Knowledge talk:Usage of diacritics/Archive 3

1553:

are not uncommon – and b) the ‘c’ in ‘Busch’ is totally unneeded in English. S/he has probably some ulterior motive about media coverage and visibility, e.g. a line on the disambiguation page would be needed, but said writer/journalist dutifully adds ‘(from Germany)’ for disambiguation purposes. The initial paper can be considered as a reliable source, since the facts mentioned can be retraced in German sources. English speaking media commenting the initial paper take/cite the name as used and the form ‘George Bush (from Germany)’ becomes the generally used and recognized form in English, maybe just because one person wanted to boost his/her paper. According to your criteria, there is no reason to reject the form ‘George Bush (from Germany)’: it is English and it is used in most reliable English sources. Would you feel comfortable in this scenario? If not, why would removing a letter (‘c’) be more serious than removing a diacritic, remembering that what

2033:"Knowledge does not decide what characters are to be used in the name of an article's subject; English usage does. Knowledge has no rule that titles must be written in certain characters, or that certain characters may not be used. Versions of a name which differ only in the use or non-use of modified letters should be treated like any other versions: Follow the general usage in English verifiable reliable sources in each case, whatever characters may or may not be used in them." 31: 447:

policy change that the community just rejected the day before. Perhaps you're trying to rely on the "silence equals agreement" principle and hope that the opposition will become silent (and, hence, agreeable) just because of fatigue. Anyway, I personally believe that reopening this debate one day after it was closed is abusive, regardless of whether you have the right to do so. Perhaps my opinion will turn out to be the consensus here.

636:

how obscure. Their data has no diacritics at all, so this would effectively stonewall diacritics from most (all?) of Knowledge's tennis biographies, because it could always be argued that atptennis.com is an authoritative English source. (Still "authoritative" ≠ "widely mentioned"!) At the same time, a person with the exact same name who is not a tennis player might get to keep the diacritics. I'd say this is not desirable.

766:) about the news sites, I come from a country with diacritics (Brazil) where our keyboards have the ability to type them correctly, but even then, there are programs that do not accept, and there are sites where people don't put it thanks to encoding problems with browsers. But neither of those should be an excuse not to use diacritics when such restrictions do not occur. And if the argument is with 114:, especially web sources but also many older print sources, are or were limited by technological considerations from using diacritics but these do not exist at Knowledge. (In some cases, the comparative method can be used to determine whether diacritics are dropped for techinical or conbvenience reasons but even this is not fool-proof. For example, 371:

Where there is no consensus to change a policy, the policy stays as it is. You (or others) can repeatedly open new project pages every day to achieve what could not be achieved the previous day. But what's to be gained by that? Aren't you just trying the community's patience with these repetitious debates? "Give it a rest" is my recommendation.

924:

inaccurately transcribed merely due to typographic problems, as in our tennis examples, we owe it to our readers to use the original form. I just don't like the added level of arbitrariness introduced by segregating letters into acceptable and unfamiliar categories, and then getting into endless debates over what to do with the latter.

652:

use diacritics concerning tennis players. The forumlation of this new policy would require the ignoring of well established English-language usage in favor of an artificial, "well, if his name has diacritics in the native language, then Knowledge must have them, too, even if all the English-language sources say not to use them."

2341:

Sadly, the non-arguments against diacritic use seem to have precisely that end effect on most people who get involved. I have been following the discussion but have been less involved as my efforts are needed more in article space. Agreed in general with the issues you have raised though (as would be

1552:

Your stance about English use against original/normalized forms remains problematic. Imagine a writer/journalist writing a paper about a German guy named Georg Busch. S/he decides to anglicize this name to ‘George Bush’ because a) ‘Georg’ is non-English – translations or transpositions of first names

2326:

You did not convince me against a general adoption of foreign diacritics but I give up. The pages I intend to update on the English WP are not at all controversial on the diacritics issue. I entered this debate only because of my interest and knowledge about diacritics use - not that much in display

2196:

Having that name spelt ‘Milosevic’ is actually an accident of history: he was a Serb; Serbian is mostly written in the Cyrillic script and his name would then have needed to be transliterated into English as ‘Miloshevich’. We ‘inherited’ a downgraded Latin version only because he was spoken about at

923:

As an encyclopedia, I believe we need to be as precise as possible. This is a similar argument as using logical quotation marks. Granted, the dividing line for accepted English usage is arbitrary, but even though it would be silly to move the article on China to Zhōngguǒ, I feel that where names are

627:

This proposal is the closest yet to what I'd consider a good solution for the diacritics. It is closest not only (and not necessarily) in end results, but also in principle, i.e. in the way these end results are obtained. I don't understand objections that it is "exceedingly complex": for one thing,

415:

Strange that you should suggest creating a new project page in one comment and then attack the idea in the next. Anyway, consensus has not been reached, so we have to keep trying. Please be constructive in doing so. This is a much better-thought-out proposal than the previous one (mine), so may well

370:

Why isn't this just the reopening of the closed discussion where it was apparent that the suggested policy was no where near gaining consensus? Haven't we spent enough time on all the various permutations of the suggested policy already? The previous proposal was to change existing Knowledge policy.

