* '''Oppose''' - 'Who R you' makes sense here. [[User:Fyunck(click)|Fyunck(click)]] ([[User talk:Fyunck(click)|talk]]) 22:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' - 'Who R you' makes sense here. [[User:Fyunck(click)|Fyunck(click)]] ([[User talk:Fyunck(click)|talk]]) 22:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
*'''support''' the change suggested by IIO. Who R you, I don't think anyone is suggesting not following reliable sources. Rather, we are suggesting that some sources are more reliable than others when it comes to reproducing diacritics. If a book is published in black and white it's a terrible source to determine the color of a Picasso painting. The same is true here - if a low-MOS website doesn't have the editorial resources to spell vietnamese names correctly, but specialist sources do, we should trust the specialist sources, since accuracy is important in a serious encyclopedia.--[[User:Obiwankenobi|Obi-Wan Kenobi]] ([[User talk:Obiwankenobi|talk]]) 22:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
*'''support''' the change suggested by IIO. Who R you, I don't think anyone is suggesting not following reliable sources. Rather, we are suggesting that some sources are more reliable than others when it comes to reproducing diacritics. If a book is published in black and white it's a terrible source to determine the color of a Picasso painting. The same is true here - if a low-MOS website doesn't have the editorial resources to spell vietnamese names correctly, but specialist sources do, we should trust the specialist sources, since accuracy is important in a serious encyclopedia.--[[User:Obiwankenobi|Obi-Wan Kenobi]] ([[User talk:Obiwankenobi|talk]]) 22:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
**[http://books.google.com/books?id=jtsMLNmMzbkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Nguyen&f=false Cambridge History of Southeast Asia] is one of the most highly regarded specialist works on Vietnam, not a "low-MOS website" without editorial resources. Good style is based on widely available reference works, not a pair of obscure academic journals. [[User:SuperLicker|SuperLicker]] ([[User talk:SuperLicker|talk]]) 00:45, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
::That black and white book analogy is terrible for diacritics. Certainly some sources are more reliable than others but assumptions are being made that because diacritics aren't used in some publications they either can't produce them or are too lazy to produce them. That would need to be proved for each publication. If you see even one use of diacritics in a publication then you can rule out that they can't produce them. It's simply choice just as some publications choose to use them. The new addition throws out that choice. But WhoRyou is correct that this needs a larger forum. [[User:Fyunck(click)|Fyunck(click)]] ([[User talk:Fyunck(click)|talk]]) 22:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
:::That black and white book analogy is terrible for diacritics. Certainly some sources are more reliable than others but assumptions are being made that because diacritics aren't used in some publications they either can't produce them or are too lazy to produce them. That would need to be proved for each publication. If you see even one use of diacritics in a publication then you can rule out that they can't produce them. It's simply choice just as some publications choose to use them. The new addition throws out that choice. But WhoRyou is correct that this needs a larger forum. [[User:Fyunck(click)|Fyunck(click)]] ([[User talk:Fyunck(click)|talk]]) 22:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
:::Yes, I agree - if you see one use, you can rule out that they can't use them. However, each book is typset and decisions about cost and editorial control are made at that point. In some cases, especially older sources, typesetting proper diacritics was impractical. That doesn't mean we should avoid spelling things correctly.--[[User:Obiwankenobi|Obi-Wan Kenobi]] ([[User talk:Obiwankenobi|talk]]) 22:42, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
:::Yes, I agree - if you see one use, you can rule out that they can't use them. However, each book is typset and decisions about cost and editorial control are made at that point. In some cases, especially older sources, typesetting proper diacritics was impractical. That doesn't mean we should avoid spelling things correctly.--[[User:Obiwankenobi|Obi-Wan Kenobi]] ([[User talk:Obiwankenobi|talk]]) 22:42, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
::::The fact that you believe that anybody that doesn't spell things the way ''you'' want them spelled must not have enough resources to spell them the way ''you'' want them demonstrates your bias. Unicode has been around for almost 30 years and ubiquitous for almost 20, so this strawman argument that English publishers are somehow technologically prevented from spelling things the way ''you'' want them spelled can be dismissed without comment. And the (English) RS, not you, dictate what is the correct spelling in English. The fact that some foreign language chooses to spell a name or word some other way is irrelevant; foreign languages are not English and this is the English Wikipedia. Those that wish to are welcome to become editors on the <span class=plainlinks>[http://vi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicode WP:vi]</span>. You'll note that you're immediately aware that you are no longer visiting the English Wikipedia by the meaningless squiggles and Unicode gibberish you see on your screen. — <span class="vcard"><span class="fn nickname">[[User:Who R you?|<span class="nowrap">Who R you?</span>]]</span> <small>[[User talk:Who R you?|Talk]]</small></span> 06:12, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
