Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hawaii/Manual of Style

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hawaii Portal
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Hawaiʻi, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Hawaiʻi. Please participate by editing the article WikiProject Hawaii/Manual of Style, or visit the project page for more details.
NA This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the Project's quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Names of royalty

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

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

Further reference

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

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

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

I agree that the first two are acceptable (i.e., no "of Hawaii"), although my preference would be for "Princess Kaiulani" as I consider that the most widely used locally and probably beyond (my wife teaches at Kaiulani School), but I am surprised to "hear" that it is not common practice to include the title when refering to European royalty. Outside of their own country, no one would really know who you were talking about if you just said "Philip did such and such today..."; the royalty title is very much a part of the distinction of the person. And, it would seem if you are going for consistency, the Princess should really be under Princess Kaiulani Cleghorn - Marshman 17:58, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
I agree with that. I never really thought about it until now, but it does seem that everyone refers to the princess as "Princess Kaiulani," i.e. the Princess Kaiulani Hotel. 青い(Aoi) 04:11, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
In my opinion, "Princess" could be left from the heading. However, if all you feel that it is absolutely necessary, I will acquiesce. (If naming so, then there will be a bunch of articles which begin "Prince/ss" and clog into a bunch in an alphabetical list - in encyclopedias, articles should be found by not knowing whether the subject was a princess or an oyster or whatever - such clogging to "princess" works thus a little against the encyclopedic purpose)
re Philip, as he has a peerage title, Duke of Edinburgh, it is used here in the heading - "Philip, Duke of Edinburgh". 217.140.193.123 07:28, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] The ʻokina question

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

I don't think there's a written standard on Wikipedia, but this issue has been discussed on Talk:Hawaiian language and Talk:Hawaii. There have been efforts in the past to redo the Hawaii article using ʻ but these efforts have been quickly reverted. I can't remember the exact reasoning for it.
The University of Hawaii at Hilo (home of the Hawaiian Language Center and the only graduate program in Hawaiian in the nation) uses Unicode on its pages [1], and if there were any expert opinion I would follow, it would be them. That said, I think one should read a message by Keola Donaghy (Assistant Professor of Hawaiian Studies at UH-Hilo) posted on Talk:Hawaiian language (at the bottom of the page). 青い(Aoi) 07:50, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
What I gather from reading the material cited above is that &#699; is indeed 100% desirable and correct but may not display properly in some (older, pre-Unicode) browsers / fonts. Would there be a way to have MediaWiki, the underlying software, continue to store the source string &#699; in its databases but (provided <nowiki> is not in effect) substitute the string &lsquo; for it during the step that generates the HTML sent to the user? This would solve an identical problem that arises with other uses of the &#699; character, such as in transliterated Arabic.
I see that Diderot just changed all the occurrences of &#699; I inserted in the spam musubi article back to &lsquo; … (sigh) --IslandGyrl 19:21, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I can see why it is frustrating. A policy should be written up on this. As for MediaWiki, I'm not a developer, but such a feature can be suggested on MetaWiki or MediaZilla. 青い(Aoi) 01:57, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

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

[edit] LSQUO, ‘, works better than { { okina } }, ʻ

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

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

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

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

Examples with uppercase vowels.

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

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

[edit] Proposal to avoid okina's and kahako's

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

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I put this forward with some trepidation, as I can see from previous discussion that okina's and kahako's are pretty popular around here. (I expected the section named "okina question" to be about whether to use them, rather skipping directly ahead to the technical issues of how to use them.) However, I would respectfully like to suggest that the de facto convention should change from "use whenever possible" to "use sparingly".

First, an admission: I have never lived in Hawaii, have only visited once many years ago when in the sixth grade, and have not paid unnatural attention to Hawaii since. Many people, I presume, would take this admitted level of non-expertise to be a liability to any argument I might make. However, I would like to make it my chief asset. My contention is that my characteristics with respect to Hawaii are more representative of the general wikipedia user than, say, many of the participants in "Hawaii Wikiproject Hawai'i".

Now, the experts on this wikiproject--like all experts--are very valuable to Wikipedia. You have knowledge that, made availible on this English Wikipedia, can benefit the hundreds of millions of English speakers around the world (most who know little about Hawaii). Posting it is a great service. Yet, that service is reduced if that knowledge is for some reason inaccessible, impenetrable, or just unclear. Due to the open nature of this project, it makes sense that experts speak first to the general audience, and only later to other experts and the few members of the general audience that want to dig deeper. (See WP:NAME, which states, for example "Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists.")

By making okinas and kahako's the default, many Hawaii-related articles are speaking to a specific Hawaiian-speaking, or at least a Hawaii-inhabiting community, rather than to the community at large (people like me). Perhaps with the exception of those who live in Hawaii, the profusion of okina's and kahako's put a veil of unreadability and foreigness over the content. (Maybe it has the same effect for many Hawaii residents, as well. Like I said, I'm not an expert.) An article with these letters and diacritics is not, of course, undecipherable, like Chinese or Sanskrit. But it is more resistant to coding by English speakers. It's something of a cognitive/psychological fact that most English readers will be somewhat startled by such diacritics (which often are effectively meaningless anyway; I couldn't tell you what a "glottal stop" is to save my life). This distraction is not terminal (at least for native speakers), but does represent an impediment. (It is also not in the spirit of WP:UE, which suggests that we should use names "least surprising to a user")

Thus, in the spirit of readabilty/openness, and in accordance with diverse wikipedia conventions such as WP:NAME, WP:ENGLISH, WP:NCGN, I propose that okina's and kahako's be replaced with "plain English" renderings when possible, both in the title and the main text. There may be exceptions, as words with okina's and kahako's might find/have found their way into mainstream English, and would thus be acceptable on an English wikipedia. In addition, I certainly don't think the okina or kahako should be banished...instead they should be used in the same auxillary informative role that other foreign language terms have, i.e. put in italics or parenthesis, often at the introduction of the corresponding English term. In this way, we will maximize accessibility while wholly preserving content.