131:

Therefore, since an encyclopedia is a reference work of higher calibre than a wire service news story and should aim to be marginally more "highbrow" (for lack of a better word), Knowledge should, to a degree, reflect the underlying native names of persons and places when these are variations of the

2263:

for Spanish, so the rules are probably substantially different. Inputting diacritics isn't prohibited, but it's still not particularly convenient for many users (hunt and peck on the editing page). English has always butchered the spelling of foreign names when anglicizing them, and those changed

2124:

In that case, retaining the diacritics there seems very reasonable. In the case that brought up this particular question, there was overwhelming evidence against their use. Milosevic has overwhelming evidence against use of diacritics. I don't think that many people have problems with using them

1094:

works with specialised diacritics, using macrons and okinas that aren't much used outside of Hawaii, and not many other projects are affected by their use or non-use, especially with okinas. If a version of this proposed policy becomes official, wouldn't it be reasonable to tell the Hawaii project

651:

Not only the ATP website. There's also the New York Times, the Sydney Morning Herald, the New Yorker, the London Daily Telegraph, the International Tennis Federation, the French Open, the Australian Open, Wimbledon, the US Open, the Times of India, the Gulf News (Bahrain) and many more that do not

635:

too. To give a tennis example again: a relatively obscure pro tennis player whose name is originally rendered with diacritics could, per policy, retain these diacritics in Knowledge. However, there's www.atptennis.com, and if the player has played at the ATP Tour, he will be listed there, no matter

592:

We need to have a policy page about this. Either we use diacritics or we don't, but either way, there needs to be a working guideline. Generally I support using diacritics as titles as long as there are redirects, thus the first president of South Vietnam should have all those funny diacritics in

1611:

English has always done this, and English speakers are used to names being spelled differently in English, even when there isn't much logical reason to do so. The problem is when English speakers wouldn't recognize Georg Busch and assume that the article is about someone else. Take, for example,

1295:

I guess the question is ultimately whether it's worth the blood, sweat, and tears to move all of these articles that are currently at the wrong location per current policy when, as has been pointed out, there isn't much of a barrier to comprehension. The reality is that the current policy is more

1037:

I also dislike (3). The distinction between a recognizable diacritic/letter and an unfamiliar diacritic/letter is completely arbitrary. I'm happy with "Peking" as the capital of China, because it is (or was) well established. But I don't feel we should create some sort of arbitrary hybrid for e.g.

481:

You seem to be taking a similar position, making "failure to achieve consensus" equal to rejection. I believe this proposal is much better than the previous one and, though it may not get consensus exactly as it stands, is a valid subject for continued discussion. If you don't want to join in, you

305:

I would be interested in comments on the above proposal and in hearing from others on is how one would differentiate "well known in the English-speaking world" and not well known. I don't consider Google hits from computer generated Weather sites and such to be evidence of usage in English. Even

746:

After reading all the pages and all the convoluted discussion going around, I think this proposal looks good on the right direction. Although I think we should use diacritics always, in the sense that we should write people's names the same way they do using a Latin alphabet (think the names on

446:

I suggested nothing of the kind. I was simply saying that the new proposal could not go on the previous project page because it had been closed due to a clear failure to reach consensus. For some reason, you seem to believe that it is OK to keep hammering away to try to obtain consensus for a

150:

The proposal below attempts to standardise diacritc usage at Wikpedia while acknowledging some of the problems that can occur. It assumes regular diacritics do no "harm" to the unfamiliar reader — the name can be read by ignoring them — whereas "extensions" render a term unpronounceable to the

710:

itself isn't sourced (nor it should be), and that does not make it original research. Furthermore, an encyclopedia does not and should not copy every aspect of English usage: for example, Knowledge does not emulate newspaper/magazine article tone and style regardless of how widespread it is in

1038:

Azeri names: The choice should be an anglicized form or the standard orthography, not a bastard of the two. Just look at the crazy "rules" we have on substituting for Đ! This will lend itself beautifully to endless conflict, draining time that we could be spending on more useful endeavors.

1616:

is "most recognizable", not official name or self-identifying name. It's not a big deal, and I think that trying to move articles based on rigid interpretations of guidelines is a waste of time when there are already redirects and such, but new articles should be placed not where they

697:

I think it is important to note here that the same end result (e.g. "Tudjman" instead of "Tuđman") can be achieved through ostensibly very different guidelines. It would be interesting to produce some examples where this proposal yields different solutions than those of current

1296:

honored in the breach than the observance. I'd really rather have the pages be consistent, but if there really is no meaningful barrier to comprehension, I don't see how it's that different from English/British spelling difference. I'd prefer to have them meet the current

1328:

All the problems will disappear if we show a bit lingustic tolerance. Even if we strictly follow the rule about "common English nonsense" we will have problems. Because, if you want to explore something about certain topic we should know whether we talk aout vegetables or

2189:

The Spanish WP - a language for which you announce a good level of knowledge - keeps diacritics as well . Both letter+diacritic combinations are absent from that language, i.e. hacek totally unused, acute accent used on vowels only. Doesn't this show a different

1683:

I see your point and do not basically disagree but since there are redirects that would lead from all possible forms which people would enter, shouldn’t the title page reflect some standard, i.e. with most accurate information? Think also about interoperability.

1612:

Cristoforo Colombo, the man's probable birth name, or Cristóbal Colón, likely what his patrons called him. Who is this guy? Most English speakers wouldn't recognize him by those names, though I'm almost certain they know who he is. That's why the criteria for

1454:

There are customs on English use, however, and while they aren't absolute they do exist. Since they aren't documented, we're left with following what custom has laid out for us in reliable sources. Self-identifying usage has its own problems

1816:! a standard requires rules - there aren't any as you said yourself earlier - or statistics that would allow to recognize the 'most common use' - and there aren't any either (google having already been denied this role above) - so, it's only 520:

When a proposal is to change an existing policy and when a consensus is needed to adopt the proposal (and hence change the policy), then the proposal fails if the consensus does not exist. That is a rejection of the proposal. Clearly.

2186:, a source that I wouldn’t expect you to deem unreliable, diacritics are retained; and no way of saying that the LoC is elitist or radical about original forms, the popular ‘Hutchinson Encyclopedia 2000’ does retain diacritics as well. 109:

or a person's name is truly "English" (e.g., that person is notable primarily in an English-speaking country or is naturalised in such a country), most place or personal names cannot be said to have an English form at all. Many

1222:

Pudeo's proposal handles the first case in a fashion that hasn't encountered any opposition so far, and the fourth case is not controversial, so let's talk about the second and third cases. I would prefer to retain existing

2327:

but in indexing, processing and access. This input having been ignored or unwelcomed, I'm leaving the scene now, just keeping an eye on what is discussed and maybe coming back only to counter blatantly wrong statements.

