Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 December 18

December 18

Template:Middle Tennessee Blue Raiders roster

Template:Middle Tennessee Blue Raiders roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

As an intended single-use template, this should not exist. Content has been substituted where needed at 2011 Middle Tennessee Blue Raiders football team. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:11, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Template:Sufism in Sindh

Template:Sufism in Sindh (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template without "home article" and clearly very incomplete. Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:39, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Template:CHLBracket

Template:CHLBracket (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused frontend for 16TeamBracket. Frietjes (talk) 17:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Keep How can you say it is unused? It was used and will be used for the playoff brackets for the Central Hockey League if or until they change their playoff format. Weatherman05071 (talk) 03:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

tell me exactly how this template is supposed to work, it takes no input parameters. Frietjes (talk) 18:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment it's rather badly named. I thought it was for the Memorial Cup. 76.65.128.198 (talk) 11:19, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

---

Template:PD-Azerbaijan

Template:PD-Azerbaijan (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template, all files with this template were/should be migrated to commons. Bulwersator (talk) 17:13, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Template:PD-AB-exempt

Template:PD-AB-exempt (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template, all files with this template were/should be migrated to commons. Bulwersator (talk) 17:13, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Template:Unaccredited-Christian

Template:Unaccredited-Christian (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, useless Bulwersator (talk) 10:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Keep or edit {{Unaccredited}} to cover the category modification, so that {{Unaccredited|U Name|Christian}} works. Not used, because it's supposed to be subst'd, and it should be modified after writing, but can be used to create useful stubs for Christian colleges. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:28, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

---

Template:Foreign character

Template:Foreign character (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Foreignchars (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Foreignchars2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

1) The purported ’rationale’ for the template is defective. The template page states ‘This template is designed to help users who may be unfamiliar with the use of "foreign" characters in (titles of) articles. It allows the article to make reference to the troublesome letter directly, and give the equivalent spelling if one sticks to the "English alphabet" of non-accented characters.’ Such a function is redundant, for the following reasons:

1.1 Wikipedia search now enables articles to be found whether or not accents are entered in the search box (it perhaps did not do so in 2005 when the template was created).

1.2 If readers are, indeed, ‘unfamiliar with the use of ‘’foreign’’ characters’ (by which it appears is meant non-standard English characters), it is not apparent that the template can in any way assist them in understanding them – by explaining their purpose in accent , pronunciation, etc. Such explanation is in general undertaken where appropriate by IPA symbols etc. in an article lead.

2) The ‘advice’ offered in the template, that ‘Where it is unavailable or not desired, the name [word(s) using character] may be represented by [word(s) not using character]’ is unjustified and indeed, for an encyclopaedia, dangerous. By what authority does WP tell its readers that they can ignore these characters and replace them? This is in direct contradiction to the notion that Wikipedia is informative and neutral. Moreover, for (e.g.) students coming across such ‘advice’ it is positively misleading and unhelpful to them.

3) Appearing at the head of the article, the template is confusing and disorienting for those seeking information on the topic concerned.

For the above reasons, delete.

Smerus 13:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

This template is part of a compromise solution that allows articles to be correctly titled despite those who would rather see no "funny foreign squiggles" (not my words) anywhere on the English Wikipedia. Recent experience suggests that such opinions have not gone away, at least not as much as would be need for this template to be considered superfluous. I consider it useful to have a single standardised wording ("unavailable or not desired"), where the situation is likely to be misrepresented otherwise; I know I would be tempted to hurriedly write something along the lines of "the correct spelling", which understandably raises the hackles of the anti-diacritic faction. The fact is that alternatives to accented characters are commonly used, and we ought to mention that. There are no technical reasons not to display accented or unusual characters on Wikipedia, but such reasons do apply to other media. Someone typing in German using an English keyboard is quite likely to type "Gruesse", simply because they do not have easy access to the characters needed in "Grüße". It is that dichotomy which this template attempts to address in a neutral way. It is not meant as advice to readers that they may ignore such characters, but informs them that they may see alternative representations in other sources. A lot of readers will be initially confused by the ß character, for instance, and the template allows the letter to be linked, and thus explained. --Stemonitis (talk) 14:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment Delete When something like "The title of this article contains the character ê. Where it is unavailable or not desired, the name may be represented as Les fetes de Polymnie" appears at the top of an article it creates the impression that the version without the circumflex is in some way "correct". Were this to be true then some kind of reference would be in order, no...? Who is saying it may be used, and when? It raised more questions than it answers, IMO almost-instinct 14:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

While I'm undecided whether the template is needed or useful, the point is that for anyone with a passing awareness of how foreign words are represented in English, no references are needed for the fact that diacritics are commonly omitted in casual writing [1], semi-automated data dumps [2] [3] and even in sources that really should know better. [4] This shouldn't be taken as approval of such uses, merely recognition that such omissions are commonplace. older ≠ wiser 15:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

It may well be that the wording can be improved, but that's a different kind of discussion. Some of this may be related to national varieties of English. In British English, "may" may be used where American English would only use "might". It was never intended to suggest permission. --Stemonitis (talk) 15:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment. The response of Stemonitis (talk), (who I believe created the template) does not address any of the issues raised in the nomination. The WP user who enters Gotterdammerung, for example, immediately gets taken to the right article - as editors can, and do, create alternative titles to assist users. For an encyclopaedia, 'a single standardised wording' (which is correct to the topic) is exactly what should be encouraged, and what this template discourages. If the purpose of the template is to deal with the ß (eszett) character - which is a special case - then let it be so restricted.--Smerus 15:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that's true. Yes, the user who enters "Gotterdammerung" [sic] ends up at Götterdämmerung, but may well have no idea why they have ended up there. In every other case of redirected titles, the alternative appears prominently at the head of the target article. There's no reason why diacritic differences should be concealed from the reader. In response to Bkonrad, you and I both know that omission of accents is commonplace and incorrect, but there are many users who will argue that they are instead evidence of "proper" English, and will try to use that and WP:UE to justify moving article to (arguably) mis-spelt titles. Please also refer to the previous deletion debates, where a number of arguments were presented as to why the template was useful; they remain relevant. --Stemonitis (talk) 16:09, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Delete. The correct German representation of Götterdämmerung without umlauts is Goetterdaemmerung. The common English name is Twilight of the Gods. Gotterdammerung is not proper English (or English at all), and is plain wrong in German. Deletion of the obsolete Gotterdammerung redirect would be the correct solution here, not pretending Gotterdammerung was a correct alternative representation of the name. --Steinhöfer (talk) 14:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

You clearly haven't read the discussion here. The use of this templte in no way mandates the erroneous spelling "Gotterdammerung"; indeed, it serves to highlight the appropriate form Goetterdaemmerung. I suggest you modify your !vote accordingly. This is the reddest herring of the lot, and demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the template's purpose. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:59, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

