Template talk:Foreignchar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This template is designed to help users who may be unfamiliar with the use of "foreign" characters in (titles of) articles. It allows the article to make reference to the troublesome letter directly, and give the equivalent spelling if one sticks to the "English alphabet" of non-accented characters. It was originally designed to help deal with titles of articles that contain the German ß, but is equally applicable to other characters, such as the ç in façade, etc.

Unfortunatly a lot of readers are (mass-)exposed to this template even if they have no problem at all with non-english letters or they know that it is very easy to copy paste the letter in the browser bar to get more information.

Contents

[edit] How to use

Typing {{{Foreignchar|ß|Grossglockner}} produces this output:

The title of this article contains the character ß. Where it is unavailable or not desired, the name may be represented as Grossglockner.

--Stemonitis 07:28, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Nice template, maybe a bit long. Since we're only considering letters of the (extended) Latin alphabet here, this may be better:

The title of this article contains the [[{{{1}}}]], a letter not frequently used in English. The title may also be given as {{{2}}}.

BTW does this affect the ranking of wikipedia articles in Google searches for e.g. "Grossglockner"? Markussep 12:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

The shorter version seems basically fine to me; I was sure there would be a better (shorter) wording! I'm not about about the definite article, though. I wouldn't call them "the ß" and "the ő", but rather just "ß" and "ő". --Stemonitis 13:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
OK, I'll edit the template. I think this template should primarily be used for German ß and Icelandic ð and þ, letters that aren't identifiable to the untrained eye. ő is just a "funny o", I don't think we need this template for that, nor for ş, đ, ň, ŵ, ł etc. Problems may occur with Icelandic, since it has two "difficult" letters, what if they both occur in one word? And æ and œ, are they "clear" enough? Markussep 14:52, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Good work (and thank's for doubling my "s"s above!). I don't see why the template should be restricted to ß, ð and þ. Any letter that might confuse people could be treated (see {{Latin alphabet}} for a fuller list). People might well want to know why they've been redirected. Consider also that Wikipedia could have different articles at "Erdos", "Erdös" and "Erdős", so at least the software sees them all as different things. As much as "ő" is a funny "o", "ß" is a funny "ss" (ligature). It's up to authors whether they think it worth mentioning, but in any case where the accented spelling is correct and any other simlpy wrong, I see no reason not to include the template (e.g. spelling "façade" as "facade" is acceptable in modern English, but spelling "Großglockner" with "ss" is just wrong); if no-one ever pointed out that "ł" is not "l" then a reader would always pronounce it wrongly. If a title contains two or more such letters, either make a similar template for two (or more) characters, or simply write a similar-looking disclaimer at the top of the article. --Stemonitis 06:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
I think that there is a systemic bias in the way you wrote the above paragraph. For example one can just as easily write: spelling "facade" as "façade" is still acceptable in modern English. Philip Baird Shearer 16:13, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
You're right about the disclaimer for two or more letters, that would work, or a separate template (The title of this article contains [[{{{1}}}]] and [[{{{2}}}]], ...). I saw you're also tagging umlauts and acute and grave accents, that's going to be a lot of work! Markussep 09:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
I was trying to show the range of possibilities encompassed by this template. There's no way I'm going to go through all articles with accented characters! I might cope with all German(-language) place-names, but not much more. I expect a bot could be developed if it were deemed important enough. --Stemonitis 11:22, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I changed the wording a bit, because it sounded like permission, rather than an observation ("may be written Grossglockner" - no it may not!) --Stemonitis 08:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I changed it, because even though you (and some Germans) may not like it, it is perfectly permissible to write 'Grossglockner' in English. It may not be OK in German, but is in English. Mark 14:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't want to get into the same arguments with (the same?) anonymous person, but this template is used for many more articles than just Großglockner, for many of which it is not permissible to use the different spelling, but it may nonetheless be seen by the reader, who should therefore be alerted to it. I'm not saying that the alternative spellings are not sometimes acceptable, just not always, and I wanted the template to be as widely usable as possible. --Stemonitis 14:35, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
"not permissible" English is not French! The OED records usage not rules. If is is spelt in English with "ss" or "sz" or a capital B then it is permissible. Common usage is the guide in English. Google returns:
  • about 49,700 English pages for -Großglockner Grossglockner -wikipedia
  • about 14,900 English pages for Großglockner -Grossglockner -wikipedia
  • about 95 English pages for -Großglockner GroBglockner -wikipedia
  • about 16 English pages for -Großglockner Groszglockner -wikipedia
Philip Baird Shearer 16:13, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
I understand your reasons, that the template is used in many other articles, which use characters other than ß. But many, if not most English speakers do leave the diacritics off letters when writting names or words that include these funny letters. I also don't want have these same arguments, and that's why I'm voicing my concerns here. (I also don't want to be involoved in another edit war.)
Another funny thing that I keep doing, is whenever I see the character ß, in my head I always call it 'bee', when I know in fact it's not called that. I guess that's due to my unfamiliarity with the letter and my brain selects a letter that it resembles mostly, which happens to be 'B'. This might explain why 'ss' in place of ß is acceptable in English for most speakers (especially people who are unfamiliar with German).
I replaced the word 'sometimes' with 'also', because of my reasons above in the second sentence. Like it or not most English speakers will write the name/word without diacritics, so 'also' feels like a better word to use, being more inclusive. Mark 15:22, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

