Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English)/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12

Requested Comment

I was requested to comment on this, and so I shall. In my humble opinion this seems to be a simple, but important, issue that oftentimes can be and is thrown off track by discussing items not related or not quite what is up for discussion. The use of diacritics in articles should be continued where they are appropriate (that is, not where there is an established English equivalent). If there are questions about what the word 'established' implies, then it can be discussed on an article-by-article basis. Just because when English is written it typically does not include diacritics (with notable exceptions like resumé or attaché or the above higher/whore difference), does not mean they are not important in understanding a foreign subject covered by an article in an English language encyclopedia. Remember, this is an English Language encyclopedia not an English Content encyclopedia. For example, even when writing the name of the Slovak city "Košice" I always use the diacritic above the 's.' Even when typing with my standard American laptop keyboard I always use the 'š' letter. If not, what I've written or typed would be pronounced if read aloud as "Ko-see-tsa" which is not correct. With the diacritic, one knows right away it would be "Ko-she-tsa." Ignorance of diacritical meaning by a general readership is EMPHATICALLY NOT an excuse to dumb down an ENCYCLOPEDIA either. Wikipedia already deals with public relations issues about its veracity and correctness, which I have in my own life heartily defended, and if one is to overhaul hundreds of thousands of articles to remove diacritics and thus dumb down the articles (unlike 'established' encyclopedias like Brittanica which DO have diacritics) it will only create more problems rather than solve them. Thus, my two cents has been issued. And, as a disclaimed, I am a third generation American (12th generation on my mother's side) and have no special interest in promoting the use or "permeation" of foreign elements in English. I simply want to do what's right. Demokratickid (talk)

Spelling it as "Kosice", is good enough for me. Particulary, when those letters are already there. GoodDay (talk) 22:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
It may be good enough for you, but encyclopedias and Wikipedia do not set their standards by one personal opinion. There are no dictatorial fiats, only policy achieved by consensus on here which is why this conversation even exists. As well, the letter 'š' exists right along side with 's' so I would have to say that both letters are already there, sorry. Demokratickid (talk)
I never claimed it did, set standards by one personal opinon. I haven't claimed the existance of a dictatorial fiat. GoodDay (talk) 23:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
And that's why I don't accuse you of it! I have good faith in all participants here, I promise :) I was only responding to your comment, which provided no basis for an argument on the merits or demerits of diacritics beyond the fact that it's "[...] good enough for [you]" to leave titles without diacritcs. Tell me, what reason would you have them not included beyond your first assertion? Demokratickid (talk) 23:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I'd leave dios out, 'cuz they're annoying & a distraction. GoodDay (talk) 23:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I couldn't not more emphatically or radically disagree. They take nothing away from an article and if a reader is so put-off by looking at diacritics then they should perhaps not be looking up such a subject. I'm sorry if I seem condescending, I really don't intend it, but your arguments seem to be lacking in any sort of substance beyond purely personal conjecture. Thusly, I cannot take your points seriously if you are not even going to try and make a legitimate one beyond, "[...] 'cuz they're annoying & a distraction". Demokratickid (talk) 23:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
If we're all lucky, I'll event a diacritics filter on my monitor, which will prevent me from seeing them. GoodDay (talk) 23:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
This conversation is over. If you refuse to respond to my thoughts in a remotely cogent or applicable way, then I do not need to deal with your spam. Good day. Demokratickid (talk) 23:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
The RM route per article, is the best way. GoodDay (talk) 23:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Reo On @RfC: Very well written byAngr on the very top of the page:

The rule is to use common English names when they exist – and this rule works great for the names of countries, cities, books, and movies that may have a common English name that's distinct from their local/native name. But with people it's different. People don't have different names in English than in their native language.

The big problem of this discusion is, that it is big example of Wp:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT. Partly no wonder, the discussion is in disorder, it is hard to follow. Organisation of arguments is missing. There is no place to replies, except very personal threaded discussions. It was even hard to find place for this my comment and I still not know, whether it will be of any use, whether anyone will notice it just in Requested Comment section.

I agree that wp:COMMONNAME is one of the foremost guidelines to keep with. But you can not easily aply it to the peoples names in respect of diacritics. Or well you can, by not by sticking to the count of different spelling variant in google hits. It is an subject to commonname if people get well know nickname, but it is already adressed by the rule. --Reo + 11:54, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

This is simply not true. People do have different names than their birth names. When a person emigrates to an English country, they often drop their birth spelling and use something feasible. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 00:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
The policy as spelled out at Wikipedia:Article titles requires that the article title is to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This applies to the title of the article – but within the text of the article, pursuant to WP:MOSBIO, the person's legal name should usually appear first in the article. I trust that explains the current Wikipedia policy as it relates to this issue. Dolovis (talk) 14:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


I saw this mentioned on Jimbo Wales' talk page. Looking at it, I don't agree completely with either side. My feeling looking at the page is that it says the right thing, but it's too long, and because it's so long, it makes a simple issue look more complicated, thus encouraging wrong interpretations.

"The use of modified letters (such as accents or other diacritics) in article titles is neither encouraged nor discouraged; when deciding between versions of a word which differ in the use or non-use of modified letters, follow the general usage in English reliable sources (for example other encyclopedias and reference works). The policy on using common names and on foreign names does not prohibit the use of modified letters, if they are used in the common name as verified by reliable sources. In general, the sources in the article, a Google book search of books published since 1980, and a selection of other encyclopaedias should all be examples of reliable sources; if all three of them use a term, then that is fairly conclusive. If one of those three diverges from agreement then more investigation will be needed. If there is no consensus in the sources, either form will normally be acceptable as a title. Place redirects at alternative titles, such as those with or without diacritics. Add {{R from title without diacritics}} after the redirect to properly categorize it, e.g. for print editions."

I would say, change this to:

There is nothing wrong with using modified letters (such as accents or other diacritics) in article titles; they should simply be treated as part of the spelling of the word. The decision to use or not to use modified letters is made in the same way as when deciding between any other type of spelling variant. (See also Wikipedia:NCGN#Widely accepted name, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:UE)

The suggestion about categorizing redirects is intentionally neglected. ;) I've made many redirects in my time, and I've never categorized one of them, and I don't have any plans to start now. The other paragraphs about the specifics of Google searches and so forth would be left intact, at least for this discussion. Wnt (talk) 01:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

We propbably don't need the language about that cat; we may not need the methodology, althogh it is better than the WP:ILIKEIT seen on both extremes here. However, the proposal suggests that there is something inherently right about using diacritics; there isn't, any more than there is anything inherently wrong with it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Could we be best served by adopting an arbitrary rule? E.g. a policy of using anglicizations in the titles always. We can always find them. An arbitrary rule, but then it would not be open to interpretation and endless debate. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 00:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Goethe

Is the present revert war over Goethe two editors talking past one another?

It seems to me important to discuss two cases where English uses oe in German names, both of which demonstrably exist. With Emmy Noether, the German spelling is always oe also. With Goethe, the German spelling has varied: we have a brief discussion of that here, and I own German editions with Göthe myself. There may be a better example; if the spelling reform of 1996 settled this (for Germany), it would be desirable to have one.

But we've had a German editor since then "correct" Goethe to use the umlaut; one major disadvantage of the proposal above is that it would encourage such people. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

"Göthe" is a historical spelling that nobody would ever think of using in modern German except to make a point. In an eccentric way. Spelling Goethe as "Göthe" is like spelling Shakespeare as "Shakspere" in English. The guideline is clearly trying to make the point that English may pick out one of several correct foreign spellings as the only correct English spelling, but Goethe is simply not a reasonable example for that because "Göthe" has not been an acceptable spelling for the historical person for more than a century. I don't doubt that there are reasonable examples, but until one has been located, no example is better than a misleading one. To get out of the edit war, I have at least clarified now that "Göthe" is not an acceptable spelling in modern German. Hans Adler 06:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
It does indeed seem that this is a poor example (if an example at all) of the principle it's supposed to illustrate. A better example would be Goering - but it turns out we in fact spell it Göring, so maybe the principle being illustrated doesn't even apply.--Kotniski (talk) 08:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Mathsci has since reverted my clarification [1], and I have replaced it by an other one that is hopefully more acceptable, [2] including a footnote to the online Duden article which proves that there is no alternative spelling for the historical Goethe in German. [3] I have since found out that there was indeed a short period of uncertainty after the German spelling reform of 1901, when people were not sure whether surnames were also subject to the reform. They were not. While "Göthe" was probably a more common spelling of Goethe's surname during his liefetime and still appears in modern telephone books (although now rare, probably because people moved to the poet's spelling), he himself preferred the oe spelling, and it gradually became standard.
Saying that there are standard English spellings of German words where historically other spellings in German were possible is pretty pointless since the same applies to genuinely English names such as Shakespeare. I do not doubt that there are examples where English has picked one of several correct spellings in another language as the only correct English spelling, but this is not one, and presenting it as if it was only dilutes the real point. Hans Adler 09:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
(a) There are problems with Goethe, since the spelling changed from his paternal grandfather to his father; and he himself occasionally used an umlaut. (b) the comparison with Shakespeare is not helpful, since the problems of orthography were quite different between the eighteenth/nineteenth century and the sixteenth century. Even amongst German mathematicians, things are ambiguous: with Emmy Noether and her father Max Noether, the umlaut appears in encyclopedias as an alternative for the latter, but not the former. Here is a 19th century book of Goethe's letters which uses both conventions.[4] Since this applies in the cases of both Noether and Goethe, a footnote is a reasonable way to clarify matters without making reference to non-German names, which only confuses matters. Mathsci (talk) 09:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Proper names

The above discussion seems to apply almost exclusively to proper names. Is there any valid reason to have different rules for the spelling of proper names (such as place names and personal names) when they occur in article titles, as opposed to normal references in the body of an article? --Boson (talk) 01:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

There are some minor reasons: It is arguable that titles should be easier to type than text, because readers don't have to type text to find an article. Again, one of our major considerations in WP:TITLE is that readers should be able to recognise the title of the article as being about the subject, without having special knowledge, such as a language other than English.
But it may be worth saying that our title policy has, for some time now, discouraged treating article titles as names of their subjects, rather than convenient labels. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure I entirely understand your last sentence. I imagine you might mean article titles like Bill Clinton or Rhode Island, but these are also names (probably the names used by the subjects themselves—or the people who live there—). Can you give me a few examples of articles that use a convenient label for a person or place that is not a name.? --Boson (talk) 13:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I can give a few examples off the top of my head... authors. In most (not all) cases, we use an author's pen-name as our article title instead of their proper name. The most prominent example being our use of "Mark Twain" instead of "Samuel Clemens". Both "Mark Twain" and "Samuel Clemens" are appropriate labels that clearly identify the subject of the article. We could entitle the article "Samuel Clemens", but we choose to entitle it "Mark Twain", because "Mark Twain" is more recognizable. Blueboar (talk) 14:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but that is still just a matter of choosing which name (official name or pen-name). Both are names; in fact, both are proper names used to refer to the subject (not just the article). I thought Pmanderson/Septentrionalis was saying that policy now discourages treating article titles as names of their subjects. That is what I didn't (and still don't) understand. In any case, it seems irrelevant to the matter of how to spell whatever name one chooses to use. --Boson (talk) 21:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
PS: It occurs to me that you may be using proper name in a different sense from me. I meant the grammatical term, i.e. those nouns or noun phrases that designate particular persons, places, etc. and are conventionally capitalized. --Boson (talk) 21:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
It may help you to understand what PMA is saying if I explain why we are gun shy about the word "name"... the WP:AT policy used to talk about "article names"... and it lead to endless conflicts.
The problem with "names" is that they come with all sorts of emotional baggage... "names" can get wrapped up in national, political, cultural, and religious aspirations and conflict. However, people are less emotional when they think of article titles in terms of being "descriptions". For example... Is Kurdistan a name... or is it a description? Well, in reality it is both... but if, here in Wiki-world, we down play the "name" aspect of that title... and think of it in terms of its "description" aspect, the result is fewer edit wars and "naming disputes" between Iraqis, Kurds and Turks... all arguing endlessly about what is "correct". Everyone can agree that there is a region of the world that is commonly described (in english) as "Kurdistan"... and they don't object to using that term as an article title if they can tell themselves that it is merely a description... but... the second someone implies that this might, in someway, be the region's "name"... look out. People will argue and edit war for years over it. Blueboar (talk) 00:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you! Now it makes sense. --Boson (talk) 16:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The policy as spelled out at Wikipedia:Article titles requires that the article title is to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This applies to the title of the article – but within the text of the article, pursuant to WP:MOSBIO, the person's legal name should usually appear first in the article. I trust that explains the current Wikipedia policy as it relates to this issue. Dolovis (talk) 14:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Via majority rule, the pro-dios side are likely going to continue to force diacritics on article titles at English Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 19:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
It's nice that you recognize that majority of editors (=consensus) support the use of diacritics. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
No, an active minority (most editors have no ties to western Slavonic languages), which sometimes is, and sometimes violates Wikipedia policy to make itself, a local majority. But we are not governed by majority; we are governed by consensus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
It should be pointed out that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) is just a guideline. If somehow there is concensus for this change (there isn't currently), you'll also need to change WP:COMMONNAME and WP:V. Since policies override guidelines, even if this change were enacted here, it wouldn't mean anything. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Neither of those policies talk about diacritics. And WP:V goes out of its way to say non-english sources are good when there aren't sources of equal quality in english. So frankly policy already leans this way. -DJSasso (talk) 01:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Neither talks about left-handed smoke shifters either, but it applies to them. So here. The cry "policy doesn't apply to this; it doesn't specify in so many words the subject about which I want to violate it" can be used in defense of any POV - and is valid for none of them.
So can citing English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones as though it permitted one to ignore English sources altogether. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I clicked on Special:Random 50 times. I got 4 articles with titles that are names whose original version is in a Latin-based script and involves diacritics. All of them were spelled with the diacritics in the title. So either Pmanderson's interpretation of WP:COMMONNAME is wrong, or WP:COMMONNAME itself is wrong as it does not reflect our practice (remember that policy is descriptive, not prescriptive?) and is contradicted by a bit less than 10% of all our articles. In my opinion it's Pmanderson's extremist and context-insensitive interpretation of WP:COMMONNAME that is wrong.

Our policies and guidelines are notoriously imprecise and only get fixed to cover corner cases correctly as we become aware of the problems. Interpreting guidelines that were written in response to questions such as "'Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom' or 'Queen Liz'?" as if they were the last word on orthography is simply not reasonable. It's also worth noting that under the extremist interpretation of WP:COMMONNAME it contradicts WP:ENGVAR. Our articles equaliser (mathematics) and coequalizer coexist happily and have done for years (to my chagrin, as I value inter-article consistency), even though the spelling 'equalizer' is of course much more common. Hans Adler 17:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

You're making statistical conclusions on a sample size of four?!? But you neglect to include the most likely possibility; that there is a disruptive and tendentious minority on this Eastern European issue, which has, on those four articles, never been considered by any larger consensus than the one editor who put them in. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I make statistical conclusions on a sample size of fifty. And if you don't like the result you are free to try the same experiment and report what you come up with. If it's substantially different, others may want to do the same. And no, the proper spelling, or otherwise, of French, German, Spanish etc. proper names, i.e. in the case of place names the spelling in Merriam-Webster's Geographical Dictionary and similar authoritative sources, is not an "Eastern European issue". Even if there were a cabal of native speakers of accent-laden languages controlling those articles, that would merely reflect the fact that in this international encyclopedia multilingual readers with no accent phobia are presumably the majority of interested readers for most of the articles that we are discussing here. And creating an unenforceable guidelines that tries to overrun them would only lead to disruption even if they were wrong. But they are right, because they are mostly not doing anything that isn't totally standard and in fact expected for English-language reference works. Hans Adler 18:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Using the potential that we may hurt the feelings of people by somehow mangling their "true" name in order to inform our policies on our content seems a bit ridiculous. It's not our fault, as editors, that the NHL, NBA, New York Times, Washington Post, The Hockey News, etc.. have editorial standards which dictate that names should be anglicized. More importantly, seeing as how this is the English Wikipedia, we should use English as much as possible. No one should be converting/transliterating/anglicizing (take your pick of descriptive term) specifically for Wikipedia regardless. If the "transliterated" personal name doesn't exist in outside sources, then... well, I'd question the reason that we're trying to have an article on that person in the first place. Aside from that though, if the only thing that exists is the persons "native" name, then that's what we should use. If the vast majority of sources use "Peter Stastny", for example, then we should use that as the article title instead of "Peter Šťastný" (which should be mentioned in the first sentence, of course). The hundreds, or even thousands, of English newspaper and book sources for such people use the name without diacritics, which means that is what we should use as well. People should not be surprised at finding articles in places that they didn't expect. The advocacy for using diacritics wherever possible appears to me to be a crusade to "right a great wrong" rather than a genuine attempt to improve the encyclopedia.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Wrong. The New York Times and the Washington Post handle accents inconsistently. It's certainly not true that they never use them. The New York Times style guide says on p. 6 (see Amazon preview): "Accent marks are used for French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese and German words and names. [...] Do not use accents in words and names from other languages [...], which are less familiar to most American writers, editors and readers; such marks would be prone to error, and typefonts often lack characters necessary for consistency. [...] In the name of a United States resident, use or omit accents as the bearer does; when in doubt, omit them. (Exception: Use accents in Spanish names of Puerto Rico residents.)" Actual usage by the New York Times is not as the style guide prescribes but is all over the place. The Washington Post presumably has a similar style guide, and it is similarly inconsistent in its implementation. E.g. François Mitterrand is sometimes written with a ç [5] and sometimes with a c [6].
The list of languages for which accents are prescribed, and other details, differ between the various publications. Some further examples:
  • "Foreign terms that have not become anglicized should be set in italics on first use and given proper accents if from a Latin alphabet. [...] Place-names from foreign languages appear in roman; retain diacritical marks if original is from a Latin alphabet except in commonly anglicized names: Montreal, Quebec, Istanbul. [...] Languages with Latin alphabets: Retain the original diacritical marks (accents, apostrophes, dots, cedillas, glottals, etc.) in unanglicized words in the following languages: Czech, Danish, Dutch, Finnish, French, German, Hawaiian, Hungarian, Icelandic, Irish, Italian, Latvian, Norwegian, Polish, Portuguese, Slovak, Spanish, Swedish, and Turkish. Some anglicized terms from these languages also retain their accents (follow Webster’s)." National Geographic
  • "Put the accents and cedillas on French names and words, umlauts on German ones, accents and tildes on Spanish ones, and accents, cedillas and tildes on Portuguese ones: Françoise de Panafieu, Wolfgang Schäuble, Federico Peña. Leave the accents off other foreign names. Any foreign word in italics should, however, be given its proper accents." Economist
  • "Use on French, German, Portuguese, Spanish and Irish Gaelic words (but not anglicised French words such as cafe, apart from exposé, lamé, résumé, roué). People's names, in whatever language, should also be given appropriate accents where known. Thus: 'Arsène Wenger was on holiday in Bogotá with Rafa Benítez'" Guardian
There are two things that almost all style guides of the quality press agree about: (1) Diacritics are always used for the most familiar languages, i.e. at least French, Spanish and German. (2) If the bearer of a name uses them, diacritics are always used when the name appears in italics – which in a newspaper is the context that comes closest to our title context. Hans Adler 19:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

RfC

I am seeking a consensus on if the policies of WP:UCN and WP:EN continues to be working policies for naming biographical articles, or if such policies have been replaced by a new status quo. This discussion is on-going at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English). Dolovis (talk) 16:38, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

This was above the table of contents, so I have moved it here. Discussion has been going on above for a while. The real question is of course not whether these policies apply but how to interpret them. Do they cover fine points of spelling? Do we follow the manuals of style of our sources, resulting in automatic inconsistency, or do we follow our own, which is similar to that of English-language encyclopedias like Britannica? Hans Adler 17:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
At the very least we should make it clear that diacritics are commonly used on Wikipedia (this is a statement of fact, not preference). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Some editors who do not want to write or read English have consistently disrupted Wikipedia to add diacritics where English does not use them; others have removed them where English does use them would be perfectly acceptable. It is, of course, unnecessary for any reader who knows that we are infested with POV warriors of every school. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned, don't use diacritics in the article titles, when there's an english version available - which there usually is. GoodDay (talk) 00:52, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Jimbo Wales is right-on with his comments at his talk page.[7] Always use the English name for the title, and use the legal name in the lead sentence of the article as recommended by MOSBIO. Everybody wins, and it is in keeping with current Wiki-wide policies. Dolovis (talk) 03:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Fact: it is a common practice to use diacritics on Wikipedia