::::The fact that you believe that anybody that doesn't spell things the way ''you'' want them spelled must not have enough resources to spell them the way ''you'' want them demonstrates your bias. Unicode has been around for almost 30 years and ubiquitous for almost 20, so this strawman argument that English publishers are somehow technologically prevented from spelling things the way ''you'' want them spelled can be dismissed without comment. And the (English) RS, not you, dictate what is the correct spelling in English. The fact that some foreign language chooses to spell a name or word some other way is irrelevant; foreign languages are not English and this is the English Wikipedia. Those that wish to are welcome to become editors on the <span class=plainlinks>[http://vi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicode WP:vi]</span>. You'll note that you're immediately aware that you are no longer visiting the English Wikipedia by the meaningless squiggles and Unicode gibberish you see on your screen. — <span class="vcard"><span class="fn nickname">[[User:Who R you?|<span class="nowrap">Who R you?</span>]]</span> <small>[[User talk:Who R you?|Talk]]</small></span> 06:12, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.
Icelandic (proper) names
"The policy on using common names and on foreign names does not prohibit the use of modified letters, if they are used in the common name as verified by reliable sources." Unlike for Irish vs. English where there are two versions for place names, in Iceland (and I assume other countries) there are just Icelandic names with (often) no English counterpart (counts double for peoples names). You would for sure find them on an Icelandic map. I assume you can always use them directly if you know them (and provide redirect for transliterated version). There has never been any controversy brought to my attention. The Icelandic alphabet use diacritics (and ö, þ, æ. People tend to misread Þþ for Pp and Ðð for Dd. I would think including these letters would be ok for peoples names (in title) as they are not that confusing? When putting names in new articles people just copy-paste? Or if not use the redirect (is there any rule about linking to real name and not the redirect?).
User:Comp.arch, I'm afraid the wording in this guideline is out of date and/or reflects the views of the editors who have edited the guideline, but as has been pointed out on this Talk page archive before in any case is at odds with Wikipedia's actual article reality. All straightforward Latin alphabet European bios and geos on en.wp have full font diacritics (except one). Icelandic names have been brought to RM, see Talk:Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir, but the consensus of editors is to treat Icelandic names the same as every other Latin alphabet name. Ideally the guideline needs editing to reflect the whole corpus of the encyclopedia rather than the views of a small group of editors on this Talk page. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:54, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are some good arguments in that RM against changing from ð and þ (even if þ is not in her name). And I can't say I agree with those who are supporting (that is, do not want ð and þ). I would like the guideline to be explicit about this, allowing these letters. If people oppose I wouldn't want it explicitly saying that :) Then each name could possibly go by what you find in sources. But as you would always find an Icelandic source (and it's the correct name) then I say at least say allow changing to the correct name if not requiring it. It may not matter much but at least Ð (and ð) will never be the first letter in a Icelandic name/word. And as people will not pronounce a name correctly anyway (with eg. th for Þþ) is there much harm in seeing a unusual letter? comp.arch (talk) 14:58, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:Comp.arch I agree, I would also like the guideline to be explicit about this, or at least not to be contradicting article reality. You can see the consensus among en.wp project editors is overwhelming at an RM like Talk:Dominik_Halmosi#Requested_move_2. However as I said this guideline page WP:EN has, at least in the past, been edited by a small group of editors with a result different from the consensus of editors in the en.wp article corpus. In fairness to editors here, there was around 2010 a reaction (if that is the right word) against foreign names/fonts as can be seen here Talk:Lech Wałęsa/Archives/2012/April#Move requestTalk:François_Mitterrand#Requested_moveTalk:Gerhard_Schröder#Requested_move. Since that time several notable participants in the issue have been either topic-banned or community-banned, with the result that the encyclopedia now is back to 2007-2010 situation of full use of diacritics except for 2 exceptions: (1) some bios with German -ß, see WP:ß, and (2) changes of nationality, such as Handel, Schoenberg, Navratilova. If you wish to propose a change to the wording here which would remove the conflict with en.wikipedia article reality and with editor consensus then I and hopefully others would warmly support it. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seems that no change has taken place with regard to Icelandic names, Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir etc. are still at Icelandic ð not d - which is not a simple English ABC + diacritic mark font issue. Time has really come, come and gone past the en.wp controversies of 3-4 years back, to make two needed changes:
(1) remove "general usage" in front of "reliable sources" for WP:DIACRITICS. As "Wałęsa" RMs illustrate we simply don't "follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language" for deciding when to use diacritics, we follow the high-MOS, Unicode sources with the option of full fonts.
