English. I sauté, I have a CV not a Résumé (didn't you notice where your wikilink actually goes to??). Dan Beale-Cocks 12:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Your criticism is fair... I may be generalizing usage... however my admittedly quick checks of both UK and US media show the same general trend of using saute over sauté [2] and sometimes even both side by side. Yes, I did notice where resume led to... but since when is Wikipedia a reliable source for Wikipedia. resume with no accent is dominating English language usage. And if you must object with Curriculum Vitae (I hope you meant to spell that curriculum vitæ), I can find a dozen more borrowed words that have lost their foreign spellings, even in the UK. Space food a la carte - BBC News, Paris. Regardless I chose the examples poorly because those two were not proper nouns anyway.

As long as we are referencing Wikipedia: Czech alphabet says that Czech has two alphabet versions... a "standard" one that matched the English alphabet, and an "extended" set. The original issue here involved the names of Czech hockey players (like Jaromír Jágr) being written in the more limited 26 character alphabet. So it seems to me that even writing in Czech may drop the diacritics on some occasions.

So, are we ready to update all the references to Cæsar in the wikipeida's for English (Caesar), French (César), Italian (Cesare), and so on? What about the Wisła river in Poland, which is referenced as Visla by the Czechs, Vistula in English, Weichsel in German? What about the mess that would be made if we tried to tell 20-some language that currently use another form of [[3]] from the official name "Warszawa"? Napoléon? You think English is bad... tell that to these people or our proud Latin brothers. In short, any guideline will have to rely on what sources do, because there are no straightforward rules... sometimes names are translated (Ioannes Paulus == John Paul == Jan Pawel == Jan Pavel, etc), sometime diacritics are dropped, sometimes other letters get manipulated. I think the only reasonable answer is to parrot what our sources do. --Marcinjeske (talk) 09:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that sources don't always agree. Most press just drop the diacritics because they're difficult to print or just too much work or I dunno. But I don't think I've ever read a serious book that had diacritics dropped. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 13:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The only way I believe that is if you define "serious book" to mean "a book that keeps the diacritics". The Man who Loved Only Numbers calls its subject Erdos, not Erdõs, as does Biographies of Scientists for Sci-Tech Libraries, and Topics in Analysis and Its Applications talks of Erdös, not Erdõs.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, that was a bit of an exaggeration, but I still stand by the fact that most books use diacritics, at least from my experience and frankly it doesn't matter. As long as there is ambiguity among reliable sources, we can't make conclusions. I'm starting to think that the compromise made sort of works. As I said, I refuse to omit diacritics anywhere in the encyclopedia, but I will only revert somebody removing them on a biographical article. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 06:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the discussion has died down now, so with permission, I'm going to copy this subsection over to WT:Naming conventions (use English), it's got a lot of useful information. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 17:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

What about encyclopedias which ignore English usage?

A question arose at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera:

It is the policy of the New Grove's to follow the original style wherever possible, including titles. To my mind, this puts them outside the purview of this guideline; they are not attesting English usage. (They may, in time, create it; but the question of whether they have done so must be answered somewhere else.) Comments? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedians write Wikipedia, not New Grove's. Really I couldn't bother what rule the New Grove's dictionaries prefer. For Wikipedia that is a reality taking place outside of our boundaries (if you want to interfere then write to the authors of these dictionaries), and since New Grove's is not a composer of music either, that's what we call a "third party source". It so happens that New Grove's has a good reputation (whether I agree to that reputation would miss the point completely), so it has "WP:RS" written all over. And it is part of English usage.
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (pieces of music) does not mention New Grove's - we're no slave to no-one.
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (operas) does mention two New Grove's's, but only with regard to capitalisation of foreign names - not for the choice between a foreign language name or an English name. It has been established that for French, New Grove's uses capitalisation rules different from those laid down by the Académie française (see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (operas)#"If Grove is wrong . . ."). Sure, New Grove's is in English, and is not bound by rules established for the French language. Wikipedia has to follow neither: this is a choice only dictated by the nearest we can get to sound editorial judgement: if you want to change the choice, use Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (operas).
Whether New Grove's creates or follows is none of our business. When it has created a habit (deliberately or unconsciously), there's no reason not to follow an established usage either, per our own current rules. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- The question is, have they created a new habit, or are they just being strange? We need to check other sources to decide this. (Similarly, the DNB, old and new, always omits titles of nobility. We do not, because usage does not; the DNB is affectionately regarded as cranky. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  - If you're still talking about follow the original style wherever possible, including titles, the question IS irrelevant, because Wikipedia doesn't follow New Grove's in that respect. Only if you would like to change a particular naming conventions in that respect (which would be quite pedantic, as Wikipedia's general naming conventions principles are different), this would possibly be one of the arguments. Then proceed with the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (pieces of music) or Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (operas), depending on where you propose to go through the movements of such exercise.
  - If you're talking about capitalisation, I suppose the exercise is even more moot. As far as I understand New Grove's applies English capitalisation rules to whatever the language of a title of a work: which is "use English". Did you want to change that? --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    - No, it explicitly does not use, and says it does not use, English capitalization rules; English capitalization would be La Bohème (It is not clear that French would not be; Murger's play is La Vie de Bohème.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    - Nor is Grove's the only instance here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I therefore propose the following:

When using an encyclopedia, the naming policy of the encyclopedia itself should be taken into consideration. The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography does not use titles of nobility in naming its articles, following in this the practice of the DNB before it. Brill's New Pauly uses the orthography of its German original, rather than the forms in current use in English. Neither of these can attest English usage, although they may in time create it; whether they have done so (the ODNB has not) must be checked in other sources.

Comments on this text, now inserted as draft? Feel free to tweak. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Please explain why the naming policy of our source should not be taken into consideration. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't see what is unclear about "invites to original research". --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

What original research? All three encyclopedias in question state their naming policies front and center. Saying that a source does what it says it does is not OR. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Investigating whether such naming policies establish English usage is OR. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Bosh. Introductions to encyclopedias are part of what they publish; we are relying upon our source, and its own interpretation of what it means. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I think possible Francis is taking issue with the fact that by saying 'x' doesn't reflect English usage then you are saying that one should never use 'x' as a source for a name, whereas perhaps a more subtle approach is sometimes called for, in which 'x' should not be consider to be an authority for naming, however where 'x' is the only source for a name it would be appropriate to use the name from 'x' (as an attested usage in English) rather than create a new name for the person or object involved. For instance a reference book of Vietnamese history may be the only English language source for the name of a given ruler from the 11th century, and we should possibly create the article about him at that location (not least because it satisfies the principle of least-surprise).

Apologies if I am misrepresenting his opinion. In any case hopefully this could be recognised as a valid argument in any case. --Neo (talk) 23:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. For the record, I think Neo's position quite reasonable. Is the proposed text above inconsistent with it? (It doesn't say never, it says consider.) Would a sentence adding If the encyclopedia in question is itself a predominant source in English on some obscure subject, it is preferable to use its name than to invent one. resolve anything? (I never intended to suggest otherwise.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's a bunch of weaseliness, trying to discredit tertiary sources, exactly for the only type of referencing where they're brought to the foreground: determining what is English usage for article names.

FWIW, I see no necessity to highlight tertiary sources for this as it is done in the first parenthesis of the first sentence of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) (highlighting mainstream newspapers would make as much sense as far as I can see). But don't *again* make a elaborate piece of bloat (in NC(N&T) style), first saying that a principle applies so-and-so, and then in the next paragraphs contradict it: in that case, better remove the "other encyclopedias" indication from the first sentence, if there's nothing else than "common names" as used in the English language.

Anyway, when an intro of an encyclopedia says their naming principles are so-and-so, the ORIGINAL RESEARCH would be to conclude from that whether or not they reflect English usage. Maybe English usage is closer to New Grove's than to other reference works when it comes down to capitalisation of opera titles. You're in no position to supersede that with original research, once the principle is adopted that encyclopedic reference works are an acceptable indicator for English usage per our guidelines and conventions.

Please explain DNB, I'm not familiar with the abbreviation. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

He's referring to the Dictionary of National Biography. I entirely agree with you. The weasel wording is unhelpful, contradictory and confusing. It is also original research to conclude from a dictionary's stated editorial style that it is not "English usage", i.e what Pmanderson's highly idiosyncratic view of English usage is. I also take exception to his continued misrepresentation of New Grove as some kind of 'maverick' and therefore to be viewed with skepticism.

We have repeatedly pointed out to him (see the link below), that New Grove uses the exact same style for rendering the titles of non-English works as the Chicago Manual of Style, Routledge, Viking Press, Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press, Duke University Press, Yale University Library, University of California Press, University of Virginia Press etc. etc. It is also only one of the principal major English language reference works that the Opera Project uses.

In addition to the two Grove's, we use The Oxford Dictionary of Opera, The Oxford Illustrated History of Opera, The Viking Opera Guide, and the Cambridge Opera Handbooks. All of them use the same style for rendering foreign language titles as Grove. So does Opera America, the national service organization for American opera companies. It has an extensive outreach and education programme. Observe their list of the most frequently performed operas in America. [4] We mention Grove specifically, simply because it has the most comprehensive coverage of the area, including rarely performed works, and relatively less well known composers, singers and musicians. Voceditenore (talk) 19:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

For the Opera Project's latest response to this issue see:[5]. Voceditenore (talk) 22:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me the issue of diacritics and statements that their use does not constitute "English" is overblown. Before we happily edited away with our little list of "special characters" below our Wiki editing window, there was a time browsers couldn't deal with more than one font code page at a time--whatever language you were in, that was pretty much it. Let's go back to real printing: there was no Linotype ever built that was big enough that could set a polyglot encyclopedia. English "convention" was born of technological restrictions more than anything else. That restriction has disappeared. For example, hardly any pre-phototypesetting era English language text that I have on central/eastern Europe utilizes diacritics. However, every current English language text I have does use diacritics. There's no controversy. From Jagiełło to Iaşi to Kārlis Skalbe, all names are properly written according to their native language. The (at times bordering on vituperative) pronouncement that diacritics are "not English" is clinging to an anachronism at best.

Where common English usage is spelled completely differently, diacritics (if present in the original) are superfluous to the larger issue that names of well-known people and places have been firmly inculcated into English language collective memory and will take time to dislodge.

Apologies I missed the earlier discussion above! —PētersV (talk) 14:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Having looked at some of the recent cases and comments on both sides, I would observe that in all cases where there have been transliterations of a Latin-alphabet original (e.g., adding j's for softening or altering sound), both original and altered versions have been shown to be in use. I would respectfully suggest we follow scholarly convention, not what the Daily Mirror might decide to use, and yield to the use of diacritics and all focus our efforts on content. I see the same protagonists on both sides of the issue as the last time I checked which had to be at least a couple of years ago. Nothing has changed. Because of electronic technology and ease of use, diacritics are here to stay. If we don't adopt them, we'll still be wasting the same time with the same arguments with the same searches through popular press versus scholarly references another two years from now. This is not a pitched battle over the defense of English. I would suggest those with a love for English spend more time on the fact that schoolchildren are now using text messaging shorthand in writing school essays. I consider myself a stickler for proper English usage. Taking my "personal heritage" hat off, the evidence for proper scholarly English usage is clear. —PētersV (talk) 14:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Extraordinary case

We should say something about the situation when the sources used are atypical; it can happen, and if we say nothing, we offer an opportunity to game the system. But I think, after Talk:Franjo Tuđman, that we should indicate that we should rely on the references unless a clear case can be made.

Intermediate wording may be best; but I can't think of it right now. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean to make any specific point by removing "extraordinary case", we just generally avoid demonstrative language in style guidelines. In fact, you seem to be a champion of toning it down, so I was surprised to see the "extraordinary case" language. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 19:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

In this case, we need non-trivial language; but I seem to myself to be maintaining my usual position of actually requiring thought: Don't mechanically follow the references if English is against them; don't overrule in favor of Foobarian accuracy or a google result unless it's clear. But I would gladly accept more moderate language. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, feel free to choose something. But you see my point, right? You know what you're saying, but someone else reading that might start inserting superlatives into guidelines whenever they feel strongly...not good. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 21:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I've put "occasionally happen", as the best alternative I can think of off-hand. Do by all means change this if you have reservations; I prefer either of these to nothing, but both are flawed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Magnifique. (Pretentious? Moi?) - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Merci. (Nous.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

under development

Time to remove he templage "These guidelines are under development. Please discuss and improve." unless there are still any major outstanding issues. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. The template can be removed now. Jasy jatere (talk) 08:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Borderline case?

