Hawaii Project‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Hawaii, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hawaii on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HawaiiWikipedia:WikiProject HawaiiTemplate:WikiProject HawaiiHawaii articles Project This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Manual of Style

This page falls within the scope of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, a collaborative effort focused on enhancing clarity, consistency, and cohesiveness across the Manual of Style (MoS) guidelines by addressing inconsistencies, refining language, and integrating guidance effectively.Manual of StyleWikipedia:WikiProject Manual of StyleTemplate:WikiProject Manual of StyleManual of Style articles This page falls under the contentious topics procedure and is given additional attention, as it closely associated to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style, and the article titles policy. Both areas are known to be subjects of debate. Contributors are urged to review the awareness criteria carefully and exercise caution when editing. For information on Wikipedia's approach to the establishment of new policies and guidelines, refer to WP:PROPOSAL. Additionally, guidance on how to contribute to the development and revision of Wikipedia policies of Wikipedia's policy and guideline documents is available, offering valuable insights and recommendations.

There is currently some disagreement over how articles on Hawaiian royals should be named. Perhaps we should develop specific conventions on how to title such articles.

For example, a user recently suggested that Victoria Kaiulani be renamed to either Princess Victoria Kaiulani, Victoria Kaiulani, Princess of Hawaii, or Princess Victoria Kaiulani of Hawaii. I have no objection to any of the three names at this present moment (except maybe that the "of Hawaii" part is redundant, as Hawaiian names are unique to Hawaii unlike European names), as long as there is a set standard and that all articles about Hawaiian royals follow the same conventions.

Further reference

• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) —

Any input? Mahalo nui loa, 青い(Aoi) 04:12, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I have seen both the first two used in hawaii so I am somewhat unsure of the correct choice. However, I do find the "of hawaii" to be redundant. My vote, tentatively, is for The first form with adequate documentation That they are hawaiian nobility. Avriette 05:27, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Concluded from the earlier discussions, the consensus now exists that Hawaiian royalty does not need "of Hawaii", basically the first name of the person suffices. This seems a good convention. I agree to it. 217.140.193.123 09:20, 10 July 2005 (UTC) Moreover, titles are unnecessary - even in European naming conventions, kings and suchlike do not have their royal titles in the heading of the article (and this despite there being much royalty nuts and protocol-minded people in Europe). My opinion is to keep such titles away from Hawaiian headings too, if not absolutely necessary for disambiguation purposes. 217.140.193.123 14:44, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the first two are acceptable (i.e., no "of Hawaii"), although my preference would be for "Princess Kaiulani" as I consider that the most widely used locally and probably beyond (my wife teaches at Kaiulani School), but I am surprised to "hear" that it is not common practice to include the title when refering to European royalty. Outside of their own country, no one would really know who you were talking about if you just said "Philip did such and such today..."; the royalty title is very much a part of the distinction of the person. And, it would seem if you are going for consistency, the Princess should really be under Princess Kaiulani Cleghorn - Marshman 17:58, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that. I never really thought about it until now, but it does seem that everyone refers to the princess as "Princess Kaiulani," i.e. the Princess Kaiulani Hotel. 青い(Aoi) 04:11, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, "Princess" could be left from the heading. However, if all you feel that it is absolutely necessary, I will acquiesce. (If naming so, then there will be a bunch of articles which begin "Prince/ss" and clog into a bunch in an alphabetical list - in encyclopedias, articles should be found by not knowing whether the subject was a princess or an oyster or whatever - such clogging to "princess" works thus a little against the encyclopedic purpose)
re Philip, as he has a peerage title, Duke of Edinburgh, it is used here in the heading - "Philip, Duke of Edinburgh". 217.140.193.123 07:28, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, how would you base the desire to have "Cleghorn" there? When dealing with royalty, we tend to avoid surnames, as royalty traditionally often did not have such and most usually did not use one (even if some royal had such). 217.140.193.123 21:38, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I must ask whether "Victoria" is a part of her widely known name??? Or, is it just some addition from birth registers or from too-religious minded archivists who want to remember all christian names... If it is not well known, it should probably be dropped. (After all, Kalakaua, Lunalilo etc are without such. 217.140.193.123 21:38, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I wish for simplicity, and also for uphelding the name with which the object is best known. When those are determined, the consistency should be built upon such considerations. 217.140.193.123 21:38, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please kindly all visit Wikipedia:Requested moves, where Liliuokalani and Lunalilo have now been triggered towards move, as initiated by a certain Gryffindor. 217.140.193.123 17:31, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest to either use the form Title+name+Hawaii, or Title+name. There are plenty of other precedents for such a format. Gryffindor 17:03, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When the ʻokina Should be Used

Reopening the Debate

I'd like to reopen discussion of the use of the 'okina in Hawai'ian language words and in, crucially, words derived from the Hawai'ian language, like...the word "Hawai'ian". I don't understand some English speakers' antipathy to this sound...in English, we pronounce it before every single word that supposedly begins with a vowel, like "it" and "every"; these words actually don't begin with a vowel, they begin with the exact same glottal stop sound that's used in the Hawai'ian language. In English, we even use the glottal stop within morphemes when we say something like "uh oh". Why do we instinctively use this sound in our own language, but balk at using it in words derived from another language? Sure it's phonemic in the Hawai'ian language but not in English; however, we still do say it all the time.

University of Hawai'i Manual of Style

According to this Wikipedia style guide, the adjective "Hawai'ian" should not have a 'okina in it because it has an English suffixed attached. But the English suffix is attached to a Hawai'ian word. Even the Wikipedia style manual tolerates the use of the 'okina in the word "Hawai'i", and indeed the use of the 'okina in the root noun Hawai'i is advocated by the University of Hawai'i's Manual of Style.^[1] Is it not illogically incongruous to use the 'okina in the root noun, but delete it in adjective form, especially when we have the exact same sound in the English language, and the use of the symbol is being advocated by the relevant state's leading institution of higher education? Does it not look silly to allow "Hawai'i" in a text, but then soon thereafter require the use only of "Hawaiian"? Allowing immediately obvious inconsistencies should not be a desirable outcome from a manual of style.

Even the University of Hawai'i's Manual of Style, though, uses "Hawaiian" and not "Hawai'ian". However, other parts of the academic community use "Hawai'ian" even if the subject is not connected with indigenous Hawai'ian culture or language. There's a "Hawai'ian Volcanic Eruption",^[2][3] "Hawai'ian waters",^[4] and "Hawai'ian" beach sands^[5]. On the other hand, there is the "Hawaiian Journal of Law and Politics",^[6] and the "Hawaiian Journal of History"^[7]. There's a CV of a scholar who calls this the "Hawai'ian Journal of History", though.^[8] There are plenty of non-academic sites that use the word "Hawai'ian".^[9][10] One Hawai'ian science site apologizes for not consistently using the 'okina when it should be used.^[11]

Grammar

The rule that a foreign-language word loses its foreign-looking characteristics when an English grammatical suffix is attached, but can keep those foreign-looking characteristics when used unmodified in English, is new to me. I'm wondering: Are those who advocate for such a rule able to provide examples of other situations in which this rule manifests itself? Why is it necessary that the English adjectival suffix "-an" requires the 'okina to disappear from a root word, like "Hawai'i", to which it's attached? Let's expand this unusual rule to another situation: that of the Coast Tsimshian language lects. One specific lect is called "Sm'álgyax" - This word has both a phonemic glottal stop represented by the same sort of symbol as that used for the Hawai'ian language, and it has an accent mark on a vowel. So, when writing in English about this tribe and their language, which should we write?

So, which variants should we use in English? Why not keep it simple, not change foreign language words whether as standalone words or as roots, and just add English suffixes, or allow the opposite, not allowing any diacritics or "strange" uses of apostrophes and other symbols, and using only letters that are standardly used for the English language itself? Either option should be fine - The only thing that should be required is consistency. Or maybe those who advocate allowing "Hawai'i" but not allowing "Hawai'ian" should write to the Sm'álgyax people, telling them that the proper use of this word should be "Sm'álgyax" when used alone, but only "Smalgyaxan" or "Smalgyaxian" when an English suffix is added.

Inconsistent Use in Early Hawai'ian Language Publications

Some commentators cite the fact that some early writers in the Hawai'ian language didn't use the 'okina. In the late 19th century, the standardization of many European languages' writing systems was a new trend, and even today the writing systems of many world languages are still in disarray. Knowledge of phonetics, phonology, and about how to design the most appropriate alphabet for a language was very much in its infancy, if not pre-infancy, in the 19th century and early 20th century. Furthermore, many Westerners instinctively modeled their linguistic work for other languages upon European languages, which don't have phonemic glottal stops like the Hawai'ian language and an independent alphabetic letter for them, and unfortunately probably some non-Westerners may have wanted to model their alphabet on those of European languages, which again don't use a separate character for the glottal stop sound. Finally, printers innovated all sorts of quirks such as putting two spaces after a period, because putting one space caused the printing mechanism to hit too hard and break the typesetting-piece used for the period. Can you imagine laboriously type-setting, and at the same time coming to the printing process with a bias towards European languages and a primitive understanding of phonetics, phonology, and proper alphabets? Of course there was confusion. Of course you would save time and energy by just deleting what would seem to be a superfluous flourish. The fact that some early writing in the Hawai'ian language did not use the 'okina properly if at all should not at all be treated as a rational precedent, let alone a dispositive factor.

Conclusion

Right now Wikipedia's manual of style allows the obvious inconsistency of "Hawai'i" followed by "Hawaiian". There is no good reason to forbid the use of "Hawai'ian". There is only one bad reason: to cater to the continuance of a trend (omitting the 'okina) that also happens not to be universal. To my mind, the best requirement is consistency: An article can choose to use either Hawaii/Hawaiian or Hawai'i/Hawai'ian, but should not mix these up. Dechrwr (talk) 06:25, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proper Coding

I am a "Unicode fan" and have been trying to be typographically and philologically correct, entering ʻokina as ʻ . But now I notice everyone else is still using ‘ , even though of course one would not want software to parse it as a quotation mark. Is there a decision on a "standard" method, and if so what is it?
--IslandGyrl 23:06, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's a written standard on Wikipedia, but this issue has been discussed on Talk:Hawaiian language and Talk:Hawaii. There have been efforts in the past to redo the Hawaii article using ʻ but these efforts have been quickly reverted. I can't remember the exact reasoning for it.

The University of Hawaii at Hilo (home of the Hawaiian Language Center and the only graduate program in Hawaiian in the nation) uses Unicode on its pages [1], and if there were any expert opinion I would follow, it would be them. That said, I think one should read a message by Keola Donaghy (Assistant Professor of Hawaiian Studies at UH-Hilo) posted on Talk:Hawaiian language (at the bottom of the page). 青い(Aoi) 07:50, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What I gather from reading the material cited above is that &#699; is indeed 100% desirable and correct but may not display properly in some (older, pre-Unicode) browsers / fonts. Would there be a way to have MediaWiki, the underlying software, continue to store the source string &#699; in its databases but (provided <nowiki> is not in effect) substitute the string &lsquo; for it during the step that generates the HTML sent to the user? This would solve an identical problem that arises with other uses of the &#699; character, such as in transliterated Arabic.

I see that Diderot just changed all the occurrences of &#699; I inserted in the spam musubi article back to &lsquo; … (sigh) --IslandGyrl 19:21, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can see why it is frustrating. A policy should be written up on this. As for MediaWiki, I'm not a developer, but such a feature can be suggested on MetaWiki or MediaZilla. 青い(Aoi) 01:57, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A word of warning: there are Unicode fonts out there which don't support the 'okina. E.g. I'm using "Arial Unicode", and although Chinese, Japanese, Farsi, etc all show up fine, I get a little box in all the Hawaiian words that include the 'okina. I imagine the same will be true for many unsophisticated users of Wikipedia (i.e. the majority of our readers). So: do you want to be absolutely correct for the specialists, or mostly correct for the average person? Purity has its price... Noel (talk) 04:51, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LSQUO, ‘, works better than ((okina)), ʻ

The 02BB (or whatever it is) character gives bad results in italics, and in the TOC box. By contrast, the LSQUO looks fine in italics, and in the TOC box, as well as in article text. It also looks fine in the edit box. Thus, the lsquo, or ‘, is a better symbol for "okina" than the 02BB.

