Talk:Teitur Thordarson

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move per WP:COMMONNAME. JPG-GR (talk) 18:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Teitur Þórðarson to Teitur Thordarson This is English wikipedia. What are those goofy Runic letters in his name supposed to be?

Agreed. Requesting move. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• Not that it should matter but the letter in question is a thorn (Þ), a letter in the Icelandic Latin alphabet. It is derived from but is not exactly the same as the thurisaz (ᚦ), a rune. — AjaxSmack 03:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support – Þ (thorn) is not an English letter, nor is it a diacritic modified English letter, nor is it a letter recognizable to an English-only speaker (unlike Greek letters used in maths), nor is it a symbol available on a standard English keyboard, nor is it a 7-bit ASCII symbol. — 76.66.193.90 (talk) 06:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • In fact, it is. Also, we've got {{foreignchar}} for recognition issues. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 15:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Old English is not English, which is why it is called Old English. English is what is now (as opposed to English as it was then), since English isn't a dead language (yet) that form is not English, it's Old English. 76.66.201.179 (talk) 05:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
• Alternative proposal: Since Þórðarson's name is not an English word and has no established usage (unlike, say, Molière, where established educated usage includes the accent, or Zurich, where established educated usage does not include the umlaut (or perhaps considers Zurich the English name of the city and Zürich the German name)), we should follow Wikipedia:Use_English#No_established_usage, which says, follow the conventions of the language in which the entity is most often talked about. That said, since thorn and eth aren't English letters, I wouldn't be opposed to converting them to whatever is the most common way of converting them into English letters for modern-day Icelandic names. There's no justification, though, for getting rid of the accent on the o, as that would directly contravert WP:UE#No_established_usage.--Atemperman (talk) 19:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't know much about accents in Icelandic, but this compromise doesn't look too useful to me. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 15:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose This is the English Wikipedia, but "Teitur Þórðarson" is not an English name in the first place. All letters in this name belong to the Icelandic alphabet, written with modified Latin alphabet. English allows any foreign words written with modified Latin alphabet to be embedded into the language, and it has been a long practice on Wikipedia to use this for the sake of accuracy. Check hundreds of other articles on Wikipedia where the subject bears an Icelandic name. Húsönd 00:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
  • "English allows"? Dekimasuよ! 01:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - It would be helpful if some evidence was provided demonstrating how his name is treated in English. Parsecboy (talk) 03:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment

    Vancouver Whitecaps FC website, where he coached: [1]

    Vancouver Whitecaps FC twitter site: [2]

    Vancouver Sun (largest newspaper in Vancouver): [3]

    USL - the league where he coaches the Whitecaps: [4]

    Team 1040 - Vancouver sports radio station: [5]

    CTV (Canadian national television network): [6]

    Los Angeles Galaxy FC mentions him: [7]

Additional Sources (Erudy (talk) 07:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)):

• • The Mirror (London) [8]

    The Toronto Star [9]

    UEFA [10]

    ESPN [11]

• • 76.66.193.90 (talk) 09:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

    • This one uses "Teitur Þórðarson". Húsönd 18:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
      • That appears to be derived from this article. Dekimasuよ! 01:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Also, I have readded the "Thordarson" transliteration to the lede; the thorn is only used (in modern times) in Icelandic, and most people are not familiar with Icelandic; eth is not much more common. Wikipedia is written for the average reader, and it's hard to see how purging the article so as not to have a single signal showing the reader how to read the thorn can be a benefit to anyone. Dekimasuよ! 01:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
      • It says from Wikipedia, so it's just a Wikipedia spawn, and thus doesn't count. Further it's a blog anyone can sign up to and create a base for, so it's not an RS. 76.66.201.179 (talk) 05:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per Húsönd and all the other rationales I've listed on former Icelandic move (attempts). Just because some people have a tendency to write "wierd" instead of "weird" and "their" instead of "they're", we should not have sentences like "Their such wierdos." Admiral Norton ^(talk) 15:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Reopened further survey