You were saying the user who enters "Gotterdammerung" [sic] ends up at Götterdämmerung, but may well have no idea why they have ended up there. Following your logic, the template would have to be used for "Gotterdammerung". --Steinhöfer (talk) 09:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete or restrict use to talk page. For the - as far as I can see - majority of readers who accept that different languages use different characters - the template, used right after the article title, is distracting, if not misleading. "Gotterdammerung" should not appear in the articles lead or the template, it's just wrong (to stay with this example). Those who don't accept "strange" characters could perhaps be served on an article's talk page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I changed my mind. The arguments below convinced me that the template doesn't supply useful information. Alternatives should be presented in redirects and a good lead, which shows them bolded. For many articles there are several valid names, for example operas in a foreign language vs. their translation, or people like Arnold Schönberg and Fritz Graßhoff who moved to English-speaking countries and changed their names. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• Keep, but make it clear in documentation that it's to be used for legitimate alternate spellings only, eg. representing Götterdämmerung as Goetterdaemmerung but not as Gotterdammerung. I'd also be cool with Gerda's suggestion that we use it on talk pages. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
• Strong delete per Smerus. While I agree with all his points, the key one is number 2. WP has no authority to tell readers that foreign accents can be ignored. Absolutely not. --Kleinzach 02:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• It doesn't do that. It never has. That's a misrepresentation. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• • I agree, but do you consider actual alternate spellings (see my comment) a legitimate or mitigating use? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. I have a hard time imagining that anyone's going to have a tough time with Galápagos Islands, débutante, or À la carte but the template is on all of those. And if you do have trouble, this template doesn't help. It points out the obvious, namely that the article title uses non-English characters, and then points out something else obvious, namely that you can drop diacritics if you're lazy (or technically restricted). I don't see how that assists the reader.

  Even when an English transliteration is not obvious it isn't clear to me that this template provides a useful service. If there's a standard English transliteration of the name, then it should be given in the article. As in: "Pfeffernüsse (also spelled pfeffernuesse in English, in Danish: pebernødder (plural), päpanät in Plautdietsch, and pepernoten in Dutch; singular Pfeffernuss) are small, firm, round biscuits, sometimes with ground nuts." If there isn't a standard English transliteration of the name, then who are we to invent one? For instance, what would you do with Ōkami? The standard English transliteration has an Ō symbol. You can't replace it by Okami because that's not pronounced the same.

  All in all, this template is a bad idea. Ozob (talk) 03:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. This is divisive. Foreign to who? The kid in Goa who speaks English? Someone who thinks lynching is still on? UTF-8 is the site's character set. Foreign means not in that. This thing tars articles with a POV. If it is kept, the implementation should refuse to function in article space. Alarbus (talk) 03:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete per well argued, and so far unrefuted, nomination. Previous and present deletion discussions show no benefit to the reader. The template simply describes a situation which may well be familiar to the reader. It doesn't assist those who might be unfamiliar with some characters, and they don't need any assistance because they already arrived at the article. The template is pointless and in its prominent position distracting. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: the nomination has been refuted. The first point ("Such a function is redundant") is wrong because the nominator misunderstood the function. It was never about the failings of the search box, and linking to the potentially troublesome letters helps the reader directly. The second point ("The ‘advice’ offered in the template") is wrong, because the template does not offer advice, but merely documents practices used elsewhere. The third point ("the template is confusing and disorienting") is also untrue; removing information makes things more confusing, not less. The whole nomination is deeply flawed. It is interesting to note that at the same time this discussion is going on, there is another, where replacement of 'ß' with 'ss' is being argued, solely because (supposedly) we don't use them on Wikipedia, and (supposedly) it causes confusion (in that case, the move is actually justified, but for entirely unrelated reasons). Using "also spelled" is not equivalent, because it suggests legitimacy for that spelling, rather than it being a workaround due to technical limitations. For those who want diacritics to be used in article titles, deleting this template may be entirely self-defeating. Replace it case by case if desired, but deleting a (voluntary!) template outright is a heavy-handed solution that is very likely to backfire. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment. Unfortunately, this supposed 'refutation' is not, if analysed, evidence-based. The function was not 'misunderstood' by me or any other would-be deleters - rather , the function/purpose has never been explained or justified. If it was not 'about the failings of the search box', what then is it for? It does not tell the reader anything he did not previously know (save for the assertion, which I deal with below, that the reader can feel free to misrepresent the character concerned). Perhaps Stemonitis, or someone else, can give us a clear definition of this elusive function. As regards 'advice' this is precisely what the template does offer, from a distinctitvely WP:NNPOV attitude. 'The name may be represented...' Sez who? (apart from Stemonitis ?). That the template is confusing and disorienting is testified to by at least one other would-be deleter; Stemonitis disagrees, but that doesn't make it, in his words, 'untrue'. Can we please try to stick (as Wikipedia should) to facts, rather than assertions?--Smerus 09:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Reply. I'll try again to explain it. Suppose a user types in or clicks on a link to (the deliberately fictional) "Aess", and finds himself at "Äß", he may well wonder why he ended up there (quite reasonably, since the two look very different). {{Foreignchar}} uses a hatnote to explain that the differences are due to technical limitations that may be encountered in other media or the desires of some persons to avoid using such characters, and that there is more information at Ä and ß, which may explain the differences. (Hatnotes are frequently used to reduce confusion – e.g. {{redirect}} – and I doubt that many readers are seriously confused by them.) Those two articles do, in fact, contain useful information about transcription issues and workarounds. Without {{foreignchar}}, all that poor user receives in response to his confusion is a stony silence. All the proposed alternatives suffer from inconsistent wording, and from poor choice of words. "English spelling: ..." and "also spelled in English ..." both suggest that the accented characters cannot be used in English (which is untrue); "or..." likewise fails to explain the difference. The template categorically does not offer advice; it does not give permission; that is a misunderstanding, and one which I feel I have dealt with before (see discussion of "may" above, since that one word seems to be the crux of the issue). If you think that that is what it does, then you have grossly misunderstood it. It may well be that it shouldn't be applied in many cases, but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be used in other cases. Many of the examples raised here are red herrings, and should be ignored ("Gotterdammerung" is not, and would not be, given as the alternative, for instance; the title of Arnold Schoenberg contains no accented characters). I have yet to see a good alternative for cases like Kärntner Straße; for that reason the template remains useful. --Stemonitis (talk) 10:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the template does not offer advice nor (in British English) does it give permission, but it does claim that the name in question has a standard English-character transliteration. Furthermore, it puts this transliteration on a pedestal, as if the very first thing a reader needed to know about a foreign name was how to get away with anglicizing it. But if the transliteration is important, then it should be mentioned in the article. If it isn't, then it shouldn't be mentioned anywhere, let alone in a hatnote. Ozob (talk) 11:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

