Diacritics

Volunteer Marek · Unread post by **Volunteer Marek** » Sat Dec 01, 2012 5:49 pm

So would opposing diacritics really earn me displeasure from certain luminaries over here? Or is Tarc simply being an idiot? Or dishonest?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =525813595

If so, which of the luminaries should I be beholden to? This is stuff I needs to know, otherwise my Kool-Aid will loose its kick.

Anyway, I thought, judging by the Coat of Irony discussion here, that a good chunk of this membership was also, much like some Wikipedians, opposed to diacritics. As far as I can tell the opinions on that issue are orthogonal to actual opinions about the nature of Wikipedia. But that could be just me being beholden to political correctness or something.

TungstenCarbide · Unread post by **TungstenCarbide** » Sat Dec 01, 2012 6:42 pm

Volunteer Marek wrote:...Or is Tarc simply being an idiot...

well his post wasn't exactly scholarly.

Diacritic usage is one of those things that certain people obsess over. Husond (T-C-L) and Gene Nygaard (T-C-L) were at each others throats for years over this.

Because of the obsessive angle, trolls find they can extract a great deal of gratification with minimal effort. This is further enhanced if you're a non-native-english speaker, in which case you can get the Brits and American hackles up by adding diacritics to tens of thousands of page titles.

isaan · Unread post by **isaan** » Sat Dec 01, 2012 7:14 pm

I'm pretty sure I won't ever attain the level of luminary unless I decide to go in for self-immolation. Nevertheless, I have agreed with most everything Volunteer Marek has said about the issue. I would probably go further and make them standard for Vietnamese as well.

Really though, there ought to be a technical solution, and that shouldn't be all that difficult. I'm sure a simple script to denude diacritics could be written and included as an optional gadget. I'd hope that might keep the language Luddites somewhat happy, as well as provide a means for those with devices incompatible with display of characters with diacritics. But of course it will just continue to be a source of bickering and animosity, which is what actually fuels longterm discussions on wiki.

Volunteer Marek · Unread post by **Volunteer Marek** » Sat Dec 01, 2012 7:38 pm

isaan wrote:I'm pretty sure I won't ever attain the level of luminary unless I decide to go in for self-immolation. Nevertheless, I have agreed with most everything Volunteer Marek has said about the issue. I would probably go further and make them standard for Vietnamese as well.

Really though, there ought to be a technical solution, and that shouldn't be all that difficult. I'm sure a simple script to denude diacritics could be written and included as an optional gadget. I'd hope that might keep the language Luddites somewhat happy, as well as provide a means for those with devices incompatible with display of characters with diacritics. But of course it will just continue to be a source of bickering and animosity, which is what actually fuels longterm discussions on wiki.

I do wonder on occasion if the unwillingness to implement simple solutions to resolve these essentially minor but verbose arguments has to do with keeping the edit/editor count up. If you actually solve the problem people will stop bickering and there will be less activity on Wikipedia and the stats won't look as good.

That might be a bit cynical, with the most likely explanation being simply that they're incompetent. But hey, who knows.

TungstenCarbide · Unread post by **TungstenCarbide** » Sat Dec 01, 2012 7:52 pm

Volunteer Marek wrote:
isaan wrote:I'm pretty sure I won't ever attain the level of luminary unless I decide to go in for self-immolation. Nevertheless, I have agreed with most everything Volunteer Marek has said about the issue. I would probably go further and make them standard for Vietnamese as well.

Really though, there ought to be a technical solution, and that shouldn't be all that difficult. I'm sure a simple script to denude diacritics could be written and included as an optional gadget. I'd hope that might keep the language Luddites somewhat happy, as well as provide a means for those with devices incompatible with display of characters with diacritics. But of course it will just continue to be a source of bickering and animosity, which is what actually fuels longterm discussions on wiki.
I do wonder on occasion if the unwillingness to implement simple solutions ...

Simple solutions? how about writing the English Wikipedia in English?

Volunteer Marek · Unread post by **Volunteer Marek** » Sat Dec 01, 2012 8:11 pm

TungstenCarbide wrote:
Volunteer Marek wrote:
isaan wrote:I'm pretty sure I won't ever attain the level of luminary unless I decide to go in for self-immolation. Nevertheless, I have agreed with most everything Volunteer Marek has said about the issue. I would probably go further and make them standard for Vietnamese as well.

Really though, there ought to be a technical solution, and that shouldn't be all that difficult. I'm sure a simple script to denude diacritics could be written and included as an optional gadget. I'd hope that might keep the language Luddites somewhat happy, as well as provide a means for those with devices incompatible with display of characters with diacritics. But of course it will just continue to be a source of bickering and animosity, which is what actually fuels longterm discussions on wiki.
I do wonder on occasion if the unwillingness to implement simple solutions ...
Simple solutions? how about writing the English Wikipedia in English?

Writing English Wikipedia in English?

You mean the way that Britannica, Library of Congress, Merriam Webster Dictionary, Columbia, Encarta, Chambers Biographical Dictionary, Oxford World Encyclopedia, American Heritage Dictionary, Collins English Dictionary, Macmillian, Oxford Dictionary, Random House Dictionary and many other standard English language works do it? Sure.