It seems to me that stating in the policy that "it is a common practice to use diacritics on Wikipedia" is a common and uncontroversial statement of fact. Nonetheless, it seems that there are some who are challenging this clear statement of fact (not preference). Fine. To prove my point, I checked:

I think this shows an overwhelming support for this statement of fact (over 95% of articles that can use a diacritic in their title do so). I would like for those who disagree with this to present data supporting their side (i.e. show categories where less than 50% of articles that are eligible for the use of diacritic do so). Please note I am asking for data to support (or refute) a statement of fact, not for more ILIKE or IDONTLIKE statements of preference like we see above. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Update: an even more clear proof is Category:Redirects from titles without diacritics (309,123 articles) vs Category:Redirects from titles with diacritics (6,571), which yields us roughly a 1:50 ratio. It seems that we can say, factually, that over 90% of Wikipedia articles that can use a diacritic, do so. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:52, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Meaning...what? That it should be 100%? What we're trying to explain to you in reply here is why it doesn't matter what the percentage currently is. Myself and others feel that the percentage of current articles that exist at their article title which uses accents and diacritics is the result of advocacy rather then standard organic editing. These statistics come from a poisoned well, meaning that these numbers are decidedly not any kind of "proof" that there's a good accepted practice. Therefore, at best, this can be seen as a deceptive exercise. In actuality, if you want to know the truth, I see it as being an intentionally deceptive debate point in order to beat the opposition to your stated goal of using accents and diacritics wherever possible into submission. If there's a better way to be partisan about this, and to polarize people into competing groups, I can't imagine what it would be. Not cool man, not cool.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Piotr, the problem is that the "it is a common practice to use diacritics on Wikipedia" is being used as a sledgehammer, both here and on article talk pages (move requests, and whatnot), to advocate for pages to be moved to, or to remain at, the article title with diacritics regardless of what form outside sources use (and often in contradiction of [[our "Use common name" principle). You upset that English language newspapers, magazines, and books tend to use names without diacritics, and you're using Wikipedia in an attempt to correct that. You may deny that as your motivation, I don't know, but that is what I can perceive as your motivation here. That you're not alone doesn't make the position right.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Sigh. Didn't I say that this is a section for data, not opinions on preferences? This is not a section to discuss what rationale people may have for use or not of diacritics, only for confirming or challenging the claim that they are commonly used. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:52, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
And if you showed all you want to show, so what?
There are a good many Polish editors who know no better; unfortunately, as ArbCom has recognized, there are also a good many Poles who will do anything for the National Cause - not that in this they differ from the Germans, Lithuanians, Greeks, Turks, Iranians, or Americans.
That they have done so does not mean they have general approval to do so; this poll shows that they do not. It is also true that much of Wikipedia is nationalist lies; that does not mean we should alter verifiability or neutrality to note that that guidance is often ignored. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Really, can your "arguments" get any more underhanded? Allusions to irrelevant ArbCom cases, what's next - discussion of editors morality? But thank you that you agreed that I have indeed proven that most articles that can use diacritics do so. Oh, and the poll above, if I am not mistaken in my count, has 11 opposes and 17 supports (inc. my proposal vote); at the very least you could stop claiming general support for your position. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 02:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
  • On a point of information, and FWIW, all articles on French subjects I have come across have 'correct' use of diacritics – I use 'correct' advisedly because we often capitalise the e-acute (viz Édith Cresson) when the French convention ignores the accent in such cases. A scan of the relevant categories (such as this) also confirms that use of diacritics is largely correctly and consistently applied. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
It's true that it's common practice to use American English in (English) Wikipedia, but Wikipedia's guidance on using variants of English (nor this one, for that matter) doesn't need to point this out. In a sense it is a non sequitur if placed next to "...English Wikipedia does not prefer any major national variety of the language." Similarly, saying that modified letters are commonly used is unnecessary next to "The use of modified letters ... is neither encouraged nor discouraged". isaacl (talk) 03:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
If it is common practice to use American English, it should be said so, with the stress that we allow other varieties of English to be used as well. But "hiding" this fact seems weird. For the same reason, we should not "hide" that diacritics use is common. Denying reality is really sad... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
It's common practice to use all variants of English, and so there is no need to call one out in particular, and not doing so isn't hiding anything—it just doesn't make any specific point. Similarly, there's no need to specify that it's common to use modified letters; it's common to not use modified letters, and making either or both of these statements doesn't achieve anything. isaacl (talk) 22:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Not putting the accents on capital letters in French seems to be an obsolete French practice that existed only for technical reasons. For similar reasons, Swiss keyboards (which are used for entering German, French and Italian) only have the small versions of umlauts and accented letters, and most of the Swiss German press writes Ae, Oe, Ue for Ä, Ö, Ü. But you can see the current French practice at fr:Édith Cresson, which is not a redirect. Hans Adler 08:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, I have done a quick survey on fr.wp, only to note that they apply diacritics to other non-French names in a much more systematic way than is implemented here. Navrátilová has all the "long 'a's", just as required in Czech language. I'm not surprised at the French urge to be systematic, due to their Cartesian view of the world. No, I'm not convinced that the absence of accent on the capital e-acute is obsolete. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 08:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
See Keyboard layout#French for the explanation. You can't easily type Élysée on a French keyboard! The situation is explained in detail at fr:Usage des majuscules en français#Accentuation des majuscules et des capitales, especially paragraphs 4 (on classical typesetting problems) and 5 (on computer problems). Paragraph 6 then says that these difficulties are disappearing, i.e. that it's no longer a big problem to print words like Élysée correctly. Hans Adler 09:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. Actually, I never learned to type French, but I did learn to write it... without the accents on the Caps. But anyway, it's no great shakes. It may have been keyboard related in its origin. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 09:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)\
I also learned at school that capitals in French are always unaccented, but apparently that was wrong. Hans Adler 10:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Jimbo Wales is right-on with his comments at his talk page.[8] Always use the English name for the title, and use the legal name in the lead sentence of the article as recommended by MOSBIO. Everybody wins, and it is in keeping with current Wiki-wide policies. Dolovis (talk) 03:43, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
    This is common practice in the rare cases where an English name exists (Munich, Nuremberg, George Frideric Handel). In general, omitting diacritics does not make a name "English", it just makes it ASCII (and, very often, misspelled and/or misleading). —Kusma (t·c) 07:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that the numbers here could be misleading. Most Wikipedia articles, rightly, are on obscure topics and persons. People known only from foreign language sources (who we must cover with eagerness), or known comparatively little outside their home country, or who have become known to the English speaking world only recently, will typically be named using the full diacritics. The business of munging names to make English versions was more popular in medieval times. Nonetheless, the remaining examples are very important articles. People still recognize Confucius, not Kǒng Fū Zǐ or 孔夫子; they recognize Avicenna, not Abū ibn Sīnā. (But the king of all these debates is English "Hawaii" vs. Hawaiian "Hawaiʻi", including whether the "ʻ" is an apostrophe or an okina) We have a reason thus for recognizing English versions. The crucial thing is that the diacritics are part of the spelling. We might well end up changing the choice of name for the articles over time, but we shouldn't title our articles Kong Fu Zi or Abu ibn Sina even if, out of laziness, we are more prone to type them that way. Wnt (talk) 16:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd be certainly fine with noting that there are exceptions. Munich or Confucius do indeed represent the ~1% of cases where the word is so common in English without diacritics we are not using it. But it is a fact we use diacritics for 99% of articles, and this should be said somewhere. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
No, it shouldn't, because probably somewhere around 60% of the 99% of articles that you're citing should not use accents and diacritics.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 17:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Guys, nobody is talking about going to "Kong Fu Zi" or "Abu ibn Sina" (in place of "Kǒng Fū Zǐ" or "Abū ibn Sīnā"), though. These are clearly straw man arguments. There are still many outside sources which create English equivalents of people's names, even today, and even for "marginally" notable people. Most newspapers do so as a regular practice, to bring up the easiest example. I get that their practice of doing so may be galling to some, but trying to fight against that here by moving articles about people to use their name with diacritics and accents creates a situation where we're surprising our readers. That's not a good thing to do, and it defies what has been our regular practice for years (since the encyclopedia began).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 17:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Most of the time they are not "creat[ing] English equivalents" of foreign names at all. They are merely putting foreign names through a simplistic filter that loses a lot of information. Some newspaper manuals of style give advice on how to undo the effect of such filters for those languages for which they have a policy of using diacritics. Because of cases such as Goethe and Goebbels (both spelled this way in German, i.e. not with ö), this usually requires additional research for them. For us this research has never been a problem.
Which names are butchered by these filters depends (1) on the location of the source on the scale from trashy tabloids to academic publications, and (2) on the percentage of readers who will be familiar with the accents. Regarding (1), encyclopedias are traditionally near the top end of the scale. Britannica uses diacritics consistently for the most important European languages, for example. Regarding (2), most of our topics with diacritics are so obscure that the majority of interested readers has strong ties to the language in question.
In a forum at the Chicago Manual of Style, an editor gave the advice to use the main entry in Merriam-Webster's Geographical Dictionary for those places covered by it. Starting to read this dictionary at the beginning on the search for names that have diacritics in the original, we find:
  • Aabenraa: See Åbenrå.
  • Aaiún, El: See Laayoune.
  • Aalborg: See Ålborg.
  • Aalesund: See Ålesund.
  • Aarhus: See Århus.
  • Ābādān.
  • Abéché.
  • Abela: See Ávila 2.
  • Åbenrå.
  • Åbo: See Turku.
  • Aboukir: See Abū Qīr.
  • Abu Dokhān, Gebel.
  • Abu Kurkas: See Abu Qurqās.
  • Abū Mūsá.
  • Abuná.
  • Abū Qīr.
  • Abu Qurqās.
  • Abū Zabī or Abū Zaby.
  • Abyla: (1) See Musa, Jebel. (2) See Ávila 2.
I think the pattern is clear at this point and I needn't continue with names starting with Ac. The original diacritics are used except where English uses a different word. Hans Adler 18:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Even accepting the premise that "they are not "creat[ing] English equivalents" of foreign names at all." (which I'll do here for the sake of debate), it's not our place as Wikipedia editors to attempt to correct our sources. These names are "butchered", fine, but that's not our fault, and it's not our concern. (and if you really want to get involved in debating the use of CMoS or other style guides, I'd like to cordially invite you to both Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/dash drafting)
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
But it is our job to follow the highest quality sources. If there are sources that don't butcher the name then we are supposed to use them by preference as the higher quality source. We aren't correcting anything, we are simply following the sources that are the most accurate and highest quality. -DJSasso (talk) 20:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Your argument is essentially that the sources which agree with you are high quality, and if they disagree with you they are not reliable. This is begging the question, and is essentially equivalent to just saying "I am right". Please focus on something more interesting. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:41, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Precisely so; I cannot argue with being edit conflicted with something so near what I would have said. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Not really. There is a difference between properly translated/transliterated and incorrectly simply dropping the diacritics. A source that does the first one is by all means a high quality source. A source that drops them without doing so correctly is not high quality. For example a source that had Munich would be correct and of high quality. Whereas one that had Munchen would be incorrect. The actual name of course being München with the diacritics. That seems to be what most people so against their use seem to be missing, simply removing them and using the closest looking letter is not the right way to deal with it. -DJSasso (talk) 21:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
But that's not what RS means. We don't get to decide what's an RS based on how they answer the question that we're turning to them for! I'm not saying we should do something wrongly just because an RS does, but if RS is our criteria then you can't make this argument. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
As soon as we have found out which spellings exist and to which language registers they belong, orthography becomes a matter of house style, not of verifiability. This dispute was originated by cases such as Julia Görges, a German who lives in Germany. There is no indication whatsoever that she has adopted an English version of her name. But, as the first line of her article states, "The title of this article contains the character ö. Where it is unavailable or not desired, the name may be represented as Goerges." Now it so happens that a large number of the reliable sources who mention her at all are of the kind where fancy foreign characters are either not available or not desired. Sports organisations such as the Women's Tennis Association and the International Tennis Federation generally convert all names to ASCII characters. (Presumably due to a policy that dates back to a time when most computer systems were unable to handle anything else.) Some news sources specialised on sports tend to follow them, where they republish tables, e.g. tennismagazine.com and ESPN (United States). If you look at these sources, you will see that they are not really about the person, but about statistics.
Professional style guides generally contain the advice that the names of people should be written the way they want them to be written, and then presume that for people with diacritics that's with the diacritics. In the discussion at Talk:Julia Görges it was claimed vehemently and repeatedly that she wants her name written with oe, based on the following evidence: The domain of her homepage is julia-goerges.com, and her Twitter account is juliagoerges. Now it just so happens that umlauts became available in domain names only recently, and since there are still serious technical problems with them, almost nobody uses them. And when I tried to register the Twitter account juliagörges [as an experiment; I am not interested in tennis and have never heard of that woman outside Wikipedia], I got the message "Invalid username! Alphanumerics only." This is the filter and the butchering that I was talking about above. On the other hand, on the English version of her homepage her name is spelled consistently as "Görges", including in her profile, where it says: "Name: Julia Görges".
Of course her name is also spelled "Görges" in the German sources that were used for the article. And it's spelled that way in the Guardian. [9] And in the New York Times. [10]
Yet, just because the butchered version of her names is around in many sources that routinely butcher all names, some editors claim that the butchered version is her "English name". No, it is not. It is an OK spelling of her name. But encyclopedias don't use OK spellings in titles, they use the most correct spellings, and the spellings associated with the highest (most prestigious) language registers. Example: Björn Borg on Britannica. Hans Adler 21:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
See, now this is different—you are essentially rejecting the argument that we should necessarily follow established usage in en RS, and instead saying just "do it right". I'm not saying that is wrong, but don't pretend you're "follow(ing) the general usage in English reliable sources" when you aren't. NYT is an RS. You're proposing a different criteria. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
No, I am just insisting on using sources intelligently. There is an unfortunate tendency in Wikipedia to practise tea leaf reading with sources: to use them for things that they never intended to say. A source that is written completely in ASCII cannot possibly contribute to our understanding whether high-quality publications that have the full Unicode range at their disposal write a name with non-ASCII characters or not. (Unless, of course, if it makes efforts to represent non-ASCII characters in ASCII. But reliable sources written in ASCII rarely do that.) Hans Adler 23:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
I think we're saying the same thing. Use RS for verifying facts, determining how much weight to give to various themes or arguments, etc. But don't necessarily follow RS' style when an RS' medium has different constraints or style than ours. My point is just that it is important to admit that this is not what this guideline says, which is "follow the general usage in English reliable sources". ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 07:14, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
There are reliable sources and reliable sources, and sometimes, there is no consensus among them. One of the thing we are trying to show here is that sometimes, there is no consensus among reliable sources on whether a diacritics should or shouldn't be used; in such cases, we need to have a rule to prevent edit warring, and in such cases, I believe we should follow the discussed practices of other encyclopedias, manuals of style and not the least, our own practice and encourage the use of diacritics. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
But sometimes there is consensus—apparent unanimity, even—among En RS and you still !vote against following them. So please don't pretend to endorse the "follow the general usage in English reliable sources" clause in this guideline. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 07:14, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Even more importantly.... Look, you're upset, I get that. There's been a grave injustice done to the world. Fine, you'll get no argument from me on the issue itself. I'm sympathetic, it's a travesty, humanity is worse off because of the evils of ASCII and anglophone dominance of the world... the point still remains, none of that should matter to Wikipedia editors. If your fight is with Twitter, The New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, or whoever else it is who are "butchering" names, then go take the issue up with them. Wikipedia is not an appropriate place to take this issue on (and if it's not clear enough already, I am saying that just "do it right" is the wrong approach).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Interesting rhetorical trick. Britannica and all other recent mainstream English-language encyclopedias that people have reported on routinely use all applicable diacritics for all major languages. Merriam-Webster's Geographical Dictionary and other mainstream reference sources for proper names do the same. Wikipedia de facto does the same. I am not on the losing side, you are on the losing side because you are arguing against overwhelming practice of English-language reference works. Hans Adler 23:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
I was going to say just that. That certain editors have taken to deny the reality and/or prevent a simple fact from being declared on the policy is quite telling ("no, we cannot say that diacritics are commonly used, because then we would be admitting we are going against the common practice... but as long as we can prevent the policy from reflecting the real state of affairs, we can keep denying the reality in discussions elsewhere."). Sigh. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
...what?!? If there are a preponderance of sources supporting the use of article titles with accents and diacritics, then there's no problem. You're both making a case that we should ignore the sources that don't because "they're wrong". I don't have a side, I'm standing up for the Encyclopedia. You two, among others, appear to be on an ideological (or linguistic, maybe) crusade. You may be right (and in another setting I'd even support you), but you're both absolutely incorrect here. No amount of cherry picking sources is ever going to be convincing, by the way (and I find the attitude that both of you convey in these discussion to be pretty insulting, by the way).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:24, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
You know what, I give up. Whatever you guys think is best. I just don't care any more.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
I think Hans Adler might have a good point about giving more weight to the best sources, at least in the subset of cases where people can agree what the best sources are. It's true that the rendition of a name in a high-quality biography may be more important than how it's printed in USA Today. I just don't know how to quantify that advantage; I think we might need to see some specific examples where the ivory tower and the plebian press have a longstanding disagreement to decide on the best procedures. Wnt (talk) 05:49, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
You could try googling for "Gerhard Schröder" (which finds essentially the same articles as "Gerhard Schroder") and "Gerhard Schroeder" on various newspaper websites. E.g. the Daily Mail consistently wrote o or oe, the New York Times should have spelled him with ö per its own style guide but sometimes had o instead. USA Today uses the wrong spelling slightly more often, possibly because the news wires strip off all diacritics and USA Today generally didn't undo this. The Britannica article uses ö, of course. Hans Adler 07:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Fact: Using diacritics in article titles is contrary to the policy of WP:Article titles

The policy as spelled out at Wikipedia:Article titles requires that the article title is to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This applies to the title of the article – but within the text of the article, pursuant to WP:MOSBIO, the person's legal name should usually appear first in the article. Dolovis (talk) 05:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

  • How so? I'm not sure there's a conflict. WP:UE even cites 'Besançon', 'Søren Kierkegaard' and 'Göttingen' as examples. Furthemore, the last sentence says If there is no established English-language treatment for a name, translate it if this can be done without loss of accuracy and with greater understanding for the English-speaking reader. I believe I have demonstrated that translating the majority of these names by mapping Unicode characters onto ASCII characters would constitute a serious loss of information and imparts a poorer understanding for the English-speaking reader. But a last example to make sure you don't misunderstand or misquote me: Imagine there's no 'v' in English, and you are forced to substitute 'b' or 'g'... your handle would be Dolobis or Dologis. ;-) --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 05:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
  • However, the point is that, even if an established English language name results in loss of accuracy, we are still meant to use it, because it is the established name in reliable sources. What you are discussing is names that are not used in reliable English sources anywhere (unlikely, but possible). Of course, if that is such the case, then we would default to the name used in other language sources, because we don't have English sources to go off of. But if we do have English sources, then the policy states that we are supposed to use the name that the majority of those sources use. That is the basis of WP:COMMONNAME. SilverserenC 07:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
  • The thing is. Its WP:COMMONNAME not WP:COMMONSPELLING. -DJSasso (talk) 14:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
    • It should not be COMMONNAME (as mentioned above, our article titles are not intended to be name), but that's too late to change. But most of our title disputes are spelling: Firenze or Florence; color or colour. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Right and things like color or colour don't fall under COMMONNAME. They fall under ENGVAR. -DJSasso (talk) 14:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
        • They fall under both; ENGVAR is not a license to use any title and claim that it occurs in the relevant national variety of English. But this is rarely a difference between national varieties; Australians may speak most often of the Djoker, Novak Djokovic, but there has never been an argument that the English or Americans call him something else. (And if there were, we'd follow the Aussies.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
          • But we're not arguing variations between English speaking countries, we're talking about the spelling of a name in English sources and the original spelling in another language. The title of the article should be per the common name in English sources, with the original name included in the first line of the article. The common english name for the subject is exactly what english speaking people are going to type into the search box for the subject. It is also the name that should represent them, title-wise, on the English wikipedia. SilverserenC 23:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
  • "WP:UE even cites 'Besançon', 'Søren Kierkegaard' and 'Göttingen' as examples.". Even more so, Wikipedia:Article titles allows use for diacritics: "Sometimes titles of separate articles have different forms, but with only minor differences: Diacritics: canon vs. cañon" ; "Sometimes the most appropriate title will contain diacritics (accent marks), dashes, or other letters and characters not found on most English-language keyboards. This can make it difficult to navigate to the article directly. In such cases, provide redirects from versions of the title that use only standard keyboard characters.". QED? Dolovis, can you please stop making false claims? Your anti-diacritics crusade is standing on rather shaky grounds, and you just keep showing that time and again. The only thing repeating those false claims is accomplishing is wasting editor's time when we have to refute them - often for the n-th time, because your fallacies keep coming back like boomerangs... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
The issue is that WP:Article titles states that a title should follow "English-language" RS. This exception is problematic, as an example I can say that Bjorn Borg is POV since the best sources for his name states that it is Björn Borg and the Bjorn spelling is POV, POV states that we should use RS, RS states that sources must be taken in context and defines what is correct for different types of 'facts', WP:V states that English sources is preferred, as long as they are of equal quality, Swedish sources should therefore be considered to be better at confirming his name. So WP:Article titles is contrary to POV, V and RS. So the way I see it, the only way to solve this is to either change WP:Article titles to follow WP:RS and WP:V, or rewrite RS and V to state that English Wikipedia has a WP:POV of using English sources for article titles, even if other languages sources is 'better'. This also means that as the policies stands as of now, the article title have a policy with English POV, but inside the articles all other policies fall back on V, RS and they can be used to claim POV which should mean that the spelling used most often in the 'good/local' sources should be used. This is the issue here as I see it. --Stefan talk 06:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
This could have heen put more shortly: "Writing in English, on this English Wikipedia, is bias." Those who so believe don't have to write in English, nor write here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
PMA correctly identified the root of the problem and the remedy. We’re here to write easily understood articles in English in a manner that does not unduly call attention to itself to a general-interest readership.

