Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 30

message: The name "Davíð Oddsson" I assume his name is "David Oddsson" using the 26 letters of the English alphabet.  But the proposed new text says: "and Icelandic/Old English "þ" and "ð" to "th"; " implies that this name is "Davíth Oddsson" is that correct? Philip Baird Shearer 11:25, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The first would indeed be a more conventional rendering. Most Icelanders are used to either using the full Icelandic alphabet or ascii. Rendering 'ð' as 'th' and keeping 'í', like the disputed paragraph says we should do, is certainly unusual. There aren't any official style guides on this, though, and many ad hoc renderings exist. Here's an almost random example:  This is the blog of an Icelander living in Germany. He is using a German keyboard to write Icelandic and he uses 't' for 'þ' (e.g. 'tessi' for 'þessi'), while keeping 'ö' since it happens to be used in German as well as Icelandic. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 11:49, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

text: That's merely a case of your misreading loose wording in the proposed text, in a "for example" statement (a phrase you omitted), something that obviously needs to be tightened up.  It's like the difference between "e.g." and "i.e.".  There are various transliteration schemes, and that example is sometimes the correct way to do it, and sometimes a different English letter or letters should be substituted.  Gene Nygaard 13:36, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Icelandic transliteration  

message: thumb|Popular vote map by riding
Is there an appropriate place to recommend a policy on graphics and colorblindness? The map I've copied here from British Columbia general election, 2005 is completely unintelligible to me. It appears to have red for one party and green for another. That would be hard enough for a colorblind person, but the artist elected to use four different shades of each color. That makes it impossible for me to figure out. It's a shame, because the artist obviously worked very hard on the map.
The map at Canadian federal election, 2004 is much easier to read, as there is no green, and bar graphs supplement the coloring.
People who make graphics like this should keep in mind:
*Try not to use colors that colorblind people have trouble telling apart. Red and green are especially troublesome, but orange/yellow and blue/purple can be too.
*If you must use red and green, don't use solid red and solid green. Instead, use colors like blue-green and orange-red (the colors of traffic lights).
*If you are relying on colors to tell the viewer information, consider supplementing the colors with symbols or letters. For example, the map of British Columbia could have used "N" for NDP and "L" for Liberal.
Mwalcoff 01:30, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not lessening the above reasons, the map is red and orange, actually, with some shades difficult to casually discern even for someone with excellent color vision. Femto 10:17, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images and colorblindness 

message: * See Section above #Ð and Þ, #Variant spellings/names in one place? etc
* See also German eszet discussion: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_23#German_eszet
Should this topic be part of the MOS? --Philip Baird Shearer 16:18, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "ß" "Ð" "Þ" "Ǎ" etc etc

message: I object to the following which someone is tring to insert into the MOS
:Diacritic marks should be kept, but tone marks (language-dependent, often ´, `, ^) may be ignored in non-defining occurrences.
Is the person who using an IP address really saying that if some foreign language uses a diacritic,  all articles in English "should" use them? For example do we have to spell Zurich as Zürich in all articles? Philip Baird Shearer 10:17, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, yes for names only and mainly for consistency. I'm actually an opponent of using diacritics in article titles when an English name is suitable.  For example, I prefer the English spelling Zurich over Zürich, but since Zürich is the preferred spelling in the article itself then it should be the spelling adopted in all articles. --Mark 10:53, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

text: What do you mean of the difference of the word 'should' on both sides of the pond? I'm from Australia, mate. You obviously didn't read my message properly, read it again. And if you're going to be so picky, 'perhaps' is spelt with no 'e', check your spelling MATE! It only makes sense with consistency to use diacritics for all words in which that word uses diacritics itself in its own article. You people really take yourselves too seriously, lighten up. --Mark 13:26, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

text: No, please educate me on the differences of "should" on both sides of the Atlantic, I always assumed it was the same? Mark 05:46, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Diacritics

message: There is a Disputed tag after the last bullet point (Indian English) under National varieties of English.  I can't see from this Talk page (or the archives) what factual information in that section is disputed.  
From the history it seems that User:Maurreen first placed the Disputed tag in Revision as of 2005-09-27 10:48:53, on the following first-level bullet, "When abbreviating 'United States'".  The tag remained, though the change to the text of that bullet point petered out in a couple of days.
Then user 63.215.248.3, in Revision as of 2005-09-30 12:56:45, inserted a line break at the start of that bullet point, which had the effect of isolating the Disputed tag and making it appear to apply to the preceding "Indian English" sub-bullet.
User 203.164.184.23 removed the Disputed tag with the Revision as of 2005-10-09 03:30:17, but that change got reverted as a side effect of removing a separate tag about the ever-popular usage of eth and thorn.   It looks like the Disputed tag ought to be a separate issue.
I propose removing the Disputed tag.  If someone can clarify what the dispute is about, please make a note of it in this section.  Thanks!
JDLH  | Talk 05:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this should probably be removed one way or another. If something is disputed it doesn't really belong in the MOS anyway. I'll remove the tag since it was I who reinserted it as a side effect of the revert war. Collateral damage, I guess. If someone wants to dispute this U.S. abbreviation thing then let her speak now. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 06:29, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed tag at ''National varieties of English''