The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. The aim of this project is, in my eyes, quite simple: it's intended to be a battle-standard under which those from one side of a debate can organise canvassing against the other side. This is clear partisanship; even the title of the project is misleading. I'm going to quote the Board Resolution on Openness: we should be "working with colleagues to reduce contention and promote a friendlier, more collaborative culture". This project does not promote a friendlier atmosphere, it serves only to polarise the project over a relatively minor grammatical issue. RFCs, discussion, and dispute resolution are the way forward here: creating Wikiprojects to organise support will simply create a hostile editing environment. I urge all parties to go back to basics: assume good faith and follow the dispute resolution procedure if you can't agree. The Cavalry (Message me) 20:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject English

[edit]
MfDs for this WikiProject:
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject English
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject English (2nd nomination)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikiproject English
Wikipedia:WikiProject English (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A project ostensibly created to "consolidate the efforts of all Wikipedians concerned about the proper naming of articles on the English Wikipedia", but in reality exists as a central gathering place for people of one side of the ongoing diacritics debates to coordinate efforts to force their WP:POV onto Wikipedia despite a distinct lack of overall consensus on the use of diacritics on this project. Another editor defined this project quite accurately by calling it "Wikiproject Canvass". Many of the comments on the various pages display something of a battleground mentality, and very much an "us vs. them" attitude that runs counter to Wikipedia's goal of being a collaborative project. Examples:

The opinion of project's creator, User:Who R you?, can be summed up by this comment: "Isn't it interesting how the English Wikipedians at en.WP establish policies about determining the English spelling of names and then follow them; unlike the small group of foreign editors who apparently just come here to get their kicks out of disrupting the en.wp and vandalizing our pages by moving them to foreign spellings?". (again, emphasis mine)

This project very clearly was not created as a good faith effort to aid collaboration at Wikipedia. It was created to win a war against the use of diacritics, and is targeted toward like minded individuals to that of Who R you?'s POV.

And before anyone asks, historically I have been supportive of the anti-diacritics opinion, but arguments made by various editors over time has pushed me toward a neutral position - I neither favour nor disfavour their use at this point.

In addition to the main project page, this nomination covers four subpages:

Regards, Resolute 02:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also to add, the project creator and a supporter's comments regarding this project: User talk:Who R you?#WikiProject English. Just another sign that this is not a good faith project. Resolute 02:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a very big difference between the projects you link to whose aim is to improve articles on those topics and a Wikiproject created specifically to violate WP:CANVASS and to make a WP:POINT. It is a huge violation of the Wikipedia:Five Pillars to create projects to push a POV and create a voting block. As for "That English should be used exclusively for article titles is policy" there is no policy that states that. The guideline of WP:UE actually gives a large number of examples of when this isn't the case. -DJSasso (talk) 03:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course, if one doesn't take the statements completely out of context, one sees that "… our unwillingness to skulk around in the shadows like vermin, …" and "… our unwillingness to be like vile repugnant scum and sneak around on IRC and email." in fact doesn't refer at all to "our opposition"; unless of course you're saying that you know for a fact that the people participating in these RM discussions on the 'pro-diacritic' side are sneaking around in the shadows, using IRC and email to co-ordinate their 'voting block'; in which case I might actually be inclined to direct statements at others, rather than stating what actions I am unwilling to take and what my opinion would be of "our" actions if we were to act in such a devious manner.
    Or perhaps I should take offence at your statements that I am entitled to have "no opinion whatsoever" and, I suppose I would assume that you would be implying that it was therefore your right to dictate my thoughts and actions; would that be a correct interpretation since I am actually quoting three of your words, word-for-word?— Who R you? Talk 22:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh. Your rants are pretty nonsensical. I can tell by the hyperbole, and having read a few rants in my time. In the midst of you accusing the pro-diacritic "side" of everything under the sun, inviting Resolute to go forth and multiply, and screaming "I will not be silenced!" when told not to set up a votestacking club, you've slipped in a statement about how you don't want your votestacking club to behave that you expect me to believe isn't just another dig at your perceived enemies. Fine. Whatever. Like I said, I don't care one way or the other about diacritic marks in article titles- but I do recognize a sham wikiproject when I see one. And I don't need to be able to make complete sense of a bunch of apoplectic raving to get a feel for the general mindset. Reyk YO! 23:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll take it that your reply translates into 'you can tell what I'm thinking from the tone of my writing'.  Correct me if you'd phrase it differently.  And again, you'll notice that I didn't address my comment at Resolute, rather I addressed it "to anyone that has a problem with my willingness to stand-up for what I believe in and my willingness to speak my mind"; and that stands, on and off Wikipedia; I would hope that you would all have that opinion, otherwise we may all be lost, with far greater problems than anything WP related. — Who R you? Talk 00:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's a group interested in enforcing one particular interpretation of policy. One interpretation that does not have consensus, and in fact if anything is in a minority when it comes to actual practice. It is therefore not enforcing policy, but enforcing one particular viewpoint. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you point to a project or page where the voting as a block by non-English editors is being co-ordinated? Having the same opinions is completely different than voting as a block and canvassing votes which is what this group is doing and I have seen no evidence that the opposite is happening anywhere. The centralized place to have these discussion are on the policy pages themselves. Creating yet another place to have these discussions only makes the situation even more fragmented. -DJSasso (talk) 15:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There has been canvassing by non-English editors, you know that. I'm not as ticked off as you, that's all. Not sure whether to leave it in the open or not? There may be some benefit byhaving it be in the open, where it can be discussed. But, does it start a bad precedent? I'm not sure. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 16:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heh, I can tell you that the best way how to find a diacritic related RM is occasional checking of talk pages of Dolovis and his collaborators (I don't watch the pages and I don't check regularly so I don't participate at all the RMs :)) It is so stupid and shameful that I can't find appropriate words for it, but it seems to be the only way how to do something in recent situation. I was even tempted to ask the group if they can let me know about future RMs but I resisted :) @alaney2k: I can speak only for myself, but I can assure you that I'm not a stupid kid who needs to win disputes in such a dishonest and despicable manner. Believe it or not, all my actions are transparent and run on-wiki. You have my word, that's all I can do. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Canvassing is bad and is blockable. What it does is stack the deck with one side of a position and negates the ability to have opinions presented from a wide range of positions. It is counter to working together in a collaborative environment and creates a battleground mentality that doesn't help already tense situations. -DJSasso (talk) 18:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's an extraordinary statement of fact, and makes me wonder. Sometimes there is not enough perspective. It seems like we are kids, and we need our moms (the admins) to tell us to get out and play. Work out some of that negative energy. Motivation seems easily misdirected... I agree with the wiki rules, don't get me wrong. (They are of course a whole semester's worth of reading, unfortunately. And a lot of us don't read user manuals, including Wikipedia's.) ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 19:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussion as part of a bid to resolve the issue belongs at either the relevant policy page or on the Village Pump. A project, coordinated by a user (ultimately a group of users), who display a very strong negative reaction to those who do not share said view will be unlikely to feel welcomed. Resolute 15:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree in principle, but we seem to be ping-ponging at the moment, between diacritics and use english, are we not? ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk)
  • Which block of voters do you have in mind, alaney2k? Personally, I'm English, so I'm a little surprised to see my !vote being written off as a mere foreigner; that tactic has sadly been used among the anti-diacritical rants on article talkpages but we shouldn't let it spread to XfDs too. I do respect the intention to bridge the divide between the two camps, but I feel this wikiproject is part of the problem, not part of the solution. bobrayner (talk) 15:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And I guess I must assume that the "unless you're talking about WP:Hockey" is implied in this added statement, by DJSasso, on that very topic. — Who R you? Talk 01:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You keep talking about wp:hockey like its some big group organized to push diacritics. Quite the opposite the group is completely split on their use. In fact as many people supporting their use in the hockey project have opposed them at your discussions. And if you actually read the guidance of the project you would see that we actually suggest removing them in more cases than we suggest using them. -DJSasso (talk) 03:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And yet, WP:Hockey's policy is regularly cited as the justification in numerous move discussions; I'll look for some links to those postings if you believe that isn't the case.  So while you, on one hand say that there is division in WP:Hockey as to how to handle diacritics (and I assume we can translate that to 'no consensus'), on the other hand WP:Hockey's pages declare policy involving the use of diacritics, and those policies oppose the policy sections I've listed below and cited in every conversation we've had on this topic for the last month.  Off the top of my head, from previous diacritic discussions, I see Nurmsook, Ravenswing, Resolute, User:Alaney2k (Whom I fully acknowledge [if memory serves] votes each discussion on its merits, [regardless of the fact that he's agreed with me, I believe once]), and yourself in hockey's members list that I recognize from these discussions.  I'm actually surprised that I don't see Prolog's name on the list as my (apparently mistaken) impression was that he was one of hockey's members; I believe I recall him regularly citing WP:Hockey policy as the justification for most of these moves.