The en.Wikipedia is not to be used as a battleground for those who wanted to exploit it to promote change and *improvement* in the English language so beret-wearing, multi-lingual Ph.D.s who read hieroglyphics off Egyptian walls in their spare time can be impressed by how way-cool Wikipedia is. Nor is Wikipedia a vehicle for others to feel good that certain language aspects of their culture don’t get *disrespected*.

Certain diacriticals are used in my World Book encyclopedia, like Götterdämmerung. Instructively, Macintosh computers since 1984 has given their owners direct, keyboard access (no hunting around in special tables) so they can generate tremas to create the German umlaut or diaeresis. So I just typed the two instances of “Götterdämmerung” in this paragraph directly from the keyboard and didn’t copy them. Apple had a reason for ensuring ´and ¨and a few other accents were available: because they are commonly used in English. It would be highly inappropriate to presume that we should expand the gamut of diacriticals (Đặng Hữu Phúc) beyond those commonly encountered in encyclopedic English directed to a general-interest readership. Greg L (talk) 17:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I actually though we were writing a NPOV encyclopedia, but I guess I have been wrong for a very long time. --Stefan talk 00:52, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
As I've grumped before, it's a group of editors' mother country pride, behind the push to over-use diacritics. GoodDay (talk) 13:40, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
And I agree with User:GoodDay; that is the underlying sentiment. Many people think that since “Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit,” it can be exploited to change how the world works, like introducing the world to new computer terms unheard of to general-interest readerships. Because they thought our use here would *catch on*.

Wikipedia is not to be used as a vehicle to promote change in the very language we use to convey knowledge. That means the ! alveolar tongue clicks used in the names of certain aboriginal tribes don’t make the cut. They don’t make the cut because we would unnecessarily draw attention to the text itself rather than the thought conveyed. Those who want to expand the use of diacritics beyond the norm in an “Oh… didn’t-cha know??”-fashion labor under the same misconception that proponents of the IEC prefixes did. They had Wikipedia stuffed with text that read The Dell Inspiron had 256 mebibytes of RAM. Why? Because it was a New Standard that was in improvement over the barbaric and ambiguous “megabyte” the rest of the computer world used. They thought we would Lead By Example To A New And Brighter Future. It didn’t work. Not even after three full years. All Wikipedia did was baffle our readership. Some smart and computer-savy readers who understood how Wikipedia works behind the scenes just smirked. Oh…

Getting back on track: I’m all for having the current diacriticals customarily used by other print encyclopedias stay in Wikipedia’s article titles so long as the word in that article’s body text consistently and rightly uses them. I’m speaking of articles like Señora and Richard Glücks. I see no need to change this practice. We should look towards the practices of Encyclopedia Britannica and World Book for guidance as to which diacriticals to use and when (for both the body text and the title). Arguments that “Unicode permits expansion and change to the English language” are totally irrelevant to this discussion. Since the 1970s the above-mentioned encyclopedias had access to all sorts of diacriticals from type foundries; but they didn’t use them. The reasons they chose to limit their use of diacriticals to some German, Spanish, and a few other ones is obvious: those accents are reasonably well recognized by a high school-educated English readership. I see that our beyond-unusual, out-of-the-norm !Xóõ language now redirects to Taa language, as it ought to. Greg L (talk) 15:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. Well said.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:09, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Wow, Greg, I'm impressed at the amount of research you've done on the subject, down to African names and languages. I just think you're arguing how things could be if taken to their logical extreme, yet nobody here seems to be advocating that. I also think usage in Đặng Hữu Phúc and !Xóõ language is well over the top, and your reaction and the reaction of Jimbo seems to be some sort of backlash, specifically against what those examples represent. We are unanimously agreed Charles Bridge should stay where it is and not be moved to Karlův most. It seems most importantly that the current wording in the guideline and the suggestion made up to present are not sufficiently precise and not logically coherent. We just need to test out some different wordings to fine tune the guideline. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
You may want to look at the behavior of those who you are supporting here, then. Mass page moves, largely without discussion, and the threat of sanctions being taken against those who question the use of diacritics where COMMONNAME doesn't support them is endemic, belying your characterization that the people who have similar views to those that you are advocating for aren't extreme. With the way that things have been going over the last couple of years, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see Charles Bridge end up at Karlův most (that is it's True Name™ after all!). That's the position that you're seemingly supporting. I think that I'm calm and very reasonable normally, but the ridiculous lengths that some advocates here have gone to in order to support their position... well, I'm sounding like Pmanderson all of a sudden! sheesh!
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:43, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
well, I'm sounding like Pmanderson all of a sudden! sheesh! Heavens forbid! ;-) --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 12:19, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
fwiw, I like Anderson. More importantly, I generally respect his opinions. We can all get rather... strident, from time to time, though (some more so than others.) :)
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
And if I sound strident, it's because I'm tired of ridiculous lengths, in either direction. "You're safest in the middle." Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

On Surprise

Against my better judgement I've come back here after a few days to chill out about the subject, and I wanted to start this section in order to explain my view. I don't have any real hope of being heard here, since the outcome seems to have been predetermined and several editors here are seemingly beyond the reach of any reason or logic on this issue, but I'll give things one last chance here.

My major issue with the current overuse (in my opinion) of accents and diacritics has to do with surprise. One of my main areas of interest is in sports which, interestingly enough, creates a rather significant cross section of biographical articles that are also related to and affected by the current debate. For better or worse, both North American and (as far as I can tell) British coverage of athletics heavily favors the practice of removing accents and diacritics. All of the sports leagues here in the United States and Canada have a policy of removing accents and diacritics from players names for official team and league media (the NHL and NBA have the most exposure, but MLB and the NFL have had occasion to use the same practices). They may be systematically "butchering" people's names, but what they're doing isn't something that we can control. That being the case, it should hardly be shocking that there will be an element of surprise involved in navigating to Patrik Elias and ending up at Patrik Eliáš, for example. To those of us who are familiar with this person, we're familiar with "Patrik Elias". Being presented with "Patrik Eliáš" is not only surprising, it actually seems like it's own form of "butchery" of the guy's name!

Athlete names (for those athletes who participate in North American sports) are the easiest, and possibly the largest, example to use. I don't think that they're the only example that could be made where "use the English word" is directly applicable, but they're the most important to me personally. I suspect that there's a certain level of both the "they're so cool!" and intellectual elitism ("those are such poor quality sources!") evident in the everything that can use diacritics must use diacritics viewpoint. There's a good reason that people are pushing back against this crusade (and yes, it is a crusade). I don't, and never will, support the extreme position being advocated for on this topic.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Answering the cries of 'intellectual elitism', I sympathise. My two children both have French names with diacritics; both their names have equivalents in English. We don't live in France, and my sister believes people might find it snobbish were I to use those diacritics. OTOH, I would probably have given my children different names if I were interested in avoiding the arguments of snobbery. Their names are as I gave them and are to be pronounced as per their French origin, not as "reliable sources" would want to spell them. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't, and never will, support the extreme position being advocated for on this topic. - even if, say, the MLB, changes its practice? Who's on a crusade here, really?Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
It is unlikely that that will happen. If it does, it will be part of a wave of English-speakers adopting diacritics, which would make them common English usage. Don't hold your breath.
In the meantime, who's on crusade? Volunteer Marek and his fellow Language Improvers. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:47, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Uh, no. English-speakers have adopted diacritics long time ago - examples given above abound, which the anti-diacritics zealots have been consistently ignoring. Is Chicago Manual of Style not English? Is National Geographic not English? Is Encyclopedia Britannica not English? Are not top academic journals published in the US in the English language not English?. Seriously, all we get from the opposers here is a continous and completely unfounded assertion that "diacritics are not used in English". At least Ohms law gave a specific example here - though his extrapolation from that example to an uncompromising attitude is a bit much. It is hard to have a productive discussion with people who consistently and doggedly ignore reality and evidence to the contrary. Ohms law statement that he will "never" support the use of diacritics is a perfect example of such a "evidence be damned" attitude. Last time I checked it's the people who are "never" willing to compromise who fit the description of "crusaders", not the people who bring evidence to the table and try to rationally convince others. Count yourself in the first group too, Pmanderson.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
You seem to want to turn this around on me, but the fact is that my attitude on this topic is a direct result of the mis-deeds that I see from yourself and those who have similar views as yours. I've been forced into the position that you're trying to criticize me for because it's your own attitude in reverse.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:11, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
"Mis-deeds"? What the hey are you talking about? BTW, since this is a discussion about the proper usage of the English language I might as well point out that "misdeeds" is one word, with neither a hyphen nor a dash in there. And yes, I'm turning this around on you, because I, nor any of the "support" peoples, ever made unequivocal uncompromising line-in-the sand statements like "I will never!". And yet, we are the ones being called "crusaders". Sheesh.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
pfft
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:49, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, that's about the level of argument we're getting here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Note that I'm not talking about most Olympic athletes (Vitaly Gruşac for example), who I think we can presume receive significant (English) coverage from sources which will use accents and diacritics. Blanket rules that are unwilling to acknowledge that exceptions exist are almost always bad, for both article content and the collegial work environment needed for all of us to continue working together.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:35, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a matter of whether it is better to have a "blanket rule with some exceptions", or "no rules or bad rules at all". The way I see it, if the rule says "use of diacritics is encouraged" then that's not the same as "rule of diacritics is mandatory". There's definitely room there for exclusion of diacritics where it's shown that the overwhelming majority of sources do not have them. But "use of diacritics is discouraged" would fly in the face of established practice in many many many serious, reliable, English, and even academic source. The problem with "neither encouraged or discouraged" is that it also contradicts the use in many many many serious, reliable, English and even academic sources, but also leads to countless completely counter-productive curious capricious controversies and edit wars. A good rule is based on evidence (which we have here), is general in coverage, is specific and also allows for exceptions. This is all that is being proposed here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:02, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
There is probably less "surprise" than you think. The CS Monitor had a good article recently about attitudes in the US to immigrants which relates to this. It follows the red states and blue states divide. Obviously a generalization, but in the coastal states, diversity is much more welcomed. In Silicon Valley one often sees signs in Vietnamese, then Spanish, then English. I speak neither language but the diacritics help an English speaker in pronouncing them, so I prefer them. It is not uncommon to mix words, such as "Best Phở in San José". Not surprising at all. Vice-versa, if I am hungry and looking for Phở for lunch, but I see a sign advertising "Pho", I would not be surprised to find similar items on the menu. If I am looking for "the way to San José" and I see a sign for SAN JOSE I take the exit. That is why my attitude is to use the diacritics in the body consistently, but care less what the title is. Leave it alone either way and avoid move wars. Having more information such as diacritics in the article is an improvement, but the title can be glossed over with redirects to provide the same search result so fighting is a waste of time. W Nowicki (talk) 15:50, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
That misses the point, though. The CS Monitor article that you're referring to is certainly something that the senior editors at major media outlets and (in this example) the league media offices should pay attention to, but until they do we're still in a position where we're stuck with the after effects of their practices. This whole notion that we should be "better than they are" is bad (which, quite honestly, is a point that I think is debatable anyway. My take is that there seems to be more of a "coolness factor" involved here than those who are trying to appear to be intellectually elite want to let on. "oooh, we can use crazy letters! Cool!" It makes us look silly, in my eyes).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:49, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Unless we're talking about Novak Djokovic, it certainly surprises me to see Eastern European names without any dicritics – least of all it fails to tell me how it's pronounced. When I see the name of an Eastern European person or place, unless he/she/it is exceptionally well-known, I expect to see diacritics. It tells me first and foremost that he/she/it is [Polish, Serbian, Slovakian, Turkish], and from [Poland, Serbia, Slovakia, Turkey], and not someone who emigrated to the United States two generations ago. Such spelling tells me that I should not therefore pronounce as if it were spelt in English without diacritics. Of course, I am often surprised not to see these diacritics, and usually find myself to searching deeper as to how it's spelt and how it's pronounced (to make sure I don't embarrass myself) because the newspaper I read doesn't give me those clues. I'd typically expect to find this information in an encyclopaedia, and for it to be displayed prominently. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
    See though, from my perspective we are talking about Novak Djokovic, and similar articles. Piotr, Hans, Marek, and others apparently want to move that article to Novak Đoković. That's his "real name", after all. That's the effect of the changes that you're apparently seeking.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
    Please don't put words into others mouths. I've never heard of Novak Djokovic, and I didn't want to move it anywhere till you alerted me to it. The article claims he is Serbian, and I think Serbian diacritics should be used. I note they are used inconsistently in the article, and I am not seeing any discussion on talk. I'd either suggest to move it now and see if there are any objections, or start a discussion on talk (or a RM) and see what is the outcome. There may be some mitigating circumstances against the use of diacritics in this case (perhaps the subject changed his name to one without diacritics?). It is always possible this article may be an exception to the "we should use diacritics" rule, although at this point I am not seeing why this might be the case. PS. Diacritics are used in his article on French, German, Spanish, Italian and Polish Wikipedias, for example. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
    I don't have to put words in anyone's mouths. You obviously haven't said anything about Djokovic specifically, but you don't have to. You're advocating a change that would affect the Djokovec article, and thousands of others, without having to specifically say anything about them (also, Ohconfucius brought that example up, not I). Also, that you think "move it now and see if there are any objections" is a good idea, in the current environment, is worrisome. That appears to be a good example of a battlefield mentality, to me. There are many, many exceptions to the "we should use diacritics" rule, which is something that I've been trying to get yourself and others to notice for days now. that "we should use diacritics" should not in fact be any kind of rule is self-evident (just as "we should not use diacritics" should not be a rule). I'm uncertain what point you're making in mentioning the use of diacritics in the article on other language Wikipedias.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Some straw polls to get a baseline

We can't get consensus even on how reality looks here, so lets try reality by straw polls. :-) I'll take up some statements from the discussion, and we'll have a straw poll on each and every one of these statements, to see how reality is interpreted by different people here. Note that these polls are only about what is, not what ought to be. Please don't discuss how you want it to be here, only how things actually *are*.

Poll 1: What COMMONNAME covers

The WP:COMMONNAME section states that "Wikipedia uses the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. [...] In determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used, it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies and scientific journals. " Ie, WP:COMMONNAME says that the article about the groundbreaking Swedish tennis star should not use his full name "Björn Rune Borg", but his shorter name "Björn Borg".

Statement: However, WP:COMMONNAME does not say anything about diacritics, ie it makes no difference between "Björn Borg" and "Bjorn Borg", and hence it can not be used to argue for or against either of these versions, as it is, in the context of WP:COMMONNAME the same title.

Poll:

  • Disagree - Many languages that have letters with diacritics, such as Swedish, view these as completely separate letters. Ä and Å are not variations on A in Swedish, they are separate letters in it's own right, just separate as E and O. Removing the diacritic hence makes it a different name, and as such is covered under WP:COMMONNAMES' "alternative names". --OpenFuture (talk) 07:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Agree. (1) It is well established that reliable sources are only reliable on what they mean to say. Most sports sources are not interested in the spelling of names and convert everything into ASCII. Such sources are only reliable for how a name appears in an ASCII-only environment. Wikipedia is not an ASCII-only environment. (2) Whether to use diacritics or not is a stylistic question like use of "", “” or «» for quotations, or whether to use bold or italics for emphasis. Reliable sources who copy material containing such names from each other generally add or remove the diacritics according to their own manuals of style. Using these reliable sources to decide which version to use would be like tealeaf reading. All recent, serious, general-purpose reference works in English – e.g. Britannica and Merriam-Webster's Geographical Dictionary – use diacritics for the major languages where applicable, with very few exceptions such as Zurich (which has an English name that happens to look like the German name stripped of its diacritic, but is pronounced differently). Hans Adler 09:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
It seems to me that what you are saying is that most reliable sources don't care about diacritics. I'm not sure it follows that COMMONNAME doesn't care about diacritics. Most specifically, WP:DIACRITICS, which clearly *is* about diacritics, say the same thing as WP:COMMONNAME (which you agree to below). By your logic WP:DIACRITICS isn't about diacritics. :-) --OpenFuture (talk) 09:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
What he is saying is that a medical reference work is not reliable when it comes to wallpapering even if it should include a picture of someone wallpapering. Agathoclea (talk) 11:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I think it will be better if he gets to answer that himself. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Why? Agathoclea got it exactly right. Medical reference works are not good sources on wallpapering, books on 15th century Tibetan history are not good sources on higher mathematics, and sports tables are not good sources for the spelling of names. All of these sources are of the type: Can be used when there is no dispute and no better source, but can easily be shot down when someone argues the source got it wrong, or was sloppy, or didn't make some distinctions that must be made in a general-purpose reference work. Hans Adler 20:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Disagree per OpenFuture. "Björn Borg" is one of the cases where "ö" is absolutely essential; it is not an "o" with diacritics, but a separate letter. Replacing "ö" with "o" simply makes the name wrong. Phonetically, "Bjurn Borg" would be more accurate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
    Swedish does not have a monopoly on letters with diacritics creating letters in their own right. Examples of such 'different' letters abound in slavonic alphabets – the haček and the in-line apostrophe (′) create letters in the Czech and Slovak languages are good examples. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 14:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Agree with what Hans Adler is saying. Assuming he is saying what Agathoclea has suggested he is. Because that is pretty much exactly my thoughts if it is. -DJSasso (talk) 12:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Confused It's kind of schizoid ambiguous, and so I don't really know what to make of it. It's prescriptive and imprecise at the same time it goes to great pains to instruct the editor to give greater emphasis to "quality sources". The guideline presupposes that such sources found by the methods indicated are "quality sources" without further defining quality information within. In the next breath all the prescriptions are apparently nullified by suggesting that we should go play a numbers game and count the number of sources that say this versus that. But then again, if the guideline is read under the assumption that experienced editors know that reliable sources get it wrong, and it's our rôle as editors to select only on the best information from the best sources to use in articles, then I would agree. Here's where the linguists apparently part company with those who insist ASCII is the only way of representing English characters. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 14:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Disagree - Reputable media like the NY Times do use some accents and not others. It's a -practice- in the North American world, not some technical issue. Whatever you might think of the -correctness- of the practice, it is -common- practice. It gets tiresome making this point over and over. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 14:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
    You wouldn't have to make that point over and over if that was what this was talking about. We are talking about the policy specifically which doesn't mention diacritics in it. Yet there is a separate policy which does specifically talk about diacritics. Which has a different standard than commonname does. ie> Commonname accepts any source. Diacritics requests encyclopedic and academic quality sources. Which puts the two at odds with each other so its been suggested that diacritics fall under the requirements of WP:DIACRITICS and not WP:COMMONNAME since the two conflict with each other. -DJSasso (talk) 14:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
    I did not see that in the above statement. I do believe that commonname can be used to differentiate between "Björn Borg" and "Bjorn Borg". What's wrong with that? So that's why I put disagree. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 15:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
    @DjSasso:Both COMMONNAME says "in English-language reliable sources" and later species that it is useful to observe usage by "major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies and scientific journals" and DIACRITICS says "general usage in English reliable sources (including other encyclopedias and reference works)". In what way to you find these differ significantly and introduce ambiguity? --OpenFuture (talk) 18:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
    One allows for media outlets and international organizations etc. The other specifically talks about encyclopedias and reference works. One being a higher quality source and the others being lower quality sources. -DJSasso (talk) 19:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
    All of this stuff about "quality sources" is ridiculous. Aside form the fact that Britannica is a tertiary source (and a competitor at that), this sort of ad hominum attack, couched as it is in impersonal constructs, is one of the major reasons that we're going around in circles on this issue. I find such continuing behavior to be disgraceful, and I've lost a lot of respect for several of you due to this whole discussion. The apparent inability to comprehend the problem here only compounds the issue.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
    You are welcome to disagree with my opinion, but to suggest I am personally attacking someone is a bit ridiculous. My comment had nothing to do with the editor I replied to or any other editor. Please comment on the opinions not the editors. Frankly your comment right here is an ad hominem attack. -DJSasso (talk) 19:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
    Seems like good advice. I'd hope that you'd listen to yourself. I'm tired of your attitude, so I finally said something about it. If you don't like it, well... do something to change your behavior and I'll change my opinion. Until then, I see what I see.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
    Unfortunately I haven't commented on any editors in these discussions. While you have repeatedly. Again I ask, please stick to the opinions and not the editors. Frankly your attitude is disgusting if not completely disruptive. -DJSasso (talk)
    Your habit of couching things in impersonal language is transparent. You constantly comment on other editors, and it pisses me off. I try to avoid you as much as possible, but since we're here on the same issue that's somewhat impossible (and incidentally, I blame you personally for making this as much of an issue as it is, due to your actions in one area that this discussion directly affects).
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
    Well unfortunately you are wrong. If you want to assume I am commenting on other editors then that is your problem but you know what the saying is when you assume. Its as big an issue as it is because editors who don't read the discussion and automatically jump to bad faith assumptions (like you are doing now) have been making it so. With the constant assumptions about nationalistic pride and other such nonsense. I have no stake in nationalistic pride. I don't live in a country where they are prevalent. I don't come from one and I don't even have ancestors who come from one. All I am arguing against is the wholesale stripping of them from all articles which commonname has been used to justify. -DJSasso (talk) 21:00, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
    So, what I observe, and the opinions that I hold, are "wrong". Got it. If I didn't have a reason not to take your opinions seriously before, I certainly do now.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
    When saying I am attacking people yes. You can believe I am, anyone can hold any opinion they want, doesn't mean its true. But yes, you are wrong when you say I am attacking others because I haven't once said anything about anyone impersonally or not in this discussion. Others have (on both sides) but I have not. Now if you want to read my mind and think that really in my head I am attacking people have at it. -DJSasso (talk) 21:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
    @DJSasso: Both allows for media outlets and international organizations etc. Both specifically talks about encyclopedias etc. See the texts I quoted. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Agree, although this should be a part of a bigger discussion of whether we want WP:COMMONNAME to cover spellings or just the actual distinct names. As a spelling selection guide, WP:COMMONNAME is currently utterly useless. As a name selection guide, it's rather useful.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 27, 2011; 16:03 (UTC)
  • Diagree with the claim that "WP:COMMONNAME does not say anything about diacritics". As I stated earlier COMMONNAME claerly allows use for diacritics. It neither discourages or encourages them, but certainly allows for them to be used on occasion. How common of an occasion, that is another issue. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't know that I can either "agree" or "disagree" with this, as it's not clear to me what is actually trying to be pointed out. COMMONNAME is silent on the issue because it's not an issue that COMMONNAME should deal with. I mean, if a preponderance of English language sources use diacritics, then that makes the use of diacritics common, otherwise they're not. Seems clear as day, to me. More importantly, it allows us to be flexible, which is important considering that there is not, and should not be, any hard and fast rules in this area. As alaney2k points out above, this is largely a style issue. Appeals to technical issues and appeals to pseudo-nationalistic correctness aren't even remotely convincing because people's personal experience with this issue overwhelm such prescriptivist appeals to "being correct" (and really, not everyone does, or should, share your own or my own political views). COMMONNAME neither mandates the use of diacritics and accents, nor forbids them, and that's perfectly appropriate.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
    I bet you would be shocked to know this is what I have been trying to say all along. But you have been too busy assigning bad faith assumptions to everyone to see that. Hence why I object to commonname being used as a claim for/against them. -DJSasso (talk) 19:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
    Which makes your arguments elsewhere rather nonsensical, then.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
    Not really I have been saying the same thing since the beginning. That commonname doesn't give guidance on diacritics. If you think I have been arguing otherwise you haven't been reading the discussions. -DJSasso (talk) 20:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
    It's the conclusion which you draw from that which makes your stance appear to contradict what you're saying. Your advocating a position that "since commonname doesn't give guidance on diacritics, diacritics should be used everywhere possible", which doesn't follow at all.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
    That isn't even remotely my opinion. I have said repeatedly that there are cases where they shouldn't be used. What I have argued against is that idea that COMMONNAME is an excuse to strip them from every article which is how this whole discussion began. That does not mean I want them in every article. -DJSasso (talk) 21:00, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
    Incorrect. Piotr and others started this brouhaha by trying to change this document to support their preference that diacritics should be used wherever possible. They've been (the group, not necessarily specific users) unilaterally moving pages from titles without diacritics to titles with for a couple of years now, attacking individual users for pushing back, and starting loads RM's in addition to arguing against COMMONNAME at many RM's. It's not a cabal by any means (at least I don't think it is), but the effect is clear as day. Yourself and others, if not outright supporting that behavior (which is the way things appear to me), are at the very least enabling it. All of this is an obvious attempt to end-run around an existing policy, which has finally brought us here, to a direct attack against it. This should have happened first, not after a long period of time has elapsed where several people have been stacking the deck in their favor.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Disagree, common-name 'in english', means no diacritics. GoodDay (talk) 23:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
    It doesn't say "in English" it says "in English sources". --OpenFuture (talk) 02:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Agree, this is what the policies states, it only states use what is used in the sources, no matter if the sources use 'English' or not. --Stefan talk 00:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Disagree. COMMONNAME covers every article title that is a name for the subject; it covers every specific field, as proven by the fact that it doesn't specify any range of coverage. Those who claim "I can ignore it about X because it doesn't say X" are attempting to evade policy without going through the gathering of consensus necessary to amend it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Disagree, the common-name 'in english/english sources', means no diacritics. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Disagree - Either "Björn Borg" or "Bjorn Borg" is more common in English language sources. NickCT (talk) 03:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Poll 2: WP:DIACRITICS goes against WP:COMMONNAME

WP:DIACRITICS states that "The use of modified letters (such as accents or other diacritics) in article titles is neither encouraged nor discouraged" and that usage should "follow the general usage in English reliable sources (including other encyclopedias and reference works)." It also goes on to say that "The policy on using common names and on foreign names does not prohibit the use of modified letters, if they are used in the common name as verified by reliable sources."

Statement: WP:DIACRITICS contradicts WP:COMMONNAME and/or the two taken together are ambiguous.

Poll:

  • Disagree - Both policies clearly have the same policy: Use whatever is used in English reliable sources, diacritics or not. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Disagree. WP:DIACRITICS does not contradict WP:COMMONNAME, it only contradicts well-established practice in Wikipedia. De facto, Wikipedia follows the example of major English reference works and prefers using diacritics for all the most familiar languages, almost always. In practice, we do not wait for a subject to hit the quality press and other encyclopedias before spelling them the way encyclopedias spell them. In practice we spell them as encyclopedias do from the beginning. Of course we need reliable sources to establish the correct spelling (as the second quoted sentence says), but they need not be in English. WP:DIACRITICS and WP:COMMONNAME together are not ambiguous, but they do not follow the principle that guidelines should be descriptive of actual practice. If taken literally, they would allow us to quarrel about the titles of roughly 5% of our articles by leaving things more open than they are. Fortunately there is an established practice that prevents these disputes in most cases. Hans Adler 09:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Disagree - they are not mutually exclusive, and not in contradiction. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 14:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Agree in a way. One requires any english source. (ie a pure numbers game) whereas the other requires the sources to be from things like encyclopedias and other high quality sources. -DJSasso (talk) 14:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
    Both guidelines refer to reliable sources, and give examples; neither says to use any English source. isaacl (talk) 16:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
    One just says english sources. The other gives examples of specific types. -DJSasso (talk) 16:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
    From WP:COMMONNAME:
    • "...the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources."
    • "In determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used, it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies and scientific journals."
    • "Search engine results are subject to certain biases and technical limitations; for detailed advice in the use of search engines and the interpretation of their results, see Wikipedia:Search engine test."
    • "When there is no single obvious term that is obviously the most frequently used for the topic, as used by a significant majority of reliable English language sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering the other criteria identified above."
    Further down on the same page, from the section on "Foreign names and anglicization":
    • "If there are too few English-language sources to constitute an established usage, follow the conventions of the language appropriate to the subject..."
    From WP:DIACRITICS:
    • "...follow the general usage in English reliable sources (including other encyclopedias and reference works)."
    • "In general, the sources in the article, a Google book search of books published in the last quarter-century or thereabouts, and a selection of other encyclopaedias, should all be examples of reliable sources; if all three of them use a term, then that is fairly conclusive."
    • "Search engines are problematic unless their verdict is overwhelming;..."
    isaacl (talk) 16:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
    Exactly. One is indicating a very specific type of english source whereas the other is indicating any reliable source. -DJSasso (talk) 16:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
    I'm sorry, I'm just not seeing it: both guidelines are using the same words and phrases; they are paraphrasing each other. They both say to use reliable sources, and then go on to give examples. isaacl (talk) 16:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
    One mentions needing to consult 3 types of sources and that all of them should use the same. If they don't then usage is split and indicates a deeper look may be required or reverting to the native name. Whereas the other just says "most frequently used by a majority of reliable english language sources". Commonname would include any reliable sources from random stat sites to newspapers etc. Whereas diacritics stresses encyclopedias and a very specific type of book. Leaving out of course the lower quality source types. In other words one stresses quantity while the other stresses quality. -DJSasso (talk) 16:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
    I believe WP:COMMONNAME also stresses quality; it simply includes a larger list of examples of reliable sources. WP:DIACRITICS seems more ambivalent to me in how it lumps all books together, without evaluating their level of quality. Since the article sources are mentioned in the guideline, technically it can also include any so-called lower quality sources. isaacl (talk) 16:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
    @DJSasso: You Agree in Poll 1, where you say that COMMONNAME does not talk about diacritics at all. But here you say that WP:DIACRITICS goes against WP:COMMONNAME. How is that possible, when they according to you cover different topics? --OpenFuture (talk) 18:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
    Because your statements don't take that into account. Your statements are written in the form that they do cover the same topics. As such I can only agree or disagree based on how you have written them. -DJSasso (talk) 19:11, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
    Take what in account? If DIACRITICS and COMMONNAME talk about different things (which you say they do) they can not contradict each other (which you also say they do). You simply contradict yourself, and arguments like that is likely one contributing factor to why this goes in circles. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
    That they cover different topics. Your poll simply says does this contradict this. Since your position above was that they cover the same topics, your statement in this poll question implies that they cover the same topic. As such the responses are constrained by the idea that they are covering the same topic. Assuming I am correct that they don't cover the same topic then yes, they don't contradict each other because they don't cover the same stuff. However, since you have been arguing that they are covering the same info and this poll was created by you then I have to agree that they contradict each other in that sense. -DJSasso (talk) 21:17, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Disagree. WP:DIACRITICS does not contradict WP:COMMONNAME, per Hans. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Disagree, for the reasons which I outlined above.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Agree, as diacritics should be restricted when using required english sources. GoodDay (talk) 23:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
    This straw poll is explicitly about how things *are* not how they *should be*. --OpenFuture (talk) 02:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Disagree, both policies states use diacritics when sources do, don't when sources don't. --Stefan talk 00:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Disagree. WP:COMMONNAME is part of a policy which begins by specifying reliable English sources. That this exact phrase is not repeated in every sentence is good style, not an invitation for Wikilawyering. But in fact WP:COMMONNAME refers to The term most typically used in reliable sources; if it is useful to add English we can do so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Disagree - we are asking wiki reality here correct? In tennis articles it seems to be to slap diacritics on every item possible no matter what newspapers or common English language dictates. Diacritics rule the commonname arguments in tennis articles. It's wrong... but that's the way I see it around here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Poll 3: Actual usage

Statement: - The actual usage of Diacritics in article titles doesn't follow WP:COMMONNAME and/or WP:DIACRITICS; but use diacritics where English reliable sources do not.

Poll:

  • I don't know - We would have to make a list of these articles together with an overview of English RS to find out, which is a lot of work. Certainly there have been some examples taken up here, but one or two examples proves nothing. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Agree. (1) This can be tested by hitting Special:Random many times. A bit less than 10% of our articles have diacritics. I have yet to find an article in this way that could theoretically have diacritics but does not. (2) Piotrus found another test: "Category:Redirects from titles without diacritics (309,123 articles) vs Category:Redirects from titles with diacritics (6,571), which yields us roughly a 1:50 ratio." (3) Take Category:European people, drill down to any of the subcategories for people from a country that uses diacritics. You will see plenty of them. Click on any name that looks as if it should have diacritics but doesn't. Almost always you will find that the person is a resident of the US. Hans Adler 09:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Oh sure, but how many of these have no or few reliable sources that use diacritics? What needs to be established here is if practice goes against policy. Also, this seems to be mostly about personal names. Is this only an issue for personal names? --OpenFuture (talk) 09:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Not really, policy on Wikipedia is supposed to follow practice. Not the other way around. So the numbers above are clearly showing a wide discrepancy in use/non-use. -DJSasso (talk) 12:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Did anyone even look at the categories? Some examples !Adios Amigos! , (-)-2-b-Carbomethoxy-3-b-(4-fluorophenyl)tropane naphthalenedisulfonate , (SAT, e-UNSAT), + album , -- That Thou art Mindful of Him , 0-1 integer program, 1 E -1 m3, 1080deg: Avalanche, there are lots of non Diacritics in that category, I still think it is much bigger than the other, but there is lots in it that is wrong. It is much hard to check if the other category is to small .... --Stefan talk 14:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
@DJSasso: Yes, really. I'm sorry, your comment makes no sense to me. I stand by my position as factual and self-evident, and here it is for the third time: If policy says that titles should follow the usage in sources, the only way to know if practice has a discrepancy from policy is to look if titles follows sources in actual usage. You can not just look at how many titles have diacritics, you have to also look at if the sources for these article use diacritics or not. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Agree I couldn't say it better than Hans Adler. -DJSasso (talk) 12:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Agree - "Quality sources" again... Thanks to the efforts of other editors who provided links – it can be demonstrated that The Guardian, National Geographic and Britannica use diacritics more or less how we use them. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 14:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Wha? The postulated statement is worded poorly. What are you folks agreeing to? ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 14:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
    Basically that common use on Wikipedia is that they are used. As such policy should reflect that, because the criteria for a policy on Wikipedia is that it describes practice not prescribes practice. -DJSasso (talk) 15:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
    That's not what what the statement says. The statement was that Wikipedia commonly uses diacritics where English reliable sources do not. Do you agree with that? --OpenFuture (talk) 18:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
    That is what it read like to me. Obviously its a completely unclear statement then. -DJSasso (talk) 19:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Agree. This is obvious in the case of non-anglicized personal names written in the Latin alphabet. The practice differs in many other cases, which I've tried to document here. It should be noted that an earlier version of WP:DIACRITICS did not completely obfuscate the general opinion and practice on diacritical marks: "There is disagreement over what article title to use when a native name uses the Latin alphabet with diacritics (or "accent marks") but general English usage omits the diacritics. A survey that ran from April 2005 to October 2005 ended with a result of 62–46 (57.4%–42.6%) in favor of diacritics, which was a majority but was not considered to be a consensus." The whole section was rewritten in this series of edits. Prolog (talk) 15:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. I have to agree with alaney2k that the poll question is poorly worded. I agree with Hans and DJSasso, per my analysis in #Fact: it is a common practice to use diacritics on Wikipedia, but I am not sure that I agree with the wording ofthe poll question above, which seems to suggest to me something else - that we use diacritics where the policies suggest we shouldn't. The bone of contention, for me, is the part "where English reliable sources do not". I'd rather say "where English reliable sources do not have an estabilished usage". In other words, estabilished practice on Wikipedia is to use diacritics even when there is no clear consensus among the spruces. It's like this: 1) if the reliable sources use diacritics, we use them 2) if the reliable sources are not clear, or do not exist, we use them 3) if the reliable sources do not use diacritics (minority of cases), we do not use them. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
    Yes this is pretty much what I am trying to say. -DJSasso (talk) 19:17, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
  • The current state of diacritics usage is an artifact caused by the advocacy of English Wikipedia users (both for and against), so I would not accept any statistics based on current article titles as being useful in our decision making process here. This is a "poisoned well", and I view any statistics about this subject as lies! :)
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't know, what is presented in the discussion above is just not enough, is the sources used really RS, RS states "Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context", so is http://www.hockeydb.com/ really a reliable source for names?? --Stefan talk 00:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Weakly agree Of course there are semi-literate nationalists who put in bizarre diacritics as an ethnic statement - and dogmatic anglophones who remove diacritics when English has adopted them; we are a work in progress, and these have not yet always been fixed. How common these abuses are is another question. One purpose of this page, however, is to constrain such POV excesses; they are not standard, not supported by consensus, and should be removed. The only real advantage of the editors irresponsible for these is that they check each other; their activities are ot best practice. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
    Of course there are semi-literate nationalists who bizarrely remove diacritics as an ethnic statement - and dogmatic anglophobes who add diacritics when English has internalised a name [such as Napoleon or Zurich] without them; we are a work in progress, and these have not yet always been fixed. How common these abuses are is another question. One purpose of this page, however, is to constrain such POV excesses; they are not standard, not supported by consensus, and should be removed. Hans Adler 10:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

My conclusions

From the above straw poll, I draw the following conclusions:

  • We have a clear consensus that WP:COMMONNAME does NOT contradict WP:DIACRITICS.
  • We have no friggin' clue if practice and policy agree or disagree (but this may partly be because the question was poorly worded).

And most importantly:

We clearly need to modify the wording of WP:COMMONNAME to remove ambiguity. This can be done either by specifying that different usage of diacritics should be seen as different alternative names (which I think is hard to formulate in a way that doesn't cause confusion); or we explicitly in COMMONNAME refer to DIACRITICS on that issue.

