Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Finnish)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Correct spelling in English language 2 NHL 3 Length 4 a change is needed 5 Discrete letters 6 Support 6.1 Separate rules for ice hockey players 6.2 Not spelt wrong 7 May require more viewpoints?

[edit] Correct spelling in English language

I provide some information here in order to avoid unneccessary arguments motivated by uninformed native anglophone sentiments in favour of incorrect English spelling:

• letter 'ä' in Finnish is spelled 'ae' oe Æ in English language
• letter 'a' has nothing to do with letter 'ä' in English or in Finnish language

• letter 'ö' in Finnish is spelled 'oe' or 'Œ' in English language
• letter 'o' has nothing to do with letter 'ö' in English or in Finnish language

Check the links to find the phonetic spelling of the letters, say them aloud and you will hear the difference.

However I agree with you: ae and oe make Finnish names look so cumbersome and unrecognizble.

• Kimi Raekkoenen?
• Mika Haekkinen?
• Anneli Jaeaetteenmaeki !

No wonder they don't use the correct spelling in NHL shirts. Takes space from the sponsors.

I think this is an arcane way of spelling these letters. It is better to accept the use of nordic versions in wikipedia.(Spespatriae 20:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC))

[edit] NHL

-- It is funny how you conclude the lack of diacritics (or other foreign characters) is because of google laziness. If you may notice, books also disinclude those very same characters most of the time when referring to hockey players. I went and looked through a book i have had for quite called "The Hockey News The top 100 NHL players of all time". Not one diacritic was used. I also looked through various Hockey Becketts i have and not one of them uses diacritics anywhere either. Oh, also the hockey cards i have don't use diacritics. Anyways, my point is, your reasoning due to google laziness is hogwash. It is quite simple, hockey publications rarely use diacritics (or other foreign characters). Wikipedia policy is quite clear that the mosst common form in English be used. Have a look at the back of Teemu's sweater. Have a look at official NHL publications. It is very clear that those "two funny little dots" are rarely used in English for Teemu and other Finnish players. So, my point? While i have never had a problem with the use of diacritics in article titles, i have always had a problem with their use when that is not the most common way of spelling it in English. Your proposed policy wording contravenes the most basic of wikipeida policies (use the most common form in English) and also contravenes other, older, proposals found here Wikipedia:Naming conventions (standard letters with diacritics). While you say that "ä, ö, å" don't fit here, i beg to differ. That proposal is for "ä, ö, å" as well.

So, to sum up, i think that this proposal has potential, but needs a lot of work so that it doesn't conflict with current policies and other proposals. Elrith, i understand what you are trying to do here and i think it is a good thing. But please, you have to realise that, whether you like it or not, many hockey player publications just don't use diacritics, whether they are reference books or media publications. And like i said, if the most common form i English includes diacritics, then by all means, keep them! But to follow policy, if the most common form drops the, wikipedia must too. Masterhatch 15:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The Google reasoning is not mine; it's directly quoted from WP:GOOGLE. I believe that in this case it applies, although I realize you're right about North American ice hockey publications. However, I point you toward the Google results and the other online encyclopedias: it is a fact that English most commonly includes the Finnish letters when spelling Finnish proper names. Ice hockey seems to be an exception to this rule. Therefore, I argue that this proposal does not contradict the policy of using the most common form, since the most common spelling of Finnish proper names in English is the Finnish spelling.

Also, I don't quite understand how else to resolve this. Would you suggest a separate naming policy for Finnish ice hockey players? If so, which Finnish ice hockey players would that apply to? Players who only play in Europe, like Markus Kankaanperä? Players who have played in North America but don't any more (Timo Pärssinen)? Or just Finnish NHL players who play in the NHL at the moment? I can't see any way of resolving this that doesn't get very complicated; it would, in my mind, be senseless to spell Kankaanperä's name without the Finnish letter, because he's played his entire career in Finland. But then the divisions get very complicated.

In general, I don't see why ice hockey players should be treated differently from other Finnish people. Is it really sensible to create Naming conventions: (Finnish (except current NHL players))? It would go against the precedent so far at WP:NAME, which has specific conventions for Irish, Russian and Ukrainian names, but no conventions yet in place for names divided by occupations.

As for Wikipedia:Naming conventions (standard letters with diacritics), it quite clearly does not apply. From the article diacritic: "A diacritical mark can appear above or below the letter to which it is added, or in some other position; however, note that not all such marks are diacritical. For example, in English, the tittle (dot) on the letters i and j is not a diacritical mark, but rather part of the letter itself." And later, specifically to the point: "( ¨ ) diaeresis (also dieresis) or umlaut, a diacritic in some languages, but part of the character in the German, Swedish, Finnish and Russian languages." Diacritics are entirely different from Finnish letters, and I can't find anything in the proposal you mention that deals with Finnish letters.