No, it's the opposite of a pedestal. No-one claims that the most important thing about the crab Lybia is that it's not the country Libya, but that's the information conveyed by the hatnote. Hatnotes are not pedestals; they are devices for reducing confusion, and that's what this does. In most cases (certainly for German), there is a single standard transliteration, so that's not a problem, either. --Stemonitis (talk) 11:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete Per nom. Also per "Sez who?" Which reliable sources say "Where it is unavailable or not desired, the name may be represented as X?" Because I've never seen any sources saying that and all claims on Wikipedia have to be cited. Plus, it's useless and patronising. "If the Caps Lock on your computer is broken then the name 'John Smith' may be rendered 'john smith'". Why not have a template for that?--Folantin (talk) 11:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. That's an absurd argument. What hatnotes are ever referenced? That's not a good reason to delete a template. Do you really not see the difference between a broken keyboard and a long cultural history of transliteration? It is relatively commonplace to represent "Götterdämmerung" as "Goetterdaemmerung", and for it to be considered acceptable, whereas everyone agrees that "john smith" is written wrongly. That is the fundamental difference, and all arguments must address that point. --Stemonitis (talk) 11:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

If the transliteration is so commonplace, why is it necessary to point it out to the reader? And if it's not, then why isn't it a referenced fact in the body of the article? Ozob (talk) 11:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

According to WP:Hatnote typical hatnote "help readers locate a different article they might be seeking.". In this case it provides controversial information about topic of article, so it should be referenced Bulwersator (talk) 12:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not actually controversial. No-one doubts that "Goetterdaemmerung" and "Götterdämmerung" are the same thing, or that both forms are used. There is no controversy. --Stemonitis (talk) 12:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

ä, ą, ł, ó etc are controversial (you can find countless discussions about this, including this one) Bulwersator (talk) 12:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand your comment. How are the characters controversial? In any case, that would only mean that there are cases where the template shouldn't be used, not that there are no cases where it should be used. I am not aware of widespread use of {{foreignchar}} for Polish titles, or indeed of any need for it there. --Stemonitis (talk) 12:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

You state there is not any need of {{foreignchar}} for Polish titles. Based on that, what is so different about German that it would be needed there? --Steinhöfer (talk) 15:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The standard transliteration of Polish names (and indeed many other languages) involves (to my knowledge) simply removing the accent from the letter. German differs in that "ö" is not transliterated as "o", but as "oe"; similar arguments probably apply to the slavic "Đ", which is a "dj", not a "d". --Stemonitis (talk) 07:59, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The standard transliteration of German names in English language media is to simply remove the dots from the umlauts. Your theories about transliterating an "ö" to an "oe" in names of German people you want to push through this template are usually wrong (with the exception of people like Boeing/Grasshoff/Schoenberg who did choose that spelling after moving to an English language country). Random example: The BBC spells Markus Steinhöfer as Markus Steinhofer and is not following the misinformation by this template in the Wikipedia article. --Steinhöfer (talk) 09:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Hatnotes are primarily for disambiguation between articles, not making controversial statements in Wikipedia's official voice. --Folantin (talk) 12:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

You still haven't established that it is controversial. Do you consider "Goetterdaemmerung" and "Götterdämmerung" to be different subjects? --Stemonitis (talk) 13:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Of course it's controversial. Look at the controversy on this page. If you make a statement in Wikipedia mainspace, then it is up to you to source that statement (see WP:BURDEN). --Folantin (talk) 13:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question. There is no controversy about transliteration. This page is about whether or not the template should be deleted, which is an entirely separate matter. --Stemonitis (talk) 13:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Yet another instance of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.--Folantin (talk) 14:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

simple search revealing multiple discussion about diacritics: [5]. Bulwersator (talk) 14:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

No, you both miss the point. You claim that the transliteration is somehow controversial in the real world, but all your evidence is about the controversy among editors of using diacritics in Wikipedia articles. A controversy over whether our article should be titled "Goetterdaemmerung" or "Götterdämmerung" in no way implies a controversy about whether or not one of those two titles is a common transliteration of the others. I am well aware that the use of diacritics on Wikipedia can be contentious (since that is the background to the template), but that isn't the issue here. The information presented by the template is not controversial, despite your claims to the contrary. --Stemonitis (talk) 15:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

"This policy requires that all quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed in the form of an inline citation that directly supports the material." - Wikipedia:Verifiability. As diacritics are funny topic on Wikipedia this template is likely to be challenged, therefore it requires sources. In fact I removed it from Łódź as it is IMHO completely untrue and was without any citation to keep it Bulwersator (talk) 15:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Delete as violation of WP:UNDUE - information provided by this template is unimportant Bulwersator (talk) 11:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: WP:UNDUE does not apply here. This is not an opinion held by one side in a dispute. It merely informs of alternative forms that may be seen. If anything, it would be a violation of WP:UNDUE not to mention the widespread alternative spellings. --Stemonitis (talk) 12:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject.", "Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to (...) prominence of placement." Bulwersator (talk) 12:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, I understand that, but there is no dispute here and there are no sides to represent fairly or otherwise. It's an explanation, that's all, which is why WP:UNDUE doesn't apply here. --Stemonitis (talk) 13:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
  • What? You missed constant discussions about diacritics in titles/text/redirects? Bulwersator (talk) 14:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete - ugly template, pollutes otherwise decent articles and makes them look like crap just to assuage somebody's axe grinding agenda. And per many of the comments above, which I don't feel like repeating. Volunteer Marek  13:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• No, you must provide a reason. "Ugly" is not a reason to delete, and "... assuage somebody's axe grinding agenda" is at best speculation and at worst a personal attack. If you have a coherent reason for deleting this template, please say so, but don't use this discussion as an outlet for unhelpful invective. --Stemonitis (talk) 13:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

"Ugly", for what is essentially a useless and spurious template, IS a perfectly valid reason. Volunteer Marek  22:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete per arguments from Michael Bednarek, Ozob, Kleinzach. Thank you for proposing this deletion. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 13:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. I would like to see more opinions from people not associated with WP:OPERA, where this debate was initially proposed (and in my opinion, mischaracterised). The contributors so far have not been a representative sample of the wider community. --Stemonitis (talk) 13:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I voiced my opinion not only for Opera, but also for Germany (äöüß) and Classical music. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not associated with WP:OPERA Bulwersator (talk) 14:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

But I consider joining to this wikiproject, in the spirit of inverted WP:POINT Bulwersator (talk) 18:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

May I register my objection to this rather 'ad hominem' comment? It implies, on a WP:NNPOV basis, (or maybe WP:OR), that members of WP:OPERA are a) not a 'representative sample' of WP users, and b) might somehow from the nature of their interests be disqualified from offering an opinion. But I shan't however bother to dispute these unreasonable arguments, as neither of them have the slightest bearing on the subject at hand.--Smerus 18:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

