Talk:Níðhöggr

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norse history and culture, a WikiProject related to all activities of the Norse people, both in Scandinavia and abroad, prior to the formation of the Kalmar Union in 1397. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

• On November 27, a vote was initiated on moving this article to Nidhogg. The result was no consensus.
• Archived discussion on the naming issues

[edit] Vote

The vote has been active for over five days, with no consensus being reached. I count about 15 votes for the article being at Nidhogg and about 21 for moving to Níðhöggr, which is not consensus by any margin. I am not swayed by Ed Poor's argument that the policies currently in place imply this is a done deal. As Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) notices, the surveys on this still indicate considerable disagreement, and deciding the fate of an individual page based on this is a bad idea. I am therefore closing this vote as undecided and strongly discourage further moves until the broader issues are settled. Move wars are of no use to anyone.

I recommend participants continue the discussion on the broader issue of Latin-only/English page names versus diacritical/original-language page names on the page started on this: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). I have linked the vote and associated discussion to that talk page, and archived this vote (and the related discussion). None of this is meant to endorse any point of view in this matter or to curtail active discussion. Please feel free to copy or reformulate any point made at the central page. I apologize for any inconvenience this causes, but is preferable to proliferating the discussion over many pages. JRM · Talk 01:18, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

If there was no consensus this article needs to be moved back to Nidhogg -- It had no concensus to be moved then either, and it was only through an editor moving it against consensus and then mucking with the redirect to prevent it from being moved back that necessitated a vote on the move request to begin with. He should have put in a move request tomove it here, but did not, therefore it should not stay here. The whole concpet of needing a consensus to do something is completely turned on its head when someone does it without consensus and then demands consensus to undo it. Please move it back until such time as there is concensus to overrule the Use English rule, which will hopefully be never. DreamGuy 04:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree with this; no consensus should restore the status quo ante. Septentrionalis 21:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

"Use English" is a guideline only, and one of many. It is not the hard and fast law you try and make it. It's worth noting that Nidhogg isn't an English word either; it's a transliteration of a Norse word. There is no English name. What you're really arguing is that article names shouldn't include characters outside seven-bit flat-ASCII. You are assuming a "use English characters" rule where one does not exist, and even your definition of such is disagreed with. This should probably be taken to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English) in any case. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 05:33, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

There is no point taking it up on "WP:UE" as after a year of argument there is no agreement on this issue. You obviously have not read the archives otherwise you would know that it is not just a techical argument. It is also a culteral one. See the comment in Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English)/Archive 1#Time to discard this policy

Look at Wurttemberg, Riksdag, Goering, Tweede Kamer, Zurich (that's one's particularly ludicrous - walk up to the average person on the street in Auckland or New York or Sydney or London or Toronto etc and ask them to write "Zurich" on a piece of paper [so keyboards don't come into it] and they'll write "Zurich", not "Zürich"), etc, etc, etc, etc, etc. ... Noel (talk) 19:31, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Riksdag? Tweede Kamer? They don't have any special characters in the native languages, where it comes from (Swedish and Dutch, respectively.) Or is the point that they aren't translated to English words? 85.226.122.227 11:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

--Philip Baird Shearer 11:19, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Dreamguy and Pmanderson make a fair point, which has never been rebutted. Consequently, I have moved the page back to Nidhogg. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 04:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Discounting CDThieme's half a dozen sock puppets there was a pretty solid majority for keeping the diacritics. I'll move it back for now but of course we can reopen material discussion if you want. Haukur 08:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)