MediaWiki talk:Edittools/Archive 1

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 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Special:Upload

Edittools can't use in Special:Upload page --Watcharakorn 09:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

They appear to work for me. Thryduulf 15:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Works for me. Maybe you need to have Javascript enabled in your browser? — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-2 15:48

Arbitration clause

I'd like to add a line like the following to the bottom of this section:

By clicking to save the above edit, you agree to the binding resolution of any disputes that arise as a result of your participation in Wikipedia through the dispute resolution processes available here.

I believe this will head off legal threats of all stripes, as the courts (in the U.S., at least) are keen to enforce arbitration clauses, thereby reducing their caseloads. bd2412 T 16:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Will this reduce the number of vandalisms and additions of libellous content, though? I believe most people don't think (rightly so) that they will ever be found. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-16 18:42
- We have other warnings meant to stave off vandalism. This is meant to bind those who edit from going to court based on the response to their edits - this is a real, binding arbitration clause that would have a legal effect outside of Wikipedia - it means that, if you have a problem on Wikipedia with how your edits are treated, the only place you can legally resolve that is through the Wikipedia mechanisms. bd2412 T 20:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

This is an unbelievably bad idea for many reasons. I will stop editing if it takes away my legal rights. FREEDOM ! FREEDOM ! FREEDOM! WAS 4.250 19:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Well I hate to break it to you, but it already does - by editing here, you give up your legal right to prohibit people from copying and modifying your work (see GFDL). bd2412 T 22:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

IANAL and you are... could you spell out, in basic terms, what such a change would do? Specific fuzzy questions come to mind: would it change the status of the ArbCom in any meaningful way? Does Wikipedia:No binding decisions come to bear at all? What kind legal cases could it in practice end up shielding Wikipedia from? And a non-legal concern: wouldn't it have a chilling effect, leading some people who might make edits to avoid doing so in order to keep legal options open? Take the Seigenthaler (sp?) case. Many have stated "well, he should have fixed his page". His reasons for not doing so were valid, but not compelling. If this text were there at the time, he would have had a compelling reason to not make any edits. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

These are some good questions - since I'm fielding such things in more than one place, ~~I'll open a centralized discussion of the proposal~~ when I get back from grocery shopping (in a few hours). bd2412 T 20:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

On second thought, better to keep the whole discussion in one place. To that end, I've copied over the discussion from Jimbo's talk page:

So anyone can edit Wikipedia, except noobs, those who disagree with Snowspinner and anyone who doesn't think the cabal is always right? Jeez, what next? There used to be a wiki here, of sorts, now it's getting like Talibanistan. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.206.87.165 (talk • contribs) .

It's not primarily "a wiki," it's primarily a project to produce an encyclopedia. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

It would not prevent anyone from editing (any more than the automatic GFDL license already does) - it would only reduce the likelihood of people taking legal action against Wikipedia based on disputes that arise from their participation here. bd2412 T 01:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Sometimes disputes arise which are beyond the ability of the Arbitration Committee to deal with, for example, those which involve facts not available to us. We are good with behavior which is accessible as a diff, not necessarily with such questions as whether someone murdered Kennedy, or whether a reference is adequate to support such an assertion. Fred Bauder 01:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Nevertheless, I'd rather see such disputes resolved somewhere other than a court of law - that's what an arbitration clause forecloses. bd2412 T 02:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Responses to points above:

It is virtually inevitable that someday someone will sue Wikipedia over something posted here by an editor. Any such complainant will likely lose, based on the means by which we operate, but will nonetheless cost the foundation time and money in defending the suit. This proposal is designed to force potential litigants whose complaint is based on acts arising from their own conduct here to settle their dispute through our processes. Currently, nothing prevents an editor from filing an actual lawsuit in an actual court of law over something like an RfC, or even an editing dispute. While such cases may be deemed frivolous, it is still in our interest to keep the settlement of such disputes in house. I will expand on this tomorrow, and will seek guidance on the issue from some of my fellow Wikipedian lawyers. bd2412 T 03:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

BD2412, thanks for the heads up about this conversation, it's definitely an interesting topic. While I agree that courts are generally keen to enforce arbitration clauses, I do think that many would have a problem with this particular "arbitration clause", for several reasons.

