text:
discouraged;

Wouldn't it be more correct to say the following?

 * There is no consensus on whether the use of modified letters (such as accents or other diacritics) in article titles is to be encouraged nor discouraged;

I mean, people seem to be constantly encouraging/supporting and/or discouraging/opposing the use of diacritics, especially in article titles.

I know diacritics are very controversial, so I'm asking for feedback before I (or anyone else) makes this change. But my proposed change seems to me to be obviously true. --B2C 06:53, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * B2C I think it would be more correct to say "There is broad consensus on the use of modified letters (such as accents or other diacritics) in article titles, but there are four or five editors who hang out at Naming conventions (use English) who are opposed to the broad consensus" - one of those editors is yourself. And yet I'm wondering what makes you a "title expert" (the phrase you have yourself used) or why your view should be given any weight? ...sorry if that sounds challenging, but it is challenging. Why should someone whose view is not in line with the article reality, in fact only in line with 1 article, be given weight in a discussion on that view? In ictu oculi (talk) 11:37, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

 * I do not think that it is an appropriate change because I for one think we should follow usage in reliable English language sources, your change seems to imply that an editor either thinks/knows that diacritics are appropriate or inappropriate rather than following usage in sources. -- PBS (talk) 08:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

 * And here again is the same problem the phrase "usage in reliable English language sources" - which PBS interprets as "sources which are reliable about dates, facts, history, but do not have to be reliable for spelling foreign names", and which I (and I believe almost every other editor) interprets as defined by WP:Identifying reliable sources as " reliable for the statement being made ." These two understandings of what is reliable for spelling e.g. French names
 * interpretation 1 (PBS' view) = books which do not contain French accents
 * interpretation 2 (my own view) = books which do contain French accents
 * Evidently these two interpretations are not the same interpretation of "reliable sources". In ictu oculi (talk) 11:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Iio you are misrepresenting my point of view, I am neither for or against accent marks on article titles. I am in favour of surveying reliable English language sources to see what is the usage in English language sources and following that usage, so please stop implying that I am or am not in favour of one particular interpretation. You write "sources which are reliable about dates, facts, history, but do not have to be reliable for spelling foreign names" how have you drawn the conclusion that the usage in such reliable sources are or are not reliable for spelling foreign names in English? As I understand what you write, your position is that you will only accept a source as reliable for the spelling of a name if it conforms to what you think is the "correct". If so why bother to survey reliable sources? -- PBS (talk) 07:20, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The way I see it, is the following: Let us assume Jimbo Wales is considered a reliable source and in his book/journal he published It's not discourteous to talk about Munich rather than Muenchen in the context of topnym vs exonym and he is discussing Goethe's place of death being Weimar in some other part of his book. Jimbo could be considered an expert in Peerage of the United Kingdom and similar historical fields across Europe, but can he be considered a RS on the spelling of Goethe? It is a fact, supported by other sources, that the toponym for Munich is München and not Muenchen, which renders the publication typographicaly unreliable. I could not rely on Goethe not being Göthe, only on his place of death. On the other had Jimbo written München in the first instance and Goethe in the other I can rely on Goethe being typographically correct. Agathoclea (talk) 09:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

 * I think you went in the right direction there, but with the wrong examples - the diacritics discussion isn't on whether to use anglicizations or not, it's on whether the act of stripping diacritics from foreign names constitutes actual anglicization. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:23, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You mean if Dörte translates into Dorothy or Dorte? The first is an anglicization, the second a typographical issue. Agathoclea (talk) 11:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not that simple. Is hotel an English word or a French word (hôtel) with the circumflex stripped off? By following usage in reliable English language sources we do not have to answer that question (or even investigate where the word originates), or decide what "correct" usage ought to be. For example there is an article about an English estate called The Vache on Wikipedia. Captain Cook named an island after it. For those who do not know they might well think that the island's name means it was originally French and want to give a translation of Cow Island which in this case would be misleading. -- PBS (talk)
 * see Hôtel particulier to see how our common practice on the naming of these hotels is. As far as Cow Island is concerned, being a very good example. We would not apply WP:UE to mean we have to translate names neither does it mean we have to strip the circumflex of French hotels. Neither do we have to add it to hotels from Sussex. Agathoclea (talk) 17:41, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You are missing my point. I was not using hotel in a name but in an example of what you call "anglicization" to show it is not just "a typographical issue". As to your example of Hôtel particulier, like all names of objects and people Wikiepdia should follow the usage in reliable English language sources. -- PBS (talk)
 * Actually, today it's very simple - hotel is an English word, you can find it in any English dictionary and most English speakers know what it means and how to pronounce it natively. On the other hand, Ivanović is not an English word, and the reliable English sources on "Ivanović" are works about onomastics or genealogy that cover foreign surnames. Works about tennis, chess, politics or whatever else people named that way happen to be involved in - are reliable sources about those people's respective activities, not about the surnames they happen to carry, or about an encyclopedia's writing style. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:58, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * How do most English speakers pronounce Moscow, Warwick, Worcester or Wagner? "and the reliable English sources on "Ivanović" are works about onomastics or genealogy" may be reliable sources for that word, but they are not reliable sources for the name by which a person is called any more than a reliable English sources on the derivation of "Anthony" help in deciding on whether the article Tony Blair should have Anthony or Tony in the title, that is done by looking at reliable sources about that individual and seeing what is used in those reliable sources. -- PBS (talk) 12:57, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * So you agree with me then? :) A difference between Anthony and Tony is obvious in spelling and pronunciation, just like the difference between an anglicization (Moscow) and a foreign word (Москва). When English sports commentators routinely pronounce the -ić, it's clear that they're not inventing a new English word "Ivanovic", but instead pronouncing a foreign word "Ivanović". They're not pretending to anglicize it, so neither should an encyclopedia. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:01, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Agathoclea, Joy, thanks for your comments. Obviously time is wasted responding to deliberate distraction from editors such as who introduce "Mick" Jagger into a discussion about typographical limitations - and those who keep asserting that basic-ASCII sources are reliable for names with non-basic ASCII. It's evident that 2 or 3 of the most active local inhabitants of this page are in denial of article title reality and the consensus of 1000s of editors editing in full European Latin alphabet typography, and attempts to reason will not get anywhere, which leaves 2 options - either ignore the disruptive state of this page, as the editing community is largely doing, or bring in a large scale RfC notifying every affected project and overrule the local consensus issue here with a broader community input. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:54, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Joy I think you misunderstood my point is there a cow in Moscow? It seems that in some English dialects there is whist in others there is not. As to Iio's point I do not know what ASCII has to do with anything, unless you are attempting to second guess the style used in different publications and pretending that the only reason a publication might not use accent marks is because of technical limitations and not a question of style. For example the Economist has a published style guide (so their style is known) that only recommends using accent marks for some languages and not for others where does that sit in your simple ASCII based world? The nice thing about following the usage in reliable English language sources is that one does not have to research further than usage it follow the principle of least astonishment. For example if one was to only use the Economist for all the names that they use, one would end up with the usage of accent marks in their style guide without ever reading it. By doing the same thing over dozens of reliable publications, the style of article title will reflect English language usage. PBS (talk) 12:44, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * PBS you bring in the Economist MOS, as a former contributor and editor to Economist publications I can tell you that having a MOS is a very good thing and Economist MOS is a good one for time-deadline publications. However, because that is what en.wp's editors want en.wp should have an en.wp MOS which would be like WP:FRMOS, that we completely spell correctly and fully all European Latin alphabets. And then the diacritics war (caused entirely by 4 or 5 disruptive editors clinging on to 2 or 3 articles) would be over.
 * Instead of which you're again arguing for an unstable MOS as you advanced when arguing that Frédéric Vitoux (writer) could be written in full font because writers appear in hardback books, while Frédéric Vitoux (tennis) should be written in basic-ASCII because tennis players appear in shoddy sports websites. This is massively unstable and disruptive and these continuing attempts to turn every name on en.wp into an endless "count the hardback vs html sources game" need to end. You, and 1 or 2 others, but mainly yourself, have in my view wasted thousands of bytes of what could have been productive editor time with this disruption and your attempts - as an editor out of line with editor/article reality - to WP:OWN this guideline need to be brought to a clean permanent end. However I agree with Joy that it is better to wait for colder weather to get the maximum participation in a full RfC. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "hardback books" "shoddy sports websites" that is a trick of rhetoric of a type you use quite often. Do you do it on purpose or are you unaware that you do it? Wikipedia titles should rely on what appears in reliable English language sources (and if you think that a site is a non reliable -- such as a "shoddy sports website" -- then that should be part of the debate, but the debate ought to revolve around usage in reliable English language sources rather than what editors think is "correct". If that mean that some articles have a names such as "Fred Vitoux (dab extension)" or "Frederic Vitoux (dab extension)" or "Fred Vitoux (dab extension)" or to take another example Tony Blair and Anthony Blair (criminal) this is an issue that should be source driven and not something where Wikipedia editors impose the "correct" title.
 * Iio for the record over the last two years how many RMs have you initiated to place an article at the "correct" spelling of a name with modified letters compared to the number I have initiated? I suspect you have initiated dozens (or is it 100s?). With the exception of Encyclopædia Britannica (over removing æ under WP:TITLETM) can you name one other that I have initiated? Similarly how many talk page debates have you expressed an opinion on that now reside at a name with one or more accent marks compared to me? I suspect the ratio is probably a lot greater than 10 to one. So I think it is hypocritical you you to accuse me of "what could have been productive editor time with this disruption", but I suppose you consider all your comments to be justified as productive because like an old time profit you think you know what is "correct". -- PBS (talk) 17:26, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * PBS,
 * First, no, I don't think it's hypocritical of me to note that without the current state of WP:DIACRITICS 100s if not 1000s of editor hours could have been saved. In reality the time is probably less because only a tiny minority of Tennis and Hockey editors have ever followed the guideline here. But your question: How many RMs have the conflict between the current state of the guideline here and the rest of the encyclopedia made necessary? As a percentage of en.wp's BLP article stock? I would estimate 0.0001%. And these were the 0.0001% necessitated by the disruptive and unstable guideline a local consensus of editors - including most vocally yourself - have inserted into this page.
 * Second, now a question for you:
 * Seeing as you introduce hypocrisy as a subject, can I ask do you think it's hypocritical of yourself to praise Economist MOS Put the accents and cedillas on French names and words (the same as WP:FRMOS) but then fight against, for French, Economist MOS - as http://www.economist.com/style-guide/accents would treat Frédéric Vitoux (writer) and Frédéric Vitoux (tennis) consistently, but you support editors having to conduct Google counts to see if the subject appears in high-MOS academic books or low-MOS sports sources.
 * Do you support Economist MOS Put the accents and cedillas on French names and words yes or no? In ictu oculi (talk) 18:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Iio I think you are playing tricks with rhetoric again by asking for a simple yes or no answer ("Answer yes or no. Do you still beat you wife?") I have neither come to bury the Economist style guide or to praise it, and I have already answered that question above, here are the same two sentences quoted for ease of reference: "For example if one was to only use the Economist for all the names that they use, one would end up with the usage of accent marks in their style guide without ever reading it. By doing the same thing over dozens of reliable publications, the style of article title will reflect English language usage". -- PBS (talk) 16:27, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * PBS,
 * Please answer a straight question: Do you support Economist MOS Put the accents and cedillas on French names and words - Yes or No?'
 * In ictu oculi (talk) 01:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I will gladly answer a strait question with yes or no, but your question is not strait, because it is formulated like the question "Do you still beat you wife?". So please look at my previous sand if anything is not clear please for clarification on that specific point. -- PBS (talk) 16:21, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * PBS
 * This is the answer I would expect from you. You are asked 'Do you support Economist MOS?' and your answer is that to ask someone if they support Economist MOS is to ask someone if they are still beating their wife.
 * In ictu oculi (talk) 17:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