• Support I originally closed this based on WP:UE, but Husond disputes that rationale, so I've re-opened this move discussion. I think the title should be Teitur Thordarson, with no special characters or diacritics, because that's what all the non-wiki sources presented so far have listed.--Aervanath (talk) 05:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support - the current title is generally unintelligible to English speakers who don't also read Icelandic (the vast majority of our readers), and the sources provided thus far use "Thordarson" unanimously. I don't think it's a case of it being right or wrong, as Admiral Norton seems to suggest; I honestly wouldn't know how to pronounce a thorn or an eth if I hadn't seen it in English (that's my primary concern; we need to provide our information that is easily comprehensible to our readers). I don't see a problem with retaining the "ó" since that's fairly intelligible to English monoglots, but it might be a hybrid, and I don't know if that's appropriate. Parsecboy (talk) 17:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Support. Do what reliable English sources do, In cases where they use the thorn, use it; but the evidence would appear to be that this subject is not one of them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support. As per the naming conventions policy, Use the most easily recognized name "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number 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." --PBS (talk) 17:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. I recently posted, way down at what's now the bottom of Talk:Teitur_Þórðarson#Further_name_discussion, that most of the sources and google counts aren't actually saying anything about what the English way of writing Þórðarson qua Þórðarson in English is, but rather simply have made the general decision not to use thorns, eths, and diacritics. This is a convention of these pages, not evidence for the spelling of Thordarson's name. Thus, I am not convinced that an established usage specifically for this individual's name exists apart from a general tendency of English-language webpages not to use diacritics or non-English letters. I personally would support a naming guideline that replaced unrecognizable characters in Latin alphabets such as thorn and eth with their English equivalents, if such equivalents can be agreed upon, but that doesn't seem to be up for consideration here, at least. --Atemperman (talk) 17:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

  Comment I notice you have changed your opinion from use Þórðarson because there is no established use in English (see above Alternative proposal) to "I am not convinced I am not convinced that an established usage specifically for this individual's name exists apart from a general tendency of English-language webpages not to use diacritics or non-English letters", yet it has been shown above that the Canadian newspapers mentioned use Thordarson., so why are you talking about the use in webpages? Given the naming conventions policy on using reliable sources, why do you not support the move? After all, if we move it and then later someone comes up with evidence that many or most reliable sources in English use Þórðarson then we can move it back. --PBS (talk) 19:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support move. All posted evidence thus far supports the non-thorn spelling. The one counter example listed is an automatically generated mirror of wikipedia. It is fairly clear to me what the facts of English usage are here; we should follow them and change the title. The Icelandic spelling should of course be listed in the opening paragraph for the edification of our readers.Erudy (talk) 06:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Further name discussion

copied from Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#Review of Teitur Þórðarson's move proposal

Aervanath (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) closed this move proposal as "move", clearly against consensus as arguments provided by the opposition were simply disregarded. Questioned about his rationale, Aervanath claims that previous title was "not in the Latin alphabet". The move of "Teitur Þórðarson" to current "Teitur Thordarson" not only was clearly non-consensual, as it is not concurred by many articles we have throughout Wikipedia that have titles that use every single letter contained in the previous title (e.g. Þingeyri, Þórshöfn, etc). And which, let's not dispute, was in the Latin alphabet. Furthermore, by moving to "Teitur Thordarson", Aervanath not only eliminated the letter thorn (Þ), as also the letters "ó" and "ð", usage of which is even more widespread throughout Wikipedia; and more accurate. In fact, in the discussion one user expressed concerns that, should the thorn be eliminated, the other diacritics should by all means remain. Aervanath ignored this and closed the proposal as move. I request his closure to be reviewed and overturned. Thank you, Húsönd 19:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, I, the user Husond refers to, don't really mind the eth being replaced by a d. He/she is correct, though about how everyone has ignored my arguments as to why even if the thorn and eth are changed, the o-acute should remain. Regardless of whether thorn and eth are part of the Latin alphabet, or the English alphabet, or are generally recognizable to English speakers, the o-acute is a modified o, which is part of the Latin alphabet generally and the English alphabet in particular, and is recognizable as a modified o rather than as a funny Druidic or Viking thingy. No one involved in the move and the debate over it has offered a reason, let alone a convincing one, for the o-acute to be changed to an unmodified o.--Atemperman (talk) 16:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to add that only two users, out of five who didn't remain neutral, supported this proposal. This is not even a plurality, let alone a majority that is necessary to form consensus. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 18:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Of the 5 editors who commented one way or the other, two supported, two opposed, and one proposed dropping the eth and thorn but retain the "ó". From a straight head-count, the result would be no-consensus, but the evidence presented also needs to be considered. Those who favored the move provided a number of reliable sources that support the transliterated name. The single source found by Húsönd turned out to be a Wikipedia-mirror. In cases where there appears to be no strong consensus either way, evidence of wider English-language usage can tip the scale. Parsecboy (talk) 18:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Going back and reviewing the discussion, I saw the same thing that Parsecboy just pointed out: the only source that used the original spelling was a Wikipedia mirror; all other sources use "Thordarson", with no special characters at all, not even diacritics. So, according to WP:COMMONNAME, my decision should be upheld, even if consensus does ultimately hold that "thorn" and "eth" are English characters after all. But that's a discussion for another day and another page.--Aervanath (talk) 07:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

