Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 December 18

< December 17	December 19 >

December 18

Template:Middle Tennessee Blue Raiders roster

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:30, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

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)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Jai McDowall

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was deleted per G5

Template:Jai McDowall (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Typical case of WP:NENAN. If, and if, he manages to make more then one album/single, it could be useful. But he can still be a one-hit wonder. Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete, not enough articles linked to make this template necessary. –anemoneprojectors– 14:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Sufism in Sindh

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:29, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

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)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:CHLBracket

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete as a blank hardcoded frontend to {{16TeamBracket}} with no transclusions. Should be easy to recreate, since it's entirely blank, if needed in the future. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:32, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

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)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Unaccredited-Christian

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:33, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

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)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Foreign character

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete. FASTILY ^{Happy 2012!!} 08:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

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)

When it is needed to write the name 1. FC Köln without an umlaut in English language texts, the correct solution is "1. FC Cologne". A Wikipedia author used this template for inserting the incorrect claim that "1. FC Koeln" should be used instead. --Steinhöfer (talk) 13:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Then why don't you move the article? That would solve that specific problem. And if the club themselves can't make up their minds how to write their English name (Koln/Cologne) then we should use what is orthographically correct (see the references on the template doc) and not what may be guessed from their homepage. De728631 (talk) 00:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• Then why don't you move the article? That's a different discussion: Both "1. FC Köln" and "1. FC Cologne" are used in English language texts, and it's a non-trivial question which one is more correct. But what to use in English language texts when no umlaut is available is a clear choice - and it is not 1. FC Koeln as this template claims.
• And if the club themselves can't make up their minds how to write their English name (Koln/Cologne) Please give a reference for your claim that the club is actually using "Koln" (without umlaut).

--Steinhöfer (talk) 01:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Now I got confused there. It seems they use both Köln and Cologne on their English site. Anyhow, then that site is not relevant for this discussion because they don't transliterate at all. De728631 (talk) 17:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

It is highly relevant for this discussion since it proves that blind ö -> oe transliteration (without a reference for this specific case) using this template can create incorrect information in Wikipedia: This template claims in the Wikipedia article The title of this article contains the character ö. Where it is unavailable or not desired, the name may be represented as 1. FC Koeln.. Even in the unlikely case that umlauts are not available "1. FC Koeln" is not the best solution. --Steinhöfer (talk) 18:53, 21 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)

What you don't appear to understand is that they follow language-specific rules, and once you know the source language, the transformation is deterministic. It's only the language-tagging that can't be automated. I see this template as kin to Template:Icelandic name, informing people unfamiliar with a language/culture of a convention that is undisputed (and very easily sourced) among people who do know it. You don't need a specific source per instance, any more than you need to find a specific source to justify replacing a specific "&" with "and". (Once it's known that the language is English.)

I'd certainly be happy to replace the replace the template with templates for {{German word}}, {{Swedish word}}, {{Icelandic word}}, etc., which a clever template programmer could possibly automate. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 04:06, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that there are language-specific rules, but these rules are not always followed. See the discussion elsewhere about people choosing between ö → oe and ö → o. As long as that can happen (and it does not appear to be going away), this template cannot be automated, and each of its uses should have a citation. Ozob (talk) 09:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

If there is an established anglicization, obviously use it. However, the policy at WP:UE explicitly acknowledges that a citeable transliteration moight not exist, and says whatto do in that case: "If there are too few English-language sources to constitute an established usage, follow the conventions of the language appropriate to the subject (German for German politicians, Portuguese for Brazilian towns, and so on)." :::::[Vote struck to avoid duplicate with later comment below.] 71.41.210.146 (talk) 06:14, 24 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)

Well, that is your personal choice. I am German too and I too happen to have an ö in my name which I either use as is or transliterate as oe if asked for substituting the ö. And as you might know, styling and layout in journals is in the eye of the editor, not the author. If that wasn't the case, why are the journals you contribute to unable to handle characters like ö? Don't they have unicode support in printing or a full TeX set at least? De728631 (talk) 00:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Unicode and LaTeX did not exist 30 years ago. --Steinhöfer (talk) 01:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