Let's see if I can demonstrate this. Check out the following two lines.

1. a‘a --- e‘e --- i‘i --- o‘o --- u‘u
2. aʻa --- eʻe --- iʻi --- oʻo --- uʻu

Line 1 has LSQUO, line 2 has 02BB. As everyone can see, LSQUO is correctly centered, midway between its neighboring characters. By contrast, 02BB is too far to the right, creating an incorrect gap between the preceding character and 02BB. Even worse, it crowds so close to the following character that it forms a ligature with it.

Examples with uppercase vowels.

1. A‘A --- E‘E --- I‘I --- O‘O --- U‘U
2. AʻA --- EʻE --- IʻI --- OʻO --- UʻU

In the TOC box, 02BB appears as a rectangle --- incorrect. By contrast, LSQUO has the correct appearance in the TOC box. To see this, check out the TOC box for the subheading for this section. Clearly, LSQUO gives better results in more contexts than 02BB. So LSQUO should be used for the okina symbol. Agent X 23:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to avoid okina's and kahako's

Although full consensus could not be reached on this proposal, of those commenting there was a clear majority of 11 opposed to 4 in favor. Furthermore, many of those opposed felt very strongly that diacritics should be retained, and all of those in favor have not been actively involved in editing Hawaiʻi-related articles other than to remove diacritics. Therefore, the debate is considered resolved in favor of placing okina and kahakō where appropriate for Hawaiian-language words and place names in the text of articles (diacritics in article titles is a somewhat separate issue; see section below). The discussion is archived below. KarlM (talk) 18:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please forgive me if this isn't the right place to place a comment...I'm new to Wikipedia. Anyway, I just wanted to point out the irony of this title "Proposal to avoid okina's and kahako's" - The proposal means to delete apostrophes from Hawai'ian language words, but then the very text of the proposal unnecessarily and incorrectly adds apostrophes to Hawai'ian words. I have never understood this trend to take unusual words like foreign words and acronyms and make them plural by adding an apostrophe in addition to the usual English plural marker, the letter "s". The best form of style is to mark all plurals the same way: just by adding "s". The title should read "Proposal to avoid okinas and kahakos". Dechrwr (talk) 04:45, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With user(s) requesting moves for the articles on Liliuokalani and Lunalilo, something must be done now before we have articles on Hawaiian monarchs all over the place. It would be in everyone's best interests to have a single, written naming convention for Hawaiian monarchs (as one exists now) instead of having an inconsistent string of X and X, King of Hawaii]] and King X of Hawaii. So, I'm requesting that a formal policy be written.

So far, I've seen the following formats being thrown around:

• Common name (e.g. Lunalilo) (also the status quo)
• Common name, King (Queen) of Hawaii (e.g. Lunalilo, King of Hawaii)
• King (Queen) Common name of Hawaii (e.g. King Lunalilo of Hawaii)
• Common name of Hawaii (e.g. Lunalilo of Hawaii)
• Style + Title + cristianname + hawaiianname + of Hawaii (e.g His Majesty King Charles Lunalilo of Hawaii)

If you have an alternative format suggestion, please feel free to add it here.

Please note, however, that this particular discussion is limited to the names of those who actually reigned (i.e. the Kings and Queen Regnants). Later, we can try and tackle the issue of naming consorts and "lesser" royals.

Please debate your hearts out over the above formats. Later on, when it seems like we're pretty much on the same page, we can attempt to form a concensus. If no concensus is reached, then perhaps all pages should just remain at their current locations. Thanks, 青い(Aoi) 01:47, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the infamous Gryffindor (né User:Antares911), whose proposals usually are pompous and full of styles + titles, is desiring something like "His (Her) Majesty King (Queen) Christianname Hawaiianname of Hawaii", and thus I add that option above, too. 217.140.193.123 06:11, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (2005)

Please insert all discussion here. 青い(Aoi) 01:47, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, for starters, I want to give a brief background of this topic. When the articles on Hawaiian monarchs were first created, they followed the format, "X of Hawaii," e.g. Kamehameha I of Hawaii. However, in mid-2004, it was suggested on the Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles) that the "of Hawaii" part of the name be removed, and that the monarch's reigning name be used and the Christian name omitted (e.g. instead of Lydia Liliuokalani, simply Liliuokalani would suffice). The suggestion was adopted as policy with only one person opposing it. [2]

Now, some users want to change the format of the articles to make them more similar to naming conventions used in European monarchies. For example, one user wants to change the format used in Hawaiian royalty articles to the format X, King (or Queen) of Hawaii, or King (or Queen) X of Hawaii.

So far, the following suggestions have been brought up:

1. Common name (e.g. Lunalilo) (also the status quo)
2. Common name, King (Queen) of Hawaii (e.g. Lunalilo, King of Hawaii)
3. King (Queen) Common name of Hawaii (e.g. King Lunalilo of Hawaii)
4. Common name of Hawaii (e.g. Lunalilo of Hawaii)
5. Style + Title + cristianname + hawaiianname + of Hawaii (e.g His Majesty King Charles Lunalilo of Hawaii)
6. King (Queen) Common Name (e.g. King Lunalilo)

I would really like to see the naming convention remain the status quo, using only the common (reigning) name of the monarch. Here is my argument:

• The "of Hawaii" part is simply redundant. The reason why European monarchs include territorial disambiguation in their titles is that there are often multiple rulers from different countries that reign under the same name (i.e. Charles II of France and Charles II of England, Charles IX of Sweden and Charles IX of France). Hawaiian names are unique only to Hawaii, so such disambiguation is unnecessary. In fact, such ambiguation has been seen by some users to be too redundant. There never was and probably never will be a monarch named Kamehameha outside of Hawaii. This eliminates choices 2-5.
• With the exception of Japan, there are no countries in Wikipedia that use titles in the naming of monarchs (and even then, Japan was a special exception because it was determined that the word "Emperor" is actually a part of the monarch's posthumous name). So, I see no reason why titles should be used in Hawaiian articles. For example, even in Europe, Queen Elizabeth II is located at Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, not Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. This eliminates choices 2, 3, and 5.
• Styles (such as "His Majesty") are never used in article titles. This elmiinates choice 5.

For these reasons, I would prefer to see all articles on Hawaiian monarchs remain in their current locations. At the very least, redirects could (and probably should) be created to redirect all the formats above (except maybe the one that includes "His Majesty") to their proper locations. 青い(Aoi) 09:02, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One of the highest forms of respect is to name a person using only the pure reign name of that monarch. Such as Liliuokalani. Using such simple name implies that the person in question is well-known without any additions. (As Liliuokalani actually is.) Very rarely any person is well-known by only one name (surnames are often needed), but several are, such as Napoleon. To accord the same to Hawaiian monarchs signifies the high respect of recognizing the person in question just by her/his one name. All additions are basically cluttering the respect. Pureness is respect, clutter is disrespect. Therefore all additions (be it territorial designation such as "of Hawaii", titulary such as king or queen, a surname, or whatever) are clutter, and should be avoided if not necessary for disambiguation. I support the first alternative (Liliuokalani, Kalakaua, Kamehameha I), and I oppose all the clutter alternatives. Arrigo 09:28, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I fully support to stay with option 1, using only the Hawaiian name. As stated above no ambiguity arises. It fits with general usage. For almost all other celebrities, just the name is used, without adding the profession. −Woodstone 13:30:00, 2005-08-27 (UTC)

I also prefer names, with no titles or honorifics. Zora 15:30, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When reading the discussion on Liliuokalani, there does seem to be controversy by simply using one name. I would support Options 2, 3, 4. This would be similar to formats used on other monarchs listed on Wikipedia. Gryffindor 17:06, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gryffindor, your thinking on this topic is most flawed. Options 2 and 3 will not make these articles consistent with other monarchs on Wikipedia. Option 2 is used only for princely or noble titles (e.g. Charles, Prince of Wales or Prince Carl Philip, Duke of Värmland), while option 3 is used for consorts of reigning monarchs and for some princely titles (e.g. Queen Sofía of Spain or Princess Beatrice of York). Neither are ever used when referring to monarchial titles. Both options go against Western naming conventions, so their use here would be wrong even if we did decide to follow European naming conventions. Option 4 is a possibility, as this is the format used for European monarchs.

Looking at Talk:Liliuokalani, I see two users who are in favor with moving the pages: Gryffindor (formerly Antares911) and Mowens35. Mowens35 favored the move because it followed Wikipedia naming conventions for reigning monarchs. However, he seemed to miss the point that as Hawaii was a non-western monarchy, it is not obligated to follow the naming conventions in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) as noted in exception 1 to the rules monarchial titles. I would have asked Mowens35 to join this conversation, but his User Contributions show that he has been absent from Wikipedia since May 2005 (which is a shame since he was, IMO, a great editor to work with).

On the talk page of Liliuokalani, you note your reason for favoring the move to be that, "just putting it at the current moment is disrespectful" (I assume you meant that just keeping the article at its current location would be disrespectful). First of all, we do not consider "respect" when naming Wikipedia articles as doing so would be POV. Secondly, please try that understand that options 2 and 3 would not show any more respect towards Liliuokalani than its location now. If we renamed the article as option 2, we'd be comparing her title to that of a mere prince or noble. If we renamed the article via option 3, we'd be giving her a location similar to that of a Queen consort, not a Queen regnant. This would be even more disrespectful than keeping her at Liliuokalani. Thirdly, I can't see how leaving Liliuokalani at her current location would be disrespectful anyway, since it's identical to option 4, minus the territorial disambiguation.

Thus, I cannot seem to find this "controversy" that you refer to. With the exception of you, Mowens35 (who is absent without leave), and User:Bhinneka (who is also absent without leave--or is (s)he?), all users so far have indicated that they favor option 1, plain and simple.

So, please explain why you favor options 2, 3, and 4 and why you don't want to accept option 1. 青い(Aoi) 18:31, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am for leaving the titles the way they are with redirects for the other possible names. Having King/Queen/Princess/Prince X of Hawai'i seems very awkward to me. Also having their Christian names in the title of the section also sounds strange to me. I do not see why we have to adopt the European naming system. --Gmosaki 21:53, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I support oprion 1; I could accept option 4, but think it unnecessary; it would also require links to be clumsy or piped. The standard for European royalty is "pre-cmptive disambiguation" but no disambiguation is necessary here. Septentrionalis 22:00, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My feeling, as before, is to go with the full name of the person, and omit any salutation or additional words. Victoria Kauilani (I'm sure I've misspelled that) seems sufficient to disambiguate, and the content of the article should explain exactly which title she held. I see no reason to have King Foo Bar, when Foo Bar will suffice. Am I missing some other policy requesting King Foo Bar (or King Foo as the example above, or King Foo of Hawaii, which is completely redundant and silly) be used? Avriette 00:20, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

I also would support option 1 as that is the most common form generally used in Hawai‘i. However, I also could support the option of preceding with the title as that is also very often encountered. Here in the Islands, of course, no one would use "name of Hawaii". I'm unsure why this is a problem, since the article can give details and my second option could be a redirect page (or vice versa). No one is likely to search using "of Hawaii", but Queen Liliuokalani or Princess Kaiulani are real terms that would be encountered here and outside of Hawai‘i. - Marshman 04:59, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Marshman is right that titles for these monarchs are frequently encountered, and though I still oppose such the use of titles in article titles for reigning monarchs (for the reasons I stated above, though I'd like to note that I'd be willing to support the use of titles in articles about princes and princesses, e.g. "Princess Kaiulani"), I have a large amount of respect in Marshman's opinions due to his contributions to Hawaii-related articles. Does anyone else here support the suggestion put forth by Marshman? If so, we should look into this further. Otherwise, it appears that most people who have posted on this page so far have specifically noted that they're against using titles in the article names. Plus, we could easily create redirects to the current articles. 青い(Aoi) 07:22, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also I think that the debate is over and the proposition below for guideline could be adopted into use. In Wikipedia, titles king and queen are not included into the article heading - so if there are no compelling reasons, it's not useful to try it here. Let's leave princesses to a separate talk (there would probably be some opposition as to titling "Princess" Ruth Keelikolani, Princess Bernice Bishop, Prince David Kawananakoa...) as also in general standards, certain other factors affect it. Arrigo 10:50, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The other proposed forms (which used to be used before) is because having a name simply is just a name. I think for nobles the format [Title+Name] can be used, just like Diana, Princess of Wales. She is not listed as Diana Spencer, even though there was only one Princess Diana as far as I know. Also by just using a name for royals, how is anyone going to be able to differentiate the monarchs between the nobles? Therefore I do not see a problem with using a format of either Title+Name or Name+of+Hawaii. I have been in touch with user Mowens35 who has said that he has no problems with a format "Liliuokalani of Hawaii" either. Gryffindor 10:54, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

You have some legitimate concerns, however, I'm not sure how many of them are applicable here. While using a single name, for example Liliuokalani, is just a name, it is the name that these monarchs were known by best. Secondly, as I noted before, it follows closer in line with other Wikipedia articles on monarchs. Thirdly, there really wasn't really a "noble" class in Hawaii during the monarchy period, at least not in the European sense of the term. Hawaii had an "ali‘i" class, which was sort of like an aristocracy in a sense. Most of these nobles (if not all) were referred to in English with the title, "(High) Chief(ess) X." We could use titles when referring to these people but that's a completely different discussion. Either way, I doubt there would be any confusion between royals and "nobles" in Hawaii. I'd like to point out that in Europe, there is no confusion between monarchs and aristocracy, and the article titles on European monarchs don't use titles so I'm not quite too sure what you're arguing.