 * Regardless of the specific ambiguity, the fact is that there exists at least one English pronunciation of that English word. It's not a question about how to pronounce Moskva + whatever diacritics one can tack on to that, it's a question of how to pronounce Moscow.
 * Regarding second-guessing style guides, that's actually a great point - the existence of such guides shows it is a matter of style, not of fact. Therefore, invoking the verifiability policy to enforce matters of style is meaningless.
 * As for reflecting English usage, that link from the old RfC is still valid: User:Prolog/Diacritical marks. I think the sheer variety there, completely disregarding any specifics, is proof enough that this is not a matter that can be trivially resolved by saying "look, the preponderance of English sources does X, so we should just do X, too". --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:09, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * How do you pronounce Moscow personally there is no cow in my pronunciation of the word? "it is a matter of style, not of fact" which means there is no "correct" spelling and we should follow the spelling that is commonly used in reliable English language sources (principle of least astonishment). Looking at what reliable sources say is precisely what is done for WP:UNDUE and is fundemental to both WP:V and WP:NOR as well as WP:AT, so why not follow the same principle for whether or not to use modified letters in words? -- PBS (talk) 17:26, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've no idea why it matters, but I'd say mos-cow. I'm not a native speaker, but I'm aware of the existence of the English word for the city's name.
 * Ah I see how American of you :-) I do not pronounce cow in Moscow, which is (also) common in many other English dialects. For many words the pronunciation in different English dialects differ enough that unless one can place the word in context or know other common pronunciations the word is incomprehensible (Take for example the word buoy -- most Americans would assume that a Brit was talking about a boy; or another example: if a Brit asks for Worcester sauce in the US (s)he will usually be told that there is not such thing unless (s)he emphasises "cester" in the word -- not something that is done in Britain or Ireland). BTW it does not have to be between dialects: the pronunciation of Shrewsbury being a well known example. This looseness in English over the name of things is a minor problem but also a major asset as it allows the language to adapt. So to use your example "Ivanović" with or with out an accent mark is not going to allow a person to decide how the word is pronounced in an English dialect, instead they will synthesise a pronunciation based on how others pronounce it and/or their experience with the pronunciation other similar words. PBS (talk)