2264:

spellings are the accepted form (q.v. Columbus). It's exactly the same problem as Munich vs. München vs. مونی: English, like Farsi, spells it differently. It's not "wrong" it's just "how it is spelled in English."

1242:

Sorry, but how would Pudeo's proposal handle the first case? If he is proposing that "Tomáš Šmíd" be used even when reliable English-language sources use "Tomas Smid," then I am completely opposed to that proposal.

1022:

that we should applaud one and deprecate the other? (And, as a metapoint, we will have exactly this argument if we try to apply this proposal and any Azeri cares; this is not an end to division; it's the beginning.)

2088:

in Finnish so tabloids don't dominate language usage here. :) Anyone can point to several media websites that don't use diacritics. But we can also point out to legal documents which use diacritics. In the case of

1114:

for having project-specific style guides. The more vicious arguments in this discussion mostly circle around the title of the article itself, which some see as a matter of policy and not a question of style.

826:

situation with diacritics, I'd say that ignoring the guidelines (mind you, by pro- and anti-diacritics folks alike) has worked quite well... I'm joking, of course, but there's quite a bit of truth in it.

348:

Compared with most Knowledge policy, this proposal doesn't seem particularly complex at all. Moreover it seems to be a) quite easy to follow in practice, and b) quite in line with what already happens.--

1538:

new "rules" pay attention to the accuracy of the information. If some person chnges his names from A.A. into B.B. then he is B.B. (born A.A.) -end of discussion! That is the rule for all other wikis. --

326:

Your proposal is exceedingly complex, so complex as to be unworkable. Aside from that insurmountable problem, I think you need a new project page for this proposal. This project apparently has been

848:

are Knowledge policies not guidelines. Is it proposed that this is a policy or a guideline? If it is a guideline then surly to implement as it is one would have to ignore those Knowledge policies. --

628:

determining the compliant spelling for any given name is made possible almost off the top of one's head - unlike the current policy, where research is required, with somewhat unpredictable results.

1890:

There are caveats to the guideline for when there isn't an obvious common use, and there are clearly rules (e.g. "use the spelling that the article's sources use"). It isn't prescriptive,

1363:

The most intolerant people here are the people who can't tolerate the titles as they are in most cases, and must change them to another form despite the fact that's not the English form.--

1408:

other wikis in Latin script. So , instead of inveneting some non-existing "rules" pay attention to the accuracy of information. Including the names-for the most reliable sources are

1150:

Not so much rejected, as failed to gain consensus. But you're right, it doesn't look like anything's going to be solved by continuing this discussion (though the problem remains).--

274:

For the placename or person that is not well known in the English-speaking world, i.e. is not widely mentioned in English-language sources the preferred style on Knowledge is to

2260: 901:. This proposal would allow "ǚ" but ban "þ" ... as if thorn were the more "foreign" of the two. WP editors can be trusted to be big and bold enough to know how to spell. 1187:

quasi-diacritics such as ñ which the native language treats as a separate character but function like a diacritic and are printed as the "base character" when anglicized

563:

I think previous proposal was closed too soon. The discussion just started. And this proposal is not to change existing policy. It about making it clear for everyone.--

682:. It is still rough and needs more work, but ultimately I think this guideline is not needed, as the use of Ŋ, ß, Ʌ, Þ, can if need be added as a short paragraph to 2085: 1135:

It appears that no one has convinced anyone of anything and there is no consensus to adopt this, so does anyone mind if I mark this proposed policy as rejected?

1894:. I don't see how it's biased when it's essentially just "the common spelling of the name is a fact, follow the same rules you would follow for other facts." 788:

Why do you think that we should not use reliable English language sources to decide content? It seems to me from that you have written that you wish to ignore

64: 59: 683: 943:

I'm still not okay with substituting "ss" for "ß" every time. If there's no exonym, we can't create one by simply dropping the extended Latin letters. —

1557:

call a diacritic may constitute a separate letter in other languages (just refer to the example higher up where 'Q' could be a 'O' with diacritic)?

875:

to account for diacritics. Simply because if the name use it on the Latin spelling of the language, we DO have a verifiable source. Simple as that.

2125:

when they are commonly used, it's just cases where they are almost never used in English publications and someone insists that they be included.

2197:

the time of former Yugoslavia, where both scripts were equally in use. It is legitimate to keep the Latin script but not the downgraded version.

95:. It calls for relatively wide usage of diacritics but allows for exceptions that cover a number of cases where their use is controversial. 2183: 763: 278:, as this provides maximum information to the reader. This includes article titles; alternatives without diacritics should be set up as 1468: 47: 17: 1273:. In the first case use the most common English version and if there is not one, use the last stable version used in the article. -- 177:

For the placename or person that is well known in the English-speaking world, i.e. is widely mentioned in English-language sources:

2193:

Inputting diacritics used to mean some technical difficulties (and partly still do so) as has been already mentioned on this page;

1095:

that they would be the ultimate authority on the use of Hawaiian (or Hawaiʻian :-) diacritics in a Hawaiian/Hawaiʻian context?

1086:

I see the discussion above, going back and forth on whether Wprojects should be able to have exceptions. I propose a new idea:

2098: 2017:(dropping indents) The phrase you're quoting is just my synthesis of the topic, but the argument is generally that the current 730:, most obviously. Widely discussed in English, and there is real problem finding an English source which ever uses that form. 1278: 996: 960: 853: 801: 691: 969:

That is (just ) your opinion which I disagree. We should the validity of information- that are not necessary in English --

631:

The formulation "not widely mentioned in English-language sources" is indeed open to interpretation. This is a problem with

1015: 243:

is rendered "Dj" in South Slavic contexts following usual English conventions but is rendered "Đ" in Vietnamese contexts.