Erudy 19:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Your proposal deserves support especially with regards to Hawaiian toponyms. The Hawaiian language is not widely used even in Hawaii and this is English Wikipedia (WP:UE). A cursory look at offical websites of Hawaiian communities shows little or no usage of ʻokinas or macrons in toponyms (WP:COMMONNAME). — AjaxSmack 02:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose. While readability has bearing for the title and I believe diacritics should not be used there (see my comments on Iao Valley, which shows up as "%E2%80%98%C4%AAao_Valley" in the address bar), I think they should be used wherever possible in the text. How do diacritics put a "veil of unreadability" over words? Are we writing to complete idiots who can't see letters under a few accent marks? As for foreign-ness, it's a foreign word! The suggestion of putting it in italics or parentheses where the English term is introduced is largely irrelevant, since if you're using an English term then the Hawaiian one doesn't come up again anyway. Okina and kahako are an integral part of the rendering of Hawaiian in the Latin alphabet. Moreover, rather than being an impediment, the whole point is that they allow someone unfamiliar with the Hawaiian language to pronounce the word properly from seeing the written form. The reason most sites don't use them is that they can't; since Wikipedia can, it should be keeping the spelling correct to the extent possible. KarlM 09:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment In addition to your argument, it is frequently overlooked or unappreciated that these spellings are frequently used in English especially by people of intimate Hawaiʻi origin, and are not regarded in the slightest as linguistically or culturally foreign, as vocabulary and toponyms have been absorbed in full into the polished English of a great proportion of people with roots in Hawaiʻi. To deny this would be denying polished orthodox English that a whole segment of native-English-speaking population regards as sacrosanct. In particular, I do not speak the Hawaiian language, and my first language is English, but even I consistently use Hawaiian spellings in words and names of Hawaiian origin when I write, with perhaps the sole exception of the word "Hawaiian". But it is not impossible to encounter even people who consistently write "Hawaiʻian" in English. - Gilgamesh 13:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose Diacritics should always be used for foreign words used in English (when written in the Latin alphabet). English allows usage of diacritics and their presence greatly increases accuracy. Húsönd 03:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree that diacritics should generally be used for foreign words used in English and that Hawaiian terms such as Ali'i or Kahōʻāliʻi are foreign words and should retain ʻokinas and macrons in the titles. However, toponyms are not strictly foreign names as English is an official language in Hawaii and is the predominant language. A large majority of residents use the names without ʻokinas and macrons and this is reflected both in popular usage and on official websites (e.g., Iao Valley State Park). — AjaxSmack 07:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
A place name is no different from a personal name, both are proper names. We're not talking about a word like "hula" that has been incorporated into English vocabulary. I find it particularly ironic that eliminating diacritics was proposed by someone who lists on his/her user page, among the articles they've started or translated, numerous ones like Martín García Óñez de Loyola and Diego Fernández de Córdoba, Marqués de Guadalcazar. KarlM 15:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
There is no call for eliminating diacritics where they are actually commonly used. However, in Hawaii, an English-speaking state of the United States, the English version of placenames should be used in English Wikipedia per WP:UE. Using the Hawaiian forms is much like calling for other states to adopt forms like North Dakhóta, Misi-ziibi, or Šahíyena, Xwé:wamənk because these are the correct native forms of the toponyms. Implying that the ʻokina/macron version of topnyms are more common in English (by titling articles as such) is original research.
And you're correct about personal names. They should also follow the usage of the person, not the correct Hawaiian language version (e.g. John D. Waihee III, Duke Kahanamoku) — AjaxSmack 19:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
"Kahanamoku" doesn't have any diacritics in it, and the Waihee page is inconsistent in usage. I've never heard what his personal usage is. As for place names, the examples you give are never used; while Hawaiian names with diacritics are not the most commonly-seen form, the usage is increasing rather than decreasing. For example, as USGS is redoing the topographic maps they are putting diacritics in all the names. KarlM 17:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Good point about the names above. How about Tejas or Nuevo México (or futher afield Caerdydd, Áth Cliath, and Dùn Èideann) then?
"...The usage [of diacritics] is increasing rather than decreasing." Yes, and when it reaches the point to where a majority of people and sources use them, Wikipedia can change its policy. However, as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia should be descriptive rather than prescriptive. I.e., Wikipedia should reflect usage and not prescribe a particular point of view. — AjaxSmack 19:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
All the place names you've mentioned are actual different names, where it's not clear that it's the same place. With the things we're talking about, it's ʻĪao in Hawaiian, and ʻĪao in English.
Part of being descriptive is being accurate. This is a perfect example (albeit a relatively minor one) of the worst thing about Wikipedia: it perpetuates falsehoods simply because lots of people believe them. You can see a more striking example on Talk:Krakatoa, where it was decided to keep "Krakatoa" instead of "Krakatau" because there were twice as many Google hits for the former as the latter. This despite the fact that "Krakatoa" was never even the correct name in English, and was probably a typo for the Portugese spelling "Krakatao". KarlM 08:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I would question your suggestion that different spellings are "falsehoods". It seems you are confusing what might be called "scientific facts" (for instance, "water boils at 100 degrees celcius", "the speed of light is ~300,000,000 m/s" etc.) with "conventional facts" ("the ends of sentences are marked with a period [or exlamation point/question mark]", "traffic drives on the right [left] side of the road" etc) If the whole world believed tommorrow that water boiled at 10 degrees, well, water would still boil at 100. (what an impudent substance!) Such scientific facts go on without us. However, if the whole world decided that tommorrow, the end of sentences would be marked with a smiley face, then that would become the new convention. Dictionaries would (eventually) change, and 3rd grade English teachers would glower at pupils who persisted in the now ungrammatical period. The point is conventional facts become true simply because "lots of people believe [and agree to follow] in them". I see spelling as a conventional fact: the name for some subject is not some objective quality waiting to be discovered, like a boiling point, but a convention to be decided by a community. My point is that the English community seems to have decided in favor of Krakatoa, thereby making it accurate, and that it often decides against the inclusion of okina's and kahako's, thereby making them inaccurate. Erudy 21:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
"Part of being descriptive is being accurate. This is a perfect example (albeit a relatively minor one) of the worst thing about Wikipedia: it perpetuates falsehoods simply because lots of people believe them."
Agreeing with User:Erudy, aren't all exonyms "falsehoods"? Krakatoa may not be Bahasa Indonesia but it is English because it's the name most English speakers use. This is true for many other placenames and terms. We use Cologne because the French didn't want to use Köln. The name koala is a misspelling of "koola" but no one would argue that it's "false" - it's just what is most commonly used. Even simple terms like apron (originally "a napron") originated as mistakes. And from Istanbul to Hanoi to Montreal, we use toponyms without diacritics even though the underlying spelling is the same. It's not the job of Wikipedia to comment on these alterations but the text of an article can certainly explain them (e.g., "Iao Valley (Hawaiian: ʻĪao: "cloud supreme") is a lush, stream cut valley in West Maui, Hawaiian Islands...").
I personally favour more accurate scholarly transcriptions at Wikipedia for anything from Russian to Arabic to Hindi but that's not policy. Making Hawaiian placenames an exception to WP:COMMONNAME is not accuracy, it's pedantry. — AjaxSmack 19:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
The exonyms you mention above are like the place names you brought up earlier: they are not simply a less-common version of the word, they are never used in modern English. As I pointed out below, you can see from WP:NC:disputes that this is not just an exception for Hawaiian, but in diacritics in general are allowed as an exception and favored by a majority. While not a consensus, it certainly supports keeping it as the WikiProject Hawaiʻi MOS. As for it "not policy", I would remind you of WP:IAR, which includes the following:
  • "Don't follow written instructions mindlessly, but rather, consider how the encyclopedia is improved or damaged by each edit." Removing diacritics decreases accuracy while doing nothing for general reader accessibility.
  • "Rules derive their power to compel not from being written down on a page labelled "guideline" or "policy", but from being a reflection of the shared opinions and practices of a great many editors."
Frankly I think this discussion has become a waste of time. There are two people in support of removing diacritics (plus one who seems more concerned with MOSs than content), and six opposed. A small enough sample size that it can't be said to be representative, but most definitely not enough to change the current MOS, which says to use diacritics whenever possible. KarlM 11:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad you stumbled on WP:NC(UE). Check out this part: "If you are talking about a person, country, town, film, book, or video game, use the most commonly used English version of the name for the article, as you would find it in other encyclopedias and reference works. This makes it easy to find, and easy to compare information with other sources." — AjaxSmack 17:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
A significant problem is that many encyclopedias are published on a national level (in this context, the United States). If an encyclopedia were published according to the educated standards of English in Hawaiʻi, would it omit markings? I don't think so. I have multiple other reference materials (such as from the University of Hawaiʻi Press) that use the markings in all situations. Two of them are maps (one of Hawaiʻi Island and the other of Oʻahu published by the University and sold outside of Hawaiʻi as well [I bought this one in a Border's bookstore in Utah]) that use the markings in every single mention of every single name, including for the name of the state. This is academic reference material by Hawaiʻi's state university, and I think it qualifies as a reference we can use, especially one so intimate to the topic we're discussing. - Gilgamesh 07:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree that diacritics are used in some cases and I also have maps that use them. But even in Hawaiian English usage, it's not the majority. See Talk:Waikiki for a researched example. Use of the diacritics in most Hawaiian toponyms violates WP:COMMONNAME and is at least pedantic and prescriptive and in some cases maybe even original research. — AjaxSmack 03:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong support We should use them when English does, and not elsewhere. When the topic is strongly connected to the Hawaiian islands, and Hawaiian English normally uses them, we should lean in that direction; but only lean and only when Hawaiian English does actually use them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Adamant oppose We do not rewrite the whole of Wikipedia to conform to Washington or London. These conventions are wholly valid in English in Hawaiʻi and elsewhere, and can even be very common, which is part of why there are users who use them all the time here. Proper spelling of Hawaiian terms in English should be permanent, as they are most definately not foreign conventions. Additionally, to treat Hawaiian spellings as foreign and non-English (such as in parentheses and even in italics!) especially when there are so many of us of Hawaiʻi origin who use them routinely in all cases, strongly eminates an impression of gross intralinguistic disrespect, like saying "My proper English is better than your proper English," and should be avoided as potently incendiary. Treating it with that impression of disrespect will also entirely guarantee that this issue will remain debated over for a long time to come. - Gilgamesh 13:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Abstain/Comment Change to strong oppose I will comment on the current situation in Hawaii first. Most of the people in Hawaii (in Oahu to be specific) don't have an opinion or don't really care about the usage of the diacritics primarily because they haven't learned Hawaiian (this can be seen with pronunciations such as Hah-nah-loo-loo instead of Ho-no-lu-lu). The minority (the children and staff at the total Hawaiian immersion schools, as well as the kumu who teach/speak Hawaiian) strongly favor the use of the diacritics, their reason being that it helps new learners of the language get the pronunciation correct. A couple of other notes:
    • The Honolulu Advertiser's subtitle is Hawai‘i's Newspaper (with the ‘okina), while the Honolulu Star-Bulletin's subtitle is Hawaii's Oldest Daily Newspaper (without the ‘okina).
    • Many older Hawaiian texts, such as the Baibala Hemolele, do not use any diacritics, as printing them made it cumbersome for the printers, and pronunciation and meaning were inferred from context (since many knew Hawaiian in those times).
    • Street names now have reincorporated the diacritics for Hawaiian words.
    • A map search concludes that the usage of Hawaii is greater than Hawai‘i.
    • In some words, diacritics are crucial in the meaning of words. For example, make means to die or to desire, while mākē means masthead.