There is a very rare case under discussion at Talk:Снова в СССР: Sir Paul Macartney, an anglophone, intended and designed this album to be known in Cyrillic (despite the spelling mistake). I would still like Back in the USSR (album), but if there is a case to tweak always transliterate, this is it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it's McCartney. If I could get him on the phone and ask him, it would make my day. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we already have an escape clause "Do not use a systematically transliterated name if there is a common English form (a common anglicization) of the name" as in this unusual case it can be argued that it is in itself the common English form. Particularly if we revert this edit by Dbachmann made in the last 24 hours. "Do not use a systematically transliterated name if there is a common English form of the name" --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I see that PBS has gone ahead. I was divided on the matter: for one thing, anglicization is defensible for all cases except possibly this rare and special one. On the other hand, it may encourage use of "anglicized" forms where English transliterates but does not anglicize otherwise. (This would also be rare; but we don't want, for example, to be read as requiring Formosa.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Diacritcs and this policy

By my understanding, a 2005 debate is about to resurrect itself for further wailing and gnashing of teeth. See WP:UD, a proposed policy that would substantially change the "Special characters" section of this page. Somedumbyankee (talk) 15:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

How about including something like Use the spelling in the article's sources, unless there is clear evidence that current English usage as a whole differs. in the section on Modified Letters? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

So it would read (I'm a visual person), with the + marking lines that are not currently in the policy:

(1) If consensus common English usage, use that spelling.

If no consensus on common use:

+(2) If one spelling used in consensus of sources, use that consensus.

+If no consensus fron sources:

(3) If native spelling uses Roman and modified (i.e. é, Æ, Ð), use native.

If Cyrilic, Chinese, Hieroglyphics, etc...

(4) Use a standardized transliteration.

I'm adding the concept of a "consensus of sources" so that it's clear that spamming marginal sources on the issue does not change the process. Somedumbyankee (talk) 23:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly; let me think about the decision tree. The idea is that a consensus of the sources we use may be presumed to represent a consensus of all sources; this is rebuttable in case someone is spamming marginal sources, or we are simply unlucky. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead and edit the tree if it helps. Somedumbyankee (talk) 02:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

How about If there is a consensus on spelling in the sources used for the article, this will normally represent a general consensus of English usage.? This isn't a step, it's a method, like the six methods of WP:NCGN (some of which we could just copy). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The arguments are largely the same for both issues: "correct" vs. "recognized". I'd drop the word "general" but otherwise I agree with the proposed text. One additional comment that might be worth noting: if a living person has written anything in English or how they personally spell it in English is citable from a reliable source, we should consider letting them make their own decisions on how their name should be spelled. It would be a sensible place to invoke WP:IAR and might be creepy for the guideline, though. Somedumbyankee (talk) 02:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm divided on that. See Hilda Toledano for the sort of problem we could get into; she's dead, but there are living pretenders who are not common usage either. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking solely for the purpose of special characters, not in general, but that may be a very good reason to stay away from directly endorsing self-identification. Reliable secondary sources all the way, I guess...Somedumbyankee (talk) 03:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I added the sentence discussed. I'm still balanced on self-identification. On the one hand there are cases like Stanislaw Ulam, whose autobiography does not use the slashed ł, or Waldemar Matuska, who appears not to use the hasek in English; on the other hand, we want to use Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor, not Fridericus, although his preference is known and -er- pointed. How the subject spells her own name in English should be considered, but should not be decisive against consensus? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:IAR can probably cover it if there isn't a definitive statement. They're just guidelines anyway. Somedumbyankee (talk) 23:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Since WT:UD includes a claim that, on this page, the diacritic-free version of a name is not a "version", I thought it better to make the guidance of Follow the general usage in English verifiable reliable sources in each case, whatever characters may or may not be used in them. even more explicit. If there is consensus to change this policy in the direction proposed there, this can be changed with it, since the pre-existing sentence is already incompatible with the claim. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

whatever characters ... or whatever letters ... Which is better? Although I follow the logic of the conversation above. It is not clear to me why this is needed, or what it would be replacing. Please could one of you explain it to me. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Character is probably better defined than letter; whether ö is a letter may depend on whether you are discussing English, German, or Swedish. The whole text is intended to clarify the diacritic issue; given the WP:IDHT available on the topic, no wording may settle it. (It replaced an explicit statement on thorn; see the history about a month ago.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Septentrionalis how does the addition you added on the 11th add anything to the guideline that is not already covered by the paragraph that starts: "The references for the article should themselves be reliable ..."? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 21:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a recommendation on method which explicitly addresses spelling: look at the sources actually used in the article, and, if they agree, use what they use. Phrasing it as I have just done would require several qualifications (what if the sources are not typical of English as a whole? what if all but one of them agrees?), but we can substitute if you like. Observe WT:UD to see why we must address spelling explicitly. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

To whom it may concern, since the proposal in question would affect WP:UE as well, WT:UD#Formal_Request_for_Comment. Somedumbyankee (talk) 01:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Divided usage

It seems to me we now have a fairly robust guideline -- thanks in part to a lot of thought put into it by Septentrionalis. But there is one area where the guideline is not of much use which is in "Divided usage".

I think it would be a good idea to add a short paragraph along the lines of the subsection "Retaining the existing variety" in the MOS section National varieties of English. This fall back position in the MOS has saved reams of disk space and a lot of editorial time. Similar wording in this section of WP:UE would have the same effect, but before we implemented such a paragraph I think we should look for side effects contradicting other guidelines. I have in mind something to be added to the "Divided usage section" along the lines of:

If there is divided usage and other relevant guidelines do not suggest which alternative is more suitable, consider leaving the article's name the same as it was when the article ceased to be a stub.

--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

This appears to be a very sensible suggestion Jasy jatere (talk) 12:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

What MOS now says is: If an article has been stable in a given style, it should not be converted without a reason that goes beyond mere choice of style. When it is unclear whether an article has been stable, defer to the style used by the first major contributor. Allowing an established choice to have precedence, and then first contributor, will allow for a slow spread of rationality. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Second cut:

If there is divided usage and other relevant guidelines do not suggest which alternative is more suitable, if the article name has been stable it should not be moved without a clear consensus to do so. When it is unclear whether an article's name has been stable, defer to the name used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub)

--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

the double 'if' in the first sentence is clumsy. I suggest rewording along the lines of

If there is divided usage and other relevant guidelines do not apply, clear consensus is required to move an article whose name has been stable. In absence of a stable name, use the name employed by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub

Jasy jatere (talk) 15:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Inserting PBS' version, with the first if changed to when. It can be tweaked in place, but we agree on what we want it to mean. (I tweaked a little myself; evenly seems needed to deal with the article which has been stable with a clear minority usage). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Some letters may pose great challenge to laymen

Jasy jatere I made this reversal because the first depends on common usage the second was prescriptive without any suggestion that common usage should determine the lettering. If we were to leave the new version in place, we move away from common usage towards the old edit war of "use this because it is correct" and "don't use that because it is not English" --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 07:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not very keen on the current wording that I reverted to either. For example "the ö in Göring is transcribed oe" While it is true that Göring is often written Goering in English sources Zürich is usually written Zurich. The current paragraph as worded could lead to editors arguing that Zuerich is to be preferred over Zurich. We have a section that deals with the case that there is no common English usage, is the paragraph needed as common usage should take care of transliteration? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

There are two issues at hand:

should we care about common transliterations of modified letters
what to do about a letter which might be difficult to associate with a corresponding unmodified letterJasy jatere (talk) 11:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The answer to the first is that of course we do; it follows from the same princtiples as anything else we do.
The sentence quoted above states what we do do, when not clogged by a handful of nationalists. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

should we care about common transliterations of modified letters?

Sincerely, I would not know why the existence of a standard representation of German ö in email messages etc should have any bearing on its use in wp. We do not have these technical limitations. We can stick to what the sources use, if they use "ö", use "ö", if they use "oe", use "oe", if they drop the diacritic altogether, let it be "o". The proposed passage does not add any value to the policy as it is now and will be abused in edit warring. Furthermore it contradicts other parts of the pageJasy jatere (talk) 11:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The text in question is:

When a character is commonly transcribed by some other method than simple dropping of a diacritic (for example, Đ is transcribed Dj, ß is transcribed ss, the ö in Göring is transcribed oe), it is particularly important to use the transcribed version rather than the special character, to ensure recognizability.

a (slightly clarified) version of a sentence WP:UD. This hax nothing to do with email messages: English sources on Goering use Goering. If it is consensus there, on that page full of dogmatists, it really should be consensus here. The mention of Goering is intended to be defining: Göttingen is not a problem, but Göring is a pedantic embarassment, indicating unfamiliarity with English. Will it help to make that contrast? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Considering what the average reader will read about the subject, calling the standard use of Ian Kershaw a "pedantic embarrassment" when his knowledge of the subject-at-hand, the English language and the English-language historical literature are impeccable indicates only your own opinions and unfamiliarities I am afraid. [6] [7] [8] Knepflerle (talk) 13:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with adding, say, use ß when it is commonly used in English, or there is no common usage in English. This is implicit in our present policy, and may avoid misconstrual. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

How about "When there is no established usage in English, and a character is commonly transcribed by some other method than simple dropping of a diacritic, (for example, Đ is transcribed Dj, ß is transcribed ss), ~~it is particularly important to~~ use the transcribed version rather than the special character, to ensure recognizability." --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 22:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

"it is particularly important to use the transcribed version rather than the special character, to ensure recognizability"? Says who? This doesn't make any sense. Why is it "particularly important"? Look, this page has a years long history of people trying to get rid of non-ascii characters. All that has ever come of it is the maxim that we need to check usage in relevant English language sources. Period. We really do not need any additional red tape concerning ß in particular. If English language sources commonly transcribe ß as ss, fine. That's something that needs to be established case by case. There is really no point in going beyond this simple statement. At all. --dab (𒁳) 09:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I would not be surprised if some reference works actually have a transcription table, letter by letter. I won't comment on ß as ss, because I don't fully understand the recent German spelling reform. Modern west european scripts are generally intelligible, but a blanket rule like that would likely bring everyone back to a rehash of this debate. Eth is pretty odd if you are not Icelandic (see my username.) And Đ to Dj is a very common transcription, is it ambiguous? But changing ö to oe (for a bio of a German who lived in Germany all his life) seems to me like ~~pandering to~~ patronising readers. Whether wikipedians can agree on a table is another question, but in an ideal world, it would be helpful. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I regret to say that this shows an absence of English Sprachgefühl. The Columbia Encyclopedia, the New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, and most authorities in English on the period in question use Goering. Are all these patronizing? Surely not. Please consider it as an English idiom. Rudolf Höss may well be a different matter, although monoglot anglophones will miss the easy disambiguation of oe/e; Göttingen certainly is different, and that spelling is (now) idiom. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The version I suggested would only be for cases were there is no established usage. I have now struck out the phrase "it is particularly important to" because dab makes a fair point. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

that's better. Could you also explain what "recognizability" means? It could mean graphical/visual "recognizability", but in that case I think it would actually favour the version with diacritics, so I suppose that is not what you mean?Jasy jatere (talk) 14:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

"Recognizability" = "written the same way everyone else writes it". Diacritics can be confusing, since people like me who have some limited knowledge of German will read Rudolf Höß and think "ah, that must be the native spelling of Rudolf Hess", though those two articles are always going to have that problem. Also, a lot of the diacritics I've seen on Wikipedia are borderline hypercorrection, like résumé. This is not the spelling I routinely see, though used in a few style guides from notable publications. A google search of resume, ignoring wikipedia, doesn't turn up the diacritics until the sixth page of searches. It seems there's a particular cadre that uses them whenever possible. At least we aren't coördinating with the New Yorker yet. Somedumbyankee (talk) 15:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

If the intended meaning of Recognizability is "written the same way everyone else writes it", then this is already covered by the first sentence of the page Use the most commonly used English version of the name of the subject as the title of the article, and the proposed change is redundant.Jasy jatere (talk) 16:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

but it is for names with "no established usage in English" so commonly used English version does not apply. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, my confusion. If there is no established use, self-identifying use (if it is a thing that can self-identify) is probably a good fallback unless transliteration is necessary (the WP:NCGN criterion). The "stick with the original use" statement seems reasonable if there is no obvious consensus for change. Somedumbyankee (talk) 18:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

what to do about letter which might be difficult to associate with a corresponding unmodified letter

I think this is taken care of in principle by

Names not originally in a Latin alphabet, as with Greek, Chinese or Russian, must be transliterated into characters generally intelligible to literate speakers of English.