But the character ö surely existed back then. It of personal interest, have you ever tried to submit a paper with "Steinhöfer" as the author and got it returned? De728631 (talk) 17:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

You have to choose one spelling that covers all publications in all databases. Keeping the umlaut would have created the risk of Steinhöfer/Steinhofer/Steinhoefer confusion 30 years ago, so it was easier to pick one transliteration and use that. Different people did choose different transliterations. --Steinhöfer (talk) 18:53, 21 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)

Comment. I am sorely tempted to abandon the principle of WP:AGF on reading this preposterous comment by Outback the koala - who according to his user page is Canadian (Isn't French an offical language there?) and is of Italian and Dutch ancestry. Not much chance of his being acquainted with "non-English symbols" then. And his "outdated computer", he's trying to tell us, which he presumably uses to contribute to Wikipedia , is unable to load a browser that will show these fiendish symbols in an ungarbled form? Pull the other one , buddy, it's got bells on.--Smerus (talk) 19:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I gave my opinion and for that I get attacked. I was honest, and I don't see what my background and nationality have to do with anything! This is unfair, and I have never found this anywhere else on wikipedia. I'm disappointed to say the least. Outback the koala (talk) 06:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Let's stop that personal attack level. Can you answer my questions 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? instead? That would help other people to understand your exact problems. --Steinhöfer (talk) 10:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. If someone genuinely doesn’t understand such characters, this template isn’t going to help. For anyone else it’s just a distraction, and its pronouncements are hardly as authoritative as it makes them appear. David Arthur (talk) 01:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Where did you read anything about pronouncements or understanding certain characters? This template is about alternative spelling in the absence of an appropriate charset. And what is so authoritative about the phrase "may be represented"? De728631 (talk) 21:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
    • The line of logic is quite simple - WP strives to be encyclopaedic, that is, authoritative and evidence-based in its statements - the unqualified phrase 'may be represented' at the top of an article seems to carry the imprimatur of WP - hence the phrase (misleadingly) gives the impression of being 'authoritative'.--Smerus (talk) 22:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
      • Evidence in the form of reliable references has now been presented at the template documentation for some common characters. Whereever else this template is used it may be removed from the article or other references should be added. De728631 (talk) 22:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
        • Evidence has been presented that the the BBC often transliterates German names differently in English texts, and that contrary to the claim of this template in the article, "1. FC Koeln" is not the correct way to write 1. FC Köln without an umlaut in English language texts - proving that reliable references are needed in every single article using this template to confirm the correctness of the transliteration in that specific article. --Steinhöfer (talk) 23:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
          • The BBC don't seem to have any strict rules about umlauts at all. As jared Preston has shown above, they may even keep them in a name "Müller". See also their report about Herta Müller winning the Nobel Prize: Mueller wins Nobel literary prize, some football news mentioning Thomas Müller who is written Mueller, a news item about Christian Wulff succeeding Horst Koehler and the latter's resignation. Triathlete Kristin Möller is spelled Moeller by the BBC. So that source doesn't seem to be very representative but looks rather like an editorial choice from case to case. De728631 (talk) 01:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
            • The BBC is not always always consistent on that. You also see that at other pages, like CNN using Horst Kohler and Herta Muller in some articles. And that is exactly why a template claiming there was only one choice used for transliteration should be deleted. The best form is with the umlaut, and for cases like Muller/Mueller Wikipedia cannot claim that there was only one non-umlaut transliteration used in English language texts since that doesn't match the reality of major news sites. --Steinhöfer (talk) 01:39, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
              • For the very last time and for those who have still not gotten it: the template never ever made any claims that there was only one ultimate way of transcribing a special character. And it's not only about German characters but is works as well for ø, æ, Ł, etc. If there was a demand for more than one alternate spelling this could have been applied from the very beginning. See below:

{{foreign character|Koehler or Kohler|ö}} De728631 (talk) 17:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• • • • • • • • • Did Horst Köhler ever use a non-umlaut transliteration of his name for the English language? If yes, which? In that case there would be one correct transliterations for his name, and all others would be wrong. The situation is really not as simple as you claim it was. Just consider that Nobel Price Winner Rudolf Mößbauer transliterated the ß but kept the ö when he was in the USA, and that transliteration is also used by the Nobel Committee. --Steinhöfer (talk) 18:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. The nominator is right, this template is no longer useful.--Ultimate Destiny (talk) 05:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
• delete--96.229.210.168 (talk) 23:27, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
• Comment as some people may be using antiquated browsers on systems that don't support many non-ASCII characters, this should be useful in indicating what character is being replaced by a "?" or black box or whatever unknown characters are replaced by, in the title of the article (the text of the article should have a standard box about using non-ASCII characters, and not indicate which ones are being used, like how Korean articles are indicated) 76.65.128.198 (talk) 05:00, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• What systems and browsers actually have these problems? Are there really any? If yes, which? A browser not being able to display all fonts used in Klingon language is no surprise, and not everyone has Korean fonts installed. The characters in German we are discussing here are part of the first 256 characters in Unicode, and I'd expect them to be available even on systems that don't support many non-ASCII characters. --Steinhöfer (talk) 10:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• The German WP has a UTF-8 FAQ site. Apparently Mac OS stopped their support for Internet Explorer in 2003 and you don't have a proper Unicode with that setup. Another problem seems to be the Reget download manager on Mac OS which must deactivated. Netscape 4 is not able at all to handle special characters. On Browser issues with MediaWiki they also list K-meleon (Mozilla)/Windows 95 and Opera 5.0 for Mac. De728631 (talk) 17:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• The pages you are pointing to were created in 2004 and 2001, and back then browsers not supporting Unicode were still common.
• Unicode-supporting Netscape 6 and Internet Explorer 5.5 were released in 2000, Opera 6 was released in 2001 - making the problematic versions obsolete since more than 10 years.
• Internet Explorer for Mac is discontinued since 2003, implying that it misses 8 years of security fixes.
• In March 2003 a user was using a version of K-Meleon (a quite obscure Gecko based browser) that did not support Unicode and wrote it to the page you are linking to - unlikely to be relevant today.
• As explained on the German page you are linking to, using Netscape 4 for viewing Wikipedia is anyway a horrible idea since it lacks enough CSS support.
• Check how Internet Explorer 5.0 renders Wikipedia at browsershots.org: Recent versions of MediaWiki get misrendered so badly that missing Unicode support is one of the smaller worries.

When ancient browsers that anyway misrender Wikipedia badly and lack years of security fixes are needed to justify this template, that's a good indicate that it should be deleted. --Steinhöfer (talk) 21:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

You have never walked into government offices then, frequently those computers have floppy drives and run Windows 98. Wikipedia should give a warning when 7-bit standard ASCII doesn't display the title, and so work with text browsers, which frequently spit out QuotePrintable encoding of non-ASCII characters. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 12:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