Most if not all arbitration clauses that I'm aware of involve an independant arbitrator approved by the court, or at least that is spelled out in any arbitration agreement. I don't believe the courts would enforce a clause requiring *internal* arbitration of the sort that is done at Wikipedia. While the ability to effectively police ourselves is one of the best attributes of this project, I don't think it would fly with a judge. This then raises the issue of how the external arbitration would take place. Another concern is that anyone looking to sue is most likely going to include the Wikipedia Foundation as a defendant. It would likely be considered an unconscionable clause if Wikipedian arbitrators are required to be involved, as a clear conflict of interest.
Someone else raised the Siegenthaler issue in that a prospective editor may refrain from editing an article for fear of waiving their right to resolve the issue in the courts. We need to decide if this is actually a valid concern. Suppose, for example, an article is written about me which is completely defamatory. I can handle it in a few different ways. I can send a cease and desist letter to the offending editor, and/or to Wikipedia. If that does nothing, I can then take it to the courts. Or, I can make a good faith effort to correct it by editing it. My edits are reverted. Am I now forced into arbitration for acts which took place PRIOR to my entering the fray?

I realize I haven't given any answers, just raised a bunch of new questions, but I think these are issues which really need to be hashed out before another Siegenthaler happens. Tufflaw 06:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

As to the first issue, I don't know what a court would make of our arbitration committee - I think it would have to look at our process and precedents to determine whether it provides a neutral forum. However, editing Wikipedia is a luxury, not a necessity, and courts generally give much more leniency to arbitration clauses in such contracts. As to the second issue, it would not apply to a Seigenthaler, even one who logged on to make corrections, because the dispute would not 'originate' from those edits. bd2412 T 18:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

In answer to Bunchofgrapes question with respect to Wikipedia:No binding decisions, I believe that policy is directed more towards editing matters. Obviously, an ArbCom decision barring an editor from working on a certain page for a year, for example, is binding, and can result in a ban if hte editor refuses to comply. bd2412 T 03:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I agree worrying about Wikipedia:No binding decisions was a red herring. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

This may be a silly question, but how broadly are we defining "disputes" here? I'm concerned, in particular, with cases like User:Amalekite—could the presence of this clause provide a defense for off-Wikipedia harassment of editors? —Kirill Lokshin 17:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

By 'disputes', we're trying to head off legal disputes, giving courts a reason not to hear cases brought against Wikipedians arising from their participation here. Traditionally, where two parties are bound by an arbitration clause, if party A breaches the agreement by taking action against party B in a forum not permitted by the clause, then party B is no longer bound by that agreement. In short, the clause would offer no defense to those who have already breached it by making offsite attacks. However, I concede that if party B were to file a lawsuit, then party B would have to prove (by a preponderance of the evidence in most legal systems) that party A had, in fact, breached the agreement in order to withstand a defense by party A that the case should be dismissed because the parties are bound to arbitrate. We could make the clause explicitly state something to that effect (e.g. Making offsite attacks against a Wikipedia editor will void any protection you receive under this provision.), or we could have the link on the edit-page go to an arbitration clause page which spells out such limitations in exhaustive detail. bd2412 T 18:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

^{Note: I've copied and pasted the following comment from Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) bd2412 T 19:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)}

What problem do you think it would solve? No, that's not a rhetorical question. I can see that it might help with the people who contribute material and subsequently try to withdraw "permission" to use it when they discover that they can't control the subsequent editing of it. I don't think it would help with people who think their publicist should have the right to vet anything Wikipedia says about them. I don't think it would help with someone who loses money as a result of inaccurate information he got from Wikipedia and wants WIkipedia to make him whole. And, of course, it would give people a good reason for not trying to fix inaccuracies themselves: ("I was going to remove the nasty remark about me about me, until I realized that if I edited the article I'd be surrendering my legal rights...") Dpbsmith (talk) 19:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm thinking most prominently in terms of people who post vanity articles or adverts or POV, and then protest when their edits are removed or reverted; especially folks such as this guy. I do recognize the problem with people using such a clause as a reason not to edit, although those with Seigenthaler-type concerns can always email Jimbo or an admin, and if necessary the clause could spell out exceptions for certain kinds of edits. bd2412 T 19:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, then, OK, I guess. No strong objections.

I've seen other people do this; I'm thinking specifically of Monica de Bruyn or someone claiming to be Monica de Bruyn, so I understand that it's a real issue.

But. It seems like a lot of CYA verbiage to add. I'm not sure it would affect behavior, since I don't see why a user who doesn't understand "by editing here you agree to license your contributions under the GFDL" would understand the arbitration verbiage any better. I am most bodaciously NAL, but I'm not convinced it would strengthen our legal position particularly, although no doubt every little bit helps.