with the problem being that ß, ð, etc are of course Latin. One could think of modifying the above sentence to also apply to ß and its friends. Jasy jatere (talk) 11:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

additional deliberation about eth and thorn

I have to observe that he ess and eth aren't a problem if we leave them be. :-) —PētersV (talk) 14:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thorn is not Latin; and spelling with edh where English doesn't is a big problem; we use Odin, not Óðinn. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I've posted my Z$1,850,000,000 worth on this and other issues raised above in the form of a proposal at WT:UD. Please read and comment. — AjaxSmack 00:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

we must have been over the Odin example a dozen times now. Odin is a common anglicization. If there is a common anglicization use it. If not, stick with whatever is in use. This has nothing to do with eth in particular, just with the fact that the name Odin has a long history of appearing in English language contexts. dab (𒁳) 09:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. I support what dab says here (so does this page); the question of which words commonly anglicize eth is a question of fact, which should be decided by evidence, not by any overriding principle. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree on Odin... that goes back to collective English memory of well-known names--in this case pretty much guaranteed to never change. I think the principle should be diacritics are OK if they are only modifications of existing English-language Latin characters, per current scholarly use. Latin/non-Latin non-modern English characters do need to be reviewed, hopefully there is that "collective English memory" which shows a clear preference. If not, we should have a transliteration table by language. Debating "Odin" is more about both sides doing trench warfare over an inappropriate poster child (but perfect to argue each side's "point" ad infinitum) rather than a true case of any doubt over what preferred usage is in English. —PētersV (talk) 13:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Are there any neutral sources (i.e. the UN) that have published transliteration tables? I'd prefer to have wikipedia rely on a reasonable outside source than have a homegrown version. Dialect questions could get nasty, and transliterations for each separate army-and-navy-less spoken form could rapidly explode. Somedumbyankee (talk) 18:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Usage of diacritics

See the new proposal Wikipedia:Usage of diacritics.

"For a placename or person that is well known in the English-speaking world, i.e. is widely mentioned in English-language sources: ... " and then goes on to lay down rules of usage rather than relying on usage from reliable English language sources. -- Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion there has shown that we don't say to trust the best sources: academic sources against encyclopedias, encyclopedias against newspapers, newspapers (or any reliable source whatsoever) against raw Google results. We do this in practice, and we should probably say so in general. Help with wording would be appreciated Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree that scholarly > encyclopedic > media > ~~internet~~ should be formally included as playing a role in determining appropriate use of diacritics. My experience with Google search is that it is a quantum leap backwards in determining what is appropriate and often throws more fuel on the fire rather than assisting in any sort of resolution. —PētersV (talk) 01:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Septentrionalis I do not understand what you are saying can you point to a section on that talk page that covers your concerns. However, I think the best sources depends on the subject of the article name. If it is a sports person then the most appropriate sources are likely to be different from an article on a person notable for an scientific advancement in the late C19th. I think that the paragraph "The references for the article should themselves be reliable sources" probably covers it. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 07:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

WT:Usage of diacritics#Sources. I agree the language that PBS cites should cover some of the issue (not using raw Google); but the rest is not covered at all.

The language I suggest, btw, would be some variant on "best available sources" and so would vary with topic; but I'm having trouble phrasing it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I think "use the most common usage of the best available sources" will lead to more problems than it solves. Think of Talk:Nikola Žigić#Requested move and "www.uefa.com is the best available source and/because it uses diacritics" --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Point. Could we avoid this by linking to the discussion of sources on WP:V? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't "Use the most commonly used English version of the name of the subject as the title of the article, as you would find it in verifiable reliable sources (for example other encyclopedias and reference works)" already cover it? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

No; there are more reliable sources than the Britannica, and when available, we should use them. Of the three inequalities in PetersV's post above, we cover two (anything's better than the internet, and encyclopedias are better than media) I suppose that's not bad. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The downfall of "best available" is that I've seen the argument made too often around google and web sites and fringe-annointed experts. The crux of the issue all along has been the lack of quantification. Any rule which uses (riotously!) qualitative terms such as "best" is open to the interpretation of every individual editor--at which point we're back to arguing over every instance. There should be no problem in a quantitative structure which deprecates. If a hockey star is not mentioned in scholarly journals and not mentioned in encyclopedias, then the media would be the first stop for determining the most widespread English usage. In which case we'll still argue over diacritics not appearing on the uniform name of certain Eastern European players in the NHL, especially those native sons that hardly speak English--but at least the controversy will be contained. :-) —PētersV (talk) 02:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I trust no one takes "riotously" too seriously. I do enjoy the occasional hyperbole! —PētersV (talk) 02:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The current wording is in harmony with the policies WP:V and WP:NC. The link to the section (WP:SOURCES --- Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources) covers these concerns we do not need to repeat it here. I think that if there is to be an extension to that then those policies should be were we look to make changes first so that this guideline can be altered in line with them. (Indeed I am going to suggest a couple of changes to WP:NC). The reason for this is because the strength of this guideline is that it in balance with the underlying polices, changing it so that its underlying premise is not directly supported by policy will put it out of kilter and lead us back to the situations were people try to add further prescriptions that are not supported by policy. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 08:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

One interesting angle that came up while I was doing a little research on this is another important group, which is diplomatic users. The embassies to English speaking countries will likely have given substantial thought to how their language should be represented in English. While this may not be authoritative common usage, and the embassy is sometimes controversial (q.v. Myanmar), it may be a good place to start. Somedumbyankee (talk) 21:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

But not always to be followed; see WP:OFFICIALNAMES for our attitude to official names and their inherent POV. (Less likely to matter for mere spelling, but one never knows.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Burma and Myanmar aren't too different from spellings of a transliteration as far as I understand it (one is also a little less formal), and that has definitely been a cyclone in a cylinder to figure out which one to use... Somedumbyankee (talk) 00:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Shortcuts: WP:ENG no longer points here

WP:EN, WP:ENG and WP:ENGLISH all previously pointed to this page, but WP:ENG has been recently reappropriated to point to WP:RSUE [9]. This seems a little inconsistent and illogical to me; if anybody else has any thoughts on the matter, I have started a discussion at the relevant user's talkpage. Thanks Knepflerle (talk) 13:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The thrust of your argument seems to be that the word English and any derivative of it are now trademarks of this page (is that a fair statement?); and that other policies or guidelines that deal specifically with English usage should avoid any shortcuts that make use of the word English. You have restored VUE and RSUE to their former position, on the grounds that they are “two perfectly unambiguous shortcodes”, yes they are unambiguous to policy wonks. If we are going to have a statement on the home page such as “Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.” we need to at least attempt to live up to that slogan. It should not be followed with "(* once they understand the insiders lingo, jargon and unwritten rules)". The shortcut WP:ENG was used 9 times in association with this page, including when it was used within the same conversations by the same person/people. All 9 have all been switched to the shortcut WP:ENGLISH. Brimba (talk) 14:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

"The thrust of your argument seems to be that the word English and any derivative of it are now trademarks of this page (is that a fair statement?);" - no, it is a straw man, not a fair statement of my argument. What I am saying is that there is little logic in having EN and ENGLISH go here, and yet having ENG go somewhere completely unrelated - how on earth is that entirely arbitrary choice easy to remember and user-friendly? Why should people (whether they know the "insiders lingo" or not!) know that EN goes to WP:UE, but ENG goes to WP:V?

"You have restored VUE and RSUE to their former position..."; when a shortcut exists, a notice of that shortcut is placed at the target page. All I did was restore the notice; the shortcut has not been altered by anyone. You didn't delete the shortcut, but you removed the notice - this does not make sense. Either we have the shortcut and the notice, so that people can use it if they choose, or we have neither. There is no point having "easter egg shortcuts that no-one knows about.

You have still made no case why we need "single, standardized" shortcuts. Fair enough, have easy-to-remember shortcuts for people new to the encyclopaedia, but there is no reason we can't have the other ones for "policy wonks" as well. We aren't here to dictate to people what they find easy to remember. Knepflerle (talk) 14:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

There are currently 35 shortcuts pointing to WP:V and that is after a number where deleted from existence last month. A short time ago there where 25 shortcuts actually listed/advertised/given notice of on Wikipedia:Verifiability, far too many for any normal person to keep track of (even policy wonks). That someone, no matter how well intentioned, creates a shortcut does not in and of itself impose an obligation to others to either display the shortcut, or to take the time to see that it gets deleted. It can simply sit in hyperspace; that someone somewhere acts does not impose an obligation to other editors to react; I can think of better things to do with my time then delete someone’s self-inspired shortcut. In short, if we followed your guidance there would currently be 35 shortcuts on Wikipedia:Verifiability. If we displayed every shortcut associated with every policy page and every guideline, you could rightly rename Wikipedia “Babel”. Brimba (talk) 15:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

All shortcuts are "self-inspired", and nobody is asking you or anybody else to "keep track" or learn them - just that you do not hide notices for those who find it useful. Another straw man - no-one stated there is an obligation for others to display a shortcut; but if someone has voluntarily decided to do so then that should be considered. I'd rather have extra links that could be helpful displayed rather than be left with a choice of one arbitrarily imposed - and in the case of most shortcuts this is what has happened. If you want "single, standardized" shortcuts with only one displayed, please try and obtain a general consensus for it at WT:SHORTCUT - the current guideline advises no more than two, and I doubt there'd be support for a restriction to one. But more importantly than any of this: the confusing and completely arbitrary division of EN* shortcuts remains, which is the main focus for this particular talk page. Knepflerle (talk) 16:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Nothing now links to WP:ENG; has someone been editing piped links? But if it has been useful, it would be more appropriate to create a new one (WP:NONENG) would seem more memorable for a section on non-English sources) than to take an old shortcut over; that's how you get people lost. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

German double-S

Is there anything in the archives about the German double-S, which seems to be causing a flap at Spaßguerilla? Questioningly, GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Too broad

This is too broad: "The body of each article, preferably in its first paragraph, should list all common names by which its subject is known." The passive voice, as usual, clouds the issue. Known by whom? Sure, the capital of China is known as Beijing and Peking. But it is probably known by other things in Arabic, Thai, and the thousands of other languages people speak. This is admirable but not tenble for every article that features a proper name. I think we need narrower criteria. Also, for historical characters, do we mean how they were known in the past (by their contemporaries)? In some cases we do not know, or there is serious controversy among scholars. This provision is way too vague. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. And the problem is not just with names of people or places. Look at this:

Fenugreek (Trigonella foenum-graecum) is a plant in the family Fabaceae. It is commonly known as Maithray (Gujarati), Methi (Oriya, Bangla), Methi or Mithi (Hindi , Assamese, Nepali, Marathi मेथी, and Urdu ميتهي , from the Sanskrit मेथिका), Menthyada soppu (ಮೆಂತ್ಯ) (Kannada), Ventayam (வெந்தயம்) (Tamil), Menthulu(మెంతులు) (Telugu), Çemen (Turkish), Hilbeh (حلبة Arabic, חילבהHebrew), or ulluva (ഉലുവ Malayalam)، shambalîleh (شنبليله Persian). Fenugreek is used both as an herb (the leaves) and as a spice (the seed). It is cultivated worldwide as a semi-arid crop. It is frequently used in curry.

Clearly the policy could use some tweaking. Un school 01:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Can someone propose a change? Slrubenstein | Talk 16:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

About Beijing/Peking

"For example, the Beijing article should mention that the city is also known as Peking, and that both names derive from the Chinese name 北京."

The second part of the sentence, "and that both names derive from the Chinese name 北京", encapsulates some common misconceptions about the Chinese writing system, as well as the way languages in general evolve.