I agree; those are good points. We should err in favour of accurate spelling. If certain sources have systematic inaccuracies, we don't have to slavishly follow them. bobrayner (talk) 17:12, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the first sentence of the section ("The use of modified letters (...) in article titles is neither encouraged nor discouraged") should be brought in line with current practice. The deeper details of how this is done (e.g. by excluding a set of sources that would be reliable in other contexts) should only be changed if the principle is set.
This can't be done as a corollary on icelandic names (it is a broader issue), so such change should be proposed (at least) under a separate appropriate title on this talk page, if not RfC. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:00, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
...which addresses neither of the two issues I mentioned in my previous comment on this page:
Don't adjust the minute details while the elephant is still in the room. The elephant being the wide discrepancy between the indifference proclaimed by the guideline ("...neither encouraged nor discouraged") and the current practice.
This is a wider issue than a discussion on Icelandic names. This should be discussed under an appropriate title, so that people interested in diacritics but not necessarily in Icelandic proper nouns know by the title of the section what is discussed here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever happens re above, the WP:DIACRITICS section doesn't cover what is now the more discussed area - in article/lead use of diacritical marks such as macrons in romanizations. I would propose a small text caveat being added at the bottom of the existing section, with after word-smithing something similar to below: In ictu oculi (talk) 03:20, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Non-Latin alphabet diacritical marks : The above guidance refers primarily to the use of Latin alphabet language diacritical marks in titles and article body where these marks are part of the normal modern spelling of the language. The above guidance does not primarily relate to diacritical marks used in romanizations of non-Latin alphabet languages - such as Chinese pinyin, romanization of Sanskrit, romanization of Japanese, romanization of Arabic. Such diacritical marks as may exist within common romanization systems are generally not used in titles, but may be used in article body, for example once in lead sentence, depending on MOS guidance for specific topic fields.
This is instruction creep. It is not up to naming conventions to encroach on the MOS. When you write "where these marks are part of the normal modern spelling of the language" to which language do you refer? The titles of articles should follow the usage in reliable English language sources. Under the MOS there may well be other criteria for spelling words in a different language in other ways to explain usage in other languages but this does not relate directly to the title. . -- PBS (talk) 22:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is not instruction creep since it is not giving instructions, but guidance and direction to the relevant MOS. Since en.wp universally uses diacritics for latin alphabet foreign names, the main area where "diacritics" is relevant is the secondary area of romanizations. Therefore it makes no sense to have a section "diacritics" which doesn't give any direction to the main area where diacritics guidance applies, namely romanizations. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:26, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Discrepancy between WP:DIACRITICS and current practice
Is it time to do something about the wide discrepancy between the indifference proclaimed by the guideline ("...neither encouraged nor discouraged") and the current practice? In ictu oculi (talk) 22:49, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Would this be more in line with current practice? -
(replace the first sentence of the diacritics section by:)
The use of modified letters (such as accents or other diacritics) in article titles is encouraged where available and appropriate:
example of a diacritic (triple dot) currently not technically available for article titles
Kept the example (the uncontroversial move back to where it was before is completed now), but changed the wording in order to draw attention to the importance of checking sources).
There isn't a discrepancy between the guideline and current practice, it's just that the guideline is applied inconsistently. There might be a case for talking in terms of getting rid of the guideline, since it might be argued that consensus for it has expired. But I don't see there is a case for a new guideline actively telling editors to abandon the normal English language usage they see in other reference works. Formerip (talk) 00:14, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FormerIP, Istanbul is listed among the sources at English exonyms as an exception where the exonym and the local name are distinguished by a diacritic mark, however that is unusual.