 * The principle of least astonishment is a rule in ergonomics and software design, not necessarily a good overarching rule for how to build an encyclopedia, even one operating in software. In particular, the use of hypertext makes it moot because whatever may be said to astonish a reader is usually explicable after a single click, and secondly the scope of an encyclopedia isn't narrow, it's as broad as it can be, so with so many unknowns being described, being astonished could easily be argued to be a part of the reader experience. People don't read an encyclopedia in order to remain within the confines of their pre-existing experience - on the contrary, they do it in order to expand their knowledge and broaden their experiences. I agree that it's counter-productive to make the interface completely strange, which is why transliteration is used, but that's for different alphabets, not Latin-derived ones. If a reader knows one Latin alphabet, others are sufficiently recognizable to them that they don't have to be entirely transliterated. That's why we call a ć a "c with an acute", and not a Tintin or whatever :)
 * In any case, the article title policy already lays out its own rules: article titles must be recognizable, natural, precise, concise and consistent. Using foreign words to describe foreign people is logical under those rules. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * How is "Using foreign words to describe foreign people is logical under" "recognizable, natural"? Surly the most recognizable, natural name and spelling for the majority of readers will be those used in reliable English language sources? You performed this exercise higher up this page when you wrote "Actually, today it's very simple - hotel is an English word, you can find it in any English dictionary". -- PBS (talk) 16:27, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * In the case of a person called Ivanović, the reliable English language sources that render the name Ivanovic still clearly agree that the name to be used is that one - they don't say it should be Ivanovich, or Eyevanovitch, or Johnson, or whatever. There is no English word (such as an anglicization) to be used in place of Ivanović or Ivanovic, so the foreign word is used, whatever the character set. It is not a particularly natural English title by virtue of not being an English word in the first place. After we've established that, a foreign Latin-alphabet word is as recognizable in its foreign Latin form as it is in its foreign Latin form without any diacritics. Taking the other criteria in mind, precision and consistency, there remains no particularly important reason to eschew the diacritics. And, again, "hotel" is an English word where the English speakers pronounce the "h" (that is, hoe-tell), unlike the French speakers. I don't really understand where you expect that line of reasoning to end up. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:03, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Joy, difficult to judge because of the red herrings and refusal to answer straight questions, but I guess part of where PBS is coming from is best expressed in his Napoleon vs Napoléon argument (made some time ago, but actually the only argument relevant to diacritics, rather than wasting everyone's time with red herrings like Tony Blair vs Anthony Blair). In the field of royalty (Napoleon was an emperor) and Napoleonic and earlier history. The use of Elisabeth of Valois vs Élisabeth de Valois connects use of a diacritic with other elements of English, such as English "of" rather than French "de". This is particularly notable in some names where English and French are distinguished only by an acute accent. Part of what's currently happening may be that WP:NCROY is playing the tail wagging the dog for the WP:DIACRITICS guideline, and tennis players are treated as if they have aristocratic names whereby Ana Ivanović should if she was 17th Century nobility be translated to Anna of John, but knocking off the ć will stand now. This WP:NCROY or Napoleonic perspective has no traction with BLP editors normally, but where there is a pre-existent cluster of "English names for foreigners" supporters - such as not just 1 editor at WP Tennis, the Napoleonic perspective and the "English names for foreigners" perspective form a sort of unholy marriage to disrupt the encyclopedia at 0.0001% of articles. I don't expect that PBS will drop his strong opposition to use of high-MOS hardback sources (such as Grasso's Dictionary of Tennis), but when in drafting the RfC proposal some allowance needs to be made to allow Elisabeth of Valois vs Élisabeth de Valois, either a specific. WP:NCROY caveat or mention of a date-stamp of some kind such as WP:BLP. We could include "either Elisabeth of Valois or Élisabeth de Valois", along the lines of WP:EN "Tomás Ó Fiaich, not Tomas O'Fiaich". In ictu oculi (talk) 02:01, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

 * Er, I don't actually see the equivalence. The word "de" is clearly different to "of", and the latter can be said to be clearly constituting an anglicization. Also, the name "Elisabeth" is not just a Élisabeth with the diacritics pruned out of convenience - it's also a normal English word/name. So the issue is separate from the character set difference. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right, they aren't equivalent, that's what I meant to say. This is the case of a translated personal name not of diacritics. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

 * Iio what does "high-MOS" mean? Iio you write "I don't expect that PBS will drop his strong opposition to use of high-MOS hardback sources (such as Grasso's Dictionary of Tennis)," Either cross that out or provide a diff to where I have oppose the use of "Grasso's Dictionary of Tennis" in helping to decide an article title. -- PBS (talk) 16:21, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * PBS
 * If you don't understand what "high-MOS" means how can you ask for it to be crossed out?
 * One of the places where you showed strong opposition to use of high-MOS hardback sources (such as Grasso's Dictionary of Tennis) was in the recent Talk:Ana Ivanovic RM where you made several posts advocating following sources which do not carry Serbian fonts over sources which do, such as Grasso's Dictionary of Tennis. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

 * In any case discussion here is over as far as I am concerned - the WP:LOCALCONSENSUS on this Talk page contrary to en.wp article reality is not going to change, posting here is a waste of time, and it will need colder weather to run an RfC to bring this guideline into line with article reality. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

 * You have not explained what you mean by "high-MOS" and you have not produced any diffs to back up your allegations. Please do so. -- PBS (talk) 20:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

 * PBS
 * High-MOS means a MOS with a high typography including diacritics.
 * The RM (as most of BLP articles which have been disrupted) was about a minority of high typography sources vs a majority of low typography sources. Your six contributions to the RM say what they say, based on your interpretation of "reliable". Followed up in your continuation with User:Mareklug:
 * Now this is enough. B2C started this thread, I've said what I have to say. This is time wasting.In ictu oculi (talk) 00:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Not one of those diffs you have provided support your accusation that I have oppose the use of "Grasso's Dictionary of Tennis" in helping to decide an article title. If you can not support you accusation then please cross it out. -- PBS (talk) 14:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * PBS,
 * I am on this thread because B2C started it. I do not want to talk to you.
 * Please do not paraphrase me. No one said anything about "helping" to decide an article title. "Helping" could mean referring to a minority of high-MOS sources such as Grasso's Dictionary of Tennis, then saying that because there are more low-MOS sources such as sports websites we will follow low-MOS sources. What I said was "the use" of high-MOS hardback sources (such as Grasso's Dictionary of Tennis), "the use of high-MOS hardback sources" means "the use of high-MOS hardback sources" not "help from high-MOS sources" "including high-MOS sources in the sample" but "the use of high-MOS hardback sources". This means  "the exclusive/preferential use of high-MOS hardback sources as being WP:RS "Reliable for the statement being made", as you well know. Now that is more than enough. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

 * Iio what you wrote was "I don't expect that PBS will drop his strong opposition to use of high-MOS hardback sources (such as Grasso's Dictionary of Tennis)," you have not produced one diff to support that statement so please strike it out. -- PBS (talk) 13:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

PBS, your strong opposition to use of a minority of high-MOS hardback sources carrying East European fonts (such as Grasso's Dictionary of Tennis in the case of Ana Ivanović) over a majority of low-MOS sports html sources without diacritics could be seen from the following comments from Talk:Ana Ivanović:

 * That speaks for itself. As I noted - "as before with lengthy discussion on Talk:Édouard Deldevez RM the difference between your interpretation of WP:RS and other en.wp editors' lies is Identifying reliable sources - "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is an appropriate source for that content". Other editors do not consider sources with no É in the font set reliable for the statement of whether a name has É. Same then with ć." In ictu oculi (talk) 06:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

 * Not one of the quotes (which I think would have been better done as diffs) shows that I have "a strong opposition to use of 'high-MOS hardback'(sic) sources (such as Grasso's Dictionary of Tennis)" quite the contrary is shows that I am willing to support a survey of all types of reliable sources when deciding on an article title (as should be done for all article titles unless they are descriptive ones made up by Wikipedia editors), so please strike through your false comment. -- PBS (talk) 14:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * PBS this "strike your false comment" is being aggressive, threatening (again), and playing word games. When I say "use" I clearly simply mean "use" - I don't have to strike it through because by "use" you mean to consider but then reject because high-MOS hardback sources such as Grasso's Dictionary of Tennis in that case, are in the minority to low-MOS sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:25, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

 * Nothing you have written or the diffs you have provided support the false comment you have made so please strike out the sentence as I have requested. -- PBS (talk) 15:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Maybe
Maybe we should actually have a discussion specifically about this idea of a source being "reliable for spelling". Here's my suggestion for how to handle it, to keep it completely away from any particular example:

Question: When trying to determine the best spelling for the name of a person, place, or thing, editors naturally look to the spelling used in sources. Some editors say that the spellings used in all English-language reliable sources about that subject should be considered. Other editors say that the spellings in only a small proportion of English-language reliable sources should be considered. Specifically, these editors say that only reliable sources that use diacritics for some names (although not necessarily for the name being considered) should be accepted.

For example, imagine that editors are looking at published lists of names for famous operas. Editors in the inclusive group would consider the spellings used in all of these lists. Editors in the restrictive group would reject any list that did not contain at least one instance of a diacritic. The first group believes this approach produces results biased in favor of diacritics, rather than being a neutral survey of the sources. Which approach do you think is better?