That was not the reason you pointed out when questioned about the closure of the proposal, clearly indicating that it was not your rationale upon deciding to move. The rationale you presented, as per the discussion on your talk page, was that the letter thorn "was not in the Latin alphabet". Now gripping on the common name argument presented above (which would definitely be better explored in the discussion if you hadn't closed it) and treating it as if it had been the motive behind your closure is not the least convincing. You closed the discussion in err, and now are trying to justify it with a rationale that you did not use. Húsönd 07:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I am going to copy this conversation onto the talk page of the article as it seems to be article specific. Please carry on the thread there. --PBS (talk) 11:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Husond given that "Teitur Thordarson" is used in English sources, if there was to be another requested move, why should the page be moved contrary to the naming conventions? The poll of opinions is not a vote on which is the best name, it is meant to be a consensus building exercise based on the relevant policies and guidelines. --PBS (talk) 11:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

What naming conventions? There are no naming conventions determining the usage of diacritics, never were. Húsönd 18:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

"Þórðarson" is not directly about diacritics, and is covered by the general naming convention use the most easily recognized name " "Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject". --PBS (talk) 12:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

That's covered by Wikipedia:UE#Modified_letters, which states that generally, we should follow the broader practice of reproducing scholarly consensus, if it exists. Parsecboy (talk) 19:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

That part was inserted last year by Pmanderson without any consensus for such amendment. There was a recent discussion about that particular part of the guidelines, and one of these days I'll just knock it off. Just not in the mood to be drawn to the resulting lengthy discussion atm. Húsönd 20:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Husond the recent discussion that you initiated "Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English)#Since when did we agree with this wording?" clearly indicated that you are in a minority on this issue. All but one person (Dahn) supported using reliable English language source to determine the issue, whether they were from the "I like to use diacritics" camp or from the other "I don't like using funny foreign squiggles". --PBS (talk) 12:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

That's because supporters of diacritics are not habitués of that place. Not even me. Diacritics opposers, on the other hand, are. I can reassure you that the day I remove that part of guidelines I will make sure that all interested parties are aware of the resulting discussion. Then we'll see whether or not I'm a one-man minority, if there's any doubts on that. Just not bothering to go for that as I have no patience for ad nauseam discussions atm. But when the time comes for change, things will change. Húsönd 18:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

While I have no objection to diacritics in general, I do agree with PBS that any naming convention should use the most easily recognized name in English. In this case in particular, that's going to be Thordarson.--Aervanath (talk) 05:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

And how on Earth does one determine that "Thordarson" is more easily recognized in English than "Þórðarson"? The way people type the name has nothing to do with what the reader will recognize. Húsönd 18:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

"Þórðarson" is of course more recognizable than "Thordarson", but it's harder to pronounce since there no letter in the latin alphabet similar to "Þ". The "ð" however is unproblematic, since it looks like a "d" and is pronounced almost the same. My only interest in this is to have his name written correctly; "Teitur Þórðarson", but if he uses "Teitur Thordarson" officially (as I remember he did in Norway), I think it is okay change the article name! lil2mas (talk) 01:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Look at the usage. It's already been shown that his current team uses "Thordarson". Similarly, media use "Thordarson". --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