To me it's important that the wording doesn't somehow imply that the two versions of the title are equivalent. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 15:55, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I would like the template to indicate (if possible, without the text running into pages and pages) that it is only due to (perceived) problems with the accented letter that the alternative spelling is used. This is definitely the case with the German letters ß, ä, ö and ü, and I assume for Icelandic ones as well. We use "ss" where we can't use "ß" (URLs etc.), or because we think they'll confuse people, but we don't consider the two to be equally good. --Stemonitis 16:03, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Right. Ideally we avoid passing any value judgment and stay merely descriptive. "Some people use 'ss' instead of 'ß' in cases X and Y for reasons W and Z." Of course we only have limited space in a template like this and can't really go into that. Personally I think most of the proposed wordings below are just fine, with the exception of number 7 which seems a bit too categorical. Perhaps 'often rendered' would be more accurate than 'sometimes rendered'. Just thinking aloud here. I also wonder whether the insistence on English is misleading. The practice of replacing 'ß' with 'ss' really has very little to do with English. It has to do with:

  1. The (perceived) comfort of non-German speakers.
  2. Technical issues.
  3. Capitalization / Being in Switzerland / Other within-German conventions.

We should, if practical, avoid implying that there's something special about English here. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 21:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I like your new version, Stemonitis! It conveys a surprisingly large amount of information in just a few words. The recent versions by Mark are also acceptable to me. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 09:40, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Haukurth is right in his statement "'often rendered' would be more accurate than 'sometimes rendered'", which is true in nearly all English texts. From the list the versions I prefer would be №s 1, 2, 7, 10 and 12, the word 'sometimes' just doesn't sit right with me. I would though replace 'rendered' with 'written'; I don't think rendered is the right word to use. Perhaps also replace 'frequently' with 'often'.
I disagree with Stemonitis in regards to the use of special characters, when not used are not considered equally good in English, when in fact they are. I realise that in German this isn't true, but in English it is different. The fact is special characters in English are pretty useless.
For those versions listed, should we put them to some kind of preferential vote? Mark 10:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Versions

For reference purposes, the following wordings have been proposed so far:

  1. The title of this article contains [[{{{1}}}]], a letter not frequently used in English. The title in English may be written as {{{2}}}.
  2. The title of this article contains [[{{{1}}}]], a letter not frequently used in English. The title is also written {{{2}}}.
  3. The title of this article contains [[{{{1}}}]], a letter not frequently used in English. The title is sometimes written {{{2}}}.
  4. The title of this article contains [[{{{1}}}]], a letter not frequently used in English. The title is sometimes written {{{2}}}.
  5. The title of this article contains [[{{{1}}}]], a letter not frequently used in English. The title may also be given as {{{2}}}.
  6. The title of this article contains [[{{{1}}}]], a letter not frequently used in English. The title may also be written as {{{2}}}.
  7. The title of this article contains [[{{{1}}}]], a letter not used in English. The title in English may be written as {{{2}}}.
  8. The title of this article contains a character not frequently used in English. Please see [[{{{1}}}]] for details of that character. The title may also be given as {{{2}}} if avoiding the use of foreign characters.
  9. The title of this article contains the letter [[{{{1}}}]]. The title is sometimes rendered {{{2}}} in English texts.
  10. The title of this article contains the letter [[{{{1}}}]]. The title is often rendered {{{2}}} in English texts.
  11. The title of this article contains the letter [[{{{1}}}]]. The title is also rendered {{{2}}} in English texts.
  12. The title of this article contains [[{{{1}}}]]. Where that character is unavailable or undesirable, the title may be given as {{{2}}}.
  13. The title of this article contains [[{{{1}}}]]. Where that character is unavailable or not desired, the title may be given as {{{2}}}.
  14. The title of this article contains [[{{{1}}}]]. Where that character is unavailable or not desired, the name may be given as {{{2}}}.
  15. The title of this article contains the letter [[{{{1}}}]]. Where that character is unavailable or not desired, the name may be given as {{{2}}}.
  16. The title of this article contains the character [[{{{1}}}]]. Where it is unavailable or not desired, the name may be given as {{{2}}}.