Reality is, save for WP:Hockey's private policy, the majority of the arguments can be dismissed as WP:Just don't like it.  If people want to have these discussions about why they think policy should change, they should be happening on Wikipedia Talk:UE, etc; my frustration is that these RM discussions happen on one talk page after another, and articles are moved, without citation of any fact, against consensus policy, and against RS.  If consensus policy changes, that's a different story; and I'll fight those policies changing because I believe it should be English RS that determine English spelling, not Czech, Croatian, or Polish Wikipedians, (and preferably not English ones for that matter), but I can accept it if consensus of the majority of editors doesn't agree with me.  But, I don't accept any editor ignoring RS and deciding facts for themselves, in any circumstance, and I certainly don't accept non-English WP editors deciding the facts about English spelling and that somehow becoming reality. — Who R you? Talk 05:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
“ In fact the policies are crystal clear, they all say follow the RS, on English Wikipedia follow the English RS.  The problem for the WP:Hockey group seems to be that adhering to that requirement means that names end up being spelled in English; and that isn't the ultimate goal that WP:Hockey is attempting to achieve.  So the only way to justify creating your own rules is to claim that consensus doesn't exist; but the reality is it does.  This is the talk page for the consensus policy WP:EN, it starts:
● "The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language, as you would find it in reliable sources…";
● the second paragraph begins: "If an examination of the sources in an article shows that one name or version of the name stands out as clearly the most commonly used in the English-language, we should follow the sources and use it. …";
● consensus there says: "The native spelling of a name should generally be included in parentheses, in the first line of the article, with a transliteration if the Anglicization isn't identical. …".
The WP:DIACRITICS section of this policy reads:
● "The use of modified letters (such as accents or other diacritics) in article titles is neither encouraged nor discouraged; when deciding between versions of a word which differ in the use or non-use of modified letters, follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language (including other encyclopedias and reference works). The policy on using common names and on foreign names does not prohibit the use of modified letters, if they are used in the common name as verified by reliable sources."
The WP:UE section of WP:Article titles, says:
● "The choice between anglicized and local spellings should follow English-language usage…";
● " If  there are too few English-language sources to constitute and established usage, follow the conventions of the language appropriate to the subject…", in other words, as long as there are not too few English-language sources to follow, follow the English-language sources;
and the WP:UCN (a.k.a. WP:COMMONNAME) section of that policy says:
● "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. …" and
● "… The term most typically used in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms, whether the official name, the scientific name, the birth name, the original name or the trademarked name. …"
The consensus of policy in this regard is clear and unambiguous and is repeated in multiple policies.  How does one, after repeatedly citing all these sections in multiple conversations, respond to someone else's argument that there is not consensus?  Personally, I end up getting extremely frustrated having to repeat all this in discussion after discussion to the same group of people trying to move articles to the foreign language form.  It isn't that they don't know that there is clear consensus against what they are doing, rather they've learned that ignoring it, making hundreds of moves, and requesting numerous moves and multi-moves generally makes it impossible for other editors to respond, what ArbCom calls fait accompli; and those that do respond on this topic seem to be compelled to do so almost exclusively, or accept that these moves against policy and against RS will be successful. — Who R you? Talk 08:32, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply] 		”
The truth is that if the we are pushing any POV, it is that policy should be followed, that simply saying 'there is no consensus policy' shouldn't be enough for the consensus policy to be ignored, and that an organized group from WP:Hockey shouldn't be able to overwhelm move discussions and use half-truths and deception to convince closers to move articles to names that don't reflect the English RS.  But I suppose this has been another really long post, and since I wouldn't want to lose Resolute I'll start another point. — Who R you? Talk 01:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not at all. Simply an observation that the majority of non-!vote comments on the XfD consists of snarky incivility and lengthy anti-diacritic diatribe. The timing of the formation of this particular WikiProject is highly suspect, coming as it does during a new flare-up in the diacritics debate. Couple that with the fact that Wikipedia already has a WikiProject dedicated to ensuring the proper use of the English language in articles (the Guild of Copy Editors), and this particular group appears more and more to be formed for the single purpose of pushing an anti-diacritic agenda. You can dress it up as a group of bright-eyed heroes out to defend truth, justice, Wikipedia policy and the American way, but it looks like a duck to me.  Cjmclark (Contact) 20:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your reference to the Guild honestly sounds really great; the only problem is that, having just thoroughly reviewed their members list, I've never seen any of those names in an RM discussion.  In fact, I've only recall ever seeing one of those names in a diacritics related conversation, and that would be 'Boing! said Zebedee' from their posting above.  If more people responded in these conversations then perhaps the members of this WikiProject wouldn't be so concerned about the fact that the consensus policies are being ignored; and presumably if more people were involved in the discussions the policies wouldn't be being ignored.  The reality is that most of these RM discussions appear to be generally ignored by editors, something I attribute to a seemingly endless stream of conversations on the topic, without any consensus for change, followed by more proposals on the topic.  It appears that the approach opted for by those promoting the use of diacritics is to simply keep bringing the subject up in one forum after another, in hopes that people will either get so fed up with the topic that they'll give in, or that those who oppose will simply stop responding (to things like RMs) just to avoid having to have the same conversation they had last week, or month, or whenever; I'm sure I recall seeing a policy somewhere that frowned on their apparent approach.