My worry is only that the template was misrepresented on that project's pages, such that anyone coming here from that perspective will have been primed by misinformation, and therefore may not be an entirely fair judge. I did not mean to imply anything beyond that. I don't consider their edits to be done in bad faith in any way, merely that the publicity the template has received in that quarter has been unusually negative. --Stemonitis (talk) 20:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I have no connection to opera either. Only a small minority of uses of this template are on opera-related topics and that is likely to influence the number of people who click the link in article-space and come here. Personally, I don't see it as an ad hominem as we do sometimes have problems where a relatively close community on a wikiproject forms a position on some subject which diverges from the wider community, which leads to much drama, so we have to keep an eye out for it... bobrayner (talk) 08:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. I’ve always wondered why this is there, and I’ve often considered to just Be Bold™ and remove all instances of it. It appears to make the claim that the suggested alternative spelling is correct, which is patently not the case. It is also remarkably prominent on the page, despite being such a minor quibble. (Also, I have no connection to the WikiProject Opera.) — Timwi (talk) 15:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete per Smerus, Michael Bednarek and various others. What may have been useful in 2005 is redundant in 2011, and the rubric at the top of the article is not helpful (query: has anyone recently been helped by reading it?). And who are these people who object to "funny foreign squiggles"? If there are any such people, maybe they should get out more. Yes, I am a member of WikiProject Opera - what's wrong with that? --GuillaumeTell 17:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I agree with other users concerns about the inappropriate tone of "not desired" and how the template circumvents the need for references... however, I've used this template often for German articles with ß and the various umlauts in them. In this I agree with Stemonitis. There is nothing controversial about those transliterations. SS for ß is standard, and so are ue ae oe for the umlauts. How could they be controversial? Are there any alternate transliterations you'd like to mention? The template is a better solution than linking ß in the subject's name or including a reference for the obvious in each and every article that uses the character in its title.

However, I do understand the concerns when it comes to other languages with no standard transliterations- Is it possible that we could delete this and have a separate template for German transliteration only? Thanks, Lithoderm 18:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I am a German speaker living in the UK and I am not of the opinion that SS for ß, ue for ü etc. is anywhere close to “standard”. Quite to the contrary, this practice is widely condemned as lazy, uneducated and ignorant. I guess that makes it quite controversial. I am not offering an alternative transliteration because I don’t understand the need for any. — Timwi (talk) 22:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I never meant that the use of the transcription is a standard practice - when I meant is that if the word is anglicized, it is always anglicized in the same way - that is to say what is "standard" about it is not "whether" it is transcribed but "how". Let me make it clear that I do not support anglicizing spellings left and right - what I mean is that when it must be done, ie in the case of a restricted character set, it is important that it be done the right way, rather than simply omitting the umlaut. BTW, "of the opinion" and "widely condemned" don't make for very persuasive arguments. Once again, I'm not claiming that either is "good" or "bad"- historically, German spelling and its transcription is not cut and dry. We have Goethe (the original spelling has no umlaut) and Rudolf Hess (the spelling is anglicized in the major English sources, so we go by WP:RS).

To those who say this is a controversial unreferenced statement in the article mainspace: I'm curious as to what you think of these statements from Wikipedia articles- neither of them are cited:

When it is not possible to use the umlauts, for example, when using a restricted character set, the umlauts Ä, Ö, Ü, ä, ö and ü should be transcribed as Ae, Oe, Ue, ae, oe and ue, respectively; simply using the base vowel (e.g. u instead of ü) would be erroneous and be prone to producing ambiguities.

— German Alphabet, Wikipedia

When typing German, if umlaut letters are not available, the proper way is to replace them with the underlying vowel and a following <e>. So, for example, "Schröder" becomes "Schroeder". As the pronunciation differs greatly between the normal letter and the umlaut, simply omitting the dots is considered incorrect. The result might often be a different word, as in schon 'already', schön 'beautiful', schwul 'gay', schwül 'humid' or Mutter 'mother', Mütter 'mothers'.

— Diaeresis_(diacritic)#Printing_conventions_in_German, Wikipedia

I think that if this template is to be deleted (and that certainly seems to be the consensus), then there should at least be a talk page template similar to Template:British English or a template similar to {{Not a typo}}, as Bobrayner suggests. This would at least serve to prevent uninformed users from changing the spelling. Do you know how often Americans "correcting" British spellings have to reverted? I really don't want to see my watchlist fill up with edit summaries like "Why is this spelled ***B? moving to ***ss." Lithoderm 17:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

That is not needed. People like Boeing/Grasshoff/Schoenberg who did choose that spelling after moving to an English language country are a special case that should be explained in the article (see Michael Curtiz for an example of someone with a complicated name history). For people like Markus Steinhöfer there is exactly one correct spelling (with the umlaut), unlike American/British spelling differences there is nothing to argue here. In a German language text the spelling without an umlaut would be ö -> oe ("Steinhoefer"), in English language texts ö -> o ("Steinhofer") is often used, e.g. by the the BBC. It is not the business of Wikipedia to decide that the way BBC commonly spells names with umlauts is wrong. --Steinhöfer (talk) 10:19, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, they are wrong. Removing the umlaut is not correct. Your statements here and above are frankly ludicrous. First you say that "Gotterdammerung is not proper English (or English at all)" and then proceed to claim that removing the umlaut is standard. Lithoderm 03:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Show me an English dictionary that lists any form "Götterdämmerung" for proving your claim it was an English word. Due to the significance of the BBC for the English language it does have relevance how the BBC is doing things. And you failed to give a proof for your claim. What is your proof that in English language texts (not German language texts following German rules) ö -> oe is correct and ö -> o is incorrect? --Steinhöfer (talk) 12:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you actually read what I wrote you'll see that I never claimed it was an English word, but since you asked, here you go: Merriam Webster and American Heritage. It is also in the Oxford English Dictionary, but their website has a paywall, so I can't link to the entry. Also, here is a link to the BGN/PCGN romanization of German as agreed upon by the US and British governments: earth-info.nga.mil/gns/html/Romanization/Romanization_RomanScripts.pdf. I quote: "In those instances where β cannot be reproduced, the digraph ss will be substituted for it... In those instances when the vowel letters ä, ö, and ü cannot be reproduced, the alternate spellings ae, oe, and ue may be substituted." There are so many more sources I could cite, so just one more example: "The simplest case... is that of the German umlauted vowels, where a transliteration, e.g., ue for ü, is often sanctioned by usage within the language itself."[6] Sorry, omitting the umlaut is not correct- and since you argued that in your initial vote, I really don't see why you're making the opposite point now- you were right the first time on not removing the umlaut, and wrong all the time about adding e. Lithoderm 22:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