[edit] Template for many foreign characters

I have created {{Foreignchars}} as an adjunct to this template. The wording is currently modelled on that of the last suggestion on this page, but should be altered to match whatever wording is finally chosen here.

n.b. the usage is slightly different, in that the characters must be linked in manually:

{{Foreignchars|[[ß]] and [[ü]]|Bad Gottleuba-Berggiesshuebel}}

producing:

The title of this article contains the following characters: ß and ü. Where they are unavailable or not desired, the name may be given as Bad Gottleuba-Berggiesshuebel.

This has currently been used only at Bad Gottleuba-Berggießhübel, but should be equally applicable to elsewhere, like all those Icelandic place-names (Þorlákshöfn springs to mind), since any number of letters can be quoted in the first parameter. --Stemonitis 10:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Excellent! The problem, of course, is that once we have more than one character and more than one transliteration possibility (German 'ö' is usually rendered 'oe' but sometimes just 'o' etc.) we start having a bunch of permutations.
Þorlákshöfn, for example, could come out as Thorlákshöfn or Thorlakshofn depending on the degree of tolerance for "weird" characters. There are even a few stray Google hits for Thorlakshöfn, Þorlakshofn, Thorlakshoefn and Thorlákshofn. Well, under 10 for the last two but Thorlakshöfn seems to have some following. This implies that 'ö' and 'á' are more acceptable in English than 'þ' and that 'ö' is more acceptable than 'á'. The latter is not very intuitive to me. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 10:37, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Hmm. I'd assumed that there would be a "standard" transliteration for such things. That's what I've been doing in German: changing the names exactly as a German would to create, for example, a URL. I believe Danish and Norwegian use "aa" for "å", and I'd expected there to be a similar system for Icelandic ("þ" becomes "th", but what happens to "ö" and "ð" and "á"?). I don't see that it makes any sense to transliterate one character and not the others. There should probably be redirects from all possible spellings and mis-spellings, but only one alternative without accents need be mentioned (i.e. either Thorlakshofn or Thorlakshoefn). --Stemonitis 11:27, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
There isn't any official standard but some things are more frequently done than others. replacing 'ö' with 'oe' is vanishingly rare in Icelandic. My guess is that currently the most common thing to do when rendering Modern Icelandic names in the 26 letter English alphabet without diacritics is "áéíúóý>aeiuoy, ö>o, æ>ae, þ>th, ð>d". Other variants, like "þ>t" and "ð>th" are probably less common - though "þ>t" is widely used when an Icelander is writing in Icelandic for Icelanders but only has ASCII to work with, as in SMS messages. (Torlakshofn garners some Google hits.)
So, the transliteration of a character like 'ö' or 'ð' depends on context. In Old English transliteration I think "ð>th" is just about universal. In Modern Icelandic and (I think) Modern Faroese "ð>d" is almost certainly most common. For Old Norse I'm not so sure. Oh, and "ð>dh" also has some following for both MI and ON.
The option of replacing 'þ' with 'th' and possibly 'ð' with 'd' but retaining áéíúóýöæ also sees some use. For example that's what my professor back at the University said we should do when publishing articles in foreign journals. And I think the Britannica does something like that. There's nothing official about this, though. I've not, for example, found it used at any government website. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 12:08, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Well I would have thought that you either include all special letters or none at all, not a mixture that just seems very silly to me. So yes, just include one alternative without any special characters. I believe <ö> is just rendered as <o>, <ð> as <d>, and <á> as <a>. Rendering <å> as <aa> in Danish and Norwegian is right. Just look at Aalborg/Ålborg and Aarhus/Århus.
I hope no one minds that I changed the template to the 13th version, this seems to be one of the better options. Cheers :) Mark 11:57, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
With my tweak, we're up to 15. But how is the consensus-building going? I see that most of those who most fervently reject runes, hieroglyphs and funny foreign squiggles are notably absent from this page. Are we wasting our time? –Hajor 13:52, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm one of those who most fervantly reject funny foreign characters (any additions by 203.164.18x.xxx is me) and I've been adding suggestions and changing things since this template was created. Mark 00:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