Also, I'm curious as to what Mowens35 is thinking. However, I'm afraid we can't consider his comments here unless he posts his thoughts here himself. Either way, it appears that there's a pretty strong concensus for keeping the status quo (option 1) in these naming conventions so I'm thinking this issue is pretty much closed for the time being. Only one user is against changing the naming convention on Hawaiian monarchs so the current format should be used:

*Use the common "reign name" adopted by each monarch, as these are the names by which the monarchs are best known by. For example, use Kamehameha IV instead of Alexander Liholiho, or Liliuokalani instead of Lydia Lili'u.

*Titles are unnecessary. They aren't used in European monarch's articles, so using them here would be inconsistent. While Hawaii's titles are often referred to using these people, so are European monarchs, but the convention adopted there also omit the title, even though Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom is probably better known worldwide as Queen Elizabeth II. However, redirects should be created where necessary.

*The territorial addition, "of Hawaii" is unnecessary; they aren't used in Eastern and Oceanic monarchies (with exception to some Chinese monarchs and all Korean monarchs (because both have good reasons to use them)) and likewise aren't necessary here.

Are these terms okay with everyone? 青い(Aoi) 09:11, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mowens35 has given me permission to cite from his emails, I quote: "i don't think many people who aren't interested in these people know who they are in any situation or case ... so jin my mind, arguably the best way to refer to any royal, however well known or obscure, is to always title the articles of reigning monarchs with the name, title, and country, thusly, ie LILIOUKALANI, QUEEN OF HAWA'AI ...ELIZABETH II, QUEEN OF GREAT BRITAIN ... does that make sense to you as well? i'm happy for you to quote from any of my emails to you ..." Fri, 2 Sep 2005 12:01:11 -0400

and another previous email from him said: "I think having a title with a country is fine ...least offensive elucidation ... Lilioukalana of Hawa'ai, that kind of thing ... "

I would concur with Mowens35. If you said that "Queen" is difficult because Hawaiian titles vary, I agree. But that's what she was most known as abroad. But in many other countries we have titles that would not really translate correctly into english, but are used anyways, like Emperor Jimmu, although tenno would not really be emperor either. And Queen Lilioukalani was known in her lifetime as just that, as a Queen of Hawaii. I don't really see an issue with adding a title and/or the country. A redirect would lead to it. Gryffindor 00:54, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Imo it is useful to define for which class of biographies the rule is intended, i.e "Hawaiian monarchs" - otherwise we soon have people who will apply it to something else, or people who contest (want to change) the policy because they imagine it applies to something else (something which is important to them). The rule should also say that the article itself should conform with standards for Wikipedia biographical articles, as I have seen too many times that some people imagine that a policy on the heading affects all the article. It's on the contrary: if and when the heading is brief, simple etc, the article itself should give all the information, including titles, what was ruled, all the names and a.k.a.s etc. Particularly the introductory paragraph is important. All that is outlined in the Wikipedia guideline for biograhies. Perhaps it would also be good to mention that style or honorific is never in the heading. About the territory, its reason in the rule should also state that there is no necessity to disambiguate on basis of country. Arrigo 23:26, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

some wording

Formulating a MoS provision: As it seems to me that option 1 receives the overwhelming majority, at least a rough consensus, I already start formulating the resolution:

"Articles of Monarchs of Hawaiian Kingdom have the monarch's Hawaiian reign name as the heading, and the ordinal if necessary for disambiguation. For example, Kamehameha IV, Liliuokalani. The possible christened name is not to be included into the heading, and not any other non-reign name. The titulary (Queen, King) is not used in the heading, nor any style or honorific. The territorial designation ("of Hawaii") is not to be used in the heading since there is no necessity to disambiguate on basis of country. The text of the article follow standards and guidelines for WP biographical articles." 217.140.193.123 22:22, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aloha all - I've put a conceptual first stub draft of the MoS up...I sort of envision it looking somewhat like the AP Stylebook, which shows terms, how they should be spelled, and further explanatory notes on usage and background. Any feedback would be appreciated. Mahalo! --KeithH 10:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAvriette&diff=54565084&oldid=54536489

The user in question feels that we should use "as short a name as possible", whenever possible. That would make Peahi, Hawaii just Peahi. Any comments on this? Please note the other examples listed in the diff, including Kihei and Paia, and so on. ... aa:talk 19:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NC (settlements). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Geographic Names Information System (GNIS) might be a good tool to check for the right spelling. Especially watch the section Board on Geographic Names Decisions for the preferred spelling. Like in the U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: Feature ID 364685 the most recent decision refers to the spelling with ʻokina and de:Kahakō (an English article is still missing). See also Hawaiian Dictionaries which includes Place names. --ThT 07:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should article titles include the ʻokina? The practice for the island titles is to not include the 'okina in the title. An exception is Lanaʻi which was moved to the 'okina version on 2008-02-06 without discussion. Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to say no, for the simple reason that anyone who is searching for a name isn't going to include it, so you have to include a redirect page. It also displays simpler in the address bar, without "garbage" characters. On the other hand, links to the page will (or at least should) have the diacritics, which means either making a double link (or whatever it's called, when the text shown in the page isn't the title of the page linked to) or another redirect page. I guess there's no simple answer. KarlM (talk) 16:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response. I don't think piped links are a problem. A brief investigation indicates that the high-visibility articles are titled without diacritics, for the most part. Since these articles are more likely to be the result of a consensus among a number of authors than those with less visibility, a weak consensus exists that article titles should be written without diacritics. This seems to be true for the Irish and Spanish place names that I looked at as well. I wonder if the following wording would suffice? "Article titles should omit the kahakō and ʻokina. However, they may be included if the editors agree that a good reason exists to make an exception, for example, to avoid ambiguity." Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced the Paradiver edit with my new wording, "Article titles should generally omit the kahakō and ʻokina in accordance with Wikipedia policy. However, they may be included if the editors agree that a good reason exists to make an exception, for example, to avoid ambiguity." I think this is consistent with the established policy, but allows (encourages) editors to avoid ambiguity. Perhaps it would be helpful to link to WP:DAB, a relevant guideline, also. Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The section "Article titles" was added while the general discussion about The ʻokina question is not finished yet. Moreover the replacement at 04:16, 27 April 2008 separated an information about the relevance of grammatical marks for the meaning of terms from the intended correlation with geographic names. The general discussion should be finished before a special guidance for article titles is provided to avoid inconsistency.

However, the topic of this discussion is Geographic Names. For the island Lānaʻi (U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: ID 361712) the U.S. Board on Geographic Names uses the spelling with ʻokina and kahakō. The "Principles, Policies, and Procedures for Domestic Geographic Names" [3] seem to have a certain importance for the general public as well. If the official use is encouraged by the federal government, the use of this spelling here can help to avoid ambiguity. --ThT (talk) 16:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize. My wording was intended to recapitulate Wikipedia policy. Looking at the edit history of this page, it seems to me that the discussion cited has languished. May I urge you and other interested editors to bring this matter to a conclusion, please? Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had considered it ended. While there was not a complete consensus, it was clear that there was a strong majority in favor of retaining diacritics in Hawaiian language words. The discussion hasn't really been active since November. Is there an official process for bringing it to a conclusion? KarlM (talk) 16:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Be WP:BOLD; summarize the discussion and conclusion, if any can be discerned, and add the ((archivetop)) and ((Archive bottom)) tags. My uninvolved view is that many of the opinions expressed are partially or wholly in conflict with WP policy and carry little weight, but I confess that I haven't looked into this matter in detail. Good luck. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. As for titles, WP:NAME is clear that okinas should be avoided in titles, and while it's ambiguous about other diacritics, if we're going to comply with that then we need to be consistent and leave out kahakō as well. KarlM (talk) 18:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the words "where appropriate" mean in the following sentence. "Where appropriate, use of the kahakō and ʻokina is preferred in Hawaiian words and names used in articles dealing with Hawaiʻi." Does it simply mean to use the diacritical marks in words that are written with them and not in words that do not employ them?

In my last edit, I attempted to reorganize and clarify the project page. I did not intend to change the guidance; if I did do so, it was inadvertent. Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; the intent was that they should basically always be used, but that usage should conform to what's correct. I reworded it, hopefully it's clear now. KarlM (talk) 15:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kahakos (macrons) should always be used where appropriate, however I don't think the actual okina symbol should be used as most browsers don't support it. perhaps the "`" backtick would be a good replacement.Drew Smith What I've done 05:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this page ready to be added to the "Wikipedia style guidelines" cat? The current thinking on style guidelines is: anyone can create them, and they're as official as they need to be, until and unless we have reason to believe they're not. So, another way to ask the question is: does anyone know of a reason why this shouldn't be in the style guidelines category? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 20:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think most everything has been resolved. The only real outstanding issue is what style to use for the okina. It seems to have more or less settled around ((okina)), but informally and inconsistently. My understanding is that what this resolves into on the screen can be changed if sometime in the future we decide that it doesn't look right, which is a big plus. Anyone know about this? If this is correct it renders the discussion above about lsquo vs. the current ((okina)) irrelevant, in favor of the latter, and we can finalize the MOS. KarlM (talk) 18:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I for one always try and use the ((okina)) template. I actually think the bigger issue is when to use it, not what should be used. Some people 1.) have it in the article title, 2.) others leave the diacritical marks out of the title and just use them in the body of the article, and 3.) others omit them from the article entirely. I think (just my own rough estimate) most people eschew #3 and understand they should be used. The debate seems to involve 1s and 2s. I don't know if the issue is settled. I know there was a push a while back to omit it from titles, but keep them in the text (making #2 the desireable option), but I don't know if that is still true. Mahalo. --Ali'i 18:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the changes by KarlM (talk). Regarding the titles and the application of WP:EN to Hawaiian names there might be a misunderstanding. Names like Haleakalā or Halemaʻumaʻu are names with a specific meaning in Hawaiian. Although names in other languages also have a meaning originally, the use of names developed quite independent from the meaning. This seems to be true for languages like the ones mentioned in WP:UE. Hawaiian language is different in two ways: the number of phonemes is much smaller, and the names are often "telling story". If the spelling is wrong, the meaning changes and the story can not be understood. The English version of the name, which is WP:UE referring to, makes sense for languages with the same relations between term, meaning and the use of both. --ThT (talk) 19:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that WP:UE, or WP:NAME for that matter, should make an exception for Hawaiian, it may be more fruitful to make the case on those respective talk pages. It is a bad idea to write this project page in a way that is inconsistent with WP:UE, or especially WP:NAME, a Wikipedia policy page. It will invite conflict among editors, rather than to resolve conflict, as is its purpose. Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to see what these guys decided among themselves first. We (PBS and I) recently changed the language in WP:MOS to bring it more in line with WP:UE. Here's the general idea: words that have a particular spelling in English should be spelled that way in Wikipedia articles; this is, after all, the English Wikipedia. So many people around the world are trying to co-opt English to serve various purposes, but English is already a very hard language, and if we start importing the orthography from 100 other languages, it will only get harder. However, it's perfectly okay to use different orthography for words that are not well-known in English. It's also okay, in fact recommended, to give the accent marks and/or spelling from the original language in parentheses at the first occurrence of the word, even if you do use an English spelling throughout the article. This all means that we would rather see "Hawaii" (no okina) in articles, but it's fine to give the spelling with the okina in parentheses at the first occurrence, in any article where that is relevant. Also, for any Hawaiian word you want to use that isn't in a shorter English dictionary (the best for this purpose is http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary), feel free to use okinas. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 02:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I got distracted by things for a while. I don't see a conflict with either WP:UE or WP:MOS that requires an exception. The latter says diacritics are neither encouraged nor discouraged. The former cites the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles) as a good example of diacritic usage. In the Hawaiian case, the spelling is always the same in Hawaiian language and English, only the diacritics are different, so that means they should always be used. So the remaining conflict that I see is with WP:NAME. In this case, diacritics are expressly discouraged, but 1) they're already widely used, and 2) the aforementioned Irish MOS uses them in the title. So I'm personally not sure where to go on it. KarlM (talk) 20:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are some great variations in the titles. Some titles omit the okina while others try and reproduce it. First, this should be more standardized. However, there is another problem. When the okina is used, which form to use. For instance:

Keaweikekahiali`iokamoku uses what appears as %60 in the url

Kiwala‘o uses what appears as %E2%80%98 in the url

Kame'eiamoku uses what appears as %27 in the url

ʻIolani Palace uses what appears as %CA%BB in the url

Some of which don't always show up in all browsers. I don't know which should be preferred (if any at all). Mahalo. --Ali'i 14:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give me an idea how many English works that Wikipedia considers reliable sources have been written using okinas? And even better would be if these sources use words commonly known by Hawaiians but not by mainlanders, because that would help to establish this writing style as a variety of English. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 01:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea of how many. Lots of scientific works do; it often depends on a combination of how much the author cares about the accuracy of the names, and whether the publisher is willing/able to include them (ʻokina are not a problem font-wise, but kahakō sometimes are since they aren't in ASCII character sets). I would bet that a much higher proportion of literary, cultural, and archeological works use them than in natural sciences (which is what I'm familiar with), since those are areas where people tend to pay more attention to cultural sensitivity and language accuracy. In addition to the ones cited below, the author guidelines for the journal Bishop Museum Occasional Papers states that "Use of Hawaiian diacritics: glottal (ʻokina) and macron (kahakō) is required for Hawaiian words (e.g., vernacular names of plants and animals) and place names", so all the articles published there since at least 1997 (as far back as I have it) have them. They are also frequently used in articles in the journal Pacific Science, though not required. Some other specific examples off the top of my head (I'm a biologist, so most of these are articles I've got hanging around):

• Manual of the Flowering Plants of Hawaiʻi, 1999, Wagner, Herbst, & Sohmer - the standard reference work for Hawaiian plants
• Place Names of Hawaiʻi, 1977, Mary K. Pukui - not sure if you'd count this one, since it's pretty obvious
• Cladogenesis and reticulation in the Hawaiian endemic mints, 2003, Cladistics 19:480-495
• Conservation Status of the Endemic Bees of Hawaiʻi, 2007, Pacific Science 61:173-190
• Topographic History of the Maui Nui Complex, Hawaiʻi, and Its Implications for Biogeography, Pacific Science 58:27-45
• Revision of the nudidrosophila and ateledrosophila species groups of Hawaiian Drosophila, 2008, Systematic Entomology 33:395-428

I can assure you that there are a lot more than this, but I'd prefer not to dig them all up. The point is, while it's by no means universal or even in majority usage, it is not a "fringe" usage and there is widespread recognition even among those who don't use it that it is correct. Heck, I don't use them most of the time, like in emails, only when I'm writing "official" things like publications or Wikipedia articles where accuracy is important.

Also, almost all of the words would be those familiar to Hawaiians but not mainlanders, because they're all Hawaiian place names or common names for objects or plants. Place names should be rendered correctly regardless; and of the few Hawaiian words that mainlanders would be familiar with, the only one that I can think of that has a diacritic is ukulele, which is properly ʻukulele (ʻuku means flea, uku means wages). KarlM (talk) 14:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fantastically detailed response; thanks. What we're trying to distinguish is accent marks that represent the fervent desires of a number of academics or protagonists, vs accent marks that are in wide use outside of any one community. Do you know of any style guides, dictionaries, encyclopedias, or similar that address the difference? There are, of course, languages where the symbols have different pronunciations (Hebrew leaps to mind; they didn't even bother to write the vowels for centuries, you were just expected to know them!). Over time, these languages often adopt accent marks to indicate the different pronunciations, but it takes a while for usage to become accepted by people in general, as opposed to the academics who think it would be a good idea if they were accepted. I'm trying to figure out where on this spectrum this issue lies. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 17:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Re-reading my comment, it comes across as rude; I didn't mean that anyone here is an ivory tower academic. I just want to find some way to measure the extent of the spread of diacritics. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh...yes, it did sound a bit rude, but I figured it was unintentional. I'm a bit confused about what you're asking though. The Hawaiian language is obviously not widely used conversationally, but where it is (such as in language courses and Hawaiian immersion schools), the ʻokina and kahakō are invariably used. It's only when Hawaiian words are used in isolation in English-language text that they tend to get dropped, just as happens to accent marks on words from French, German, etc. Also, as someone pointed out on the MOS article page, the ʻokina is properly considered a consonant; the k in Tahitian was changed to a glottal stop in Hawaiian, while t became k, hence Tahiti became Kahiki, Havaiki became Hawaiʻi. The Hebrew letter aleph also denotes a glottal stop. KarlM (talk) 17:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. All I'm trying to do here is come up arguments that generally work when your article is getting reviewed; what you guys want to do with this is up to you. "The Hawaiian language is obviously not widely used conversationally, but where it is (such as in language courses and Hawaiian immersion schools), the ʻokina and kahakō are invariably used." I think that argument easily wins. What I was worried about was the possibility that there was a thriving written language that omitted the diacritics; that would have presented a problem. It's not enough to say that people might get the pronunciation wrong if the two diacritics are omitted, because lots of languages, including and especially English, have strange pronunciations and weirdly spelled words that would be a lot easier to pronounce if they had diacritics. So: for just about every word I've seen written with the ʻokina (including ʻokina!), feel free to include the diacritics if they're written that way. For those few Hawaiian words that actually show up at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary (which is the most commonly used link by American journalists these days to figure out whether a word is in the language or not), such as Hawaii, Lanai and ukulele, please omit the ʻokina, except that it's perfectly okay...in fact a good idea...to show the spelling with the ʻokina and explain the pronunciation, and explain that that's the way people always say and often write the word in Hawaii, just as it's done in the last paragraph of the lead section of Hawaii. You could do the same at ukulele if you like. For an article that isn't about ukuleles, but in which the word "ukulele" appears once, you wouldn't usually want to stop the narrative to explain what an okina is...it would interrupt the "flow"...but if an article has a more "leisurely" pace, or if the subject of the article is tied to Hawaii in some way, then I would have no problem at all with inserting something like "(written ʻukulele in Hawaiian)" at the first occurrence of the word "ukulele". - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 18:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I am confused. It looked to me like the consensus was to use the ʻokina (and kahako?) in the text of the aticle, but not the name. Was that correct? I see a bunch of discussion about a year ago, then not much. I have been putting them in, but user User:Nyttend has been taking them out. I would volunteer to clarify in the MOS, but wonder if there has been a change in policy to no longer use them in the text? Every scholarly source I know of in the last thirty years or so uses them. My particular issue is with the place names, since government databases do not use them as noted in the discussion, but also as noted they often also omit punctuation, and even upper/lower case letters. The other database is the National Register of Historic Places, which sometimes uses appostrophes but usually omits them. Are the "CDP" articles covered under this manual of style or another?

The other issue perhaps not discussed yet is that the sources before mid-twentieth century use the dash convention, e.g. ke-ala-ke-kua instead of kealakekua, etc. and a few of the ancient person names seem to use than convention from the old sources, or a mixture of styles. W Nowicki (talk) 21:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the consensus was to use them in the text, but I don't think there ever was a consensus on titles, probably in part because there are already so many titles out there of mixed form. CDP designations (probably more so in Hawaiʻi than other places) don't necessarily conform very well to the places that bear the same names, since they often cover larger areas. As for the old writing style, I think that was a pre-diacritic convention used in part in order to make it easier to read by breaking long into their derivative parts - e.g., ke-ala-ke-kua (path of the god) as opposed to kea-la-ke-kua (white sun of the god). It might be useful if you're explaining the meaning of a name, but it's generally obsolete. KarlM (talk) 20:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then what can we do to stop people from taking out the ʻokinas that we carefully put in? Is there some more formal step to elevate this style guide to an official one, instead of saying it is "proposed"? For what it is worth, here are my thoughts:

ʻokina and kahakō are used in almost all the scholarly literature written in the last 25 years or so, in my experience. As noted above, the kahakō is used in less of the encyclopedic-quality sources outside the islands, and conventoins vary greatly for web sites and guidebooks, but even they are often using them. I think a good guideline is if the word would appear in a reasonable English dictionary, including "Hawaii" itself and perhaps the major islands. My convention is to spell as Hawaiʻi only in the context of the Big Island, the Kingdom, or ancient times. Certainly when anglicizing a word by putting English endings on it, e.g. "Hawaiian" is another good indication that an okina is not needed.

All my articles are creating without neither ʻokina nor kahakō in the titles, but with them in the article text. This means that links to them are always piped, but that needs to be done anyway if we are to use the template. One reason is that most people are lazy typists, and will generally do searches without the marks. Of course redirect pages need to be used often, in case people do stuff in the characters, but imagine that is less common. This puts a burden on the writer of the article (typing all those piped links), but if we are doing our job, articles are only written once but read many times, so a little extra work in the authoring process to have a more acurate article makes sense. It also means the title of the article will not match exactly what is embolded in the first line, but seems a reasonable compromise.

For words (particularly place names) that are not English at all, e.g. Honokaʻa or Kapaʻau, should use the marks anywhere they are mentioned in the article. Spelling as "Honokaa" and "Kapaau" is not "spelling them in English", it is spelling them with a consonant missing. Just because some old government databases have llimitations that spell that way, is not a good reason to use them in encyclopedic writing. For example, we live on Aliʻi Drive, which the post office writes as ALII DR, no puctuation at all even for abbeviations, all upper case. They still deliver if it is fully spelled out.

For NRHP listings, evidently the name in the infobox must match exactly the database (or that just someone's taste?). Unfortunately they are inconsistent, with some using single quote, but most eliding the ʻokina. The real question is the CDPs. We might need to split them, and have an article, say, on "Honkaa CDP" for the census data and another on the historical community that complies with this manual of style. That would be a shame, since I would prefer to have fewer high-quality articles than zillions of stubs. But would that be the only solution that makes some happy?

The more I look into this, it seems the precendents are for articles on places in France and Spain to use accents, and even the Irish policy, would all apply. The burden of argument should be for the ones who eliminate the marks to show why they want an exception for Hawaii. Otherwise this could be considered subtle racism: Hawaiian words deserve the same respect as European languages.