This is really one of those Randy in Boise things. I do like how random people on internet think they know proper English usage better than established and respected reference works. You know, cuz their friends don't use diacritics and it's not on TV, then it must be wrong.

TungstenCarbide · Unread post by **TungstenCarbide** » Sat Dec 01, 2012 8:15 pm

Volunteer Marek wrote:I do wonder on occasion if the unwillingness to implement simple solutions ...
TungstenCarbide wrote:Simple solutions? how about writing the English Wikipedia in English?
Writing English Wikipedia in English?

you're the one who asked for simple.

Volunteer Marek wrote:You mean the way that Britannica, Library of Congress, Merriam Webster Dictionary, Columbia, Encarta, Chambers Biographical Dictionary, Oxford World Encyclopedia, American Heritage Dictionary, Collins English Dictionary, Macmillian, Oxford Dictionary, Random House Dictionary and many other standard English language works do it? Sure.

All those sources spell everything with diacritics whenever possible? really?

Volunteer Marek wrote:This is really one of those Randy in Boise things. I do like how random people on internet think they know proper English usage better than established and respected reference works. You know, cuz their friends don't use diacritics and it's not on TV, then it must be wrong.

That's your conclusion? people who disagree with you must be dumb Americans?

K everybody, looks like we have the problem pretty well framed here.

Volunteer Marek · Unread post by **Volunteer Marek** » Sat Dec 01, 2012 8:29 pm

TungstenCarbide wrote:
Volunteer Marek wrote:I do wonder on occasion if the unwillingness to implement simple solutions ...
TungstenCarbide wrote:Simple solutions? how about writing the English Wikipedia in English?
Writing English Wikipedia in English?
you're the one who asked for simple.

Volunteer Marek wrote:You mean the way that Britannica, Library of Congress, Merriam Webster Dictionary, Columbia, Encarta, Chambers Biographical Dictionary, Oxford World Encyclopedia, American Heritage Dictionary, Collins English Dictionary, Macmillian, Oxford Dictionary, Random House Dictionary and many other standard English language works do it? Sure.
All those sources spell everything with diacritics whenever possible? really?

Did I say they do? No? Then don't pretend I did. However, they do use diacritics quite extensively.
Nice try at a straw-men - I guess if these reference works use diacritics 90% of the time rather than 100% then I'm just dead wrong.

This is really one of those Randy in Boise things. I do like how random people on internet think they know proper English usage better than established and respected reference works. You know, cuz their friends don't use diacritics and it's not on TV, then it must be wrong.
That's your conclusion? people who disagree with you must be dumb Americans?
K everybody, looks like we have the problem pretty well framed here.

Come on, this is Wikipedia. There's plenty of dumb to go around. And it is populated by random people off the internet that revel in their ignorance and think they know better than established reference works. I'm surprised this is even an issue of debate on this website.

TungstenCarbide · Unread post by **TungstenCarbide** » Sat Dec 01, 2012 8:59 pm

Volunteer Marek wrote:
Volunteer Marek wrote:You mean the way that Britannica, Library of Congress, Merriam Webster Dictionary, Columbia, Encarta, Chambers Biographical Dictionary, Oxford World Encyclopedia, American Heritage Dictionary, Collins English Dictionary, Macmillian, Oxford Dictionary, Random House Dictionary and many other standard English language works do it? Sure.
TungstenCarbide wrote:All those sources spell everything with diacritics whenever possible? really?
Did I say they do? No?

You used a sweeping generalization that's probably incorrect. I replied sarcastically to illuminate it.

Capicé?

Volunteer Marek · Unread post by **Volunteer Marek** » Sat Dec 01, 2012 9:32 pm

TungstenCarbide wrote:
Volunteer Marek wrote:
Volunteer Marek wrote:You mean the way that Britannica, Library of Congress, Merriam Webster Dictionary, Columbia, Encarta, Chambers Biographical Dictionary, Oxford World Encyclopedia, American Heritage Dictionary, Collins English Dictionary, Macmillian, Oxford Dictionary, Random House Dictionary and many other standard English language works do it? Sure.
TungstenCarbide wrote:All those sources spell everything with diacritics whenever possible? really?
Did I say they do? No?
You used a sweeping generalization that's probably incorrect. I replied sarcastically to illuminate it.

Capicé?

What was this sweeping generalization? That:

Britannica, Library of Congress, Merriam Webster Dictionary, Columbia, Encarta, Chambers Biographical Dictionary, Oxford World Encyclopedia, American Heritage Dictionary, Collins English Dictionary, Macmillian, Oxford Dictionary, Random House Dictionary and many other standard English language works

all use diacritics? That's not a generalization, that's pretty much "what is".

¿Comprende?

TungstenCarbide · Unread post by **TungstenCarbide** » Sat Dec 01, 2012 10:01 pm

Formerip wrote:Amazon have him as "Lech Wa??sa", although you can see from the book covers that his English language publishers think he is Lech Walesa. Formerip (talk) 20:07, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Unread post by **Zoloft** » Sat Dec 01, 2012 11:14 pm

I guess I could throw some gasoline on the fire by saying that when you bounce back and forth from a title to a URL the HTML for Lech Wałęsa (T-H-L) becomes...

