Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English)/Archive 3

message: :Whenever the most common English spelling is simply the native spelling with diacritical marks omitted, the native spelling should be used.
==== Support ====
#Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 15:16, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal 

message: #Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 15:16, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support 

message: # The question this policy deals with will come up rarely, and in every case there will be specific issues affecting the resolution.  The proposed policy is a poor substitute for Wikipedians' judgement.  —Michael Z. 2005-04-9 15:40 Z
# Thryduulf 15:56, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oppose 

message: # Dpbsmith (talk) 15:08, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abstain 

message: If we are adopting :Whenever the most common English spelling is simply the native spelling with diacritical marks omitted, the native spelling should be used. What about  Diacritic#Non-diacritic usage? Are all of those characters verboten unless in common English usage. How does any English speaking person who is not an expert tell the difference (without looking at Diacritic/Non-diacritic usage)? Seems like a lot of extra work when  Occams razor and keep it simple can be used by following "common English usage". --Philip Baird Shearer 10:30, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Diacritic/Non-diacritic usage

message: If we are adopting :Whenever the most common English spelling is simply the native spelling with diacritical marks omitted, the native spelling should be used. then is it always possible to put on the first line:
:Word or (in the native language spelling: ŴöŖď)
As this policy states that the "most common English spelling" is being replaced with a "native spelling"? If not, is the proposed Wikipedia policy saying that the only way to spell a forign word, which is spelt with diacritics in the forign language, is with diacritics and if it is not spelt that way it is wrong in English? Or does it have this format:
:ŴöŖď (/Sometimes/Mostly/Nearly always/Always spelt in English Word) eg
: Général (Always spelt in English: General)
or must it only be in the format
: Général  ... [with no mention of the most common English spelling at all]
--Philip Baird Shearer 10:30, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Do not use diacritics

message: The proposal is too broad to be usable in cases where the "use English" naming convention concides with technical restrictions. In many articles whose title cannot include diacritics we use the the native spelling in the body but make use of the diacritic-less spelling in the title. The number of these articles is non-trivial, witnessed by the amount of links to the titlelacksdiacritics template, so having too trivialized policy verbiage that conflicts with those cases makes the overall naming convention self-contradicting and useless. --Joy [shallot] 16:15, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: by Joy

message: This article seems to confuse the terms alphabet and character set. It recommends using the "Latin alphabet," but the Latin alphabet does not include the letter J, for example. It apparently means the Latin character set, but seems overly broad as well as muddy. I think it should just recommend using the "English alphabet" (26 letters) with diacritics. That would help make it clear that ß, for example, should be avoided. Are there any letters outside the 26 English letters that are really acceptable for English speakers? --Tysto 08:15, 2005 August 30 (UTC)
::YES IF VE VSE THE LATIN ALPHABET VE VILL HAVE PROBLEMS. Use the English alphabet. However do not include with it a recommendation to use diacritics. Philip Baird Shearer
::The expression "Latin alphabet" does not mean "the alphabet which the Romans used to write with in Classical times". In particular, the (modern) Latin alphabet, unlike the Classical Romans' alphabet, has lowercase letters, additional letters like U, J, W and even thorn; it also has (in its various national variants) digraphs like œ, æ, etc., and letters with diacritics like é, è, ê, ë, ę, ē, ĕ, ç, č, ć, ĉ, õ, ø, etc. Similarly what is known today as "the Cyrillic alphabet" is not the alphabet which Cyril and Method used to evangelize Bulgaria. -- Tonymec 17:05, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, accented characters are generally speaking acceptable, even though they're not ordinarily used in English. However, the more "exotic" the diacritic, the less likely it is to be understood correctly. In other words, diacritics used in French and Spanish are almost universally understood (if not what the diacritic means, then that it's "some variety" of the unadorned letter), but less familiar ones, like under-comma and double acute, probably will result in greater puzzlement. I don't think in the end that accented letters provide a real impediment to understanding in the way that the other "Latin" letters like ß, ð,  and þ would. So yes, I agree in principle that it should say limited to 26 English letters, but should be explicit that there isn't consensus to forbid accented letters. Nohat 09:21, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think "diacritics used in French and Spanish are almost universally understood" is correct. I think diacritics used in French and Spanish are almost universally ignored when read in English texts is more accurate; and if a native English speaker does not recognise the forign letter like ß, ð, it is not possible to ignore them so they should be avoided. Philip Baird Shearer 09:44, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Phillip here that English speakers generally do ignore diacritics over/under/thru letters, so a 'ü' would just be seen as a 'u' and pronounced as such, 'ł' as 'l', 'ę' as 'e', etc. But þ, ð or ß are different, because to an average English speaker they are either unrecognisable or resemble other letters such as p, d and B, which of coarse don't sound the same at all. English speakers can and do have problems with these letters. This is English Wikipedia after all, so we should cater primarily for English speakers and then secondly for others. – AxSkov (☏) 06:17, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hear hear. WLD 15:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