Please let us move this forward. Mahalo. W Nowicki (talk) 02:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not racism. The okina is not supported by IE6 or earlier, Firefox 2.0 or earlier, or Opera 8.2 or aerlier. This is a lot of browsers that don't support it. There are undoubtedly more that I haven't found. We should use the backtick instead, which looks like "`"Drew Smith What I've done 05:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's something wrong with your settings. It displays perfectly fine for me with IE6 and Firefox 2. No one has ever mentioned rendering problems before; look back in the discussions and you'll see that many of the arguments were, if not subtly racist, very much "English purist". One of the major advantages of the ((okina)) tag is that it can eventually be changed to display something else if a better character is found (although it looks good in normal text, the current one looks a little funny in italics). The backtick really isn't an ʻokina. KarlM (talk) 09:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Back to WN's comments: I don't think there's anyone right now who is taking out diacritics. The campaign against them was driven by a very few people who made few other Hawaiʻi-related edits and they seem to have moved on; at least, I haven't seen any removals for some time in the pages on my watchlist. As far as titles, I'm still ambivalent; I don't think having piped links with non-diacritic titles is a problem, especially since having them in the titles means always creating a redirect page. And with the number that are already out there in both ways (as well as many that have non-standard ʻokinas, standardizing things would be a real pain for relatively little gain, IMO. I think the content is a lot more important. KarlM (talk) 07:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not using IE6. But I have had complaints from people that using the raw character creates rendering problems. But since you have the ((okina)) template, I guess that is a moot point. Since there is no rendering problem, use of the okina should always be used. Any articles pertaining to the Hawaiʻian language should always have an okina in the proper context.Drew Smith What I've done 08:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was this edit that prompted my discussion. The ʻokinas were removed from the Honokaa, Hawaii article. User:Nyttend has not responded to my question on the talk page about if this manual of style applies to CDP articles. He also tried removing them from Kapaau, Hawaii but it looks like those have crept back in. Other examples: Naalehu, Hawaii, Honaunau-Napoopoo, Hawaii, Paukaa, Hawaii kahako from Hawi, Hawaii, etc. Perhaps if we keep reverting his edits often enough with this guideline to back us up he will slow down? I too would rather work on content since we have so many needs (and few editors?). The idea is just to apply these rules to new articles and those I am editing for other reasons. So what can we do to make this no longer "proposed"? Mahalo.

And actually, the example of "Hawaiʻian" I am not sure if it was meant to be, but should be "Hawaiian" as per the guide. If you are adding English-like endings to a word, you are admitting it is now an English word, so would drop the ʻokina. Similarly adding "S" for plural, or 's for posessive. W Nowicki (talk) 19:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh...yes, I guess there's always someone with an agenda popping up. Hopefully they're persuadable with the consensus here and for other languages that using diacritics does not violate WP:UE. Even Erudy, who started this whole thing, seems to have mellowed a bit on it judging from his recent contributions on other languages. I would say that it does apply to CDP articles because regardless of what the Census Bureau lists it as, it's still a proper place name. Leaving diacritics out would mean either leaving them out of every name referenced in the article (e.g., Kapaʻau when mentioned in the Hāwī article) or having inconsistent usage within an article, neither of which makes any sense. KarlM (talk) 04:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again: User:Nyttend has backed out the ʻokinas from the Honokaa, Hawaii article. This is the third time he did this without giving any reason in the talk page. Does this mean we can officially call it an edit war and start the mediation process? W Nowicki (talk) 22:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it would be a good idea to invite Nyttend to discuss this there first. --ThT (talk) 01:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if a separation Honokaa, Hawaii / Honokaa, Hawaii (CDP) like Hōnaunau, Hawaii / Honaunau-Napoopoo, Hawaii (CDP) could solve the conflict (cf. Talk:Hōnaunau, Hawaii as well). --ThT (talk) 23:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The separate CDP article for every community that has an ʻokina has been proposed, but would be ugly and not likey any other encyclopedia that I know of. Besides, my guess is that he would immediately move the CDP back to Honokaa, Hawaii so we would have to create an article with a title like "Honokaa, the community, Hawaii" which would be unlikely to be found easily. As a reader certainly I would prefer a single article that describes both the census data, as well as history and other notable aspects of that place. How about this policy: use the CDP spelling in the infobox and article title, and a line in the lead like: "Honokaa, Hawaii is a census-designated place (CDP) in the Hamakua District of Hawaii County, Hawaii, United States, including the community of Honokaʻa." Or perhaps "Honokaʻa is a community in the Hamakua District of Hawaii County, Hawaii, United States, designated as the census-designated place (CDP) Honokaa, Hawaii." Or "...corresponding to the CDP" "CDP named for the community of..." or "...community within the CDP..." Then I would propose using the ʻokina in the body consistently, but would be open to using the strict CDP name for the census data to make it clear which is which, if allowed to use the modern orthography for the historical information in the body. This would be fairly consistent with the NRHP policy. Does anyone know if the 2010 census will use the modern names that the GNIS uses? If I have time I will be bold and edit the style guide with my proposal unless there are objections. W Nowicki (talk) 03:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds appropriate to me, honestly I wouldn't been really happy with the separation. There is also the navigation templates which might be taken into consideration, because there's no consistent spelling yet: ((Hawaii County, Hawaii)). I'd prefer the GNIS standard there, because it's for navigation purposes only. The article name of CDP and the clear identification of the CDP term would enable readers to search in the factfinder.census.gov database anyway. --ThT (talk) 19:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand the emphasis on CDPs per se. It's somewhat useful in Hawaii because there are no incorporated communities or town boundaries, but really the articles are about the towns. They have little to do with the census except for using information gathered from it. That's the fundamental reason why having separate town and CDP articles would be absurd as well; it would only serve to show the CDP boundaries and give some statistics, and the latter would be duplicated in the town article. IMO, the most sensible solution is to frame the articles as "XXX is a town in Hawaiʻi. It is a Census-Designated Place with a population of NNNN in 2000." The only place where it's appropriate to have separate articles is where the CDP includes more than one town, which IIRC is only in a very few (Hōnaunau-Nāpoʻopoʻo is the only one that comes to mind; some others include multiple subdivisions but are generally considered to be one "town" or "village"). KarlM (talk) 00:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, look at your example: The article Honaunau-Napoopoo, Hawaii has no ʻokina nor kahakō in the entire article body. The issue is that attempts to use modern orthography in compliance with these guidelines in CDP articles have been backed out by Nyttend. So perhaps we need to make sure we have consensus and then go to mediation. There are a bunch of articles now that just have CDP data in them that I would like to augment with more info. A remaining question is what wording to use in the leads. I would be inclined to call them a "community in the CDP" since that term is more amorphous than "town" or "village" which can have legal standing in other states. Although community might be a bit too amorphous. Or maybe "CDP named for ..."? Or use the official term "populated place" since that what GNIS calls them. Thanks for any feedback. See also recent edits to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Hawaii/Manual of Style itself. W Nowicki (talk) 02:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was only talking about community vs. CDP and not the diacritic issue. Frankly, the latter is really getting on my nerves. It's been discussed to death repeatedly and each time the vote has been overwhelmingly in favor of putting diacritics in the proper places, yet at any given time there is always one person - who almost invariably has no connection to Hawaiʻi outside of WP - who sees it as their personal crusade to "purify" WP from any non-English influences, and goes through undoing everyone else's work. I'm really sick of this crap. WP:UE sets out WP:MOS-IR as a standard for diacritics, and it supports using them for Hawaiian place names since there is no transliteration from Hawaiian to English.

Back to CDPs - I'd prefer to have town/community/whatever be primary in the lead, simply because CDP isn't a term that's widely used. It's true that town and village have legal meanings elsewhere, but those also vary in different places; for example, in Massachusetts a town is an incorporated community governed by a town council and a city is one governed by a mayor and board of aldermen; while in New York, all communities are towns, and villages and cities are subzones within them. But you're in the lead (so to speak) on those articles, so it's up to you. KarlM (talk) 09:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the U.S. Census Bureau to find out about their policy concerning the GNIS (Question Reference #090906-000014), and the Geography Division answered. Because I'm still waiting for their permission to cite from the e-mail, I'll provide the details later. --ThT (talk) 18:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

see also: Geographic names information system, U.S. Census Bureau, Question & Answer Center --ThT (talk) 18:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

see also new section in the article about ʻOkina. --ThT (talk) 01:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Census Bureau and GNIS

Answering my question about the policy regarding the GNIS the U.S. Census Bureau (Geography Division) answered:

The census designated place (CDP) names in Hawaii do not necessarily match the names of the populated places for three reasons.
1) The Census Bureau had a policy in 2000 and earlier censuses that allowed diacritical marks only in Puerto Rico and Guam. This restriction has been rescinded for 2010.
2) The names of the CDPs were submitted by officials of the State of Hawaii in 1998 and the names submitted did not include the diacritical marks. We have encouraged state officials to submit the names as they would like them stored for 2010 including any diacritical marks.
3) At the time we were collecting CDP information, the U.S. Geological Survey was still in the process of acquiring all the updated names (including diacritical marks) for Hawaii, so we were not able to use the GNIS as a source for the names with diacritical marks. Our names did match the Geographic Names Information System (GNIS) before the updates.
For the 2010 census, staff will be comparing the names submitted by state, tribal, and local officials for CDPs and other statistical areas to the GNIS to bring the names into agreement as much as possible.
[...]
The GNIS is the public database that stores the official names of legal governmental unit areas. These legal areas are submitted by the Census Bureau and shown with a Feature Class equal to Civil. The statistical areas are stored with Feature Class equal to Census.

--ThT (talk) 00:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is great to hear, thanks for clarifying this. Although we still do not know exactly what the 2010 CDP names will be, I can try to summarize this in the guide. With any luck, the state officials will use the University of Hawaii place names database too. Any guess as to how long it would be until we get the list of names (maybe before the actual counts)? In the meanwhile I can work on other articles besides Hawaiian CDPs to avoid edit wars. Aloha. W Nowicki (talk) 16:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that many Hawaii articles have the European-style date format of "day Month year". I know this is what perhaps a majority of the world uses, and they are allowed by the general date style guideline, but like it or not, the "month day, year" style is used almost exclusively wthin Hawaii, and with most sources I have seen (published in the islands or the mainland). So I would propose recommending to use the "month day, year" style, but avoid mass changing. Any comments? W Nowicki (talk) 18:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently an ongoing discussion about the future of this and others MoS naming style. Please consider the issues raised in the discussion and vote if you wish GnevinAWB (talk) 21:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has been proposed this MOS be moved to Wikipedia:Subject style guide . Please comment at the RFC GnevinAWB (talk) 20:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editors may be interested in this RFC, along with the discussion of its implementation:

Should all subsidiary pages of the Manual of Style be made subpages of WP:MOS?