What do you suggest? I think that it would be unnecessarily difficult to have a separate policy for Finnish NHL players as distinct from all other Finnish people. What would be your solution?

• I am all for any guideline that conforms -- as per official policy -- to what the majority of English speakers would demonstrably recognize. I am against any guideline which tramples on that policy. If, for instance, the names of Finnish sportsmen well-known to the English-speaking world are depicted without diacriticals, then like Masterhatch I submit this has far less to do with "Google laziness" and far more to do with the general lack of diacritical usage in English print media. Obviously any such proposal would have to be changed to conform to Wikipedia black-letter policy, and compelling diacriticals across the board violates that.

To address Elrith's question above, the test is blindingly simple: to use the form for any proper name most commonly recognized in English. While I disagree that it is "unnecessarily difficult" to have a separate policy for Finnish NHL players, I also disagree that the scope of the question at hand is that narrow. All proper names should be subjected to similar tests, and any that are generally found to be rendered in standard English without diacriticals should be so here. If sportsmen generally are rendered without diacriticals, this just makes the job that much easier. RGTraynor 16:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that sportsmen are generally not rendered in English without the Finnish letters. I gave the (admittedly slightly obscure) example of Paavo Yrjölä, an Olympic medalist. Google has him with ö and ä more often that without.

Also, the point of this proposal is to create a standard policy for Wikipedia instead of having to deal with all these articles case-by-case. For example, the Manual of Style article for Irish names [1] lays down specific guidelines for all Ireland-related articles that supersede the general requirements of WP:NAME. Similarly, my idea here is to lay down guidelines for all Finnish proper names; since the guideline on Irish names is an "official" adjunct to WP:NAME, obviously writing a similar guideline for Finnish names would not violate Wikipedia policies. I also remind you of the very beginning of WP:NAME: "It is important to note that these are conventions, not rules written in stone. As Wikipedia grows and changes, some conventions that once made sense may become outdated, and there may be cases where a particular convention is "obviously" inappropriate." I believe that it would be much more efficient and sensible to not subject each and every Finnish proper name to Google tests, but instead to lay down a general guideline for all Finnish names. Elrith 16:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I also feel the need to point out, again, that diacriticals on Finnish names are entirely different from Finnish letters. Markku Alén has a diacritical on his name; Kimi Räikkönen does not. Elrith 16:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Length

The proposal is pretty long for a guideline on the use of three letters. Can we run through it and cut down on some of the verbiage? Or at least have a summary? Fagstein 18:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The proposal would make the current practice of using å, ä and ö in Finnish names the norm. Basis of the proposal: follows the similar practice in Norwegian and Swedish names. The proposal also argues that å, ä and ö are not diacritical forms of a and o but separate letters and dropping them out would cause ambiquity with similar Finnish names with a and o: e.g. Harkonen vs. Härkönen. Redirects should be placed, where this is not a danger. Most of the proposal argues for these points with a legalistic attitude towards the Wikipedia conventions. --MPorciusCato 06:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the proposal is the summary: "This is a policy proposal for a unified Wikipedia policy on spelling Finnish names and using the Finnish letters ä, ö and å. The proposal suggests that in spelling Finnish proper names, the Finnish letters be used. It follows the proposed Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Swedish) in outline." Mostly I tried to argue my point in detail; the actual policy is very simple. And to be a stickler for detail, I'm not arguing that ä, ö and å aren't diacriticals; that's a fact. Elrith 06:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

This talk page is already very long, 32 kilobytes. Should it be archived, or divided up, in some way? JIP | Talk 11:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] a change is needed

As the current proposal sits, it would force Finnish characters onto all articles about Finnish people completely disregarding whether or not that is the most common way of spelling a person's name. This directly contravenes Wikipedia:naming convention and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) (as well as others already mentioned). In order for this proposed guideline to work, it must work with other policies and guidelines. Elrith asked me for a solution and i will present the same one i have been presenting all along: if the most common spelling in English doesn't use Finnish characters, neither will wikipedia; if the most common spelling in English does use Finnish characters, so will wikipedia.

I assume that Elrith doesn't like this because there are so many hockey players whose most common spelling drops Finnish characters. Basically it is simple and case by case. For each Finnish article in qquestion, do two things: do a quick google search to see the most common on the net and have a look in reputable English publications. Really, it's not that hard and makes perfect sense. It has nothing to do with where they played most of their career (for hockey players) and nothing to do with where they lived most of their lives or where they went to school or where they worked. It is all about most common spelling, which is easy to figure out and in the vast majority of cases quite cut and dry.