His current team should not be used as a source as it is an American club, and over there they are anti-diacritic. If you look at the roster for the Detroit Red Wings, several people have their name written wrong; eg. Tomas Kopecky --> Tomáš Kopecký, Nicklas Lidstrom --> Nicklas Lidström and Jiri Hudler --> Jiří Hudler. lil2mas (talk) 01:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

See my comment above about Mark Twain, Joseph Stalin is more familiar to English readers than Ioseb Besarionis dze Jughashvili ("The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists.") There is no such think in English as right an wrong there is only common usage, or would you have us write every article under the name that a person has on their birth certificate? Do you realise that in the UK you can change your name to anything you like by email for a ten pounds?[12] Recently several people have changed their names to something really silly (usually after a few beers and and a bet or as a protest).[13][14] Names in the English speaking world are not as static or as formal as they are in some countries where there are names one is not allowed to use and it is very difficult to change one's name once placed on a Birth cirt. --PBS (talk) 13:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

English sources nearly always ignore the diacritics. And most of the times it's not because they don't want to be accurate, it's simply because English keyboards lack diacritics and no one wants to bother finding a way to reproduce them. So it's a technical limitation which we don't have on Wikipedia and thus need not to follow suit. Húsönd 12:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

So could you provide some reliable sources in English which do use the Icelandic spelling as opposed to the English spelling? Also, a more general question: since English didn't use diacritics even before printing was invented, why are you assuming that it's a technical limitation that stops people from using the diacritics? I would expect most English-speakers would hand-write "Thordarson", even if they knew how to spell it in Icelandic (which the vast majority don't).--Aervanath (talk) 12:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Husond How do you know that "it's simply because English keyboards lack diacritics and no one wants to bother finding a way to reproduce them" is true? It is an assertion that you have made before, but AFAICT you have never produced a source to back up you claim. As I mentioned to you on the thread on the talk page of WP:UE "I came across an example this week, that refutes the old argument that it is only laziness that the English don't use diacritic. It comes from the official English translation of the Treaty of Orebro "Orebro" is spelt that way not as "Örebro" but the name of one of the plenipotentiary is given as Lawrence Baron d'Engeström (not Engestrom). The English version is a translation of the French original, and in that original the spellings are "Orebro" and "Engeström", and as the Swedish plenipotentiaries signed the French version, they acquiesced to these French spellings (see Wikisource:Treaty of Orebro (Britain and Sweden))." --PBS (talk) 13:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I think this is less of an issue with diacritics as it is with nonstandard English language characters (the thorn and the eth). The vast majority of English speakers don't know how those letters are pronounced (I know I wouldn't had I not seen the transliterated version, and I don't think I'm particularly uneducated). Our job is to provide our readers with information that is easily intelligible (being able to find it is less important, since redirects exist). I don't think it's an issue that English-language keyboards can't produce certain characters; any character can be created through the use of "ctrl+3 or 4 digits on the numpad", which is a fairly well-known method. It's just not common in English to use most diacritics for foreign names, since English doesn't use diacritics at all (with the exception of some loanwords). This isn't "right" or "wrong"; it's just how English generally works. Parsecboy (talk) 17:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. But this is an encyclopedia that is supposed to provide excellency in its content to all readers regardless of whether or not they may require some extra knowledge on how to decipher our content. Wikipedia is filled with content where its accuracy may present difficulties to readers. That is why we provide wikilinks to every single thing that may require further explanation. Diacritics are no different and any user that may require information on how to read them is provided with convenient explanations (check the first line of this article that teaches how to read the thorn). However, I don't think it's wise to present the name "Thordarson" to all readers, as some do know how to read Icelandic and will know that e.g. a "ð" doesn't read like an ordinary "d". Dumbing things down just because most sources do so is unworthy of an encyclopedia. Húsönd 20:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess I don't see it as "dumbing down"; I see it as taking something from the Icelandic language/alphabet that is generally unrecognizable and translating it into something intelligible to English-speakers. And while there's a line explaining how the name is generally pronounced (as you indicate, the "ð" isn't pronounced exactly the same as a "d"), it will still be jarring to read in the text for many English speakers. It would be interesting to see how other encyclopedias treat the subject, but Britannica requires a subscription (which I do not have), and Encarta and Columbia don't appear to have articles on this man. One other thing to consider: everywhere else online (in English, of course), someone interested in learning about this man