Code: Select all

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lech_Wa%C5%82%C4%99sa

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Sat Dec 01, 2012 11:46 pm

It really gets to me that "Wikipedians" mistake the misuse of diacriticals as a "language issue" or even more likely, a "the other guy is wrong issue".
The little bastards turn every such minor issue into a Major Pissing Match.

As I see it, the problem is more basic, and more trivial, than any Wiki-Nerds think it is. The computer industry, despite the availability of UTF character sets
for almost every written language on earth, can't agree on keyboard conventions to cover most eventualities. So, because computers were originated
in English-speaking countries, keyboards have tended to conform to the needs of English, which almost never uses diacritical marks. People who need
to type CJK ideographs are often forced to use, and remember, long lists of multicharacter codes to enter them thru a typical 101-key (English only!) computer keyboard.

Ever seen a "real" Chinese computer keyboard? This one is not anywhere near complete. Just to write "typical" Mandarin text requires a minimum of 2500-4500 characters.
And people wonder why English is the ultimate "cultural imperialist" language.

TungstenCarbide · Unread post by **TungstenCarbide** » Sun Dec 02, 2012 3:57 am

From one of Gene Nygärd's epic battles; Arpad Elo spent his whole adult life as an American, signing and publishing under his English name. Then some Diacritics warriors decided that the English Wikipedia page title needed Hungarian diacritics, only they couldn't find any reliable sources, so they made up a spelling with diacritics and still fought over it -- you just can't make this shit up ...

Gene Nygaard wrote: *'''The primary rule is the more squiggles you can squeeze into a name, the better, with points awarded for the proportion of letters in the name which have diacritics. Don't let doubt about the exact spelling hold you up—just make one up out of thin air, anything to avoid the inherent ugliness of a plain vanilla English alphabet name. Additional points are awarded in inverse proportion to the likelihood that an English-speaker can create those letters, or even distinguish one from another. If you can stấc͡k thểm ẫtờp, ữpðn, or aǂongside one anothễr or top ặnđ̣ boẗẗom ịf possible, that's worth extra bonus points! And above all else, never discuss it before making the move. That way you might be able to shift the burden of proof to someone who wants to move it back.'''

I suppose if I were born in Hungary and my first grade teacher was a buxom beauty who smelled nice, and who's lovely hair tickled my cheek while she bent over to help me with my diacritics, I might be attached to them too. And if later in life I harbored the standard anti-American sentiment and was convinced of my own superiority, fighting to add diacritics at Wikipedia would not only make sense but be fun too.

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Sun Dec 02, 2012 4:36 am

TungstenCarbide wrote:I suppose if I were born in Hungary and my first grade teacher was a buxom beauty who smelled nice, and who's lovely hair tickled my cheek while she bent over to help me with my diacritics, I might be attached to them too. And if later in life I harbored the standard anti-American sentiment and was convinced of my own superiority, fighting to add diacritics at Wikipedia would not only make sense but be fun too.

Have you got better evidence of Nygaard's anti-Americanism? This is a bizarre little area, but I'll write it up if you feel it should be documented.

TungstenCarbide · Unread post by **TungstenCarbide** » Sun Dec 02, 2012 4:48 am

EricBarbour wrote:
TungstenCarbide wrote:I suppose if I were born in Hungary and my first grade teacher was a buxom beauty who smelled nice, and who's lovely hair tickled my cheek while she bent over to help me with my diacritics, I might be attached to them too. And if later in life I harbored the standard anti-American sentiment and was convinced of my own superiority, fighting to add diacritics at Wikipedia would not only make sense but be fun too.
Have you got better evidence of Nygaard's anti-Americanism? This is a bizarre little area, but I'll write it up if you feel it should be documented.

Actually Nygaard is the American, I just spelled it Nygärd to be funny. Husond was the one always fighting to add diacritics. No, I don't have any hard evidence of anti-Americanism driving diacritic usage, just over the years you start to connect comments like the one Marek made above to a certain attitude and side of the argument.

Volunteer Marek · Unread post by **Volunteer Marek** » Sun Dec 02, 2012 5:26 am

TungstenCarbide wrote:
EricBarbour wrote:
TungstenCarbide wrote:I suppose if I were born in Hungary and my first grade teacher was a buxom beauty who smelled nice, and who's lovely hair tickled my cheek while she bent over to help me with my diacritics, I might be attached to them too. And if later in life I harbored the standard anti-American sentiment and was convinced of my own superiority, fighting to add diacritics at Wikipedia would not only make sense but be fun too.
Have you got better evidence of Nygaard's anti-Americanism? This is a bizarre little area, but I'll write it up if you feel it should be documented.
Actually Nygaard is the American, I just spelled it Nygärd to be funny. Husond was the one always fighting to add diacritics. No, I don't have any hard evidence of anti-Americanism driving diacritic usage, just over the years you start to connect comments like the one Marek made above to a certain attitude and side of the argument.

Wait. So... you think that people support diacritics because ... they're "anti-Americun!". Really? And you were just accusing others of making "sweeping generalizations"? Are you freakin' serious? Actually, don't even bother answering that. It's just too stupid to be true.