As already explained, browsers old enough to not support Unicode also misrender Wikipedia badly. Text browsers like lynx also support Unicode without problems. --Steinhöfer (talk) 00:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• I use Firefox 8.0 on Windows XP SP3 and I still can't get this simple text page to display the intended umlaut characters in the RA field. I've tried several encodings from UTF-8 to Central European but all I get are either ? or random symbols or . My first guess is that the text file has been written on a Linux file system because swapping between Linux/Windows text files is still a known issue in terms of character sets. De728631 (talk) 20:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• "this simple text page" is simply broken and not proving anything that way. Except when looking at the contents, it shows exactly what I explained above why I did choose one transliteration for my name so that not every database has a different version of my name - and if I was notable a Wikipedia author might add a different, and therefore wrong, transliteration to an article of me using this template. --Steinhöfer (talk) 21:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Regarding the transcription of umlauts in German, consider also section 1.2.1.1 of the German linguistic guide for database coding by Indiana University Bloomington: "This means that the vowels, ä, ö, ü , Ä, Ö, Ü and the 'sharp s' ß are replaced by the combinations ae, oe,ue, Ae, Oe, Ue and ss. The word regelmäßig is represented as regelmaessig." Or see this site by University of Cincinnati: "accents are omitted, German umlauts are transcribed as follows: ä -> ae, ö -> oe, ü -> ue; German 's-z' (ß) -> ss." Omitting the dieresis ö -> o etc. may be common practice by some English media but why is this not mentioned and/or applied in scientific guidelines/sources? It has been said that Wikipedia strives to be authoritative so we should prefer common scientific practice over common news. De728631 (talk) 20:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• The practices of the largest broadcaster in the world are more authoritative than picking a paper or two written by some people at some universities. Can you prove through references that exactly the papers you are citing are considered authoritative for defining common scientific practice? --Steinhöfer (talk) 21:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Does the BBC consistently drop the umlauts or is the Steinhofer example the only one you've found. Does the BBC style guide advise just dropping the umlaut.Tobyc75 (talk) 12:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

The BBC seems to consider several transliterations as correct. When you search with Google, you will find on the BBC website for Rudolf Mößbauer (including Mössbauer spectroscopy and the Mössbauer effect) all of Mössbauer/Moessbauer/Mossbauer (note that öß -> öss (sic) is what he used himself in the USA). "Lothar Matthaus" is used more often than "Lothar Matthaeus" for Lothar Matthäus on the BBC website, "Herta Muller" is used more often than "Herta Mueller" for Herta Müller on the BBC website. --Steinhöfer (talk) 16:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

And blindly doing transliterations as is common practice with this template can conflict with the spelling the person has chosen for himself in the English language. Like Mößbauer -> Mössbauer. --Steinhöfer (talk) 16:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• The practices of the largest broadcaster in the world are more authoritative than picking a paper or two written by some people at some universities. Excellent. As has been shown above, the current template practice of ä -> ae etc. is also covered by BBC's style, so we should end this discussion. De728631 (talk) 14:24, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• We agree that there are different spellings used by the BBC: Sometimes ä -> ä, sometimes ä -> ae, and sometimes ä -> a. It is therefore wrong to claim there was only one non-umlaut spelling, as is usually done in the usages of this template. --Steinhöfer (talk) 16:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• Keep, with major changes: I think the information in these hatnotes *is* useful, even though it's pretty bloody obvious to anyone who is familiar with the source language. I see it like {{Icelandic name}} in that regard. But perhaps the *way* it's done' is sub-optimal.
  First, I'd like to make the point that the information is useful. Not only do I use text-mode browsers at least weekly (logging in to or from various network closets and other inconvenient places without full GUIs), but there are plenty of database and storage formats that are limited to 7-bit ASCII. "But you can display accented characters everywhere!" isn't the point; you might want to do something with a name beyond looking at it on the screen, and there are plenty of legacy databases around that you might want to interoperate with.
  Second, there are more alternatives than "keep the template unchanged" and "delete it". A lot of the delete arguments here are simply complaints about the status quo; they could just as well be arguments for significant overhaul.
  Perhaps we could have a template that specifies the source language explicitly (either as part of the template name or a parameter) and expands to something like This is a (language) word/name, and includes characters not found in the English alphabet. If they are not available, the preferred transliteration is (whatever).. (One nasty case is the Icelandic letter eth, which is commonly translated as either "th" or "dh".) 71.41.210.146 (talk) 04:59, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

  You already voted above, so I have struck out this vote. Ozob (talk) 09:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

  Thank you! I wanted to make a further comment, lower down where it was more likely to be read, and wasn't sure how to mark the duplicate. Since this is intended as an update, I'll go and strike out my earlier one and un-strike this one.