or the teams he coaches is going to see "Thordarson". Shouldn't we consider the principle of least astonishment, and reflect that reality? Parsecboy (talk) 22:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I see it as removal of bias, since usage of such non-English characters and typography is clearly favouring certain Germanic, Slavonic and Romance languages over the rest of the world, even when Greek lettering is more widely known that many of the non-English letters or diacritics used in these Latin-derived alphabets that are not English. It seems racist to not allow Sanskrit lettering or Chinese lettering, since English-language governments exist where these scripts are prevalent (India, Singapore, Hong Kong), since that is not the case for Serbian or Polish. As for accuracy of rendering of the original name, that is even more so when using Arabic or Korean, etc. So either, it's racist and Wikipedia implicitly gives bias favouring Western and Central Europeans, or we fix it so that it doesn't. 76.66.193.69 (talk) 05:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Ludicrous. Thanks for the laugh. Húsönd 11:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I frankly don't see what the problem is with Þórðarson. There's a redirect from Thordarson so the page can be reached easily by someone with an English-only keyboard who may or may not be ignorant of the wider spelling issues. There are any number of pages on the English wiki that direct to pages that have names using not-so-common Latin letters (these letters incidentally were part of the English alphabet at one point!), try Thingvellir or Snaefellsjokull and a number that don't even have redirects: Öxarárfoss (can't be reached via Oxarfoss. It's not restricted to Icelandic pages either, there's Mikuláš Dzurinda, Riddu Riđđu, Cəlilabad, Maştağa... the list is very long. By all means have a redirect but seriously, it's time people stopped having a heart attack every tome they see a grave accent or a ð. And the Chinese/Nagari/Greek/whatever argument is beside the point, this is about a Latin-based script. Akerbeltz (talk) 14:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The thorn and eth haven't been part of the English language for quite some time (not since Middle English); no speaker of modern English is going to recognize them, unless they also already speak a language that currently does (in this case, Icelandic). The problem, as I see it, is that it's completely unintelligible to the vast majority of our readers (English monoglots). Húsönd argues that it's a disservice to our readers to not provide the most accurate information. While this is a valid argument, and I agree that not providing the most accurate facts is indeed a disservice, we also need to bear in mind how we present the information. We should not present our articles in such a way that is confusing or jarring to 95% of our readers (i.e., title the article in such a way that will be widely recognized, but provide the Icelandic spelling in a prominent location—in the first sentence and the infobox). Parsecboy (talk) 15:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The name of the article should be placed at the name supported by following the naming conventions, and the conventions dictate that is at the name we should use is that most often used in reliable English language sources. Listing pages that may or may not be following the naming conventions does justify the editors taking part in this debate from ignoring the naming conventions. --PBS (talk) 15:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Ludicrous? You're saying that using non-English characters for English is more accurate, I'm saying that using non-Latin characters for English is even more accurate. If it's one, it's not ludicrous, if its the other it is? It's racist. 76.66.193.69 (talk) 01:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Claiming that there are racial motivations at play here is quite a ludicrous suggestion; you don't know anyone here, nor do you know our motivations. Making that type of allegation is on the verge of a personal attack, and definitely a failure to assume good faith. Those of us arguing for the usage of standard English characters are doing so based on the fact that 99% of English speakers won't recognize the thorn or eth, and our perspective is that our job is to provide information in an easily accessible manner. A thoughtful, reasoned discussion can probably resolve the disagreement here. We definitely don't need hyperbolic accusations being thrown about. Please restrict your participation here to the former, not the latter. Parsecboy (talk) 01:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Putting it bluntly then, I assume if this chap ends up being Thordarson, you will similary move Þingvellir, Snæfellsjökull and Maştağa to Thingvellir, Snaefellsjokull and Mastaga? If there is a policy, it must apply to all, not just a few that someone has decided to take exception to. Akerbeltz (talk) 15:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not a "one size fits all" type of rule. If a number of reliable sources in fact use diacritics for Maştağa (which is admittedly unlikely, because it's not general English practice to do so), then we will too. For example, that's why we have Besançon with the cedilla; there is significant usage of the cedilla in the English language. Parsecboy (talk) 15:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but you've just shot yourself in the foot there ;) Assuming you don't have some stunning corpus database we don't have access to, your using Google to determine the predominance of a certain spelling. If you punch in Besançon city (to filter out the French results which would skew the result) you get 360,000 results; Besancon city without the cedilla gets 884,000. On that basis, we'd have to move the page to Besancon!