233: 2084:

So you say the press decides what names should be used, and they can change someone's personal name? Thank god we have a

2052:

I couldn't find that quote in the pages you referenced but that doesn't matter too much to me anymore - see also below.

1404:

Here we go ! 99% of the articles related to issues from non-anglophone countries use diacritics! Same thing applies for

1091: 1063:

and "does it right", then Knowledge will follow. We could have a separate rule for each condition, but that's just

1019: 727: 202: 1055:

I guess my overall question is "why have a special policy for diacritics?" There's a general and consistent rule:

914: 139:(with no diacritics like the articles on many other Vietnamese places) where there are few English speakers versus 38: 306:

mere mentions in traditonal printed texts don't hack it. I prefer "critical commentary" (to borrow a phrase from

1274: 992: 956: 849: 797: 687: 2269: 2130: 2042: 1899: 1751: 1630: 1618: 1488: 1305: 1232: 1140: 1120: 1072: 602: 1248: 757: 665: 526: 452: 394: 376: 335: 140: 266: 2343: 2093:, several news websites call him 'Raikkonen'. Legal documents don't, as well as authentic sources such as 955:

We should not do it every time we should only do it if the English language sources on the subject do. --

2346: 2336: 2273: 2210: 2134: 2119: 2061: 2046: 1981: 1903: 1829: 1755: 1693: 1634: 1566: 1547: 1492: 1421: 1372: 1338: 1309: 1282: 1252: 1236: 1159: 1144: 1124: 1104: 1076: 1047: 1043: 1032: 1000: 978: 964: 949: 933: 929: 918: 884: 857: 836: 805: 779: 739: 720: 669: 645: 621: 606: 572: 530: 491: 456: 425: 398: 380: 357: 339: 320: 295: 209: 182: 161: 92: 88: 229: 247:

is rendered as "Dh" in Icelandic, Faroese contexts due to the complication of the lowercase form, "ð".

1368: 1028: 880: 775: 735: 617: 2265: 2126: 2038: 1970:"the common spelling of the name is a fact, follow the same rules you would follow for other facts" 1895: 1747: 1626: 1543: 1484: 1417: 1334: 1301: 1228: 1151: 1136: 1116: 1068: 974: 598: 483: 417: 349: 312: 287: 153: 1244: 1205:

spellings that use one or more characters that are incomprehensible to monoglot English speakers.

1155: 944: 753: 661: 612:

We have a working guideline: Use diacritics in those words in which English generally uses them.

568: 522: 487: 448: 421: 390: 389:

this proposal, for the reasons that innumerable others provided during the previous discussion.

372: 353: 331: 2259:

The LoC is a reliable source, I agree. The Spanish wikipedia has its own rules, and there is a

1472: 1213: 1100: 832: 716: 641: 1464: 1039: 925: 262: 136: 2332: 2206: 2116: 2057: 1977: 1891: 1825: 1689: 1562: 1364: 1064: 1024: 898: 876: 771: 731: 613: 2090: 128:— they deem Western European languages worthy of carrying diacritics but not others ). 2179:

Another issue is between ‘frequency of use’ vs. ‘reliability’. About the example above:

1218:: These have always been transliterated into anglicized spellings and are not contested. 228:, the name should be spelt with the normal Latin substitute for these extensions (e.g., 2022: 1539: 1460: 1413: 1330: 1014:, other than a table on an unsourced Knowledge article? What is the difference between 970: 910: 594: 307: 125: 1189:: El Niño vs. El Nino (not a great example, the tilde-less version is extremely rare). 239:

Certain letters with unusual circumstances follow national conventions. For example,

87:: A proposal that advocates usage of diacritics in many cases but that differentiates 2108: 1111: 1110:

The method for doing this is pretty simple, actually, since there is a process under

1060: 811: 564: 279: 240: 116: 1300:

standard as well, but current reality is more of a status quo than current policy.

135:

The current situation works surprisingly well but there are cases such as Vietnam's

2018: 1613: 1535: 1456: 1297: 1266: 1262: 1224: 1170:

Potential cases where an English name and the native name are spelled differently:

1096: 988: 872: 845: 828: 793: 767: 712: 707: 703: 699: 679: 657: 637: 632: 144: 102: 1746:

There is a standard (most common use), it's just that some people don't like it.

258: 2026: 1270: 1198:

spellings that use a diacritic where common anglicized spellings add characters.

984: 865: 841: 789: 147:

has been vetoed) carry diacritics despite rarely if ever being used in English.

46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

2328: 2202: 2113: 2053: 1973: 1821: 1685: 1558: 864:

Talk about gratuituos attack Philip. No, I'm not saying that we should ignore

105:

at Knowledge as my record can attest. However, unless a placename is a true

902: 1176:

spellings where the only difference is presence or absence of a diacritic

593:

the title, and the non-diacritic name will be a redirect, and similarly

2102: 1622: 1088:

individual projects may have exceptions, subject to individual approval

254: 822:. They are not set in stone, I believe. Also: judging by the current 106: 814:. Indeed, I don't see anyone saying Knowledge guidelines should be 80:

Proposal featuring the differentiation of diacritics and extensions

2342:

mostly obvious from my own input at various stages and places.)

1478: 225: 221: 217: 213: 198: 194: 190: 186: 181:

When person or place has a name in the Latin alphabet including

684:

Knowledge:Naming conventions (use English)#No established usage

2094: 310:) on a subject before it can be considered to be well-known.— 244: 25: 2029:

because it defers to sources instead of relying on editors.