The idea is that someone from each side fills in a brief summary of the reasons. Do you think that something like this will work? Is it a narrow enough question that we could actually get an answer to the question being asked (i.e., whether "reliable on spelling" is a valid restriction)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - User:WhatamIdoing this might seem like a way forward if those edit-watching this page were representative of the editing community, but unfortunately past discussions demonstrate that the WP:LOCALCONSENSUS at WP:Naming conventions (use English) is at odds with the encyclopedia's editors as a whole. Also at odds with WP:Identifying reliable sources definition of "reliable" as WP:RS "reliable for the statement being made".
 * In which case such a discussion is pointless.
 * Out of interest may I first ask you the basic question: Do you User:WhatamIdoing agree that there's a gap between article title reality and current state of WP:DIACRITICS? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:46, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

 * I think that a properly advertised RFC would not result in a local consensus. In fact, we even could agree that the "regulars" on this page, like you, me, and PBS, should avoid expressing their views in it beyond writing the question.  Towards that end, I'll keep my opinion to myself for now.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the main disconnect here is that if you base the discussion on entirely depending on outside sources to determine your own style, you're never going to go anywhere because there will always be several reasonable manuals of style out there to pick from and your problem still isn't automatically solved. I trust I don't have to repeat the link to the list from the RfC two years ago. IOW, the matter has to be an editorial decision here, but trying to bind it into a question of verifiability will necessarily prejudice it. It would be like binding the MOS:ENGVAR issue with outside sources that use each variety. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:50, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If we're going to base the style on something other than reliable sources, then we need to make a decision that is either pro-diacritics, anti-diacritics, or first-come/first-served, with zero reference to the usage in reliable sources. I do not believe that the community will accept an answer that is based on our choice of style rather than one reliable sources.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * User:WhatamIdoing, there is a question for you above. I'm not sure if "Towards that end, I'll keep my opinion to myself for now" is in response to it. If not do you User:WhatamIdoing agree that there's a gap between article title reality and current state of WP:DIACRITICS? Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually now I think of it the name User:WhatamIdoing rings a bell, ... we haven't been round this before haven't we. You werern't the editor here who when asked before whether en.wp's articles used diacritics and they either refused to answer or claimed not to know? I apologise if I'm getting you confused with someone else - this Talk page doesn't seem a good place to find people who are familiar with how the encyclopedia's articles actually are titled. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I am refusing to answer your question at this time, because I do not want to discuss it in advance of an RFC about that issue. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well in that case perhaps you should also consider to strike through your suggestions above. In my view if an editor isn't prepared to discuss openly en.wp naming reality, they shouldn't presume to be setting the agenda for discussing that reality. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Who ever said that that either option is unsupported by reliable sources? That's the key point, you can find reliable sources that support either option. Can you please read the list user Prolog assembled? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You objected to "bas[ing] the discussion on entirely depending on outside sources to determine your own style". The English Wikipedia's style is to depend entirely on outside sources for each article title.  If you want to know how to style a title, or how to spell it, then our rule has been to look at the reliable sources about that exact subject (i.e., not a style manual with general rules, but a reliable source that contains actual content about the specific subject in question).
 * Prolog's list is entirely about how other places choose to style their titles and is consequently irrelevant. There are no reliable sources on the subject of how Wikipedia chooses to style titles.  The purpose of the discussion is to find out how Wikipedia chooses to do it, not to find out how other places choose to do it.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

 * No, actually, it's not, because it can't be - whenever there's more than 1 title for a thing in the sources, we use our own policy (WP:AT) to decide what to do. We don't depend entirely on outside sources, because that would cause our process to be deadlocked half the time.
 * How can you possibly claim that other people doing the exact same thing we're doing here irrelevant, while at the same time arguing that we depend entirely on other people? :) Take a pick - either you acquire information from outside sources in a non-arbitrary manner, or you don't. We're an encyclopedia, which means we necessarily acquire factoids from the outside for our content. Those factoids are sometimes the result of someone else's editorial process. Other people's published manuals of style are also factoids. You're basically saying our editorial process has to be constrained to the choice of a subset of everyone else's factoids (their choices of names and spelling), while at the same time we would have to ignore another subset of everyone else's factoids (their manuals of style). --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not quite true. When there is more than one title in the sources, our policy (at AT) is choose one of the uses in the sources about the subject (using the various criteria listed at AT for selecting between them).  Our policy is not to look up someone else's style manual and choose the title that someone else's style guide recommends.
 * So, basically, yes: we have a policy of constraining our choices to the "factoids" present in the reliable sources about the subject and ignoring the "factoids" present in sources reliable for a completely different subject (i.e., when the subject is a person, we ignore sources that are reliable for questions about the style that ought to be used in newspaper articles).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

 * Ah, so I'm preaching to the choir, you then simply agree that we should use diacritics in people's names if the reliable sources for people's names include them? :) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * User:WhatamIdoing, I am still not convinced that you understand the problem. When you say "(i.e., when the subject is a person, we ignore sources that are reliable for questions about the style that ought to be used in newspaper articles)." do you mean that, say in the case of Frédéric Vitoux (tennis) we have 100 sources discussing the subject, 1 hardback book which uses French accents with other people which spells Frédéric, and 99 newspapers and html sites which use only 26 alphabetic characters that we follow the 1 source as WP:RS "reliable for the statement being made", or follow the 99? In ictu oculi (talk)

Infobox
Hi. Our naming convention here states that: "The native spelling of a name should generally be included in parentheses, in the first line of the article ..." And of course the infobox is summary of the article. But an editor has now repeatedly deleted the native spelling of the name of a person from the infobox (as a secondary reflection of the name, after the English, same as in the first sentence of the article). And I'm certain I've seen such reflected commonly throughout the Project. Thoughts?--Epeefleche (talk) 16:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Does the infobox in question have a field for the native spelling? If so, it can, of course, be used; no doubt about it. On the other hand, if the infobox does not have a dedicated field and the native spelling had been appended to the English spelling or inserted into a field with a different purpose, then it should be removed.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 24, 2013; 16:59 (UTC)
 * Why? If a specific infobox does not support a common feature of infoboxes, why should we remove attempts to include the data within the limits of the existing template? Vegaswikian (talk) 17:20, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * (ec) Because, first, including non-related information into a field designed for something else entirely is never a good practice. If it were OK, the infoboxes would have had just a bunch of generic fields into which editors would have been able to insert whatever information they pleased. That clearly is not the case. Also, infoboxes not only serve as a quick reference for the readers, they are parsed by various tools to extract the data automatically (possibly including, in the long run, for our own Wikidata). If you cram native name into, say, the place of birth field (for the sole reason that the native name field is unavailable and the end result looks OK visually), you won't be doing whatever automated processes depend on that field any favors.
 * Second, the design of an infobox does (or at least is supposed to) reflect the consensus of the editors working on the articles in that particular field. If the infobox does not include a field for native name, chances are the editors didn't want it there in the first place. It may, of course, also be an oversight, in which case a quick note on the corresponding WikiProject's talk page asking for the field to be added should clarify the issue.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 24, 2013; 17:39 (UTC)
 * A) I don't see this as a case of "a field designed for something else entirely." It is a field for the name.  There are actually two such fields.  The native spelling of the name is one variant of precisely .. the name.  B) Insertion of the native name in the golfer infoboxes reflects, I would think, that editors do not feel it inappropriate.  Just the opposite. C) It seems illogical that we should mandate use of the native name in the first sentence of the article, and then forbid it (not even leave it as optional) in the ibox.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There are different kinds of names: full names, legal names, names under which a person is best known, nicknames, pen names, native full names, native short names, and so on, and so forth. This is why it is important that the template's documentation makes it clear exactly what kind of name the field is intended for (and I can see how for some a "full name" may not be the equivalent of a "native name"). And with Infobox golfer, since the documentation does not elucidate the field's purpose, common practices in that field is what you should be looking at. Do article's about other golfers include native spelling in the "full name" field? If so, there should be no problem to do the same. If they don't, then the issue should be taken to WikiProject Golf. You may very well find out that it's a simple oversight or that a perfectly good yet non-obvious reason exists to not include native spellings in golfer infoboxes. Since I'm not involved with that WikiProject, this is the best recommendation I can provide.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 24, 2013; 17:53 (UTC)
 * It (the golfer infobox) has: a) a field for the name (and a native spelling of a name is of course by its nature a spelling of the name), and b) a spelling mandated for inclusion in the first line of the article), and a field for "full name." Common usage of the golfer ibox commonly reflects native spelling -- see, e.g., Korean Ji-Young Oh, Japanese Tōru Nakamura, Russian Svetlana Gounkina, Taiwanese Amy Hung, Thai Thongchai Jaidee.  If it is important enough to be mandated in the first sentence of an article, it seems common sense it is reasonable to reflect it in the ibox ... which is summary of the article.  Iboxes as a rule generally reflect mandated information.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:29, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying which infobox you are talking about. From what I see, Infobox golfer's documentation does not clarify what it is exactly that the full_name field is supposed to contain. If the majority of golfer articles use it to hold the native spelling, then you are, of course, correct that it can be used for that purpose in other articles about golfers. And if the field's purpose is different, then I would say that the participants of WikiProject Golf should edit the template's documentation to make it more clear. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 24, 2013; 17:43 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I can't speak for the majority of article -- I haven't checked more than a handful -- but from what I see it is common for native name to be reflected in the ibox, where it is reflected in the article in the first place.  And of course I can't, without delving deeper, see if any instances where it is not reflected in the ibox reflect inadvertence or judgment being applied.  The titles "name" and "full name" are broad enough to include native name -- they certainly don't by their general meaning exclude native name.  And, as Vega points out, we generally are happy to include such info in iboxes.  There is no clear effort at prohibition here. And, if we as a matter of course reflect the native name of, say, the Prime Minister of Japan (Shinzō Abe), why would we mandate deletion of a the native name of a Japanese golfer ... or are people suggesting stripping away the prime minister's native name from the ibox? Plus, the other points I make above. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:50, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Fraternities and Sororities
Most USA Fraternities and Sororities are represented by a combination of 2 or 3 Greek Letters. While the standard is to name the article after the spelled out Greek Letters such as Alpha Phi Delta, my question is about redirects from the actual combination of Greek Letters such as ΑΦΔ which redirects to Alpha Phi Delta. Should those be added to Category:Redirects from alternative languages?Naraht (talk) 13:35, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Does Naming Conventions (use English) apply to mentions of names in other articles?
This guideline seems to directly address naming conventions only for Wikipedia articles in which the articles are primarily about the person, place, or thing for which there is more than one name version: etc.
 * The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language ...
 * The body of each article, preferably in its first paragraph, should list all frequently used names by which its subject is widely known.
 * The use of modified letters (such as accents or other diacritics) in article titles is neither encouraged nor discouraged ...
 * When there is evenly divided usage and other guidelines do not apply, leave the article name at the latest stable version.

