[WikiEN-l] Anglicization convention

Thu Nov 28 20:11:10 UTC 2002

Daniel Mayer wrote:

>I think the much of the problem that many people have about the Anglicization 
>convention is that they HAVEN'T READ THE DAMN THING IN CONTEXT WITH THE 
>OVERRIDING CONVENTION EXPRESSED IN THE GENERAL STATEMENT. Please do so now;
>
>Anglicization convention:
>
>   Convention: Name your pages in English and place the 
>   native transliteration on the first line of the article 
>   unless the native form is almost always used in English.
>
>Notice: "...unless the native form is almost always used in English."
>
It seems that Mav doesn't hasn't even read his own policy.  Before 
responding I just made a point of reading it at [[Wikipedia:Naming 
conventions (anglicization)]].  Even the qualification that he 
emphasizes is simply NOT THERE.  Admittedly, even that qualification is 
better than nothing.

>I am all for making that sound even more permissive (and a better reflection 
>of the current practice I understand and help enforce) to read;
>
>"... unless the native form or transliteration is used by English speakers 
>more often than the Anglicized or English translation."
>
>General statement:
>
>   Generally, article naming should give priority to what the 
>   majority of English speakers would most easily recognize 
>   with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same 
>   time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. 
>
>Notice: "....article naming should give priority to what the majority of 
>English speakers would most easily recognize..."
>
Who determines that majority?

>I am also all for making this even more clear to reflect my longstanding 
>interpretation and enforcement criteria:
>"....article naming should give priority to what the majority of English 
>speakers at all familiar with the subject would most easily recognize and 
>likely to use...."
>
>Notice the addition of: "at all familiar with the subject" (this includes all 
>interested English speaking parties, not just the experts).
>
"at all familiar" is a step in the right direction.

>We should use what most English speakers who are aware of the subject would 
>most easily recognize with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity (with at least a 
>slight preference for English to decide toss-ups). Whether or not that is an 
>English translation, a transliteration, native form or is Anglicized is 
>really immaterial. 
>
I would give preference to the native form in a toss-up, with a wide 
attitude about what we mean by "toss-up".  But even better, a flexible 
attitude that does not insist that a borderline case has to be in either 
form will turn down the heat on this subject.

We don't need for people to be self-appointed enforcers except in the 
most egregious cases; enforcement actions only irritate people.  If any 
kind of enforcement is appropriate on borderline cases it is to ensure 
that there is a redirect from the alternate form to the one actually 
used in whatever direction is needed.

>Like I already said in a previous post, subjects like Mein Kampf, Les 
>Miserables and Sinn Fein should be at these titles because few people would 
>recognize "My Struggle", "Poor Wretches" or "Ourselves Alone" as the correct 
>subjects.
>
Although I have argued, with apparent success, for [[Franz Josef of 
Austria]] you may remain confident that I do NOT support the format 
[[Franz Josef von Österreich]].  

I have another example from German where the zeal for correction 
actually creates a more surprising result for English speakers: the 
artist, Albrecht Dürer.  (Fortunately nobody is trying to call him 
Albert)  I know very well that "ü" may be treated as equivalent to "ue", 
but do most English speakers know that?  Without knowing that, how 
likely is it that they will look for "Duerer" where the article 
currently is.  From what I've seen English speakers tend to be blind to 
diacritics.  They will see "Dürer" as "Durer".  

I would thus favour that when the difference between the native form and 
the usual English form is a matter only of diacritics that are a part of 
ISO 8859-1 the standard form should be the one with full ISO 8859-1 
diacritics.  The search function should include a provision that allows 
the plain character to be treated as equivalent to the one with 
diacritics.  

This may not be possible with terms that include non 8859-1 characters, 
in which case the standard form should have the characters without 
diacritics.

In consideration of the "payment" for posts provision, I undertake to 
sort out the Franz Josef articles.
Eclecticology