Proposal: We add to WP:COMMONNAME the sentence "For the usage of diacritics in article titles, see WP:DIACRITICS. --OpenFuture (talk) 02:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Support --OpenFuture (talk) 02:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
  • A couple of comments: as it stands, WP:DIACRITICS refers to WP:COMMONNAME for guidance, and so it would be circular for WP:COMMONNAME to defer to WP:DIACRITICS. Second, I don't believe that the question of modified letters should be treated differently than any misspelling (starting with the assumption that those who support the use of original-language names considers a non-standard transliteration to be a misspelling). It would be much better to have a guideline on spelling that did not single out modified letters. For example, the name "Isaac" is frequently misspelled, even in reliable sources; it would be useful for a policy to ensure correct spelling can cover cases even when the word does not contain modified letters. isaacl (talk) 03:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
    So we can remove the reference in DIACRITICS; no pb. I think the problem is that the guideline does *not* single out diacritics (they are *not* modified letters. They are just letters). This leads people to single them out when they want to, and not went they don't want to. --OpenFuture (talk) 03:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
    Please note that my use of "modified letters" simply echoes the language in WP:DIACRITICS, without prejudice towards the nature of the letters in question. (I imagine they were called modified letters as they are variations of the basic modern Latin alphabet.) Regarding singling out extended Latin alphabet letters, a misspelling is a misspelling; I don't believe Wikipedia policy should single out one type of misspelling versus others. (It could highlight certain kinds of misspellings, but should describe a policy that covers all of them.) isaacl (talk) 03:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
    Right, highlight is a better word there. --OpenFuture (talk) 03:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm trying to come to grips with this proposal, but the various issues are still so jumbled up that I'm not sure that's currently possible. I'm not certain that it would be wise to push this issue on to the Article titles document... Isaacl hits the nail on the head about the possibility of creating a circular reference. I still think that COMMONNAME does cover diacritics, in that it refers to this document, as well.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 05:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
    The option is always to reword it so it clearly *does* cover diacritics. I could just not find a good way to word that. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
    That would, however, give the next person who disagrees with WP:COMMONNAME over some other issue more ground to stand on: "It doesn't say anything about left handed smoke-shifters, and it even covers diacritics." If you can come up with a general Yes, this means YOU clause, that would be very welcome. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
    Left-handed smoke shifters are rarely used in titles. :-) But you are right, that it would open up for claims about hyphens vs dashes, for example. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. As many involved in the hockey player discussions may know, I am generally opposed to the use of diacritics in titles when no English language sources exist that use diacritics. That said, the majority of RMs have been closed as moving to the title with diacritics, despite this going against the article titles policy. As a result, I've become neutral on the issue (and have given up commenting on diacritics RMs). Therefore I'd absolutely love it if we could get a definitive consensus for either "yes, COMMONNAME applies to diacritics" or "no, COMMONNAME does not apply to diacritics". My only contribution will be to say that at the moment practice and policy do disagree and that's what is causing these epic discussions. Jenks24 (talk) 07:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Support This seems like a perfect solution to me (unfortunately it has already failed). Colincbn (talk) 05:22, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - WP:COMMONNAME and WP:DIACRITICS are essentially the same, but WP:COMMONNAME doesn't say anything about the fact that search engines don't always recognize modified letters and that they (the search engines) should be used more carefully. I don't think there would be any circular reference if we add "For the usage of diacritics in article titles, see also WP:DIACRITICS". mgeo talk 18:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Support but we should make sure that the advice from COMMONNAME (see this) is copied or moved here, to avoid creating contradictions. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Second proposal

OK, that didn't get any support. New try:

Proposal: Amongst the examples in COMMONNAME we include names that have diacritics, such as "Björn Borg", not "Björn Rune Borg" or "Bjorn Borg". (Yes, I checked, encyclopedias consistently spell it correctly, sports mags and NYT consistently spell it Bjorn.) --OpenFuture (talk) 08:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Support - As proposer. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - Easy one to nail. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 08:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I could support this conditionally, if we provide an example without as well. Providing just the one example would effectively mean "use diacritics wherever possible".
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 09:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
    Absolutely. I don't know of a good example, though, with exception to placenames that have English variants, but that is a slightly different question. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
    I can think of several, but they'll all bring down a hail of criticism... (pick any long time NHL'er or NBA player though. Easy pickings, there. The only problem is that whoever you pick is likely to be residing at an article title which uses diacritics).
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 09:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
    Which, of course, is for a reason. These people aren't particularly notable, so Wikipedia is the first encyclopedia to cover them. And in general it is verifiable from sources in the original language how the name would be spelled by any other English-language encyclopedia, should the person become sufficiently notable. Hans Adler 10:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
    To reduce the instances and temptation to rename 'legacy' individuals who are well known under names without diacritics, I can envisage we would apply it only to anyone born after Ilie Năstase, and who is still living, and anyone born after 1960 irrespective of if they are still living. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 10:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
    How about Oscar Hedstrom not Carl Oscar Hedström ? --OpenFuture (talk) 10:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
    That's just another immigrant to the US. They almost always lose their diacritics in the process. I totally agree that for such people the default should be not to use the diacritics, at least when they were/are notable mostly while in the US. A standard example for when a name actually develops an English version is Napoleon. Hans Adler 14:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
    OK, so take Napoleon then? The reason to not use diacritics is not relevant. The point is to show an example of not doing it, to show that COMMONNAME covers about diacritics. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
    Seeing the attitudes of certain other people, both here and in other similar discussions, I'm withdrawing all support for this. It's obvious that, at this point, any mention of the possibility that using diacritics is going to be misread as carte blanch permission to use diacritics everywhere. grrr
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
  • No - as per above. It is going to be misread. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - "Björn Borg" is a good example. mgeo talk 12:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Maybe not after all. How about Björk? mgeo talk 22:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
      Bjork and Bjorn Borg are both good examples of places we probably should use the diacritics. Unfortunately, there are several people who are making it impossible to work with, because they're insisting that instances such as those establish a president which means that diacritics should be used wherever possible.
      — V = IR (Talk • Contribs)
      I know it's OT but "establish a president" is the cutest typo I've read in a while. Pichpich (talk) 01:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
      LOL!
      — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:01, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
  • No - Agree with Ohm's law. By itself, it's not enough. Borg was well-known in both Europe and North America. What you're suggesting is a policy to prefer the European and birth spelling over the North American spelling, without context, and using a "loaded example." Likely, there are more references to Borg without the ö, than with, and that overturns common-name. (Remember, this would predate Google, so please don't drag out stats.) So, you need a clause to guide editors, not just a sentence. Otherwise, people will continue to argue this point. "Björn Borg instead of Bjorn Borg, is an example of a title that is preferred, because Borg retained the usage, changing the ö to o is not a translation, the spelling is common enough and the article title is comprehensible to most English readers. For persons who are not covered by encyclopedic sources, not covered in Webster's Dictionary, who have emigrated to North America, who have minimal sources of diacritic spelling (to coin a term) or unproven usage, and may have comprehensibility issues for English readers, seek a reliable source such as the New York Times which follows a Manual of Style, and not simply the usage of web sites for the spelling, although the sites may be otherwise reliable. We should probably not prefer the birth spelling in these cases, but retain the common spelling, as it is likely "adopted" by the subject. There may be appropriate transliterations also. Organizations such as the IIHF, which operate in multiple languages, but have standards for conversions of names to English could be useful." So proposal two falls short IMO. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 15:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
As I pointed out, encyclopedias consistently spell it "Björn Borg" (it is not a "European Spelling" it is the correct spelling). You are right that there are *more* references that spell it "Bjorn Borg", but the encyclopedias trump this as having more weight as reliable sources. Also, you seem unclear on the purpose of the proposal. It is to do one thing only: Clarify that COMMONNAME covers diacritics. That's all. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Britannica and other encyclopedia's don't "trump" shit. argh!
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Bjorn Borg gets 7,480 post-1980 English language Google Book hits, out of which 442, or 6 percent, have an umlaut. Quite a few foreign language books appear on Google Books, so this is almost certainly an overcount. This ngram certainly suggests the real ratio is lower. "Möbius strip" gets 13 percent, so that might be a better example of a diacritic that actually is in common usage. In any case, common usage for a diacritic should imply that at least a certain percentage of the hits have the diacritic. Britannica has peculiar conventions regarding diacritics, so it does not tell us anything about whether a usage is common or not. Kauffner (talk) 18:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
    That's not an accurate way of using the google search. If I for example search on "Bjorn Borg" -"Björn Borg" I would according to you get hist of books without umlauts, but the first hit is "Björn Borg - Winnder loses all". Although the Google books title doesn't have umlauts, you can see from the cover picture that the book does use umlauts. The reverse search gets another edition of the same book as first hit. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
The title of the first hit is given unambiguously as Bjorn Borg: Winner Loses All. The cover is artwork. The title proper of a book is given on the title page. It is a common practice to strip off the special characters from the title proper. Even if Google really did screw up the title of this book, that has nothing to do with whether the diacritic search is effective or not. Kauffner (talk) 01:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
And which edition did it screw up? The one with or the one without umlauts? Right. Even ignoring the fact that you count all sources as equal, you can't just count Google hits like that. --OpenFuture (talk) 02:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
The title proper is with an umlaut for both editions. You can see here. Both versions of the title can be considered correct, but of course there is no basis to give the two editions different titles. You care about the title of this book? I tried this method on various names and I think it is obvious from the results that come up what it does. Kauffner (talk) 03:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, with no prejudice against more nuanced examples. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose This example is way more nuanced than I'd like to see. It is common use because Britannica uses it? On diacritics, Britannica represents the outer limit of what is acceptable in published English. Moreover, it is rarely consulted as an authority on sport. Notable Sports Figures does not use the diacritic. Kauffner (talk) 15:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I think what you meant to say was that your source does not use diacritics. Period. Båstad is called "Bastaad" and Jan-Erik Lundqvist has apparently changed both his first and last name ("Jan Erik Lundquist"). As for what is acceptable in published English, we can take a look at some external style guides. Prolog (talk) 17:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Did you read your own examples? According to the styleguides for The Economist, The Guardian, The Times, and The New York Times, Scandinavian diacritics should get stripped out. AP is more authoritative than any of these. They strip out diacritics altogether. Several of the most popular books on Borg use the umlaut, so I don't actually think we should strip his out. But the example should be something from French, German, or Spanish that at least The New York Times would put diacritics on. Kauffner (talk) 02:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
First you used a non-reliable source and now you replied by cherry-picking. To quote The Guardian and The Times, "people's names, in whatever language, should also be given appropriate accents where known" and "omit in other languages unless you are sure of them." AP removes diacritical marks because they "cause garbled copy in some newspaper computers." Remind me again, which newspaper computers and wire services does the English Wikipedia use? Prolog (talk) 03:41, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
This is certainly a lot of attitude, but I am left searching for a substantive argument. Are you claiming that Scandinavian diacritics have significant English-language usage, or not? Perhaps your point is something else altogether, and I missed it entirely? Kauffner (talk) 05:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Conclusion and name proposal

Most editors opposed to the proposal to add examples with diacritics seem to be opposed to the Björn Borg example, which was just an example, hence the "such as". I therefore draw the conclusion that the consensus is to add examples with diacritics. Add your suggestions + oppose/support below. I won't take up Björn Borg then. Somebody else suggested Björk, and getting her Umlauts correct does seem relatively common. Then we just stick one example with diacritics and one without after what votes they get. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Example 1: "Björk not Björk Guðmundsdóttir"

Example 2: "Napoleon not Napoléon Bonaparte"

Example 3: "Oscar Hedstrom not Carl Oscar Hedström"

Reliable sources statement

This policy currently states: when deciding between versions of a word which differ in the use or non-use of modified letters, follow the general usage in English reliable sources (including other encyclopedias and reference works). The parenthetical appears, to me, to be at odds with The idea that we should strive to rely on Secondary sources, as expressed by both the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy and the Wikipedia:No original research policy (which used to be more prominent, I thought. That's something that I'm going to ask about on WT:V).

I think that the parenthetical bit comes from the issues surrounding geographic names, which is why it's liked to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). We shouldn't loose that, but it should be clearer that any reliance on tertiary sources is limited to geographic names.

So, my proposed text would be: The use of modified letters (such as accents or other diacritics) in article titles is neither encouraged nor discouraged; when deciding between versions of a word which differ in the use or non-use of modified letters, follow the general usage in English reliable sources. The policy on using common names and on foreign names does not prohibit the use of modified letters, if they are used in the common name as verified by reliable sources. Geographic titles may use other encyclopedias and reference works for verification.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 05:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The guidance on using secondary sources versus tertiary is, I believe, more to ensure that as few indirections as possible are used (for example, where possible, point to the original newspaper article, not the article that reports what another article says), and not to diminish the reliability of an encyclopedia such as Britannica. Wikipedia's guidance on identifying reliable sources says "Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, obituaries, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion." Wikipedia's policy on primary sources says "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. ... Reliably published tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, especially when those sources contradict each other." I don't see any issue in using a reliable tertiary source in establishing the common name for a topic, as this fits within the scope of a broad overview or summary. isaacl (talk) 05:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that tertiary sources should be disallowed, or anything like that. I agree with your analysis for the most part, although it appears that I interpret the parts which you are quoting as preferring secondary sources more strongly than you do.
Regardless, It seems clear to me that the parenthetical is mostly about geographic names. It links directly to the geographic names naming convention, after all. I can see how emphasizing tertiary sources for geographic names would be helpful, but I seriously question how it can be helpful in a broader sense. The parenthetical, as it is currently structured, broadens the scope of one naming convention guideline beyond that which it is designed to give guidance on, which is something that we should avoid as much as possible.
By the way, I'm perfectly willing to play aroudn with the wording. I'm not completely happy with the phrasing that I used in the proposal, but it at least conveys the idea.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 05:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, we are a tertiary source. We shouldn't consult other tertiary sources when secondary sources are available; in principle, neither does the Britannica (in practice, both of us are often derived from the 1911 Britannica). But we should look like them; we serve the same purpose. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

That's the crux of the problem, for me. I can understand consultation of tertiary sources in relation to geographic names though, since... well, they're the best sources for such information. Which is why I don't think that (the link to WP:NCGN) should be lost completely.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
It's not a problem unless you want it to be, and it appears some do. The guideline clearly states we should consult such sources, and I think it's a good way to go. We don't necessarily do so in the sense that we rely on them for correct spellings and correct use of diacritics – although they may be, but for referential value as clear examples of what is to be expected in 'peer' or competing publications. In much the same way as our articles on specialist subjects, whether biology or pharmacology or astrophysics, we are clearly not expected to regard articles from news organisations as being of equal value compared with scholarly or professional journals, thus a lesser reliance on 'reliable' news sources is not out of place. As Wikipedia ALLOWS the use of foreign language sources, these are our de facto "reliable sources" on the par with scholarly literature when it comes to names of said individuals or places. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
slightly OT, but I disagree with "we are clearly not expected to regard articles from news organisations as being of equal value compared with scholarly or professional journals", vehemently. Violently even, to be honest (in a rhetorical sense of course, not in reality). I just think that's a crappy attitude, really. Still thinking about the substance of what you've said above, though.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
May I ask why?Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
@Ohms law: I think it is pretty obvious that the name and spelling used by an encyclopedia should count more than the one used by an article in a local daily newspaper. That they therefore have different weights or "worth" if you like, is to me self-evident, and I don't see how that is a crappy attitude at all. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
If you qualify his statement with "local" then I could understand that attitude slightly better, but... Ohconfucius didn't say that. More importantly, such a comparison is artificial, and appears to be nothing more than the creation of a straw man to be knocked down. I think that my viewpoint here is based on my own experience that there's a lot of really crappy work that's occurred within the "scholarly or professional journals" sphere, and the same can be said of work that's been published in the encyclopedic sphere. Saying that such publications are inherently more valuable then work published in general circulation books, newspapers, magazines, and other media is just wrong. The acceptability of sources to be used as citations should be determined on a case by case basis. I'm totally opposed to blindly accepting citations based on who published the work, or of creating artificial classes for citations. I'm not saying that TMZ or National Enquirer should be a generally acceptable sources, but that sort of source certainly shouldn't be completely verboten.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 05:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Ahem... more to the point, I don't see how the house style's of Britannica or any of the thousands of Journals are particularly relevant to our own house style. I think that looking to what others do can be informative, but there's no good reason for us to slavishly follow their choices.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 05:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, I qualified it with "local" to make it obvious that there *are* differences and that not all sources should weigh the same. If we then start talking individual sources, then it's not obvious that New York Times should weigh less than say Encarta. But that then becomes an issue when weighing the available sources on a specific article.
In principle I don't mind Wikipedia to create it's own policy on this instead of following what others do. But I think we first need to figure out what actually is the problems with the current policy before we change it. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Well yea, that's why I started this section. I think that this proposal addresses one aspect of the issue, at least. The "(including other encyclopedias and reference works)" part is obviously problematic as it is currently formulated. I don't claim to know what the best solution is, I'm just trying to start a discussion in order to reach any solution.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 05:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Of course. Personally I thought my straw polls above was a screaming success. May I suggest more of them? Do other people agree this is a problem? --OpenFuture (talk) 08:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
I think it was useful, and additional polling certainly could help (as long as participation remains about the same).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 08:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
I still don't understand whether the vehemenceviolence with which you object to my comment may be due to some ideological opposition to the diacritics issue, or whether it's more generally philosophical. It seems largely undisputed/indisputable that scholarly sources are held with greater value in Wikipedia compared with general-nature sources; we say in the same breath that neither of which are perfect. There is as much crap journalism out there, if not more, compared with crap research. The quality of research is augmented by peer review. The disadvantage that newspapers have is that journos are usually under extreme time pressure to get stories out, so may have to cut some corners. Just because there is crap research doesn't mean you should throw out the proverbial baby with the bathwater. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 08:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
It's not tied to the diacritics issue at all. I'm not sure where the idea that "scholarly sources are held with greater value in Wikipedia" is coming from, let alone the idea that it's "indisputable". Aside from the fact that the journal vs. newspaper comparison is a false dichotomy (what about books, magazines, and websites? Hell, probably 3/4 of Wikipedia citations are websites...), peer review isn't any better, and is often worse (self selection, bias, and conflicts of interest, among other problems, are often issues in academia [sound familiar?]), than the editorial oversight that newspapers have. Just because there is crap journalism doesn't mean you should throw out the proverbial baby with the bathwater. :)
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 08:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
My impression that scholarly research is taken to have a greater value than news articles is through my reading of our policies. I was trying to say that the dichotomy is between "journalism" and "research", not the specific medium which are newspapers, magazines, websites or academic journals per se. No, you already threw the baby out, I was merely trying to rescue it. ;-) I regret your cynicism of peer review, etc... but to use the political analogy that our democracies are not perfect, but they are the best we have. So we're both agreed that there's crap journalism and crap research. Where do you think we should go from here? --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 09:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Well... I don't know. I think that this little side discussion has more to do with diacritics then it does with the proposal here to refactor the advice currently offered in the policy document. In terms of this discussion about research, journalism, or other sources, I know from earlier that it's your view that the research type of sources are "more correct", and so we should follow their style in our article titles. I'm just not convinced that's good for Wikipedia. We have every right to have our own style, based on our own needs. I'm perfectly willing to look at the style guides that academia relies on, but I'm not going to support their choices simply because that's what they do (for example, why not use MLA citations? After all, that's what most literature departments require...). Besides, I find the point that we only seem to want to be "correct" when the foreign script is at least partially based on Latin glyphs to be a telling point.
Anyway, I'm still on the point here, about breaking out the advice on geographic names so that it's clear that is what is being referred to. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) shouldn't be applicable to things that have nothing to do with geography.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 09:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't see why only geographic titles can use other reference works for verification. Biographies very much should do the same. I can tentatively support the change if "Geographic titles may" is changed to " It is recommended to" --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I never said that only geographic titles can use other refrence works. What about dropping the parenthetical (which is the last sentence in the proposal) altogether?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The secondary/tertiary issue doesn't have anything to do with diacritics. The problem with referring to encyclopedias in the guideline is that Britannica and Columbia use far more diacritics than other mainstream sources. But at the same time, the typographical diversity of Wiki's article titles surpasses either of these with Vietnamese diacratics and even Greek letters. Kauffner (talk) 17:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Why is it a "problem"?? Are you perhaps suggesting that that would set us back in going for the full range of diacritics, greek and vietnamese alphabets? --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 17:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
In terms of published usage of diacritics, Britannica is an outer limit. But this reference treats it as a baseline. If there is a more specialized and relevant tertiary source, as is certainly true with respect to sports or science, that should take precedence. Of course, if we really did treat Britannica as the baseline, this would be an improvement on the current situation. Kauffner (talk) 01:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Practical problem

The suggestions listed above are really well formulated and thoughtful, but I'm afraid none of the proposals can help me to resolve a practical problem related to using diacritics in the article titles. Please look at:

The first RM (multiple page move, centralized at Talk:Vladimír Búřil) started on 3 May, and all the articles have been moved to diacritics. The result of the other RMs was similar, all the article titles use diacritics. The multiple page RM located at Talk:Martin Ruzicka is still open. An editor familiar with the results of the RMs (and participant in all of the RM discussions) continued in creating of short robotic undiacriticized stubs on Czech ice hockey players. I came to a logical conclusion that there's general consensus to use diacritics in the Czech names and I moved the articles to correct and full names. The players are known for their actions in the European hockey leagues, and all my edits/moves are backed up with reliable and relevant sources. Despite of this, some of my edits were reverted by the creator with the following statement: Undo controversial move to invoke Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Please, advice me, what can I do now? I can and I'm willing to start a requested move for every single page that was moved back to incorrect name, it requires nothing more than copypasting the same reasoning over and over. However, there are thousands of articles on (not only) Czech people using diacritics. Should I and others participate in thousands of identical discussions?? I don't want to look like an idiot. We need to compile a precise guideline about using diacritics in the article titles that would prevent similar situations. If we want to look like clowns, we can count English and non English sources and divide the names in accordance with the number of sources into two groups using and omitting the accent marks. It would have nothing to do with reality. I'm well aware that exceptions exist (established/anglicized names of internationally known people, such as Novak Djokovic), but I believe in most cases Wikipedia should respect native forms of proper nouns. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Some people are very obviously trying to change our general practice by arguing out single cases until everyone is too tired to resist them. This is an unethical technique similar to a filibuster and should not be rewarded. It is long-standing practice here that Czech persons get their diacritics in the same way that they get them in professionally edited English encyclopedias. If this continues, it might become a matter for WP:ANI. Hans Adler 09:03, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Concur with Hans. This is beginning to amount to gaming the system. Diacritics seem to have been given due consideration above. Let's put this one to rest and move on. NickCT (talk) 00:47, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Said user's attempts to thwart the use of diacritics from gaining ground are exhausting his credit of good faith as far as I am concerned. Clearly it makes little sense to perform page moves in a piecemeal fashion. The aforementioned has his work cut out for him – it will take him an eternity to unilaterally crusade against the accepted state of diacritics use. An RFCU on the said person and/or a global RfC which clarifies the situation is/are long overdue. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Many people disagree with you; yet you got your way on four of these and the fifth is still open. I haven't seen anybody so oppressed since Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

You appear to be totally missing the point. I think the issue here is should we have a thousand discussions about the same issue, or just one? It has nothing to do with being "oppressed". ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
That cuts both ways. On one side, many discussions invite many voices, unless canvassing takes over. On the other, if we had only one discussion, the airy and unsubstantiated claims about what our practice is might be exposed as buncombe.
But ia this the complaint of those who have to rush to put out every fire because they can't count on others to agree with them? And if so, why should we sympathize? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't feel oppressed, SeptentrionalisPMAnderson :) The situation becomes more and more absurd and I love absurdity. The current policy allows absurd situations and I'm watching it with great interest and enthusiasm. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 06:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
What never fails to surprise me about those who stand at one end of a spectrum of opinion is how they are quite willing to stand up and say how correct they are in relation to others. That others are the problem. To me it is a sure warning sign. We achieve things at Wikipedia through consensus, not from both ends of the spectrum kicking at us who are in the middle. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 13:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't kick anyone. The discussion continues for months and consensus is nowhere in sight, despite serious attempts to find a way out. I'm sorry to say that, but this situation is absurd. It is absurd and entirely legitimate, which is really funny to me. I believe that I have right to express my concerns in a civil way. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Merely an observation. I'm not naming names. We're all guilty to a degree. I agree the situation is fairly absurd. As someone who pointed this out elsewhere, the subject of a lot of the debate are persons who are actually somewhat obscure. I would say consensus will take time with the spectrum of opinions. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 14:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Precisely, consensus has never been in sight. On the one hand, there are those who are opposed to diacritics root and branch; I don't believe Good Day will object to having his comments here reread. On the other, some of those editors connected with some European languages demand the present uncompromising proposal. (Some is correct; the Irish editors discussed this, long ago and peaceably, and the results can be seen at WP:IMOS; they are one intermediate position, which could be studied with profit.)