Indeed, unfortunately Istanbul is complicated by myriad historical issues which have less effect on the remaining 000s of Turkish geo/bio titles. It is easier to judge on a simpler case such as Talk:Rhône that, as the UN geo names committee found, omission of an accent doesn't create an exonym. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The move to which you linked at Talk:Rhône is a classic example of why this guideline should not be altered. In the most recent requested move the no examination of the usage in English language sources or the information that the name is derived from Latin into both languages was discussed. Instead people expressed opinions such as yours "Restore correct name" with no evidence presented to show what the correct name is, and support with comments such as "to keep the proper French spelling and for consistency reasons". Not one person who participated in that move presented a source based reason for changing the name. The current wording of this naming convention encourages such research, and to try to move away from that is detrimental to Wikipedia. -- PBS (talk) 16:00, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All I see there is that 6 editors unanimously disagreed with you and reverted your removal of accent from a French river. The editing community does not want or need "research" which consists of copying sources which do not have the capability to carry French accents. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:28, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You'd need to ask the 6 editors who reverted your move how they know Rhône is name that the river Rhône should be under. The question is rather how you arrived at the conclusion that "Rhone" was the correct title. But if you want to reopen it I suggest you ping all 6 editors who reverted your move at Talk:Rhône, not here. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:38, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The use of modified letters in article titles is neither encouraged nor discouraged
I reverted a change in the current wording:
The use of modified letters (such as accents or other diacritics) in article titles is neither encouraged nor discouraged;
The current wording follows policy of using reliable sources to determine article titles. Arguing that "diacritics in article titles is encouraged" is contrary to the AT policy. If such a change is to be made here it should not be made until there has been an RfC and consensus reached that such a change ought to be made -- PBS (talk) 22:18, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@PBS: - What if it were changed to "The use of modified letters (such as accents or other diacritics) in article titles is encouraged where reliable English sources dictate their inclusion. If found in reliable English sources they should be used where available and appropriate." Then you could have the two bullet points (minus the silly 'see what might happen if you don't' addition). Would that be closer to common practice these days? We had someone at Tennis Project try to dictate no-diacritics regardless of sourcing and that completely failed. The wording that was attempted here went the other extreme direction. Perhaps some common ground can be found? Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The current wording is ambiguous, a misunderstanding of the difference between (1) WP:IRS reliability and (2) font/MOS issues, disruptive and conflict-seeding, as well as at odds with article body and article title reality. When 100% of straightforward article titles are using full fonts this text is simply a clarification. Francis' text is completely uncontroversial. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:31, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support the change as proposed by User:In ictu oculi. Elimination of phrases such as "neither encouraged nor discouraged" which at best attempt to say something but in fact say nothing, and at worse lend themselves to use by both sides in an WP:EW, will certainly lead to less edit warring as well. Mercy11 (talk) 18:27, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose change — The fact that a small minority of WP editors wish English included more diacritics is irrelevant. Those that wish to espouse their own ideas and opinions are welcome to visit the blog-o-sphere; however, the foundation of Wikipedia, the Five Pillars, is all about the fact that Wikipedia cites external sources and relies on reliable sources to determine what is, and is not, correct. If you know that a fact is wrong in Wikipedia, but is sourced to a citation of a reliable source, you don't go to Wikipedia and complain about how the information is wrong and should be fixed, you go to the original source (or another reliable source) and attempt to get the correct information published, then you rely on that published correction as the basis for an update to Wikipedia. The fact that some Wikipedians believe that a word should be spelled this was or that way, with this squiggle here or that flourish there, is irrelevant; what a Wikipedian personally believes is meaningless in terms of what Wikipedia publishes; what a Wikipedian can cite from the preponderance of reliable external (in the case of WP:en, English) sources is all that matters. Those that want five dots over the Q or a big horizontal line through the O can go lobby the publishers to change what they print; they can go to the ISO and lobby to have their creative new artistic design incorporated into the ISO character set; they can do just about whatever they like to get changes made in the real world, what they can't do is whine and nag and complain on Wikipedia discussion boards until people get so fed up reading their tripe that they leave Wikipedia rather that put up with the bs of a few. The opinion of 3 or 30, on this little conversation in a dark corner of WP, is irrelevant. A complete change in the policies of Wikipedia, particularly to one which has been the subject of literally thousands, if not tens of thousands, of editor comments in other threads, is not permitted under WP rules. If we're going to have another 50pg no consensus argument about this policy, it requires a full RfC with listing in all the main pages. — Who R you?Talk20:32, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