    And I find your mention of "a new flare-up in the diacritics debate" interesting, I'm curious when you think this debate has gone more than a month (or perhaps two) without being an ongoing "discussion"/"battle"; and if you think you've got a timeframe in mind, might I suggest a quick review of the partial list, of conversations that have been taking place on this topic, at the bottom of the WikiProject English existing policies page; just so you don't inadvertently mention a period when a RfC was taking place on the topic. — Who R you? Talk 21:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you want to achieve, also I wish you would say it in somewhat shorter posts, but this slighly xenophobic project does not seem the road to success for me. Rather then starting something new that devides the comunity, why do you not revive Wikipedia:WikiProject Policy and Guidelines and make a, admittingly difficult, attempt to improve guidlines and make them less ambigous and more enforceable? Calistemon (talk) 04:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If he wishes to try and build an honest consensus, I would suggest one of the village pumps rather than a mostly dead project. Resolute 05:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The irony of all of that text is that you have not posted a single policy-based reason why this project should be kept. Nor have you refuted any of the additional reasons for deletion presented by other editors. Instead, you choose to continue trying to fight your campaign against diacritics. That is not what this MFD is about. It is about a project designed to advocate a single POV position against numerous policies and guidelines, and the fact that you continue to use even this MFD to fight your little war against diacritics shows clearly and plainly what your intention was in creating this project. Resolute 05:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To promote the use of the English language on English Wikipedia, and to argue that article titles should follow the spelling that is given in the majority of relevant English-language WP:RS, does not go against any policy or guideline that I know of. This project is no more POV than any other WikiProject. We can continue the all the same activity in user space, so what is the point of this MFD? It's pushing a little hobbyhorse, trying to make our views appear illegitimate. The RfC showed 50 percent support for Britannica spelling, with other 50 percent presumably favoring less diacritical use. Now if something is spelled with diacritics in Britannica, we haven't challenged that. Kauffner (talk) 06:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually they have quite vigorously have challenged that reference works don't matter. If you were to continue the same thing in user space you would be blocked for disruptive editing (ie continual blatant canvassing). So the point of this Mfd is to delete a project that very much violates policy and the spirit of this wiki. -DJSasso (talk) 11:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll have to ask you to post a few (i.e. more than one) diffs that prove your claim that we "… quite vigorously have challenged that reference works don't matter."  You might have noticed that I back up my statements with links (i.e. links that back up what I'm saying; not links that are totally irrelevant, like some others have done in the past). — Who R you? Talk 19:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec)Oh, please let him (User:Who R you?) continue his rant, or we'll be once again be accused of first amendment violations. Let him blaze his trail for  United States and the English language. From the discussion above, it seems most people who have at least read through parts of the rants see this project for what it is, and are not fooled by the smokescreen arguments about policy adherence. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 06:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • ARS is a very different project whose goal are to improve articles that are put up for deletion, there isn't really much POV pushing in that. Article improvement is the main purpose of the wiki and one of the reasons for Afd, to find problem articles and either improve them or delete them. Doesn't really seem like that is a parallel at all other than maybe there are a few people who go to far in it as well. This group is quite obviously about "rallying the troops" to all show up at RMs to overwhelm their opposition who aren't organized. Encouraging groups like this will lead to other groups on other points of views doing the same thing to other topics. It is completely counter to the collaborative environment that the wiki tries to create. I would also point out that you are pretty inaccurate about saying its most of the same folk form the previous diacritics discussions. Only 3 out of 15 (not counting nom) of the deletes are people that I have seen supporting using them, while 3 out of 4 of the keeps are people I have seen at them trying to remove them. So frankly the majority of this discussion is people who actually haven't been involved in the situation. There is even one who agrees with removing them generally but thinks the project is bad. So its not just people who like diacritics that think this project should be deleted. -DJSasso (talk) 11:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed. I !voted "Delete", but I'm not in the pro-diacriticals camp. I'm actually undecided on the issue, but a large part of me prefers to see article titles using common English spellings where they exist (ie without diacriticals). So no, my !vote was not based on any partisanship, but on my opinion that this project is too confrontational and will hinder rather than help get us towards a collaborative outcome -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess the basic difference of opinion is that I don't think that promoting the use of English in article titles should be treated some sort of partisan POV thing. It is not unusual that the diacritics targeted have no English-language use whatsoever. Kauffner (talk) 16:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • And that right there is the POV. The opinion that diacritics have no English-language use whatsoever. About half the wiki in fact believes that diacritics do have an English-language use if we go by the last few RfCs on the matter. So this project is pushing one of the opinions on what is English. -DJSasso (talk) 16:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I meant that there are no published English-language examples of such spellings as Ľubomír Višňovský, Aleš Hemský, or Milan Jurčina. Kauffner (talk) 22:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Britannica 1911 used diacritics for foreign proper names, the current Britannica uses them (with the notable exception of Vietnamese), Encarta used them, and Wikipedia also uses them de facto (in the sense that roughly 4% of all article titles are foreign proper names that include a diacritic, whereas roughly 0% are foreign proper names with dropped diacritic). Dropping diacritics in foreign proper names has nothing to do with "using English", but it has a lot to do with technical restrictions (see AP style guide), inability to get diacritics right under a deadline when relying on sources that have dropped them (see New York Times style guide), simplistic ideas of the English language, xenophobia and anti-intellectualism. Hans Adler 17:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1911 Britannica says, LODZ (Lódź; more correctly Lodzia).[1]. Our entry title is Łódź. Kauffner (talk) 22:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just how'd you make up those numbers Hans?  Did you read and analyze all 3.8 million articles, determine who had diacritics in their foreign spellings and compare them to WP; or did you just say what you thought people might believe? — Who R you? Talk 08:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hans, it's pretty disturbing to lump the AP and NY Times in with xenophobia and anti-intellectualism. I believe I understand your frustration, but the AP and NYT are acting intelligently. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 17:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're confusing motives. The AP (and, to a similar extent) the NYT play by rules that date from the 70s where technical concerns made handling of diacritics in print a nightmare at best; that the Old Media [tongue firmly in cheek] has been glacial to adopt sufficiently modern technology to allay those difficulties comes as no surprise, that they are even slower to adapt their work methods to use the technology they do now have is just part for the conservative course.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Coren (talk • contribs) 17:52, 16 November 2011
  • Their style guide specifically say these things Alaney2k which is why he was referring to them. They explain the reasons for why they choose what they choose. His point above seems to me to be that saying "diacritics aren't English look at the sources" is incorrect because these news agencies (ie sources) admit that they aren't using them because of in the one case technical reasons and in the other case deadline reasons as opposed to it being the proper English way to do them. Either way this is getting way off the topic of this Mfd. -DJSasso (talk) 19:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe its page 6 or something early on like that if I recall I don't have a copy on me at the moment. This came up in one of the previous discussions on the topic and someone listed the sections for a number of the various guides. I believe the quote is "type fonts often lack characters necessary for consistency". It mentions a number of languages where diacritics should actually be used, Italian, French, Spanish if I recall correctly. And that some of the Slavic languages not as much due to less familiarity for them and being error prone. But as I mention this discussion isn't about diacritics...its about this project which is violating some policies and a number of other things like the 5 Pillars so we shouldn't turn it into another diacritics debate. -DJSasso (talk) 19:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, I'll take a look. Still, I don't think anyone should speak for their motives, etc. That is all just conjecture. Even if technical reasons are their reasons, it's still not stupid as has been ranted about. Why should an organization spend money on something that has not been demanded? Or provided/available? I don't know how well the full Unicode set is supported today, but not that long ago, (i.e. the past decade) fonts routinely omitted those outside the Apple or Windows character set (approximately). It's still a valid consideration, I believe. As we've noted, lots of characters used by Wikipedia itself require up-to-date software. (You still see the chars in boxes) I don't think it's fair to just sum it up as stupidity, and lump it with xenophobia. Absolutely, the discussion is about this group. It's dropped. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 20:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are completely missing the point. The point was that there is a variety of reasons for sources not to use (some, or all) diacritics, and none of them has anything to do with them 'not being English'. I am prepared to believe that that's the impression that many editors get from the lack of diacritics in so many sources. After all, in one discussion even Jimbo said that in his opinion we should spell François Mitterrand as "Francois Mitterrand", which is absolutely ludicrous given the strong influence of French on English and how the most reliable sources take care to avoid this misspelling. So it is certainly possible for an educated English speaker to be led astray. But I am sure that these people who deliberately choose such a misspelling under the genuine misconception that it's the most proper English spelling do not account for a large percentage of diacritic dropping in reliable sources. Rather, most of it must be explained by one, sometimes several, of the reasons I listed.