I see one problem with the Stirling work being done here. One will still have to check the common English usage because the transliteration depends on historical accident. For example although "ö" may be oe in German the usage in English depends on whether the major usage was first done in legal or academic work or by a popular news paper like "The Sun". For example Göring is usually written as "Goering" in English probably because his name came to prominence at the Nuremberg trials and "Goering" was used in the court transcripts. While Blücher is usually "Blucher" because news papers got their first. Similarly "I believe Danish and Norwegian use "aa" for "å"" Nice to know but if in English "å" is usually translated as "a" then perhaps that is what should be given. Recently this came up with capital letters and Spanish, on a page move debate for Ubeda, should usage reflect common English usage of the correct transliteration in a foreign language before English usage? Philip Baird Shearer 16:13, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
I think å>aa is pretty widespread in English use. Try a Google fight between arhus -århus and aarhus -århus. I get about ten times as many English hits for the more pedantically correct transliteration. But the principle is important - we need to look at what is frequently done as well as what is offically recommended. And then use the latter but report on the former ;) - Haukur Þorgeirsson 22:18, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
No solution is perfect. I personally feel this template is most useful for ß, where it is clear that 'ss' is both the most pedantically correct and by far the most common transliteration. Please help us develop this in some way you're happy with, you've been saying for ages that you want 26-letter-English-alphabet-without-diacritics versions included. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 21:08, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Yep I'd agree that it is most useful for things like "ß" rather than "ü". Philip Baird Shearer
I think that there is a systemic bias to assumptions behind this template. It is implying that titles ought to be in the native format even if that is not the most common English usage. I would prefer to see the name of the article at its common English name and then an explanation of its less frequent usage and if necessary an explanation of "å" to "aa" or whatever. Only if a name is not commonly in English (lets pluck an arbitrary figure of say less than <5,000 hits under Google) should a template like this be contemplated. Because of these complexities I am not against the solution at Höðr were the large varieties of names put down into a notes section. As is a complicated explanation for the name of the Battle of Spion Kop
I am not sure that having a separate sentence indented and in italics at the top of the article is the way to go when it can just as easily be written as:
Großglockner (in English often spelt Grossglockner)
Grossglockner (German:Großglockner)
The latter is particularly useful for those who don't know that German is the language of Austria. As was once heard by a colleague of mine flying back to the States as part of a conversation between to other strangers stitting next to him on a flight from Frankfurt to NY. "What does Austrian sound like?", "They don't have their own language they speak German". "Gee you'd think that if they were going to speak a foreign language they would have chosen English"... --Philip Baird Shearer 16:13, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
An arbitrary Google number is probably the worst way of deciding; let's stop that idea straight away. Where there is overwhelming usage of a different spelling in English (in respected texts, not just on a Google search), then that should of course be used, but most of these places aren't often discussed in English, and so no such judgment applies. The fact that a place name is more commonly spelt wrong than right, doesn't make the wrong spelling better, especially if it derives from an unfamiliarity with other languages. It's embarrassing to see the attitude expressed that we English speakers might know better than the natives how to spell the names of their towns. Foreign place names obey foreign spelling rules.
As to your shortened replacement, it misses out the crucial information of the reasons behind the different spellings. To save every editor of every article trying to come up with a good way of expressing that, we can do it all here and save a lot of effort. --Stemonitis 09:54, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

How does one assess "overwhelming usage of a different spelling in English (in respected texts, not just on a Google search)"? why does it have to be Overwhelming? How do you (Stemonitis) define right and wrong in the English spelling of a foreign word? IMHO There is no right and wrong is such a case common usage should be the guide. So what is wrong with an arbitrary large Google number? It is objective and easily verifiable. If there are over say 5,000 Google hits on a word (in a phrase which removes false negatives) then it is "often discussed in English". Why do you find it embarrassing that Zurich or Cologne is not spelt the German way? Are you really suggesting that in an English article Zurich should be spelt Zuerich if not Zürich?