• Good idea. And you can always add multiple transliterations like The title of this page is in Icelandic language and includes characters not found in the English alphabet. If they are not available, the preferred transliteration is Egilsstadhir or Egilsstathir. De728631 (talk) 16:53, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

• Not only do I use text-mode browsers at least weekly That sounds strange, and sounds more like a local configuration problem. What text browser are you using?
• but there are plenty of database and storage formats that are limited to 7-bit ASCII Every legacy software only supporting ASCII already has it's own rules whether you have to enter 1. FC Köln as "1. FC Koln", "1. FC Koeln" or "1. FC Cologne".
• The IP said One nasty case is the Icelandic letter eth, which is commonly translated as either "th" or "dh". and De728631 said If they are not available, the preferred transliteration is Egilsstadhir or Egilsstathir. What you two are writing is complete nonsense: You are mixing two different letters of the Icelandic language, one of them (ð) is transliterated as dh, and the other one (þ) as th.

--Steinhöfer (talk) 01:00, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• Well, with the Icelandic letters I was merely following your logic of multiple common spellings. I got (and still get) some 3,000 Google hits for "Egilstathir" in various languages even though I knew it was actually a wrong transliteration. De728631 (talk) 15:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. Template is not needed for finding an article, it is not needed for correct rendering of letters in browser, in short - it is not needed anymore. If somebody wants to know how some German (or other script) letter is pronounced or alternatively written, template is not right place for it but (s)he should look for article about that script. SpeedyGonsales 00:42, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. If there is any information in template which is not present in articles about scripts that template covers (which is doubtful but possible), that information should be moved to appropriate article before deletion. SpeedyGonsales 00:42, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
• Suggestion. I previously voted to delete this template. My main objection to the template is that it creates a hatnote, which I do not feel is appropriate as it is too prominent and distracting to readers. However, given the significant number of editors who feel this template provides useful information my suggestion would be to write a new template to replace those which create hatnotes with ones which create footnotes. Almost all articles repeat the article title in bold in the first sentence of the article. The footnote could be added there. The footnote form would also be more flexible. For instance, it could be used for terms with foreign characters which appear in the body of articles, when the article title might not use foreign characters. I think most editors would find this approach to be less objectionable. If the current uses of the hatnote template are replaced with footnote versions, then the hatnote templates could be more easily be deleted. --Robert.Allen (talk) 08:46, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• That sounds like a valuable alternative, consider also 71.41.210.146's proposal above for rewriting the templated message. But if that is ever implemented we should take care not to place the footnote into any existing references section per {{reflist}} but create a new "Notes" section where needed. After all the template message itself is not a reference. De728631 (talk) 16:53, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