1261:

All the problems disappear if one uses the current guideline

2100:. I don't see anyone changing that by giving us a link to 1059:. We just follow what other sources say. When the world 1216:) that are incomprehensible to monoglot English speakers. 747:

football jerseys), I do think this is a good compromise.

1227:

standards on these, resulting in Tudjman and Althing.

675: 656:

the major problem with the new policy. Unencyclopedic

327: 121: 991:. It is not just my opinion it is Knowledge policy. -- 1972:

come from ? I couldn't see it on the page you cited.

2097:(governing F1) use diacritics everywhere in English 1166:Treating these as four (four and a half?) problems 770:I think it should change to amend for this case. 702:. To Tennis expert: I have explained already why 810:Well, while we're citing Knowledge guidelines: 868:, far from it. I said that we should probably 330:because no consensus in favor of it emerged. 1212:spellings that consist wholly of characters ( 8: 143:that, like many placenames in Hawaii (where 416:be a step on the road to such consensus.-- 201:, names should be spelt with them. (e.g., 1465:debate between what should be and what is 1265:, which is largely based on the policies 212:(and other more obscure ligatures), e.g, 101:: I am a strict proponent of adhering to 1483:All that matters is whether they do. 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 1057:Knowledge is the mirror, not the lamp 112:"English verifiable reliable sources" 7: 2184:Library of Congress Subject Headings 706:does not apply to this discussion - 24: 18:Knowledge talk:Usage of diacritics 752:To counter the argument used by 29: 678:so that it does not contradict 1061:realizes that it's being silly 565:Irić Igor -- Ирић Игор -- K♥S 1: 1968:Err, where does the citation 1473:English language publications 1082:Individual project exemptions 1178:: Tomáš Šmíd vs. Tomas Smid. 1092:Knowledge:WikiProject Hawaii 208:When a name includes Latin 185:(or some ligatures), e.g., 120:style guidelines mentioned 2389: 2037:is the relevant section. 1532:Customs are not laws/rules 676:have modified the proposal 1237:22:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC) 1077:17:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC) 1048:09:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC) 1033:20:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC) 1001:21:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC) 979:19:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC) 965:13:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC) 950:19:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC) 934:09:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC) 919:00:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC) 858:21:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC) 837:20:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC) 818:; rather, they should be 806:18:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC) 780:15:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC) 740:20:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC) 721:15:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC) 670:13:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC) 646:10:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC) 622:20:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC) 607:19:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC) 573:08:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC) 531:08:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC) 492:07:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC) 457:07:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC) 426:07:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC) 399:07:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC) 381:07:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC) 358:06:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC) 340:02:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC) 321:00:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC) 296:00:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC) 162:00:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC) 2347:01:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC) 2337:00:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC) 2274:22:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC) 2211:21:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC) 2135:16:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC) 2120:14:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC) 2062:00:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC) 2047:23:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC) 