I liked it better in the old days when the warning spelled out that you should not add content if you did not want it distributed freely and "edited mercilessly." I'd still like to see a brief "lay-language" explanation to the effect that "GFDL" means "I give this to Wikipedia, I can't take it back, and I can't control what changes get made to it." Dpbsmith (talk) 20:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't want this added, unless you've a got a definitive lawyer's opinion saying it will make a positive difference. Adding more text to the existing message ensures none of the text will be read. Also, I think there's no comparison to an internal informal dispute resolution system and binding arbitration (which involves an independent neutral party agreed by both sides, which can rule against either side, even awarding damages against the party that insisted on arbitration). If you want people to explicitly agree to individual terms, abolish anons, and force explicit "tick offs" of key terms in the signup/registration. If you're not going to do that, then live with the fact most people don't read most of what's in front of them. --Rob 22:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I am a definitive lawyer - I can't say for sure if this will make a positive difference, because I don't know what's coming in Wikipedia's future. I'm very well aware of the difference between our arbitration and binding arbitration in the "real world", having participated in some of the latter - but under the law, parties dealing at arms length can agree to whatever arbitration scheme they want - even a coin flip - and can be bound to it. The fact that people don't read a clause of this type does not render it unenforceable, however. I can shorten the text, tho... how about:

By editing here, you agree to resolve any disputes that arise from your participation through the dispute resolution processes available here

Or something like that. bd2412 T 23:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not a lawyer, so sorry if I pretended I know the law, as I don't. But through my non-lawyer ignorance, I seriously doubt this approach. One obvious flaw in logic, is your use of the word "here" in "dispute resolution processes available here". Do you mean here or do you mean here or here. Where exactly is "here"? Of course, this page simply links to other pages, which also have many variations, even vandalized variations. I realize electronic documents have long been accepted in courts, but I'm rather surprised to learn that documents with no known single author, no standard version, and semi-anonymous persons are now accepted. --Rob 19:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah, no matter to that, after all, new laws over-ride old in the real world all the time, and indeed many statutes make reference to other statutes (which may have since changed, or may no longer even exist), which in turn make reference to other statutes ad infinitum. The process to which an editor would be bound would be the one in existence at the time of the edit from which the controversy arose - which would also be the edit that a court would use to determine when the statute of limitations began running on the cause of action. If the process has changed (which also happens in the real world) the question would be whether the change is substantial enough to require adhesion to the old process - but that would be up to the Wikipedia dispute resolution folks to determine, and a reviewing court would only have to asses whether such a determination was reasonable. Let me be absolutely clear on how I think this language would apply. Say Joeblogs3312 were to post an article on their pet supply store, and FurryKlingonCaptain were to send that article to AfD. If Joeblogs3312 were to then file a lawsuit in a New Jersey state court against either FurryKlingonCaptain or the Wikimedia Foundation (or both), said defendant(s) could ask the court to enforce the arbitration clause and require Joeblogs3312 to settle this dispute through whatever dispute resolution process is in place here. The judge might say "oh, please, that's Wikipedia you're talking about" and ignore the defense, or he might hold the plaintiff to his click-accepted contract. That part is untouched ground (although "click-wrap" contracts, including forum selection clauses therein, have generally been held binding with respect to software purchased online). I suspect that if we can show our dispute resolution process (particularly the arbitration end of it) is "essentially fair", then we can pull it off. But we'll never know unless we try, and if we don't try, the alternative Joeblogs3312's lawsuit will go right to the merits of the case. bd2412 T 20:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

You've given a good example, as I think there's much greater hope for disputes between individual Wikipedians (as opposed to disputes between one person and Wikipedia as a whole). Although, there is an alternative: force explicit acceptance of key terms during signup/registration. Also, let's say we do update the Edittools message, why not do the following (like many web sites): "By editing here you assert you have read and agree to all the Wikipedia:Global Terms of Service including, but not limited to .........". After all, what's so special about dispute resolution. Sure, its important, but aren't there are things we need people to agree to. For instance, don't we need people to agree not to committ liable, and if they do, that they'll hold us harmless in such cases. --Rob 20:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Actually we currently say nothing about libel (only copyright and the GFDL - I do not want to force people to sign up in order to use Wikipedia (we do get good anon contributions), nor do I want to overly complicate the process for those who do sign up. I think this is a simple alternative, working just as the compulsary GFDL licensing does. bd2412 T 20:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Hash

Is there any chance someone with the relevant permissions could put a hash (#) into the 'insert' box? My keyboard doesn't have one and it's a bind to have to find one to copy when numbering references and so on. Thanks. --Cherry blossom tree 22:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Threw one in there. Although most people have it, I think that's balanced by the importance of the mark in Wikipedia editing. bd2412 T 22:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Ta. --Cherry blossom tree 22:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

nbsp?