Take the case of Würzburg, which has recently had the Foreignchar template put on it. English texts are as likely to spell it "Wurzburg" as any other way, so just putting "Foreignchar|ü|Wuerzburg" is not enough it also needs "Foreignchar|Foreignchar|ü|Wurzburg or Wuerzburg" because all three spellings are acceptable in English, or are you suggesting that every English speaking person should know the grammar rules for every other European language and always use their grammar rules when removing funny foreign squiggles? Philip Baird Shearer 16:07, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

There is nothing here which even touches on grammar except perhaps in the medieval sense of the word :) I get more English Google hits for 'Wuerzburg' than 'Wurzburg' - but the latter is common too and I don't mind its inclusion. The former possibility might, however, have some more formal recognition and perhaps that should be indicated somehow. Again we fall into the problem that we don't want to start each article with a detailed discussion of German orthography and transliteration conventions - perhaps a link to an article about these things could be included somewhere? Maybe we'd be better off with a 'germanchar' template which could link to an article about German names and letters and their representation in English texts? The issues here are so language-specific anyway that we might want many templates. As I've mentioned before the German 'ö' and the Icelandic 'ö' are not treated the same - so a link to ö might not be that helpful. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 16:18, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
We could add a sentence along the lines "For more information, see .." with a link to an article about how these letters are usually treated. This could maybe be one article with subsections concerning each language. Then we could link to the relevant subsection, and e.g. the subsection on Icelandic would both mention how to deal with Þ and ö in Þorlákshöfn. Stefán Ingi (talk) 17:26, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

The next one I looked at because it will not throw up many false nagatives was "Bad Toelz" yet a Google search gives about 23,200 English pages for "Bad Toelz" and about 33,800 English pages for "Bad Tolz". I have not been through the rest of the ü ä etc but I bet it is similar. I am not at all sure that this template should only be kept for letters like ß where there is a genuine problem with recongition. Philip Baird Shearer 00:00, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I, too, think it's primarily useful for characters like ß, þ and ð. I don't think it's really useful for cases like Úbeda and I was only supporting it there as a compromise for Philip. Now, if Philip doesn't like it there I don't suppose there's any point. I am, though, inclined to support template solutions rather than ad hoc solutions on practical grounds. If we're going to include transliteration information in very many articles, as Philip has proposed, it would help a lot to have a standard way to do it. Having a template also means that when we decide to change the wording we only need to do it in one place. Of course there's nothing stopping us from having a tiny template to place within the text itself with whatever pithy wording. By all means let's hear some more proposals. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 00:13, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Make the template machine readable

In many cases (special characters we already had before switching the charset) displaying the template doesn't appear to be necessary and it's likely to end up on the many articles about European villages, towns, etc. Thus I suggest that the template be left in the articles, but blanked. -- User:Docu

It isn't really a question of technical necessity, but one of user confusion. If a user gets redirected from a title without diacritics to one with, they may want some indication of why. This template gives an explanation. Blanking the template wholesale would be counter-productive, I feel, although one may discuss which articles it should be applied to. --Stemonitis 09:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Curps' wording

Curps changed the wording last night to:

:''The title contains [[{{{1}}}]], but may also be written in English as '''{{{2}}}'''.''

I have reverted to the old, agreed wording, chiefly because I think an issue as controversial as this one seems to be needs to be discussed before any changes are implemented to avoid edit wars and other unpleasantness. So, discuss below please... Stemonitis 08:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that the Curps' wording, although considerably shorter, omits some of the important information that was previously there, such as the fact that the alternative spelling is only really acceptable when the accented letter cannot for some reason be used. I was keen to avoid an unconditional "may" in the text, since that seems to give the two options equal status; if that were true, then there would be no need for the accented version at all (except as a redirect). As several discussions scattered across Wikipedia have now shown, most people perceive the accent to be necessary, and the unaccented version to be somehow wrong. --Stemonitis 08:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

It is acceptable to use none accented versions in English texts! Indeed there are only 26 letters in the English alphabet so all the others are foreign characters which get stripped a loan word is absorbed into the English language. So "may" is the correct term to use because the two options are of equal status although common usage ought to be the guide. Indeed we need a template for the other case as well, where the word is usually written without accents and one wishes to in include a accented version. I think Curps wording is better than that which is there now --Philip Baird Shearer 20:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