I oppose the proposal because it goes against this document, which states that diacritics should be in geographical place names when in Hawaiian. This article from a local newspaper says that the only reason holding back the government from adding the diacritical marks is due to technical restrictions. I don't believe that technical restrictions are stopping us from incorrectly spelling Hawaiian words. To retain accuracy of Hawaiian titles, I believe that the diacritics should be strongly recommended. Singularity 00:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose As the editor of a book published by the Bishop Museum, I found in my research that 'okina and kahakō were not used in early writings, even in hand-written documents, probably because fluent speakers knew from the context how to pronounce the words. As a non-Hawaiian speaker, I find 'okina and kahakō essential for understanding how to pronounce the words. An English speaking person with a passing interest in Hawai'i who stumbles across an article here and finds the word ho'oponopono versus hooponopono will have an easier time pronouncing the word with the 'okina. As an encyclopedia, WP should reflect official usage of the state and the current policy is to use 'okina and kahakō. However, I admit to being lazy and using an apostrophe rather than an official 'okina. Mary Kawena Pukui herself, the author of the Hawaiian Dictionary, wrote that using the apostrophe was fine. Makana Chai 23:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose the proposal, as someone Hawaiʻi-born. I think people would agree that an encyclopedia ought not to be less scholarly than a daily newspaper or a high school (the Honolulu Advertiser and Punahou School have both been using Hawaiian diacritics as the norm now for years). Also, although the original proposer may be free of any such motives, there is a political dimension, namely, a pro-North American annexationist desire to roll back anything that strengthens awareness of a distinct Hawaiian culture and identity. --IslandGyrl 10:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Exactly. I could not have put it better than that. I have zero actual native Hawaiian ancestry and even I understand exactly what you mean. The issue of Hawaiian English usage is not purely one of the considerations of indigenous Hawaiian people—there are many Hawaiʻi-born people whose ancestors all came from all different corners of the globe who hold Hawaiian educated standards in no less esteem and validation. It is virtually impossible not to sense strong assimilationist undertones in this, and there exists no happy euphemism for a message that essentially means "You're in America now, and this is how Americans do things, so shut up." An admission into statehood for government representation is not a carte blanche to decree that the Hawaiʻi education system should be wholly rewritten to be a clone of any other state. It's like decreeing that Kāneʻohe is now Milwaukee and is obligated to find itself located on Lake Michigan. It's that absurd. - Gilgamesh 08:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Potential compromise