So, to sum up, a change is needed to this proposal. While the proposal has many good ideas, overall it reads as a way of trying to force finnish characters onto hockey player articles (as that is the impetus for the creation of this proposal in the first place). Elrith, i greatly apologise for the way hockey deals with diacritics and other foreign characters, but the facts of the matter are quite clear. But it isn't just hockey players that English drops diacritics and foreign characters; there are other people too. Anyways, my point is, a blanket proposal that would force diacritics on all Finnish people on wikipedia just doesn't work. Here's an example: What if there was a Finnish guy who was born in Finland but moved to the US when he was 10 years old and he went on to become a great English novelist. While he was in Finland, he used those "funny little dots" in his name, but when he came to the US, he stopped and even into adulthood, he continued to not use them. So, would wikipedia add those little dots to his name because he was born in Finland even though he himself stopped using them? This is a perfect example of how your policy just won't work as is, but adding a "most common spelling in English" clause would allow for such "anomalies". Masterhatch 16:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

A Finn's name should be spelled the way they spell it themselves, not "in the most common English way" (which is usually only the result of mass ignorance). Teemu Selänne should be spelled Teemu Selänne, because that's the way his name really is, even though very nearly all American websites spell it Teemu Selanne. OTOH, if he were to legally change his surname to Selanne, then that's how it should be spelled. This is the same way we spell Vaisala the company without "funny little dots", even though it was founded by a bloke called Väisälä. JIP | Talk 08:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. There is nothing incorrect about using the English alphabet when writing in English. Get over any silly notions to the contrary, and stop characterizing it as "mass ignorance". Gene Nygaard 10:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Could you guys understand that Finnish names are not words in the English language, but instead proper names? It's not as if Finns pronounce GWB's name /keorke vee pus/ because hey, it's in Finnish, so it follows the Finnish pronunciation. JIP | Talk 10:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, get real! If we are writing in English, they are words written in English.

Do Finns normally spell Hawaiʻi with an okina? Then why is there not only not an ocina in the title in the Finnish Wikipedia article at fi:Havaiji, but furthermore the name of the article contains two letters not contained in the Hawaiian alphabet?

Do Finns normally spell Māori with the a with a macron? Then why is there not only no macron in the title of fi:Maorit but none on that word in the text either? Gene Nygaard 02:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The Hawaiʻi case falls under the exonyms I've mentioned earlier. When the English Wikipedia starts spelling Suomi, Sverige, Danmark, Deutschland, etc. by their "correct" names, then we'll get back to that. For the Māori case, I'll mark that up to mass ignorance. Most Finns aren't aware of the letter ā. I can't even type it, I have to copy-and-paste it every time. That doesn't mean the name Māori should always be changed to Maori when used in Finnish texts. Misspelling a name accidentally is OK, but claiming it's the right spelling isn't. JIP | Talk 18:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Now we're getting somewhere. Most English speakers can't even type ö and å and ä; we to copy-and-paste them every time. But if we are writing in English, we don't have to. There is no error in using the English alphabet when writing in English.

Havaiji isn't an exonym. It is merely a different spelling of the endonym, tailored to the pronunciation rules of the language. Gene Nygaard 08:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I said most Finns aren't aware of the letter ā, and I can't even type it. That doesn't, by itself, mean it should be omitted when writing in Finnish. Technical difficulties don't make official policy. If I saw a Finnish publication mentioning Māori, I sure would not ask them to change it to Maori. "Māori" is the name of a people, not a person, so I'm not completely strict about that. On the other hand, if I saw a Finnish publication mention "Paul Erdös", I would prefer it to be spelled "Paul Erdős", even though the letter ő isn't part of the Finnish alphabet any more than it is of the English alphabet. And I still think "Havaiji" is an exonym. JIP | Talk 20:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discrete letters

Finnish letters are discrete letters of the alphabet, as opposed to Latin letters with added diacritics, and therefore are a separate matter altogether from diacritics.