TungstenCarbide · Unread post by **TungstenCarbide** » Sun Dec 02, 2012 5:29 am

Volunteer Marek wrote:
TungstenCarbide wrote:
EricBarbour wrote:
TungstenCarbide wrote:I suppose if I were born in Hungary and my first grade teacher was a buxom beauty who smelled nice, and who's lovely hair tickled my cheek while she bent over to help me with my diacritics, I might be attached to them too. And if later in life I harbored the standard anti-American sentiment and was convinced of my own superiority, fighting to add diacritics at Wikipedia would not only make sense but be fun too.
Have you got better evidence of Nygaard's anti-Americanism? This is a bizarre little area, but I'll write it up if you feel it should be documented.
Actually Nygaard is the American, I just spelled it Nygärd to be funny. Husond was the one always fighting to add diacritics. No, I don't have any hard evidence of anti-Americanism driving diacritic usage, just over the years you start to connect comments like the one Marek made above to a certain attitude and side of the argument.
Wait. So... you think that people support diacritics because ... they're "anti-Americun!". Really? And you were just accusing others of making "sweeping generalizations"? Are you freakin' serious? Actually, don't even bother answering that. It's just too stupid to be true.

You're the one who made the ' Randy in Boise' comment. Others might let this shit slide, but I'm calling you on it.

Volunteer Marek · Unread post by **Volunteer Marek** » Sun Dec 02, 2012 5:37 am

TungstenCarbide wrote:
Volunteer Marek wrote:
TungstenCarbide wrote:
EricBarbour wrote:
TungstenCarbide wrote:I suppose if I were born in Hungary and my first grade teacher was a buxom beauty who smelled nice, and who's lovely hair tickled my cheek while she bent over to help me with my diacritics, I might be attached to them too. And if later in life I harbored the standard anti-American sentiment and was convinced of my own superiority, fighting to add diacritics at Wikipedia would not only make sense but be fun too.
Have you got better evidence of Nygaard's anti-Americanism? This is a bizarre little area, but I'll write it up if you feel it should be documented.
Actually Nygaard is the American, I just spelled it Nygärd to be funny. Husond was the one always fighting to add diacritics. No, I don't have any hard evidence of anti-Americanism driving diacritic usage, just over the years you start to connect comments like the one Marek made above to a certain attitude and side of the argument.
Wait. So... you think that people support diacritics because ... they're "anti-Americun!". Really? And you were just accusing others of making "sweeping generalizations"? Are you freakin' serious? Actually, don't even bother answering that. It's just too stupid to be true.
You're the one who made the ' Randy in Boise' comment. Others might let this shit slide, but I'm calling you on it.

You think that because I made a "Randy in Boise" comment, I'm anti-American? And that people support diacritics because they're anti-American? Keep on digging.

TungstenCarbide · Unread post by **TungstenCarbide** » Sun Dec 02, 2012 5:42 am

Volunteer Marek wrote:You think that because I made a "Randy in Boise" comment, I'm anti-American?

You made a derogatory post about 'Randy in Boise' describing a certain culture of stupidity, and used it as an explanation for why people resist diacritics.

Sorry Marek, you need to take a hard look at yourself.

Unread post by **Zoloft** » Sun Dec 02, 2012 7:01 am

¡Pléâsé dôn't qùârrél, géntlémén!

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Sun Dec 02, 2012 8:56 am

isaan · Unread post by **isaan** » Sun Dec 02, 2012 3:31 pm

TungstenCarbide wrote:Simple solutions? how about writing the English Wikipedia in English?

Not that I'm advocating this, but deleting Wikipedia in its entirety would be the simplest solution. "Just writing in English" turns out not to be simple at all, but only simplistic. Is using bolding or italics writing in English? How about coloring text? Is inclusion of hyperlinks writing in English? What about using mathematical symbols for calculus, should that be disallowed? All these things add meaning to the bare English text. Diacritics are yet another example. They are part of the English text, providing extra information valuable for a reference work, yet can in principle be ignored for those not interested. I have a hard time believing that anyone actually has a hard time mentally substituting their familiar grade school characters Walesa when they see Wałęsa.

Yes, I get it that some people freak out big time when they see these useful characters and interpret it as a sign of the New World Order or something. Interestingly, the most rabid on-wiki detractors of diacritics are in sports related areas, adding to some stereotypes about sports fan(atic)s.

As I said, implementing a technical solution to hide diacritics from those not desiring them would not be difficult. The Serbian Wikipedia for years has had automated transliteration to and from Cyrillic and Latin character sets on all of its pages, and it works whether one is logged in or not.

TungstenCarbide wrote:
Formerip wrote:Amazon have him as "Lech Wa??sa", although you can see from the book covers that his English language publishers think he is Lech Walesa. Formerip (talk) 20:07, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Admittedly, that is quite funny.

TungstenCarbide · Unread post by **TungstenCarbide** » Mon Dec 03, 2012 1:06 am

isaan wrote:
TungstenCarbide wrote:Simple solutions? how about writing the English Wikipedia in English?
Not that I'm advocating this, but deleting Wikipedia in its entirety would be the simplest solution. "Just writing in English" turns out not to be simple at all, but only simplistic. Is using bolding or italics writing in English? How about coloring text? Is inclusion of hyperlinks writing in English? What about using mathematical symbols for calculus, should that be disallowed? All these things add meaning to the bare English text. Diacritics are yet another example. They are part of the English text, providing extra information valuable for a reference work, yet can in principle be ignored for those not interested. I have a hard time believing that anyone actually has a hard time mentally substituting their familiar grade school characters Walesa when they see Wałęsa.