Despite my position stated above, I can tolerate a rule similar to the MOS for Ireland-related articles. Singularity 00:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to put words into the mouths of others (especially those I disagree with), but I don't see that to be much of a compromise. It sounds like the guidelines mentioned there would only apply to places like Diamond Head or Pearl Harbor, where the English name is overwhelmingly predominant, and the article is (correctly, IMO) placed under that name rather than the Hawaiian one. The Ireland MOS says that the accent marks should be used in Irish names, and applying that here would mean keeping the ʻokina and kahakō. KarlM 11:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Wholly agreed. And the vast majority of Irish people do not speak Irish at home either. If I were Irish (I'm actually of Gallowegian Gaelic descent but of Hawaiʻi birth), I would judiciously use diacritics in all places in Gaelic words too. And I've never been to Ireland, and I do that anyway! ^_^ It seems absolutely perfectly sensible. In Ireland, even some English version place names are fully Gaelic spellings with diacritics, such as Dún Laoghaire. - Gilgamesh 13:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I will stand with my earlier statement. Singularity 22:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't disagreeing with you (I would like to keep diacritics, so I think using the Irish MOS as at least a baseline for ours is fine), just pointing out that in my interpretation of it, it would mean keeping them wherever a Hawaiian-language name is used. The proposal was to remove them from Hawaiian names. You said "Despite my position stated above...", but it sounds to me perfectly in line with what you said before; are you reading it differently from me? KarlM 10:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I guess... Singularity 23:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

What about the fact that Hawaii is a US state (whether you like it or not), and the US government recognizes "Hawaii" as the official name of the state? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.25.3 (talk) 15:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

That should be a side note in mention, as the federal government doesn't register such marks for any place names. Even the registered official motto of Hawaiʻi—in Hawaiian ("Ua mau ke ea o ka ʻāina i ka pono")—is stripped of everything in official federal registry ("Ua mau ke ea o ka aina i ka pono"), which makes poor linguistic sense. What you speak of is rather hypertechnical (not to mention grossly insensitive), and even the Hawaiʻi state government has already begun using "Hawaiʻi" and full Hawaiian spellings for words and names of Hawaiian language origin in its own English language documents. Even the names of Hawaiʻi state government buildings are changing to spell it "Hawaiʻi". The fact of the matter is, the federal government doesn't register diacritics or breathing marks for any place names, even for Spanish place names in New Mexico (where Spanish is co-official) or French place names in Louisiana (where French is co-official). So, this doesn't mean that the diacritics don't exist nor are actively used, but that the federal government doesn't register names in anything but the 26 letters (LAUPAHOEHOE, LAIE, KAPAA, KANEOHE, etc.). I'm not sure they even register spaces or dashes either, or they collate them as absent when checking against existing registered names for duplicates (KAILUAKONA, CAPTAINCOOK, etc.), though I'm not certain this is the case. (States cannot have more than one locality of the same registered name, and various Hawaiʻi locality names have been changed in official registration to make them distinct from other places in the state of similar or the same name, such as the multiple places named Kailua or Waimea, though in those two particular examples they are spelled the same even in Hawaiian.) And I've been told that even this will probably change in the near future. - Gilgamesh 09:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm impressed with the Irish example, as I think the Ireland may be analogous to Hawaii in a number of ways (island politically long dominated by English-speaking group, to the point where previous language is close to extinguised, latter to experience a resurgence on the winds of local pride/nationalism...I'm sure there are many disanalogies to be found by experts on Hawaii and Ireland, but that's the naive glimpse of a non-local:). Let me try to parse a piece of the Irish convention into the Hawaii/English debate:

Where the English and Irish names are the same or very nearly the same, but the English and Irish spellings differ, use the English spelling.

Where the English and Hawaiian names are the same or very nearly the same, but the English and Hawaiian spellings differ, use the English spelling.

  • Example 1: Hawaii, not Hawaiʻi.
  • Example 2: Lihue, not Līhuʻe.


Where the English and Irish names are different, and the English name remains the predominant usage in English, use the English name.

  • Example: Wicklow, not Cill Mhantáin.

Where the English and Hawaiian names are different, and the English name remains the predominant usage in English, use the English name.


Where the English and Irish names are different, and the Irish name is the official name, but has not yet gained favour in English usage, use the English name.

Where the English and Hawaiian names are different, and the Hawaiian name is the official name, but has not yet gained favour in English usage, use the English name.

  • Example: ?????, not ??????.


Where the English and Irish names are different, and the Irish name is the official name, and has gained favour in English usage, use the official Irish name.

Where the English and Hawaiian names are different, and the Hawaiian name is the official name, and has gained favour in English usage, use the official Irish name.