User:No Account added the word non-english to the template. I have removed it, it is inaccurate and I really cannot see what is the point of including it. As has many times been discussed, characters with accents, ligatures and other Latin alphabet characters are often found in English texts. We want to include them because it conveys more accurate information. Stefán Ingi (talk) 16:35, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Now Curps has inserted non-ASCII instead of non-english that No Account added again. I guess I can try and see this as a compromise, as least it is quite accurate now. However, the acronym ASCII is quite techincal and I cannot see that we can expect people who look for information on, say, a geographical location in Germany to have any knowledge about it, nor can we expect them to want to have this knowledge. Apart from this, it still escapes me what is the point of adding non-ASCII or non-English to the template. Stefán Ingi (talk) 19:03, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Philip, for example, doesn't like it. I'm removing it. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 19:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

What about:

:''The title [[{{{1}}}]], may also be written as '''{{{2}}}'''.''

It is then bidirectional. or even

:''[[{{{1}}}]], may also be written as '''{{{2}}}'''.''

--Philip Baird Shearer 20:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't hate it, but it's not as informative as the version we currently have. I really like the effect of linking to the "foreign" letter. And I'm not sure we need a template for the other case (like Riga). In that case we're treating "Riga" as the "English name" and "Rīga" as the Latvian name. But then again, maybe we shouldn't. I'm of two minds. Also see the comments I just added to Wikipedia_talk:Naming conventions (use English). - Haukur Þorgeirsson 21:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] self-reference

i think this is a self-reference so i replaced it using {{selfref}} (see WP:ASR) -- Zondor 09:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not convinced. All the other examples seem to be references to Wikipedia, or to alternative namespaces. The article may refer to itself (as I understand it), but Wikipedia should not. I may be mistaken, though. --Stemonitis 09:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
I am very unconvinced. WP:ASR#Think about print specifically mentions that we can use the phrase "This article" safely. Also, the text of the template does not mention Wikipedia in any way and it would make perfect sense to have the same text in an encyclopædia in any format and under any name. The point of the template is that anybody that wants to make a copy of the articles and remove any reference to Wikipedia should just remove anything containing this tag but I don't think we should assume that is the case for the Foreignchar template. Stefán Ingi (talk) 10:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
reverted. "Where that letter is unavailable or not desired". -- Zondor 10:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Does this make sense at all?

Guys, I must say, I find this one of the more nonsensical templates. Instead of giving alternate spellings such as "Fuerstenfeldbruck" for Fürstenfeldbruck and a myriad other articles that happen to contain the letter "ü", why not just state once and for all times at ü that this letter is often represented as "ue&amp;quot; and be done with it? Your approach is unwieldy, looks ugly (the notice is way too prominent at the top of articles), and will blow up on e.g. İstiklâl Marşı, where you'd have several possible combinations of alternate representations. It's a maintenance nightmare, make-work that is really not needed. Let's get rid of it; probably best by clearing the template and then removing it. Hey, we could even enroll one of User:Diacrit's sockpuppet bots to remove them! (Check the block log...) Lupo 12:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't really see how your solution will work because if we don't provide the link to ü which is in the template how will people know where to look. Personally I think this information is very important and should be prominent, it used to usually clog up the first sentence of the article. The other two points are good, we need a different solution for names with many diacritics, we currently have Template:Foreignchars but that could be polished, and I feel that at the top we can only provide one alternative representation but then we need to link to a discussion about more representations. This could be a single article about each language. I don't see that it is any sort of a nightmare to maintain it, except for all the trouble caused by the sockpuppets but I definitely don't think we should let sockpuppets influence decisions. Stefán Ingi (talk) 13:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Generally there is a single, best alternative, so the fact that there are many possibilities is not really relevant (people may [mis-]spell Göring as Goering or as Goring, but Goering is clearly the better). The prominence of the text can be altered easily, across all pages that use it, and all in one fell swoop, so it's not "a maintenance nightmare". It's all very well having the information in the article "Ü" about transliteration when the character is unavailable, but no-one's going to just happen by there when reading the article "Fürstenfeld". Generally either accented characters are available or not, so different combinations of letters in İstiklâl Marşı (a redirect page, incidentally) are not an issue. The spelling to use when accents cannot be used would be something like Istiklal Marsi (or something acceptable to Turkish scholars). So, most of your complaints aren't really valid; I'll make the text smaller to see if anyone prefers that. I accept that the template is probably not so useful for things like the French é, where the alternative spelling is simply the unaccented equivalent, but for things like German ß, ä, ö and ü, Icelandic ð and þ, Danish å, etc., where the best alternative spelling is not simply unaccented, it really does serve a useful purpose. --Stemonitis 13:13, 8 November 2005 (UTC) [this reply written before Stefán's appeared.]
I moved it to İstiklâl Marşı so it is not a redirect anymore. Stefán Ingi (talk) 13:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Foreign"char