What about mentions of names in articles that are primarily about a different subject? For example, what about when Beijing is mentioned in an article that is about the Presidency of Richard Nixon? In such a situation, the name in question will not appear in the article title and possibly may not appear in the lede or the opening paragraph of the main part of the body of the article either. Is this guideline meant to cover such situations, and if so, shouldn't the language of the guideline be tweaked to make that clear? Dezastru (talk) 18:53, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Related Request for Comments (Pablo Casals vs Pau Casals)
There is a related Request for Comments at Talk:Pablo Casals. Dezastru (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Icelandic (proper) names
"The policy on using common names and on foreign names does not prohibit the use of modified letters, if they are used in the common name as verified by reliable sources." Unlike for Irish vs. English where there are two versions for place names, in Iceland (and I assume other countries) there are just Icelandic names with (often) no English counterpart (counts double for peoples names). You would for sure find them on an Icelandic map. I assume you can always use them directly if you know them (and provide redirect for transliterated version). There has never been any controversy brought to my attention. The Icelandic alphabet use diacritics (and ö, þ, æ. People tend to misread Þþ for Pp and Ðð for Dd. I would think including these letters would be ok for peoples names (in title) as they are not that confusing? When putting names in new articles people just copy-paste? Or if not use the redirect (is there any rule about linking to real name and not the redirect?).

If people get famous, then in English reliable sources you would see Sigmundur David Gunnlaugsson and hardly ever Sigmundur Davíð Gunnlaugsson that you would see in Icelandic reliable sources (that you don't want to add to article). Allowing only "í" but not "ð" in title looks very wrong.. comp.arch (talk) 16:02, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

 * User:Comp.arch, I'm afraid the wording in this guideline is out of date and/or reflects the views of the editors who have edited the guideline, but as has been pointed out on this Talk page archive before in any case is at odds with Wikipedia's actual article reality. All straightforward Latin alphabet European bios and geos on en.wp have full font diacritics (except one). Icelandic names have been brought to RM, see Talk:Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir, but the consensus of editors is to treat Icelandic names the same as every other Latin alphabet name. Ideally the guideline needs editing to reflect the whole corpus of the encyclopedia rather than the views of a small group of editors on this Talk page. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:54, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

 * There are some good arguments in that RM against changing from ð and þ (even if þ is not in her name). And I can't say I agree with those who are supporting (that is, do not want ð and þ). I would like the guideline to be explicit about this, allowing these letters. If people oppose I wouldn't want it explicitly saying that :) Then each name could possibly go by what you find in sources. But as you would always find an Icelandic source (and it's the correct name) then I say at least say allow changing to the correct name if not requiring it. It may not matter much but at least Ð (and ð) will never be the first letter in a Icelandic name/word. And as people will not pronounce a name correctly anyway (with eg. th for Þþ) is there much harm in seeing a unusual letter? comp.arch (talk) 14:58, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Comp.arch I agree, I would also like the guideline to be explicit about this, or at least not to be contradicting article reality. You can see the consensus among en.wp project editors is overwhelming at an RM like Talk:Dominik_Halmosi. However as I said this guideline page WP:EN has, at least in the past, been edited by a small group of editors with a result different from the consensus of editors in the en.wp article corpus. In fairness to editors here, there was around 2010 a reaction (if that is the right word) against foreign names/fonts as can be seen here Talk:Lech Wałęsa/Archives/2012/April Talk:François_Mitterrand Talk:Gerhard_Schröder. Since that time several notable participants in the issue have been either topic-banned or community-banned, with the result that the encyclopedia now is back to 2007-2010 situation of full use of diacritics except for 2 exceptions: (1) some bios with German -ß, see WP:ß, and (2) changes of nationality, such as Handel, Schoenberg, Navratilova. If you wish to propose a change to the wording here which would remove the conflict with en.wikipedia article reality and with editor consensus then I and hopefully others would warmly support it. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Seems that no change has taken place with regard to Icelandic names, Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir etc. are still at Icelandic ð not d - which is not a simple English ABC + diacritic mark font issue. Time has really come, come and gone past the en.wp controversies of 3-4 years back, to make two needed changes:
 * (1) remove " general usage" in front of "reliable sources" for WP:DIACRITICS. As "Wałęsa" RMs illustrate we simply don't "follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language" for deciding when to use diacritics, we follow the high-MOS, Unicode sources with the option of full fonts.
 * (2) relink reliable sources to Identifying reliable sources which includes "reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content" not the current (mis)link to Verifiability which is irrelevant to font issues. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:53, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree; those are good points. We should err in favour of accurate spelling. If certain sources have systematic inaccuracies, we don't have to slavishly follow them. bobrayner (talk) 17:12, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Then will go ahead with those two changes. Okay? In ictu oculi (talk) 09:20, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the first sentence of the section ("The use of modified letters (...) in article titles is neither encouraged nor discouraged") should be brought in line with current practice. The deeper details of how this is done (e.g. by excluding a set of sources that would be reliable in other contexts) should only be changed if the principle is set.
 * This can't be done as a corollary on icelandic names (it is a broader issue), so such change should be proposed (at least) under a separate appropriate title on this talk page, if not RfC. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:00, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * A simpler solution would be to change "reliable sources" for "sources which are reliable for the statement being made" as that is the nub of the situation. The community has consistently rejected the view that basic-ASCII-only sources which cannot carry accents are a reliable source for use of accents. A minor text change, repointing attention to the relevant part of the Identifying reliable sources is only controversial if someone actually objects to the IRS guideline. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ...which addresses neither of the two issues I mentioned in my previous comment on this page:
 * Don't adjust the minute details while the elephant is still in the room. The elephant being the wide discrepancy between the indifference proclaimed by the guideline ("...neither encouraged nor discouraged") and the current practice.
 * This is a wider issue than a discussion on Icelandic names. This should be discussed under an appropriate title, so that people interested in diacritics but not necessarily in Icelandic proper nouns know by the title of the section what is discussed here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem, see below. Though a change of "reliable sources" for "sources which are reliable for the statement being made" is still the nub of the situation as that is how borderline decisions are made. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:49, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Second issue first?
Whatever happens re above, the WP:DIACRITICS section doesn't cover what is now the more discussed area - in article/lead use of diacritical marks such as macrons in romanizations. I would propose a small text caveat being added at the bottom of the existing section, with after word-smithing something similar to below: In ictu oculi (talk) 03:20, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