    You can think of this as there being two writing systems for English, a full one with all common diacritics available, as used by academic publishers, reference works and other sources of the highest editorial quality. And a simplified one with just the 26 unadorned letters for informal publications and those which operate under technical or time constraints. Anyone in between must choose between the two, or find a suitable compromise between them. It's a matter of register (sociolinguistics). And just as we don't write part of an article in French (or in a specific variant of English that bears no inherent connection to the subject) just because the only available sources are in French, we also cannot make the register we use dependent on the register used by the majority of sources. Encyclopedias are written in the highest register, and this entails that words and names from the major foreign languages with Latin-based alphabets are spelled complete with all diacritics and modified letters. (Cum grano salis. I am not completely sure, but German ß may be an exception to this rule. Replacing it by ss is certainly more common/acceptable than replacing äö/ü by ae/oe/ue, which in turn is more common/acceptable than replacing them by a/o/u. I believe this is because these replacements are also pretty standard in German itself whenever there are technical difficulties.) When we rely on sources written in a lower register or operating under constraints that encourage diacritics-dropping, then raising foreign names to the correct spelling in the encyclopedic register is just one more common sense thing that we need to do, in the same way that we switch from a conversational tone to a more formal tone when rephrasing a source. Hans Adler 20:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I intended it to be dropped. ;-> I basically agree with you. However, I have to reject this idea of one correct spelling. I think that's a bit of an outdated concept too. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 22:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • My comment still applies to what I was saying. You changed the wording of the mission on the page and then came here to say hey look everyone is getting it wrong. Still valid. -DJSasso (talk) 19:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fact Dolovis added the words "pursuant to the established Wiki-policy of WP:Article titles including WP:COMMONNAME" to the lede, accurately reflecting the fact that the first point, after the statement he modified leads to, is: "Ensure that article names conform to English Wikipedia policies", the third point is "… fail to meet current English Wikipedia policies and guidelines", the fifth point is "… seek uniform adherence to en.WP standards", the sixth point is "consensus on issues requiring policy amendment", the first subpoint of that refers to "policies and guildlines" (which should obviously read "guidelines"), and there is an entire page that deals specifically with the relevant sections of policy and guidelines pertaining to article naming.  Perhaps he didn't reflect on how his actions might be twisted and used against him, but he certainly didn't make any changed that wasn't clearly spelled out in following statements.  The fact is, he fixed my foolish mistake of not recognizing that my words would be stripped down to out of context sentences and select words from the midst of a phrase; perhaps his wiki experiences have taught him to be a little less naive than I; but let's be clear that he didn't change anything save perhaps to ensure that every sentence I've written clearly states "we act in furtherance of existing WP policy". — Who R you? Talk 20:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The purpose is not to ensure that article names conform to English Wikipedia policies (and this is obvious even from the choice of project name). The purpose is to enforce one particular interpretation of policy. An interpretation that does not have consensus, and in fact if anything is in a minority when it comes to actual practice. It is therefore not enforcing policy, but enforcing one particular viewpoint. The stated purpose is simply not truthful, and the creator knows this. The project name shows this fact as it's not called "Wikiproject article titles" or similar, but Wikiproject English, reflecting the creators belief that spelling non-English names correctly will destroy the English language. --OpenFuture (talk) 02:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You and your buddies keep making the same claims that there is no consensus and that I'm only following one interpretation, and yet I keep providing word-for-word quotes of the policies and asking you to explain how it is that you're intepreting them and you never respond.  I take that to mean that you can't figure out how to twist words like "… follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language …" to your purposes, and you know you'd look like a fool if you tried; so instead you use the common childish tactic of baseless accusation in the hopes that no one will consider your words too carefully.  The difference of course being, I know that the more people consider my words the more likely they are to agree.  But then that can't be done in a pithy one-liner. — Who R you? Talk 06:34, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
yet I keep providing word-for-word quotes of the policies and asking you to explain how it is that you're intepreting them and you never respond - "Poppycock", as seems to be the fashionable word for this. I have seen you get an answer about policy at least twice just in the last few days. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only response I know of is DJSasso's statements at the RfC, with reference to ambiguity and error; which I've provided him with the linked dictionary definitions of the words he's using on two occasions and I haven't seen any response (mind you I haven't looked at that RfC conversation in a day (or even two).  Since you claim this has been answered "at least twice just in the last few days", seeing as Wiki has a really neat diff function, and given that I must obviously have missed these two responses which you say you saw, how about you provide us with a diff on one (or both would be really cool) of these.  Alternatively, since it's just a few words, maybe you'd care to just answer the question here yourself.  — Who R you? Talk 08:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here is one. And you replied to a similar statement here to which I replied here
You can not honestly claim to be ignorant about the alternative interpretations of policy. You also can not claim to be ignorant about the fact that this has been discussed a long time without reaching consensus. So please, don't claim you have consensus or policy unambiguously on your side. You know that such a claim is incorrect. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to Mark as historical per Michael Bednarek's convincing "keep" rationale below. Hans Adler 14:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You say the group is open to anyone and yet you indicate those who disagree with you will be ignored if they join your group. Funny how you are back peddling now that you have been caught in your efforts to create a partisan group to push your POV. The WikiProject is clearly not neutral or non-partisan. It fails in both aspects by a long shot. And you really need to stop writing walls of text, they stifle discussion. Your comments are pretty much the epitome of tl:dr. -DJSasso (talk) 03:05, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've no doubt, if this WikiProject 'somehow' survives this MFD, many pro-dios editors will fill the membership ranks - in order to neutralize it. GoodDay (talk) 06:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since the name is non-neutral that would require a re-naming. And since there is no consensus on what the policy is on article titles, it's impossible to have a project with the aim of enforcing policy. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are implying that English and all of its lexicon is independent from conventions in other languages. It isn't. I would prefer we handle English how it is actually used and not some bizzaro-world English you seem to enjoy imposing. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 09:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Well, since you're a native English speaker and you attend University here in an English country, you'll obviously be able to provide us with one or two examples of the English words that demonstrate that the " Ľ ", " í ", " š ", " ň ", " ý ", are part of the English language, as OpenFuture and 10 others are currently arguing in the RM for Ľubomír Višňovský.  And then once you provide those basic examples the whole issue will be resolved, because you'll have demonstrated that these are the letters and symbols that make up the English alphabet.  I'll look for your post and I do hope you'll include the OED or MW link because I'd certain love the opportunity to study and learn these words.  Cheers — Who R you? Talk 12:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@GoodDay: It astonishes me how many times I need to repeat this, yet it still doesn't seem to sink in: "Bjorn Borg" is not English. It's misspelled Swedish. Björn Borg is Swedish, and his name is Swedish and it means "Bear Fortress". If you are to purge English Wikipedia of foreign languages, you need to change all references to Björn Borg on English Wikipedia into "Bear Fortress", or delete all mentions of the man. That standpoint is of course patently absurd, so your requirement to let the Swedish Wikipedia handle the Swedish language and the English Wikipedia handle only English language is on the same level as Swedes adding random, confusing and misleading diacritics to all English names. Stop this absurd silliness, it's not getting you anywhere and is just a wast of time.