It makes no sense to say that the pronunciation of a word is derived from its written representation. Whether the forms "Beijing" and "Peking" in English or other languages are derived from a common ancestor is really another matter.Nameless123456 (talk) 15:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Chinese cash

An issue related to English usage in titles is under discussion at Talk:Chinese wén, specifically the use of English names of currencies as currently recommended by the numismatics style guidelines as well as WP:UE. If interested, please discuss a resolution of a titleing issue and give suggestions there. — AjaxSmack 01:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Names of buildings and streets in non-English-speaking cities

A problem I have often run into is what to call articles about buildings and streets in non-English-speaking countries. The "use English" rule is all very well, but it is certainly not appropriate to translate every street and building name into English, particularly when most reliable modern guidebooks (including the Blue Guides and Rough Guides) seem to retain the name in the original language. Yet many Wikipedia editors translate all names into English as an almost knee-jerk reaction, often producing names which are both awkward and not really used by anyone. An example is the article on Kálvin tér (Calvin Square) in Budapest. When I saw it, it was named Kálvin Square, thus mixing a Hungarian word (which is perfectly capable of being translated into English) and an English word. My feeling is that Kálvin tér, to which I have moved it, is the most appropriate name for this article, since that is the name used in reliable guidebooks. But if it has to be translated into English it should be translated fully as Calvin Square. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the guideline is clear about this: use what is used in books. There might be other books than guidebooks which cover the subject, which might have the English name or the mixed name. This should be considered. But for the time being, I think it is safe to follow your guide books until other evidence comes along. You might want to create a redirect for the other titles, though. Jasy jatere (talk) 15:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I would agree. But other editors apparently wouldn't, which is why I'd like to initiate a discussion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

There's no hard and fast rule in English, which is reflected on Wikipedia! Consider:

Red Square, not Кра́сная пло́щадь or "Krasnaya Square", but Nevsky Prospekt, Kremlin, Bolshoi Theatre etc.
Tiananmen Square, not Tiān'ānmén Guǎngchǎng, 天安門廣場 or "Gate of Heavenly Peace Square"
Charles Bridge, not Karlův most
Quai d'Orsay, not "Orsay Quay"

If you look at Omotesandō, you will even find different styles within the same sentence! Physchim62 (talk) 21:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. My point is that some editors seem to believe that the "use English" rule means that names should always be translated into English, no matter what. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I see your point. Not all names should be translated and it doesnt' make sense to translate certain names. Pont Neuf, for example, never gets translated into New Bridge. That would be silly because no one calls it New Bridge, English speaking world or otherwise. Same with those articles you are talking about. If no one (English sources) translates it to English, then wikipedia shouldn't either. If translating into English is commonly done, then wikipedia should do it too. Eiffel Tower, for example, commonly gets translated into English. It is rare in English texts to see Tour Eiffel. My suggestion is to research each case and find the most commmon usage. Once the most common usage is found, it should be black and white (I hope). Masterhatch (talk) 00:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, Masterhatch's "suggestion" is actually policy, it is what WP:UE calls for. Unschool (talk) 11:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's not strictly policy. The naming conventions are a guideline, and guidelines are often ignored. But I'm glad that general consensus here appears to be that streets, squares and buildings should not automatically be translated into English unless they have an English name that is more commonly used in English-speaking countries than the native name. That is my opinion too, but it seems to be one that is often ignored (oddly enough, more often than not by editors whose native language isn't English). -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

In a more succinct form, the NC policy says the same thing (Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Use English words) . --PBS (talk) 12:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Probably the best way to deal with this is to deal with each case individually. Take each case and try to figure out the most common usage in English. English travel guides printed in English speaking countries usually have the most common way of spelling that is most familiar to English speakers. Masterhatch (talk) 21:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with the overall discussion, I would like to add a caveat against the unreflected use of travelguides. A travel guide to Prague might very well refer to Karluv Most, simply because that is the way that it is signposted, so that it is useful for tourists. Other people than tourists might use Charles Bridge (could not think of a better example than this one, there should be others). So, I think a variety of sources, including but not limited to travel guides should be consulted. Jasy jatere (talk) 15:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it can usually be distinguished. The usual practice in good travel guides is to give both names (native and English translation) at the beginning of the section about the building/street/bridge/whatever, and thereafter to use the common name (whether that be the native name or the English version). -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I would second Jasy jatere's comment. --PBS (talk) 12:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

There's a caution on guidebooks in WP:NCGN; I believe use of street-sign names goes so far that there is an English guidebook titled München. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

National varieties of English

See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions#National varieties of English to discuss if the section "National varieties of English" should be moved from this guideline up into the NC policy page. --PBS (talk) 13:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Gaelic names

There is currently a discussion at Talk:David I of Scotland#Names regarding the use of Gaelic names throughout the article (i.e. referring to David's father and Duncan under their Gaelic names, not the English names that are used for the articles title). I changed these to the English names, per this guideline but also per consistency so all names throughout are English not a mixture, but was reverted. The reverter has since said there is "no consensus" to use Gaelic but sticks firm it should be used. I say it shouldn't, by most people these people are known as - for example - Malcolm IV of Scotland not "Máel Coluim mac Eanric". Indeed, Malcolm's page itself uses "Malcolm" but the user wants to use "Máel Coluim". I believe that throughout all articles on Scots kings the English version of the name should be used - to match with the article title, for constitency and per how they are commonly known. There needs to be a rule on this - otherwise the articles look silly with some saying Malcolm and some Máel Coluim.--UpDown (talk) 08:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

can you cite literature which uses the English name? Then you can prove that the English name is how the subject of the article is commonly known in the English speaking world. Then the burden of proof is on your "opponent" to find more literature which uses the Gaelic name. Jasy jatere (talk) 11:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Foreign names used in English

Taken literally, this policy ("Naming conventions (use English)") seems to say that a non-English name is never the correct name to use, even if the non-English name is much more common in English-language contexts. But this conflicts with the basic policy on naming:

Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.
Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject.

For example, crème caramel is clearly a French phrase (accent and all) (though it is listed in the OED); but it is over 15 times more common (182k) in English-language Web pages (as identified by Google) than the English equivalent, "burnt cream" (12k). This policy should make that case clearer. --macrakis (talk) 14:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

the fact that it is listed in the OED proves that it is English. The expression has a French origin, but that is irrelevant. This policy does not say "Use only words of Anglo-Saxon etymology". BTW, crème caramel and crème brûlée (which translates to 'burnt cream') are not the same thing, at least in France. Although it cannot be excluded that English culinary practices have lumped them together, I fear... Jasy jatere (talk) 15:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Really? I'm English and the restaurants I've visited and recipe books I've read have always presented them as completely different things, as have my taste buds! To return to the original point, some editors (usually non-native English speakers, funnily enough) are a little too obsessed with translating everything into English. If the original name is more common then that is what should be used and this is what the naming convention says as far as I can see. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

you restore my faith in Albion's taste buds! Jasy jatere (talk) 20:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Creme caramel and creme brulee are two different things. Creme caramel is what's commonly known in the US as caramel custard or, in my experience even more often, by its Spanish name, "flan". I've never seen creme brulee referred to as "burnt cream"; in any event, it's a different thing from caramel custard. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. I can confirm that, in Spanish, the dessert is called "flan"; I ordered one in a restaurant in Palma de Mallorca last Sunday, and it was definitely a crème caramel! The Real Academia Española says that the word came into Spanish from French, but a "flan" in French is what the English would call a custard tart. In my native Lincolnshire dialect, a "flan" is any sort of flat, baked dessert, similar to the sense of "tart" in standard British English and undoubtedly related to the Old High German flado. To get back to the point, no, we shouldn't be "translating" these titles, simply because we wouldn't know what to "translate" them to! Physchim62 (talk) 21:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Since when did we agree with this wording?

"Wikipedia does not decide what characters are to be used in the name of an article's subject; English usage does. Wikipedia has no rule that titles must be written in certain characters, or that certain characters may not be used. Versions of a name which differ only in the use or non-use of modified letters should be treated like any other versions: Follow the general usage in English verifiable reliable sources in each case, whatever characters may or may not be used in them.", unsurprisingly inserted by PMAnderson last year, in another attempt to make WP:UE shift to the abolition of diacritics. On Wikipedia we do abide by the "general use in English", but not in the case of diacritics, which are a complement to the general use, not something that goes against it. Everyone one knows that the main reasons why diacritics are absent on English sources are the lack of diacritics on English keyboards, lack of care for its existence or reading, or simply ignorance. Yet, we're an encyclopedia, and for a long time we have been valuing the quality of content we provide, which determines that we use Latin alphabet diacritics whenever applicable and whenever a different English version does not exist for a given subject. This guideline inserted by known diacritic-abolitionist PMAnderson therefore needs to be either removed or reworded. Hús ö nd 13:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I would consider myself friendly to diacritics, and I do read, use and write them. I would not be hostile towards a policy "Use diacritics", but I am able to see that there is no chance that this policy will ever have consensus (I hasten to add that the opposite policy "never use diacritics" will also not find consensus). This talk page has generated loads of kB of discussion about the pro's and con's of diacritics, which are mostly not relevant for the encyclopedia (and very often of appalling quality). Also, the previous wording tended to be misinterpreted by both sides in wikidramas. The present wording makes it clear that an editor wanting a diacritic, as well as an editor wanting to get rid of a diacritic, has to provide sources for their opinion, thus shifting the focus from mudslinging about diacritics to quality of sources. I am convinced that this has avoided a lot of useless discussion.Jasy jatere (talk) 21:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

One might speculate about the absence of diacritics in English language sources. But this has no bearing on the creation of an encyclopedia. It is not the purpose of WP to correct the ignorant use of foreign terms by Anglo writers. While I am sympathetic to such an enterprise, I am also convinced that WP is not the venue for that. Jasy jatere (talk) 21:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I mostly agree with your views. However, if you read the guideline that has been embedded on WP:UE, you may notice that it asks not for reliable sources containing diacritics, but general usage in English. It is easy to find those reliable sources, but when you're talking about general usage you are referring to a majority of reliable sources. And for that, no name with a diacritic has supremacy on the web over its counterpart that has been stripped of it. Hús ö nd 22:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

sorry, I can't follow you. I suppose you refer to Wikipedia:NCGN#Widely_accepted_name, no? Could you be a bit more specific as to what passage you find problematic?

This one. Hús ö nd 07:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I had understood that part ;-). I find that "Wikipedia has no rule that titles must be written in certain characters, or that certain characters may not be used." pretty much neutral wrt the use or not of diacritics. I understand that you have problems with that section, but I still fail to identify them. Can I ask you one more time to point them out in detail?Jasy jatere (talk) 10:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no problems with that part, only with Follow the general usage in English verifiable reliable sources in each case. Hús ö nd 18:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Jasy, i don't see a problem with "Follow the general usage in English verifiable reliable sources in each case." Sounds like English to me. If English doesn't normally do it, why should wikipedia??? Masterhatch (talk) 18:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I see that Husond has misrepresented this above, by omitting in English verifiable reliable sources in each case. If this continues, I will consider dispute resolution. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think User:Husond has (as Husond's last comment clearly mentions the phrase). This shows that Hudsond's initial reading and understanding of the paragraph has been modified by this discussion. What is not clear to me is now that Husond recognises that it is limited to the usage in "English verifiable reliable sources" and not all English sources (unreliable as well as reliable) what alternative wording (s)he would prefer. --PBS (talk) 09:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Husond, what are you talking about? You said, "Everyone one knows that the main reasons why diacritics are absent on English sources are the lack of diacritics on English keyboards, lack of care for its existence or reading, or simply ignorance." That, ladies and germs is ignorance on your part. English not using diacritics has nothing to do with keyboards. Prior to keyboards, English rarely used them. After keyboards, English rarely used them. Other languages have diacritics on their keyboards because they are used in that language. English, like i said, rarely uses them, so there is rarely a need for them to be on keyboards. And what do you mean "lack of care for its existance"? It isn't lack of care, it is just the way English does things. Ignorance? well, the definition of ignorance is not knowing. I don't think that this is the case for the English language. I am sure all the great English scholars before keyboards and all the great scholars after keyboards knew about diacritics, they just recognised that English doesn't normally use them. That is not ignorance, that is choice. Truly, English wikipedia should only use diacritics and non-English characters when that is the most common way of writing it in English. If it is not common to spell a word with diacritics in English, then that is how wikipedia should also spell it--without diacritics. It is not spelt wrong in English to omit diacritics. It maybe spelt wrong in French or Spanish or Swedish, but not English. Sorry to burst your bubble. And stop forcing diacritics on English when English doesn't normally use them. It is not ignorance, or spelt wrong, it is choice and that is how English has been spelling things long before computers and keyboards. Again, sorry to burst your bubble. Masterhatch (talk) 18:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