Therefore we adopt neither extreme position; those of us, like myself, more or less in the middle, will join with either side to oppose the other. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

RfC notification

A new discussion on wording changes to the current guideline to clarify the use of diacritics for subjects whose native names contain them has been initiated. It can be found at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)/Diacritics RfC. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 04:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:UE

Should it also redirect here? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:09, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Pointer to discussion about WP:DIACRITICS and MOS:FOREIGN

I've posted the following question here: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#WP:DIACRITICS_and_MOS:FOREIGN.

It seems WP:DIACRITICS and MOS:FOREIGN plow nearly the same ground but slightly vary with each other. Would there be a way to harmonize and/or consolidate the two? --Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Always ignore the Manual of Style. It's not English, it's not supported by reliable sources, and it's not consensus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
English is a highly endangered language. It has only one speaker: PMAnderson. Anderson, would you mind updating the English-language article and changing the population to "1"? Thanks. — kwami (talk) 22:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

* If Wikipedia is off doing its own thing, trying to change the very alphabet of the English language beyond that used by Encyclopedia Britannica and National Geographic, then that is a strong clue to back off. German, French and Spanish diacritics for proper nouns (accents in words like François, señor, and von Blücher) are routinely accepted for use with English. That is not true for Vietnamese and other languages, where doing so results in stuff like Dục Đức. Wikipedia has zero business trying to expand the envelope for what amounts to the very alphabet the English language uses.

A perfectly acceptable compromise (solution) is to write as follows: General Nguyen Ngoc Loan (spelled locally in English as "Nguyễn Ngọc Loan")… Going beyond this and expanding the alphabet to beyond that used by other most-reliable English-langauge sources such as Encyclopedia Britannica and National Geographic amounts to nothing more than mere all-volunteer wikipedians wanting to feel worldly and smart and try to lead by example. But we often end up looking naive and pretentious instead. Greg L (talk) 20:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


P.S. By the way, this is not about “technology” and “Unicode” enabling Wikipedia to Lead By Example®™©. For decades, Encyclopedia Britannica and National Geographic have access to diacritics and graphemes from quality type foundries. They have eschewed doing so for obvious reasons. Greg L (talk) 20:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

  • If Wikipedia is off doing its own thing, trying to change the very alphabet of the English language beyond that used by Encyclopedia Britannica and National Geographic, then that is a strong clue to back off. German, French and Spanish diacritics for proper nouns (accents in words like François, señor, and von Blücher) are routinely accepted for use with English. That is not true for Vietnamese and other languages, where doing so results in stuff like Đặng Hữu Phúc. Wikipedia has zero business trying to expand the envelope for what amounts to the very alphabet the English language uses.

    A perfectly acceptable compromise (solution) is to write as follows: General Nguyen Ngoc Loan (spelled locally in English as "Nguyễn Ngọc Loan")… Going beyond this and expanding the alphabet to beyond that used by other most-reliable English-langauge sources such as Encyclopedia Britannica and National Geographic amounts to nothing more than mere all-volunteer wikipedians wanting to feel worldly and smart and try to lead by example. But we often end up looking naive and pretentious instead. Greg L (talk) 20:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


    P.S. By the way, this is not about “technology” and “Unicode” enabling Wikipedia to Lead By Example®™©. For decades, Encyclopedia Britannica and National Geographic have access to diacritics and graphemes from quality type foundries. They have eschewed expanding the set of diacritics beyond the traditional ones long used for centuries because English speakers are generally unfamiliar with them and these editors know something lost on many here. The editors of these most-reliable sources are properly gauging what diacritics are commonly used and what English readers are accustomed to sounding out. They rightly know that English readers are accustomed to knowing how to pronounce “François” and “señor”. How many people do you meet on the street who can fathom how to pronounce “Đặng Hữu Phúc”? How many more readers would be able to do so were Wikipedia to march off and do its own thing and flout the practices of wise and well respected, most-reliable English-language sources? If the answer is any more than “My mommy would ‘cause I’d maker her read what I wrote,” then you aren’t being intellectually honest.

    One day—perhaps quite soon—as Asian countries gain more head-space in English-speaking peoples, Asian proper nouns will be so common that pronouncing their names and the diacritics associated with that effort will become engrained in the English language. But Wikipedia don’t try to put the cart before the horse. This phenomenon, where wikipedians have deluded themselves that Wikipedia affords them The Power To Change the World and make it a better place resulted in such unwise things as our three-year-long effort at using IEC prefixes like “mebibyte (MiB)” and “kibibyte (KiB)” in our computer-related articles because it was *better and a standard and is logical*, even though the rest of the computer industry and the RSs didn’t use such terminology. It was just a “Wikipedia thing.” Most cute. Greg L (talk) 22:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

    Actually...no. If you are going to make a point make it with the fact that while several publications spell the names François, señor, and von Blücher it is far, far from routine. It is the minority view and not common English. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
  • It doesn’t matter what newsletters hanging on the corkboard at a convent read like nor what a local newspaper does, Fyunck. It only matters, in my opinion, what most-reliable, English-language publications like Encyclopedia Britannica and National Geographic do. These publications should serve as the paradigm for wikipedians to look towards. Thus, Encyclopedia Britannica: François Mitterrand and Encyclopedia Britannica: Vu Ngoc Nha. Note also National Geographic’s print article on François Mitterrand.

    Furthermore, I’m not sure you took the time to actually read and comprehend what I am advocating above. I am advocating Wikipedia follow the diacritical practices of most-reliable English-language sources such as encyclopedias. Those do spell it François Mitterrand. But they don’t adopt diacritics from other languages that are not traditionally part of English. Did you realize that was my point? Now…

    If you did correctly read my post and understood my point, then what you seem to be advocating is that Wikipedia not even do what Encyclopedia Britannica does. That is simply not realistic and arguing that point is an utter waste of time. Get serious. It’s easy to argue things in black & white terms with arguments ranging from “Adopt all the diacriticals on the planet because not doing so is racist,” to arguments like “Don’t use any diacriticals because the vast majority of English-language publications (including newspapers and newsletters from my junior high) don’t use them.”

    Understanding gray areas and appreciating how to deal with the nuances is the hard part (witness Republicans and Democrats in the U.S. and how they “simplify” things). Greg L (talk) 22:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Oh I did read it and that's why I did not criticize your content... only your incorrect view that most reliable sources spell those names with diacritics. You are incorrect there. Those two sources are not the gold standard for common English protocol. Sure there are many non-native English speakers that would have you think so but that is simply their own pov... nothing more. In fact many times an encyclopedia is a second hand source where we need the original source instead. As for tv, newspapers (NY Times, London Times, etc), books, media and for sports personalities things like Tennis Pro tour (ATP and WTA) and Hockey federations like the NHL... I and 99% of first language English speakers will take those as high level sources every time (not withstanding your jr high newsletter). It's fine a dandy of the squeaky wheels around here to demand and get article names in diacritics... good and bad that's the way things work around here. I didn't say to change it above. But to use a falsehood to make a point and lambast me for correcting your falsehood is strange. You said "diacritics for proper nouns are routinely accepted for use with English" and "most-reliable, English-language publications" do also... no matter how you slice it that is incorrect. Are they used more often on wikipedia...yep. Are they used more often in English language sources that wikipedia endorses...nope. It is not routine and most reliable English sources don't use diacritics on a regular basis. Making your point is cool... doing so with pov falsehoods is not. Fyunck(click) (talk)
  • Oh, well… just pardon me all over the place for falsely thinking that Encyclopedia Britannica sets the “gold standard” for encyclopedic practices. Between that, and the oh-so worldly National Geographic, I thought I had something there but you have dismissed these as “pov falsehoods” (*sound of wistful sigh*). Besides, I think it is a galactic waste of time for you to try to swim upstream of a torrent of desire for Wikipedia to at least use the same diacritics that Encyclopedia Britannica is using. In short: you and I will simply have to agree to disagree when it comes to any notion of gutting the vast majority of diacriticals on things like “François Mitterrand” and “naïve,” M’kay? Greg L (talk) 00:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

H-BSG what do you see as the inconsistencies between WP:DIACRITICS and MOS:FOREIGN? They do not cover the same ground one is for usage in an article the other for the title of an article. We run into problems is on article titles like "Lech Wałęsa" where ignoring the guidance in one automatically leads to ignoring the advise in the other for the sake of consistency within an article (not with only with "Lech Wałęsa" but also the presentation of other foreign names within the article (ignoring the advise in MOS:FOREIGN to follow the usage in the sources). The only thing I can see that I think needs to be changed is the sentence "Provide redirects from alternative forms that use or exclude diacritics." in MOS:FOREIGN. I think it should be removed. -- PBS (talk) 22:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Maybe I’m all confused, PBS, as to what Wikipedia’s real policies are because our articles don’t seem to be consistent. Please advise, which of these articles are fully compliant with all of Wikipedia’s guidelines—considering article names, first-sentence lede, and body text:
  1. Phong Nha-Ke Bang National Park
  2. Nguyen Ngoc Loan
  3. Duc Duc
  4. Vạn Hạnh
  5. Petrus Ký (note that this one isn’t consistent with the Encyclopedia Britannica article it references with regard to diacriticals)
Please advise. Greg L (talk) 23:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I fixed "Petrus Ký". That was pretty silly. I've removed the Vietnamese diacritics from most of the biography titles. I tried removing them from the place name articles as well, but so far without success. Nobody uses them in published English -- not Britannica, not National Geographic, not the travel guides, not the scholarly tomes, and certainly not the war stories. Kauffner (talk) 11:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
See above #Conflict between usage and policy wording where I was involved in a discussion about whether we should junk using reliable English language sources and role our own set of rules. After very long discussions on this page there does not seem to be consensus to move away from using sources to decide usage to a rule based method. Can we instead concentrate in this section on the inconsistencies between WP:DIACRITICS and MOS:FOREIGN and if they exist how to fix them rather than the inconsistencies between some articles and guidance? -- PBS (talk) 06:06, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

separating from above... Just a quick note on the prior stricken "For decades, Encyclopedia Britannica and National Geographic have access to diacritics and graphemes from quality type foundries." Having the molds to cast lead into was never the impediment to producing text with diacritics faithful to the native representation of languages. It is that, simply, there is a mechanical limitation to how large you can make a Linotype. It's a tremendously labor-intensive operation to change font faces or to change out molds of special characters—remember, text was created by assembling a bank of single-letter molds for each line of text into which hot lead was then cast. It is, in fact, (1) the advent of phototypsetting and (2) standardization on UTF et al. (that is, a standard for accomodating multiple font code pages simultaneously instead of being stuck with only one language at a time) that enabled the widespread use of native syntax. The widespread use of diacritics in scholarly text today is a direct result of anyone being able to sit down anywhere on earth with a computer and create documents in the language of that place. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 01:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I did R&D and converted printers from hot type to cold type, trust me on this. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK

Greg: ". I am advocating Wikipedia follow the diacritical practices of most-reliable English-language sources such as encyclopedias. Those do spell it François Mitterrand." - Except of course, that "most-reliable English-language sources" doesn't spell it like that at all, but most encyclopedias does. There is a conflict between what reliable sources do and encyclopedias do, and unless we recognize it we'll be stuck in this debate for ever. Do we follow general English usage, or do we want to behave like Britannica. We can't do both. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:28, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Actually, yes, we can! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Of course, the question is what version would be the redirected. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Redirects don't have much effect on traffic patterns anyway. Readers get to the the articles through the search engines, which don't consider the redirects. Kauffner (talk) 11:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
It is true, but we discuss a different topic, the titles of specific articles (not redirects) here on en:wiki. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

All: I am rather new to this issue and I know there has been water under the bridge.

I have noted that there are some who advocate that Wikipedia adopt diacriticals from all the languages of the world. One editor recently told me it would be “racist” to be selective and exclude some languages (notably Asian ones). Others are wildly at the other extreme and don’t want common diacriticals like ü, ö, ï, é, ñ, and ç used on Wikipedia.

Then there is the issue of treating article titles differently from body text.

And then there is the issue that Jimbo weighed in on this issue; as I recall, it was in opposition to diacriticals (or opposition to expanding their use) in article titles. HIs presence made for a deluge of not-particularly-well-thought-out opinion on the subject, and possibly prematurely hardened positions.

Then there is the problem that this issue is apparently being addressed in different venues on Wikipedia. Is this the correct place? If so, I would be interested in participating and would like to assist in working towards a consensus.

So that everyone knows where I am coming from, I generally despise black or white solutions; I think the absolute extreme corners on issues are often a refuge for weak minds. It takes thoughtful analysis and appreciation for exceptions to craft solutions that deal with shades of gray. And then taking these shades of gray and trying to communicate them in plain-speak is double-tough.

So I will be candid and explain precisely what my position is right up front: I think the primary purpose of using certain diacriticals in English (there is at least one more), is to tell English-speaking readers how to pronounce words. England’s proximity to its European neighbors being what it is, English has adopted certain words from France, Germany, Spain, and Italy into its vocabulary. English speakers are supposed to know that señor does not rhyme with tenor. They are supposed to know that résumé does not sound like the word that means “begin to do or pursue”. Accordingly, these common diacriticals:


´ ˇ ¨ ˜ and the grapheme ç (the list is probably incomplete)

…have long been used as part of the English language and a knowledgeable readership is expected to have some facility in dealing with them.

What is clear is that Encyclopedia Britannica and National Geographic do spell it “François Mitterrand” Encyclopedia Britannica online, as does National Geographic (link to “Essential Visual HIstory of the World”). So too does the French-language version of Wikipedia: François Mitterrand.

At the same time, Encyclopedia Britannica does not use diacriticals much beyond the ones I listed above; ergo Vu Ngoc Nha has no diacriticals (link). I think it is obvious that the editors of Encyclopedia Britannica realize that 99.99% of an English-speaking readership has no facility whatsoever in fathoming the Vietnamese alphabet. Here is the Vietnamese-language version of “Vũ Ngọc Nhạ”. And here is the Vietnamese-language version of “Đặng Hữu Phúc.” Go ahead… click on that and think about what proportion of our readership will have any facility with dealing with an entirely new alphabet.

Now, I can personally recognize and pronounce words like “résumé,”François,” and “señor.” But I would have no flying clue how to pronounce “Đặng Hữu Phúc.” Is that “ặ” supposed to sound like a ringing bell being submerged in water? English-speakers are never going to pronounce Asian words like that—even if taught. Nor would there be much point to learning this alphabet and all its diacritics if Wikipedia were the only preeminent English-language learning source throwing this stuff at me.

Finally, there is one more reason to use diacriticals (besides cluing a reader how to pronounce a word): to educate a professional writer who may have to correspond with a native reader. In such circumstances, what better place than Wikipedia to go find out how to properly spell the word in all its native glory? This aspect (service to our readership) is easy to address and can be done for all languages based on the Romantic alphabet. So…

Here is what I propose for consideration:

  1. Do not use diacriticals in article titles.
  2. For routine use in body text, the following diacriticals: ´ ˇ ¨ ˜ and the grapheme ç from French, German, Italian, and Spanish are permitted. {The list is expandable since I may easily have overlooked some key common ones routinely accepted for use with English.}
  3. With regard to precisely how one spells and accents foreign words, editors should put great credence in most-reliable English-language publications, with particular emphasis on Encyclopedia Britannica and National Geographic.
  4. When the English-language, encyclopedic practice of using diacriticals in a Romantic-language foreign word varies from the practice of its native speakers, and/or if the word is not permitted to be spelled with diacriticals in the main body text as provided herein, then editors are encouraged to provide a one-time parenthetical showing how the word is as written in the native language; thus…
    1. In biographies, where there is typically already a parenthetical after the individual’s name providing year of birth and so on, the first occurrence of the name after the first paragraph shall include a parenthetical providing the native spelling; thus Dang Huu Phuc (Vietnamese: Đặng Hữu Phúc) studied music at the National Music Academy VN…
    2. For non-biographies, provide a parenthetical in the first sentence of the lede; thus Ho Chi Minh City (Vietnamese: Thành phố Hồ Chí Minh) is the capital city…
  5. Editors are reminded to abide by the principle that Wikipedia endeavors to follow the practices of reliable sources and is not to be used as a platform to promote change in the encyclopedic practice of the English language, no matter how meritorious the motives.