support the change suggested by IIO. Who R you, I don't think anyone is suggesting not following reliable sources. Rather, we are suggesting that some sources are more reliable than others when it comes to reproducing diacritics. If a book is published in black and white it's a terrible source to determine the color of a Picasso painting. The same is true here - if a low-MOS website doesn't have the editorial resources to spell vietnamese names correctly, but specialist sources do, we should trust the specialist sources, since accuracy is important in a serious encyclopedia.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That black and white book analogy is terrible for diacritics. Certainly some sources are more reliable than others but assumptions are being made that because diacritics aren't used in some publications they either can't produce them or are too lazy to produce them. That would need to be proved for each publication. If you see even one use of diacritics in a publication then you can rule out that they can't produce them. It's simply choice just as some publications choose to use them. The new addition throws out that choice. But WhoRyou is correct that this needs a larger forum. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree - if you see one use, you can rule out that they can't use them. However, each book is typset and decisions about cost and editorial control are made at that point. In some cases, especially older sources, typesetting proper diacritics was impractical. That doesn't mean we should avoid spelling things correctly.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:42, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you believe that anybody that doesn't spell things the way you want them spelled must not have enough resources to spell them the way you want them demonstrates your bias. Unicode has been around for almost 30 years and ubiquitous for almost 20, so this strawman argument that English publishers are somehow technologically prevented from spelling things the way you want them spelled can be dismissed without comment. And the (English) RS, not you, dictate what is the correct spelling in English. The fact that some foreign language chooses to spell a name or word some other way is irrelevant; foreign languages are not English and this is the English Wikipedia. Those that wish to are welcome to become editors on the WP:vi. You'll note that you're immediately aware that you are no longer visiting the English Wikipedia by the meaningless squiggles and Unicode gibberish you see on your screen. — Who R you?Talk06:12, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Best turn your eyes away from Category:Turkish_economists then. The icelandic names I'm a bit less sure about, as those are using new letters - not just diacritical marks, so I could be convinced, but then again, why is it so bad to have an accurate title? This is not just "tolerating breaches", this is lived consensus across tens of thousands of biographies, of which only a vanishingly small number are not using the proper diacritics, and this consensus has been confirmed through hundreds of page moves and RM discussions over many years. if anything, it is this policy which no longer has consensus.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:54, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu and Þórður Guðjónsson are not "accurate", they are just Turkish and Icelandic, respectively. They are really inaccurate, from the point of view that English characters which English speakers generally need in order to decode what they are looking at are missing. There are a depressing number of articles that follow this pattern, I will grant, but the exceptions are not vanishingly small. They tend to relate to articles on better known subjects where Wikipedia has been able to rouse itself from apathy and resist. So, I don't see a consensus for blanket diacritics, I just see an insurgency against the English language which hasn't yet been dealt with.
FormerIP, language like "insurgency" isn't appropriate to use of your fellow article contributors and editors. And when you contradict Obiwankenobi and say "the exceptions are not vanishingly small" you are, like it or not, factually incorrect. Anyone who has been following this will probably know that there is only 1 straightforward BLP "foreigner" who has been moved to and then kept at an "English name". That is 1 among 100,000s of bio and geo articles. As for Turkish, use of Turkish fonts has increased rapidly in printed English books concerning Turkey in the last 10 years. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's a campaign of editing contrary to policy, even when the policy has been put the community and upheld, as it will be again on this occasion. "Insurgency" is a perfectly appropriate term, IMO. Formerip (talk) 10:34, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FormerIP, as at WP:HOCKEY and WP:TENNISNAMES, WP:TENNISNAMES2? There's also WP:AT "Søren Kierkegaard," WP:UE "German for German politicians", WP:EN "Tomás Ó Fiaich, not Tomas O'Fiaich" WP:MOSPN "Paul Erdős", WP:NCP "Antoni Gaudí,". Please consider the possibility that rather than an "insurgency" it could instead be that your reading of policy differs from the reading of other editors. In ictu oculi (talk)
It could be, but I think we are talking about the reading of only a small minority of editors who are deeply reformist on this question. I've started an RfC below, to test this is the case of eth and thor. If the RfC supports their continued use (and gets a decent response in terms of numbers) then you are right and I am wrong. Formerip (talk) 13:48, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on the grounds that this is ENGLISH wikipedia and we all know that "foreign sources," which goes against other naming convention since it says what English sources use (and a vast majority do not use diacratics), will be used to POV titles to non English names. Second thing to note here is some POV pushing by a usual suspect who made the change with no discussion what so ever. Disability expert (talk) 22:49, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You may also not be aware that the issue of html sports sources has been thoroughly rehearsed and resolved before in 2 specific projects where in each there was an objection from some editors to "foreign names" for BLP titles. (1) raised and resolved at WP:HOCKEY, and (2) raised by User:Tennis expert, cf. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tennis expert/Archive, at WP Tennis in 2011, which eventually was resolved by WP:TENNISNAMES RFC closed 8 June 2012. Aside from these 2 projects no project has proposed, then rejected, having a different standard of MOS for (say) French, Czech sportspeople as opposed to (say) French, Czech scientists and politicians. There is also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikiproject English created by User:Who R you?, deleted by the community in Nov 2011. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:08, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's right, I created that Project in the hopes of not having to waste thousands of man-hours, of what would otherwise be productive time, dealing with the same conversation, over and over again, every time that 3 or 4, typically foreign language editors, (as is precisely the case here with the 4 editors pushing it this time) get it into their minds that they'd get a kick out of disrupting the rest of the English editors by trying to, once again, every few months or so, get more of English Wikipedia into non-English. Meanwhile, I notice that a quick look at your edit history indicates that you don't actually do anything on WP:en other than start long, useless, unproductive arguments with people on the talk pages all over WP:en; perhaps you just figured this topic was a good opportunity to cause the next disruption. — Who R you?Talk06:47, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I particularly dislike the "see what might happen if you don't", which sounds like "be perfect, or prepared to get attacked". WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:34, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
New proposal: "can be used"
Modified letters (such as accents or other diacritics) can be used in article titles when available and appropriate:
example of a diacritic (triple dot) currently not technically available for article titles
Oppose. This is more realistic than the previous proposal, but it is not better than the current guidance and just saying "can be used" is not helpful in content disputes, because it just means one side saying "we can" and the other saying "yeah, but we don't have to". We may as well have no guidance at all.
On a procedural point, already made by users above, the current policy has previously been upheld by broad community discussion, so a similar discussion (for example an RfC) would be required to overturn it. Formerip (talk) 11:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose * Francis the advantage of following usage in reliable English language sources is that it avoids the need to analyse the results in terms of bullet points you have proposed, because usage in reliable English language sources will automatically include those points (and many others with due weighting). Ie if a name like that of a notable American called "Arnold Schoenberg" (or "Arnold Schonberg") it will be reflected in the reliable sources. If however there is another notable man from Germany with the name "Arnold Schönberg", then one would look at the reliable English language sources usage for that man and ignore the usage for an American with the name "Arnold Schonberg" ((or "Arnold Schonberg"). It is really a very simple rule "use the sources Luke". If one does that the complications you have bullet pointed disappear. --PBS (talk) 16:00, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not against reformulating this guideline per se if that is broadly deemed desirable to reflect developments in diacritics usage but it needs to be more clearly defined and balanced than this proposal.--Wolbo (talk) 16:15, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
support This clearly reflects broad consensus, actually it is weaker than broad consensus. However I would remove the "technical restriction" and 3-umlauts picture entirely. there's no point in telling people they can't do something that they can't do anyways.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:24, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By all means, please provide the link to the discussion where you claim that the majority of English WP editors came to a consensus that editors will make up their own spelling and ignore the English RS. And, of course, the 3-umlaut that you originally argued you wanted to be able to use (if you could), isn't actually a word/language/character however you want to classify it; it's a graphic creation, just like the pentagram or devil's horns or pitchfork or whatever that (particularly metal) rock bands have had graphic artists creating for decades. They weren't a part of any language then and they aren't now, and Wikipedia is not about children having fun creating articles with neat symbols in the titles so that they can feel special. That's part of why we don't leave the decisions for such things up to Wikipedia editors, so many of whom are still children/childish. — Who R you?Talk06:41, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPA Racial, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, national, sexual, or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities) directed against another contributor, or against a group of contributors. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse.
Oppose English Wikipedia's spelling is not up to the first English as a second language editor that gets a chance to sign on to WP:en and create a foreign language article. WP:en has long established, consensus based policies that say that English spelling is determined by the English RS, not based on the whim of some Wikipedia editor, be they sitting in some non-English speaking country somewhere else in the world or even if, on rare occasions, they happen to live in North America. — Who R you?Talk06:41, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Racial, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, national, sexual, or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities) directed against another contributor, or against a group of contributors. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse.