What is this supposed to mean? From an English-speaking PoV, it is not true; all letter modifications are diacritics. If it means that Finnish alphabetizes ä separately, so what? So does Swedish. Septentrionalis 16:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It's plain pedantry, is what. This exact same conversation has been held between the exact same people before, so it isn't as if anyone is just now encountering the English-speaking POV and is surprised by it. RGTraynor 00:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

What it's supposed to mean is exactly what it says in the Wikipedia article diacritic; Finnish letters are not diacritics but are separate letters. Your claim that "all letter modifications are diacritics" is completely false. Can you present any sources? Diacritics are treated differently from separate letters in the Latin alphabet; for example, usually capitalized letters with diacritics lose the diacritic, while separate letters usually remain the same when capitalized. I don't see how pointing out an obvious fact is "pedantry"; I do, however, see how totally ignoring it is POV in the Wikipedia sense. Elrith 15:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Support

Not surprisingly, I fully support this proposal. —Nightstallion (?) 20:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Is that your POV or is that based on references or wikipedia policies and guidelines? This proposal has some serious flaws because it blanket covers all Finnish people without allowing for "most common usage in English" (as per Wikipedia:Naming convention). Masterhatch 21:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

If you consider "we should use the most correct names, whether that happens to be the most common or not" POV, then yes, it's "my POV". I simply think that we shouldn't use an incorrect version of a name just because a majority of people use the dumbed-down versions of the names. I don't negate that there are also names with clearly established English translations, like Munich, which should be at the English version of the name. —Nightstallion (?) 08:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

My point exactly. If the majority of Americans don't even know there are such letters as å, ä, and ö, let alone have the foggiest on how to write or type them, then this alone is not enough for the non-accented versions to be "the most commonly used". If that logic were true, Wikipedia would have to adopt a policy of spelling receive "recieve" and weird "wierd", and its "it's", because those seem to be the most commonly used spellings. That does not make them correct. JIP | Talk 09:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a world of difference between someone who misspells wierd and anglicising a spelling from another language because English doesn't have the same characters. It is not "dumbing down" or through ignorance that English doesn't use foreign characters (very often); it is simply that those are foreign characters and most English publications choose not to use them. Not only is your comparison to misspellings and diacritics way off in pure logic, but even if those aforementioned misspellings were the most common way of spelling those words in the general public (which they are not, by the way), wikipedia would look at the majority of reputable sources (such as dictionaries, encyclopaedias, reference books, magazines) and see that weird is the most common spelling. So, back to diacritics (and foreign (or would that be foriegn?) characters). If the majority of reputable English publications, not blogs or personal journals or grade two homework assignments, use diacritics, then wikipedia should too and if they don't, then wikipedia shouldn't either. it is a case by case situation and a blanket articles must use diacritics (and other foreign characters) all the time won't work. Masterhatch 17:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I still find it difficult to believe the majority of English publications would choose not to use these "foreign letters". As far as I am aware, they don't use them either because they don't know they exist, or don't know how to type them correctly. Also, I think that Finns' names should be spelled the way they spell them themselves. From a different point of view, Finnish itself doesn't use any other accented letters than ä and ö (å is used only in Finland-Swedish), but I would still strongly support use of all accented letters, Finnish or foreign, on the Finnish Wikipedia. JIP | Talk 18:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't find it difficult to believe that they choose not to use diacritics. The technology does exist to add those diacritics to words (and names) and i am sure that pubilishers are aware of their existance. It just appears that the majority of English publishers are choosing not to use diacritics and other foreign characters. I could throw out a thousand guesses as to why, but my speculation doesn't matter. All that matters is that the proof is in the pudding and publishers rarely use diacritics. Masterhatch 02:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

That may well be, but American publishers don't decide the correct spellings of Finnish names, any more than Finnish publishers decide the correct spellings of American names. In my opinion, Finns' names should be spelled the way they spell them themselves. JIP | Talk 06:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

And on the Finnish Wikipedia, they should be. Come to that, when the Finnish Wikipedia adopts English spelling for English proper names (which in fact it doesn't; for instance, it renders the name of the Queen of England as "Elisabet" and the nation's capital as "Lontoo"), you'd possibly have a leg to stand on. Right now, you don't. RGTraynor 16:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Those are names of royalty and cities, which have established exonyms. That's different from the names of the most of people. The English Wikipedia calls København "Copenhagen" and München "Munich". Do I complain? No. In fact I'm in favour of those names. That's because they are established English names, just as "Lontoo" is an established Finnish name for London. But I have never heard of a non-royalty individual person having his or her name translated as an exonym. JIP | Talk 17:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