That’s my 22¢ on the matter. No, I am not trying to beat up on other little countries and be racist and mean “full of hatefulness” and all that sort of bad stuff. I am simply trying to keep Wikipedia from taken out into left field where it would depart from common English-language practices. Greg L (talk) 18:56, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I too find the euro-centrism of this attitude less than desirable. I vote minus infinity on that. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:46, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
It’s not the role of mere all-volunteer wikipedians, OpenFuture, to try to change how the real world works—even if their sense of “what is right” seems violated by some sort of grand conspiracy by “the ‘white man in powdered wig’.” Wikipedia goes with the flow and doesn’t try to promote change by leading by example, particularly when doing so just baffles our readership. For guidance, wikipedians can look towards the practices of prestigious encyclopedias like Encyclopedia Britannica, which has professional editors with journalism degrees thinking about how best to communicate clearly to a readership without causing undo confusion. Greg L (talk) 21:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
You are right. And one billion flies can't be wrong. So I will immediately start eating shit. Or not. It is attitudes like yours that make this discussion impossible and a constant flame war. No, we shouldn't try to change the world. But just because everyone else in Europe thinks it is the center of the world doesn't mean that I or you, also have to believe that. Also, Wikipedia is not a *British* encyclopedia. It's a global one. Even the English language Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia. We do not have the same purpose goal or target audience as a British Encyclopedia created in the 18th century. Wikipedia is already a larger, and in many cases a more accurate encyclopedia than EB. We are also not an authoritative source and do not try to be one. We do a lot of things differently and sometimes even better than EB. Trying to be EB and restricting ourselves in what we do and what principles we have to copying EB is immensely misguided. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Principles 1 and 5 will often conflict. Since principle one has just been written whilst principle five is at the core of how wikipedia works, where the two are incompatible I think it's best to favour the latter. In other words, if reliable sources use diacriticals... bobrayner (talk) 19:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
But that has not been the way wikipedia has been working as of late as far as diacritics. The number of reliable sources is thrown out, one or two specific ones we are told are the only ones that matter, and then a vote happens where non-English-first voters (whose main languages use diacritics) dominate the scene. Common English then gets washed away. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
This is an international project, and it is to be expected. Many of these editors and other highly educated and culturally sensitive ones place a great deal of emphasis on orthodoxy and precision in spelling. I used to oppose diacritics in article titles, but sustainability is new paradigm. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
It has international input but non-english spelling is not to be expected. This is an English language wiki just as there are other language wikis and while it's sensational to have input from around the world, they should conform to common English here, not the other way around. Diacritics are not some pedestal-like example... they are being forced upon us against wiki guidlines imho. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Wrong. Once we have satisfied WP:GNG and verified the spelling, whether the name is properly spelt is a fundamental matter of neutrality. I really don't see how using a name that is correctly spelt can possibly be misleading. If we need any further justification to use diacritics, we cite truth above all. Reject rules that don't make sense, then our pillars are fulfilled. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 16:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Incorrect. And how do we verify English spelling... By checking multitudes of English sources. And if those many English sources spell it without diacritics we go with that. If they use diacritics we go with that. But we don't cherry pick English sources to fit our decisions. These rules make perfect sense to many of us. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Of course we cherry pick sources, all the time. We may use The Telegraph to fill in our biographies, but we place much less reliance on gossip and society columns of the same journal. We look to the sources that would tend to give us the most reliable information that pertains to a certain aspect of the subject of the article. Even WP:COMMONNAME states explicitly that we should weight what is used by quality sources such as encyclopaedias, whereas WP:RS asks us not to rely on tertiary sources. That would indicate a strong preference for encyclopaedic accuracy over common garden usage as far as article titles are concerned. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
If you talk tennis players I'll grant there's a big difference between an Encyclopedia and an article in "Modern Woman." Equally I find EncyBri lacking when compared to the WTA, ATP, ITF, Fed Cup and US Open as far as sourcing for common English players names. And when looking for a direct source for the player I'm likely to find them at the WTA, ATP, ITF, Fed Cup, and US Open official sites. Most won't even be listed in EncyBri to begin with, so it's useless for those players. It's gotten so warped and anti-English here that you could go to the player's own official English website, like "Ana Ivanovic" where it's spelled diacritic-free, just like the WTA and ITF official sites, yet at English wikipedia we have to have it at "Ana Ivanović" to appease the always-diacritic crowd. There is something really wrong with that! Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
IMO, the article title should be the way the person or thing is most commonly referred to in published English, as measured by Google Book results since 1980, book titles, entry titles used by other encyclopedias, or a selection of the best English language sources on the subject. (Hopefully, these are the sources used by the article itself.) It is currently a common practice to put in diacritics that never appear in published English, for example for Slavic sports figures or for Vietnamese place names. This misleads the reader as to what acceptable English-language usage is. A typeable title is easier to search for and easier to link to, so the default should be no diacritic. Britannica and National Geographic are both excellent sources, but there are numerous quality sources that make far less use of diacritics. The formal version of the name, i.e. with diacritics, should be given in boldface in the opening and above the box. This version of the name can be taken from a non-English source. Kauffner (talk) 04:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
"This misleads the reader as to what acceptable English-language usage is." - You are saying that it is unacceptable to use correct diacritics. I really don't think English-speakers are *that* daft. :-) You probably mean "commonly accepted" or something, right? --OpenFuture (talk) 06:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
So you're going tell the world about "correct diacritics", are you? This is crusading. The whole philosophy of Wikipedia is that we find the best sources on the topic at hand and let them tell us. If the sources aren't using diacritics, the title shouldn't have them either. Kauffner (talk) 10:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
That comment is rude and ignorant, and deserves no more comment than that. I think you will realize yourself why it is rude. If you want to know why it is ignorant you can ask. Also please do not second guess what my opinions or standpoints are. You will be wrong. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be an assumption that there will be english-language sources about a foreign subject; that's not a very safe assumption, since the independent coverage required by the GNG does not have to be a certain language or nationality. bobrayner (talk) 05:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I think this is one of the few arguments against the "what common sources do" position. Although you may have enough sources to show notability, there may be no obvious consensus amongst them on spelling. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I think this point is covered by Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)#No established usage -- PBS (talk) 01:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
It's mentioned yes. Covered, not so much. "a neutral one is often best". Well, duh. :-) Doesn't really help as such in this case. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

GL please see my comment on 23 April, if reliable sources do use accent marks for words from European languages like French and Spanish, but not Vietnamese, then that will be reflected in the simple metric of using reliable English language sources to decide common usage (if so your point 2 above is not needed). As to your point 3 I think the current wording is better, as the most reliable sources depends on the context and for the content and title of articles, highlighting specific sources does improve the guidance. So I think that the points you have raised are already covered in this guideline. -- PBS (talk) 01:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Some musings

It is a weird claim that "Common English" somehow gets "washed away" by diacritics and even stranger that somehow the world forces and imposes correct spelling on Wikipedia. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. This debate is almost exclusively about non-English persons names. As a non-English person my name is not a matter of the English language at all. The name is Swedish, and although my name happens to contain only letters from A-Z and isn't affected, there is no such thing as an English spelling of my name, and spelling it or any other Swedish name is not an attack on English in any way. If there is an English spelling of Björn Borgs name, it is not "Bjorn". That is just a misspelling, because the character doesn't exist in the English alphabet so most people writing about him doesn't know that the dots make a difference, and even if they do they don't know how to type it, or they don't care. With the result that the man becomes famous as "Bjorn Borg". This is perfectly understandable. Swedish has characters that aren't in English, and English in fact has a character that doesn't exist in Swedish, namely "W". But there is no "Swedish Spelling" of the name Waldo Williams. Spelling it Valdo Villiams is not Swedish, it's just wrong. Recognizing this is not an attack on Swedish. Neither is it an attack on Swedish to recognize that a Swedish person who doesn't speak English will tend to mispronounce american names. The common american name Ronny would by most Swedes be pronounced Swedish pronunciation: [rony] (with a rolled r and a different end-wovel) rather than /roni/. This is not an attack on English either. I've heard my name massacred in many languages, and this is not an attack on either me nor them.

But that there is a correct spelling, and that spelling isn't English on the other hand doesn't mean that we automatically must name Björn Borgs article "Björn Borg", the issue is not that simple. But claiming that spelling his name correctly is an attack on English is utter nonsense. And claiming "Bjorn" to be English is also nonsense. It is mispronounced/misspelled Swedish. The English would be "Bear". But nobody would suggest calling him "Bear Castle" cause that would be silly. :-)

So calm down. Nobody is attacking anyone. Spelling things correctly is not an attack, and neither is using generally accepted misspellings. So stop being so frigging rude to each other, Mmmkay? --OpenFuture (talk) 18:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

  • I suggest, OpenFuture, that you not confuse exposing the shortcomings of someone’s arguments as being rude to the individual who offered up an all-you-can-eat buffet of BS sandwich. If you were strongly influenced by your experiences in primary or secondary school and grew accustomed to teachers giving you an “A for effort” even when you turn in a real stinker for homework, then your experiences on Wikipedia are going to be disappointing at times because it is part of the real world. Here, people aren’t paid to inflate Dick’s or Jane’s self-esteem and there is no politically correct requirement for others to admire your suggestions and ideas as much as you do.

    Now let’s examine something you wrote above: Also, Wikipedia is not a *British* encyclopedia. It's a global one. Even the English language Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia. We do not have the same purpose goal or target audience as a British Encyclopedia created in the 18th century. I’ve been on Wikipedia long enough to have seen this “GLOBAL” argument used tediously often. It is invariably the refrain of someone who is not a native-English speaker—or, as is the case for you per your own user page, a “near-native speaker of English” who wants to see the customs and practices and conventions of his native country expanded and observed. Thus, they resort to all sorts of absurd arguments such as how “The English-language Version of Wikipedia belongs to the world”. Wikipedia tends to get its share of fresh, ambitious faces who are giddy with a wide-eyed epiphany over how wise and knowledgeable they have become in only three months now that they have taken a college class in World Politics 101 or something similar. Now…

    There are scores of Wikipedias in languages other than English. The En.-version of Wikipedia is to primarily serve the interests of those who speak English as their native tongue; namely America, the U.K., Australia, New Zealand, and some other countries. Readers and even wikipedians from other countries are welcome to contribute to en.Wikipedia. But they will just have to expect that certain practices they think are drop-dead ready for en.Wikipedia to adopt, (such as delimiting numbers like 12345,75 instead of nasty barbaric American way of 12,345.75) just isn’t gonna happen. Oh yes, we had oodles and oodles of oh-so worldly editors who came here arguing about how “En.Wikipedia Is the Common Heritage For All Mankind and Must Embrace All Its Customs” and point to how the BIPM in Paris (the people behind the metric system) say numbers should be written that way for an international readership so American just better get with the game plan. You know: change the world.

    Uhm… no. It doesn’t work that way. If the en. version of Wikipedia had to start being concerned about the diacriticals of Mongolian yak herders and had a Mongolian wikipedian jumping up and down, holding his breath, and insisting that the language practices of his country be honored and sanctified because Mongolian is founded upon the same 2500-year-old Roman-based alphabet as English and deserves respect too, nothing would get done. Moreover, we’d just end up letting Wikipedia be hijacked so it could be put in the position of trying to change how things are done with the English language.

    If you want to keep advancing nonsense arguments to support changing the very alphabet that is customarily used in proper English, don’t profess to be all hurt and confused and try to hide behind the apron strings of AGF and NPA when someone says your arguments amount to a metric ton of weapons-grade bullonium. You are no-doubt a splendid individual, but it seems to be you have an agenda to change English to honor the practices of other languages and your arguments are weak beyond all comprehension. Greg L (talk) 23:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Greg, I do not confuse anything. And although you hadn't been rude before, you were immensely rude here (and not only towards me, but pretty much towards everyone). (And I could possibly have understood that if you had been immersed in the debate for too long to being able to listen to others, as sometimes happens, but you yourself says that you are rather new to this discussion, so that's not the case). You also wrong in every single thing you say about me above.
I started out this discussion firmly in the "we do what sources do" camp, as this intuitively seemed to be the Wikipedia way, but since it is filled with idiots who can't argue for their point without insulting others I'm seriously reconsidering that standpoint. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
LOL! Juxtaposed in the same post: “you were immensely rude here” and “since it is filled with idiots”. Bravo. Hiding behind the apron strings of personal attacks to deflect legitimate criticism of your writing utter nonsense… well… it does not impress.

I’m quickly seeing a pattern here with your style of “the best defense is a strong offense.” I note also the above thread, where another editor responded to you as follows: So you're going tell the world about "correct diacritics", are you? This is crusading. The whole philosophy of Wikipedia is that we find the best sources on the topic at hand and let them tell us. If the sources aren't using diacritics, the title shouldn't have them either. Then, to that you pulled out the same ol’ stunt you just tried with me: That comment is rude and ignorant, and deserves no more comment than that.

Double-bravo. This modus operandi appears to be a schtick of yours: level an accusation that someone was “rude” and at the same time accuse the editor of being ignorant or an idiot. Perhaps this has been a successful tactic of yours in the past. But that is rapidly coming to a close because it is apparent that the emperor behind this tactic has no clothes. You can advance some sensible arguments founded in actual Wikipedia policy, or you can suffer people ridiculing your writings as being absurd. Get used to it. BTW, those are my “musings.” Greg L (talk) 03:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, maybe next time, try using arguments instead of insults and I will change my mind on the issue. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Believe it or not, I had a valid point (“argument”, as you say) when I quoted this fallacious argument of yours that amounted to how you desire to change the English language so it essentially embraces and honors the language practices of the country you hail from: Also, Wikipedia is not a *British* encyclopedia. It's a global one. Even the English language Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia. We do not have the same purpose goal or target audience as a British Encyclopedia created in the 18th century and then tore that sort of hogwash down as being absurd and untrue. Kauffner too had an argument when he wrote this: So you're going tell the world about "correct diacritics", are you? This is crusading. The whole philosophy of Wikipedia is that we find the best sources on the topic at hand and let them tell us. If the sources aren't using diacritics, the title shouldn't have them either.

But you seem to be unable to see “arguments” and can only see “opposition to you (which is bad)”. I tend to think you can see quite clearly when others make points and are just quick to allege “insult” and “personal attacks” because such tactics have worked in the past for you. That ship has sailed; I can see right through you on this one since this isn’t my first rodeo with that sort of strategy.

I can see engaging you is a waste of time. Moreover, I don’t need to convince you of anything; Wikipedia is fortunately, ruled by consensus and a lone holdout who can not see others’ points (is quick to allege that others have no point and have only hurled *hateful insults* [yadda yadda]) can not interfere much with consensus building. So…

To all others: It appears to me that OpenFuture is lightning quick to confuse criticisms of his positions on Wikipedia affairs as personal attacks—or at least allege that is the case. All we need to accomplish anything on Wikipedia is establish a consensus. If User:OpenFuture—or any other editor for that matter—edits against consensus, please contact me on my talk page and I will see if I can help to establish a general consensus so that progress can be made. It could not be clearer that the En.Wikipedia follows the practices of English-language RSs. Mere all-volunteer wikipedians are not in a position to advocate that common English-language practices should change for what they think are the better and to be “inclusive” and that sort of thing. Greg L (talk) 20:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

You claim that I "desire to change the English language". Where did I say that? Can you quote me, please? No, sorry, you didn't have a valid point. You aren't listening to what I say, and therefore you can't come with a valid response to it. As usual every single thing you say about me is completely wrong, you are fighting against a giant windmill of your own making. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Certainly you didn’t say you want to change the English language to make you happy. You know full well that couching it in those terms would fly like a lead balloon. Instead you use language like how en.Wikipedia is a *global* encyclopedia in an effort to put lipstick on a pig of an idea and pass it off as a prom date. It happens all the time on Wikipedia; you certainly didn’t invent the phenomenon of coming here with an agenda to beat around the bush with wholesome sounding slogans and misdirection to conceal the obvious. What part of “follow the practices of reliable English-language sources” has you confused? All of it? Greg L (talk) 20:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
None of it. What part of "windmill" has you confused? I would be most interested in knowing what my agenda is. Can you tell me? You seem to know my opinions better than I do myself. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
OpenFuture you wrote "But that there is a correct spelling", I don't see how you come to that conclusion as there is no "correct spelling" see my comment on 21 April we may not be able to agree on correct because of deep seated prejudices, but in editors can agree to differ on that while in good faith agreeing on common usage (even if that usage is not what they prefer). -- PBS (talk) 01:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
"Common usage" and "correct spelling" are two separate things. There *is* a correct spelling of Bjorn Borg, and there *is* a correct spelling of Lech Walesa, and those are not it. There is also a correct spelling of Mao Tse-Tung, and that's not it either. You need to recognize this before the discussion can go on in any sensible way. That does *not* mean that English Wikipedia should use the correct spelling. One major reason for that is that the correct spelling of Mao Tse-Tung is 毛泽东, which is a highly impractical title on an English Wikipedia. But as long as a large group of editors refuse to accept that their preferred spellings are by the global majority simply seen as misspellings, this discussion will not go anywhere. You have to try to listen to others and understand their viewpoint to be able to reach an accord. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

You are trying to change the playing field to one that suits you, OpenFuture. We could be bogged down night and day over what is “correct” spelling. The simple matter is that Wikipedia follows the spelling and diacritic practices of the majority of reliable English-language sources. Period. That may not seem fair to some, but it is not up to an all-volunteer band of fresh-faced wikipedian hobbyists to gather around in back rooms of Wikipedia strategize on how best to improve and expand the English language and its alphabet.

For someone like you, OpenFuture, for whom English is a second language, the desire to Change and Enhance the English Language To Make the World A Better Place©™© because the English language somehow seems capable of being so much more. But what you seek is out of your grasp. If you keep coming to this venue intent on undermining or overturning that bedrock principle and try to get Wikipedia to start spelling certain foreign-language names in ways they are not customarily seen in English-language publications, then you are in for a bunch of disappointment.

Is any of this sinking in? Or was this whole post just a personal attack (again) in your eyes with no point to make whatsoever? If the latter, then go up one paragraph and re-read that one. Then reflect upon what the majority of reliable English-language sources means. Greg L (talk) 20:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

No, we can't be bogged down in what the correct spelling is. There is no question about which spelling of Björn Borg that is correct. The question which we can be (and is) bogged down in is what spelling we should use. That is a different question. Your constant insults and misrepresentations of my standpoint is not helping that discussion. I repeat: Don't try to guess what my opinion is on any question. You *will* be wrong. And you aren't saying anything I don't already know. You are arguing against a windmill, not against me. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
OpenFuture you wrote "That does *not* mean that English Wikipedia should use the correct spelling." Well that is a step towards an agreement. If instead of "correct spelling" we substitute "native spelling" then are we in agreement with: That does *not* mean that English Wikipedia should use the native spelling for article titles, they should use the spelling that is usually used in reliable English language sources? -- PBS (talk) 22:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
The word "correct" above does not need to be replaced, as the native spelling is the correct one in these examples. But "native" works as well. It is still important that people understand that the spelling without diacritics is incorrect. If that is not understood, this discussion will continue to be stalled. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Should Wikipedia abandon following the RSs?