The English Wikipedia will have to handle the fact that non-English people exists, and that they have non-English names. I also have a hard time believing that I had to say that. This discussion is just getting more absurd by the day. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yet another indication of your total lack of comprehension of English society and North American culture.  Motorhead is a heavy metal rock band, as such, their goal is to, as much as possible stur up shit and piss people off, it's a heavy metal thing.  Our heavy metal bands wear devil's horns because OUR SOCIETY DOESN'T, our heavy metal bands bite the heads off of doves because WE DON'T DO THAT IN OUR SOCIETY, our heavy metal rock bands dress up in unbelievable outfits because NO ONE ELSE IN OUR SOCIETY EVER WOULD, our heavy metal rock bands use umlauts because OUR FUCKING LANGUAGE DOESN'T.  Rather that coming up with trademarks, which are not words (unless you'd care to provide the link to dictionary entry for Motörhead).  Try going to the dictionary, the English big book of words, and look up all the words with the umlauts, and when you see "Führer", look in the column next to the word where it says English spelling: "Fuehrer" and then look up "Götterdämmerung" and look at the words that say English spelling: "Goetterdaemmerung", and then look up "Café" and see where is says Alternate spelling of "Cafe" and then look up "Façade" and read the part where it says See also "Facade" and then begin to get it through your head that foreign languages don't tell the English people how to spell things, English people decide how they want to spell words that they take from foreign languages.  And then go through the dictionary and come up with your list of words that use an umlaut where the word isn't just the untranslated non-English and then come up with a list of words in the English dictionary that use Slavic diacritics, like the caron, or the acute accent over the "y" or that replace the dot in the "i" with and acute accent or and accent grave or the words in the English dictionary that have an acute accent over the "c" and all the other Slavic letter that you are arguing in RMs are used in English.  It's like trying to explain to a four-year-old why pink elephants can't fly. — Who R you? Talk 12:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This thread has moved a long way from the discussion of whether the project page should be deleted. That's the question here; we are not attempting to resolve the diacritics debate in this discussion. PS: User:Who R you? could you cut out the shit, piss and fuck? It doesn't help your case in the slightest but does make the atmosphere here less pleasant. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 12:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reality check: Just because others who you disagree with make points by pointing out what real-life English reference works do doesn't mean it's a good strategy to make up such arguments out of thin air. The problem with that is that it's too easy for others to prove that you are simply totally wrong. The following are all entries from the online version of the Oxford English Dictionary
führer
(also fuehrer) 'noun' a tyrannical leader
Götterdämmerung
(in Germanic mythology) the downfall of the gods
cafe
(also café) noun [...]
facade
(also façade) noun [...]
If you enter "fuehrer" into the search form you are directed to the "führer" entry with "(also fuehrer)". If you enter "goetterdaemmerung", you are asked: "Did you mean götterdämmerung?" Also note how the word führer has advanced further on its path to full naturalisation than the word Götterdämmerung. Both words are capitalised in German. While Götterdämmerung is still capitalised in English according to the OED and, according to the OED, cannot be spelled with the usual ö->oe, ä->ae replacements, führer is already spelled with a small initial even though it retains the umlaut, and the usual ü->ue is apparently more standard for this word. The simplistic "just drop the silly foreignness" spellings "fuhrer" and "gotterdammerung" are just wrong in both cases. As to the spellings "café" and "façade", they are treated in precisely the same way as the spelling "fuehrer".
Merriam-Webster's online dictionary gives basically the same results, except that for that dictionary "café", not "cafe", is the preferred spelling.
These things are in flux, and different dictionaries treat all these words differently based on where they are based, their main market, editorial principles, how old they are, and various accidents. Only one thing is sure, and is stated explicitly in a high-quality reliable source (the Oxford Companion to the English Language): The idea that English doesn't use diacritics is a misconception. English uses them today in imported words from various foreign languages, and it used to use them as a trema in words such as coöperation. Hans Adler 12:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously I made a minor mistake in failing to properly review every point of my source for my comments.  I will be sure to future to thoroughly double-check independent sources should I ever again be provided with a claim of fact from Hans Adler; such as the implied standard English spelling of "Führer"/"Fuehrer" and the theretofore unheard of "Götterdämmerung"/"Goetterdaemmerung".  A review of two of my earlier posts to Hans had explained why the common English spelling is "Führer" and had briefly mentioned "café" and "façade".  For example, should I receive a claim from Hans Adler that if one uses OED online to look up “ the spellings "café" and "façade", they are treated in precisely the same way as the spelling "fuehrer".”; (that immediately following an accurate statement that searching "fuehrer" returns the foreign spelling "führer", then I will be sure to verify the results of that unreliable source, and I will look up café on OED online and look up façade on OED online so that I can be fully cognisant of the fact that those entries return "cafe  Pronunciation: /ˈkafeɪ, ˈkafi/ (also café)" and "facade  Pronunciation: /fəˈsɑːd/ (also façade)" respectively.
    But generally, as a rule in future, I will simply take all information from that source with a grain of salt.  And in order to have accurate knowledge on the subject, I'll look up cafe and café as well as facade and façade on Princeton University's WordNet 3.1 on-line dictionary as a sort of tie-breaker on the issue.     — Who R you? Talk 06:34, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for providing the OED links (I wasn't sure if they would work outside my university) and the WordNet links. Is there any particular reason why you didn't also link to the OED's führer and Götterdämmerung entries?
    As to Princeton WordNet, that has precisely the kind of technical limitations which lead many other reliable sources to drop diacritics. When you enter "café" in the search form, you get the following: "Sorry, your search can only contain letters, numbers, spaces, hyphens, periods, slashes, and/or apostrophes." Of course, é and ç are letters, but outdated technologies can't deal with them, so they have to be replaced by e and c. Wikipedia is not operating under this constraint, so we undo this where appropriate. Besides, WordNet is not meant to be used as a general-purpose dictionary. It is a database of connections between words, which is why it has dropped many of the most common words (of, an, the, and, about, above, because, ...) and does not even contain relatively obscure words such as Götterdämmerung and führer. There is no way you can use this as a tie-breaker on whether to use diacritics for these words. The mere concept of a tie-breaker doesn't make sense for your original claim anyway. You claimed that English words never contain diacritics. To refute this, it is perfectly sufficient and satisfactory that the online OED accepts the diacritic spellings of 3 of your 4 example words as correct (in one case as a variant spelling, in one case as the preferred spelling, and in one case as the only spelling). Hans Adler 08:43, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I didn't provide the links because I had instead identified an occasion where you had made an accurate statement.  Re: Princeton, I take it that they don't consider any English to contain diacritics; I take it you think that for their latest (2006+) version, they hadn't heard of Unicode; since neither of us has a source, I'd say the point is moot.  As for your example of where Oxford inexplicably lists a foreign language word in the English dictionary, their inclusion of the German proper noun Götterdämmerung Origin: German, literally 'twilight of the gods', popularized by Wagner's use of the word as the title of the last opera of the Ring cycle only leads me to question the security and reliability of their on-line dictionary; personally, I don't generally consider German proper nouns to represent part of the English language. — Who R you? Talk 03:21, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "I take it you think that for their latest (2006+) version, they hadn't heard of Unicode". -- Wrong. I think that WordNet has two purposes ("The purpose is twofold: to produce a combination of dictionary and thesaurus that is more intuitively usable, and to support automatic text analysis and artificial intelligence applications."), that for the first purpose they consider dropping all diacritics to be acceptable because Americans tend to be very sloppy about this anyway, and for the second purpose it's a vast simplification for the various (often small) text analysis projects when they needn't care about different forms of encoding. Besides, we don't know whether the current version can handle Unicode. We just know that the huge database hasn't been updated to make use of it.
  • "I don't generally consider German proper nouns to represent part of the English language". -- Yes, it has become pretty clear by now that you have a lot of misconceptions about the English language and no interest in having them corrected. In this particular case, the word actually seems to be quite fashionable in English. I have occasionally seen it in contexts where nobody would dream of using it in German.