Erudy 21:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be forgetting that Hawaiʻi formal English use has already steadily been using full Hawaiian spellings everywhere. Hell, even as a child, I was always admonished not to use simplified spellings, but to use the ʻokina wherever it is found. Muʻumuʻu. ʻUkulele. Kāneʻohe. Kapiʻolani. Oʻahu. Hawaiʻi. I in fact, speaking my native language English, was born in Kapiʻolani Medical Center, Honolulu, Oʻahu, Hawaiʻi. That's not pedantism. That's practice. And it's proper and educated. - Gilgamesh 00:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Also, the spelling is the same, the only difference is the accent marks. Inishmore vs. Inis Mór is not equivalent to Hawaii vs. Hawaiʻi. There's no confusion over whether they're the same, and in contrast to the former case where Irish spelling could be misleading because the pronunciation of letters is different from English ("s" is pronounced "sh"), putting the okina in the Hawaiian word tells you how to pronounce it correctly. If the dispute was between Inis Mór and Inis Mor, it would unquestionably go with the former. You might also want to refer to WP:NC:disputes, which found a majority (though not a consensus) generally in favor of using diacritics. Because it's not a consensus I don't think we should be starting a campaign to wholesale go through and change every page, but it most certainly doesn't support taking them out of pages that have them. KarlM 10:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
User:Erudy has good points about the Irish comparison. English Wikipedia only uses the Irish names where they have eclipsed the English ones. Hawaiian diacritics are used in some cases but, even in Hawaiian usage, it's not the majority. See Talk:Waikiki for a researched example. "Putting the okina in the Hawaiian word tells you how to pronounce it correctly" only if you are familiar with Hawaiian. It is correct Hawaiian but not correct English. The okina/macron Hawaiian names can and should be presented in the first sentence but it is not appropriate for the title where diacritic usage is pædantic, prescriptive, a violation of WP:UE, and/or possibly original research. — AjaxSmack 03:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
This is getting foolish. Looking something up in a dictionary is not original research; putting the okina in the word tells you how to pronounce it if you're not familiar with Hawaiian, because if you are then you don't need it; and the accusation that those who want to include diacritics are pedants sounds rather ironic coming from someone who wants to follow the Wikipedia rules to the letter despite WP:IAR (in particular, see number 2 in the first section). As for the Irish MOS, there are two relevant sections to point out:
  • Conversely, when the Irish version of a name is more common and recognised by English speakers, prefer the Irish name for the article name, and mention any English name in the body of the article.
  • The síneadh fada (or acute accent) should be used when Irish spelling requires it; thus "Mary Robinson (Máire Mhic Róibín)", not "Mary Robinson (Maire Mhic Roibin)".
The Hawaiian names are used for virtually everywhere in Hawaiʻi, with a few exceptions like Pearl Harbor and Diamond Head, so following the Irish example would mean including diacritics in Hawaiian place names. KarlM 13:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I fail to understand the opposition to using ʻokina and kahakō. It does seem to be getting foolish. I am 27 years old and born Hawaiʻi and this usage in English has always been 100% orthodox to me. Even when I was a teenager, and I noticed one of my handwritten church records listed my birthplace as "Honolulu, Hawaii", I cheerfully admonished my bishop about the misspelling, and he gladly wrote in the ʻokina changing it to "Honolulu, Hawaiʻi". With real lifetime experiences like these (and I suspect of many other educated individuals), to call the educated consistent use of ʻokina and kahakō "pedantic" or "original research" is at best very rude, and at worst a grave insult to lifetimes of orthodox educated intelligence, not to mention at least somewhat hurtful. On the contrary, this idea of systematically removing ʻokina and kahakō seems obsessive at best, and at worst extremely prescriptionist. If I recall, Wikipedia does have a policy of not systematically prescribing between valid variations of spelling conventions such as theater/theatre, harbor/harbour, maneuver/manoeuvre, program/programme, etc. The frequent use of ʻokina and kahakō may indeed not be nearly as common outside Hawaiʻi and Hawaiʻi-born people as it is among them, but it is no less valid and orthodox and correct among them, even if a degree of free variation within Hawaiʻi is tolerated. When it comes to what is educated, I am more likely to be influenced by the standards of the University of Hawaiʻi than by Hawaii Five-O. - Gilgamesh 01:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia should be accurate and informed in its titles, and that includes diacritics. I personally believe that all titles in Hawaiian should include diacritics because it is part of the written language, and trying to abolish the usage of the kahakō and ‘okina altogether is ridiculous. Singularity 08:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Aloha! Just my two cents, for whatever they are worth. The ʻokina should be INCLUDED in ANY Hawaiian word. The absence of the ʻokina and the kahakō can drastically change the meaning of a word. For example, the word kala means crayon, collar, to loosen, a type of fish, etc. However, kālā means dollar, currency, money, etc. The ʻokina and the kahakō MUST be included in the words in which they belong.Kanaka maoli i puuwai (talk) 02:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Gilgamesh, Singularity, and Kanaka maoli i puuwai and therefore oppose. The meaning of specific terms and the relations to other terms are essential for the semantic network in this project. The meaning of Hawaiian words depends from the spelling like explained by others in this discussion. (see also: „The presence or absence of glottal stops and macrons changes both pronunciation and meaning, …“ (S. 226); „I call particular attention to the symbols for two important elements in the spoken language: the glottal stop (reversed apostrophe) and lengthened, stressed vowels (macron). Without these symbols in the written language, pronunciation of a great many Hawaiian words cannot be determined – nor, it follows, can their meanings be accurately deciphered.“(S. VI): Mary Kawena Pūkui, Samuel H. Elbert: New pocket Hawaiian dictionary. With a concise grammar and given names in Hawaiian. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu 1996, ISBN 0-8248-1392-8) However the fact should be taken into consideration, that the use of ʻokina and kahakō seems to be more and more accepted by federal government officials (see my note about Geographic Names and the Hawaiian National Park Language Correction Act of 2000 (S. 939)). One may also refer to the maps and tourbooks of the AAA. The Hawaiʻi map (11/06-2/08) and the Hawaiʻi TourBook (2007 edition) use ʻokina and kahakō a lot, although often with mistakes. --ThT (talk) 03:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Support The addition of the okina to Hawaii is primarily motivated by a desire to get outsiders to pronounce the word as the locals do. Imagine if we changed the spellings of other states to correspond to local pronunciation. We would have the states of Tayksahs, Joorjah, Noo Joyzee, Noo Yoik, Leezeeahna. Mistermistertee (talk) 15:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Except that the addition of the okina and macron was done (I believe) in the mid or late 1800's, when written Hawaiian was standardized, and they are universally accepted as proper in Hawaiian. Besides, what's wrong with writing things as they're pronounced? Just because English, French, etc. have nonsensical spelling doesn't mean all languages should. KarlM (talk) 14:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
In English the word is spelled Hawaii, in Hawaiian it is spelled Hawai'i. This is English-Wikipedia. Mistermistertee (talk) 20:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Please go back and read the previous discussions (i.e. the relevance of the Irish MoS) before repeating old arguments. The general conclusion from that discussion was that diacritics should stay, and you haven't offered any new arguments to change anyone's mind. KarlM (talk) 10:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I think the earlier comment about British vs. American spelling is right on the mark. Generally, as long as it's consistent, either convention is acceptable. However, it has been agreed that the articles on England and London should use British spelling, while the articles on the US and New York should use American spelling (and likewise, the article on Toronto should use Canadian spelling, etc.) By the same reasoning, while the article on the US should use General American spelling when discussing Hawaii, the articles on Hawaii and Honolulu should use Hawaiian English spelling. kwami (talk) 09:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "Local" diacritical marks are commonly used in many English language place names. The fact that the Federal Government's computers only speak 7-bit ASCII is not a valid reason to suppress such marks. I live in a city that the feds call San Jose, but the official name of the place, according to the city government, is San José. I also concur with an earlier comment that not using appropriate diacritical marks would be less scholarly than usage in local (English language) newspapers. Davidlwilliamson (talk) 18:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose. ugh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.106.128 (talk) 00:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The section "Article titles" was added while the general discussion about The ʻokina question is not finished yet. Moreover the replacement at 04:16, 27 April 2008 separated an information about the relevance of grammatical marks for the meaning of terms from the intended correlation with geographic names. The general discussion should be finished before a special guidance for article titles is provided to avoid inconsistency. (see also: Geographic Names) --ThT (talk) 16:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[edit] Names of monarchs