I've noticed a number of comments in edit summaries about the use of the term "foreign" in the template name. Let me make it absolutely clear that that was more or less the first thing that came into my head, and could easily be changed if a better name were suggested. If "Foreignchar" doesn't encapsulate what the community wants this template to do, then by all means find another name that does. I'm not perfectly happy with it myself, but I haven't thought of anything better yet. --Stemonitis 11:54, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

It's an okay name, if not ideal. I can't think of anything clearer. We really do mean "character foreign to the English alphabet" or something to that effect. But there's no need to mention it in the template text. We want to keep that text as short as possible and 'foreign' doesn't add any information and can potentially be confusing (or, to some readers, annoying). - Haukur Þorgeirsson 12:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Could we expand the template with an additional variable to specify the actual foreign language in question. Thus:
The title of this article contains the Portuguese language character ã. Where that letter is unavailable or undesired, the name may be given as Sao Paulo.
Makes it wordier, sure, but much better than back-and-forwards fighting over "foreign" "non-Ascii" "non-ENglish", etc. Offered as a suggestion towards compromise. –Hajor 16:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
This is, perhaps, a more immediately workable version of my earlier suggestion of separate templates for each language. Looks like an improvement to me. Unlike "foreign", "Portuguese" is actually informative. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 16:57, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
This would be even better if it linked in to "Use of ß in German", "Use of õ in Portuguese" or whatever. There's no point (or not much) in being told about the use of ö in Hungarian if it's encountered in a German word, for instance. I suspect, however, that that would complicate things far too much. In principle, though, the suggestion is good (but I was never one of the people complaining that the text was too long). I would, however, suggest "[[Portuguese language|Portuguese]]". --Stemonitis 17:02, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
what if a name has ö in hungarian and deutsch? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 16:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Is this a real problem, e.g. can you give an example of a name which uses both the Hungarian and German ö Stefán Ingi 23:28, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

This edit war is not productive. Let's give Curps' compromise another try, please. It may not be perfect, and I am sympathetic to what PBS said, but if it stops this edit war it's better than nothing. If we link ASCII for those who aren't sure what that is, it addresses the obscurity argument. Jonathunder 19:46, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I personally don't mind it, it's certainly accurate and technical issues are, indeed, one part of the issue. But I'm sympathetic to Philip's argument that this gives undue prominence to the technical (as opposed to cultural) issues and I'm sympathetic to Stefán's argument that ASCII is a somewhat obscure term. This is not a stable wording - too many people dislike it. I won't personally revert it for now, though. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 20:02, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Would it help settle matters to organise an approval vote to see which wording is the least objectionable to all concerned? We could list our joint favourite half-dozen options and sign under those that we could happily live with. Might just show us a way ahead. –Hajor 21:53, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I am happy with the current version by Curps (21:13, 9 November 2005), I really don't mind if the word "foreign" is not in the sentence (although if it is not foreign then why would English speaking people not recognise the character?), but I do object strongly to the word ASCII as it implies that this is only a technical issue. I think some of the the briefer versions that were proposed and existed in the template for a time were better than the current one. I do not think that either a straw poll or an approval vote is desirable at the moment because I do not think that they will help to build a consensus.

What I do not like is this template being imposed on articles as an excuse to move them to names with foreign characters even if the common English usage is not to do so. The way things have been going over the last few days I fully expect to see someone move Napoleon to the French spelling ignoring common English usage. --Philip Baird Shearer 00:53, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Do. Not. Tempt. Us. WP:BEANS... ;) - Haukur Þorgeirsson 07:55, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
I was thinking more along the lines of the Kray twins's "cigarette punch" --Philip Baird Shearer 10:25, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Curps at 21:13 9.Nov.2005 [1] is certainly one of the versions I can happily live with. –Hajor 13:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
WP:BEANS is an interesting reading. Of course somebody already took up Philip's suggestion [2] . If you study the link carefully I think you will come closer to understanding why I like to maintain that use of diacritics is common practise all over Wikipedia and has been for a long time. Stefán Ingi (talk) 13:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
OK, I guess people didn't do the work needed to catch my point, so let me explain the joke. The article on Napoleon wrote his name as Napoléon from the edit above on the 18th of August 2003 until this edit [3] which was on the 18th of April 2005. The diacritics was therefore not some joke that got removed quickly, it was there for the best part of two years. Stefán Ingi (talk) 20:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] delete