  • "[...] only leads me to question the security and reliability of their on-line dictionary" -- If you don't trust the OED's online offering, why don't you try Merriam-Webster's on your four test words? I have done so, and I can promise you that you will like the result even less. Hans Adler 13:20, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • ROFL, now Who R U claims that Motörhead uses umlauts not because they thought they were cool, but to intentionally irate and "stir up shit". Hah! That's a pretty lame claim. It also goes completely against the facts of the matter. No-one added metal umlauts to "piss people off" (the number of people getting pissed off by umlauts are probably very close to three), but to make it look wagnerian/germanic/tough. As mentioned, this debate is just getting sillier and sillier with arguments for stripping the diacritics getting more and more desperate. The argument that is somehow is hard for people that only speak English to mentally ignore the diacritics is equally nonsense. In fact it is the other way around, it's hard for me as a Swedish person to ignore the diacritics that exist in Swedish. As such, I tend to mispronounce Blue Öyster Cult (and coöperate), even though I know that the diaeresis doesn't mean that I should pronounce it "Euh" as Ö is pronounced in Swedish. Hence it's rather harder for us multi-lingual people than those who only speak English, who simply do not know that the pronunciation should change, and hence simply ignores them, usually from ignorance assuming they are irrelevant. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, that's right OpenFuture, you obviously fully understand that we 80s head-bangers were contemplating the Wagnerian look of the name and viewed the losers of WWII as our tough role models.  It couldn't have been that selecting a foreign, non-English symbol, the umlaut, symbol of our parents enemies during the war, what they fought, killed, and died to destroy, that we thought that it would piss them off that the heavy metal that we blared contained a symbol that represented that which they at one time despised.  No, you're right of course; we teenagers were contemplating the Wagnerian influence and wanted to follow in the footsteps of those tough losers that surrendered.  You obviously understand North American culture perfectly from over their in Sweden.  You use the right expression for once at least, "Hah!". — Who R you? Talk 06:34, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Firstly, this is mostly the 70's and lastly, I don't have to understand what they were contemplating, since I have their own words for it. Reasonably *they* knew what they were thinking much better than you or I do. And unless you were in Mötley Crue, Mötorhead or Blue Öyster Cult, "we" is inappropriate. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Motorhead – started '75, became popular in North America in the '80s, when I was one of the "we" head-bangers (never expected that my statement could realistically be taken as an implication of being in the band); I explained the difference between trademarks and words in another post.  And regardless, bands, of any caliber, are not who we English typically look to for determination of our spelling and language. — Who R you? Talk 02:51, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OpenFuture (and anyone tempted to reply here) - please can we leave this subthread here and not extend it further? This page is to discuss whether or not the project page should be deleted, nothing more. It's not the place to continue the diacritic debate. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 13:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hans, I pretty much agree with all your arguments above. Trouble is, this is not a page for resolving the diacritics debate. It's about should a specific project page be deleted. Could you, or anyone tempted to reply to your comment above, stop this interesting discussion here and can we get back to the MfD discussion? Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 12:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I must say that this is a pretty novel, very wiki approach.  Having already decided and rendered your opinion, you wait two days while a good 100 off topic comments are made until two sets of wild claims are made; then, when some sort of support for those claims is demanded, by those who are forced to defend themselves against vague accusations, which the people who oppose our pro-policy view state they find suspect, you, having already decided against the defence, restate your bias, and then appoint yourself as judge to mediate the conversations and direct that responses be limited to... then you refuse to identify as to what they should be limited to other than anything else the defence would like to say for itself.
    It begins to become hard to believe that the Wikipedia servers are situated in North America, as one might expect that they might simply explode from such totalitarian, socialistic attitudes; spontaneously combusting merely from being resident in the birth country of democracy while such offensive attitudes and abuses of the basic concepts of justice and reason are perpetrated; all in public no less.  Many of the attitudes would appear to be more approriate for servers 120 miles south-east in communist Cuba or a similarly socially corrupt, justice challenged, tyrannical bastion of repression and corruption. — Who R you? Talk 06:34, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for having responded to this silliness. Maybe I should react in the spirit of WP:DFTT instead. But the problem is that the anti-precision warriors are spreading the dispute all over the encyclopedia, repeating their faulty arguments (which they must know are faulty because I and others keep refuting them with posts similar to the one above) ever and ever again. Unfortunately some of these arguments look reasonable unless you know a bit about how language works or dig a bit deeper, and they are also attractive for ideological reasons to a certain type of educated editor who should really know better. Therefore not contradicting the Pied Piper wherever he goes may lead to more disruption in the long run. Hans Adler 12:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course I provide diffs of (almost all) statements that I attribute to others; Hans makes accusations about things happening all over the encyclopedia.  I guess it starts to come down to whose claims you believe, once you start checking the evidence that is presented to you, and which statements you recognize can't be trusted because other claims have already been disproved.  But then it really depends if you consider it witty or juvenile to opt to call somebody names with a link rather than providing proof with one. — Who R you? Talk 06:34, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) If you have any questions that you don't think I've commented on then please ask away and I'll try to answer them.  But the fact is that I mostly seem to be seeing more posts from the 'pro-diacritic' editors still arguing their case so its hard not to respond when I'm the only one admonished for going off track, if I have.  I'll be happy to try to answer your questions or explain more specifically what you'd like to know, if you'd care to ask, when I log in again; but for now I've been, along with posting here, reviewing (and a couple comments) at the RM discussions in order to try to present some facts.  Other than that, I've explained what the purpose of the Project is, you're able to review all the posts in the last two weeks since the first page was first started and you can see that the only argument has ever been to follow policy which is follow the RS.  And if you'd care to look you can look at the past RMs and see that is not what has been happening.  I'm not sure what more argument I can provide to assist you to see what you are currently unable to see.  So you'll have some time to think of any questions then later today I'll take some time to try to provide answers. — Who R you? Talk 13:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. And I'll read Hans' post at that time as well.
You've made your position very clear and I personally have no further questions that would affect my view on whether or not the project page should be deleted. If you (or anyone else) has further contributions on that topic let's hear them. But let's not re-hash the diacritics debate here. As you'll see, at the moment I'm trying to ask every contributor (not just you) to stick to the limited task of the MfD discussion. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 13:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) @Jethrobot: Since you define following the RS as a POV; and seeing as you're a University man, given that you say "… gone out of its way to enforce a particular view of English language convention", and given that I've listed the relevant sections of policy up above, how about you use your powerful insight, and obviously much better grasp of the English language, to explain it to me.  Please, it shouldn't be that difficult to go through 10 or 12 sentences and list the words that are contained in the policy and then provide a clearer explanation, since according to you there is another POV, and presumably another way to interpret the words, please list the words and then provide the alternate interpretation of them.  I'm particularly interested in the interpretation that says, where the English RS says do not use diacritics, WP editors should vote to arrive at a consensus of what they think the RS should have said and then should use that.  I'll be looking forward to reading something clear and specific like that when I sign back on.  Thx — Who R you? Talk 12:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Jethrobot: please could I ask you not to respond to this here? User:Who R you?, sorry to cut across you but your question above is not relevant to the discussion about whether or not the project page should be deleted. It is of course a relevant question in the diacritics debate but that's not what this page is here to resolve. Can we all stay on track and just discuss the MfD here? Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 13:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • And those centralized debates have taken place, many times, and they have never had consensus to change existing policy and start adding diacritics where the preponderance of English RS do not use them.  So instead of having discussions to change policy, groups of editors (who have no activity on the article) begin RMs so now the same debates occur in relative privacy, on the individual article talk pages, these RMs are listed in projects like Project:Hockey, Project:Czech Republic, Project:Croatia and Project:Slovakia; and suddenly groups of editors who identify themselves as being from the Czech Republic, Croatia, Slovakia, and/or Poland (all countries where names commonly use diacritics), or editors who are members of WP:Hockey, appear at these RMs to support ignoring RS and moving the articles to diacritic forms.  You just don't seem to recognize that the 'pro' side has realized that the consensus of editors doesn't support the use of diacritics, so why bother with consensus or policy when you can hijack an RM.  Take the current RM going on at Ľubomír Višňovský; Google reports 74 news sources and 115 books spell the name as "Lubomir Visnovsky", not one spells it the way Wikipedia does, 11 editors currently oppose the move to match RS; they are:
      • HandsomeFella (talk · contribs)
      • Krm500 - Member of WP:Sweden (don't know if that means they're Swedish), of WP:Hockey and, according to the edit history creator of the WP:Hockey participants page in 2006;
      • Darwinek - Presumably Polish from the Polish babel tag and member of WikiProject:Czech Republic;
      • Sporti - Member of WP:Hockey
      • Prolog - According to their user page, an editor and administrator from Finland
      • DJSasso - Canadian, an en.WP admin, simple.WP 'crat, and, according to the user box, a member of the "Ice Hockey Mafia Gang"
      • Stefan2 - User doesn't say much about themself on en.WP; their primary WP user id appears to be Stefan2 on Swedish Wikipedia
      • Nurmsook - a Canadian member of WP:Hockey
      • bobrayner - Doesn't provide much relevant information other than the fact that they're a wiki ambassador.