Could someone add the unicode non-breaking space to the list? —Locke Cole 10:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Can you even enter those? I've tried by copying and pasting and it doesn't work. — Omegatron 06:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

copyright warning

Only public domain resources can be copied exactly

Not strictly true. Any GFDL-compatible resource can be. Terra Green 01:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

iff credit is given in a way that is compatible with the GFDL (which can be complicated for some sources. If you can think of a way to phrase it so people can read a page about how to credit other sources in accordance with the GFDL please make a note of it. Thryduulf 00:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Color coding

Is anyone opposed to color-coding the character sets, so that characters are easier to find? Nothing crazy, just make it so that a single set isn't the same color as those around it, I guess. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-12 07:55

Possible colors are listed at the bottom of MediaWiki:Common.css. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-12 08:29

Brian0918, you removed en-dash.

You removed en-dash from the box. I just put it back. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 08:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

You removed ~ | # and − as well. Some people don't have those on their keyboard, and only ~ is available in the boxes over the edit box, and even then only in the form --~~~~, which is inconvenient if someone was wanting to type just a single ~. --Angr (tɔk) 09:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

How many people, though? Space is pretty limited in this box, and the less content there is, the easier the more important stuff is to find. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-12 09:21

What would be nice is to have drop-down menus providing different boxes, like they have at Wiktionary. Then the characters could be bigger too. --Angr (tɔk) 09:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

If it's the Spanish keyboard layout, they do have the tilde, at AltGr-4. It's unlabeled, but it's there. See Talk:Tilde#Spanish keyboard. --cesarb 15:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

It looks good, but the dropdown menu says "API" instead of "IPA". I tried to fix it, but it didn't work. Also, we don't need "AHD" since we don't use that transliteration system here. --Angr (tɔk) 14:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll fix it. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-13 14:28

New format?

This new format looks absolutely horrendous. Although I like that some extras have been included (#redirect, for example), please keep it compact.--cj | talk 14:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

It is compact. It's smaller than the old version. This is the exact code used on many of the largest Wikipedias. It's a pulldown menu with different options. Do you have javascript enabled, and are you using Monobook? Also try going to MediaWiki:Monobook.js and hitting CTRL+F5 to refresh. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-13 14:35

Odd issue with drop down box

Works fine when using a mouse, but if you try to use the up/down arrow keys nothing happens. (Firefox 1.5) —Locke Cole • t • c 17:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Use the arrows, then hit enter. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-13 17:06
- Ahh, okay. I'm no Javascript expert, but I'd like to think there'd be a way to have it change as the user moves through the choices, but at least there is a way to select the current choice via arrows. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 - Yeah, there's probably a way, I just don't know any javascript. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-13 17:33
 - Again, no Javascript expert, but I think if you hook the onkeyup event, you can get it to change as you move through the list via arrows. (So in MediaWiki:Monobook.js, add onkeyup="chooseCharSubset(selectedIndex)" to the <select> tag that gets created in addCharSubsetMenu). And another suggestion that may solve the flicker problem when you load the editor: add style="display: none; visible: hidden;" to each  tag in MediaWiki:Edittools. So, for example,  becomes . —Locke Cole • t • c 19:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 - Thanks! The flickering problem is fixed! I'll try out your other suggestion asap. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-13 19:59
 No problem, glad to help. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 20:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 - That works too! — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-13 20:09

Suggestion for Wiki

Maybe add __TOC__, __NOTOC__, etc? —Locke Cole • t • c 19:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-13 19:47

Math characters

If someone can make a decent-sized list of math-related characters, a "math" section could be added. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-13 22:50

drop down box

people keep talking about a drop down box but i don't see one (i'm using firefox 1.0.7). Plugwash 23:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you using Monobook? Do you have javascript enabled? Also, make sure to go to MediaWiki:Monobook.js and hit CTRL+F5 to refresh the file. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-13 23:54

ok working now after that forced refresh. making users lose the most of the charinsert box until they choose an obscure page and do a forced refresh seems a very bad thing though imo. Plugwash 01:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