You are not bursting any bubble, you just have a completely different view. You seem to be unaware of the purpose of diacritics in the first place, and you are putting words in my mouth. I never said that it is wrong to omit diacritics, I simply say that foreign words with diacritics are written in the most accurate possible way in the English language. They allow readers to know how to read a foreign word when they look at it. E.g. if it's written "Štanjel" and not "Stanjel", one may immediately know that the name of this small Slovenian village reads "Shtan-yel", not "Stan-yel". Obviously this applies only to those readers who know how to read a "Š" in the first place. However, just because many may have no clue, this should not be in detriment to those who know. Thus, in order to provide maximum accuracy and quality to our readers, we must provide diacritics whenever applicable. Not to mention that sometimes a lack of a diacritic will generate a different subject (such as Bruck, Germany and Brück, Germany). Yes, writing with a diacritic is a matter of choice for the common writer, but in an encylopedia it is not. Furthermore, using diacritics only when English "normally" uses them is nonsensical. English never uses them normally - they are the exception, as is accuracy. What great scholars are you referring to btw? Hús ö nd 21:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Seeing how no matter what we say, we will never agree on this subject, this will be my last response, and i will make it quick. As you mentioned, diacritics are there to help with pronunciation..and as you said, if you know how to use them. Well, if you didn't notice, the start of every article has spellings in the original language and a spelling key...for that very purpose of helping the reader and, as you said "...maximum accuracy and quality to our readers." Look, it is simple: article titles should reflect the most common English spelling (regardless of diacritics) and in the first paragraph of each article, all variant spellings, both English variants and non-English variants, should be shown. Wikipedia is for the layman and article titles should reflect that. Jasy, sorry for opening this can of worms again, but it really got my goat when the word "ignorance" was used for English spellings. I have stayed away from this topic for a long time, and I will step away again. Masterhatch (talk) 22:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Naturally that that those users should be served with articles deprived of diacritics because the IPA, which everyone knows well, will follow the first mention of the subject. Indeed, it's useless to keep the discussion. Yet, no matter how much you may paint the word ignorance with outspoken outrage, it still continues to look ignorance to me. Hús ö nd 23:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

How other languages spell a name is a fact about it, and frequently a useful one; articles should include such spellings, esperially for local languages. Husond's campaign, however, would prevent us from indicating how English spells something, which is also a useful fact, and a service to other Wikipedias. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

We write our articles for the general reader of English, who should never be assumed to know non-English words, and who should not have to depend on non-English letters. Jonathunder (talk) 23:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

That's why we use diacritics in the Latin alphabet only. Readers who won't know how to read them can just disregard them and read solely the ordinary letter they complement. However, readers who do know how to read them, have access to an accurate name that they can read the closest possible to the original language. Hús ö nd 23:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The best way to judge what is the accurate use of diacritics in English by what reliable English language sources use. --PBS (talk) 00:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to repeat myself to every single known diacritic abolitionist who drops by. My response to your erroneous view is described above. Hús ö nd 09:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Geez, can't you keep the off-coloured remarks to yourself? We are not "abolitionists". We (well at least me) believe that diacritics should be use a) when English normally uses them (which there are many words derived from French that retain their diacritics in English) and b) in the first paragraph of the article showing native language spellings. So, to use your own words, "My response to your erroneous view is described above". Masterhatch (talk) 16:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

For example, Besançon, which I inserted in this page, and support. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Husond Zurich is not pronounced as it is in German, so even if one understands how to pronounce Zürich, to do so in English would be wrong. Would you support the moving of Zürich to Zurich so that this is not misunderstood? -- PBS (talk) 14:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I came across an example this week, that refutes the old argument that it is only laziness that the English don't use diacritic. It comes from the official English translation of the Treaty of Orebro "Orebro" is spelt that way not as "Örebro" but the name of one of the plenipotentiary is given as Lawrence Baron d'Engeström (not Engestrom). The English version is a translation of the French original, and in that original the spellings are "Orebro" and "Engeström", and as the Swedish plenipotentiaries signed the French version, they acquiesced to these French spellings (see Wikisource:Treaty of Orebro (Britain and Sweden)). -- PBS (talk) 14:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I subscribe to everything Húsönd says. The move to "correct" what needs not be corrected, especially by discreetly tweaking guidelines and faking consensus, only serves impracticality and ignorance. Especially since, at the moment, diacritics are present in FAs and in most properly copyedited articles (which should imply something about consensus, outside the tiresome debate always carried in the obscure margins of wikipedia), and the point of "what's most used in English" is flawed to begin with: the majority of cited sources don't use diacritics at all, for any name, whereas many do for all names, so concluding that any of those "make a statement" about diacritics, just because those who happen to deal with a more obscure topic don't, is pure sophistry. And what's more: Anglicization is an observable adaptation of a name, changes in the marking of phonemes, not the loss of diacritics in the media. When one has a choice between "casual and wrong" and "regulated and proper", there is absolutely no reason why one would pick the former. Especially not on wikipedia, which aims to be an encyclopedic work, and which has all the tools in place for any non-diacritic version to point where it should. After all, ladies and gentlemen, what is the problem? Do the squiggles make your eyes hurt? Do they cause your computers to crash? Really now. Dahn (talk) 02:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

While you (and Husond, of course) make intelligent arguments, the fact is that there is another side to this eternal debate. Evidence that this other side exists can be found in many, if not most, of the other major encyclopedias in English, which generally omit diacritics. Now personally I don't really have a problem with diacritics; they're easy enough for me to ignore, and I generally do so. But when you characterize the usage without diacritics as "casual and wrong", you simply fail to recognize the inherent right of each language to define its own usage. While you may consider WP:UE to be flawed (and, I suspect, most people on both sides of this debate can find something in that assessment to agree with), it does, nonetheless, reflect the reality that exists. Lacking an Academy, and being too far spread around the world to effect universal change (like the 1996 German spelling reform), we English speakers are stuck with no better guide than looking around at what we are doing. And for Wikipedia to try to push that, to try to impose diacritics or (much worse, in my humble opinion, non-English letters), would be a violation of our guidelines. It's our job to follow conventions, not establish them. Un school 05:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Well said Unschool. I just have one thing to add: Most articles in wikipedia have diacritics and foreign character NOT because of consensus but because several users a couple of years ago went around and changed countless articles WITHOUT discussion or consensus. A few admins hopped on this band-wagon and anyone who tried to keep status quo until a consensus could be reached got blocked. i was one of those that got blocked for trying keep status quo. I would revert back to the original article's spelling and I got blocked for breaking the three revert rule. My point is, there never was a consensus either way and that most articles started out sans diacritics and diacritics were forced on wikipedia. To me, anyways, it is common sense: wikipedia should follow the most common spelling in English. Masterhatch (talk) 05:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I acknowledge that there is "another side" who disagree with my arguments. That's perfectly fair, but user Pmanderson's change to the guidelines to make it read as if usage of diacritics on Wikipedia depended on the frequency of its usage in English sources is far from consensual, and totally against our practices on this matter. It basically went unnoticed until now. It needs to be removed or rewritten, because the way it is now disrupts the equilibrium between both sides. Hús ö nd 20:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

"...is far from consensual, and totally against our practices on this matter." While I agree that it is far from consensual, i have a word about "against our practices". As far as I recall, a little over two years ago, the vast majority of articles in wikipedia did not include diacrticis or foreign characters. Then one day, a bunch of people, without consensus mind you, went and moved a ton of articles without discussion. So, while it is also true that the majority of articles now include diacritics, i must add that it was done in a very under-handed way. So the argument that most articles already include diacritics does not hold water. Masterhatch (talk) 00:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Not quite. As far as I recall, and I've been around for almost 3 years with this account (plus roughly an extra year with my previous account and as anonymous), we've always had diacritics except for some shocking exceptions which were quickly fixed. And it was not "one day", with a "bunch of people", it was a quick yet gradual change as the Wikipedian community grew and people realized that for technical reasons diacritics were most necessary, let alone for common sense and encylopedic accuracy reasons. After all, we've started to have articles on e.g. every Czech small town, not just major cities. Each new article created needed to bear diacritics to disambiguate, to provide accurate reading, and to prevent Wikipedia from being surpassed in terms of quality by any other online encyclopedias that used diacritics. Hús ö nd 12:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, it wasn't two years ago. It was actually a little over three years ago when it all happened. In my circle of edits (in other words, within pages I frequented), in late 2005, early 2006, users were moving articles to include diacritics without discussion. It was a messy time in wikipedia. I came to wikipedia in the middle of 2005 and it was rare to see diacritics in articles at that time. Anyways, my point is, way back when, most articles started out without diacritics and were moved without discussion, so the argument "most articles have diacritics already" doesn't hold water. Masterhatch (talk) 16:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I object to the epithet "diacritic abolitionist". I support the use of diacritics in titles when they're generally used in English sources. The idea that this rules out all diacritics is demonstrably false: Charlotte Bronte, El Nino, Frechet filter, cafe, Sao Tome, and Hofbrauhaus all redirect to versions with diacritics, and those are just off the top of my head. Those are among words and names that are commonly written with diacritics in English.

I've closed many hundreds of move requests, and although I've probably seen, and completed, more removal of diacritics than additions of them, the idea that the debate is between such extreme positions is simply incorrect. My observation (admittedly excluding the last several months, while I've been inactive) is that there's a strong community consensus to base our titles on the usage in the majority of reliable English language sources. That's what I reckon the guideline should say. It would also be fair to mention that a consistent minority maintains an opposition to this otherwise-consensus. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

My opinion on diacritics from foreign-language words and names, as well as on any other "special" characters turning up in titles such as those inserted for artistic or marketing purposes (as in I ♥ Huckabees, or the odd symbol that The Artist Formerly and Subsequently Known as Prince used as his name), is that usage in Wikipedia titles should match what a careful and attentive English-language writer would be likely to use. "The majority of reliable sources" is probably a decent proxy for this, and is consistent with Wikipedia policy on other matters. Such writers do use diacritics and other special symbols on various occasions when this is seen as the most authentic spelling for what they are writing about, but on other occasions they go for a more "native English" rendition in the 26 letters of our alphabet; this may depend on what degree a name has been considered to be "naturalized" into English. Where artistic / marketing characters are concerned, their usage depends on whether they're perceived to be an essential part of the name or just a dispensible gimmick. Neither absolutist position of using or abolishing "odd" characters is supported by this principle. *Dan T.* (talk) 21:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

My views on the subject are pretty close to Húsönd's and Dahn's. That's certainly because I'm a native speaker of a language with lots of diacritics, but I'll try to argue forgetting my condition...

I think there is a reasonable and commonsensical difference between "English words of foreign origin" and "foreign words used in English". It's very difficult to spell out this distinction, but it is certainly related to the wide use of each word type and to its adaptation (or not) to English phonology. This distinction is good for proper names as for any other word. For instance, "Zurich" (to use an example given above), "tsunami" and "entrée" (in the US and Canada), or indeed "Paris" and "Rome", are English words of foreign origin, while "Käferberg" and "Mérignac" are certainly foreign words that may be used in English. "Auto de fe" is perhaps an example of a dubious case, but I suppose it should go into the first set.

Now if we accept this distinction, it gives an obvious solution to our problem. We should write English words without diacritics, except where the diacritic may be useful even in English (perhaps like in "entrée", to avoid reading "ee" as in "gee"). More exactly, we should write them as they are usually written in "the majority of reliable sources". But I can see no reason to write foreign words, including in article titles, as they are usually written in the majority of reliable English-written sources, especially because this "majority" will be, by definition, a majority in a relatively small set. For these cases, I think it is reasonable to expect that the omission of diacritics will be due to lack of care or to the belief that diacritics are not important, when they are. If I'm allowed a joke, we shouldn't defer to (small) "majoritarian democracy" when it collides with the "fundamental rights" of foreign words...

Velho (talk) 01:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

A principle that I sometimes remember in situations such as this is the "principle of least astonishment". The idea is that, if a reader types something into the search box, or clicks on a link, we want to avoid surprising them whenever possible. If you search for Venice, and an article pops up on Venezia, that's a jarring surprise, and that's what we try to avoid.

In the case of diacritics, there is a complication with this principle. Namely, native speakers of languages that use diacritics tend to be "astonished", in a negative way, when they see names of people and places "misspelled". Now, I don't have an acid test to tell which version of a name is the least astonishing or confusing to the most readers of en.wikipedia. However, I'm pretty sure this is the principle from which we derived our rule of following the majority of reliable English language sources. Thus, it might be a useful thing to keep in mind when discussing these questions. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not just the native speakers of other languages who will get astonished, English speakers with knowledge of those languages will as well. There is a rather stupid and patronizing tendency in the English-speaking world to assume that no one around can speak other language than English. Which is false. Although this might be the case of the majority, there's lots of people who have knowledge of foreign languages, who can read diacritics, and who will be affected if presented with diacriticless titles. I have explained the reasons on why we should have diacritics countless times (such as here), but many users will continue to defend that Wikipedia should be dumbed down for the sake of the majority of English speakers who can't read them or don't care about them. Hús ö nd 12:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Húsönd, I don't appreciate being characterized as wanting the Wikipedia to be "dumbed down". That has nothing to do with my perspective, and I don't see how attempting to negatively portray those who disagree with you is helpful. Can we have an honest discussion, instead, or are you going to insist on making this a good-guys/bad-guys issue? -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I am curious when it comes to "astonishment". It has been argued that it serves an educative purpose for English readers to be confronted with diacritics...the English reader's discomfort over those "foreign squiggles" is partially the beneficial shock of learning a new fact, in this case the "native" spelling of the name. Would not the same argument apply to the English reader who also reads a foreign language, or the foreign language reader who also knows English and is astonished when coming across a word which is shorn of diacritics? In other words, is this theoretical person not also receiving a beneficial education--learning a new fact, for instance the fact of English usage? It is startling to me how people are so willing to dismiss the principle of verifiable usage and embark on their own crusades of correctness. It seems so antithetical to the principles against orginal research, NPOV, and so forth.Erudy (talk) 01:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I must have missed a step there. Who is "dismissing the principle of verifiable usage" and embarking on a "crusade of correctness"? I'm not aware that anyone is arguing from a starting point other than verifiable usage. That's the argument for both sides, right?