It's big; and it promises huge improvements. Great if everyone can be involved. Noetica^Tea? 00:38, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since the MOS states that the title of the article should not include diacritical marks, (MOS:HAWAII#Article_titles), should we suggest a massive article move to an admin? See Ewa Beach and Kapaa as a few of the many examples. --Travis Thurston+ 19:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"If the ʻokina is used, it is recommended that editors use the ((okina)) template rather than the apostrophe, or "left single quote" character. Please see the following sections for more guidance on a few special cases or specific topics." - This should be updated. There is an ʻokina character (this ʻ) already that people can copy and paste in place of the template and saves more page space and makes the text more readable. The result for the reader is all the same but the difference is seeing Hawai((okina))i or Hawaiʻi when editing.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, more accurately, "Orthography: special characters" and "article titles" and also the "Biographies" section of the project style guide. There should be some clarification on how to use the accents as we shouldn't be insisting on a straight across the board implementation and our MOS should compy with the main MOS.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I kindly and strongly disagree because I believe maintaining the integrity of the Hawaiian language is an exceptions (there are certainly such things, Wikipedia policies are not the commandments) to such rules. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you don't agree with. This is what I wish to make changes to and specifically to clarify the MOS here to read more clearly along with the main MOS. I don't think we are undermining the integrity of the Hawaiian language and think that's a bit of a leap Bear.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:05, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have a correction KAVEBEAR, this is not just a project style guide anymore. It is now a subpage of the main MOS. This means it may be more important that we come to a consensus as to how to write this page. I suggest we invite more eyes and begin research on the main MOS categories that this falls under and on how to use of foreign words and expressions etc.. Double check the referencing being used and make sure it supports the claims being made. TParis, Viriditas may be interested in this. Viriditas has mentioned this to me in passing and TParis is very active on Hawaiian topics at the moment and is very helpful with collaborations like this. Please ping others as you see fit from the project and I will look through the project style guide history for those that actively wrote what we have now when I can.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All editors who have made edit this year excluding those involved. @Resident Mario:, @Rick lay95:, @SeanMD80:, @Smoth 007:, @The Obento Musubi:, @Travis.Thurston:, @W Nowicki:, @WTGDMan1986:, @Opukahaia808:, @Trulystand700:, @Makana Chai:, @Maile66:, @MrX:, @Neutrality:, @Newportm:, @Peaceray:, @Pietro13:, @Plee223:, @Randydeluxe:, @IslandGyrl:, @Lfstevens:, @Gilgamesh:, @Esb:, @Awotter:, @Arjuna909:, @Aoi:, @Alicekim53:, @AerinZero:, @A R King:, @KeithH:, @KarlM:, @Habatchii:, @Jonny-mt:, @Joel Bradshaw:, @J JMesserly:.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Like--Mark Miller (talk) 01:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What? Wikipedia alerted me that my user name was referenced here, but I'm not clear about the relevant context. - Gilgamesh (talk) 06:30, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gilgamesh, you were pinged if you helped write the project Hawaii style guide that is now a subsection of the MOS to help gain a consensus.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh. It has been years since I have meaningfully contributed to this particular project. I wouldn't know what to say or opine. - Gilgamesh (talk) 06:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think in this particular instance, Kavebear may be correct about updating the okina usage in the MOS. We previously used the template due to browser restrictions, but I believe the okina character has superseded the older usage. Viriditas (talk) 22:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disagreeing with that. I don't use the templates. I mean we need to update those specific portions.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KAVEBEAR so far there is a consensus for that being excluded. I think it was something that may well be outdated.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What being excluded? What is the it? Be more specific. I don't think User:Viriditas is talking about excluding anything. He is talking about updating usage on the okina section. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:02, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I want ask another question to TParis, Viriditas. Should the apostrophe be used in place of the okina? It's not specifically outlawed in the rules of the this wikiproject. But I argue we shouldn't in respect of the Hawaiian language.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:05, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Three thoughts come to mind. The first is that when discussing US and UK English, generally the preferred type is whichever was first used on a page. That might be one avenue for discussion. The second thought, it should depend on the context. In the context of Hawaiian culture, religion, people, and land then yes we should use the 'okina. However, if we're talking about Hawaii, the US State, or other wider topics then I think the US-English spellings should take precedence. The third thought - just follow the sources. Those are all different ways to tackle this.--v/r - TP 23:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@TParis: I agree but still maintain that apostrophe should be exclude when we do use the okina in the umbrella of terms you are talking about which we do use the okina for. I agree example such as Hawaii or Luau should be written without the okina but also without the apostrophe. I don't agree the apostrophe should be use in place of the okina regardless what majority sources because pre-modern typewriters are definitely going to use the apostrophe in place of the okina. User:W Nowicki who has retired brought this up on Talk:ʻIolani Palace#It is not an apostrophe before.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:30, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but that's because most keyboards have an apostophe. Curious, does anyone see the okina in the "special characters" dropdown on the editing box? That might be a start.--v/r - TP 23:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This project still has this Template:nothaweng. One great thing this Wikiproject was doing before was maintaining the correct Hawaiian orthography in strictly Hawaiian cultural terms (the umbrella of subject you are speaking of) in defense of the works of linguists such as Mary Kawena Pukui and other academic of the second Hawaiian Renaissance in line with the practice of the modern Hawaiian language and in respect of its mission to be accurate. Excuse my interpretations/exaggeration (you can call it that but I won't) here if you disagree. It is not a leap in my opinion whatever my opinion is worth. Most of my arguments up to this point are not about policies because I could care less about policies. I am not Wikipedia editor. I am a person who edits on Wikipedia.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is entirely unclear to me as to what is under dispute. It looks like everyone agrees with Kavebear's observation that this MOS should be updated to reflect the new use of the okina. Other than that, can anyone create a numbered list of agenda items under dispute? I'm not seeing anything that needs to be addressed on this page. Kavebear has explained in detail on my talk page, but it should be made explicit here as well. Viriditas (talk) 00:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think a separate section should have been started. The root of the argument lies at Talk:Pa'u riders. I elaborate my concerns/agenda here already; but I will summarize my concerns--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:07, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. Should apostrophes be used in place of the okina in the article content or the article title? I say no.

2. When using the kahako and okina for a word in the article content or the title that has both these marks, editors should use both or don't use them at all. Do it correctly or don't do it at all. Since there is an excuse for not using anything at all but there isn't one for using only okinas and not using kahakos. It will distort the term.

3. Mark should only apply to Hawaiian cultural terms. (I think Miller and I both agree on this but our intrepation of what counts varies. See Talk:Pa'u riders for that argument.)

4. Are these spellings just plain recommendations and thus can be ignored as it has been on Talk:Pa'u riders. Or should they be enforced and maintained regardless of other policies?

Yeah, those points aren't at all clear to me in this discussion. Who has been arguing that we should use an apostrophe? That's clearly not acceptable. I suggest that anyone arguing we should use an apostrophe has made a simple mistake. So number 1 seems to be obvious: "Don't use an apostrophe in place of an okina." I hope we are all agreed on that. The problem occurs when you are talking about article titles. Due to browser/software limitations, I really don't know where we stand on that, so we need technical guidance here. In the past, we simply couldn't use the okina in the title, so we left it out. This problem has never been adequately resolved. As for the kahako, I don't think there has ever been consensus about its use, so that could definitely use some discussion. Anything else? Viriditas (talk) 01:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It has all been said on Talk:Pa'u riders. Basically the argument comes down to the wording of the policy at this point (Some existing titles might have an apostrophe, other approximation of an ʻokina or kahakō in them. Use redirect pages to make sure the title without any special characters can also be used.) which doesn't specifically discourage the use of the apostrophe in place of the okina in the article title or encourage any correction or move to the titles without the apostrophe (be it with the okina or without). But nor does say it is okay per this (Use of the kahakō and ʻokina, as used in current standard Hawaiian orthography, is preferred in Hawaiian language words, names and usage in the body of articles dealing with Hawaii on the English Wikipedia). I believe that the reading of the entire policy and what has been discussed in similar past discussions like Talk:ʻIolani Palace#It is not an apostrophe that the agreement is that the apostrophe shouldn't be used in place of the okina in either body of the article or the title--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:14, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)As far as that other talk page and article, I created Pa'u riders from a source I found. KAVEBEAR believes the use of the apostrophe is incorrect because it takes the place of the ʻokina, going against the spirit of the Hawaiian related articles MOS. He originally wanted to move the article to Pāʻū riders, using both the ʻokina and the kahakō. I objected because this isn't a post moder tradition and is also the proper name of an organization. If we look to see how the equestrian organization spells it, it might also go a long way to what the proper title of the article should be. But when I realized that the most common use I found was Paʻu riders and wanted to rename the article in that manner KAVEBEAR objected. I argued that, even with the MOS taken into account and the Hawaiian related MOS, we were not forced to name the article in the strict adherence to Hawaiian orthography. He also believes that we must use Hawaiian orthography in the body of the articles regardless, but I can see now why he believes that, but in this case I think he is simply not seeing my logic here that the article is about the group or woman riders from the Kamehameha parades. Now, I can see using pāʻū riders when we discuss the original tradition from the Kingdom even if it was begun after 1803 as it was an informal tradition of the alii women. But I created the article to be about the tradition that restarted the woman riding in parades again created and established by two woman, Puahi and Wilcox and I went from older sources and when I was looking through different sources I tried to narrow to what was most common.

As for the template, they should probably be mentioned at the project level but if we want them here we can have it as an option but I think it may be too bulky for many editors.

KAVE this isn't a project talk page anymore. This is now a talkpage of the sub-category of the main MOS. This happened in 2011 from what I am reading here.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Correction. My request from the start was a move to Pau riders (this was placed first, a title that Mark Miller suggested too at a later point then changed his mind afterwards) or Pāʻū riders which is in line with my philosophy of using it correctly or not using it at all .--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will only say that I don't know what you are correcting. You made changes to the article here and then asked admin Fram to move the article and he did here, to Pāʻū riders at your request on his talk page. The version that stands right now has an apostrophe, I requested Fram move the article to simply Paʻu riders and that is when you objected. KAVEBEAR, you are the one that objected when I requested the move to Paʻu riders, using the 'okina. You then immediately began a move request using all but the title I had requested.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah your right. I did that believing you wouldn't object and the title already existing as a commons category already. I was strictly speaking about the point after your objection and the move request on the talk page. Although once I learn of your objection. I was in favor of Pau riders or Pāʻū riders from the point of the request.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:06, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the point on the use of apostrophes—there isn't ever really a reason that you must use an apostrophe in place of the okina in modern typography. However no bright blue line can be drawn, generally, where the use of Hawaiian character are or are not appropriate—I think the many discussions on this topic that have been put forth demonstrate this amply. In the absence of one we can only leave it to the community and to individual discretion. ResMar 01:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"KAVEBEAR believes the use of the apostrophe is incorrect because it takes the place of the ʻokina". Well, Kavebear is correct. The apostrophe cannot be used in place of the okina. The fact that others have done it is a problem we need to cleanup. At one time we did not have the okina character to use, and it used to cause havoc in the title bar, so we stopped using it altogether. As time went on, browser development advanced and compatibility improved, to the point where using an okina in the title may be OK. But nobody should be using an apostrophe in either body or the title. I've seen it done before, and I'm sure we have a lot of articles that require the apostrophe to be removed and replaced with the okina. Viriditas (talk) 02:07, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"KAVEBEAR believes the use of the apostrophe is incorrect because it takes the place of the ʻokina". Well, Kavebear is correct." That is exactly what I thought, but he objected to my move request to replace the apostrophe with an ʻokina and that is what actually happened. He didn't like that I objected to the full orthography I guess and just objected when I asked for just the ʻokina.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I object to improper or halfway use of Hawaiian orthography which Paʻu is. This is another argument that needs to be addressed.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I agree with Mark Miller when he says most sources use the apostrophe out of convenience but I don't think that is something Wikipedia should repeat in respect of the Hawaiian language. Also I don't think you should differentiate between two periods of the custom by calling the pre-revival version Pāʻū riders and the post-revival version Paʻu riders. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As for the main MOS. I mentioned this before in connection with Talk:ʻIolani Palace#It is not an apostrophe but didn't realize it was part of the MOS. Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Apostrophes states: Foreign characters that resemble apostrophes, such as transliterated Arabic ayin ( ʿ ) and alif ( ʾ ), are represented by their correct Unicode characters (that is, U+02BF MODIFIER LETTER LEFT HALF RING and U+02BE MODIFIER LETTER RIGHT HALF RING respectively), despite possible display problems. If this is not feasible, use a straight apostrophe instead. Since using the okina is not infeasible it makes no sense to use the apostrophe instead. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:44, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as 'okina usage in the article title, we may be limited for technical reasons. URL encoding does not include the Okina the last time I checked.--v/r - TP 01:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How so? There are articles now with the okina in the article title. Ones with apostrophes instead are rarities. I and other users such as W Nowicki have over the years made sure of that. (See Talk:ʻIolani Palace#It is not an apostrophe, Talk:Lilikalā Kameʻeleihiwa#Requested move and Talk:Kawaihae, Hawaii#Requested move I am certainly not for moving them all to titles with okina, I am just oppose/against the usage of the apostrophe in place of the okina when it is being used either in the title or the article content.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get confirmation on the URL encoding? I suspect TParis is correct, in which case neither the apostrophe nor the okina should appear in the article title. Viriditas (talk) 02:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure the difference between the URL encoding and the URL. The URL link for ʻIolani Palace is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ʻIolani_Palace with the okina visible.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:16, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so it looks like the latest HTTP update fixed the problem? Viriditas (talk) 02:18, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what is better when it comes to URL but https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%27Iolani_Palace with the apostrophe would have %27 for the apostrophe.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does that happen on the server or client-side? It doesn't matter at this point, because the okina now works in Firefox, Chrome, Safari, and IE. Are there any objections to this? Keep in mind, this did not work several years ago. Now that it does, we should be OK with using the okina in article titles. Viriditas (talk) 02:24, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know really. I support either using okina in the title or not using them at all in the titles, ex: Iolani Palace or ʻIolani Palace.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think there is any real obstacle to using the diacritics in the titles other than the main MOS preference to not use special characters in titles but that is because there is a specific set of characters that mess with mark-up but the MOS does not appear to outright ban the use of the Hawaiian diacritics. This MOS does, however, still advises leaving the apostrophe in existing articles. I wonder if that should be updated and if there is any reasoning to not replace it...even if it is the spelling of the a proper name, street or group.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:07, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Apostrophes prefers foreign characters like the okina over the apostrophe unless it is infeasible to use the foreign character.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:18, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Prefer" is an ambiguity that I feel purposely allows for WP:COMMONNAME for article titles and why I am uncomfortable supporting absolutes. There may simply be a time when an editor is firm about the use of an apostrophe and will be equally correct with the most common use being that specific spelling. Pa'u riders is not a good example because I am not against the use of the ʻokina in the name, I see it as the most common name. I am against the use of the kahakō in the article title and when referring to the article subject in the body of the article. I don't have a problem referring to Pāʻū riders as the original alii woman riding horses in parades during the Kingdom era but the article is referring to a specific group or groups of organizations that all participate throughout the islands in Kamehameha parades. Their official pages seem to refer to them as Pa'u riders.[4] and [5]. I believe we can assume that the apostrophe was for the ʻokina but that this may not be the case in the future with others. Should we prefer the ʻokina over an apostrophe even in cases where it is clearly the most common name and should we be insisting on adhering to the full orthography with kahakō as well and change the full meaning of the word?--Mark Miller (talk) 05:06, 25 June 2014 (UTC) --Mark Miller (talk) 05:06, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having trouble following this discussion. Mark, are you aware that we couldn't use the okina in article titles until very recently? It looks like the Unicode version update as well as the browser/server development, has now solved this problem. In other words, there does not appear to be a barrier to using the okina in titles anymore. I'm not sure who or what is claiming that we can use an apostrophe in place of an okina, but that is incorrect. If it appears in any MOS on Wikipedia it should be removed. I realize that many editors have done this in the past, but again, this had more to do with the incompatibility of the okina. Since that is no longer the case, why are we still talking about apostrophes? I'm very confused by this discussion. Viriditas (talk) 09:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am aware that there was an issue at one time and that now it is possible to use the diacritic in titles. I am still waiting to see what the consensus is about how to phrase this in the MOS here. I believe we have to be somewhat ambiguous in text by not stating something "must" be done. Obviously, that means we don't phrase the MOS to sound demanding, however, if the consensus is (and so far it seems to be) that an apostrophe should never be used in the title or body of the article in place of an ʻokina diacritic, I can agree with that. I still say we have to worry about street names however and possibly even people's names and I would think we would mention that in the MOS. Seldom is anything ever absolute on Wikipedia and if there are legitimate reasons, then we should respect that.