This dispute proves my point: Anglicizing words is contentious and requires citations. Putting them in a hatnote like this template does is a mistake, so the template should be deleted. Ozob (talk) 12:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete as an unnecessary distraction. Where diacritics are just left out when not available, the template doesn't impart any information. Where there is a different transliteration such as ä->ae, ö->oe, ü->ue, ß->ss, å->aa, this belongs in the same place where we mention other spelling variants and should not be treated specially. Hans Adler 18:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. This template is an unnecessary distraction. English words with diacritics can be found in English dictionaries. For example, if I look up the word "outre" in my computer's dictionary, there it is: "outré", with the acute accent. (The unaccented form is not even given as an alternative. Nor is there any mention of the diacritic as something unusual.) It is my impression that the so-called alternative spelling for some German umlauted words, such as Goetterdaemmerung, was only introduced as a convenience for printers who did not have typefaces with umlauts on the vowels. This no longer applies in the modern world. --Robert.Allen (talk) 06:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
• Note: The template {{Foreignchars}} may also be included in this discussion. 74.101.118.93 (talk) 07:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
  • That's true, see Template:Foreignchars. --Kleinzach 07:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Tag added Bulwersator (talk) 14:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete, per nomination. However, I wouldn't object to something on the talkpage. There might be value in something aimed at bots / automated editors, similar to {{Not a typo}} but we really shouldn't be giving that particular inaccurate standardised message to readers. Where there are alternative transcriptions I think these are best done on a case-by-case basis, in the article itself, or we could have a slightly more refined version of this template which is for one specific common script, but a general template like this one cannot possibly give an accurate message for all the different names it may be applied to. bobrayner (talk) 08:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete - this template is of no obvious use. I've always wondered what it adds to articles to inform readers (before they read anything else!) that a particular foreign character can alternatively be represented using certain letters of the Roman alphabet. Um, OK, so what? What on earth does that have to do with the article? Anyone who wants to know about the letter Ö can look up that article and read it; for other readers, what does this template add to the article Blue Öyster Cult? 'Where it is unavailable or not desired, the name may be represented as Blue Oyster Cult.' - gee thanks Wikipedia, I'd never have thought of that. Even the user who wants to keep this template admits the best that can be said for it is that it is a 'compromise'. Well, it may have been a compromise we needed in 2005, but it is of no value now. Robofish (talk) 19:48, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. It's all been said above. - Dank (push to talk) 20:13, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
• Keep per Stemonitis and Lithoderm. And here are some comments on the matter:
  • the nominator argues that "if readers are, indeed, ‘unfamiliar with the use of ‘’foreign’’ characters’ ... it is not apparent that the template can in any way assist them in understanding them – by explaining their purpose in accent , pronunciation, etc. Such explanation is in general undertaken where appropriate by IPA symbols etc. in an article lead." Do you honestly expect the general reader who is not familiar with diacritics and other special characters to know the IPA alphabet instead?
  • There are languages with official rules for transliterating umlauts and other characters (as has been said above). Referring to these policies in a hat note is in in fact in line with Wikipedia's core principle of being educational. And that should in fact be done in a prominent place like the hatnote even because of the tendency to otherwise ignore those transliteration rules. Leaving the dots away from ä and writing a instead may be standard in some parts of the English speaking world but it may likewise be wrong according to the native language of the subject. The English Wikipedia is not only the English language Wikipedia but also the international version which probably gets the most hits from non-English speakers if there is no WP in their local idiom. Those readers should be informed of alternate spellings of placenames and personal names in other languages and therefore it is correct to point out the local alternative way of writing a page name in a hat note outside the article proper.
  • While speaking of citations, if there is so much doubt about turning ö to oe and so on that it would warrant a reference, let's have a reference list in the template documentation for such cases. We don't stick the permission for each image into the individual thumbnail captions as well but have it readily displayed on one central page.
  • This template should not be used for accents as has apparently been the case quite often. It should however be used for diacritical characters and things like ß or ð. The purpose of this template is not to appear in parallel to Wikipedia's search function and several redirects but to inform the reader of the correct way of writing the name of the subject where special characters are really not available. There are still lots of applications that do not have an "insert special character" function.

De728631 (talk) 23:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Just to point out that User:Lithoderm comments on the discussion , and in fact writes 'I agree with other users concerns about the inappropriate tone of "not desired" and how the template circumvents the need for references'; Lithoderm does not, as De728631, suggests, recommend 'keep'. Furthermore: 'This template should not be used for accents as has apparently been the case quite often' (- for 'quite often', read 99% of the time). Another instance of the 'sez me' syndrome. If you want a template for esszet and thorn, create one - but delete this one --Smerus (talk) 05:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I never said that Lithoderm recommended to keep the template. However Lithoderm did write that "there is nothing controversial about those transliterations. SS for ß is standard, and so are ue ae oe for the umlauts. How could they be controversial? Are there any alternate transliterations you'd like to mention?". And a template for ß might actually be a good idea considering the course of this discussion. See User:De728631/Eszett. De728631 (talk) 23:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Let's be accurate here. You wrote 'Keep, per Lithoderm'. Therefore, you clearly implied Lithoderm wished to keep the template. Lithoderm did not recommend keep. He made some comments about ß (esszet). Best - --Smerus (talk) 18:27, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, and that was positive statement about the template. Maybe I should have written "keep per Stemonitis and the reasoning about ß by Lithoderm". De728631 (talk) 16:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

"There are languages with official rules for transliterating umlauts and other characters (as has been said above). Referring to these policies in a hat note is in in fact in line with Wikipedia's core principle of being educational." What? We should put unimportant information in the most prominent place? @official rules - so this template requires way to insert citations, as it is frequently used in articles where nothing like this exists. Bulwersator (talk) 09:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

"And that should in fact be done in a prominent place like the hatnote even because of the tendency to otherwise ignore those transliteration rules." So we should put this hatnote because you are thinking that it is something very important? Bulwersator (talk) 09:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

No. On a related question I could ask why we should have disambiguation hatnotes in the most prominent place. After all there is a search function to find related articles. This is not about personal opinions of importance, it is about accessability and about providing information. Information that may very well be important because leaving diacritics away may generate a completely new meaning in a language like German (see quote above): "As the pronunciation differs greatly between the normal letter and the umlaut, simply omitting the dots is considered incorrect. The result might often be a different word, as in schon 'already', schön 'beautiful', schwul 'gay', schwül 'humid' or Mutter 'mother', Mütter 'mothers'". De728631 (talk) 23:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

"Leaving the dots away from ä and writing a instead may be standard in some parts of the English speaking world but it may likewise be wrong according to the native language of the subject." - again, it requires citations Bulwersator (talk) 09:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