Your point about astonishment and education is well-taken, although I can also think of well-made answers to it. Even in cases where I support leaving diacritics out of titles, I would never suggest leaving them out of the article entirely, or pretending in some way that they don't exist. If the position I'm espousing has appeared that way, then there has been a real misunderstanding.

I'd love to have this conversation in an environment free of vilification, if that's possible. Nobody involved in this argument wants anything other than the best possible encyclopedia. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the opposition does start from verifiable usage; they certainly reject verifiable English usage, and argue that because Meissen would be incorrect in (most dialects of) German, it must be incorrect in English. (I know of nobody holding this position who actually has English as their native language.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Question for Húsönd

If you could author a guideline for use in our Naming conventions that would be faithful to the projects goals and to your sense of accuracy and clarity, what would it say? How would we decide how to write a person's name? What principle or algorithm would you apply? -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

It is very hard to come up with a compromise guideline, I was sort of fond of the previous status quo, which was shattered when Pmanderson changed the guidelines to make them attempt to affect the usage of diacritics on Wikipedia. If I could author a guideline on usage of diacritics, it would be something like if a foreign word used in English bears diacritics in its original language, we should use the version with diacritics if such usage is verifiable by sources, which don't have to make the majority of. This would only apply if English doesn't have a term of its own for that word (such as Munich, which we use instead of München; or Zurich, which we should use instead of "Zürich"). The community is free to discuss on a case by case basis whenever doubts exist on the application (or not) of diacritics. Just my 2 cents. Hús ö nd 19:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. I thought that status quo was that we've been following the majority of English-language sources for years. This is based on my experience working in requested moves, which you know I've been doing for a long time. From that perspective, Pmanderson's edit simply brought the guideline into line with long-standing common practice. Perhaps we're not on the same page regarding what the status quo has been. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Diacritics were never affected by the majority of English-language sources, as there was never consensus for such. And for good reason. Consensus has been an even longer-standing common practice, so Pmanderson's edit should be undone as it is just against it. Yes, we both have been involved with requested moves for quite some time, and I'm sure we will keep getting back to this issue every now and then. Hús ö nd 22:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand your first sentence in that reply. As far as I can tell, for the last couple of years, I've been closing move requests, and watching others close move requests, in which we've settled questions about diacritics by appealing to the majority of reliable English language sources. I can produce a list, if you like, of cases where this happened. From my perspective, Pmanderson's edit simply writes down what we've been doing. Do you disagree that we have been using sources to settle these questions? -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The sentence means that the usage of diacritics of Wikipedia has never depended on whether or not the majority of English-language sources use them, and that no consensus was ever achieved for us to adopt such practice. No, I do not disagree that we have been using sources to settle these questions, as it would be senseless otherwise. Yes, it would be interesting to see that list of closed move requests where we abolished diacritics simply because the majority of sources do not use them. As for the closed move requests that did NOT remove the diacritics simply because the majority of sources do not use them, you don't even have to ask for the list - it's all other move requests. Simply because no word with diacritics has majority in English language sources. Hús ö nd 21:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I've provided a list of examples above of English words that do appear with diacritics in the majority of reliable, English-language sources. Where does Charlotte Bronte redirect? How about cafe? Sao Paulo? Scroll up for the list that came off the top of my head - I didn't have to hunt for them, or think hard. Some words take diacritics in most English sources, and we reflect that.

Addressing the main point, it seems we disagree about what consensus has existed. Whenever I've been questions regarding a move I closed, I've taken the issue to WP:AN/I for review, and I've been assured by multiple, uninvolved admins that, yes, we base our titling on English sources, regarding diacritics as well as in other respects.

Either way, there remains a minority view that we should not follow sources in this respect, so there is no true consensus.

I think it would be useful to write up two (or more) versions of the paragraph(s) in question, and try to get the opinions of a broad spectrum of Wikipedians. I have no stake in the issue, being neither for nor against diacritics. My only interest is carrying out consensus as I see it, and I've been seeing for years that our policy is to follow English language sources. If I've been seeing wrong, let's find that out, so I can stop closing moves incorrectly. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Heh, try running a search for "café" and "cafe" on a search engine and you will find out that even for this English word there are far more sources without the diacritic. You will simply not find a word bearing a diacritic that is more frequently found on valid English language sources than its diacriticless counterpart. That is why when it comes to diacritics, we follow English language sources, but not the majority of English language sources. Hús ö nd 22:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, what do you think of the idea of actually asking the community? We clearly don't see eye to eye on this point; let's expand the discussion. We're not going to get far if you say we've been doing it one way, and I say we've been doing it another way. Each of us clearly has his observations and his interpretation of those. I don't see much profit in arguing among the same subset of people. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

And where should this be asked? More importantly, would it be worthwhile to ask at all? Countless discussions on diacritics have occurred in the past, and always with the same outcome- no consensus to make any policy or guideline on the matter. Aren't we going to waste everybody's time with yet another discussion that won't be any productive? Hús ö nd 23:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I would probably start somewhere like WP:VP/P. As for how many times the issue has been discussed, I've seen in discussed in the context of many specific moves, but never as a more general question in a larger venue. I certainly don't see how it could do any harm. Speaking only for myself, if I see that community feeling on the question is different that what I've understood so far, I'm willing to be persuaded by the best arguments I see. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I have some reservations with the village pump, which is mostly monitored by the same habitués. A discussion occurring there would probably go unnoticed to most users who would be interested in taking part in the discussion. I think that a request for comment could prove a better (re)start. Hús ö nd 19:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

<-- Yeah, I've noticed a certain tendency with this issue - those arguing for following the majority of English sources are more centralized, whereas those who argue for fidelity to the native language in question appear more often on a per-case basis. In other words, those who want to keep Spanish accents aren't generally present when we're talking about Romanian diacritics, and vice versa. On the other hand, those insisting that we follow sources in dropping many of those diacritics tend to reappear at discussion after discussion, perhaps because they're subscribed to WP:RM.

We might want to keep this in mind when rounding up a group for discussion. Perhaps we could place notes on talk pages of WikiProjects that deal with a lot of foreign-name biographies, etc. Somehow, I'd want to see a variety of perspectives represented. Even if we can't come up with a guideline that makes everyone happy, we might be able to find a more stable equilibrium, sort of like the way we have with British vs. American spelling, and B.C. vs B.C.E. on dates. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I too would like a discussion that would reach all interested parties. And although I have no doubts that such discussion would not result in a consensus on the application of diacritics on Wikipedia, it could though produce a consensus on how to maintain a certain equilibrium. Speaking of which, it is time to remove or rewrite the Modified Letters section of the naming conventions (use English). There is no convention whatsoever, let alone consensus, on what is described there; that section has been mentioned frequently in the latest diacritics-related move proposals, something that should be prevented in the future as it misleads users to think that there's an agreed policy or guidelines on this specific matter. Hús ö nd 19:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, there is WP:consensus on it. Our definition of consensus differs from that in international law: we can have consensus despite a single dissentient, no matter how brazen-voiced or repetitive. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah... I've never been very happy with settling for a consensus in which reasonable concerns remain unaddressed, and I'm not willing to call Húsönd's concerns unreasonable. Badlydrawnjeff was often right, too. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, as it happens, that badlydrawnjeff was badly done by; but you and I are some of the evidence that the decision against him was not, and probably is not, consensus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's a whole other topic... I do think that Húsönd actually represents a lot of users; he just is the one who actually haunts WP:RM and catches debate after debate over diacritics. In each individual case, there are people concerned about our usual removal of funny marks, but they tend to only be heard on a case-by-case basis. Those of us removing diacritics over and over again tend to stay put, and so does Húsönd, but those agreeing with him in specific cases are numerous. There's probably a name for that sort of dynamic. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Questions

Is the correct spelling of New York in Portuguese "New York" or "Nova Iorque"?
Is the correct spelling of Florida in French "Florida" or "Floride"?
Is the correct spelling of Roma in English "Roma" or "Rome"?
Is the correct spelling of Lisboa in English "Lisboa" or "Lisbon"?

Note that Portuguese doesn't conventionally include the letters "k" or "y" (well, now I read that they're supposed to be added by an orthographical agreement, possibly this year—but I bet the spelling "Nova Iorque" won't change). In the other three examples, the letter being replaced isn't even one that the borrowing language lacks, and even so, the second choice in each case is the correct one.

So why would the outcome be different when the borrowing language substitutes a letter, and the replacement letter happens to be like the original letter with one or more diacritics removed?

The best bet is to use the spelling that native English-speaking writers are most likely to use when writing in English, at least as long as there's agreement on which one that is. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Plazo, I don't think you are discussing "spelling". "Lisboa" is a Portuguese word, "Lisbon" is an English word. They are only cognates, the difference between them is by no means a matter of spelling. Velho (talk) 19:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand your point, but difference is immaterial insofar as pronunciations and spellings both frequently change in borrowings as they do in the course of normal language development (i.e., the process that results in cognates). If English has "shampoo" and French has "champouin" and Swedish has "schampo", is any of them wrong? If German turned French "friseur" into "Frisör", or Spanish turned English "home run" into "jonrón", is it wrong? Not in my opinion. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Heh, this is quite an interesting quiz, as I personally refuse to use "Nova Iorque" when writing the name of this city in Portuguese (I always write "Nova York", as "Iorque" hurts my eyes). In Portuguese, there are no official rules determining that "Nova Iorque" is correct and "Nova York" isn't, thus this is subject to each speaker's discretion when writing the name of the city. Most people do write "Nova Iorque", but I've seen many writing "Nova York". And such cannot be considered incorrect, especially now that the letters k, w and y are no longer shunned. I personally regard "Iorque" as one of the ugliest and most ridiculous creations of the Portuguese language. "Roma" is the Italian name of the city, English has its own version, which is "Rome". Same for "Lisbon", although I've met plenty of English speakers here in Lisbon who do seem to fancy calling thisc city "Lisboa", even amid English speech. I'm not one of them though. Hús ö nd 19:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

place of exonyms

could the people who keep reverting my move of the "exonyms" passage please explain in how far the lead is better suited for this passage than the section "Include alternatives"? Exonyms are in the set of alternatives, so it seems logical to discuss them in that section, if I am not mistaken. I am puzzled as well about the edit summary "previous wording was better". The wording is the same, gentlemen (and ladies), only the position has changed. Jasy jatere (talk) 10:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

~~I could not parse it either --PBS (talk) 13:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)~~

sorry, I cannot parse your grammar. Could you rephrase that? Jasy jatere (talk) 12:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

So here is a second attempt. It is the position on the page of the sentence, as it follows "The native spelling of a name should generally be included in the first line of the article", "in the first line" is implied for the next sentence, and it is also implied by its presence in the lead, that English exonym for the subject, should be mentioned even when there is "No established usage" in English. --PBS (talk) 13:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, I see the point. How about moving both the sentences to "Include alternatives"? After all, they are not about the title, but about the first sentence of the body. Jasy jatere (talk) 18:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Relevant move request

Readers here might find this move request discussion interesting. It was already linked at a national project page, so I am presenting it here for balance. --Yano (talk) 18:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems that, depending which crowd of Wikipedians you talk to, we've been consistent in keeping diacritics, with a few undesirable exceptions, or else we've been consistent in following English language sources, with a few undesirable exceptions. These can't both be true.

In fact, we simply haven't been very consistent. We generally follow the majority of reliable English language sources, but that generalization applies less to diacritics than to other naming disputes. There are lots of cases where some group of Wikipedians decides to ignore the "follow sources" principle, and base naming on something else: fidelity to the home-language of the subject.