      • OpenFuture - The only relevant information is that they appear to be Swedish and to have participated in one past diacritics discussion.
      • Ohconfuscius - past identified herself as from Hong Kong, (10 yrs [if memory serves]) in Britian, and currently living in the Czech Republic; she most recently (tongue in cheek) identifies as from the United Nations; responsible for having introduced a diacritics proposal in the summer of 2011 which failed to gain consensus support.

    Despite all assumptions, I have no problem with non-English country editors, or ESL editors, or non-English or ESL people, on the contrary I try to be a very unbiased person; but, I do have a problem with it when a group of non-native English speakers resident in non-English countries insist that they know the standards, customs, and practices regarding the English language and that they are going to dictate them to the rest of us because they know the truth and they know what is right; and to have all these people involved, not in a diacritics discussion at the WP:EN talk page where an RfC has drawn opinions from all editors, but on a single article talk page RM discussion, insisting that an article (which doesn't have RS for anything other than the English [sans diacritic] spelling) should contain diacritics, while claiming that the fact that other articles names contain diacritics (as a result of RM discussions such as this one where gangs of editors decent upon the RM discussion) proves that there is no consensus, despite the fact that the only thing that hasn't had consensus has been the proposals to adopt the use of diacritics.  It is a total subversion of the process.  And the fact is that a small group of editors, in favour of the English spelling of the article titles as determined by the preponderance of English RS, being argued as representing a violation of Wiki policy, is quite simply offensive.  If there is an argument to be made, it is that we are compelled to IAR in order to combat other groups WP:GAMING the system to work around the existing consensus of en.WP editors as a whole, and to work around their inability to convince editors to change existing policy.
The reality is that the system has been being gamed by the pro-diacritic side of the argument for a long time.  WP:IAR trumps some vague they're daring to talk in the open in support of the English language and existing consensus accusations and double-speak from those (majority non-native English speakers) that would dictate how English is spelled and what letters the English alphabet should be expanded to include (or, as they would argue, has previously been expanded to include).  Those of us who dare to speak our minds in support of our own language are repeatedly attacked (Such as being called xenophobic at Talk:Marek Zidlicky, and, of course, several times in this discussion) but since those of us who have the audacity to stand up for what we know to be right, and who dare to read simple English policy statements as they are written, are not children who must scream NPA!, NPA! everytime someone calls us a bad word, we just the take the snide comments, which we would be repeatedly accused for, were we to act equally.
The statements of policy are listed here in clear words and the historical proof that our actions have always reflected a goal of following the sources are pretty clearly documented here.  If you need more proof you need only review some of the RM discussions, present and past, to know that our arguments have always been against Wikipedians (in many case ESL editors) deciding what the most common English names for things are when directly opposed by the English sources.
If, in the alternative, you're going to argue that it doesn't matter what consensus and written policy state, that the pro-diacritic groups have been effective and successful in achieving their fait accompli conversion to non-English (as I would describe it) and, as some of the pro side have argued, that the policies do not prescribe action merely describe reality, then reality is that numerous voting-block groups already exist throughout Wikipedia, they are particularly and consistently active in all discussions involving diacritics, and they heavily and unevenly and unrepresentatively of consensus influence the admin's decisions in diacritics involved RM discussions; and, while I've already made it clear that the purpose of the WikiProject is to seek to ensure that names on en.WP reflect the most common English spelling (which is what our readers are looking for and expect to find), that since it is continually implied (and occasionally outright stated) where I am called a liar, I must then simply argue that WP:CANVASS is descriptive, not prescriptive, that it is common wiki practice for corruption, unfair manipulation of consensus opinion, unrepresentative responses in discussions, and for other groups to secretly conduct their affairs in the shadows through email and IRC, and it is, in fact, preferable that any communications which are going to take place continue to be made in the light of day, which is something I personally have always insisted upon.  If you're going to disband the WikiProject, how long will you wait before beginning to decide that none of the former members of that dead project are permitted to state an opinion in the same RM, because otherwise it'd look pretty foolish to have gone to all this trouble to take an action which has no effect except to ensure that no one has any idea what is going on; which will simply create an environment of additional accusations beyond those that already occur on a continual basis.  Since history is often humanity's best possible teacher, I guess I must ask: What happened in the past when Solidarity stood against other Communist regimes? — Who R you? Talk 06:34, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Communists..? Seriously? --Conti|✉ 15:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly wouldn't call democratic an environment where a small group of elite Admins, appoint each other, are scrutinized only by their own, lobby to recruit friends to cement their influence, then decide their interpretation of consensus and implement their agenda unless some other faction wishes to disrupt the harmony.  The most apropos historical correlation I find on those aspects is the old USSR.  I support efforts to work cooperatively to freely provide information and knowledge to all; don't believe controlling knowledge should be about profit; but there's nothing democratic about WP's processes. — Who R you? Talk 08:15, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If you are not opposed to the principle of this Wikiproject, then why would you want to delete it? To state your assumption that this project, which is in its infancy, will be used for canvassing and battleground mentality is contrary to the core guideline of Assume Good Faith. Give the project a chance before you condemn it. Dolovis (talk) 05:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • To piggyback on that: When it's gone as horribly wrong as this one has, it's best to kill it and start over rather than try to fix. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:05, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • AGF is not a suicide pact. One is expected only to make the assumption of good faith when they lack evidence to the contrary. There are numerous comments in this very MFD, nevermind the project's own pages, which I highlighted in the nomination, that reveal the true intention of this project. Resolute 16:59, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Nurmsook, that's because you're part of the nefarious WP:HOCKEY. Because it's one of the few places that has cobbled together a semi-workable compromise on the use of diacritics, its members are apparently "pro-diacritic" by default.  Cjmclark (Contact) 21:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The project is a collaborative counter to countless moves to diacritics made on the unreferenced whims of an editor; when one believes that the RS should make the determinations, it's impossible not to look at an article, verify the references and check the RS, see that the RS don't support diacritics, and then ignore what you know to be wrong.  An RM currently exists for Dominik Halmosi and 9 others to be moved to diacritics (in a situation where there is either little or no RS and the notability of all of them, some even in their home countries, seems questionable), and a single RM exists for Ľubomír Višňovský where 11 people oppose the move even though there are 74 news and 115 book sources that spell it without diacritics and not one English source that spells it with.