I know I was being a little extreme but if Wiki can live with Þingvellir, then how is that different to Þórðarson? I still fail to see why the first is ok, the second not. Akerbeltz (talk) 16:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so; my search was fine as it is (it already filtered for English only, through the advanced search option). Even typing in Besançon -wikipedia -Besancon only drops it from 1.7 million to 1.45 million. The opposite, Besancon -wikipedia -Besançon, is 1.8 million, which is not much of a statistically significant difference.

Personally, I think Þingvellir should be moved as well; it is equally unintelligible to English speakers (I have only ever seen it as Thingvellir). Parsecboy (talk) 16:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Selecting pages in language X is not entirely reliable on Google because it relies on people inserting a language tag into their html and most people never worry about that, which is why I usually use a two word search.

It would seem to me that in the case of Icelandic names - personal or place - the current practice tends towards using the native spelling. It may be worthwile to bring this issue up on Wikipedia:WikiProject Iceland and to reach consensus either way but until such time, I can't really see any persuasive arguments for not sticking with the native spelling of Þórðarson. Akerbeltz (talk) 18:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

True. In the past one both Yahoo! and Google would differentiate a letter with a diacritic with its diacritic-less counterpart. Not anymore so these searches prove quite hard these days. Húsönd 19:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

AFAICT, no one is disputing that the majority of reliable English language sources uses "Teitur Thordarson" and that the naming conventions policy and the use English guideline both state that the name of an article should be chosen by seeing what is used in reliable English Language sources. So or those who want to use the article name at "Teitur Þórðarson" what are the sources and Wikipedia naming policies and guidelines that they are are using to justify naming the article "Teitur Þórðarson"? --PBS (talk) 19:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

1) We don't use "majority" of English language sources to determine whether or not we should use a diacritic; 2) Usage of diacritics is not bound to any policy or convention on Wikipedia as there is no consensus on that matter. I must have repeated these two a hundred times in the past few years, and I could've sworn that you, Philip, had been one of the recipients. Húsönd 19:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

So far, I have only run into "majority wins" approaches when there were conflicting English names for a place/concept. I would have thought that when it comes to the proper nouns (names of places, people...) if there is an official name, the official name would have it. Otherwise, as I pointed out above, it'd be Besancon without the cedilla. Akerbeltz (talk) 19:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

OK here's an alternative: This is an English language wiki. It's not the Icelandic Wiki. Therefore any names should be transliterated into English, or at least a "western European" script. If you don't agree, then please translate the names for articles on all Greek terms and names into the Greek language; all Indian into the appropriate Indian script (depending on dialect used); Chinese into Chinese; Japanese into Japanese; Korean into Korean; Arabic into Arabic; Hebrew into Hebrew; and any other non-"western" scripts into the original script used. I am getting tired of discussion to the contrary as it makes no sense at all and has no place here. This page should be closed and redirected to Teitur Thordarson, which is the most commonly used English transliteration of the name. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia but the subject of this article has an Icelandic name. Icelandic is already written in the Latin alphabet, and you can only transliterate something when you have two different alphabets (e.g. Cyrillic to Latin). And there is no such thing as a "western European" script! In fact (how ironic is this)- Iceland is the westernmost European country! Húsönd 21:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I agree that having this on every single page is tiresome, which is precisely why I suggested raising the issue overall on the Iceland page because the Þ/ð issue mostly crops up on icelandic related pages. But dragging Greek and Chinese into this is beside the point, I'd like to re-iterate, they're not Latin based scripts. Icelandic is. Akerbeltz (talk) 20:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The question is not what "Latin-based" scripts do as a group; the question is what English now does. For that matter, the Scandinavian runes are probably based on the Latin alphabet; but that does not mean we should use them in article titles. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