That can certainly be done. For a start I have added some references for common substitutions of German and Scandinavian letters to the template documentation. De728631 (talk) 23:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• • • Do you honestly expect the general reader who is not familiar with diacritics and other special characters to know the IPA alphabet instead? Do not mix transliteration and pronunciation. In the Finnish language ö -> o is the correct transliteration - which changes the pronunciation as much as in German. How do you want to solve that without IPA? And even for native speakers you sometimes need IPA - e.g. any native German speaker would horribly mispronounce the name of Hans-Jürgen Papier without IPA.
      • I was referring to the deletion nomination which says that the template is useless for educating the reader about foreign characters in terms of accent, pronunciation, etc and that IPA should be used for that. But pronunciation is clearly not even the task of this template. The template does not explain the nature of characters ß or ä but it provides alternate ways of writing them. And please feel free to add the reference for Finnish ö -> o to the template documentation. De728631 (talk) 16:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
    • There are languages with official rules for transliterating umlauts and other characters (as has been said above). As already explained, in the case of German names with umlauts English language media like the BBC uses a different transliteration than German language media. This is the English Wikipedia where English transliterations are used.
      • See the references for German umlauts at the documentation page. And see also the template text: "... may be written ...". De728631 (talk) 16:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
    • While speaking of citations, if there is so much doubt about turning ö to oe and so on that it would warrant a reference, let's have a reference list in the template documentation for such cases. I addded "Never ever use this template for German names with umlaut." with a reference to the template.
      • See above. And Michael Bednarek has reverted your edit. De728631 (talk) 16:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
    • This template should not be used for accents as has apparently been the case quite often. It should however be used for diacritical characters and things like ß or ð. The purpose of this template is not to appear in parallel to Wikipedia's search function and several redirects but to inform the reader of the correct way of writing the name of the subject where special characters are really not available. There are still lots of applications that do not have an "insert special character" function. Markus Steinhofer and Markus Steinhoefer both work in Wikipedia, and both transliterations are used in English language media.
      • As I've already said, we might need a second parameter for alternate spellings. De728631 (talk) 16:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

--Steinhöfer (talk) 20:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

• Keep this template clarifies the correct way to transliterate letters that do not exist on a standard English keyboard. As mentioned above, just dropping the unlauts is not correct and changes the meaning. If I'm trying to write about a town or concept in a foreign language and don't have the ability to easily add those letters that don't appear on my keyboard, I would want to know how to write it correctly. Tobyc75 (talk) 16:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

  Why is having this template any better than having a transliteration in the body of the article? Ozob (talk) 23:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

  "I would want to know how to write it correctly" So in your opinion we should change this template to "those letters probably don't appear on your keyboard, but you can copy this special characters to write this name correctly" Bulwersator (talk) 09:38, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

  Wow, I'm not really sure if what I said was unclear or if you're just intentionally misunderstanding. So let me make it clearer. The correct special character are best, a correct transliteration is better then an incorrect one. If I can't easily add the characters, I'd rather have a correct transliteration then an incorrect one. As for putting it in the body of the article, sure, but a template is just as easy.Tobyc75 (talk) 16:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

  The problem is that there is not one correct transliteration for German names with umlauts in English language texts (not in German language texts), and people are trying to push their personal view on the "correct" transliteration using this template. For names like Markus Steinhöfer the BBC uses the transliteration Steinhofer, and when watching English language TV that is the transliteration used in practice for German football players with umlauts in their names. The same is true e.g. for the transliterations Lothar Matthaeus or Gerd Mueller that are much less frequently used than Lothar Matthaus and Gerd Muller. It is not the business of Wikipedia to judge whether a commonly used transliteration in English language media (like the BBC or CNN or TV channels) is wrong. --Steinhöfer (talk) 19:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

  Wow, still on that note about the Beeb? Did you not read my response above or are you just dense, Steinhoefer? Lithoderm 22:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

  It neither suits Wikipedia to ignore such commonly made transscriptions. So if there are various accepted ways of representing a character the template needs a second parameter to acknowledge that. De728631 (talk) 21:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

  If the person has chosen a specific transliteration/name for himself in a different language (like Wilhelm Böing, Mihály Kertész, Łukasz Podolski, Mirosław Kloze or Heinz Kissinger) that belongs into the article. What other spellings of his name a person has accepted (if any) is a question that cannot be answered schematically. And what transcriptions different media use is yet another question. --Steinhöfer (talk) 23:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. It incorrectly implies that the alternative spelling is correct, quite simply that should not be acceptable. —MTC (talk) 20:50, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
• Keep. Despite that this template may give the wrong impression that the alternative spelling is "correct", not every computer and browser supports the display of Latin characters with diacritics, and therefore contrary to the claims of the nominator the function of these templates is not redundant. A version of the title without diacritics need to appear somewhere to give readers who can't see the character with diacritics a chance to at least know which letter they're looking at, and these templates are currently the most commonly used solution. Deryck C. 23:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

• I seriously doubt that claim is true. Not everyone has fonts for non-latin (e.g. Chinese) character installed, but this template is anyway not for these. Can you name one case where in 2011 a browser is not able to display an ö? --Steinhöfer (talk) 10:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• Keep although I'd advice noting in the template documentation that the template should only be used where a diacritic is not transliterated by leaving the dots/accents away (e.g. keep it for German umlauts and ß, yet generelly not for French) - that should take care of the delete arguments concerning "If you can't type à la, then write a la". BBC leaving away the dots in German surnames doesn't make their spelling variation right, their spelling is still wrong unless the person with a diacritical name prefers that name change himself (let me say that as a German with diacritics in the name). Now, when a misspelling of a diacritical name becomes more common than the correct transliteration, that doesn't stop the rule from applying to other diacritical names or other people with the same name. Wikipedia/this template isn't doing any judgement here, it's just re-telling the rules are for the unaware. Maybe more people should read this template if they can't find the ö on their keyboard. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• Maybe more people should read this template if they can't find the ö on their keyboard. is exactly the problem: For finding an article in Wikipedia you do not need the umlaut, and simply omitting the dots is fine for that usecase. Everyone can input characters with an umlaut if he wants to (key combination or cut'n'paste). For any actual text this template gives the wrong impression that any transliterated representation would be correct, leading to people using the transliterated representation instead of the correct representation with the umlaut. --Steinhöfer (talk) 10:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• But it's not only about about being able to type such names. Wikipedia is not just for displaying the articles but for providing useful information, and that includes alternate spellings for use in programming languages or other applications that only use a limited ASCII set of chars. This template does not replace the search function, it provides useful information about commonly accepted styles of writing. And I support Sgeureka in that the template doc should stress out that this is not for simply circumventing some accents but for special characters. De728631 (talk) 15:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• I doubt there are many non-obscure programming languages (or other applications) that do still not support Unicode. How many non-obscure programming languages can you name that support only ASCII?
• Regarding the commonly accepted styles of writing I am repeating the fact that the commonly used transliteration of German names with umlauts in English language media like the BBC differs from the transliteration some Wikipedia authors try to define as the only "correct" one through this template.