Yes, I get it that some people freak out big time when they see these useful characters and interpret it as a sign of the New World Order or something. Interestingly, the most rabid on-wiki detractors of diacritics are in sports related areas, adding to some stereotypes about sports fan(atic)s...

Good post. There are certainly people on both sides of the issue who take it personally and get a little obsessive. One thing I noticed last night, and I'm sorry I didn't grab links, was various actors and actresses and even Lech Wałęsa who maintain English versions of their web pages with English spellings, and even then Wikipediots fight over the diacritics.

My own preference would be for English spellings in the title, with native spellings noted somewhere ... not that it's worth fighting over though. Also, using diacritics is not realistic for English computer users -- you are basically forced to either copy/paste or spend time digging through character sets or memorizing macros. People insisting on excessive diacritic use in the English Wikipedia don't hold the customer's interests important.

Unread post by **Zoloft** » Mon Dec 03, 2012 1:26 am

Of course, there is the emerging ever-more-common use of the Spanish language where I live that makes typing (ALT-164) for ñ a lot more common, señor.

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Mon Dec 03, 2012 1:37 am

Volunteer Marek wrote: I do wonder on occasion if the unwillingness to implement simple solutions to resolve these essentially minor but verbose arguments has to do with keeping the edit/editor count up. If you actually solve the problem people will stop bickering and there will be less activity on Wikipedia and the stats won't look as good.

That might be a bit cynical, with the most likely explanation being simply that they're incompetent. But hey, who knows.

I am pretty sure Jimbo & Co. are aware that the more arguments there are, the higher Wikipedia's Alexa rank.

The endless arguments aren't a bug, but a feature.

Volunteer Marek · Unread post by **Volunteer Marek** » Mon Dec 03, 2012 2:23 am

TungstenCarbide wrote:
isaan wrote:
TungstenCarbide wrote:Simple solutions? how about writing the English Wikipedia in English?
Not that I'm advocating this, but deleting Wikipedia in its entirety would be the simplest solution. "Just writing in English" turns out not to be simple at all, but only simplistic. Is using bolding or italics writing in English? How about coloring text? Is inclusion of hyperlinks writing in English? What about using mathematical symbols for calculus, should that be disallowed? All these things add meaning to the bare English text. Diacritics are yet another example. They are part of the English text, providing extra information valuable for a reference work, yet can in principle be ignored for those not interested. I have a hard time believing that anyone actually has a hard time mentally substituting their familiar grade school characters Walesa when they see Wałęsa.

Yes, I get it that some people freak out big time when they see these useful characters and interpret it as a sign of the New World Order or something. Interestingly, the most rabid on-wiki detractors of diacritics are in sports related areas, adding to some stereotypes about sports fan(atic)s...
Good post. There are certainly people on both sides of the issue who take it personally and get a little obsessive. One thing I noticed last night, and I'm sorry I didn't grab links, was various actors and actresses and even Lech Wałęsa who maintain English versions of their web pages with English spellings, and even then Wikipediots fight over the diacritics.

My own preference would be for English spellings in the title, with native spellings noted somewhere ... not that it's worth fighting over though. Also, using diacritics is not realistic for English computer users -- you are basically forced to either copy/paste or spend time digging through character sets or memorizing macros. People insisting on excessive diacritic use in the English Wikipedia don't hold the customer's interests important.

I understand and sympathize with that point of view, but the problem is that it's a very much a "what's easiest for editor" (and "editor" is most certainly NOT the "customer" - part of the problem with Wikipedia is this very misconception) perspective, not "what's best for the reader" perspective - which, honestly, probably motivates a lot of this opposition. I actually got two computers I use. On one, which I mostly use for goofing around and family stuff I have diacritics stuff installed. But I also find that, for some reason, it tends to mess with the math symbols stuff I need for work purposes in other programs. So the other computer does not have any diacritic ability on it. You can probably figure out which one I'm using at any point in time just based on whether I type stuff with or w/o the squiggles. But, let's suspend disbelief for the moment and suppose that Wikipedia is actually an encyclopedia. Then the purpose isn't to make it easy for folks to edit, but to present reliable and accurate information to the reader. So as much as I am annoyed myself by it sometimes, I think diacritics generally should stay.

Not always. There's no point in being absolutist and fanatical about it. One example is the article on Casimir Pulaski (T-H-L). His "real" name was Kazimierz Pułaski, but since he's mostly known for stuff he did in America, and since Americans care about him way more than Poles do (he basically would be some minor general in Polish history if he didn't go and fight the British in the US) it makes sense that his name omits the diacritics.

But more generally there are a lot of cases where the squiggles belong. And they ARE used by standard reference English works. Actually that guy Prolog has argued the case in way more detail and with a lot of serious backup and argument. It's worth looking through. If it doesn't convince you there's really no point in discussing it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Prolo ... ical_marks

TungstenCarbide · Unread post by **TungstenCarbide** » Mon Dec 03, 2012 6:11 am

Volunteer Marek wrote:...I understand and sympathize with that point of view, but the problem is that it's a very much a "what's easiest for editor" (and "editor" is most certainly NOT the "customer" - part of the problem with Wikipedia is this very misconception) perspective, not "what's best for the reader" perspective - which, honestly, probably motivates a lot of this opposition.