This issue will probably never get consensus, yes there is a rule stating that the name "the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize" should be used, and many Swedish, Finnish and other names are most often wrongly spelled in english publications, so therefore most english speaking people does not know how their names are spelled, so should we spell thing wrongly, just because newspapers do? The same convention also states "It is important to note that these are conventions, not rules written in stone. As Wikipedia grows and changes, some conventions that once made sense may become outdated, and there may be cases where a particular convention is "obviously" inappropriate". Wikipedias Five_pillars clearly states that it is a encyclopedia, if we look at EB and encarta and probably most other encyclopedias they tend to spell names as in the original country, this makes sense to me. See the examples in this article and in the Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Swedish). So as I see it, do we want to be a encyclopedia or do we want to follow the wikipedias own naming convention? For me it is a simple choise, I support this proposal fully! Actually one more thing, how can you find a reliable source that any of the people discussed here actaully is named the way you want to name them? Their birth certificates and passports does spell their names correctly, so I would say that any other source is wrong. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons states "We must get the article right. Be very firm about high quality references", can we really say that magazines and web pages are higher quality references than birth certificates and passports? Stefan 07:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I too support this policy. Whether paper publishers can afford type with "ä" and "ö" is irrelevant here, Wikipedia isn't paper and it costs nothing to get it right. The characters in question are ISO Latin-1, and easy enough to produce on a PC. Redirects exist to catch the misspellings. There's nothing controversial here, simply a restatement of existing policies. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

While I support the established guideline "most common usage for titles" I don't think we should get tangled about this one becasue we have cheap redirects. Can't it be left to individual discretion on that basis? Rich Farmbrough 17:12 30 August 2006 (GMT).

I have never had problems with redirects from "Englishised" spellings, in fact I'm in favour of them. As long as the article itself is spelled correctly, it can have redirects from whatever people want. I understand what User:Masterhatch is thinking, but I think he's mistaken. The Finnish alphabet is an extension of the Latin alphabet, not a different alphabet. Therefore writing Finnish names natively is less of a problem than with Russian or Greek names. And also, as other people have said too, why do we need separate rules for ice hockey players and everyone else? By far the majority of Finnish people have their names spelled natively on the English Wikipedia. Why do we need different rules just for ice hockey players, just because American websites spell their names differently? I'm sure I can come up with hundreds of websites mentioning "Sauli Niinisto" or "Anneli Jaatteenmaki" or "Aki Kaurismaki" if I want to. I understand Masterhatch is specifically interested in ice hockey articles, but this doesn't explain why we need one rule for ice hockey players and another for everyone else. I was once asked why I am lecturing native English speakers how to write their own language. In return I want to ask why people think they can spell my countrymen's names better than I can. Finally, as for the Czech example mentioned at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Swedish), the Czech Wikipedia is another version of Wikipedia, and can deal with the issue itself. JIP | Talk 17:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

And what about city names? Should they also follow the "no diacritics on the English Wikipedia" rule or "spell it like the Americans do, whichever way it is" rule? This would make Hämeenlinna (castle of Tavastia) into Hameenlinna (castle of the dress), which would undoubtedly cause a few laughs from the Finnish readers. JIP | Talk 17:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

City names should follow the same principle: the most common spelling in English in reputable publications. City names are a little easier to figure out than hockey players because you can just go to an atlas or other encyclopaedia to see the most common English spelling. Again, if the majority of said atlases and encyclopaedias use "those funny little dots", then wikipedia should too. If they don't, despite "a few laughs", that should be the spelling used on wikipedia. Masterhatch 15:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

This is again where I disagree on principle. In my opinion, Wikipedia should follow the official names of Finnish people and places, not the ones that foreign publications, no matter reputable or not, happen to use the most. There are some official English exonyms of Finnish places which are officially recognised in Finland: "Finland" itself is one of them, also names for historical regions: "Savonia" for Savo, "Ostrobothnia" for Pohjanmaa, "Karelia" for Karjala, "Tavastia" for Häme, and "Lapland" for Lappi. But if you were to show English-language newspapers, dictionaries, or even official government-sanctioned documents, mentioning "Hameenlinna" or "Seinajoki" to Finns, they would claim the names were simply spelled wrong. JIP | Talk 20:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

You said, "if you were to show English-language newspapers, dictionaries, or even official government-sanctioned documents, mentioning "Hameenlinna" or "Seinajoki" to Finns, they would claim the names were simply spelled wrong." Well, that is where we are fundamentally different. I don't care if a Finn says that something in English is spelt wrong, because it is English!!! not Finnish!!! The spelling used by the majority of English atlases, encyclopedias, and other reference books should be the spelling used on wikipedia, even if the Finnish say it is spelt wrong. English doesn't spelling English wrong. I can't believe you even have the audacity to claim that English spells English wrong, especially in atlases and encyclopeadias, when it comes to place names and people's names. Do you find ignorance bliss? Masterhatch 03:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I still maintain that names of people and cities are not part of the language as such, but are proper names. Finnish names don't became English just because they're used in English sentences. This is the fundamental reason why I disagree with you. JIP | Talk 05:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Ignorance must be bliss, eh? My "opinion" is based soley on the usage of Finnish words (names and places) in English publications. Your "Opinion" is just that: your opinion based on nothing but your own opinion. You have been unable to back anything up by reference books or publications of any kind. You really seem to have a hate-on for the way English deals with your language. My "opinion" is clear and follows all the guidelines and policies: the most common spelling in English is the spelling to be used on wikipedia. Of course, there are exceptions to that, such as disambiguation cases. I think it is important for one to look beyond, but not disinclude, the internet when deciding on "most common" spelling in English. Reference books, encyclopaedias, newspapers, television, dictionaries, atlases, and magazines cannot be forgotten or overlooked. Masterhatch 16:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Separate rules for ice hockey players