This is instruction creep. It is not up to naming conventions to encroach on the MOS. When you write "where these marks are part of the normal modern spelling of the language" to which language do you refer? The titles of articles should follow the usage in reliable English language sources. Under the MOS there may well be other criteria for spelling words in a different language in other ways to explain usage in other languages but this does not relate directly to the title. . -- PBS (talk) 22:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It is not instruction creep since it is not giving instructions, but guidance and direction to the relevant MOS. Since en.wp universally uses diacritics for latin alphabet foreign names, the main area where "diacritics" is relevant is the secondary area of romanizations. Therefore it makes no sense to have a section "diacritics" which doesn't give any direction to the main area where diacritics guidance applies, namely romanizations. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:26, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Use of characters from the Icelandic alphabet
When titling Wikipedia articles, should the Icelandic letters eth (ð) and thorn (þ) be used?

Please support one of the options below.

(Proposed by Formerip (talk) 13:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC).)

Discussion

 * oppose this overly broad RFC which is picking on the Icelandic alphabet for no good reason(what about other scripts?) and the overly broadly use of 'in wikipedia's voice' which doesn't clarify what the extent of this. If you want to formulate an RFC let's have some discussion here first on the scope and framing. For example, one way might be 'should we allow the use of these two characters in titles' - we'd also have to consider Æ i think.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the objection. The RfC focuses on two characters which have been the subject of recent discussion on this page. That's quite a narrow focus. I think a broader focus would be a bad idea because the issues involved would become more complicated and a "no consensus" outcome more likely. I don't personally find the use of "æ" controversial, which is why I have chosen not to include it in the question. Formerip (talk) 14:32, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy close This is an inappropriate forum  for this question. This is a naming convention (about article titles), this is a question for the WP:MOS or one of its guidelines. -- PBS (talk) 14:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair point, I have modified the question. Formerip (talk) 14:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy close as disruptive - this editor has made very clear above his/her views on the "insurgency" of foreign names for foreign people and places on en.wp above, and blowing up this one minor issue is a dramatization of the broader issue which should be recognized first before grandstanding in this manner. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:43, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If there's broad support for closing down this RfC (not just from editors who support wide use of non-English characters), then I will happily hat it myself. Formerip (talk) 15:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually the proper place is here Manual_of_Style/Iceland-related_articles. If you want to do an RFC, I would first propose your changes to that guideline, see if you get consensus, and then attempt to promote the whole guideline to actually be a formal guideline (it seems there was some dispute about this back in 2007).--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:30, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, well, likewise, if there is broad support for doing that, then that is what I will do. Formerip (talk) 15:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Option B, per the policy at WP:UE, which states, "Names not originally in a Latin alphabet...must be transliterated" into letters that typical readers of English are likely to recognize. Thorn is a runic letter, not a Latin letter; therefore the policy already says that you need to transliterate it (for the title).  Eth's origin is unknown to me, but it is certainly not recognizable by typical English readers (unlike accented characters, which all basically competent readers will recognize, even if they don't know how to type them on their own keyboards).  Therefore, I'd reject eth on the same policy grounds, although I'm open to persuasion there.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:54, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

please hat this proposal. You started off with one suggestion when that was pointed out was out of the scope of this page you changed it. But these ideas are against common name usage, ie if a survey of reliable English sources commonly use either one or more of the characters in the name then so should the Wikpedia article. If not then Wikipedia should not. This is no different from using "W" in a name as that is not an original Latin character and is not used in all European languages use that letter even though they use a Latin alphabet. If editors in RM discussions follow usage in reliable English language sources and it meet the requirements of the AT policy then there is no need for specifics like this. Suggesting that specific characters are included or excluded from article titles, encourages those who wish to ignore usage in reliable English language sources. -- PBS (talk) 18:28, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, there doesn't seem to be much interest in the question, so it probably doesn't matter much one way or the other whether I hat it. For now, I'll leave it open because I believe it is a useful question to ask.
 * You say "the ideas are against common name usage", but I don't think this is so. COMMONNAME is one of the options. You are quite right that "If editors in RM discussions follow usage in reliable English language sources and it meet the requirements of the AT policy then there is no need for specifics like this." How ever, it is abundantly clear that they most often do not follow such usage when it comes to the issue of diacritics and non-English characters. It is claimed that this is acceptable and, although it appears to be against policy, it merely reflects the consensus of the community. I think this is a claim that ought to be tested. It seems sadly possible that the community simply doesn't care enough to enforce the policy, in which case the question of whether it supports it or not is a bit moot. Formerip (talk) 13:39, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I second the request that you please hat this proposal. If as you say there is no support for it then keeping it open is not helping anyone and is not a useful question in any sense. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

 * Option B We have a good rule: they are not generally recognized, and should not be used. I think option C is inconsistent with this, and should rarely apply only with very special justification. Of the two rules, the rule that we use latin alphabet letters is the more important. Unlike most sources in English, we write for a world-wide audience that includes a great many non-native speakers who will be utterly lost when they encounter the characters.  (The question is whether they're in the Latin alphabet--I think not; they have not been assimilate except in some individual countries; they're different from accent marks, which people who do not understand them simply ignore.)  "Common usage is too vague--we need common world-wide usage to justify this. I know we have been including them, and I think we need to change. OIf there's a choice between writing for the broadest audience or a more knowledgable one, we should write for the broader--especially in article titles.  (obviously, the forms with the characters should be included prominently in the first sentence of the article and linked from, just as we always would for a name in cyrillic or greek) This may need a wider RfC, basically i agree with WhatamIdoing and to some extent with FormerIP--our practice should change if appropriate, and we can revisit even basic practices occasionally. I think early on we did not fully realize the extent to which the English WP would be used by people with a scant knowledge of English.   DGG ( talk ) 06:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Option B — WP:Recognizability is an issue here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:34, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy close as above (or Option A, if necessary)
 * To quote WP:AT:
 * The choice between anglicized and local spellings should follow English-language usage, e.g., the non-anglicized titles Besançon, Søren Kierkegaard, and Göttingen are used since they predominate in English language reliable sources, while for the same reason the anglicized title forms Nuremberg, delicatessen, and Florence are used (as opposed to Nürnberg, Delikatessen, and Firenze, respectively).
 * Eth and thorn are both letters in the Latin alphabet, even if they are not necessarily familiar ones. WP:TSC and WP:DIACRITICS cover this precise issue by recommending redirects from the unmodified forms (in this case, presumably that would be d and th.
 * Given that the very article ß is titled by its Latin alphabet character, I don't see that two other uncommon Latin letters should be singled out in this fashion. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 21:11, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ETA: I'd agree with Obi-Wan Kenobi that Manual of Style/Iceland-related articles would be where this topic should be discussed. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 21:24, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

 * Comment: Listed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Iceland-related articles — OwenBlacker (Talk) 21:38, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Option B Reflects normal English usage. The Proffesor (talk) 12:23, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

source: wikimedia

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English)/Archive 11


text:
Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Copy Edit of the Month/August 2012

 * The following event has concluded. Please do not modify this page. Comments should be made on the talk page.