How often do you use this thing? I've been using it a lot, and find it much easier to find what I'm looking for when there aren't dozens of random characters all crammed together and stuck inside . Plus, now I have access to the characters that I would normally have to go somewhere else to copy and paste. People don't normally have to do a forced refresh; it was only you that didn't have the new version so long after the change was made, for whatever reason. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-14 01:13

You do not need to go to an obscure page, a forced refresh on any page will work (since all pages include the Monobook.js page). The cached version will also expire after some time. --cesarb 01:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Lithuanian characters

I posted at first on Village pump, and I was directed here. The deal that now I have huge troubles contributing in my language (Lithuanian). I would like to see Lithuanian language having its own section in the drop down meniu with these symbols: Ą ą Č č Ę ę Ė ė Į į Š š Ų ų Ū ū Ž ž. Thanks, Renata 06:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Lithuanian section has been added. Denelson 83 07:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Cool, thak you! Renata 08:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Vietnamese characters - Bug ?

In Firefox 1.5, when I select Vietnamese special characters, I get a list of special Romanian characters instead. Romanian seems to have switched with something else. It seems to work as expected on IE. DHN 12:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm using Firefox 1.5, and when I select Vietnamese, I get the Vietnamese characters, and when I select Romanian, I get the Romanian characters. --Angr (tɔk) 12:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I've got a similar problem in Firefox 1.5. The IPA Category contains Cyrillic, the Welsh category contains some sort of Scandinavian and I don't know what's in Spanish, but it isn't Spanish. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 13:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Most likely the problem is that your computer doesn't have the latest version of MediaWiki:Monobook.js, or of MediaWiki:Edittools. You need to have the latest versions of both for everything to appear right. You should be able to just hit CTRL+F5 on an edit page to get both of them, but if that doesn't work, do that at both of the pages listed above. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-14 13:41

That's fixed it, thanks! smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 13:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

can we at least add a note in under the box

to tell people that if they have problems they need to do ctrl+refresh. Plugwash 14:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem only occurs right after a new section has been added, and doesn't last long. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-14 15:22

Dutch

Here are the special characters used in the Dutch language that are supported by Unicode —Ruud 18:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

ÄäËëÏïÖöÜü ÁáÉéÍíÓóÚú ÀàÈèÌìÒòÙù Êê Ĳĳ

Alright. They've been added. Press CTRL+F5 to see the changes. Here's a test: ÄÀÀËÉÈÏÍÌÖÓÒÜÚÙ. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-14 18:54

more suggestions

Could Dutch be named Dutch/Frisian and have the ligatures ÄäËëÏïÖöÜü ÁáÉéÍíÓóÚú ÀàÈèÌìÒòÙù ÂâÊêÎîÔôÛû ĲĳŸÿ ſ ƒ€
Dutch is currently displayed in a monospaced font.
Why is the are separate line with special characters? Can't those be listed under the dropdown box as well? —Ruud 00:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- The monospace font was used to make the characters less cluttered. Do you not like it this way?
- A permanent line separate from the dropdown menu should probably be kept for the most-used characters. Whether the current characters are the most-used, I don't know. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-15 00:07

Press CTRL+F5 to see Dutch/Frisian now. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-15 00:11

No I don't really like to monospaced font. Also I think it very much depends on the kind of article that your are editing which will be the most used, further more, I think the wiki codes are used mostly by more experienced editors, who will know them by heart anyway, so they are not very useful as the default. Cheers, —Ruud 00:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

german and french

Here is an updated version of German and a new version for French (edit this section to copy them). —Ruud 02:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The 2nd to last German character doesn't show up for me, just as a question mark. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-15 02:26

It is supposed to be the sign for the german Pfennig, but it is deprecated, so not very important. Do the capital A and Y with umlauts (not trema's) look good? I had to use combining diacritical marks for those. —Ruud 02:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The pfennig sign does show up if you have a font installed that supports it, so I replaced it. But I removed some characters that aren't used in German. The characters you're calling "with umlauts (not tremas)" actually had double-acute accents, which are used only in Hungarian. ℳ isn't used in writing German, and neither are Ÿ ÿ. --Angr (tɔk) 07:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Korean

The Korean alphabet doesn't really work linearly. The Korean letter for s is ㅅ, a is ㅏ, and k is ㄱ, but the syllable sak isn't ㅅㅏㄱ, it's 삭. So unless we want to add characters for every possible Korean syllable (I don't), it's probably best not to offer Korean as a menu option. --Angr (tɔk) 19:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I thought it might be of some use. I'm alright with it being removed. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-15 19:34