Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting/Naming conventions/Redraft2: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
SMcCandlish (talk | contribs) m →Acronym/abbrev. stub names: Typo self-fix. |
|||
Line 27:
:Two reactions: a) Given that this is en.wikipedia.org and English doesn't use diacritics at all anymore since the effective demise of ''rôle'' and ''coöperate'', why not just nuke them all since we're abbreviating and stuff anyway; and b) (contrariwise) if we're to keep some of them, the redir section should explain why and make it plain why/when/where such exceptions are made. I lean strongly toward version A. These aren't article titles, they are stub template names and we are already (I think) agreeing they are a bit shorthand when warranted. — <span style="font-family: Tahoma;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">[[User:SMcCandlish|SMcCandlish]]</span> [[[User_talk:SMcCandlish|talk]]] [[[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|contrib]]]</span> <span style="color: #990000; font-weight: bold;">ツ</span> 10:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
::Call me an old fogey if you will, but I still use diacritics in English, as do a lot of people who use UK/Commonwealth English (they still have a rôle in my view, even though it may be regarded as passé to use them). From a NZ point of view, they're also used a lot in loan words from Māori - and I'm sure other countries with two national languages face the same situation. Also, since a lot of geo-stubs are for placename which ''do'' use them in titles of articles, such as eastern European subnational splits, it makes sense that they're still around. I'd lean towards B, where diacriticals are not used in the templates, but redirects with them are only used for non-English place names and loan words where using diacriticals is standard (I can live without those where it's optional :). [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 23:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
==Acronym redirects==
| |||