You probably should be a little confused. There are so many different things that have been shoved into the discussion. My article, Pa'u riders, is not a part of this discussion and as I said, I didn't create the move discussion and I did try to correct the apostrophe in the title but was stopped and now the move discussion is like an auction for the title of the name. I can only reply and comment, I cannot control direction others choose, but for this discussion I propose the following text-

Add below the ʻokina description:

An apostrophe is not a part of the standard, traditional, Hawaiian orthography. Apostrophe's should never take the place of an ʻokina in article titles or in the body of the article with words from the Hawaiian language. Unless used as apart of a formal spelling, apostrophes should be replaced with the ʻokina character (ʻ).

Add to the "Titles" section:

It is strongly urged that article titles using Hawaiian language words, use the standard, Hawaiian orthography. The ʻokina is used on Wikipedia whenever an apostrophe is used in sources. Use of the macron is part of Hawaiian orthography and is preferred over non use, even when the subject is not referred to as such in a majority of reliable sources.

--Mark Miller (talk) 00:19, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion at Pa'u riders is relevant to this discussion since a lot of the dispute interpretations and concerns I have listed is brought up there or related by examples to that discussion. Just been using that as an example... As for the rules here. Maybe not a "must" but strongly encouraged or to just follow the consensus (the one established here against apostrophes) and base on past examples in other articles. You are saying we shouldn't outlaw the apostrophe in place of the okina. I can agree to that though I still believe that using apostrophes in place of the okina should be the exception and shouldn't be used unless there are extenuating circumstances for using the apostrophe instead (your examples of street names and names or whatever).--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lets be clear. This is a discussion on updating this MOS. The Pa'u riders issue is a local consensus of a move discussion. It my have relevance to you, but it is confusing. KAVEBEAR, the Manual of Style is similar to the Associated Press style book. I also made myself clear that that we actually cannot "outlaw" the use in a name if is the legal and proper name of the person or change a street name for the sake of orthography. Some groups may strongly object to their names being altered or changed to suit a blanket coverage that there is simply no consensus for. There is no consensus to "outlaw" apostrophes as ʻokina or for us to use any language in the MOS that saysthere is. But we want to strongly urge what the preference is for Wikipedia.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that the word macron is being used for the first time in the rules in the second propose addition. Should we change that to kahako instead? Although we probably should mention basically that the kahakos are just the English macron vowels even if it may be a bit obviously. Also why were the Objectives section removed? Understanding the goals of this page is helpful. There is not that much harm to leaving it. I see benefits actually. It gives someone an idea why these rules are here, also speaking about consistency sorta of like a mission statement.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we need to hit anyone over the head with what a macron is but that could just say kahako. This page is now a part of the main MOS and has never been altered since that change. That section is part of how the project was setting forth the goals of creating the style guide and are not a part of a sub page of the MOS. We can have a similar introduction but the header should not be goals as the MOS itself has no actual goals but are guidance for editors.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Partial orthography

I am separating this as a subsection to avoid any confusion as we discuss the other topic above...One question or issue that seems to have been buried in this long discussion about the apostrophe and that I feel we haven't been fully addressed. Should we use improper or partial orthography in the title and the body of a article which in all orthographical correctness should utilize? Articles which uses no marks at all like Luau or Kau, Hawaii is okay. I don't oppose not using orthographical marks. I am only against partial use.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The concern brought up here and at Talk:Pa'u riders is a good example. In cases where the word utilizes both kahakos and okinas (such as Kaʻū or Pāʻū riders or ʻūkēkē) should we be spelling them: a) using okinas but not kahakos (ex. Paʻu) or using kahakos and not okinas (Pāū, this was never suggested by anybody). Both these partial use of orthographical marks distort the meaning of the word in the Hawaiian language per "As with any letter or character, omission of the kahakō or ʻokina in Hawaiian words can change the pronunciation and often alter the meaning of the word in the native Hawaiian language." I have been mainly arguing that we shouldn't use okinas but not kahakos when both should be used. But one thing Miller and I didn't speak about was the use of kahakos and not okinas when both should be used. This is mainly a title issues since it is relatively rare to find in the body of existing articles. After some thinking on my part and tidying up on the article Kekauōnohi, I see using kahakos and not okinas as wrong and as illogical as using okinas but not kahako. Both are partial usage of the orthographical which distorts the meaning of the word or name.. Currently a lot of the articles about Hawaiian royalties are under titles with just kahakos and not okinas when both should be used (so not talking about Kalākaua which is spelled right and should remain but Kekūanāoa which should be spelled either Kekūanāoʻa or Kekuanaoa). Many of these are of my own doing in the past actually. Now I feel that if we should be choosing between maintaining complete orthographical correctness or complete disregard in the title and article body, we should either move articles like Kekauōnohi to Kekauonohi (without any orthographical marks) or Kekauʻōnohi (with all the proper orthographical marks). I can support either methods as long as we maintain proper orthographical marks in the body of the article. My problem is partial usage. Again to reiterate the question in summary: should we use improper or partial orthography in the title and the body of articles which in all orthographical correctness should utilize? --KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To reiterate my position on this issue from the earlier discussion: no clear bright line can be drawn (on the any-or-none spectrum—no comment yet on partial usage), as past discussions have shown; in the absence of one, the clearest solution is consensus on usage in certain series of articles (for instance, in the naming of the pages for Hawaiian royalty), and then individual discretion on the part of the editor(s). ResMar 02:34, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. It just. I can see good reasons for either side of the all-or-none spectrum (this is my philosophy in this discussion), one which we seem to have been using here all along. But I see the partial usage as just incorrect and distorting of the meaning of the word. Since I made a lot of the moves myself on the articles relating to Hawaiian royalty to version with kahakos and no okinas and thus introducing the errors of partial usage in the titles, I don't think it is really consensus in relation to the Hawaiian royalty titles, just people have been not paying attention to what I have been doing and letting it slide by. Now that I see the errors of my actions, I think we should like with the apostrophe encourage the all-or-none options over partial usage.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:45, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should split this discussion up into specific issues, as I'm already getting lost in the inter-threading that's going on: ResMar 02:48, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The appropriateness of the use of the apostrophe in place of the okina.
• The appropriateness of partial orthography.
• The use and propriety of ((okina)).
• Guidelines for particular types or series of articles (in the discussion so far, Hawaiian royalty specifically, and cultural topics generally).

Proposals

Restating the above so people can support or reject. Before voting, please review/correct the wording/intent to make sure it reflects the discussion. Of course, feel free to add your own alternatives as you like. Lfstevens (talk) 03:11, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. Apostrophes should never be used in place of the okina in the article content or the article title.
2. When using the kahako and okina for a word in article content or title that has both these marks, use both or neither.
3. Use marks only in articles about Hawaii, not on Hawaiian words that appear in other contexts.
4. Use/avoid marks consistently throughout an article.
5. Use redirect pages to make sure the title without any special characters can also be used.
6. When a Hawaiaan word has been appropriated and "respelled" to name a modern entity, use the spelling adopted by the namer when referring to the entity.
7. Add unmarked redirects for marked article titles.
8. Add below the ʻokina description: "An apostrophe is not a part of the standard, traditional, Hawaiian orthography. Apostrophe's should never take the place of an ʻokina in article titles or in the body of the article with words from the Hawaiian language. Unless used as apart of a formal spelling, apostrophes should be replaced with the ʻokina character (ʻ).
9. Add to the "Titles" section: "It is strongly urged that article titles using Hawaiian language words, use the standard, Hawaiian orthography. The ʻokina is used on Wikipedia whenever an apostrophe is used in sources. Use of the macron is part of Hawaiian orthography and is preferred over non use, even when the subject is not referred to as such in a majority of reliable sources."