(edit conflict)PBS, "Wikipedia editors, so many of whom are still children/childish" and following comment would be read as plural but since the WP:NPA guideline says "against another contributor, or against a group of contributors" that's really nit picking. The intent of WP:NPA is clear. [edit - the comment below also states "group"]. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:55, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yet, for all your repeated posting of the same thing in multiple places (do we see a pattern here resembling that of a troll), I said nothing racial, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, national, sexual, nor any other epithet (such as against people with disabilities); nor did I direct any of those comments, that I didn't make, at any contributor or group of contributors. Perhaps you'd care go find a dictionary and look up words such as national. While you may interpret Vietnamese, English, Chinese, or German to mean nations, or take mention of such things as a slur of nationality, the truth is, particularly in this context, they are languages. There's nothing wrong with editors from foreign lands(a short-form for countries or regions where English is not the primary (official and de facto) language) contributing to en:WP; a problem only arises when a small group of those editors for whom English is not their primary language (that is, English as a second language editors), be they resident in North America, central Africa, southeastern Asia, or anywhere else, attempting to dictate that English should follow the pattern of their foreign language of choice. If I wish to contribute to the French or German, or heaven forbid the Russian or Chinese, Wikipedias, I am welcome to do so, subject to the obvious potential of revision and embargos on vandalism; what I'm not permitted to do is get together with a dozen other English WP editors and go to ru:WP and repeatedly start discussions, ad nauseam, demanding that ru:WP switch all their titles from the Cyrillic to the Latin alphabet so that English readers and editors will feel like ru:WP more accurately reflects the way things are done in English. Similarly, no one should, be they "sitting in some non-English speaking country somewhere else in the world or even if, on rare occasions, they happen to live in North America", use en:WP as their soapbox platform to wail about the injustices of the world and how, the fact that English publishers willfully opt to forego the use of non-English script, somehow proves that English publishers are incapable of, or too lazy, or too concerned about profits, or too understaffed, to figure out how to use Unicode. As for creating articles, you are correct, I have not spent my time creating hundreds of nonsensical one paragraph articles (such as Trương Quang Được), all of which clearly fail WP:NOTE / WP:BIO, having, according to the article references, never been, nor are they ever likely to be, the subject of any English RS; now, of course, tens of thousands of Wikipedian man-hours will need to be spent having countless RfDs to delete all the unsourced/non-notable nobodies that you've created articles about (as listed on your User page). Perhaps somebody familiar with Huggle, or whichever other useful productivity tool is appropriate, will be kind enough to flag those thousand or so articles for deletion on the basis of notability.WP:GNG — "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, … — Who R you?Talk18:47, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Recognizability and Naturalness
I think we need some discussion on how the above proposals might (or might not) conflict with the twin goals of Recognizability and Naturalness (the first two goals outlined in our WP:Article titles policy). A name may well be more accurate (or "correct") when diacritics are used, but if only a handful of English language sources use diacritics when presenting that name, I don't see how the version with diacritics would be recognizable or natural to our readers. Or to put it another way... The most recognizable and natural version of a name does not always match the most accurate version. Blueboar (talk) 14:01, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that providing the phrase "although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize." in Recognizability is noted (and followed) then there is no contradiction between "Recognizability" and "Naturalness". The problem is that with spelling, while both "color" and "colour" are recognisable, for many, probably thanks to years of conditioning in school, one or the other is not natural (aesthetically pleasing). It is understandable that for an editor familiar with one form of spelling, either with accent marks or without, that one looks more "natural" (aesthetically pleasing) than the other. As with national differences in spelling this is not something for which someone can easily change their opinion when asked which looks better. This means that two different editors can easily hold different opinions on which looks "correct". In the case of national differences of spelling Wikiepdia has a set of rules to reduce conflict over what is "correct". When it comes to the spelling of foreign subjects while editors may not be able to agree on which looks "correct" (ie aesthetically pleasing) if they act in good faith, they are usually able to agree on the metrics that measure which is most commonly used in reliable English language sources. I can fully understand how a Frenchman reading an article on Napoleon would see "Napoleon" spelt that way that as aesthetically displeasing (because just as an American sees "colour" as a spelling mistake, Napoleon would be a spelling mistake in French (in French his name is spelt "Napoléon"). If such a hypothetical Frenchman takes part in an WP:RM then he ought to put aside is personal preference and decide on the appropriate name by seeing what is commonly used in reliable English language sources. In doing this he is behaving as an "objective Wikipedian" (a concept similar to an objective historian).