It's difficult for me to say which reflects a broader consensus: the "follow sources" rule, or the "correct name in their language" rule.

Thoughts? -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Articles with foreign-language names

I've lately moved several articles with foreign-language names to English language equivalent names ([10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], perhaps some others). Some of these moves have been reverted. Recently such a move was reverted with the edit summary explaining, "moved Cemetery of the Heroes to Libingan ng mga Bayani over redirect: Moved back to original title. While WP:UE says we should use the English title, the current title is not backed up by reliable sources. In addition, most English-language". What are the reliable source guidelines need be followed in choosing the English name in such cases? Should an RFC be opened on this in hopes of getting wider input? -- Boracay Bill (talk) 03:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources in the naming conventions and WP:UE link to WP:SOURCES and that says "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is." I do not think we need an RFC on this and I think as this is a controversial area you should use WP:RM for such moves. Please read Wikipedia:NC#Use English words and WP:UE#No established usage. --PBS (talk) 11:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:RM says, "Any logged-in user who has been registered for more than four days and has made at least ten edits can use the [move] tab located at the top of each page to perform simple moves ...". I've been registered for a lot longer than four days and have made a lot more than ten edits, and that is what I did. I've read Wikipedia:NC#Use English words and WP:UE#No established usage. More discussion about this can be seen here, including a list of some reliable sources supporting my English-language renaming.

AFAICT, my at-issue reverted move (and, probably, other of my similar reverted moves) were completely supported by two official wikipedia policies mentioned with relevant quotes in that external discussion linked above. I've looked back at WP:RM regarding controversial moves, and I take your point. However, with the moves seemingly solidly supported by two official WP policies, I did not expect controversy. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 12:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

"can use the [move] tab located at the top of each page to perform simple moves" is not the same as "may" use the move tab. WP:RM is not just a place for technical moves it is also a place to request and discuss controversial moves and if you did not know it already moving such pages is controversial. The closing admin ought to take into consideration you points on policy, but some still treat the WP:RM process as a vote, it depends on the closing admin. --PBS (talk) 13:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Generally, I support English titles over non-English titles, but sometimes the English title is the least common. I had a quick look at the articles that you moved, and I must say that i support moving those to English titles. Masterhatch (talk) 16:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

All the foreign article names are absurd, but it's the policy. I'm sure one day I'll type in Warsaw and be redirected to Warszawa. --KP Botany (talk) 18:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I have placed a WP:RM request to move Libingan ng mga Bayani back to Cemetery of the Heroes. Further discussion of this move should take place at Talk:Libingan ng mga Bayani#Requested move. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 03:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

English usage

referring to this: [18]

How other languages spell a name is a fact about it, and frequently a useful one; articles should include such spellings, esperially for local languages. Husond's campaign, however, would prevent us from indicating how English spells something, which is also a useful fact, and a service to other Wikipedias

English language (lika all other languages) is not a living creature. It can not think,decide or "use" anything. So, PMAnderson, please.. stop repeating such obvious nonsences!--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 10:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a fine use of the vernacular in English by PMAnderson's post, particularly as your disagreement with the context, rather than the person, shows you understood perfectly well what was said.

Please, PMAnderson, continue to discuss issues as they impact usability of various Wikipedias.

In general, however, languages are considered to be living creatures, dynamic, not static. --KP Botany (talk) 06:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

you might want to read more about metonymy Jasy jatere (talk) 20:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Valleys and similar

there is a what I think important discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Germany/Conventions#Placenames (2) - which could do with some input. Agathoclea (talk) 17:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Rules regarding loanwords and exonyms

I suggest to express more evidently this rules, using specific paragraphs. --Caceo (talk) 21:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Swiss localities

See the current discussion at Talk:Biel/Bienne#Page title. It appears that various Swiss localities are named by their "official" titles here on en-WP (i.e. dual French/German, separated by a slash), which appears to be a clear violation of the naming guidelines here (as obviously said localities are not referred to by the combined name by preference in English). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 01:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The dual name is German/French, not French/German. Do you really want me to cite Dieter Nuhr or WP:POINT. ;-) --Leyo 10:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to assume that was a veiled personal attack, based on Nuhr's line "if you don't have a clue then shut up". Don't do that again. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Why is it "obvious" that such localities are not referred to by a combined name in English? This page is only one guideline among many for choosing a page title, and if editors try to use it dogmatically it will simply be ignored. Physchim62 (talk) 11:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

And what do we do, if a community is almost exactly 50:50 in speakers of both languages? How will you decide which name is to be chosen, if not the official one (even if you don't like slashes)? --212.41.93.203 (talk) 22:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Choose the one most often used in English. --PBS (talk) 09:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

A superficial glance at Google results (by no means scientific) seems to show that the '/' name is in fairly common written usage - with 'biel' being used more often of the two (e.g. http://www.biel-bienne.ch/, uses 'Biel/Bienne' a lot, but also has just sentences with 'The people of Biel live where others come to spend their vacation.', and I can't find any examples of the reverse (again, only a superficial search). I think this is one of the circumstances where 'use English' trips up though - I doubt the town is referred to enough in English to have a consistent name. The policy is often used to hammer in a given solution, when really it should be used to ease people towards a consensus. --Neil (talk) 10:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

In that case either should do. Disambiguating in an uncommon, region-specific way as a compromise is a suboptimal solution. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

But at least we are spared the usual problem with slashes; nobody wants to move it to Bienne/Biel. That (and the hierachical structure, no longer extant for articles) are the reasons not to use double names. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Non-English events

Should titles like Reina Hispanoamericana 2009 and Reina Nacional de Belleza Miss República Dominicana 2006 be converted to English? I would assume yes, but if I don't know the translation, what should be done? Is there an appropriate tag? I suppose I would normally just ask the articles' main editors, but they're almost certainly the latest sockpuppets in a long line of them used by the person (blocked some time ago) creating/editing these articles and it seems odd to ask for help from socks. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 21:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

First of all, please remember to assume good faith. You're actually presuming that someone whose identity you haven't even looked into is a sock. Not polite.

FWIW, I agree with you that these should translated. But before it's done, let me ask you: Have you investigated as to whether the Title has already been a point of discussion? I have no problem with acting boldly, but if a consensus has already been formed, especially if it was recently, then it would be rude to just move it now without trying to change that consensus. Also, if it has been moved in the past, it may take an administrator to make the move now. Look into it, and come back to my talk page if there's anything I can do for you. Good luck. Un school 02:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Shaku

Discussion regarding the article shaku is having difficulty in establishing naming in regard to WP:UE. As some may notice, this word appears in the OED (volume XV, page 148) which shows usage spanning several centuries. Further citations may be found here. Opposition is for either the Mandarin word chi or Cantonese chek, neither of which appear in English dictionaries. I would like to request some extra opinions and comments. Regards, Bendono (talk) 14:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:DIACRITICS

WP:DIACRITICS redirects here. I wonder if it should link to some of our past discussions on the subject? PS. I vaguely recall that few years ago there was something known as diacritics war on Wikipedia... can anybody remember more? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I remember various proposals to formalize rules on how we use diacritics (WP:Use diacritics was my proposal I think), but none of them was successful. There was also a certain amount of warring going on over the names of ice hockey and tennis players at one point. Now that practice is pretty much established with most languages, perhaps we could have another go at documenting it?--Kotniski (talk) 08:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

This guideline is sufficient. It also ties in with the recommend usage in the MOS for content. -- PBS (talk) 19:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Well yes, I meant documenting it as regards both article titles and content (not just this page or just MOS without the other). Maybe this guideline is sufficient, but maybe some languages have more detailed practice (e.g I don't know what's done now about those DJ letters in Croatian).--Kotniski (talk) 19:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Use what is in reliable English language sources or if there is little or no usage if the subject is still notable follow the conventions of the language in which the entity is most often described. I don't see that it matters what those details are because they will be covered by the reliable sources in those languages. The whole point of the development of this guideline was to get rid of prescription on how to write names (with or without modified letters) and determine it on usage in reliable sources. This has the advantage that both name and content will use the same name format as both this guideline and the MOS use the same formula which ties into the content policies. --PBS (talk) 08:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I was one of the ones quite involved in the "war" a couple of years ago. I represented the "use the most common spelling in English" (aka very few diacritics). The "other side" wanted things spelt "correctly" (aka how non English sources spelled things). Anyways, it was a bloody mess way back when and it is a topic that gets avoided to prevent another bloody mess. For ice hockey, it was settled that North American related hockey pages are sans diacritics while European related hockey pages are with diacritics. It was a compromise just to stop the fighting. As far as i recall, diacritics were forced on wikipedia. Several users were going around, without dicussion mind you, and adding diacritics anywhere and everywhere. Attempts to stop it and keep status quo and get a discussion going didn't work and efforts to revert the changes resulted in users being blocked (namely me). Anyways, there are archives everywhere and if you want to see how the discussions progressed, just read. Masterhatch (talk) 01:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with dictionaries, as proper names are not in dictionaries. It has to do with using reliable sources in English. -- PBS (talk) 13:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Dictionaries? Did I miss something? Masterhatch (talk) 04:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Turpan/Turfan

There is a discussion about the title of this page. Some argue that Turpan should its title because it's closer to Uyghur pronunciacion. On the other hand, search over Google books shows that Turfan is more common (and Encyclopedias like Britannica use it).Alefbe (talk) 15:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Way to misrepresent the arguments presented there; next time you seek outside input try doing it with a neutrally-worded message instead.

And I appreciate the irony of being told how to spell by someone who can't spell 'pronunciation'... rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Merge

It is proposed to merge this page (and a number of others) with WP:Naming conventions. Please discuss at WT:Naming conventions#Merge. Thanks, --Kotniski (talk) 12:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, the proposed merged text is now in place at WP:Naming conventions. Do people feel the content of this page is now sufficiently well covered there that we can replace this page with a redirect to the appropriate section of that policy?--Kotniski (talk) 16:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

No need to make this a redirect. Just change the links such as WP:UE to point to the policy page. This page can stay as it is and we can see if over the next few months people quote this page or the policy section to see which is being used the most. If it turns out there are parts of this page that are cited then we can move them up into the policy page. PBS (talk) 14:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

What about article content?

WP:Use English redirects here, but this is about the names of articles. What about article content? I’m specifically thinking of the use of the words seiyuu and mangaka in English articles about various anime and manga titles. From appearances, the Japanese terms for voice actor and manga writer have gained consensus. Just wondering whether this is so. —Frungi (talk) 04:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Second opinion

Is the article Pāṇini in violation of this guideline? Perhaps it should be moved to Panini (grammarian). Kaldari (talk) 16:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Probably.- Wolfkeeper 20:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Voseo?