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Discussion

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

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

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

So far, the following suggestions have been brought up:

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

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

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

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

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

I fully support to stay with option 1, using only the Hawaiian name. As stated above no ambiguity arises. It fits with general usage. For almost all other celebrities, just the name is used, without adding the profession. −Woodstone 13:30:00, 2005-08-27 (UTC)
I also prefer names, with no titles or honorifics. Zora 15:30, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
When reading the discussion on Liliuokalani, there does seem to be controversy by simply using one name. I would support Options 2, 3, 4. This would be similar to formats used on other monarchs listed on Wikipedia. Gryffindor 17:06, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Gryffindor, your thinking on this topic is most flawed. Options 2 and 3 will not make these articles consistent with other monarchs on Wikipedia. Option 2 is used only for princely or noble titles (e.g. Charles, Prince of Wales or Prince Carl Philip, Duke of Värmland), while option 3 is used for consorts of reigning monarchs and for some princely titles (e.g. Queen Sofía of Spain or Princess Beatrice of York). Neither are ever used when referring to monarchial titles. Both options go against Western naming conventions, so their use here would be wrong even if we did decide to follow European naming conventions. Option 4 is a possibility, as this is the format used for European monarchs.
Looking at Talk:Liliuokalani, I see two users who are in favor with moving the pages: Gryffindor (formerly Antares911) and Mowens35. Mowens35 favored the move because it followed Wikipedia naming conventions for reigning monarchs. However, he seemed to miss the point that as Hawaii was a non-western monarchy, it is not obligated to follow the naming conventions in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) as noted in exception 1 to the rules monarchial titles. I would have asked Mowens35 to join this conversation, but his User Contributions show that he has been absent from Wikipedia since May 2005 (which is a shame since he was, IMO, a great editor to work with).
On the talk page of Liliuokalani, you note your reason for favoring the move to be that, "just putting it at the current moment is disrespectful" (I assume you meant that just keeping the article at its current location would be disrespectful). First of all, we do not consider "respect" when naming Wikipedia articles as doing so would be POV. Secondly, please try that understand that options 2 and 3 would not show any more respect towards Liliuokalani than its location now. If we renamed the article as option 2, we'd be comparing her title to that of a mere prince or noble. If we renamed the article via option 3, we'd be giving her a location similar to that of a Queen consort, not a Queen regnant. This would be even more disrespectful than keeping her at Liliuokalani. Thirdly, I can't see how leaving Liliuokalani at her current location would be disrespectful anyway, since it's identical to option 4, minus the territorial disambiguation.
Thus, I cannot seem to find this "controversy" that you refer to. With the exception of you, Mowens35 (who is absent without leave), and User:Bhinneka (who is also absent without leave--or is (s)he?), all users so far have indicated that they favor option 1, plain and simple.
So, please explain why you favor options 2, 3, and 4 and why you don't want to accept option 1. 青い(Aoi) 18:31, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