--Steinhöfer (talk) 19:23, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• Unicode alone doesn't solve the problem, it's just one of several standards. See character encoding. And as to the BBC I'd like to repeat myself: the template does not say that the proposed transliteration is in any way binding. The page name may be spelled differently. And if BBC uses umlauts then that's fine, other reliable sources don't and so we have to point that out.De728631 (talk) 22:31, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

• Unicode alone doesn't solve the problem, it's just one of several standards. It doesn't matter how many other standards exist, what matters is that Unicode is supported virtually everywhere. Let me rephrase my question: How many non-obscure programming languages can you name that do not support any Unicode encoding?
• And if BBC uses umlauts then that's fine, other reliable sources don't and so we have to point that out. This full discussion does not belong into a hatnote in thousands of articles.

--Steinhöfer (talk) 12:14, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

• As to programming and command languages: Korn shell in older Gentoo Linux [7], C-Shell, tcsh and ksh still do not support Unicode as of 2011 (in German); while Matlab can handle certain TeX characters (mostly arithmetic symbols) it can't display umlauts, ß and other such unicode characters on 32-bit systems (a workaround seems to exist for Linux 64-bit machines); TYPO3 still has troubles with UTF-8 (in German), etc. De728631 (talk) 21:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

But names are a special case. The individual may choose which spelling they prefer and we should use the most commonly used spelling. But that doesn't invalidate the template, there are words that simply dropping the umlaut or other diacritic will change the meaning (as mentioned above). The Wikipedia:German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board/Umlaut and ß mentions a number of significant style guides, all of which support using either the umlaut or the ä-> ae transliteration and which support using the ß or ss. The style guides disagree with each other on which one to use, but none of them support just ignoring the umlaut.Tobyc75 (talk) 12:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• But names are a special case. If you look at where this template is used, this "special case" might actually be the majority of cases.
• And even outside of people's names this template is wrongly used. Just look at 1. FC Köln. The Wikipedia author who added the template there clearly had no clue, and the non-umlaut name the team uses on the English version of it's homepage is quite different from what the hatnote in Wikipedia claims for very obvious reasons.
• there are words that simply dropping the umlaut or other diacritic will change the meaning You won't get rid of that problem no matter what you do. Germans are drinking beer "in Maßen" (few beer), Swiss people are drinking beer "in Massen" (much beer) since they don't have the letter "ß". What do you want to do? Invent a Wikipedia-specific transliteration for "ß"? Pressure the Swiss to add "ß" to their alphabet?
• The style guides disagree with each other on which one to use, but none of them support just ignoring the umlaut. The examples from non-German media on that page actually all agree that the umlaut should be used. And at that point you do not need this template. "Family names, however, for the most part became petrified many years ago and there is no way of working out whether the e form or the umlaut should be used; you just have to find out for each individual" is the only exception, and when a person has an established English version with ae/oe/ue of his name (like Wilhelm Böing) that needs an explanation and reference in the article, not a hatnote without any reference at all.

--Steinhöfer (talk) 17:54, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• Which non-umlaut name are you referring to at FC Köln? E.g. www.fc-koeln.de/en/club/about-us/ (n.b.: not fc-koln.de) have either FC Köln on their English version or even FC Cologne. De728631 (talk) 22:31, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

• "1. FC Cologne" is the correct (non-umlaut) English name, just like 1. FC Nuremberg or FC Bayern Munich. Whether "1. FC Köln" or "1. FC Cologne" gets used in English language texts is a different question without a huge consistency, but "1. FC Koeln" as this template claims in this article never really makes sense in English language texts.
• www.fc-koeln.de ... n.b.: not fc-koln.de The correct one is (now that umlauts can be used in URLs) www.fc-köln.de. Thanks for noticing, I fixed that in the article. Köln -> Koeln is the transliteration in German language texts (and therefore in an URL mostly targeting German fans), Köln -> Cologne is correct in English language texts.

--Steinhöfer (talk) 11:59, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

And what exactly does the name "FC Cologne" have to do with the foreign character template we're discussing here? It uses the English name of the city so we don't have the ö issue there anyway. Please tell me what you're trying to prove with that? De728631 (talk) 21:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Keep. I'll listen to arguments that it should be seriously rephrased, but a standard way to document the preferred pure-ASCII transliteration is useful, and deleting the template (and invocations) would destroy that knowledge.

Indeed, you could argue that it should expand to the empty string and exist only in the source code and for indexing. But that's still a different matter.

This is not something that can be automated, because it's language-dependent; König and coöperation follow different patterns. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 05:31, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Precisely because it can't be automated, this template is a bad idea. As we've seen above in this thread, sometimes there's more than one way of transliterating an article title; even when some of the possibilities are objectively wrong, they may still be used by accident or out of ignorance. So, like all other facts in an article, a transliteration should have a citation. This is not practical in a templated hatnote.

It is also not clear to me how much care was used in creating the transliterations used in the instances of the template. I don't know, but I strongly doubt, that each of those transliterations was done by checking reliable sources. Consequently I do not see the presently existing transliterations as necessarily having any value. Ozob (talk) 05:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment – It has been pointed out several times above that the use of this template is voluntary and not binding. Does Wikipedia have any other such templates without firm rules for their application? Doesn't such a situation lend itself for silly edit wars? "The article has an "ä" in the title; that's why I placed the hatnote there." vs. "I removed the template because its use is not compulsory." Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:02, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. Divisive, distracting and completely redundant template, which could be bureaucratically added to half of Wikipedia's articles. - Darwinek (talk) 11:46, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

---

I count 21 Deletes, a maximum of 8 Keeps, and 12 days worth of discussion. In what way has the discussion not been thorough? --GuillaumeTell 22:27, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Relisting! Can Plastikspork explain why? After such a long and exhaustive debate? A filibuster? --Kleinzach 00:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

There were two new comments today, so it appears as though the discussion is still ongoing, and I am trying to work through the general backlog here at TfD. Relisting does not necessarily mean another 7 days, and any admin should feel free to close it either right now, or in a day or two. I will come back to it after I am finished dealing with the rest of the backlog here at TfD (some discussions being unclosed after over a month). Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

WTF? This template was created 5 years ago, waiting additional 1/2/3 weeks for more deletes will harm nobody. And WP:AGF Bulwersator (talk) 07:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• Rename as Germancharacter and restrict its use to German only. It has always been the practice in German to substitute an e when an umlaut isn't possible (which still happens sometimes in the computer era), a practice that pre-dates computers and even pre-dates typewriters. The same is true of SS for ß. This would be most often used with German names - the Germans who have these names do use the umlaut and would substitute the e. However, as this doesn't apply to most other languages, it shouldn't be used for those. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• restrict its use to German only As already explained, you need a reference in each case. Wikipedia authors did already add false information with this template to articles like 1. FC Köln.
• the Germans who have these names do use the umlaut and would substitute the e. I am German, and Steinhofer is the transliteration I am using in my scientific publications (dating back to the dark ages of ASCII).