I am not advocating separate rules for ice hockey players or any other specific group of people or articles. Several times the question "Why should hockey players be treated differently and separate on wikipedia?" has been asked. I have answered it several times and i will answer it again. Hockey players should not be treated differently or separately from anyone else. The policy of "most common English name" should be followed for virtually all articles (certain exceptions apply, of course, such as cases of disambiguation). It just happens that the majority of English publications about hockey players drop diacritics and other foreign characters. And i am not just talking about internet publications either. Reference books, newspapers, magazines, hockey cards, official NHL publications, newscasts, etc. all seem to drop "those funny little dots". Very rarely do i see those "funny little dots" added to publications in English. So, getting back to the original question, hockey players shouldn't be treated differently from any other famous Finn. If the majority of English publications omit diacritics for a certain finn, even a non-hockey one, then wikipedia should too. If the majority of English publications use diacritics for a certain finn, even a hockey one, then wikipedia should too. It is a case by case situation. Masterhatch 18:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

But in principle this is what you ask for, drop the real names of hockey players, only since they have more things published about themselves without dots and rings, while e.g. Selma Lagerlöf is allowed to have her name spelled as in her home country since she had more control over how her name was printed on her books published in english, or maybe it is more common for publishers to use the name from the passport, and Patrik Sjöberg can have his name since IIAF[2] is better at allowing birth names than NHL. This is the argument here, I want consistancy, (and real names :-) ) not exception for hockey players, what you ask for is not consistent, and follow a bad rule in wikipedia. Stefan 14:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Now that you point it out, Selma Lagerlöf is misindexed. Could you fix the sort key? Gene Nygaard 08:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not spelt wrong

One of the major arguments used by the pro-diacritic side is that English spells it wrong. I can see your side of it, from a Finnish point of view. But this isn't the finnish section wikipedia, it is the English section. And in English, we spell things differently than in Finland. I will repeat: differently, not wrong. The US spells things differently than England, but American spellings are not wrong, just different. Omitting "those funny little dots" in English does not make the spelling wrong in English. An example (a poor one i might add) related dropping diacritics to spelling wierd, recieve and other English words wrong. As far as i can tell, the only people that spell wierd are people who aren't sure of the spelling. All reputable English publications spell it weird, not wierd. But, if, for whatever reason, reputable English publications started spelling it wierd, including dictionaries, then wikipedia would have to move its article from weird to wierd, even though that is the "wrong" spelling. But it would no longer be the "wrong" spelling. If enough reputable sources spelt it wierd, then it would become the "right" spelling in English. A perfect example of this happening is the word "catalogue". "Catalog" has become so common of a spelling (even though to me it looks totally wrong and odd), that that is the spelling used on wikipedia. So, to sum up, spelt "wrong" holds no water as it is just spelt differently in English. Masterhatch 19:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree you about everything except the names of individual, non-royalty, people. I still maintain these people themselves have the authority on the spelling of their own names. Not the English speaking community, not the Finnish speaking community, not you, not I, or anyone else other than them. JIP | Talk 20:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

And even for royality, there is a distinction between their royal and personal names. Royal names are translated, personal names aren't. For example, when Prince Charles becomes King of the United Kingdom, in Finland he will officially be known as "Ison-Britannian kuningas Kaarle III", but his own, personal name will still remain "Charles Windsor", even when used in a Finnish context. JIP | Talk 20:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