Voseo is currently up for deletion but I think it may survive, if it survives... it's a foreign word in the English Wikipedia(!?!) There's no equivalent English word, because the article is unequivocally about the Spanish word and how it behaves. It seems to be a bit of a screw-case for this convention, or have I missed something?- Wolfkeeper 20:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a good illustration of why the name "Use English" is inappropriate for this page, as it misleads people into thinking that that's some kind of inviolable rule. There's no reason why an article can't be named with a foreign word - we just prefer to use English if there's an English term to use (if there isn't, or if the "English" term is actually less recognizable in English than the original foreign one, then we can happily use the foreign word).--Kotniski (talk) 14:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree the name is concise. We could make name of the guideline longer but there is little point in doing so. The problem with a name like the section heading you have placed in WP:NC "Foreign names and anglicization" it does not describe why we use Munich an English name, and not Munchen as an anglicisation of of München, or "Mount Everest" etc. It implies that Rhone is spelt that way because it is an anglicisation of the French name when it may just as well come from the Latin and be a twin of the French name rather than a anglicisation. -- PBS (talk) 14:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

So we use the name which is likely to be most recognizable to English readers, which is really part of using common names, not a separate principle. This page (and the other section you refer to) are about when to use English and when not to (usually because we can't, but also in cases like Leghorn where we don't want to) - they don't simply order "Use English!" as people are often misled to think.--Kotniski (talk) 15:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The term voseo is likely to be understood by any English-speaker wanting information on the subject: if it isn't, they should learn the term, as it would help them more in their Spanish than anything else in the article! The alternative title – Form of the nominative personal pronoun in the second person singular for different Spanish-speaking areas of Latin America – really speaks for itself! Physchim62 (talk) 15:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I think I would argue that it's not likely to be understood by English-readers unless they are already familiar with it- but the title is supposed to be somewhat understandable to most people. At best it's a specialist linguistics term in a general encyclopedia; AFAICT it isn't in any normal English dictionary. I think that the fact it's not in the dictionary is telling us that, at the very least the title is wrong for the English Wikipedia, and I'm suspicious of the entire article, it seems to be a usage guide for part of the Spanish language, and that's explicitly disclaimed in Wikipedia is not a dictionary- Wolfkeeper 19:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

But see this rename request discussion at Talk:Libingan ng mga Bayani#Rename. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

←Voseo is the term that is always used in English publications and more often than not it's not even italicised. Normally, it is preceded by "the" as in "the voseo" or referred to as "the voseo phenomenon". See the examples in the English language literature that I provided at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voseo. Translating it would be a very poor idea and make it even harder for a beginner who has vaguely heard of the term or has run across it in other reading to find out more. Voceditenore (talk) 14:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. A piece written in English that had something to say about voseo would generally say something to the effect of "Spanish speakers in certain parts of Latin America practice what's known as voseo, which is the use of the word vos as a second person pronoun", and would continue to use voseo, italicized or in quotes or neither, in referring to it, rather than inventing an English term for it where one doesn't already exist. Likewise for Spanish "tuteo" or French "vouvoiement" and "tutoiement". —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I think there was also a slight misunderstanding at the start of this discussion. Voseo is not about a particular Spanish word per se. Nor is it the Spanish word for "you". Voseo is about a particular linguistic phenomenon, the use of "vos" as an alternative form of the "T pronoun" in Spanish. It is one of the main sociolinguistic markers of Latin American Spanish and involves not only pronoun but also verb use. The name of this phenomenon when discussed in English happens to be a Spanish word, just as a particular genre of French opera is always discussed in English by its French name, opéra comique. Voceditenore (talk) 16:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that it doesn't seem to be an adopted word in English, which also goes to the notability of the subject; if it's not notable enough to have its own word it obviously isn't talked about that much.- Wolfkeeper 16:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

In general terms, I disagree that the use of a 'foreign' language word (rather than a translation) in English discourse indicates that the concept/phenomenon/genre is inherently non-notable. Many disciplines use such terms. Music is a prime example, e.g. opéra comique, also law, e.g. nolo contendere, cuisine, e.g. tagliatelle. But in this particular case, there is a fairly large body of literature on the voseo phenomenon in English writing on sociolinguistics, and it's always referred to as voseo. Ok so the voseo phenomenon and sociolinguistic markers in general may be niche subjects but for many people so are French sports cars, Bézout's identity, and grunge music. Voceditenore (talk) 17:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Your conclusion that the topic is non-notable does not follow from the fact that we discuss it using the foreign term that came along with the concept. Are tacos not notable because we still use the Spanish word for them rather than inventing our own? How about opera, crochet, blitzkrieg, and origami? When a foreign word comes along with a concept relating to people who speak another language, a point does not come along where, after having used the foreign word for a while until the concept became well known, we suddenly say, "Oh, this is a well-known term now. Let's invent our own word for it." —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

You're not quite seeing my point I think, Taco, opera, crochet and blitzkrieg etc. are all part of the English language now, they are English words and are found in English dictionaries. English doesn't necessarily invent words, it steals quite happily. But this hasn't happened with Voseo. It's a perfectly good, Spanish word, but not an English one. This is the English Wikipedia, we use English here for the titles.- Wolfkeeper 20:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no English word for this phenomenon, just as there is no English word for opéra comique. So what? You won't find opéra comique in an English dictionary, but you will find it in an English encyclopedia and in the main English reference works on opera. The word used in English writing about the linguistic phenomenon is voseo. This does not make it non-notable, which was your original argument. Its notability within lingusitics is obvious from the amount of published work in it, a small sample of which was produced at the AfD discussion. More importantly, this encyclopedia's primary service should be to to the reader, to help them find the information as it is commonly used in English discourse. Making up an artificial English phrase and/or cod translation will not help the reader and will in fact mislead them because the phenomenon, when it is discussed in English, is called voseo. Voceditenore (talk) 22:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Wording change

I changed Use the most commonly used English version of the name of the subject (which might be taken to mean that the native name shouldn't be used over an Anglicisation even when the native name is more common than the Anglicisation in the English language) to Use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language, which seems clearer to me. Tameamseo (talk) 18:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Which one?

I'm not sure if I should move Ahyoomee to Ayumi (singer). I have three sources that refer to her as the latter: one, two and three, and the only thing I can find that has her name written as Ahyoomee is her single covers. My question is do I go with the three sources and move the page or so I just leave since that is what her label chose? MS (Talk|Contributions) 17:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Translated vs transliterated names

The guideline correctly says use the version of the name of the subject which constitutes the most common use in English sources covering the subject. In some cases the prevailing use in English sources uses the transliterated rather than translated version of the subject's name. I think the guideline should make it explicit that using transliterated version as the name of a WP article is appropriate in such cases. For example, the Russian newspapers Pravda and Izvestia are always referred to in English sources as Pravda and Izvestia (transliterations of Правда and Известия) and never as Truth and Reports (English translations of the names of these newspapers). I don't think anyone would seriously argue for moving the title of the article Pravda to Truth (newspaper) or, say, Komsomolskaya Pravda to Komsomol Truth. There are other, perhaps less straightforward, instances of the same phenomenon, where prevailing usage in English sources does not use the translated name of the subject. I believe this point needs to be explicitly mentioned in the guideline. Nsk92 (talk) 17:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

For Russian, this point is already covered in the WP:RUS guideline. For other languages, the approach might be quite different from Russian, which is why a broad prescription doesn't really belong in this top-level guideline and should be delegated to the language-specific guidelines.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:24, January 14, 2010 (UTC) 17:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The examples you provided don't illustrate the necessity of this. If the article on Pravda were placed under Truth (newspaper) and the article on Izvestiya were placed under Reports, it would immediately and unequivocally violate the first sentence of the article, "Use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language as the title of the article, as you would find it in reliable sources (for example other encyclopedias and reference works)," with no explicit mention of transliterations or transcriptions. Can you provide examples that do illustrate the benefit of an explicit mention? —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I can look around, but I think that Izvestia and Pravda are sufficiently illustrative examples already. You are correct that a careful reading of the lead sentence in the current text of the guideline already implies that in these two cases the transliterated versions should be used. I just would like to see this point made more explicit, that's all. As it is, the guideline is often understood to mean that the article name should always use an English translation, and in fact it is easy to misunderstand the meaning of the guideline in this way. I have seen people make arguments in other contexts refer to WP:ENG as implying that the article's title should be "in English", meaning "translated in English". I have seen page-moves based on such an interpretation. Apart from newspapers, for many foreign scientific journals their names are transliterated rather than translated in common usage by English sources. I think it would be useful for the guideline to provide more explicit guidance for such situations. Nsk92 (talk) 17:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of giving examples to support a proposed change is to illustrate cases where a problem exists that your proposed change will solve. Since the existing text already clearly, unambiguously, and from the very first sentence covers cases like Pravda and Izvestiya, they do not illustrate the problem that you claim to exist and that your change is meant to solve. Can you come up with examples that do?

Another way of looking at it: As far as I can tell, the article already provides the desired results as is. From that perspective, wanting to state explicitly that this includes cases where the title is a transliteration resembles a case where the government considers a law that will apply to all people, and someone in the committee creating the bill says, "I think it would be helpful to specify that the new rules will even apply to people named John." If someone did that, I'd expect someone else to ask, "Can you give us examples of cases where that would make a difference?" And that's the sort of question I'm asking you.

As for people's arguments, if you see people making arguments that aren't based on the terms of this article, and the terms that are in this article dispose of the problem, then say so. If someone says, "Pravda should be listed as Truth (newspaper) because "Pravda" is a transliteration and we shouldn't be using transliterations", then point out that no such principle is included in WP:Naming conventions (use English) and that the terms that WP:Naming conventions (use English) already contains contradict them. End of story. A contradiction is a contradiction. The text doesn't have to double-contradict them for them to be wrong. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, here is an example that I do remember coming across: CNRS. The article title was moved[19] from "Centre national de la recherche scientifique" to "French National Centre for Scientific Research" with justification Article titles should be in English. In this case it is at least debatable as to which name constitutes prevailing usage in English sources (my own impression, confirmed by Google, is that the untranslated French version is used much more commonly by English sources than the English translation of the name). But the justification given is, IMO, fairly illustrative of how people typically interpret WP:ENG. Nsk92 (talk) 19:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

But that example doesn't even involve transliteration! In any event, your response was to draw the other person's attention to the overriding rule and to run a check to see which title met that rule.

Also: I just noticed that further down the page, the article covers this, under WP:Naming conventions (use English)#Divided usage.

Finally, it dawns on me that the article's title is what creates this confusion, because it implies that the article won't tell us ever to use anything but an English version. The article should be renamed, because it is inconsistent with the content. Maybe "Naming conventions (names used by English speakers)" or "Naming conventions (other languages)" or something like that. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I guess I am not wild about the current title either. Perhaps something like "Naming conventions (foreign names)" would be better. But even then I think it would be useful and would eliminate potential confusion if there is a more explicit mention, that sometimes an untranslated name (provided it is in Latin characters) or a transliterated version of a foreign name of a subject may be used if it constitutes prevailing usage in English sources. Nsk92 (talk) 23:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

In the same way that it would eliminate confusion if a rule that already expressly covers all people had an explicit mention that it included people named John. —Largo Plazo (talk) 00:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. The current text reads "Use the most commonly used English version of the name of the subject". I don't think it is all that unreasonable to interpret the meaning of "English version of the name" as "English translation of the name". A clarification here would not be unduly duplicative but would in fact be helpful.Nsk92 (talk) 00:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Re the title of this page, I think (if it is to exist at all) it should be repurposed and renamed to just "WP:Use English". The principle it sets out is not something peculiar to article naming; it's a general thing that applies (with exceptions that can be enumerated) to all content. To the extent that it applies to article naming specifically, all the information is already covered at the main naming conventions page (because it was actually merged in, but this page remained because there was an objection to deleting it). However it would possibly be useful to have a page to direct people to if they start insisting that "Rome" should be referred to as "Roma" - regardless of whether it's in article titles or in article text, it's exactly the same idea.--Kotniski (talk) 09:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Trial_of_.22core.22_concept

This guideline has been identified as a possible candidate to contain a core . Can you please have a look here. Gnevin (talk) 14:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

This is NOT part of the style manual, it is a guideline for helping to decide on the title of articles. -- PBS (talk) 06:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

From the MOS talk page: proposal failed -- PBS (talk) 02:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Korean name

There is a new article about a Korean actress: 김보연 / Kim Bo Yun (Kim Bo Yeon). The only reliable English language newspaper article I could find was in a movie review in Variety, which gave it as "Kim Bo-yeon." [IMDB, which I consider a less reliable source than Variety, gives her name as "Bo-yeon Kim." The article creator capitalized "yeon" and left out the dash, as well as providing "Yun" as an preferred spelling. The English subtitles furnished by the distributor for her latest film "Possessed" spell it "Kim Bo-yeun." I can't find anything in the manual of style as to how the article should be named, but I propose to move the article to Kim Bo-yeon with redirects from the other anglicized spellings, and to include the Korean spelling in the intro. Can anyone provide reasons why one or the other is preferred? Thanks. Edison (talk) 19:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

There are a number of different romanization systems for Hangul, and they yield wildly different results. One of the most common is the McCune–Reischauer system, which, as I understand it, would yield Kim Byŏ Yun. Revised Romanization of Korean would apparently yield Kim Bo Yeon. Yale Romanization would apparently yield Kim Po Yen. ISO/TR 11941 would apparently yield Kim Po Yeon. Other systems may exist. Personally, I would romanize it as Kim Bo Yun.

Hmmmm.... Having digressed, I see that the place to look is apparently Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Korea-related articles), which says that the preference is to use Revised Romanization for South Korean articles and for general articles on Korean history, culture, etc., and to use McCune-Reischauer (not the DPRK's official variant) for North Korean topics—but also see the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Korea-related articles)#Korean templates] section. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

So from the last comments, it sounds like Kim Bo Yeon, the version yielded by "Revised Romanization," would be the name in accord with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Korea-related articles). I will move the article to that title. Thanks for assistance in a confusing matter. Edison (talk) 00:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Those romanizations, anyway, are very far from real Korean pronounce. No matter how exactly you write Busan (for example), but "Pusan" will allways more correct variant of pronounse. Not in English, maybe it more closely to Latin pronounce-rules.--Oleg Abarnikov (talk) 12:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)