The other proposed forms (which used to be used before) is because having a name simply is just a name. I think for nobles the format [Title+Name] can be used, just like Diana, Princess of Wales. She is not listed as Diana Spencer, even though there was only one Princess Diana as far as I know. Also by just using a name for royals, how is anyone going to be able to differentiate the monarchs between the nobles? Therefore I do not see a problem with using a format of either Title+Name or Name+of+Hawaii. I have been in touch with user Mowens35 who has said that he has no problems with a format "Liliuokalani of Hawaii" either. Gryffindor 10:54, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
You have some legitimate concerns, however, I'm not sure how many of them are applicable here. While using a single name, for example Liliuokalani, is just a name, it is the name that these monarchs were known by best. Secondly, as I noted before, it follows closer in line with other Wikipedia articles on monarchs. Thirdly, there really wasn't really a "noble" class in Hawaii during the monarchy period, at least not in the European sense of the term. Hawaii had an "ali‘i" class, which was sort of like an aristocracy in a sense. Most of these nobles (if not all) were referred to in English with the title, "(High) Chief(ess) X." We could use titles when referring to these people but that's a completely different discussion. Either way, I doubt there would be any confusion between royals and "nobles" in Hawaii. I'd like to point out that in Europe, there is no confusion between monarchs and aristocracy, and the article titles on European monarchs don't use titles so I'm not quite too sure what you're arguing.
Also, I'm curious as to what Mowens35 is thinking. However, I'm afraid we can't consider his comments here unless he posts his thoughts here himself. Either way, it appears that there's a pretty strong concensus for keeping the status quo (option 1) in these naming conventions so I'm thinking this issue is pretty much closed for the time being. Only one user is against changing the naming convention on Hawaiian monarchs so the current format should be used:
*Use the common "reign name" adopted by each monarch, as these are the names by which the monarchs are best known by. For example, use Kamehameha IV instead of Alexander Liholiho, or Liliuokalani instead of Lydia Lili'u.
*Titles are unnecessary. They aren't used in European monarch's articles, so using them here would be inconsistent. While Hawaii's titles are often referred to using these people, so are European monarchs, but the convention adopted there also omit the title, even though Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom is probably better known worldwide as Queen Elizabeth II. However, redirects should be created where necessary.
*The territorial addition, "of Hawaii" is unnecessary; they aren't used in Eastern and Oceanic monarchies (with exception to some Chinese monarchs and all Korean monarchs (because both have good reasons to use them)) and likewise aren't necessary here.
Are these terms okay with everyone? 青い(Aoi) 09:11, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Mowens35 has given me permission to cite from his emails, I quote: "i don't think many people who aren't interested in these people know who they are in any situation or case ... so jin my mind, arguably the best way to refer to any royal, however well known or obscure, is to always title the articles of reigning monarchs with the name, title, and country, thusly, ie LILIOUKALANI, QUEEN OF HAWA'AI ...ELIZABETH II, QUEEN OF GREAT BRITAIN ... does that make sense to you as well? i'm happy for you to quote from any of my emails to you ..." Fri, 2 Sep 2005 12:01:11 -0400

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

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

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

[edit] some wording

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

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

[edit] First draft

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

[edit] Names of places

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

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

[edit] Geographic Names

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

Should article titles include the ʻokina? The practice for the island titles is to not include the 'okina in the title. An exception is Lanaʻi which was moved to the 'okina version on 2008-02-06 without discussion. Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I would tend to say no, for the simple reason that anyone who is searching for a name isn't going to include it, so you have to include a redirect page. It also displays simpler in the address bar, without "garbage" characters. On the other hand, links to the page will (or at least should) have the diacritics, which means either making a double link (or whatever it's called, when the text shown in the page isn't the title of the page linked to) or another redirect page. I guess there's no simple answer. KarlM (talk) 16:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the response. I don't think piped links are a problem. A brief investigation indicates that the high-visibility articles are titled without diacritics, for the most part. Since these articles are more likely to be the result of a consensus among a number of authors than those with less visibility, a weak consensus exists that article titles should be written without diacritics. This seems to be true for the Irish and Spanish place names that I looked at as well. I wonder if the following wording would suffice? "Article titles should omit the kahakō and ʻokina. However, they may be included if the editors agree that a good reason exists to make an exception, for example, to avoid ambiguity." Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I replaced the Paradiver edit with my new wording, "Article titles should generally omit the kahakō and ʻokina in accordance with Wikipedia policy. However, they may be included if the editors agree that a good reason exists to make an exception, for example, to avoid ambiguity." I think this is consistent with the established policy, but allows (encourages) editors to avoid ambiguity. Perhaps it would be helpful to link to WP:DAB, a relevant guideline, also. Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
The section "Article titles" was added while the general discussion about The ʻokina question is not finished yet. Moreover the replacement at 04:16, 27 April 2008 separated an information about the relevance of grammatical marks for the meaning of terms from the intended correlation with geographic names. The general discussion should be finished before a special guidance for article titles is provided to avoid inconsistency.
However, the topic of this discussion is Geographic Names. For the island Lānaʻi (USGS GNIS: ID 361712) the U.S. Board on Geographic Names uses the spelling with ʻokina and kahakō. The "Principles, Policies, and Procedures for Domestic Geographic Names" [3] seem to have a certain importance for the general public as well. If the official use is encouraged by the federal government, the use of this spelling here can help to avoid ambiguity. --ThT (talk) 16:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I apologize. My wording was intended to recapitulate Wikipedia policy. Looking at the edit history of this page, it seems to me that the discussion cited has languished. May I urge you and other interested editors to bring this matter to a conclusion, please? Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I had considered it ended. While there was not a complete consensus, it was clear that there was a strong majority in favor of retaining diacritics in Hawaiian language words. The discussion hasn't really been active since November. Is there an official process for bringing it to a conclusion? KarlM (talk) 16:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Be WP:BOLD; summarize the discussion and conclusion, if any can be discerned, and add the {{archivetop}} and {{Archive bottom}} tags. My uninvolved view is that many of the opinions expressed are partially or wholly in conflict with WP policy and carry little weight, but I confess that I haven't looked into this matter in detail. Good luck. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Diacritic usage