How do we know which spelling they prefer? Teemu doesn't seem to mind that there are no "funny little dots" on the back of his sweater or on his name in official NHL publications. True be told, there is no way to know for sure what the individual thinks of the matter. All we have to go on is the spelling accepted and used by publications in English (hence the no original research policy). If i was a professional athlete and my name was spelt wrong on my sweater, i would put up a huge stink and have it fixed. Teemu, as far as i know, hasn't done that. Does that mean he just doesn't care? does that mean he tried and the teams he played for wouldn't fix it? does that mean he understands that English spellings are different from Finnish spellings? There is no way to tell for sure. Out of curiosity, has Teemu written an autobiography in English? if so, how is the name spelt? I went to amazon.com to see if i could find a book that would resemble an autobiography of his. This [3] is the closest i could find and its title doesn't include "those funny little dots". If his name was really spelt wrong, not just different, don't you think he would put up more of a fuss over the matter? I know i would. Just some food for thought. Masterhatch 20:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I am sure Teemu himself prefers the spelling Selänne, not Selanne. It might just be too difficult for him to complain to every one of the millions of places his name is spelled incorrectly. Even his own sweater might be out of his control, there might be technical restrictions to writing names on the sweaters. JIP | Talk 05:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I doubt that there are technical restrictions on sweaters because many spanish named baseball players use that swiggly line on the "N" on their baseball jerseys. Masterhatch 02:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

This raises additional questions. If American sports teams choose to spell ñ with the tilde, why do they choose to spell ä and ö without the dots? In Spanish, ñ is n with a diacritic. In Finnish, ä and ö are separate letters, not related to a and o. Do Americans treat some foreign letters as better than others? Or is ñ really a part of the English alphabet? OTOH, it might simply be a difference between sports. Maybe baseball teams work differently from ice hockey teams. JIP | Talk 09:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Just a guess here: it could be that Americans are more familar with Spanish than they are with other european languages and most americans know the difference in pronunciation between ñ and n and not ä and ö and a and o. Also, it is fairly common to see the ñ kept on borrowed words but fairly uncommon to see ä and ö kept on borrowed words. Masterhatch 22:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

This is what I was thinking too. This reinforces my idea that Americans simply don't know about ä and ö, and contradicts your idea that Americans are well aware them, but choose not to use them to preserve the purity of the English alphabet. JIP | Talk 11:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

There are, after all, thousands of different squiggly letters used around the world, and probably not a handful of people who know how to make all of them when looking for something in a search engine or a "Go" button or when writing a newspaper, a magazine, or a scientific journal. There is no "error" in using the English alphabet when writing in English. While the enye may be more common in English than some other letters with squiggles, don't be misled into thinking that it is not omitted in English more often than it is included. Furthermore, ñ is a separate letter in the Spanish alphabet ("but ñ is a letter in its own right"), indexed after n and before o. So you obviously aren't as well versed in this as you think you are. Gene Nygaard 13:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, it would be ridiculous to expect English Wikipedia readers—and editors—to be making distinctions based on the fact that ä is a "separate letter" in some obscure languages, but merely a "letter with a diacritic" in other foreign languages more closely related to English. Gene Nygaard 13:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

True, I have to admit I was wrong about ñ being n with a diacritic, but my other arguments still stand. JIP | Talk 14:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I have never met Teemu, but I imagine if I were to ask him "Which spelling do you think is more correct, Selänne or Selanne?" he would answer "Of course Selänne is more correct. Most Americans, including my teammates, spell it Selanne, which is technically incorrect, but I don't really mind it." It would be a completely absurd idea to think he himself would prefer the spelling Selanne. I have made a mental note to ask Teemu about this if I should ever meet him. JIP | Talk 19:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter; what matters is how it is spelled in English. But even with your viewpoint, what would you do with people for whom their own spelling of their names is either time-dependent or location-dependent or language-dependent, something that likely happens thousands of times for even just the people with Wikipedia articles, though we generally haven't even explored that issue to determine that it takes place in most instances? That includes even politicians or entertainers who were born without any diacritics and never used them until they stick them on as adults to try to play up to a block of voters or a potential movie audience or a brand-recognition scheme as a rock band or whatever, as well as many who go the oter way when they live or work in an English-speaking environment, for example. Gene Nygaard 14:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] May require more viewpoints?

I'm getting tired of arguing with User:Masterhatch and User:Gene Nygaard. It is obvious none of us is going to back down from his argument or viewpoint. But perhaps this should have more viewpoints from more Wikipedia users, from all over the world? It's obvious there is never going to be a consensus if only two or three people are discussing it. JIP | Talk 07:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The standard solution for this is WP:RfC (on the issue), to attract attention. But in this case I agree with them, and think the issue largely a straw man: if someone genuinely insists on their name being spelt "this way and no other" it probably will be, and it will be the most common usage. On the other hand, if they don't care, why should we? JIP's position is one of vast concern for the handful of people (if any) caught between these two forks.

Come up with an actual, documented, example of someone saying: "My name is X" [no matter where], and English usage spelling it Y, and we can discuss it. Until then, this is mere conjecture. Septentrionalis 17:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I bumped into the request for imput while using the Help Desk, and thought that this sounded like an interesting discussion, so I dropped by to take a look.