You're late. And we have already discussed the differences between the Latin alphabet thorn and the runes. Húsönd 07:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Late? Late is nothing. Icelandinc is still not appropriate. Translate the other articles to the scripts of their original language as mentioned above or transliterate this one as was suggested. You're delaying the inevitable. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Hudson you wrote ":1) We don't use "majority" of English language sources to determine whether or not we should use a diacritic;" Yes I agree, "we don't use 'majority' of English language sources", because as the naming convention policy says "Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject." You also write "2) Usage of diacritics is not bound to any policy or convention on Wikipedia as there is no consensus on that matter", yes it is it is bound by the naming conventions policy. The policy is also supported by the use English naming convention guideline and for the content of the article, by the section in WP:MOS called "Foreign terms" which also says. Do you know of any policies or guidelines that supports your suggestion that we use "Teitur Þórðarson" for this article name? --PBS (talk) 08:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Read the WP:MOS section you quoted: "The use of diacritics (accent marks) on foreign words is neither encouraged nor discouraged; their usage depends on whether they appear in verifiable reliable sources and on the constraints imposed by specialized Wikipedia guidelines." And that's it. From what I can understand it leaves diacritics in a limbo where its application is merely depending on their appearance in sources (not even specifying that these sources have to be sources in the English language). What's the great decisive factor or regulation brought by the convention that could be applied here? Húsönd 19:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

English appears at least seven times in the linked section; the intent should be plain to an honest editor fluent in this language. However, I have added in English to the quoted sentence, since the redundancy appears to be necessary. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we just link the letters to the pages explaining the letter: Þórðarson? Akerbeltz (talk) 20:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• Because the links don't work: [[Þórðarson]] doesn't link to anything.
• Because it doesn't communicate to anglophones; call the man what the Vancouver newspapers call him, so that our readers know whom we're talking about. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Just wondering, when did {{foreignchar}} fail us? —Admiral Norton ^(talk) 19:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The Þ links to Þ and the ð to ð... I've come across it on wikipedia before where a character or symbol was used that people may not be totally familiar with, for example for *.

Vancouver newspapers are not the measure of all things and the current team does not appear to be the only one he's ever worked for... And as far as I can tell, no-one has yet bothered to explain why this guy is being singled out when there's a load of Icelandic related pages that contain eth and thorn. Akerbeltz (talk) 00:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

That's WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which is not usually a compelling argument. As for why this one: the subject works in Vancouver, and the move was suggested by a Canadian. These suggest that we have failed the Principle of Least Astonishment, and caused a reader surprise on looking up an article on a subject he knows well; a failure to communicate which is a flaw in the encyclopedia. If there is a case where thorn is indeed normal English usage, it is far more likely to be some subject which has never been outside Iceland, and rarely heard of in the English-speaking world. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

If we were to focus on the Principle of Least Astonishment and not on the first pillar that says we're an encyclopedia, we'd be left with something quite similar to the Simple English Wikipedia. If there's something that abounds on Wikipedia is stuff that will astonish the reader. And it's good that so it be. Húsönd 07:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