Far to many Wikipedians support whichever spelling of a word they think is "correct" ie for their personal preference and ignore the evidence presented in reliable English language sources. This support for editorial personal preference means that some titles are probably not following spelling usage in reliable English language sources and so do not meet the dual requirements of "Recognizability" and "Naturalness" for the English speaking and reading public. With differences in national varieties of spelling, guidelines try to keep this to a minimum by suggesting that articles with close ties with a nation be spelt in that dialect (as that probably reduces the displeasure at inappropriate spelling as much as Wikipedia can for a global English language audience). If editors follow usage in reliable English language sources for the spelling of non English language national subjects then Wikipedia probably minimise the number of readers who find an article title to be aesthetically displeasing. I think that by taking time to research the usage in reliable English language sources far from "dumbing down" Wikipedia is following WP:V, one of the core content policies and is a more accurate encyclopaedia for it. -- PBS (talk) 19:44, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
RfC: Use of characters from the Icelandic alphabet
In article titles, eth and thorn should generally be used, where appropriate.
Option B
In article titles, eth and thorn should generally not be used. "d" and "th", respectively, should be used instead.
Option C
In article titles, eth and thorn should be used only in cases where it can be shown that this is the most common style for the name of the subject in question, following the general principle of WP:COMMONNAME.
Option D
In article titles, eth and thorn should be used unless it can be shown that the name of the subject in question has an anglicised form which is not simply a transliteration.
Option E
This is somthing that should just be left to the discretion of editors.
Discussion
oppose this overly broad RFC which is picking on the Icelandic alphabet for no good reason(what about other scripts?) and the overly broadly use of 'in wikipedia's voice' which doesn't clarify what the extent of this. If you want to formulate an RFC let's have some discussion here first on the scope and framing. For example, one way might be 'should we allow the use of these two characters in titles' - we'd also have to consider Æ i think.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the objection. The RfC focuses on two characters which have been the subject of recent discussion on this page. That's quite a narrow focus. I think a broader focus would be a bad idea because the issues involved would become more complicated and a "no consensus" outcome more likely. I don't personally find the use of "æ" controversial, which is why I have chosen not to include it in the question. Formerip (talk) 14:32, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy closeWhen writing in English, should the Icelandic letters ... be used in Wikipedia's voice? This is an inappropriate forum for this question. This is a naming convention (about article titles), this is a question for the WP:MOS or one of its guidelines. -- PBS (talk) 14:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close as disruptive - this editor has made very clear above his/her views on the "insurgency" of foreign names for foreign people and places on en.wp above, and blowing up this one minor issue is a dramatization of the broader issue which should be recognized first before grandstanding in this manner. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:43, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If there's broad support for closing down this RfC (not just from editors who support wide use of non-English characters), then I will happily hat it myself. Formerip (talk) 15:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Option B, per the policy at WP:UE, which states, "Names not originally in a Latin alphabet...must be transliterated" into letters that typical readers of English are likely to recognize. Thorn is a runic letter, not a Latin letter; therefore the policy already says that you need to transliterate it (for the title). Eth's origin is unknown to me, but it is certainly not recognizable by typical English readers (unlike accented characters, which all basically competent readers will recognize, even if they don't know how to type them on their own keyboards). Therefore, I'd reject eth on the same policy grounds, although I'm open to persuasion there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:54, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@FormerIP: please hat this proposal. You started off with one suggestion when that was pointed out was out of the scope of this page you changed it. But these ideas are against common name usage, ie if a survey of reliable English sources commonly use either one or more of the characters in the name then so should the Wikpedia article. If not then Wikipedia should not. This is no different from using "W" in a name as that is not an original Latin character and is not used in all European languages use that letter even though they use a Latin alphabet. If editors in RM discussions follow usage in reliable English language sources and it meet the requirements of the AT policy then there is no need for specifics like this. Suggesting that specific characters are included or excluded from article titles, encourages those who wish to ignore usage in reliable English language sources. -- PBS (talk) 18:28, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