The GOCE August Copy Edit of the Month was a two stage event. Submissions for the contest ran from 00:00 01 August 2012 (UTC) until 23:59 31 August 2012 (UTC). All submissions were from copy edits that occurred during the month of August. Voting on submissions ran from 00:00 01 September 2012 (UTC) until 23:59 30 September 2012 (UTC).

 * The voting period is now closed.
 * The submission period is now closed.

Northamerica1000

 * Cheese dog diff

Discussion

 * What made you decide to submit this copy edit?
 * Previously a stub-class article that I've significantly expanded. Another reason for listing here is to support this new contest, and the GOCE! Northamerica1000(talk) 02:18, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

SajjadF

 * Kundapura diff

Discussion
Its the biggest copy-edit I have done. I have made some major changes. Another reason for listing here is to support this new contest. I hope it goes on every month !! SajjadF (talk) 17:05, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * What made you decide to submit this copy edit?

Torchiest

 * Planetary consciousness diff

Support

 * 1) All the entries show some excellent and very capable copy-editing work and I found it difficult to choose one in particular. I chose this because Torchiest has raised the quality of the article from text bordering on promotional waffle to an encyclopaedia entry, and has done additional research in order to add further references, which indeed goes well beyond typo fixing. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 04:02, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

 * What made you decide to submit this copy edit?
 * Before I made any edits, the article had major WP:POV problems. I cleaned up the language to give it a more neutral tone, and also fixed and added some new references to better support the remaining text.  I also did an overhaul of the organization to better describe the contents.  I thought it was a good example of going beyond just moving around commas and periods. —Torchiest talkedits 02:05, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Stfg

 * Beethoven and Mozart diff

Support

 * 1) At the risk of being accused of nepotism, I'm picking this as the best of the batch. Not only is the prose better, but tone problems have been fixed, changing the article from a casual essay into a more serious and comprehensive encyclopedia entry.  I'm also a big fan of reference clean-up. —Torchiest talkedits 22:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

 * What made you decide to submit this copy edit?
 * The article discusses one of the great mysteries in my main area of interest (classical music). It had some writing and MOS issues, some editorializing (a common problem in clasical music articles) and I noticed that the Beethoven article gave a different and incompatible account of these events based on a different source. Until a question about that gets an answer, I felt that both views needed to be represented. --Stfg (talk) 09:48, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Baffle_gab1978

 * Prometheus (film) diff

Support

 * 1) This was a difficult decision, as several of the entries are very good, but what appeals to me about this job is how Baffle gab1978, with a very light touch, has tweaked sentence structures and the choice of words to show more clearly the sequence of events, relationship between ideas and so on. The article is a GAN, and this sort of thing is very helpful at that level. --Stfg (talk) 11:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

 * What made you decide to submit this copy edit?
 * It's the largest copy-edit I'd tackled for a few months. I did substantial editing work over several days on the article and I'm pleased with what I achieved there. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 03:01, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

GabeMc

 * Pink Floyd diff
 * Note - The link above does not show my finished copyedit, but instead shows "Revision as of 20:24, 29 August 2012". I worked on the article for another two days after that. ~ GabeMc  (talk 03:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Sorry about that, I created the link a few days ago; didn't realize you were still working on it. —Torchiest talkedits 03:36, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries. Thanks! ~ GabeMc  (talk 03:50, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

 * What made you decide to submit this copy edit?
 * To help promote the GOCE and Wikipedia, and to encourage my own growth as a copyeditor. ~ GabeMc  (talk 02:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Wilhelmina Will

 * Jack Bertoli diff

Discussion

 * What made you decide to submit this copy edit?
 * The article was in a pretty sorry grammatical state when I started on it, not to mention several parts of the text were pure advertisement on subjects barely related to the topic of the article. I feel it's come a long way under my care, and thus I believe it is a suitable nomination for this contest. Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (talk) 07:43, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

 * WW, that's a great example of how Wikipedia copy editing (more than real-life copy editing) can go beyond just grammar, sytax and tone, to achieve major improvement to an article. You've done a fine job of removing lots of soapboxing, puffery and promotion. From it's early history, I suspected the article might be an autobiography, and the only source proivided is the subject's own website. A Google search seems to yield mostly his website and Wikipedia categories. What's your view of his notability? --Stfg (talk) 10:00, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

 * The event above is closed. Please do not modify it. Comments should be made on the talk page.


text:
SQL

SQL, or Structured Query Language, is a special-purpose programming language designed for managing data held in a relational database management system (RDBMS), or for stream processing in a relational data stream management system (RDSMS).

SQL examples

 * SQL/Join
 * SQL/Join

Learning Projects

 * Databases
 * Database Fundamentals
 * Database Management
 * AWS RDS
 * MariaDB
 * MySQL
 * Oracle SQL Fundamentals

title: SQL


text:
Claude Laverdure (author)

Claude Laverdure (19 April 1947 – 17 August 2020) was a Belgian comic book author.

Biography
Laverdure had lived in Namur since his childhood. From 1960 to 1964, he studied screen printing and advertising. He began working as a designer in an enamel shop in 1965, then worked as a graphic designer and page maker at Éditions Wesmael-Charlier from 1967 to 1973. He was noticed by comic book author Édouard Aidans, writer of Tounga and Les Panthères, among others.

Starting in 1979, Laverdure produced sets, inking and lettering the first four albums of the French version of Tony Stark. In doing so, he met Christian Lamquet, with whom he produced a series celebrating the 150th anniversary of Belgium's independence, titled 150 Ans d'avatars de la Province de Namur. The work won an international prize in Paris. It was reissued in 1997 with additional panels.

In 1982, Laverdure designed Aventures du baron Prosit in the magazine Spirou, which did not appear until several years later. In 1987, Dargaud began publishing his series Chroniques de l'impossible, scripted by Christian Piscaglia. In 1988, he published Fantômas for Luc Dellisse and scripted Claude Lefrancq. From 1993, he published Journey to the Center of the Earth, written by Jules Verne.

In 2002, he illustrated a memoir of Antoine de Saint-Exupéry written by Philippe Domard and published by Le Lombard. This would be his final comic book published. In 2005, he began working on the recolorization of Voyage au Center de la Terre. It was published the following year with cover art by René Follet. In February 2020, a retrospective exhibition was displayed at Galerie Aarnor in Spy.

Claude Laverdure died on 17 August 2020 at the age of 73.

Works

 * Tony Stark : Le prisonnier du ciel (1980)
 * Tony Stark : Le lion d'un million (1980)
 * Tony Stark : Les voleurs de nuages (1981)
 * 150 ans d'avatars de la province de Namur (1981)
 * Le syndrome des sorciers : La mémoire albinos (1986)
 * Chroniques de l'impossible : La maison Bruges (1987)
 * Chroniques de l'impossible : Les tempêtes de Saint-Malo (1988)
 * Chroniques de l'impossible : La longue nuit de Strasbourg (1990)
 * Fantômas : L'affaire Beltham (1990)
 * Fantômas : Juve contre Fantômas (1991)
 * Fantômas : Le mort qui tue (1995)
 * Voyage au centre de la Terre (1993–1997)
 * Saint-Exupéry (2003)
 * Voyage au centre de la terre (2006)

title: Claude Laverdure (author)


text:
alinta

Noun

 * 1) large leech

Noun

 * 1) leech

Noun

 * 1) water leech

Etymology
, from, or from , from.

Verb

 * 1) to caress, fondle
 * 2) to pamper, coddle
 * 1) to pamper, coddle

Noun

 * 1) leech

title: alinta


text:
Paul Ahlquist

Paul Ahlquist is an American virologist who is Professor of Oncology, Molecular Virology, and Plant Pathology at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. He is the Associate Director of Basic Sciences at the University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center and the Director of the John and Jeanne Rowe Center for Research in Virology at the Morgridge Institute for Research.

