Proposed revision:

Old version: Latin script

If the dominant English (from reliable sources) and local differ only in one or more of the rules listed in the table, the local version should be used. If one or more differences aren't listed in this table, the dominant English version should be used.

New version

Added to the end of the first sentence of WP:UE

If the English version and the local version differ only in the use of digraphs and/or diacritics, use the local version.

Discussion

• I support that all names are writen using only english letters because this is english wikipedia--Rjecina (talk) 19:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought you support the use of diacritics. That's why I invited you to this draft in the first place. Nevertheless, you can take a part in the discussion when this proposal becomes official. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 22:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

To tell you truth I will support anything to end this problem. If we write with local letters then we need to create redirect pages.

My problem is that I do not see logic in writing 1 name with local letters and another with english. In the end even this is not all. I have earlier protested renaming Palaeologus dynasty to greek version of name (Palaiologos). This is extreme example of naming nationalism because english version of name is Palaeologus, Spanish Paleólogo, Italian Paleologi, Russian Paleologi, South Slav Paleolozi, Holland Paleologen, French Paléologue. Only Greek and German use are new "english" version of name--Rjecina (talk) 23:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

If completed, this proposal probably won't solve many things at first, but it will at least clarify what the WP:UE means so that no more talk page battles are fought over Google hits. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 12:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• This is not bad. I could except it. It would be much easier to the native English speakers. On the other side the name with diacritics lose its original form this way. English C is not a letter for the South Slavic voice Č or Ć. It means explanation how to spell for every such name? Or is it not important at all? If diacritics then redirect pages. What is more encyclopedic? I'm definitely against transformation to fit to English pronounciation - it leads to chaos (CH for Č ...). Zenanarh (talk) 00:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
• Sorry for late answer. However, this is long lasting discussion, so I guess, it's not too late. I do support this. I'd like to make small comments to discussion above. Although, this is English Wikipedia in lots of guidelines it is written that is should not use only English letters. WP:UE says that we should use Latin alphabet and English version of subject. Also check any NHL player. The root of the problem is that English grammar does not specify how we should write these names. In my opinion for most modern subjects, regarding fast transfer of information, there is no English version of the subject. English media is using Milosevic, just because they have been lasy and/or they had technical limitations. I do not see who can have problem since Wikipedia is using Milošević. Check also this my proposal and explanations. --Irić Igor -- Ирић Игор -- K♥S (talk) 09:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)