--Steinhöfer (talk) 22:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete Misleading, distracting, and pointless. If alternative spellings are occasionally used in modern English reference works, this can and should be taken care of via a well-written lede or a footnote. Voceditenore (talk) 06:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - As someone who uses an outdated computer, the words can sometimes appear garbled. I have almost no fonts installed and I'm sure I'm not alone. Especially where this is in the title, I feel this can be very helpful to a reader in the same position. I do not see it as "misleading" or "disorenting" in anyway. We are an english encycolpedia writing for english readers - these are non-english symbols that need to be explained. The template does that quickly and breifly without interferring with the article content. There is no valid reason to delete. Outback the koala (talk) 07:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

How do you navigate your way to/through the articles? If you simply click on these "non-English symbols" then you must surely know what you're reading about?! If not, then you wouldn't need to know how the subject of the article can otherwise be written. And since all the following instances of the subject are written with the diacritics which you don't have installed on your computer, then you wouldn't be able to read the article anyway. I'm honestly confused by your comment, which to me seems little to do with the template, whether it's kept or deleted. Jared Preston (talk) 21:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Further comment; I don't even know why the BBC don't regularly use umlauts, they can and they do; have a look at this article's usage of Dr Carsten Müller. Jared Preston (talk) 21:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

As someone who uses an outdated computer, the words can sometimes appear garbled. I'm really puzzled. Can you double-check that you can really not see the umlaut in the title of Markus Steinhöfer? What kind of "outdated computer" are you using? --Steinhöfer (talk) 22:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Template:Katharine Hepburn

Template:Katharine Hepburn (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Proposed deletion: MOS:FILM#Navigation: WikiProject consensus is against including actor templates since not all actors have substantial appearances in all their films and since multiple actors in a film would overpopulate the bottom of a film articl Gonnym (talk) 11:56, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I created this template when I didn't realise actor ones were discouraged. If it makes any difference, Hepburn did have a starring role in every one of her films apart from Love Affair, so the template's appearance on each film is justified. --Lobo512 (talk) 12:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Template:NFL team demo2

Template:NFL team demo2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused navbox Bulwersator (talk) 06:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Template:NFL Season List Row

Template:NFL Season List Row (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, purpose unclear Bulwersator (talk) 06:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Template:NFL Season List Header

Template:NFL Season List Header (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, purpose unclear Bulwersator (talk) 06:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Template:NFL SBS season

Template:NFL SBS season (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, purpose unclear Bulwersator (talk) 06:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Template:NFL 2nd Division teams

Template:NFL 2nd Division teams (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused navbox without main article Bulwersator (talk) 06:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Template:NFLSeasonBeta

Template:NFLSeasonBeta (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused infobox Bulwersator (talk) 06:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Template:NFLN

Template:NFLN (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, can be used only to include confusing red text that is not a link to a dead article. Bulwersator (talk) 06:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Template:NF-Board national football team

Template:NF-Board national football team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused infobox Bulwersator (talk) 06:40, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Template:NES Zapper

Template:NES Zapper (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused navbox Bulwersator (talk) 06:39, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I've inform CVGproj 76.65.128.198 (talk) 07:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
• Keep I've added it to the games linked. Most articles are so short that it adds some valuable content. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 07:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
• Keep It servers the purpose templates are for, listing all the games for the NES zapper. Dream Focus 15:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Are there any objections to this template other than being unused? Because if there are not any other reasons for deletion this should be closed since the unused rational no longer applies.--70.24.215.154 (talk) 23:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Template:Florida Spring Training

Template:Florida Spring Training (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not currently in use. Seems a bit too specific to be put into use. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Meant for Spring training, so - while highly-specific - correct for context of article. If not listed on that page, probably in error. Will re-add to page and see what happens from there. EaglesPhilliesFanInTampa 20:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

---

• Delete as (still) unused Bulwersator (talk) 06:31, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Template:Translit-brx2

Template:Translit-brx2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, purpose unclear Bulwersator (talk) 14:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment appears to be a language markup template, for making a section of text display with the proper font, in this case the language indicated by language code brx-Latn. I assume this is for latin transcriptions of the Bodo language. 76.65.128.198 (talk) 06:22, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

---

Template:Translit-sa2

Template:Translit-sa2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, purpose unclear Bulwersator (talk) 14:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment appears to be a language markup template, for making a section of text display with the proper font, in this case the language indicated by language code sa-Latn. I assume this is for Latin transcriptions of Sanskrit. 76.65.128.198 (talk) 06:22, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

---

Template:Singapore-lang-mcpht

Template:Singapore-lang-mcpht (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, purpose unclear Bulwersator (talk) 14:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment it is a linguistics template for use with Singaporean terms, to display those terms in the languages of Singapore. 76.65.128.198 (talk) 06:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I have informed WikiProject Singapore. 76.65.128.198 (talk) 06:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
• Merge {{Singapore-lang-mcpht}} with {{Singapore-lang-mcpot}} and {{Singapore-lang-mcpt}} into a new template called {{Singapore-lang-mcphot}}. These three templates predate Parser Functions, so at that time there was a need for separate templates, now this can be handled with if-statements to activate the terms optionally. We only need variant templates for different orderings, not for optional terms. 76.65.128.198 (talk) 06:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment the code would be:

{{#if:{{{m|}}}|[[Malay language|Malay]]: {{{m}}}; }}{{#if:{{{c|}}}{{{p|}}}{{{h|}}}{{{others|}}}|[[Chinese language|Chinese]] {{#if:{{{c|}}}|([[Simplified Chinese character|simplified]]): {{{c}}} }}{{#if:{{{p|}}}{{{h|}}}{{{others|}}}|<small>( {{#if:{{{p|}}}|[[Standard Mandarin|Mandarin]] [[Pinyin]]: <span class="Unicode" style="font-family:'Arial Unicode MS'; font-family /**/:inherit;">{{{p}}}</span>;}}{{#if:{{{h|}}}| [[Hokkien (dialect)|Hokkien]]: {{{h}}};}}{{#if|{{{others|}}}| {{{others}}};}} )</small>}}; }}{{#if:{{{t|}}}| [[Tamil language|Tamil]]: {{{t}}}; }}

76.65.128.198 (talk) 12:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

---

Template:Infobox kdrama

Template:Infobox kdrama (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There is no reason to have anymore since Television is more useful. Also, it hasn't been touched since 2008. Jae ₩on (Deposit) 00:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment the last time it was nominated for deletion was in 2008 (Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 August 19) . 76.65.128.198 (talk) 05:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
• Tagged as T3 Bulwersator (talk) 06:32, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)