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

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

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

[edit] It looks like you guys are working on this style guideline

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

I think most everything has been resolved. The only real outstanding issue is what style to use for the okina. It seems to have more or less settled around {{okina}}, but informally and inconsistently. My understanding is that what this resolves into on the screen can be changed if sometime in the future we decide that it doesn't look right, which is a big plus. Anyone know about this? If this is correct it renders the discussion above about lsquo vs. the current {{okina}} irrelevant, in favor of the latter, and we can finalize the MOS. KarlM (talk) 18:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, I for one always try and use the {{okina}} template. I actually think the bigger issue is when to use it, not what should be used. Some people 1.) have it in the article title, 2.) others leave the diacritical marks out of the title and just use them in the body of the article, and 3.) others omit them from the article entirely. I think (just my own rough estimate) most people eschew #3 and understand they should be used. The debate seems to involve 1s and 2s. I don't know if the issue is settled. I know there was a push a while back to omit it from titles, but keep them in the text (making #2 the desireable option), but I don't know if that is still true. Mahalo. --Ali'i 18:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate the changes by KarlM (talk). Regarding the titles and the application of WP:EN to Hawaiian names there might be a misunderstanding. Names like Haleakalā or Halemaʻumaʻu are names with a specific meaning in Hawaiian. Although names in other languages also have a meaning originally, the use of names developed quite independent from the meaning. This seems to be true for languages like the ones mentioned in WP:UE. Hawaiian language is different in two ways: the number of phonemes is much smaller, and the names are often "telling story". If the spelling is wrong, the meaning changes and the story can not be understood. The English version of the name, which is WP:UE referring to, makes sense for languages with the same relations between term, meaning and the use of both. --ThT (talk) 19:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
If you think that WP:UE, or WP:NAME for that matter, should make an exception for Hawaiian, it may be more fruitful to make the case on those respective talk pages. It is a bad idea to write this project page in a way that is inconsistent with WP:UE, or especially WP:NAME, a Wikipedia policy page. It will invite conflict among editors, rather than to resolve conflict, as is its purpose. Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I wanted to see what these guys decided among themselves first. We (PBS and I) recently changed the language in WP:MOS to bring it more in line with WP:UE. Here's the general idea: words that have a particular spelling in English should be spelled that way in Wikipedia articles; this is, after all, the English Wikipedia. So many people around the world are trying to co-opt English to serve various purposes, but English is already a very hard language, and if we start importing the orthography from 100 other languages, it will only get harder. However, it's perfectly okay to use different orthography for words that are not well-known in English. It's also okay, in fact recommended, to give the accent marks and/or spelling from the original language in parentheses at the first occurrence of the word, even if you do use an English spelling throughout the article. This all means that we would rather see "Hawaii" (no okina) in articles, but it's fine to give the spelling with the okina in parentheses at the first occurrence, in any article where that is relevant. Also, for any Hawaiian word you want to use that isn't in a shorter English dictionary (the best for this purpose is http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary), feel free to use okinas. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 02:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I got distracted by things for a while. I don't see a conflict with either WP:UE or WP:MOS that requires an exception. The latter says diacritics are neither encouraged nor discouraged. The former cites the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles) as a good example of diacritic usage. In the Hawaiian case, the spelling is always the same in Hawaiian language and English, only the diacritics are different, so that means they should always be used. So the remaining conflict that I see is with WP:NAME. In this case, diacritics are expressly discouraged, but 1) they're already widely used, and 2) the aforementioned Irish MOS uses them in the title. So I'm personally not sure where to go on it. KarlM (talk) 20:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, there are some great variations in the titles. Some titles omit the okina while others try and reproduce it. First, this should be more standardized. However, there is another problem. When the okina is used, which form to use. For instance:
Keaweikekahiali`iokamoku uses what appears as %60 in the url
Kiwala‘o uses what appears as %E2%80%98 in the url
Kame'eiamoku uses what appears as %27 in the url
ʻIolani Palace uses what appears as %CA%BB in the url
Some of which don't always show up in all browsers. I don't know which should be preferred (if any at all). Mahalo. --Ali'i 14:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

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

I have no idea of how many. Lots of scientific works do; it often depends on a combination of how much the author cares about the accuracy of the names, and whether the publisher is willing/able to include them (ʻokina are not a problem font-wise, but kahakō sometimes are since they aren't in ASCII character sets). I would bet that a much higher proportion of literary, cultural, and archeological works use them than in natural sciences (which is what I'm familiar with), since those are areas where people tend to pay more attention to cultural sensitivity and language accuracy. In addition to the ones cited below, the author guidelines for the journal Bishop Museum Occasional Papers states that "Use of Hawaiian diacritics: glottal (ʻokina) and macron (kahakō) is required for Hawaiian words (e.g., vernacular names of plants and animals) and place names", so all the articles published there since at least 1997 (as far back as I have it) have them. They are also frequently used in articles in the journal Pacific Science, though not required. Some other specific examples off the top of my head (I'm a biologist, so most of these are articles I've got hanging around):
  • Manual of the Flowering Plants of Hawaiʻi, 1999, Wagner, Herbst, & Sohmer - the standard reference work for Hawaiian plants
  • Place Names of Hawaiʻi, 1977, Mary K. Pukui - not sure if you'd count this one, since it's pretty obvious
  • Cladogenesis and reticulation in the Hawaiian endemic mints, 2003, Cladistics 19:480-495
  • Conservation Status of the Endemic Bees of Hawaiʻi, 2007, Pacific Science 61:173-190
  • Topographic History of the Maui Nui Complex, Hawaiʻi, and Its Implications for Biogeography, Pacific Science 58:27-45
  • Revision of the nudidrosophila and ateledrosophila species groups of Hawaiian Drosophila, 2008, Systematic Entomology 33:395-428
I can assure you that there are a lot more than this, but I'd prefer not to dig them all up. The point is, while it's by no means universal or even in majority usage, it is not a "fringe" usage and there is widespread recognition even among those who don't use it that it is correct. Heck, I don't use them most of the time, like in emails, only when I'm writing "official" things like publications or Wikipedia articles where accuracy is important.
Also, almost all of the words would be those familiar to Hawaiians but not mainlanders, because they're all Hawaiian place names or common names for objects or plants. Place names should be rendered correctly regardless; and of the few Hawaiian words that mainlanders would be familiar with, the only one that I can think of that has a diacritic is ukulele, which is properly ʻukulele (ʻuku means flea, uku means wages). KarlM (talk) 14:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
That's a fantastically detailed response; thanks. What we're trying to distinguish is accent marks that represent the fervent desires of a number of academics or protagonists, vs accent marks that are in wide use outside of any one community. Do you know of any style guides, dictionaries, encyclopedias, or similar that address the difference? There are, of course, languages where the symbols have different pronunciations (Hebrew leaps to mind; they didn't even bother to write the vowels for centuries, you were just expected to know them!). Over time, these languages often adopt accent marks to indicate the different pronunciations, but it takes a while for usage to become accepted by people in general, as opposed to the academics who think it would be a good idea if they were accepted. I'm trying to figure out where on this spectrum this issue lies. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 17:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
P.S. Re-reading my comment, it comes across as rude; I didn't mean that anyone here is an ivory tower academic. I just want to find some way to measure the extent of the spread of diacritics. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)