text: You know, just because you can ignore diacritics in English text does not also mean you can also ignore parenthetical comments. :-) Nohat 09:52, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

text: The bioggest problem with diacritics, to me, is that they are not easily entered into the search box, and not conssitantly handled by search engines. Their effects on the words involved are also often uncelar. Personaly i support, as i said above, a limitation of article titles to pure 7-bit (127 character) ascii. DES (talk) 20:38, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: use redirects. problem solved. if that's the biggest problem, I daresay there is no problem at all. dab (ᛏ) 07:22, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

text: yes, thank you, that's what I'm trying to say. There is no problem at all with Paul Erdős as long as Paul Erdos redirect there. Even the unwashed masses will recognize ő as an o plus Funny Foreign Squiggles. I am also amenable to replace ß with ss, since that's a familiar practice even in German orthography itself (Swiss orthography never uses ß at all, and in Germany, ss is acceptable when ß is unavailable, and in ALLCAPS). Surely, otoh, you are not suggesting we use ð and not þ? Surely, case by case, it's either both or neither? dab (ᛏ) 08:47, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I simply don't know what to think. I have a weak spot for ß and ð and þ. I do expect to find Thor under Thor, but on the other hand, I think the use of ð in Icelandic place names is quite appropriate and non-intrusive. I agree that it seems strange to allow ð but not ß and þ, so—letting myself be ridden by that hobgoblin of little minds, consistency—it seems I must admit all three, forbid ð against my better judgement, or shut up about it. Arbor 10:53, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thor is at Thor not because we forbid þ, but because the anglicized spelling is very current. þ is perfectly alright at Eikþyrnir, for example. dab (ᛏ) 08:12, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Good call about Thor. I think I am slowly coming around to embracing both ð and þ, seeing that they are used (and of use) mainly if proper names for things Icelandic. Does this mean I was rash or limp-wristed in my abandonment of ß? After all, þ looks no more like t than ß looks like s. (Far be it from me to assume lewdness in Wikipedia's readers, but I have the suspicion that the spelling Þorn (horse) is easily misread as a P.) By analogy, would then not ß be an acceptable spelling as well? Or is the proliferation of German things (Gauß, Strauß) the reason to transliterate the “opaque” character ß to ss, arguing perhaps that “German proper names are used in a wider context than Icelandic proper names, and already have a traditional English transliteration, which Wikipedia should adopt.” But then what about obscure German proper names (Warschauer Straße, Gießen)—shouldn't they be treated with the same attitude as Eikþyrnir? As I said, I am unsure what to think. Maybe I am mistaken in my assumption that  ß and ð and þ should be treated the same. Arbor 08:54, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I think having the articles at the properly spelled names (Gießen), with redirect from the "simplified" versions (Giessen) would be the best solution. And mention the simplified version (and perhaps a pronunciation key) in the first line. Markussep 10:36, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I fervently disagree with Markussep regarding his solution, it is not a very good solution.  In all the English language reference books I've been looking through – which includes atlases, encyclopaedias, etc. – all these books use 'ss' instead of 'ß', but they do use the letters þ, ð and letters with diacritics (esp. my Doubleday Atlas). It is standard in English orthography to transliterate 'ß' to 'ss'.  