1982:22:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC) 1904:22:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC) 1830:22:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC) 1756:21:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC) 1694:21:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC) 1635:20:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC) 1567:19:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC) 1548:11:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC) 1493:16:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC) 1422:16:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC) 1373:18:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC) 1339:19:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC) 1310:14:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC) 1283:07:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC) 1253:04:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC) 1160:08:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC) 1145:02:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC) 1125:16:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC) 1105:14:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC) 885:16:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC) 1812:I wouldn't call that a 1469:must stick with what is 1463:}? Regardless, in the 1131:Closing this discussion 183:letters with diacritics 89:letters with diacritics 2035: 2021:convention meets both 1200:: Tuđman vs. Tudjman. 711:English publications. 597:should redirect, etc. 151:unfamiliar reader. — 2031: 1461:what he calls himself 897:—This is unnecessary 42:of past discussions. 1275:Philip Baird Shearer 1207:: Alþing vs. Althing 1090:. For example: the 993:Philip Baird Shearer 957:Philip Baird Shearer 850:Philip Baird Shearer 798:Philip Baird Shearer 688:Philip Baird Shearer 1410:persons themselves 796:. Is that true? -- 241:Đđ (D with stroke) 99:Editorial comments 1621:but where people 1475:use diacritics? 1031: 906: 738: 620: 482:don't have to. -- 253:(This results in 124:are the worst of 77: 76: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 2380: 2261:rule-making body 1892:nor should it be 1027: 947: 904: 734: 616: 319: 317: 294: 292: 160: 158: 141:Pūpūkea, Hawai'i 137:Bac Kan Province 132:Latin alphabet. 73: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 2388: 2387: 2383: 2382: 2381: 2379: 2378: 2377: 1168: 1133: 1084: 1025:Septentrionalis 1016:Əbülfəz Elçibəy 945: 941: 917: 732:Septentrionalis 660:running amok. 614:Septentrionalis 313: 311: 303: 288: 286: 234:Əbülfəz Elçibəy 230:Abülfaz Elçibay 175: 154: 152: 82: 69: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 2386: 2384: 2376: 2375: 2374: 2373: 2372: 2371: 2370: 2369: 2368: 2367: 2366: 2365: 2364: 2363: 2362: 2361: 2360: 2359: 2358: 2357: 2356: 2355: 2354: 2353: 2352: 2351: 2350: 2349: 2299: 2298: 2297: 2296: 2295: 2294: 2293: 2292: 2291: 2290: 2289: 2288: 2287: 2286: 2285: 2284: 2283: 2282: 2281: 2280: 2279: 2278: 2277: 2276: 2234: 2233: 2232: 2231: 2230: 2229: 2228: 2227: 2226: 2225: 2224: 2223: 2222: 2221: 2220: 2219: 2218: 2217: 2216: 2215: 2214: 2213: 2200: 2199: 2198: 2194: 2191: 2187: 2156: 2155: 2154: 2153: 2152: 2151: 2150: 2149: 2148: 2147: 2146: 2145: 2144: 2143: 2142: 2141: 2140: 2139: 2138: 2137: 2065: 2064: 2015: 2014: 2013: 2012: 2011: 2010: 2009: 2008: 2007: 2006: 2005: 2004: 2003: 2002: 2001: 2000: 1999: 1998: 1997: 1996: 1995: 1994: 1993: 1992: 1991: 1990: 1989: 1988: 1987: 1986: 1985: 1984: 1935: 1934: 1933: 1932: 1931: 1930: 1929: 1928: 1927: 1926: 1925: 1924: 1923: 1922: 1921: 1920: 1919: 1918: 1917: 1916: 1915: 1914: 1913: 1912: 1911: 1910: 1909: 1908: 1907: 1906: 1859: 1858: 1857: 1856: 1855: 1854: 1853: 1852: 1851: 1850: 1849: 1848: 1847: 1846: 1845: 1844: 1843: 1842: 1841: 1840: 1839: 1838: 1837: 1836: 1835: 1834: 1833: 1832: 1783: 1782: 1781: 1780: 1779: 1778: 1777: 1776: 1775: 1774: 1773: 1772: 1771: 1770: 1769: 1768: 1767: 1766: 1765: 1764: 1763: 1762: 1761: 1760: 1759: 1758: 1719: 1718: 1717: 1716: 1715: 1714: 1713: 1712: 1711: 1710: 1709: 1708: 1707: 1706: 1705: 1704: 1703: 1702: 1701: 1700: 1699: 1698: 1697: 1696: 1658: 1657: 1656: 1655: 1654: 1653: 1652: 1651: 1650: 1649: 1648: 1647: 1646: 1645: 1644: 1643: 1642: 1641: 1640: 1639: 1638: 1637: 1623:will find them 1588: 1587: 1586: 1585: 1584: 1583: 1582: 1581: 1580: 1579: 1578: 1577: 1576: 1575: 1574: 1573: 1572: 1571: 1570: 1569: 1550: 1534:! Instead of 1510: 1509: 1508: 1507: 1506: 1505: 1504: 1503: 1502: 1501: 1500: 1499: 1498: 1497: 1496: 1495: 1485:Somedumbyankee 1457:mainstream use 1437: 1436: 1435: 1434: 1433: 1432: 1431: 1430: 1429: 1428: 1427: 1426: 1425: 1424: 1386: 1385: 1384: 1383: 1382: 1381: 1380: 1379: 1378: 1377: 1376: 1375: 1350: 1349: 1348: 