Education
Ahlquist earned his B.S. in physics from Iowa State University and his Ph.D. in biophysics from the University of Wisconsin–Madison. His research is focused on the gene expression of RNA viruses.

Honors and awards
Ahlquist was admitted to the National Academy of Sciences in 1993 and was a Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) investigator from 1997 to 2021.

Research
His work at the University of Wisconsin–Madison and the Morgridge Institute for Research focuses on molecular mechanisms of viral replication, host interactions, and oncogenesis.

Select publications

 * Zhan H., Unchwaniwala N., Rebolledo-Viveros A., Pennington J., Horswill M., Broadberry R., Myers J., den Boon J.A.., Grant T., Ahlquist P. Nodavirus RNA replication crown architecture reveals proto-crown precursor and viral protein A conformational switching. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2023 Jan 31;120(5):e2217412120. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2217412120. PMID 36693094; PMCID: PMC9945985.
 * den Boon, J. A., Zhan, H., Unchwaniwala, N., Horswill, M., Slavik, K., Pennington, J., Navine, A., & Ahlquist, P. (2022). Multifunctional Protein A Is the Only Viral Protein Required for Nodavirus RNA Replication Crown Formation. Viruses, 14(12), 2711. https://doi.org/10.3390/v14122711.
 * Evans, E. L., 3rd, Pocock, G. M., Einsdorf, G., Behrens, R. T., Dobson, E. T. A., Wiedenmann, M., Birkhold, C., Ahlquist, P., Eliceiri, K. W., & Sherer, N. M. (2022). HIV RGB: Automated Single-Cell Analysis of HIV-1 Rev-Dependent RNA Nuclear Export and Translation Using Image Processing in KNIME. Viruses, 14(5), 903. https://doi.org/10.3390/v14050903.
 * Albright, E. R., Morrison, K., Ranganathan, P., Carter, D. M., Nishikiori, M., Lee, J. H., Slayton, M. D., Ahlquist, P., Terhune, S. S., & Kalejta, R. F. (2022). Human cytomegalovirus lytic infection inhibits replication-dependent histone synthesis and requires stem loop binding protein function. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 119(14), e2122174119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2122174119.
 * Benner, B. E., Bruce, J. W., Kentala, J. R., Murray, M., Becker, J. T., Garcia-Miranda, P., Ahlquist, P., Butcher, S. E., & Sherer, N. M. (2022). Perturbing HIV-1 Ribosomal Frameshifting Frequency Reveals a cis Preference for Gag-Pol Incorporation into Assembling Virions. Journal of virology, 96(1), e0134921. https://doi.org/10.1128/JVI.01349-21.
 * Unchwaniwala, N., Zhan, H., den Boon, J. A., & Ahlquist, P. (2021). Cryo-electron microscopy of nodavirus RNA replication organelles illuminates positive-strand RNA virus genome replication. Current opinion in virology, 51, 74–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coviro.2021.09.008.
 * Unchwaniwala, N., Zhan, H., Pennington, J., Horswill, M., den Boon, J. A., & Ahlquist, P. (2020). Subdomain cryo-EM structure of nodaviral replication protein A crown complex provides mechanistic insights into RNA genome replication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 117(31), 18680–18691. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2006165117.
 * Nishikiori, M., & Ahlquist, P. (2018). Organelle luminal dependence of (+)strand RNA virus replication reveals a hidden druggable target. Science advances, 4(1), eaap8258. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aap8258.
 * den Boon, J. A., Pyeon, D., Wang, S. S., Horswill, M., Schiffman, M., Sherman, M., Zuna, R. E., Wang, Z., Hewitt, S. M., Pearson, R., Schott, M., Chung, L., He, Q., Lambert, P., Walker, J., Newton, M. A., Wentzensen, N., & Ahlquist, P. (2015). Molecular transitions from papillomavirus infection to cervical precancer and cancer: Role of stromal estrogen receptor signaling. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 112(25), E3255–E3264. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1509322112.
 * Giménez-Barcons, M., Alves-Rodrigues, I., Jungfleisch, J., Van Wynsberghe, P. M., Ahlquist, P., and Díez, J. The Cellular Decapping Activators LSm1, Pat1, and Dhh1 Control the Ratio of Subgenomic to Genomic Flock House Virus RNAs.  J. Virol., 87(11): 6192-6200, 2013.
 * Seidel, S., Bruce, J., Leblanc, M., Lee, K.-F., Fan, H., Ahlquist, P., and Young, J. A. T. ZASC1 Knockout Mice Exhibit an Early Bone Marrow-Specific Defect in Murine Leukemia Virus Replication.  Virol. J., 10(1): 130, 2013.
 * Diaz, A., and Ahlquist, P. Role of Host Reticulon Proteins in Rearranging Membranes for Positive-Strand RNA Virus Replication.  Curr. Opin. Microbiol., 15: 519-524, 2012.
 * Diaz, A., Gallei, A., and Ahlquist, P. Bromovirus RNA Replication Compartment Formation Requires Concerted Action of 1a’s Self-Interacting RNA Capping and Helicase Domains.  J. Virol., 86:  821-834, 2012.
 * Huang, H.-S., Pyeon, D., Pearce, S. M., Lank, S. M., Griffin, L. M., Ahlquist, P., and Lambert, P. F. Novel Antivirals Inhibit Early Steps in HPV Infection.  Antiviral Res., 93:  280-287, 2012.
 * Wen, Z., Pyeon, D., Wang, Y., Lambert, P., Xu, W., and Ahlquist, P. Orphan Nuclear Receptor PNR/NR2E3 Stimulates p53 Functions by Enhancing p53 Acetylation.  Mol. Cell. Biol., 32:  26-35, 2012.
 * Zhang, J., Diaz, A., Mao, L., Ahlquist, P., and Wang, X. Host Acyl Coenzyme A Binding Protein Regulates Replication Complex Assembly and Activity of a Positive-Strand RNA Virus.  J. Virol., 86: 5110-5121, 2012.
 * Gancarz, B. L., Hao, L., He, Q., Newton, M. A., and Ahlquist, P. Systematic Identification of Novel, Essential Host Genes Affecting Bromovirus RNA Replication.  PLoS One, 6(8):e23988, 2011.
 * Scholthof, K.-B. G., Adkins, S., Czosnek, H., Palukaitis, P., Jacquot, E., Hohn, T., Hohn, B., Saunders, K., Candresse, T., Ahlquist, P., Hemenway, C., and Foster, G. D. Top 10 Plant Viruses in Molecular Plant Pathology.  Mol. Plant Pathol., 12:  938-954, 2011.
 * Wang, X., Diaz, A., Hao, L., Gancarz, B., den Boon, J. A., and Ahlquist, P. Intersection of the Multivesicular Body Pathway and Lipid Homeostasis in RNA Replication by a Positive-Strand RNA Virus.  J. Virol., 85: 5494-5503, 2011.

title: Paul Ahlquist


text:
User:Michael Anon/EditCounterOptIn.js

/* Opting in to the collation of detailed edit statistics by X!'s Edit Counter (https://toolserver.org/~tparis/pcount/index.php?name=Michael+Anon&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia). */

title: User:Michael Anon/EditCounterOptIn.js


text:
User:KellenCompSci

KellenCompSci is a software engineer from the Dallas, Fort Worth area where he was raised and went to school for computer science.

As a child growing up in Carrollton, TX, Kellen often enjoyed the authentic Mexican cuisine offered by Pollo Salsa. Since browsing wikipedia's List of Mexican restaurants Kellen was appalled to find that his favorite Mexican chicken restaurant wasn't listed despite having two locations at time of writing.

title: User:KellenCompSci


text:
Template talk:Editnotices/Page/Israel–Lebanon relations

Template-protected edit request on 21 September 2017
Please create this template for   which is protected under the 30/500 enforcement. Wrestlingring (talk) 14:08, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: The requested markup does not produce an editnotice. — JJMC89  (T·C) 14:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)