• It doesn't help with the main problem: No matter where to display it, the contents has to be correct. Just look at the nonsense you wrote about Icelandic letters above, or the already discussed wrong information a Wikipedia author put a hatnote through this template in 1. FC Köln, or the already discussed fact that major sites like the BBC or CNN often use a transliteration different from the one some authors claimed in this discussion to be the only correct one. --Steinhöfer (talk) 01:06, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Exactly where to place the footnote will of course depend on the specific article and how notes are organized in it. And I agree, the note should provide correct information. This suggestion only addresses the hatnote issue, which of course is only part of the problem. --Robert.Allen (talk) 09:11, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• As to Icelandic, see above. De728631 (talk) 15:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete, per the original nomination rationale. —Nightstallion 15:44, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. I see the nominator's point about how the diacriticless version shouldn't always be propped up - that probably shouldn't be done by default. Hiding that part behind a new optional template parameter, e.g. "|strippeddiacritics=ok", can make that issue go away. Yet, that still doesn't make the matter of diacriticless versions go away - it's almost always the case that there's such an incoming redirect ({{R from title without diacritics}}), so this template can clarify that situation, in a manner similar to how {{redirect}} works. Linking specific characters to provide explanation for them remains a reasonably valid idea IMO, because e.g. in the intro to Goran Višnjić, you have to first spend some time parsing the IPA string to deduce that š maps into ʃ and that ć maps into tʃ, which you can then click on, and arrive at a large, confusing table. I later noticed that there's also a mouseover effect there that tells the reader immediately that e.g. tʃ is like 'ch' in 'china', which is good, but I managed to skip over it earlier so that's sadly not a panacea. So, having explicit links to š and ć would seem like a reasonable option, so a template facilitating that should continue to exist. However, it might be best if it was inline, like {{IPAc-en}} or {{respell}}. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 00:54, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• This template is not for pronunciation. The article states that Goran Višnjić has chosen the spelling "Goran Visnjic" for himself in the English language. This is the correct spelling of his name in English language texts. This template is not at all related to pronunciation in general or IPA. That's a completely unrelated discussion. --Steinhöfer (talk) 01:00, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• Sheesh. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• Keep per Stemonitis's comments above. that this template might appear on articles where it is unnecessary (such as À la carte) is not a reason to delete it, but rather a reason to remove it from those articles. I would imagine most users of Wikipedia are unfamiliar with German and the convention of replacing an umlaut with an E-infix after the A, O or U or that ß is equivalent to a doubled S. I can see that articles such as Goran Višnjić (or À la carte) might be better served by replacing the template with a comment in the lead, but I do not believe that is the case for all articles using this template. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 16:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• Keep per Stemonitis's comments above ... most users of Wikipedia are unfamiliar with German and the convention of replacing an umlaut with an E-infix after the A, O or U You seem to miss the whole discussion after that. This is the convention in German language texts. As already discussed, there is also a strong usage in English language media of the non-E-infix ö -> o kind of transliterations, and it is therefore wrong that the English Wikipedia currently mandates in more than a thousand articles that E-infix was the only correct transliteration in English language texts. And the spelling German people use for themselves in the English language is also more complicated (just look at the Mößbauer -> Mössbauer example above). --Steinhöfer (talk) 12:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Keep and Move to my userspace. I'll take a few days to make sure pure-Latin has redirects to extended latin titles; then delete. For example; Resume rd-> Résumé sort of thing. Quite useful for direct linking. I'm not going to explain the logic that is already covered; but it's a fast access template that simply works. Lostinlodos (talk) 05:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)Lostinlodos (talk) 05:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

  Sorry, I'm afraid I don't understand what you're saying. Perhaps you're confusing these templates with Template:R from title without diacritics? Ozob (talk) 11:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete, I think my move request some time ago to "Template:Non-English character" also shows some problems of this template. Even though there was no consensus, I still feel "foreign" is an inappropriate term. Of course, a page name could be fixed, but in general, the point of this template isn't clear. I mean, why should we not use the "foreign" characters in articles? That doesn't make sense at all, and I'm pretty sure it goes against some of those policies out there as well. --The Evil IP address (talk) 12:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• As has been said in this discussion, the information provided by the template is actually not primarily for use in Wikipedia articles and not at all for fixing any pages names but for a general information about substituting characters that are not available on someone's character set for whatever reason. See the various comments above by users not having regular unicode access or on software that doesn't support special characers. And if "foreign" is considered an inappropriate term that is no reason to delete the entire template but it may be a reason to rewrite the template message. De728631 (talk) 15:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

If the information in this template "is actually not primarily for use in Wikipedia articles", then what is it on Wikipedia articles for? I think you mean that instances of this template should not need citations. Is that correct? A simple yes or no would suffice. Ozob (talk) 19:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The template is meant to provide additional information about the spelling of a page name that may or may not be needed for Wikipedia but that is certainly helpful for outside applications; and that is Wikipedia's main task, to provide information. While some think that this can be done in the article text proper, I think it is beneficial to have it in form of a hatnote because that is most helpful for people with limited character sets. Footnotes may easily be mistaken for general references but a prominent hatnote quickly tells the reader how to circumvent certain obscure characters if needed.