Excessive diacritics cause trouble for both the editor and the customer. If the English Wikipedia eschews the English spelling in a pigheaded effort to be 'right', and the customer has to go to some Polish site to find the English Spelling, well, that's just ... pathetic. Honestly Marek, you just can't make this shit up.

Volunteer Marek · Unread post by **Volunteer Marek** » Mon Dec 03, 2012 2:16 pm

TungstenCarbide wrote:
Volunteer Marek wrote:...I understand and sympathize with that point of view, but the problem is that it's a very much a "what's easiest for editor" (and "editor" is most certainly NOT the "customer" - part of the problem with Wikipedia is this very misconception) perspective, not "what's best for the reader" perspective - which, honestly, probably motivates a lot of this opposition.
Excessive diacritics cause trouble for both the editor and the customer. If the English Wikipedia eschews the English spelling in a pigheaded effort to be 'right', and the customer has to go to some Polish site to find the English Spelling, well, that's just ... pathetic. Honestly Marek, you just can't make this shit up.

Britannica, Library of Congress, Merriam Webster Dictionary, Columbia, Encarta, Chambers Biographical Dictionary, Oxford World Encyclopedia, American Heritage Dictionary, Collins English Dictionary, Macmillian, Oxford Dictionary, Random House Dictionary and many other standard English language works

Tarc · Unread post by **Tarc** » Mon Dec 03, 2012 5:40 pm

Zoloft wrote:Of course, there is the emerging ever-more-common use of the Spanish language where I live that makes typing (ALT-164) for ñ a lot more common, señor.

As I said over at the Wikipedia discussion, the only types of Americans who know about alt key codes are those who think they are being progresive/worldly (marek), Mötley Crüe fans (do these still exist?) or World of Warcrafters who, upon seeing that "CoolNinja" is already reserved, opt for "CöölNìnja" instead because for us it is the same exact thing.

Lech Walesa, Slobodan Milosevic, Ho Chi Minh. That's the way it is.

Tarc · Unread post by **Tarc** » Mon Dec 03, 2012 5:42 pm

Volunteer Marek wrote:
TungstenCarbide wrote:
Volunteer Marek wrote:...I understand and sympathize with that point of view, but the problem is that it's a very much a "what's easiest for editor" (and "editor" is most certainly NOT the "customer" - part of the problem with Wikipedia is this very misconception) perspective, not "what's best for the reader" perspective - which, honestly, probably motivates a lot of this opposition.
Excessive diacritics cause trouble for both the editor and the customer. If the English Wikipedia eschews the English spelling in a pigheaded effort to be 'right', and the customer has to go to some Polish site to find the English Spelling, well, that's just ... pathetic. Honestly Marek, you just can't make this shit up.
Britannica, Library of Congress, Merriam Webster Dictionary, Columbia, Encarta, Chambers Biographical Dictionary, Oxford World Encyclopedia, American Heritage Dictionary, Collins English Dictionary, Macmillian, Oxford Dictionary, Random House Dictionary and many other standard English language works

No one cares, Marek. The Wikipedia is lowbrow, we all know that, and its primary audience is like it or not the one that still measures things in gallons and Fahrenheit. We don't adapt to you; you adapt to us.

TungstenCarbide · Unread post by **TungstenCarbide** » Mon Dec 03, 2012 6:08 pm

Volunteer Marek wrote:
TungstenCarbide wrote:
Volunteer Marek wrote:...I understand and sympathize with that point of view, but the problem is that it's a very much a "what's easiest for editor" (and "editor" is most certainly NOT the "customer" - part of the problem with Wikipedia is this very misconception) perspective, not "what's best for the reader" perspective - which, honestly, probably motivates a lot of this opposition.
Excessive diacritics cause trouble for both the editor and the customer. If the English Wikipedia eschews the English spelling in a pigheaded effort to be 'right', and the customer has to go to some Polish site to find the English Spelling, well, that's just ... pathetic. Honestly Marek, you just can't make this shit up.
Britannica, Library of Congress, Merriam Webster Dictionary, Columbia, Encarta, Chambers Biographical Dictionary, Oxford World Encyclopedia, American Heritage Dictionary, Collins English Dictionary, Macmillian, Oxford Dictionary, Random House Dictionary and many other standard English language works

What is your point Marek? I went to the the Library of Congress and entered "Lech Walesa" in the search and got a bunch of "Lech Walesa" in return. This was the first return.

Is your point that these websites, in at least on instance, use diacritics and therefor the English Wikipedia should. And further, the English Wikipedia must not use the English spelling at all, even though your reference sites may? Is that your point Marek?

<edit> hmmm, here's Merriam Webster, no diacritics at all. In fact, when I search MW with "Lech Wałęsa", I get no return at all.

<edit2> the online Chambers Biographical Dictionary didn't return either "Lech Wałęsa" or "Lech Walesa", although it mangled the diacritics;"lech waÅÄsa"

OK, I'm done wasting time checking your sources.

Marek, you appear to be playing fast and loose with the facts.