The moves are happening regardless, they're just happening generally without RMs and they're all going towards diacritics (except for the few that mostly members of this WikiProject were involved in).  I said in the RfC; personally I wish consensus were simply no diacritic related moves unless documentation of RS is provided, in which case the move is to whatever the RS says.  I guess some are either in this for the fun of arguing or they realize that RS don't support most of their moves. — Who R you? Talk 07:59, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow! What a misleading post that is. Shame on you! According to WP:CONSENSUS, “All editors are expected to make a good-faith effort to reach a consensus that is aligned with Wikipedia's principles.” The #1 bullet point on the WikiProject is Ensure that article names conform to English Wikipedia policies. One of the guidelines of that is to just follow most-reliable, English-language RSs. In order to (attempt) to justify deleting the WikiProject, you linked to Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit and append “aside” to it in a manner that *mentions* vandalism but slightly distances itself from that slander.

    This WikiProject’s stated goals are clear and have nothing whatsoever to do with “vandalism”. What is exceedingly clear is the stated goals of the WikiProject run counter to a sports cabal that ran off to make some of Wikipedia’s sports-related articles inconsistent with reliable sources like Sports Illustrated and The New York Times and the National Hockey League. We’ve had instances where Wikipedia articles were flouting how 99.9% of the RSs spelled the player’s name. The cabal fears discussion that exposes how they flout our core principles.

    So I’ll meet your hocus pocus misleading link regarding vandalism and raise you with real link that speaks straight to the heart of the matter. Per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS: Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. And, also per Wikipedia’s core principles, a consensus is not decided by nose counts, but by the strength, weight, and consistency of arguments that are best aligned with Wikipedia’s core principles. It will take a closing admin with some brass and patience to close this cabal-fest.

    I also hope the closing admin reads the shear nonsense of the “Delete” !votes here. It’s clear that all they fear is seeing a discussion venue where wikipedians wake up to what has been going on with some of our articles and discuss what to do about those articles that are not in conformance with Wikipedia’s core policies; namely, that Wikipedia shall follow the practices of the RSs. That is a message point that flies in the face of what a very small group of like-minded fans of European hockey fans are trying to do (have Wikipedia march off and do its own thing rather than follow the RSs).

    And next time, Nyttend, you engage in a personal attack on other editors by insinuating they are vandalizing Wikipedia, be enough of a man to just say what is on your mind in plain-speak rather than attempt to buttress an argument with a cryptic and slanderous link that relies on that old wiki-trick that amounts to “See, I added a link suggesting my post makes sense and is founded in an important core principle (but please don’t go actually read the link)”. It was that ol’ I made it blue so it must be true-stunt. Greg L (talk) 16:08, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


    P.S. Even if a closing admin goes with the nose-count votes and shuts down a WikiProject before we can even see if it can muster a following, the message about what the sports cabal has been doing to Wikipedia has gotten greater exposure. The efforts of User:Who R you?, though he might not see it, did some good to highlight what’s been going on. Greg L (talk) 16:21, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • You're really missing the point, Greg L. Nyttend's comment was hardly a personal attack (refer to some of WRy's comments for an example of that). It was an accurate statement that this WikiProject is intent on providing a single stance on a controversial subject that goes two-ways. Your comment arguing that this pro-dio movement is being pushed by "European hockey fans" is completely inaccurate in is said in more bad faith than Nyttend's comment. No need to get über defensive because someone has stated something accurate as evident by the language and culture of this "WikiProject". And to your last point, the diacritic debate is nothing new and certainly not limited to ice hockey players. If anything, the actions of WRy have showed severe incivility on his part that has resulted in an ANI discussion. – Nurmsook! talk... 16:26, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speaking of asking the closing admin to weigh the value of the !votes, I would make mention of the fact that most keep !votes, including yours GregL, were made basically with the argument of "Keep because I hate diacritics/believe they aren't English". That is a valid opinion in a VP discussion on diacritics, but lacks a policy basis for keeping this project. Those opining on deletion include people who support the use of diacritics, are neutral, and oppose their use. That should tell you something about where the "cabal-fest" lies. Many of the keep !voters have managed only to show why this project is a bad idea. All the reasons for deletion are right here, for everyone to see: WP:BATTLE, WP:CANVASS, WP:POV, WP:POINT. This project is not an attempt at collaboration. It is an effort to overwhelm the opposition to win a "war", in spite of the fact that the community is deeply divided on the use of diacritics. Resolute 17:15, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to mention again the term consistency, as keeping consistency is of crucial importance for an encyclopedic project. We can't split articles in accordance with some abstract G-search result or make an exception for people sporting in North American teams, as it would be inconsistent with the rest of our project. Is a search engine or a profession the determining factor deciding about someone's name? I don't think so. Instead of it, we should find an inspiration in the standard practice of reliable and up-to-date English language reference works. However, most of these arguments have been discussed in detail previously. In any case, the editors active in the Wikiproject English have collaborated in a similar manner before, and they can continue either on-wiki or off-wiki. Their efforts are legitimate and any bans or restrictions can't resolve this situation. Just my opinion. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WikiProjects shouldn't be created or maintained for the sole purpose of POV pushing. Albacore (talk) 17:07, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are turning the whole concept of POV on its head. WP:COMMONNAME, WP:UE, and WP:EN are supposed to be Wikipedia's core principles, not POVs. I know the English language is not for everyone. But that's why Wiki has projects in other languages. Kauffner (talk) 08:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This projects aim is to strip diacritics. That is a POV that does not have consensus. There is no support for that POV in those policies. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kauffner, if you don't understand how the English language and its registers work, then the standard English Wikipedia may not be the right place for you. There is also a Simple English Wikipedia where people may have more patience. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and no encyclopedia written in English drops diacritics on European names (except for US immigrants), dropping diacritics on European names is a violation of WP:USEENGLISH. There is no place for a WikiProject whose express purpose is to violate WP:USEENGLISH. One that tries to get it changed directly in order to push a xenophobic and anti-intellectual POV -- maybe. But a WikiProject specifically for breaking a guideline? No. Hans Adler 09:44, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The standard written English language does not contain any Eastern European symbols. Some borrowed words and names have Spanish, French, or German accent characters (e.g. El Niño, François, Führer, Götterdämmerung) but I am aware of none in reliable English-language sources that use the far more complicated and aesthetically displeasing Eastern European counterparts. It's Lech Walesa, not Lech Wałęsa, in English. Those Eastern European things look like dirt-lines to English speakers. (Even though Japanese diacritics are generally more aesthetically pleasing, they are still usually dropped in English sources - e.g. Hokkaido, wagyu). *** Crotalus *** 16:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, wait, wait.. this is about how pretty the letters look to you? Seriously? It's not about right or wrong, not about who has the better arguments, but what is more pleasing to the eye? I honestly don't even know what to respond to that.. --Conti|✉
I suggest that you familiarize yourself with the practices of English-language reference works, such as Britannica and Columbia (Wałęsa). Oxford World Encyclopedia and Webster's Collegiate tried to get it right too ("Wałesa"). Prolog (talk) 17:50, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So now Britannica is the authority. This is rich. Then we need to get the Greek letters out of the article titles so that π can be "pi". Kauffner (talk) 11:53, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for acknowledging that I am right by changing the topic. If you want to have a conversation on how to interpret our policies and guidelines with common sense in disputes that were not foreseen when they were drafted, then we can have that elsewhere. Hans Adler 13:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


More