1347: 1346: 1345: 1344: 1343: 1342: 1341: 1317: 1316: 1315: 1314: 1313: 1312: 1302:Somedumbyankee 1288: 1287: 1286: 1285: 1256: 1255: 1229:Somedumbyankee 1220: 1219: 1208: 1201: 1193: 1192: 1191: 1190: 1180: 1179: 1167: 1164: 1163: 1162: 1132: 1129: 1128: 1127: 1117:Somedumbyankee 1083: 1080: 1069:Somedumbyankee 1008: 1007: 1006: 1005: 1004: 1003: 940: 937: 909: 892: 891: 890: 889: 888: 887: 862: 861: 860: 783: 782: 749: 748: 743: 742: 725: 724: 723: 695: 625: 624: 595:Novak Djokovic 590: 589: 588: 587: 586: 585: 584: 583: 582: 581: 580: 579: 578: 577: 576: 575: 546: 545: 544: 543: 542: 541: 540: 539: 538: 537: 536: 535: 534: 533: 505: 504: 503: 502: 501: 500: 499: 498: 497: 496: 495: 494: 468: 467: 466: 465: 464: 463: 462: 461: 460: 459: 435: 434: 433: 432: 431: 430: 429: 428: 406: 405: 404: 403: 402: 401: 385:By the way, I 383: 363: 362: 361: 360: 343: 342: 302: 299: 276:use diacritics 272: 271: 249: 248: 237: 206: 174: 171: 170: 169: 81: 78: 75: 74: 67: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2385: 2348: 2345: 2340: 2339: 2338: 2334: 2330: 2325: 2324: 2323: 2322: 2321: 2320: 2319: 2318: 2317: 2316: 2315: 2314: 2313: 2312: 2311: 2310: 2309: 2308: 2307: 2306: 2305: 2304: 2303: 2302: 2301: 2300: 2275: 2271: 2267: 2262: 2258: 2257: 2256: 2255: 2254: 2253: 2252: 2251: 2250: 2249: 2248: 2247: 2246: 2245: 2244: 2243: 2242: 2241: 2240: 2239: 2238: 2237: 2236: 2235: 2212: 2208: 2204: 2201: 2195: 2192: 2188: 2185: 2181: 2180: 2178: 2177: 2176: 2175: 2174: 2173: 2172: 2171: 2170: 2169: 2168: 2167: 2166: 2165: 2164: 2163: 2162: 2161: 2160: 2159: 2158: 2157: 2136: 2132: 2128: 2123: 2122: 2121: 2118: 2115: 2111: 2110: 2109:New York Post 2105: 2104: 2099: 2096: 2092: 2087: 2083: 2082: 2081: 2080: 2079: 2078: 2077: 2076: 2075: 2074: 2073: 2072: 2071: 2070: 2069: 2068: 2067: 2066: 2063: 2059: 2055: 2051: 2050: 2049: 2048: 2044: 2040: 2034: 2030: 2028: 2024: 2020: 1983: 1979: 1975: 1971: 1967: 1966: 1965: 1964: 1963: 1962: 1961: 1960: 1959: 1958: 1957: 1956: 1955: 1954: 1953: 1952: 1951: 1950: 1949: 1948: 1947: 1946: 1945: 1944: 1943: 1942: 1941: 1940: 1939: 1938: 1937: 1936: 1905: 1901: 1897: 1893: 1889: 1888: 1887: 1886: 1885: 1884: 1883: 1882: 1881: 1880: 1879: 1878: 1877: 1876: 1875: 1874: 1873: 1872: 1871: 1870: 1869: 1868: 1867: 1866: 1865: 1864: 1863: 1862: 1861: 1860: 1831: 1827: 1823: 1819: 1815: 1811: 1810: 1809: 1808: 1807: 1806: 1805: 1804: 1803: 1802: 1801: 1800: 1799: 1798: 1797: 1796: 1795: 1794: 1793: 1792: 1791: 1790: 1789: 1788: 1787: 1786: 1785: 1784: 1757: 1753: 1749: 1745: 1744: 1743: 1742: 1741: 1740: 1739: 1738: 1737: 1736: 1735: 1734: 1733: 1732: 1731: 1730: 1729: 1728: 1727: 1726: 1725: 1724: 1723: 1722: 1721: 1720: 1695: 1691: 1687: 1682: 1681: 1680: 1679: 1678: 1677: 1676: 1675: 1674: 1673: 1672: 1671: 1670: 1669: 1668: 1667: 1666: 1665: 1664: 1663: 1662: 1661: 1660: 1659: 1636: 1632: 1628: 1624: 1620: 1615: 1610: 1609: 1608: 1607: 1606: 1605: 1604: 1603: 1602: 1601: 1600: 1599: 1598: 1597: 1596: 1595: 1594: 1593: 1592: 1591: 1590: 1589: 1568: 1564: 1560: 1556: 1551: 1549: 1545: 1541: 1537: 1533: 1530: 1529: 1528: 1527: 1526: 1525: 1524: 1523: 1522: 1521: 1520: 1519: 1518: 1517: 1516: 1515: 1514: 1513: 1512: 1511: 1494: 1490: 1486: 1482: 1480: 1474: 1470: 1466: 1462: 1458: 1453: 1452: 1451: 1450: 1449: 1448: 1447: 1446: 1445: 1444: 1443: 1442: 1441: 1440: 1439: 1438: 1423: 1419: 1415: 1411: 1407: 1403: 1400: 1399: 1398: 1397: 1396: 1395: 1394: 1393: 1392: 1391: 1390: 1389: 1388: 1387: 1374: 1370: 1366: 1362: 1361: 1360: 1359: 1358: 1357: 1356: 1355: 1354: 1353: 1352: 1351: 1340: 1336: 1332: 1327: 1326: 1325: 1324: 1323: 1322: 1321: 1320: 1319: 1318: 1311: 1307: 1303: 1299: 1294: 1293: 1292: 1291: 1290: 1289: 1284: 1280: 1276: 1272: 1268: 1264: 1260: 1259: 1258: 1257: 1254: 1250: 1246: 1245:Tennis expert 1241: 1240: 1239: 1238: 1234: 1230: 1226: 1217: 1215: 1209: 1206: 1202: 1199: 1195: 1194: 1188: 1184: 1183: 1182: 1181: 1177: 1173: 1172: 1171: 1165: 1161: 1157: 1153: 1149: 1148: 1147: 1146: 1142: 1138: 1130: 1126: 1122: 1118: 1113: 1109: 1108: 1107: 1106: 1102: 1098: 1093: 1089: 1081: 1079: 1078: 1074: 1070: 1066: 1062: 1058: 1054: 1050: 1049: 1045: 1041: 1035: 1034: 1030: 1026: 1021: 1020:Ngô Đình Diệm 1017: 1013: 1002: 998: 994: 990: 986: 982: 981: 980: 976: 972: 968: 967: 966: 962: 958: 954: 953: 952: 951: 948: 946:Nightstallion 938: 936: 935: 931: 927: 921: 920: 916: 912: 908: 900: 896: 895:Strong oppose 886: 882: 878: 874: 871: 867: 863: 859: 855: 851: 847: 843: 840: 839: 838: 834: 830: 825: 821: 817: 813: 809: 808: 807: 803: 799: 795: 791: 787: 786: 785: 784: 781: 777: 773: 769: 765: 762: 759: 755: 754:Tennis expert 751: 750: 745: 744: 741: 737: 733: 729: 728:Ngô Đình Diệm 726: 722: 718: 714: 709: 705: 701: 696: 693: 689: 