Volunteer Marek · Unread post by **Volunteer Marek** » Mon Dec 03, 2012 9:10 pm

Tarc wrote:
Volunteer Marek wrote:
TungstenCarbide wrote:
Volunteer Marek wrote:...I understand and sympathize with that point of view, but the problem is that it's a very much a "what's easiest for editor" (and "editor" is most certainly NOT the "customer" - part of the problem with Wikipedia is this very misconception) perspective, not "what's best for the reader" perspective - which, honestly, probably motivates a lot of this opposition.
Excessive diacritics cause trouble for both the editor and the customer. If the English Wikipedia eschews the English spelling in a pigheaded effort to be 'right', and the customer has to go to some Polish site to find the English Spelling, well, that's just ... pathetic. Honestly Marek, you just can't make this shit up.
Britannica, Library of Congress, Merriam Webster Dictionary, Columbia, Encarta, Chambers Biographical Dictionary, Oxford World Encyclopedia, American Heritage Dictionary, Collins English Dictionary, Macmillian, Oxford Dictionary, Random House Dictionary and many other standard English language works
No one cares, Marek. The Wikipedia is lowbrow, we all know that, and its primary audience is like it or not the one that still measures things in gallons and Fahrenheit. We don't adapt to you; you adapt to us.

Glad to see you're doing your part to keep it that way.

Volunteer Marek · Unread post by **Volunteer Marek** » Mon Dec 03, 2012 9:28 pm

What is your point Marek? I went to the the Library of Congress and entered "Lech Walesa" in the search and got a bunch of "Lech Walesa" in return. This was the first return.

No, you picked a single source from 1983. So what? How about checking how their catalog is organized? Here: http://catalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebreco ... 100&HIST=1

Is your point that these websites, in at least on instance, use diacritics and therefor the English Wikipedia should. And further, the English Wikipedia must not use the English spelling at all, even though your reference sites may? Is that your point Marek?

Well, yes, to the first question. The second question is nonsensical (and it tries to imply an unsupported conclusion, in the "stopped beating your wife" kind of way - diacritics IS English spelling). The third question is just rhetoric.

<edit> hmmm, here's Merriam Webster, no diacritics at all. In fact, when I search MW with "Lech Wałęsa", I get no return at all.

You're not looking hard enough, unsurprisingly (like I said, this is one subject where people get really blind really fast): http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/walesa. MW actually uses both versions, if you'd know had you took a peak at Prolog's chart.

<edit2> the online Chambers Biographical Dictionary didn't return either "Lech Wałęsa" or "Lech Walesa", although it mangled the diacritics;"lech waÅÄsa"

http://www.amazon.com/Chambers-Biograph ... 0550160604

OK, I'm done wasting time checking your sources.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/top ... ech-Walesa
http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Lech_Walesa.aspx#3
http://ahdictionary.com/word/search.htm ... sa%2C+Lech
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Wa%C5%82%C4%99sa
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definitio ... %2C%2BLech

It's really not that hard. Unless you're trying to avoid it I guess.

And just for a bit of humor, from Prolog's page:
"The inclusion of the correct diacritics also avoids changing the meaning of the word, which could be embarrassing both to the project and to the subject: Afrikaanse Hoër Seunskool is not the Afrikaans Whore School for Boys. In William Safire's (you know, that rabid anti-American - VM)book Watching My Language, James D. McCawley called the practice of omitting diacritics in foreign names "disgraceful and slovenly" and noted how the telenovela Los Años Perdidos (The Lost Years) became Los Anos Perdidos (The Lost Assholes) in Chicago newspapers."

Marek, you appear to be playing fast and loose with the facts.

it seems like it's the other way around.

TungstenCarbide · Unread post by **TungstenCarbide** » Mon Dec 03, 2012 9:48 pm

Volunteer Marek wrote:And just for a bit of humor, from Prolog's page:
"The inclusion of the correct diacritics also avoids changing the meaning of the word, which could be embarrassing both to the project and to the subject: Afrikaanse Hoër Seunskool is not the Afrikaans Whore School for Boys. In William Safire's (you know, that rabid anti-American - VM)book Watching My Language, James D. McCawley called the practice of omitting diacritics in foreign names "disgraceful and slovenly"...

Actually, I specifically stated earlier that I favored including native spellings in Wikipedia articles. You are the one who (in at least one case) wants to exclude English spellings from the English Wikipedia. In essence, you insist that the English language be modified. Talk about cultural imperialism.

Volunteer Marek wrote: ... and noted how the telenovela Los Años Perdidos (The Lost Years) became Los Anos Perdidos (The Lost Assholes) in Chicago newspapers."

We weren't talking about mistakenly omitted diacritics, we were talking about native spellings with diacritics vs English spellings without.

Volunteer Marek wrote:
Marek, you appear to be playing fast and loose with the facts.
it seems like it's the other way around.

Not at all, I briefly looked and reported what I found-- the first results from your sourcelist which lacked any detail. You can't seem to make your point without cherry picking references.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Mon Dec 03, 2012 9:50 pm

I, for one, would prefer to watch something entitled Los Anos Perdidos (The Lost Assholes) than something called Los Años Perdidos (The Lost Years).