Something tells me that the proponents of using ß have no idea what is orthographically standard in English. To many English speakers 'ß' can very easily be mistaken for B and pronounced as such, this causes confusion in the pronunciation of words that include this letter, so if Giessen was spelt Gießen then it would be approx. pronounced /giːbən/ rather than /giːsən/ by an average English speaker. I find calling words that use 'ss' rather than 'ß' a simplified version is wrong to an English speaker, when it's just standard transliteration. – AxSkov (☏) 05:47, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with AxSkov that keeping esszett is more radical than keeping eth and thorn. I would be happy with a convention that expands esszett to ss, but leaves eth and thorn alone (except for cases of familiar names like Thor), and keeps accents on vowels. Esszett does have a distinctive value in German, but only in  a few cases (like Masse vs. Maße).  For most names it is perfectly permissible to expand to ss. dab (ᛏ) 05:55, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Eszet to double-s is a standard even in German, for example when writing in ALL CAPS, in a Swiss locale, or on a typewriter without an ß key. Thorn and edh are probably unrecognizable to most native English speakers, indeed to most people with no knowledge of Scandinavian languages. Thorn could IMO be transliterated as th, edh as dh or even as d, e.g., in Loftleidir-Icelandic for Loftleiðir-Icelandic, an aviation company, or Gudmundsson for Guðmundsson, a patronym: e.g. nowadays Tomas Gudmundsson redirects to Tómas Guðmundsson. Is the difference between d and ð just a diacritic — a bar through the tail of the d — or is it more than that? If it is just a diacritic, then the above redirection is in line with present Wiki guidelines; if it is more than that, then IIUC Guðmundsson ought to redirect to Gudmundsson rather than vice-versa. -- Tonymec 16:47, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What is Wikipedia for? For distributing knowledge. By eliminating characters which exist in olde english and modern languages, you are trying to sanitize for users without in any way benefiting them.  The use of ð, þ, æ, ö, í and the whole enchilada allows them to see that there is more out there than just those 26 letters and it broadens their minds instead of causing an implosion in their brains as you seem to believe users can't handle anything other? This is like allowing someone live his life in a protected bubble and then allow him to be shocked when he leaves it and finds out that no one understands what he refers to and tells him, there is no such place as Isafjordur, but we do have an Ísafjörður, is that what you were looking for? I find this talk of eliminating accents to be incredibly short-sighted and political correctness gone mad. Limiting to the latin alphabet (as opposed to cyrillic, arabian, hebrew etc) is of course perfectly acceptable, but trying to limit it further to a tiny subset of 26 letters... --Stalfur 11:32, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't think the pronunciation should be an argument in this discussion. There are many names without diacritics of funny foreign thingies that don't give the average English speaker a clue about how they should be pronounced, like Zschopau, Clwyd or Worcester. BTW how many average English speakers would recognize the thorn as something with a "th" sound, and not b or p? Markussep 09:19, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Alphabet vs character set

message: Now there is a case afoot how to apply "Use English" - please visit Talk:Ekaterina Dolgorukova to contribute to the current poll. 217.140.193.123 06:15, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dolgoruki 

message: The case of Mexico, newly mentioned in the main page, looks enlightening to me. "Mexico", pronounced /'mɛksɪkøʊ/, is so well entrenched in the English language that it is no more perceived as foreign; people aren't conscious of the fact that it comes from Mexican Spanish "México" /'meʃiko/. The same might apply to "Paris" /'pærɪs/ vs. /pa'ri/ but since they're written the same, it doesn't change how to title the wiki page. I would advance that the same process of "anglicization" is happening in the case of "Zurich" /'zjʊərɪk/ vs. "Zürich" /'tsyriç/. The dispute seen here may be due to the fact that the process is less complete and/or that the -ich final is not perceived as English, as evidenced by some people's tendency to overcorrect "Munich" /'mju:nɪk/ to /mju:nɪç/ or even to "Münich" with a spurious umlaut, not realizing that the German name is actually "München" /'mynçən/. — Tonymec 22:00, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zurich vs. Mexico 