685: 681: 677: 673: 672: 671: 667: 663: 662:Tennis expert 659: 655: 650: 649: 648: 647: 643: 639: 634: 629: 623: 619: 615: 611: 610: 609: 608: 604: 600: 596: 574: 570: 566: 562: 561: 560: 559: 558: 557: 556: 555: 554: 553: 552: 551: 550: 549: 548: 547: 532: 528: 524: 523:Tennis expert 519: 518: 517: 516: 515: 514: 513: 512: 511: 510: 509: 508: 507: 506: 493: 489: 485: 480: 479: 478: 477: 476: 475: 474: 473: 472: 471: 470: 469: 458: 454: 450: 449:Tennis expert 445: 444: 443: 442: 441: 440: 439: 438: 437: 436: 427: 423: 419: 414: 413: 412: 411: 410: 409: 408: 407: 400: 396: 392: 391:Tennis expert 388: 384: 382: 378: 374: 373:Tennis expert 369: 368: 367: 366: 365: 364: 359: 355: 351: 347: 346: 345: 344: 341: 337: 333: 332:Tennis expert 329: 325: 324: 323: 322: 318: 316: 309: 300: 298: 297: 293: 291: 283: 281: 277: 270: 268: 264: 260: 256: 251: 250: 246: 242: 238: 235: 231: 227: 223: 219: 215: 211: 207: 204: 203:Ngô Đình Diệm 200: 196: 192: 188: 184: 180: 179: 178: 172: 167: 166: 165: 163: 159: 157: 148: 146: 142: 138: 133: 129: 127: 123: 119: 118: 117:the Economist 113: 108: 104: 100: 96: 94: 90: 86: 79: 72: 68: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 2344:Orderinchaos 2190:perspective? 2107: 2101: 2036: 2032: 2016: 1969: 1817: 1813: 1554: 1540:Áñtò | Ãňţõ 1531: 1476: 1467:, wikipedia 1414:Áñtò | Ãňţõ 1409: 1405: 1401: 1331:Áñtò | Ãňţõ 1221: 1214:or otherwise 1211: 1204: 1197: 1186: 1175: 1169: 1134: 1087: 1085: 1056: 1052: 1051: 1036: 1011: 1009: 942: 922: 894: 893: 869: 823: 819: 815: 760: 653: 630: 626: 591: 386: 314: 304: 289: 284: 275: 273: 252: 210:"extensions" 176: 155: 149: 134: 130: 115: 111: 98: 97: 93:"extensions" 84: 83: 70: 43: 37: 1619:"should be" 1053:Weak Oppose 1010:What is an 36:This is an 1479:don't care 1471:. Should 1365:Prosfilaes 1029:PMAnderson 939:Extensions 877:Samuel Sol 772:Samuel Sol 736:PMAnderson 618:PMAnderson 315:AjaxSmack 301:Discussion 290:AjaxSmack 168:Does [[Ngo 156:AjaxSmack 2091:Räikkönen 2086:regulator 1536:inventing 1329:movies.-- 1185:First.1, 1012:extension 280:redirects 259:Göttingen 71:Archive 3 65:Archive 2 60:Archive 1 1814:standard 1210:Fourth, 1196:Second, 1152:Kotniski 824:de facto 764:contribs 484:Kotniski 418:Kotniski 350:Kotniski 245:Ðð (eth) 173:Proposal 126:geo-bias 2182:In the 2103:The Sun 2023:WP:NPOV 1203:Third, 1174:First, 1097:Nyttend 829:GregorB 820:changed 816:ignored 713:GregorB 638:GregorB 599:Yechiel 308:WP:FAIR 263:Tudjman 255:Meissen 85:Summary 39:archive 1402:Bingo! 1112:WP:MOS 1065:creepy 870:change 812:WP:AGF 654:That's 603:Shalom 387:oppose 328:closed 267:Dvořák 257:, but 232:, not 107:exonym 2329:Clpda 2203:Clpda 2114:Pudeo 2112:.. -- 2054:Clpda 2019:WP:NC 1974:Clpda 1822:Clpda 1686:Clpda 1614:WP:NC 1559:Clpda 1298:WP:UE 1267:WP:NC 1263:WP:UE 1225:WP:UE 1040:kwami 989:WP:NC 926:kwami 899:creep 873:WP:UE 846:WP:NC 794:WP:NC 768:WP:UE 708:WP:UE 704:WP:OR 700:WP:UE 680:WP:UE 658:WP:OR 633:WP:UE 145:WP:UE 122:above 103:WP:UE 91:from 16:< 2333:talk 2270:talk 2207:talk 2131:talk 2058:talk 2043:talk 2027:WP:V 2025:and 1978:talk 1900:talk 1826:talk 1818:bias 1752:talk 1690:talk 1631:talk 1563:talk 1544:talk 1489:talk 1418:talk 1369:talk 1335:talk 1306:talk 1279:talk 1271:WP:V 1269:and 1249:talk 1233:talk 1156:talk 1141:talk 1121:talk 1101:talk 1073:talk 1044:talk 1018:and 997:talk 987:and 985:WP:V 983:See 975:talk 971:Anto 961:talk 930:talk 915:cont 911:talk 881:talk 866:WP:V 854:talk 844:and 842:WP:V 833:talk 802:talk 792:and 790:WP:V 776:talk 758:talk 717:talk 692:talk 666:talk 642:talk 569:talk 527:talk 488:talk 453:talk 422:talk 395:talk 377:talk 354:talk 336:talk 265:but 261:and 2266:SDY 2127:SDY 2106:or 2095:FIA 2039:SDY 1896:SDY 1748:SDY 1627:SDY 1625:. 1477:We 1459:or 1412:!-- 1406:all 1137:SDY 1067:. 2335:) 2272:) 2209:) 2133:) 2060:) 2045:) 1980:) 1902:) 1828:) 1820:. 1754:) 1692:) 1633:) 1565:) 1555:we 1546:) 1491:) 1420:) 1371:) 1337:) 1308:) 1281:) 1251:) 1235:) 1158:) 1143:) 1123:) 1103:) 1075:) 1046:) 999:) 977:) 963:) 932:) 905:IM 883:) 856:) 835:) 804:) 778:) 719:) 686:-- 674:I 668:) 644:) 605:) 571:) 529:) 490:) 455:) 424:) 397:) 379:) 356:) 338:) 285:— 282:. 269:.) 224:, 220:, 216:, 197:, 193:, 189:, 164:] 2331:( 2268:( 2205:( 2129:( 2117:⺮ 2056:( 2041:( 1976:( 1898:( 1824:( 1750:( 1688:( 1629:( 1561:( 1542:( 1487:( 1481:. 1455:( 1416:( 1367:( 1333:( 1304:( 1277:( 1247:( 1231:( 1154:( 1139:( 1119:( 1099:( 1071:( 1042:( 995:( 973:( 959:( 928:( 913:· 907:p 903:J 879:( 852:( 831:( 800:( 774:( 761:· 756:( 715:( 694:) 690:( 664:( 640:( 601:( 567:( 525:( 486:( 451:( 420:( 393:( 375:( 352:( 334:( 236:) 226:Þ 222:Ʌ 218:ß 214:Ŋ 205:) 199:Ŵ 195:Ř 191:Œ 187:Å 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge

talk:Usage of diacritics/Archive 3 - Knowledge

Index