(this is informal, not an official TfD)

Lupo: "why not just state once and for all times at ü that this letter is often represented as "ue&quot; and be done with it? Your approach is unwieldy, looks ugly (the notice is way too prominent at the top of articles),"

  • support, everybody can copy paste difficult letters in the browser bar to know more about them. Reading article of german cities right now very often starts with this IMO annoying Foreignchar template. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 19:49, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Do you suggest any alternative? If we remove the foreignchar template from Straße des 17. Juni would you want a transliterated version included in some other way in the article? - Haukur Þorgeirsson 22:57, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Maybe create a template that is put in the text and provide a footnote. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 09:54, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Every article whose title is likely to be spelt in more than one way should say so in the text. Every article containing "ü" should therefore have a paragraph (preferably somewhere near the top) explaining that the alternative spelling exists. What is the point of making editors write the same thing over and over again in different articles when we can simply use the template and save them the effort? We have already given an answer to Lupo's question above; I don't see the point of going over it again. To summarise, people won't cut and paste the "ü" to find out about it, and unless they do, without the template, they won't know about possible spelling variation. The advantage of using the template (and we know that there are disadvantages) is that we can discuss the wording in one place and get it right for all affected articles. Otherwise we will end up with a variety of wordings in different articles, each implying a different situation:
Straße (sometimes spelt Strasse)
Strasse (or, correctly, Straße)
Straße or Strasse (either is acceptable)
Strasse (or Straße when using funny foreign squiggles)
and so on.
I'm sure the information is at ü, but no-one's going to look there unless pointed there.
Incidentally, why the word "delete" above? Is this suuposed to be a formal request for deletion? --Stemonitis 08:40, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
for äöü try putting a template in the text if it really is wanted. The "delete" was meant to be informal, I now inserted a note near to the paragraph-headline. Can you proof "nobody would cut and paste"?
your Strasse-examples show that there may be different rules. Actually ß vs ss is treated different than ü vs ue. In Switzerland ss is correct, while ue as replacment in geneal writing for ü is not. The foreign char template has to be improved anyway, depending on language and character. Spanish leading accented vowels can be without accent even in spanish. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 09:54, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I like numer 4 ;-) But seriously I prefer "Strasse (German:Straße)", or if the name is under its german name "Straße (sometimes spelt Strasse)", Both on the first line, to using the template in its current format --Philip Baird Shearer

[edit] Why is the font size so tiny?

The small font size combined with italics renders this almost illegible, which I think kind of defeats the purpose, no? older≠wiser 18:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The message used to be larger, but there were complaints, so by popular demand, was made smaller. --Stemonitis 22:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
All the other similar templates that appear at the top of articles have normal size. I think if this is offensive at normal sizes, it indicates that there is something wrong with the template itself. Hairy Dude 16:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why does this template exist at all?

It is pointless, patronizing, insulting, and the product of a mind that obviously doesn't like seeing "foreign" writing. As far as I'm concerned, part of Wikipedia's mission is to educate people. Am I wrong? People can get used to seeing those horrible little accents, umlauts, ogoneks, háčeks (*gasp* horrors – there are some of those dreadful little marks now!), cedillas, and whatever other diacritics and special characters may rear their ugly heads. Grow up, diacritic haters! This is the computer age, a time when there's no excuse for leaving these things out.

As Goethe once said, "Wer fremde Sprachen nicht kennt, weiß nichts von seiner eigenen." So you should learn something about other languages, even ones that use those frightful marks.

I'm seriously considering removing this template wherever I find it. Let's go one better and delete it. We don't need it. Kelisi 04:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

This is a very controversial topic, and while I agree with you that people should be exposed to other languages, including any unfamiliar accents or letters, there are many people who disagree. Without this template, those people may want all the articles currently marked with it to be moved to titles without the accents. Thus, removing the template may lead to less exposure of correct, foreign spellings, and more incipient anglicisation of non-English names. The template exists to try to explain to naïve readers why they've been taken to (for example) the article Lützelflüh, even though they typed Lutzelfluh. --Stemonitis 07:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/o/r/Template_talk%7EForeignchar_290b.html"