message: Look at the list Names of European cities in different languages and tell me that all the cities listed there are listed by the "current best-known name in English"! Eg "Wrocław" --Philip Baird Shearer 12:38, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Madness

message: I don't think that listing countries on this page is neccessary. The names can be found by looking at the UN list of countries in English: http://www.un.org/Overview/unmember.html The only one listed with anything other than the standard 26 English letters is "Côte d'Ivoire". Philip Baird Shearer 15:07, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Country names 

message: I agree with Philip. One way or another it's time we started acting like adults and come to some sort of compromise here. Spending hours on different requested move pages rehashing the same old arguments is not the way forward (I'm as guilty of this as anyone).
I also agree with dab that we should try to break the problem down into more manageable pieces. Philip has been campaigning for the inclusion of transliterated versions where article titles use "foreign" characters. That's one part of the larger question and now I'll try to break it down into even smaller questions:
#Should we consistently provide transliterations for characters which are not obviously derived from the 26 letters of the English alphabet (þ, ð, ß etc.)? [Yes, I suppose. I think 'foreignchar' or something similar is good for this.]
#Should we consistently provide transliterations for ligature characters (æ, œ etc.)? [I don't know. Those two ligatures, at any rate, seem to be reasonably well known to readers of English.]
#Should we consistently provide transliterations when the most "correct" transliteration is different from the most "obvious" one ('ü' becomes 'ue' rather than 'u', 'þ' becomes 'th' rather than 'p' etc.)? [I suppose we should. But when the obvious version is common too, as in ü > u, that possibility can be mentioned as well.]
#Should we provide transliterations when they simply involve stripping diacritics (the infamous Úbeda > Ubeda). [I'd rather not, really, but I can swallow it if it helps build consensus. I certainly feel that the foreignchar template is overkill in cases like that.]
#Should we handle characters differently based on their availability in common fonts? Is it fair to privilege e.g. Icelandic characters like 'þ' and 'ð' above Vietnamese characters like 'ễ' and 'ố'? [I have not formed an opinion. Obviously we want to be accessible to as many people as possible but I can sympathise with the Vietnamese editors who feel this is a raw deal for them.]
Do you think we can realistically achieve rough consensus on answers to questions like that? - Haukur Þorgeirsson 21:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to be making the assumption that the article title should contain foreign characters in the name. What if we make the assumption that they do not then how does that effect your proposals (for example does it throws out the foreignchar template). --Philip Baird Shearer 14:38, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not really proposing anything, I'm just trying to define some questions which might be useful. Yes, the above only applies to article titles which have some "foreign" characters in them. When the article title uses an English/Anglicized name we have other, and probably easier, questions to answer. For example I think we're both fine with stuff like "Asgard (Old Norse: Ásgarðr)". - Haukur Þorgeirsson 14:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

text: It is my impression that very few people, if any, advocate the use of one spelling in the title and another spelling in the article. If we're going to use accented and unusual characters, then we'll be using them in titles as well, since there's no technical reason not to. If you intend to use unaccented titles, then  (or something similar) comes in to play instead of ! I fail to see any advantage of having an unaccented title for an accented article. Next suggestion, please. --Stemonitis 14:46, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: More attempts to build a consensus - transliterations

message: I changed this:
:The body of such an article, preferably in its first paragraph, should list all of the other names by which the subject is known, so those too can be searched for.
to this:
:The body of each article, preferably in its first paragraph, should list all common names by which its subject is known, so those too can be searched for.
I think the second version is clearer since it is completely unclear what "such an article" was supposed to refer to. This is a guideline that should apply to every article. 
I made some other minor changes too. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 15:53, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Such an article > Every article