Poll

• Support all of the above, 1-8.--Mark Miller (talk) 17:42, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mark Miller: Um, several of them are basically mutually exclusive or at least conflict. It doesn't appear possible to support all of them (and there are 9, not 8) across-the-board. Either that or they're unclearly-written enough that this poll may not be meaningful as such, even if helping for rewriting and re-proposing.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, technically there are 7 proposals and two wording suggestions. As you say, two of them are nearly the same so there are really 6 proposals and two wording suggestions from the above discussion.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly support, 2, all (kahako and okina) or none; Support 1, 3-5, 7-8, Support with reservation, 6 (when supported by sources and only when mentioning organizations).--KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:18, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support 1-8. ResMar 15:28, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Resident Mario: See above.
• Support, if the apostrophe is removed from the plural in 8, and the first comma is removed in 9 or it’s rephrased. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 16:49, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, after clarification and cleanup: (Sorry this is long, but this is nine proposals at once, many of which need work.) #1 for titles strictly, loosely for content (in that no editor should be berated for using an apostrophe when writing new content, but it's not permissible to revert correct usage of the ʻokina or kahako to or back to an apostrophe or other incorrect, approximating character).
  #2 in theory, but #1 would make it moot; again, it's not permissible to revert correct usage to incorrect approximations (this is a general principle with regard to all orthography, and has nothing to do with the Hawaiʻian language in particular).
  #5 is a general Wikipedia principle; we don't even need to discuss it.
  #6 Yes; failure to do so would be WP:V/WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:GREATWRONGS/WP:ADVOCACY problem. An exception to this is that when an apostrophe or other approximation has been "officially" used, it can be replaced with the correct Unicode character; WP:COMMONNAME does not apply to exact glyph forms, and doesn't regulate article content anyway. As #9 says: "The ʻokina is used on Wikipedia whenever an apostrophe is used in sources." (This is one of the places where the proposals are mutually contradictory.)
  #7 is the exact same thing as #5.
  #8, yes if #1 is adopted, but clarified per what I just said about #6 (i.e. the "Unless used as a part of a formal spelling" part has no actual basis to be added). (And fix the "Apostrophe's" typo.)
  #9: Yes, but this material should not be specific to article titles, and also needs to be moderated to account for use in non-native contexts, as discussed in "Partial support" immediately below. (Loads of typos and stuff. Correct "apart" to "a part". Fix the missing hyphen in "using Hawaiian language words"; they're Hawaiian-language words, not "language words" that are Hawaiian. Ditto for missing hyphen in "non use"; non- is a prefix, not a word. "Not referred to as such" isn't a logical construction here; no such subject is referred to as a macron; I think what you mean is "not referred with the character". Next, "reliable sources" closing that same passage should be "reliable English-language sources"; and "macron" should be "[[kahako]]" in the same sentence. Finally, kahako and ʻokina should be spelled correctly throughout (all the misspellings as "okina" above are ironic, given the topic of discussion), and italicized.)
  OP: To answer the question that started all of this, yes of course it's permissible to insert the correct Unicode character in place of a template (or &...; character entity) that uses the same glyph. This is a general Wikipedia practice, and nothing to do with this language in particular.

  Partial support (needs some clarification): #3 is too vague and overbroad, but has merit if corrected. We should not impose the marks on words that have been absorbed into general English usage, when used outside the context of native Hawaiʻian culture, including in Hawaiian–American popular culture; but this has nothing to do with which article it's in, but rather the content context, anywhere. It might be a linguistic article about a feature of language found in 20 different languages, for example, or an article on pottery in 20 different cultures. The same word in a Hawaii-related article may have a native-culture meaning and a Western-industrialized-culture meaning (as is the case with a certain piece of sports equipment, I gather, but I'm no expert on that). In non-native contexts, of course use the correct orthography when giving the Hawaiʻian-language "translation", as KAVEBEAR notes below.
  #4: Same story as both #2, #9, and #3; it's effectively moot if we go with #1, when it comes to native-culture context (use the marks), or Westernized context (don't use), but it's an unworkable requirement in a mixed context. When the words are used in their native sense, they are foreign words (and should be italicized as such and marked up with ((lang|haw)) at first usage in an article), but in their non-native sense they are English-language words of Hawaiʻian-language origin. (I don't want to get into a debate about usage in linguistics, in which I have a minor degree; WP has gone with COMMONNAME obsessiveness and put the article at Hawaiian language, even though serious linguists would probably prefer to use the native endonymic form). While I wouldn't change the spelling in an article, MOS/AT doesn't dictate how I write my talk page posts. >;-) The main message on both these "partial" points and #9 above is that the "be consistent within an article" practice cannot be abused to force "consistency" between two related but actually different things. It's simply wrong to refer to "the state of Hawaiʻi" in English, but equally wrong to drop the ʻokina, in the same article, from where it belongs when referring to Hawaiʻin-language terms in the context of native Hawaiʻian culture.

   — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to apologize for the detailed response. Let me go over it before I reply. Thanks for weighing in!--Mark Miller (talk) 05:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The proposal: "1.Apostrophes should never be used in place of the okina in the article content or the article title"

The reply from SMcCandlish; "#1 for titles strictly, loosely for content (in that no editor should be berated for using an apostrophe when writing new content, but it's not permissible to revert correct usage of the ʻokina or kahako to or back to an apostrophe or other incorrect, approximating character)".

My response; basically this is a long standing issue from differing sources over a period of time since the development of the Hawaiian written language. The apostrophe is very commonly used in sources without the kahako. Since many editors see this, it is common to see the apostrophe in content, but much less so in titles unless an official part of the organizational name. It is common to see the apostrophe used when first writing content as well. I used to do this and agree no one should berated over it. I am getting used to using the template ((okina)) since western keyboards still do not have the okina key and copy pasting is just too time consuming. From what I read above you might be more supportive of language that makes that clear that the use of an apostrophe in content could be a well meaning mistake. I suggest this; Apostrophes should never be used in place of the okina in the article title. Sometimes an apostrophe is used in place of the okina when adding new content to the article itself. Replacing the apostrophe with the proper diacritic is encouraged but must always be done with civility, as some editors may be unaware of the significance".--Mark Miller (talk) 00:02, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The proposal: 2.When using the kahako and okina for a word in article content or title that has both these marks, use both or neither.

Reply from SMcCandlish; "#2 in theory, but #1 would make it moot; again, it's not permissible to revert correct usage to incorrect approximations (this is a general principle with regard to all orthography, and has nothing to do with the Hawaiʻian language in particular)."

My response; No. Because #1 is only regarding the use of the apostrophe instead of the okina because of the keyboard issue and western usage in printed sources. #2 is about the actual use of the kahako with the okina. There is no way 32 makes number 1 moot since number one is just about how the okina is representif used. This is specific to the fact that the okina IS almost always used in Hawaiian orthography while the kahako is not. It is very common to see sources only use the okina.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:02, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

On #5 we also need to have some guidance when an article's title differs from the text usage. Should we be consistent with the article's title, or with the orthography? Are there exceptions?--Mark Miller (talk) 17:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Base of just what have been done all these years, we don't follow the article titles in cases where we choose the no orthographical route in the titles. Ex. Liliuokalani, Alii and virtually most of all Hawaiian place names such as Kau, Hawaii. Unless the term is Americanized such as ukulele and luau, which only shows the correct orthography in the beginning as a Hawaiian translation. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These seem to be local consensus of editors and appear to be the exception and not the rule. The reasons why may be purely technical and could change knowing the diacritics ha no technical issue any longer in titles.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those titles should probably be changed. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 18:13, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section of the MOS states that "...articles that have not used the diacritics in the title, will list the native language spelling as an alternative, alongside the title spelling in the lede and then repeat the alternative spelling consistently throughout the running text in the body of the article." What is the rationale for having one spelling for the article title and another in the article text? See Hawaii County, Hawaii for an example of this in practice. —  AjaxSmack  20:23, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a holdover from when article title could not be written with the okina except in the article body and the title with the okinas usually impedes searchability of the topic for people using names found in older sources. Generally, moving to article titles with okina especially place names meet a lot of opposition from people outside this project and it is a move that is blacklisted and only administrator can perform them. Unless I am mistaken, this does not violate any overarching MOS policy, does it? See Liliuokalani for example of this in practice that has been there since a very long time.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:35, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of any policy issues but it's an interesting question. The WP:ARTCON guideline and numerous other talk page discussions have concluded that consistency is ideal. However, I've seen cases in other articles where usage is different. Ngo Dinh Diem is titled without diacritics but the article uses them for his name throughout (Ho Chi Minh, on the other hand does not). Maybe I'll query a policy talk page about it. But why not just move the title if there is policy basis for use of the diacritics and why use them throughout the text if not? —  AjaxSmack  19:53, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your Vietnamese example is a really great example of this because both are technically non-English foreign symbols not found on a normal keyboard. I think the rational has been because it is easier to search for a title especially on Google without diacritics and also easier to type out on the url. Normal keyboards can't replicate these symbols without copying and pasting. The rationale I see in these case is that you want more readers to reach the page but you still want to respect the language and follow proper orthography in the articles. The problem isn't easily solvable at the moment because you have groups against moving titles to diacritics (but don't care about inconsistencies in the body of the article) and another group that are fervent about usage of diacritics in the body (but don't care about inconsistencies in the article title), so you have articles stuck in between in limbo. One of my recent articles Zorobabela Kaʻauwai was moved back and forth between use of diacritics in the title or not twice; I am of the camp that only cares about the accurate diacritics in the body so the title didn't matter as much to me, so I was fine with either one, but I was annoyed by the inconsistency that it created as I first create the article title with diacritics than it got move, so I create other biographies of family members without diacritics only to have a later admin move the original back and then another user request a title change back to no diacritics, only to have that request fail. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:39, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ʻOkina in county article titles

It appears that both Hawaii County, Hawaii^[1][2][3] and Kauai County, Hawaii^[4][5][6] have formally amended their county charters to add the ʻokina to their respective corporate names in the past decade. I understand that there has already been extensive discussion about geographic names; however, both of these charter amendments were voted on after most of the discussion took place. Both county articles often use the ʻokina within the body of the article in the counties' names, but not in the article titles themselves. It does look like there are redirects from Hawaiʻi County, Hawaii and Kauaʻi County, Hawaii. Should the articles be switched so that the ones with the ʻokina are the lead articles, and the ones without are redirects, in order to conform with the formal corporate names of the counties? Mac3387 (talk) 02:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would support this proposal. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 03:54, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Francis Schonken: KAVEBEAR (talk) 16:43, 25 November 2019 (UTC) “The word "Hawaii" appears in most English dictionaries, so either spelling can be appropropriate. The modern US State is usually just "Hawaii". The ʻokina is often used when talking about the ancient culture, Kingdom of Hawaiʻi, or the island of Hawaiʻi in the body of the article.”[reply]

It’s not that hard and has been the official usage for a while. The recent edits removes the reference to the section entirely. The official name of the entity is the State of Hawaii while Hawaii can be used to refer to the cultural region.KAVEBEAR (talk) 16:36, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let's highlight some words in the quote from the "Hawaii vs Hawaiʻi" section: "The word "Hawaii" appears in most English dictionaries, so either spelling can be appro[pro]priate. The modern US State is usually just "Hawaii". The ʻokina is often used when talking about the ancient culture, Kingdom of Hawaiʻi, or the island of Hawaiʻi in the body of the article.", so "Hawaii refers to the State of Hawaoo, and Hawaiʻi refers to the cultural region or the island" is incorrect: Hawaiʻi can also refer to the State of Hawaooii (although not usually), and Hawaii can also refer to the island of Hawaiʻi (which is a redirect to the Hawaii (island) article, where Hawaii is written without okina in the article title). --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:48, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Francis Schonken: Didn’t notice the misspelling in my recent edit. Are you suggesting the latter change or what? Also if you read the policy again there is a rule for Hawaii in article title and only using Hawaiʻi in article body. See “often used when talking about the ancient culture, Kingdom of Hawaiʻi, or the island of Hawaiʻi in the body of the article”. That is where you are confused. All articles title are currently without okina as policy dictates. KAVEBEAR (talk) 16:55, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re. "Are you suggesting the latter change ... ?" – No, please read what I wrote.

Re. "... the policy ... there is a rule for Hawaii in article title and only using Hawaiʻi in article body" – which policy? --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:20, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Hawaii-related articles and the accepted consensus that’s been used on this project for years.KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:13, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy if the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Hawaii-related articles guideline was a good reflection of current best practice. However,

1. what you say about the difference between article titles and article body is not in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Hawaii-related articles guideline, not even when reading between the lines of its often confusing prose. Nor should that be in this guideline, while it is not by any measure best practice.
2. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Hawaii-related articles is a guideline not a policy, no false pretences please. With all its confusing prose and inadequateness it is actually closer to essay-level guidance than to policy-level guidance.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 19:23, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to ask if Wikipedia: Manual of Style/Hawaii-related articles could include a section on using the article "an" before the word "ukulele", at least for Hawaii-related articles? Otherwise, we have these situations where bots come in and change everything to "a ukulele" even where it seems highly inappropriate. Cielquiparle (talk) 13:04, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's some very good, in-depth, ongoing discussion at Talk:2023 Hawaii wildfires § Use of Hawaiian symbols in names that I hope will lead to some wiki-wide changes & policies being updated, which are overdue and sorely needed – especially given that this MOS doesn't seem like it's often followed, unfortunately, or that many people are aware of it in the first place! Anyone watching this talk page would probably be interested in reading through the conversation that's happening and/or getting involved. –Fpmfpm (talk) 13:44, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]