It seems that outside applications don't take any notice of this hatnote; see A. Dürer on Facebook. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:17, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

As to citations: no, this template doesn't need footnote citations on the article level; but yes, references should be provided in the template documentation. De728631 (talk) 20:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, so this template provides information. Therefore that information needs citations just like all other information in Wikipedia articles. As established elsewhere in this thread, the proper English representation of 1. FC Köln is "1. FC Cologne", not "1. FC Koeln" like you might predict. Therefore transliterations do not always follow regular rules; therefore citations must be provided on a per-article basis. Ozob (talk) 21:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

My suspicion is that if the template editors insist on maintaining the hatnote format, a majority of editors will vote for its deletion. A refusal to compromise may lead to total defeat. --Robert.Allen (talk) 23:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

As this might eventually become a proper vote instead of a discussion you may be right. I for one won't insist on the hatnote but I think it's useful that way. De728631 (talk) 00:16, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

All non-free images in Wikipedia articles need a fair-use rationale. Do we display such rationales inside the articles? No. And please don't jump on the Cologne train too because that comparison is simply wrong. "Cologne" is not a transcription of Köln with an umlaut character as the template would suggest but it's a translation of the entire name, which is a totally different thing. Transcription in this case is a matter of orthography and orthography follows general rules. De728631 (talk) 00:16, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The template claims The title of this article contains the character ö . Where it is unavailable or not desired, the name may be represented as 1. FC Koeln. This is bad information. You should add the information that an alternative English name is "1. FC Cologne" to the article (also solving the umlaut problem), not insist Wikipedia should continue to claim "1. FC Koeln" was the best non-umlaut representation in English language texts. --Steinhöfer (talk) 21:51, 1 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steinhfer (talk • contribs)

Then why don't you add FC Cologne to the lead section or perhaps to the template message as well? Feel free to improve the page. De728631 (talk) 23:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Deleting this template will improve this and also remove false information from more articles. First delete wrong information by deleting this template, then add more correct information. Your false claim that Where it is unavailable or not desired, the name may be represented as 1. FC Koeln. was definitely correct is the biggest problem. --Steinhfer (talk) 23:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

For the use of "ö -> oe" in English language, see

1. "Section 3 – Cuneiform final" (PDF). Harvard University. p. 3. For example, modern German employs a diaeresis or umlaut on some of its vowels: ä, ö, ü. We don't have this convention in English, so we transliterate these letters as ae, oe, and ue.
2. Smith, J.T. (2008). "Math Proseminar Outline 44" (PDF). San Francisco State University. p. 1. German: The letters Ä, Ö, Ü are different from A, O, U, and pronounced differently. ... Those letters are equivalent to AE, OE, UE.
3. Irregular Serials and Annuals. An International Directory: 1982-83 (8th ed.). R. R. Bowker. 1982. p. xi. ISBN 0835215741.
4. Honigmann, John Joseph (1959). The World of Man. Harper & Row. p. xi. ISBN 0060429003.

For FC Koeln in particular, see

1. a fanpost on BBC: "FC Koeln are my Bundesliga team largely due to my girlfriend being a cologne girl."
2. mirrorfootball.co.uk: "Tomoaki Makino of Koeln looks on prior to the Bundesliga match between 1. FC Koeln [sic!] and Borussia Moenchengladbach..."
3. football-livescore.co.uk: "1.FC Koeln (and 1.FC Nuernberg [sic!]"
4. metro.co.uk: "Franck Ribery (L) of Muenchen receives the Red card from Referee Guido Winkmann during the Bundesliga match between FC Bayern Muenchen and 1. FC Koeln at Allianz Arena on December 16, 2011 in Munich [sic!], Germany." Note how the club names are transcribed while the city Munich is translated to its proper English name.
5. fan.vom1.fc.koeln, a German ebay account.
6. Getty Images: "1. FC Koeln" [8], [9], multiple instances
7. item for sale on British ebay: "pennant 1.FC Koeln (GERMANY)".
8. Amazon.co.uk: "1.Fc Koeln: Ein Club.Ein"; rendition of a German CD title with fan songs, originally "1. FC Köln. Ein Club. Ein Gefühl. Mein Verein".