I am not Finnish nor American, and don't think I've ever had the need to spell any Finn's name in English (basically, because I don't know any contemporary Finns, and the spelling of Historical Finns doesn't seem to be under contention). I am also thoroughly unfamiliar with Ice Hockey, and can safely say that the only player I have ever heard of is Wayne Gretzky.

From what I have been able to gather, it seems to me that one point has yet to have been considered:

• Pronunciation - Coansidering Mr. Selänne, who has been mentioned above: as a public personna, I am asuming that there is an accepted "Americanized" pronunciation of his name which is - probably - incorrect from a Finnish perspective. Therefore, the Americanized spelling of his name as Selanne would reflect his "American name".

(For example, compare how the Swedish pronunciation of Ingrid Bergman's name was completely abandoned in English-speaking countries, where her last name is pronounced according to English linguistic sensibilities. For the same reason, Björn Borg is usually spellt as "Bjorn Borg" because most English-speakers call him Bee-orn, not Bee-urn).

I would suggest that when the Englicized apoken version of the name tries to reflect the correct Finnish pronunciation, so should the written version offer a Finnish spelling. (For an analogy: façade is still pronounced as "fassahd", and not as "fakad". Therefore, it's written according to the original French way. Were we to start pronouncing it invariably as "fakad", the cedilla would go.)

On the other hand, if the English pronunciation of the name is clearly different from the Finnish pronunciation, it might be better to write the name in English, to offer this pronunciation for English-speakers who are unfamiliar with the subject.

Again looking at Mr. Selänne: when I first saw his name on this page, I read it as suh-lay-nee. Having consulted [this page], I realize that in Finnish it might be more akin to seh-lahn. How is his name pronounced by Americans who know him as a sports personality? Mip | Talk 17:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Announcers and sports media pronounce it Selanee with the a being a soft a as in sat. The first e makes the same sound as in egg and the last e makes a long e as in seed. Basically, that is how I hear his name spoken on TV and radio. It's probably not the way the Finnish pronounce it, though. And i have never heard selanne say his own name. Masterhatch 01:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The seh-lahn pronunciation is almost right, but not quite. Finnish has no silent letters or syllables, everything is pronounced. So it's seh-lahn-neh with the ah sound like in cat. JIP | Talk 12:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

So, this ä is pronounced as in the a in cat and sat meaning that ä is no different than the English short a sound. So English doesn't even need those "funny little dots" to reproduce the correct sound. Funny, eh? Masterhatch 14:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's the correct pronunciation. But you have to note that in Finnish, a is pronounced like in father (only short). We need the "funny little dots" to distinguish between the pronunciations. There are lots of minimal pairs, where the "funny little dots" change a word's meaning. Also, from another viewpoint, you English-speaking types have plenty of sounds which are extremely hard for Finns to learn ("w" or "th", for example), but Finns still spell English names letter-by-letter the same as in English. The German ß is pronounced identically to "ss", and the Hungarian ő and ű are pronounced identically to "öö" and "yy" in Finnish, but I would still support spelling them natively in German or Hungarian names. JIP | Talk 16:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Nonetheless, we have every bit as much right to establish our own identity by using our own alphabet, as those who can't think of any better way of establishing their identity than to see how cute they can get with the letters they use. There is no error in using the English alphabet when writing in English, even if some writers choose to expand that a little bit and others even more. Gene Nygaard 11:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Quite. Come to that, a drum upon which I keep beating, and which not a single one of the diacriticalnauts have ever addressed, is that the Finnish and Czech language Wikipedias spell many English names according to their own rules and notions: why should we be forced to adopt their rules when they see no reason to adopt ours? RGTraynor 05:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem lies in the fact that English used to be the language of the English people and this has not been the case for a long time. Since 1945 the English have had very little say on what direction Americans develope the language. Why don't we have a wiki for English (UK) or English (Oxford) or English (US)? Well, it is not useful. English has value as a mediating language between native speakers of smaller or less spread language groups. As such it must develope freely and absorb foreign influences and even foreign spelling if it is neccessary as it is in the case of spelling Finnish names.

I'm curious; what English names does Finnish Wikipedia spell "according to their own rules and notions"? I'm not aware of any English-language proper names that are spelled differently in Finnish than in English, for the obvious reason that they're proper names.

Also, this incredible notion that spelling proper names is somehow a matter of linguistic pride ("we won't spell their proper names correctly if they don't spell ours") is the reason I haven't been contributing to this debate. Elrith 14:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)