Ahh. Björn Borg. I see… Is that what has your hackles up? Wikipedia doesn’t give a holy dump what you think is *correct*. Just serve up the facts as to how the English-language RSs handle it. My very first stop in my Google searches doesn’t bode well. Here is The New York Times: “Borg and McEnroe, in Rivalry and Friendship”. And then there’s Tennis.com. This is silly, OpenFuture. I’m arguing with what you write because it is false. “The only battleground of truth upon which this will be settled is by establishing the practices of a majority of the English-language RSs. Do you have a problem with that last sentence?? Yes or no? Greg L (talk) 20:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't "think" it is correct. It *is* correct. Until you realize this, you will never be able to contribute constructively to this discussion. Spelling it "Bjorn Borg" is no more correct than spelling it "Björn Barg" och "Tjörn Torg". And you still aren't arguing with what I say, you are arguing with a windmill that you made up. Most of your arguments are against things I have never said and opinions I have never had. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
What? It is a bit looney to say that Bjorn Borg, Björn Barg and Tjörn Torg are equivalent spelling analogies. Bjorn Borg is the correct spelling using the English alphabet. Obviously it's spelled differently in Chinese, Russian, and Swedish. His accurate sourced name in Swedish is Björn Borg, English is Bjorn Borg, Russian is Бьорн Борг. In Hieroglyphics they aren't going to spell it Björn Borg... they are going to spell it with the letters or characters they use in that language. It's still the correct spelling, but in Hieroglyphics. It may not be the correct way it is spelled in his native tongue with native lettering, but it is still correct per the language it's being used in. Since no language sources I know spell it Tjorn Torg that would be incorrect. If in Sweden they spelled it Bjorn Borg that would be incorrect. If in Russian they spelled it Бьорнooooo Боргoooo, that would also be incorrect. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
You make an excellent point, Fyunck. User:OpenFuture is trying to put lipstick on a pig and pass it off as a prom date by trying to characterize this as an issue of what is “correct” and then insisting that the only metric for correctness is how someone’s name is spelled in their host country. What most of us know is that it is well cemented into the very DNA of Wikipedia is that the only correct practices are for the English-language version of Wikipedia to follow the practices of reliable English-language RSs. To do otherwise is a flagrant foul of our basic principles. Greg L (talk) 00:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
@Fyunck: No, you see, it isn't a "bit looney". All of these spellings are equally wrong in as much as one letter has been replaced with another. They are as such all incorrect. Until people understand this, you will not be able to understand all these editors which you now complain about that persist in putting diacritics on articles where you think there should be no diacritics, and until you understand this, this discussion will continue forever. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
But if you use that philosophy then you must say not only is the spelling incorrect in Hieroglyphics but also that it is impossible to spell it correctly in Hieroglyphics. And if you have a Hieroglyphics encyclopedia where using Hieroglyphics characters is your alphabet, one must spell Bjorn's name incorrectly or not have it in the encyclopedia at all. I guess you can look at it that way though it seems strange. I'd rather have it in the encyclopedia. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
This is basically correct, yes. Now we are getting somewhere. :-) I'd also rather have it in the encyclopedia. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

In his autobiography, Borg gives his own name as "Bjorn Borg" (no diacritic) at least 12 times. This also the way the name appears on the cover. Perhaps he is somewhat confused on the issue of correct spelling? Borg's diacritic is one of the best attested on Wikipedia, yet it still falls short of genuine common use. Kauffner (talk) 02:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Another twist is he is given with a diacritic as author of the book. So perhaps he is author Björn Borg, but tennis player Bjorn Borg. Kauffner (talk) 04:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
It's just sloppy. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 08:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Maybe his parents really named him Bjorn but he's been spelling it wrong all these years? Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Funny. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
See also [11], [12], [13], in all the Author is Björn Borg, but only in one the title is spelled that way. So what source is most reliable? (or when it comes to names we do not care and just count blindly?) Him as the author or the title? Or is it more important to see how the name is spelled most often than what is correct? Maybe the publisher wants to spell the title Borg, and he agrees just to get the book sold (they claim that the buyers will not know who he is and not buy?) You can twist this anyway you want. --Stefan talk 14:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I think this is a case of Google Books recognizing that the authors name is Björn Borg, and listing him as the author of the books, even though the actual printed book omits the umlauts in his name. Google probably has checks in place to prevent the same author showing up as different authors because of spellings, middle names etc. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Google makes a lot of mistakes with respect to diacritics for authors and titles. WorldCat is much more reliable, but certainly not perfect either. IMO, Borg's "tennis player name" should be taken from a sports reference work, the most authoritative being Sports Illustrated Almanac, ESPN Sports Almanac, and Notable Sports Figures. Kauffner (talk) 17:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
We're talking about his name. If it was a question of Borg's sporting achievements, I would agree with you unhesitatingly. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 09:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

"The English Alphabet"

I'm sorry, but the often made or implied claim that there is "The English Alphabet" which has exactly 26 letters is plain wrong. It's wrong in the same sense that for kinetic energy is wrong - it's a convenient approximation taught to pupils early in their education because its close enough for their purposes and is easier to grasp for new learners. Wikipedia readers, on the other hand, get treated to theory of relativity, and likewise can be expected to cope with Björn Borg (or Wilhelm Röntgen, to stick with the physics analogy). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Are these "ß,Ð,ð,Þ,þ,Ŋ,ŋ,Ə,ə" in the English alphabet? It is not really possible to say definitively unless the majority of expert sources are broadly in agreement. Otherwise the only way to do it is to find a source that has analysed their usage (See the English alphabet#Letter frequencies) and state how common that usage is compared to say the usage of "e" and "z". In the same way whether we use "Wilhelm Röntgen" title of the article, (or "Wilhelm Rontgen" or "Billy What's-his-name"), the decision should be based on analysis of the usage in reliable English language sources. -- PBS (talk) 23:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Before Unicode, only the Western European, or Latin-1, letters were ordinarily available. Unicode has been standard for only a few years and I don't see anyone other than Wikipedia going Unicode crazy. As far as Röntgen goes, I get 510 post-1980 Google Book results for "Wilhelm Röntgen", compared to 5,240 for "Wilhelm Rontgen" OR "Wilhelm Roentgen". These numbers haven't been deghosted, so he hasn't really been mentioned in anything like 5,000 books. For 1990 to 1995, a deghosted search shows 124 results for "Wilhelm Röntgen", compared to 443 for "Wilhelm Rontgen" OR "Wilhelm Roentgen".
I don't favor picking a title based on this kind of analysis, but rather by consulting five to ten of the most authoritative English-language sources. There is also ngram, but that doesn't work for diacritics. Kauffner (talk) 04:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
I also don't favor picking titles on google hits, as Google has various complex normalizing rules in place for searches, so searching on diacritics like that isn't guaranteed to be very accurate.
I do agree with the statement that the English alphabet has 26 letters, A to Z. In English you can however also apply diacritics, like putting accents on the letters, Café, or umlaut to signify that it's not a diphthong, "coördination". These are however not separate *letters*. The diacritics here are modifiers. In Swedish, you can also stick an accent on e, but you can not put an umlaut on an o. "Ö" is not a modified "O", it is a separate character. When writing Björn Borg, this is an acknowledgment that the name is not English, it is a Swedish name.
These letters and diacritics has been available to printers for a long time so it is not a matter of technical restrictions that they haven't been used. It is partly a matter of it being difficult to enter. This is certainly true of man news organisations which work under time pressure and might not find it particularly helpful towards the deadline to figure out how to write Dołęga on a US keyboard. :-) --OpenFuture (talk) 06:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Discrepancy in article

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was

Closed. This has turned into a pointless exchange of personal attacks rather than a useful discussion — kwami (talk) 18:31, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

If I may draw everyone's attention to the pasted text that follows:

  • The use of modified letters (such as accents or other diacritics) in article titles is neither encouraged nor discouraged; when deciding between versions of a word which differ in the use or non-use of modified letters, follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language (including other encyclopedias and reference works). The policy on using common names and on foreign names does not prohibit the use of modified letters, if they are used in the common name as verified by reliable sources.

I am involved in a conversation on Talk:Andrea Petkovic and have entered a heated debate on one issue. It seems the "is neither encouraged nor discouraged" passage is a source of potential conflict as it promotes two-way argument and does not arbitrate in a way that it needs to. I see the recommendation to "follow reliable sources" but WP:RS itself focuses on content dispute and not usage itself. It is indeed the case that we should continue to provide reliable citations and those publications may very well simplify foreign names to be stripped of their outlandish features. If so, it is apparent that the "simplified" form is the true Anglicised standard. However, this cannot be verified unless the same source has proven that it does acknowledge diacritics but chooses not to in some scenarios because the version without accents really is English (for example, if National Geographic were to write about Timișoara (as displayed) but also refer to A Coruna as apposed to A Coruña - one can ascertain that Timișoara and A Coruna are the appropriate titles to be used in English). If however, a publication chooses to leave all diacritics out then it stands to reason that this is an editorial decision and the concept of the source being reliable no longer applies. To state that for one subject, diacritics are all right and for another they are not WHILST pointing to sources at the same time can only indicate that it has been pot luck with one subject's sources over another. Wikipedia doesn't operate on a "lottery" basis. Can I suggest we extend this section to remind readers that if sources are to be valued according to reliablity for content, then the same applies to naming conventions. In other words, authentic name forms can be supported by reliable citations when the source language is also the native language of the subject: it is already the case that non-English sources can be used provided measures are taken to translate them where content is an issue, also remembering that English is preferable. If we cannot do this then it leaves an unclear guideline as to how some articles merit their modified letters and others do not. After all, a reliable source for one subject is also reliable for another. If the wider English-speaking policy with media is to leave out modified letters yet we continue to have articles on persons and themes which display diacritics, it can equally be questioned whether the subjects are notable enough in the English speaking world to warrant their own articles. I look forward to replies here. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 11:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately a lot of editors seem to believe that the source lottery you describe is a good thing -- presumably because they prefer us to spell names the same way as tabloids do and not the same way as English dictionaries and encyclopedias do, and this is the only way of enforcing this at least in some cases.
To clarify: It appears that some editors either do not understand that some words are written in English with accents or without depending on context, and that it's a style matter that is decided by a publication's style guide, or believe that we shouldn't have a style guide at all and should instead do what boils down to using the average style guide of reliable sources (the average usually being different for different topics). But since I have never seen any of these editors explain which of the two theories they adhere to, I suspect that they really just start from the premise that diacritics are not English (false, especially in the context of reference works), and then just make up pseudo-arguments to support their desired outcomes. Hans Adler 12:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Absolutely. You've hit the nail on the head with the appropriate term "made up pseudo-arguments" because where they have been successful, the desired outcome has been something that lies between original research and completely false information. I've noticed these past hours that there is not only a wealth of inconsistency but a vast grey area whereby we just cannot truly separate the requirements to determine whether diacritics be used or not (compare Yugoslav-born Bojana Bobusic with Australian-born Aleks Marić). Don't get me wrong, I am not in the least pushing for their universal usage and I never will (I exlain on next paragraph) but I do firmly believe that IF reliable sources are to be the deciding factor, we either use them or we don't, one or the other can extinguish the grey patch. If it came to this, I would obviously push for their usage rather than campaign against them. Because let's be honest with ourselves, I used the term "lottery" but in reality there is no "on-and-off reliable source": the pro-diacritic users tend to be dominant in some areas (namely politics here) and the torpid anti-diacritic mob gain more grounds in sports, mainly tennis. What happens when there is to be a clash?[14] The Telegraph here presents both the tennis player and the Serbian president the same way - without diacritics. Just as they would do this, so will all others leaving only non-English sources to use diacritics. But they are still sources and they DO testify to the authentic nature unlike the journals that "keep it simple"!
Be that as it may. I do accept that even with strict guidelines that might demand modified features which seem alien to English, there will be times when which the diacritic-free form will be more appropriate. Sometimes it is clear that a national writing system has adopted amendments and this can often be helped by the individual dropping the accents himself, especially when living outside his country of origin. A good example is Alex Bogdanovic whereby it would be folly to add the diacritic on his surname when his first name has itself been modified (ie. from Aleksa - note it isn't just the final "a" to have come off but the "ks" has been replaced by "x" which is a true phoneme that doesn't appear in the source language). So all I am saying is, I am sure that by adding a few guidelines, we can clean up this mess and end this myth about "reliable sources must be English only and everything revolves around them". Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 13:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
On any article about a non-anglophone subject, I think it would be silly to deliberately and methodically exclude local (non-English) reliable sources. Titles should certainly be readable for typical English readers, and we should pay attention to English sources too, but we cannot hope to get accurate articles or titles by keeping one eye shut. I'm very much in favour of building an accurate encyclopædia, and if that means the occasional diacritical at the top of an article on a foreign subject - because the most reliable sources also use a diacritical - then so be it. bobrayner (talk) 13:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
I do agree with you. Think about it, if there is no English language source to be found anywhere concerning a subject, we could question its notability and whether it warrants an article. I'd say a fair percentage of articles fall into this category but I have been the author of a few (such as singers famous in the home country/surrounding area but not anywhere in the English-speaking world). So far, the rules have allowed these to remain - but with English I don't see a problem, most official sites of foreign celebrities (which can be used as reliable depending on what is being stated) will either be wholly in English or will be in the source language but offering a click option to view the entire presentation in English. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 14:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
But if there are no English sources, and the only sources available spell a name with diacritics, even though this is an English Wikipedia we would spell it with the diacritics intact. We have always done that as it follows wiki guidelines. It's when there are English sources, whether it be the US or Australian Press, Canadian tennis organizations if the person is a tennis player, the US chalk–painter society if the person is a chalk painter, the UK basket–weaver organization if the person is a basket weaver, etc... that's where we run into sourcing disagreements on a regular basis. Different projects use different guidelines and that's a good thing. It keeps wikipedia from being a cookie cut set of articles and allows breathing room on topics. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
In general, people don't look to professional organizations as sources. WTA might be a good source for tennis scores and rankings, but otherwise news organizations are more authoritative. For sports, I'd follow ESPN or Sports Illustrated. Kauffner (talk) 08:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
And you know this how? The WTA and ITF are the governing bodies of ladies tennis. They are certainly great sources for everything tennis related. Of course the press is too, and ESPN and SI. So is Wimbledon and the other 3 Majors. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
No, they are not great sources for everything tennis related. They are excellent sources for the things they specialise on. They are only middling sources for the things they are not particularly interested in. And they are poor sources for the things that they distort systematically: They put all names through a filter that removes diacritics, the same way that newswires do. Since their core competency has nothing to do with the spelling of names and their audience generally doesn't mind, they can afford to do so. The resulting spellings are acceptable, but they are not the best spellings for all contexts. As a result of the filter applied by WTA, ITF and newswires, we cannot use them to determine whether English encyclopedias would spell a name with or without diacritics. You can test this in the case of Björn Borg (and presumably others, but I am not interested in tennis so I can't think of examples) on Britannica online. Hans Adler 09:32, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Of boy... a shouting match of "yes they are" "not they aren't". Britannica is usually the last place I would go for tennis sourcing. And of course we CAN use the WTA, ITF and newswires sources for determining common English spelling and players bios, you just won't. That's your prerogative. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
"They put all names through a filter" - really? You know this how? Please stop making stuff up to try to prove your point. It's not up to you to decide what sources are and are not allowable. Absconded Northerner (talk) 09:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
I am not making anything up. It's very easy to prove me wrong. Show me one tennis player profile at WTA or ITF that contains any diacritic. If you can't do this, I suggest you shut up. As for newswires, it's documented in reliable sources: In newspaper style manuals which explain that for technical reasons newswire reports never contain diacritics, and which explain when and how to restore them when using such a story in their paper. Hans Adler 15:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
@Hans Adler - dictionaries and encyclopedias are tertiary sources, not secondary sources. If you want to try Wikipedia policy, good luck to you, but that's not the way it works at the moment. Absconded Northerner (talk) 18:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
We need sources for facts, not for style issues. English reference works tell us how English reference works handle matters of style. For European languages, all major reference works such as Webster's Geographical Dictionary or Britannica agree in using the original diacritics almost always. And you can easily check that Britannica has done this even 100 years ago, when it was still a tricky business for strange Polish diacritics and such. Before this background, it is no wonder that roughly 4% of Wikipedia's article titles contain diacritics, while roughly 0% drop diacritics from foreign words that have them in the original language: Given that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, most editors try to write it in the same style that encyclopedias are written. If you want to change that, you need a better argument than following the sources on something that is not a matter of facts but a matter of style. If we followed the sources on style, then in many cases it would mean use diacritics while someone is not mentioned in English sources, drop them once they are mentioned in English tabloids, and add them again once they get into quality papers and high-quality print products. That's just ridiculous. Hans Adler 09:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
"All" .... "almost". Nice bit of handwaving to try to cover up that you're pulling stats out of the air.
Tertiary sources aren't important here. The reason we follow reliable sources is to provide the best possible service to readers. What's ridiculous is to pollute English language articles with a load of stray ink that means nothing to most people and which will be totally obsolete within a few years. Absconded Northerner (talk) 09:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
"Almost" was necessary in my statement for established English spellings such as "Zurich" (not "Zürich") or people who genuinely changed their spelling after moving to the US. Excellent idea to attack someone for being precise. If you want to complain about the fact that English reference works use foreign diacritics, complain to Britannica and Webster, not to me. I have no influence on them. I am only trying to make sure that Wikipedia doesn't depart from established practice in an inconsistent, almost random way. Hans Adler 09:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
You've just proved my point. Zurich no longer uses a diacritic in standard English because they're becoming obsolete. I don't care what Webster and Britannica do because they are tertiary sources and are disfavoured as sources here. You haven't addressed that point. We use reliable secondary sources. If you want to complain about the fact that Wikipedia prefers secondary sources to tertiary ones, please do so on the WP:RS talk page. Absconded Northerner (talk) 10:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
I have not proved your point. Zurich is virtually the only place from a German-speaking area which got a diacritic stripped off in Webster's Geographical Dictionary. All others that I have looked at keep them, and so far nobody has found another example in spite of numerous discussions. (Also not for French, Spanish or any other European language.) Hans Adler 15:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
We need a precise guideline regarding using diacritics, the current situation is absurd. I agree with Hans, the guideline should be build up in accordance with the standard practice of the English reference works, not sports websites or news servers. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 10:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Good luck in changing the policy then, because that's not current practice. Absconded Northerner (talk) 10:42, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Careful, with your systematic ignoring of what has been said before you are getting into troll territory. As I pointed out already, roughly 4% of our articles contain diacritics, while roughly 0% don't where they could theoretically. Of course nothing prevents you from using Special:Random to make your own experiments and prove me wrong, but please do so before contradicting me in this way. Hans Adler 15:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, it isn't easy, but the policies aren't unchangeable. The current practice is chaotic and inconsistent, harmful to this project. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 10:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I have tried to make sense of the argument "The reason we follow reliable sources is to provide the best possible service to readers. What's ridiculous is to pollute English language articles with a load of stray ink that means nothing to most people and which will be totally obsolete within a few years..." the first sentence is fine, of course, but the only meaningful thing I can get out of the second sentence is a notion that diacriticals are going extinct somehow, and a notion that the set of "reliable sources" somehow excludes both foreign sources and those english sources which accurately reflect spelling of foreign subjects. Both notions are absurd and false. Possibly this is an example of Poe's law; it's so hard to tell on the internet. bobrayner (talk) 11:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Poe's law is about religious fundamentalism, despite the efforts of that article to portray it otherwise. Diacriticals are becoming obsolete in English. Their continued use on this site should be discouraged. Absconded Northerner (talk) 11:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
With Unicode, there is somewhat greater use of diacritics now than there was in the days of Linotype or ASCII. But the level of use you see in Britannica is still way, way outside the mainstream -- and Wikipedia is even further outside. We put the diacritics boldface in the opening anyway, so why is there a pressing need for them in the title as well? An article is obviously easier to find and easier to link to if the title is typeable. Kauffner (talk) 13:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Take a look at the article Vladimír Svačina (currently a WP:RM candidate located at Vladimir Svacina). The opening sentence says: Vladimir Svacina (Czech: Vladimír Svačina; born April 28, 1987) is a Czech professional ice hockey player... The article suggests that there exists an entity called Vladimir Svacina (not English, not Czech, just a nonsense), while the correct name of that person is a Czech translation. This is utterly ridiculous. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
That was silly. I fixed it. I hope it sticks this time, although I noticed someone tried before. Kauffner (talk) 14:33, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Not at all. The letter "č" does not exist in English, so to render it as "c" is entirely sensible. Absconded Northerner (talk) 14:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
The name is not English. You don't get an English name by removing the accents. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Well I'm afraid reliable sources disagree with you. You might not like it, but that's just the way it is. An English site shouldn't be full of symbols that English doesn't use. It's unhelpful. Absconded Northerner (talk) 14:32, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like an issue of WP:CRYSTALBALL. If diacritics become obsolete, we will of course reflect that fact. But we won't anticipate it. It seems like people are spilling a lot of ink to argue with one editor who is expressing opinion rather than making substantive arguments. — kwami (talk) 15:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I wish Evlekis would stop doing that. It's quite simple: until the source policy is changed, reliable secondary sources will remain the requirement and no amount of foot-stamping will change that. That means "Vladimir Svacina" is the correct article title. Absconded Northerner (talk) 15:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
When you are in a hole, stop digging. You are not a politician in an average talk show on TV, who can basically say everything and when he is corrected it looks just like a matter of opinions. Everybody can easily verify that high-quality English reference works use diacritics for words from European languages in practically all cases. You are verifiably wrong, and it's time for you to realise this fact. Britannica uses diacritics, Webster uses diacritics for proper names, and so does Wikipedia (in practice, though admittedly our guidelines leave this open). Hans Adler 15:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
I've already pointed out that those are tertiary sources. Since you don't seem to have re-read WP:RS recently, let me quote the important part that I've directed you to several times: "Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources. Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, obituaries, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion."
In other words, it doesn't matter a damn what Websters or Britannica says because secondary sources are more important. Unless you are going to change that policy, it's you who is verifiably wrong. Absconded Northerner (talk) 15:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Huh? What are we writing? A professional tennis organisation website, a tabloid paper, or an encyclopedia? In case you forgot, we are writing an encyclopedia, and therefore we are using basically the same conventions that other encyclopedias use. It's what we do in practice, and it's what we should do. Your self-serving misreading of policy is not going to change this. Verifiability is for facts, not for style. Hans Adler 15:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
When writing about a sportsman or sportswoman, a professional tennis organisation website is a perfectly sensible source to quote. I'm reading policy perfectly correctly. Your deliberate attempt to ignore policy you don't like is not acceptable. Absconded Northerner (talk) 15:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
We are not discussing what sources to quote, we are discussing how to determine the spelling of names. Your deliberate attempt to misinterpret policy in order to enforce a radical change to roughly 4% of Wikipedia's articles is not acceptable. Hans Adler 16:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Your continued ability to ignore policy is astonishing. I really suggest you read through WP:RS and WP:COMMONNAME and learn what the policy actually is, not what you think it is. You are the one making the mistake and I'm getting rather tired of having to correct you. Please do not respond until you thoroughly understand the appropriate policies because you simply wasting everybody's time right now. Absconded Northerner (talk) 16:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(use_English)/Archive_9&oldid=1137426342"