De728631 (talk) 00:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

You are simply proving my point. The usual rules say that "1. FC Köln" should be "1. FC Koeln"; but the club's website has "1. FC Cologne". There is no single, unique, inarguable, undebateable transliteration. If the article is going to give a transliteration of the club's name, then it needs to discuss all the transliterations in use and give citations for each of them.

I feel like we are going in circles. It's time for someone to close this discussion. Ozob (talk) 03:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we're going in circles since you still haven't understood that Cologne is not a transcription/transliteration of Köln, i.e. it's not a direct substitution for the letter ö, but a translation from one language to the other. And that has never been the task of this template and comments on the club calling themselves FC Cologne every now and then may be useful inside the article's lead section. Transliterations (again: the swapping of certain letters) may be versatile and the template is suited to deal with that, see also the various references that have been added to the template page.

But I wholeheartedly agree that this debate should be closed either way. De728631 (talk) 18:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: in a previous deletion discussion for this template it was noted that undesired templates may be blanked out by css: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 June 3. So, "this is ugly" or "distracting/confusing" are no valid arguments. De728631 (talk) 00:39, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't apply to the majority of Wikipedia readers. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:17, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete - per all the comments above. --Katarighe (Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 21:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
• Keep - per all the comments above. Some Wiki Editor (talk) 15:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - it's a bother to the reader, and not necessary... it's pretty obvious that you need to change the character anyway. Rory ^{Come for talkies} 11:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
• Keep — Most readers of this, the English-language Wikipedia, are American, and most Americans' eyes cross when presented with diacritical marks. Other than us geeks, most readers of Wikipedia don't know how to enter any but the 26 letters of the English alphabet, and this template tells them how to make do with their standard keyboards. It might even pique an interest in foreign languages of a few of them. — Robert Greer (talk) 02:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

there has been a number of comments with the same misconception as Robert Greer. 'Most readers of Wikipedia don't know how to enter any but the 26 letters of the English alphabet' is pure WP:OR. And this template does not 'tell' such unfortunates 'how to make do with their standard keyboards', it misleads them into believing that it is OK to ignore such characters, and thus betrays a basic principle of WP, to give accurate encyclopaedic information. As most comments on this longlived TFD (including this one) are repetitions of what has gone before, could some kind person now review and close the discussion?--Smerus (talk) 08:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:NFL team demo2

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:08, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:NFL staff navbox

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:20, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Template:NFL staff navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:NFL roster navbox

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:20, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Template:NFL roster navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:NFL Season List Row

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:08, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:NFL Season List Header

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:08, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:NFL SBS season

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:08, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:NFL 2nd Division teams

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:08, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:NFLSeasonBeta

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:08, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:NFLN

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:05, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

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)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:NF-Board national football team

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:05, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:NES Zapper

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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)

Closed! Bulwersator (talk) 07:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:National Socialist Party/meta/color

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:30, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Template:National Socialist Party/meta/color (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is currently unused. –HTD 05:04, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

• Speedy delete under G8 or include explanation why and where it is used Bulwersator (talk) 06:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Alliance for Barangay Concerns/meta/color

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:30, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Template:Alliance for Barangay Concerns/meta/color (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is currently unused. –HTD 05:03, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

• Speedy delete under G8 or include explanation why and where it is used Bulwersator (talk) 06:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Florida Spring Training

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:04, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

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)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Translit-brx2

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:03, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

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)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Translit-sa2

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:02, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

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)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Singapore-lang-mcpht

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete, with no prejudice concerning the creation of a merged template. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:11, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

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)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox kdrama

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:01, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

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)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.