Tarc · Unread post by **Tarc** » Tue Dec 04, 2012 1:44 am

Volunteer Marek wrote:diacritics IS English spelling

Er, no, it isn't.

Ismail · Unread post by **Ismail** » Thu Dec 13, 2012 8:57 pm

Volunteer Marek wrote:Wait. So... you think that people support diacritics because ... they're "anti-Americun!". Really? And you were just accusing others of making "sweeping generalizations"? Are you freakin' serious? Actually, don't even bother answering that. It's just too stupid to be true.

Tarc once argued that people wanted Côte d'Ivoire to be named Ivory Coast on Wikipedia because they (apparently only white people) are guilty about colonialism, which is why they were supporting the country's internationally-recognized French name rather than arguing that it should "really" be called Mandingo after the great African empire and that the neo-colonialist reactionary regime in place there has taken the language of the colonialists or something.

Wikipedia considers itself an international encyclopedia. Unless names are specifically Americanized or their given, non-diacritic alternate names and pseudonyms are obviously more common than their actual names, I don't see the issue. If you want an "English Wikipedia" feel free to change Hồ Chí Minh to He Who Enlightens and São Tomé and Príncipe to Saint Thomas and Prince.

The Joy · Unread post by **The Joy** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 1:12 am

thekohser wrote:I, for one, would prefer to watch something entitled Los Anos Perdidos (The Lost Assholes) than something called Los Años Perdidos (The Lost Years).

TungstenCarbide · Unread post by **TungstenCarbide** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 6:03 am

Here's an interesting example; The official North Korean English news service refers to their new satellite as the "Kwangmyongsong-3", but Wikipedia apparently knows better. Anyone know where the diacritic spelling originated?

The article was created by Óðinn (T-C-L), and none of the original references used diacritics. None of the current references that I looked at use diacritics either. Óðinn appears to know a lot about Viking metal bands.

<edit>
It looks like that spelling might have originated with Kwangmyŏngsŏng program, created in 2004. Again, none of the early references used diacritics. The article was created by Enceladus (T-C-L), later Evil Monkey (T-C-L). I think he's from New Zealand. He used to write an article for each and every US execution and get it on DYK. He stopped after someone asked why he was only interested in US executions.

Anyone know what 'Evil Monkey's current account name is? I'd like to ask him where he got that spelling from.

<edit 2>
OK, someone just told me that the McCune–Reischauer romanization gives diacritics for this word. The thing is, McCune–Reischauer "does not attempt to transliterate hangul but rather to represent the phonetic pronunciation".

Leave it to Wikipedians to get this screwed up and use pronunciations for article titles instead of the English spelling.

Willbeheard · Unread post by **Willbeheard** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 8:47 pm

I think this depends on the alphabet of the original language. If it's say French or Turkish, where they use basically the Latin alphabet plus c-cedilla and so forth, there's a good case for retaining these diacritical marks, although they're a pain to type with an English keyboard. But if it's say Arabic transliterated, why is the form with accents more valid than the form without them? it may well be more precise, and indicate the pronunciation better, but it's stil not how an Arabic speaker would write it.

TungstenCarbide · Unread post by **TungstenCarbide** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 11:20 pm

TungstenCarbide wrote:<edit 2>
OK, someone just told me that the McCune–Reischauer romanization gives diacritics for this word. The thing is, McCune–Reischauer "does not attempt to transliterate hangul but rather to represent the phonetic pronunciation".

Leave it to Wikipedians to get this screwed up and use pronunciations for article titles instead of the English spelling.

A Google Translation of the Korean wikipedia page doesn't have any diacritics, then again they think the English name of this satellite is "Light Sex 3"
http://translate.google.com/translate?s ... %3D9838591

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 8:11 pm

EricBarbour wrote: Ever seen a "real" Chinese computer keyboard? This one is not anywhere near complete. Just to write "typical" Mandarin text requires a minimum of 2500-4500 characters.

Doesn't look like you've seen one, either.

But hey, it comes up on the first page of Google results for "Chinese keyboard" and looks more dramatic than the real ones, so, you know, close enough!

TungstenCarbide · Unread post by **TungstenCarbide** » Fri Dec 21, 2012 6:50 am

I'm still waiting to hear someone defend Wikipedia's spelling for the Kwangmyongsong satellite program.

To recap, Kwangmyŏngsŏng is a pronunciation, not a spelling, created with the McCune–Reischauer romanization. The McCune–Reischauer romanization creates pronunciations, not spellings.

This misspelling was introduced eight years ago and included a reference to North Korea's official English news service, which (surprise surprise) didn't use Diacritics.

There are now several Wikipedia articles about the Kwangmyongspng satellite program, all using this fucked up 'spelling'. World wide, the largest and most authoritative references don't use diacritics for this word. And I'm willing to bet most of the ones that do originated as a copy/paste from Wikipedia.

TungstenCarbide · Unread post by **TungstenCarbide** » Wed May 22, 2013 5:22 am

ocham.blogspot.com wrote: Wikipedia, or at least its current version, defers to the first, calling him by the Latinised name of Franciscus Patricius. Adopting the second, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article [2] uses his Italian name. But in Croatia, of course, he is known as Frane Petrić, although (I am told) they made a mistake here: they used the Croatian diacritic sign on the consonant, invented only in the middle of the 1800s.