If most major Encyclopaedias were to always use native spellings and diacritics then you would have a valid point. They do not, so I think your argument is weak. What is the difference between using reliable English language sources to determine the spelling of this person's name and that of any other name (English or foreign)? For example would you support the spelling of Warsaw as Warszawa in Wikipedia? If so then you are definitely in a minority and if not what is the justification for using reliable English language sources to determine Warsaw and not Thordarson? --PBS (talk) 09:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Something that I think both sides in this debate are not realizing is that there's a distinction between, on the one hand, a source that has decided to strip all or most diacritics and to use English-alphabet equivalents of non-English letters, and on the other hand, a source that has decided to write a particular personal or geographic name in a particular way. The only thing all these Google hits tell us is that (probably) most sources on the internet written with presumably English-language keyboards don't like thorns and eths and o-acutes in general, not that they find that, in English, the Icelandic football coach's name is Teitur Thordarson, while in Icelandic, it's Teitur Þórðarson. What we need to look at is authoritative sources that do use diacritics or non-English letters to at least some minimum extent that shows that the source doesn't simply have a (perhaps implicit) policy of non-use of all diacritics or non-English letters, and then see whether they write the subject's name with or without the non-English letters and/or diacritics. If such sources cannot be found, then no established usage exists.--Atemperman (talk) 16:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

For instance, Britannica does use diacritics, yet it writes the name of the country immediately south of the U.S. as Mexico, rather than as México, which is the native spelling. On the other hand, it writes the capital of Colombia as Bogatá rather than as Bogata. It's worth noting that the URL for the Colombian capital doesn't include the a-accent, even though the title of the article does. --Atemperman (talk) 16:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

(Oh, and, likewise, of course, if a source is completely diacritiphilic, writing México in English-language articles rather than Mexico, then it isn't useful in determining established usage of that particular word, either. I don't think many of these sources exist, though, so it's not really a concern for us.)--Atemperman (talk) 16:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point our policy does not need us to concern ourselves with finding out if the reliable sources have a policy on this issue. All we need to do is us whatever reliable English language sources usually use. --PBS (talk) 18:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Further to this, there is a commonly used English transliteration. There is no need to use the Icelandic script to represent this page. Even if there is some variation, that's likely not because of a lack of agreement on the transliteration, but rather a problem with the spell-checker used by the author. Move it to Teitur Thordarson soon and end this inane non-debate.--Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the point about Warsaw, I think you'll find that that's a long-standing English form, along with Rome, Athens and other widely used place-names. But this chap doesn't have a very long history in the English-speaking world so ad hocery when it comes to spelling his surname in the press is a distinct possibility and I really don't think ad-hocery has a place in an encyclopedia. Sure, you can come up with lots of "more English" looking spellings but who's going to be the judge of which one's get transliterated or not? As I've pointed out, you'd have more of a chance establishing grounds for moving Thingvellir to its "English" spelling. Just check out your average Polish geo article (try the links at the bottom of Łódź Voivodeship) - why do you think they're using the polish spelling? And incidentally, if you observe the historical development of atlases and the way they spell place-names, you'll find that more and more list foreign place-names with all the squiggles as the technical limitations have fallen by the wayside. I wonder why... This debate is neithe inane or a non-debate. It has wider ramifications. Akerbeltz (talk) 00:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I normally support using diacritics for titles that are personal names. But two things that make this move request different from many others.

1. The subject is notable for activity in an English-speaking country where his name is commonly rendered without diacritics/extensions.
2. Although diacritics (e.g., "ó") can be "read through," i.e., ignored when read by someone unfamiliar with them, extensions (e.g., "Þ," "ð") cannot normally be.

— AjaxSmack 03:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I support this proposal and the arguments rendered in it and add that there is already a commonly-used transliteration.--Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources

Could somebody provide verified reliable English-langauge sources for using the native spelling? This is something that no one has yet done.--Aervanath (talk) 18:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

You are mistaken. See above (reproduced here):

• As supplied the by Whitecaps F.C.

  Vancouver Whitecaps FC website, where he coached: [15]

  Vancouver Whitecaps FC twitter site: [16]

  Vancouver Sun (largest newspaper in Vancouver): [17]

  USL - the league where he coaches the Whitecaps: [18]

  Team 1040 - Vancouver sports radio station: [19]

  CTV (Canadian national television network): [20]

  Los Angeles Galaxy FC mentions him: [21]

• Additional Sources:

  The Mirror (London) [22]

  The Toronto Star [23]

  UEFA [24]

  ESPN [25]

I have made reference to this list several times. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I understood Aervanath to be asking for Teitur Þórðarson in reliable English language sources.--PBS (talk) 11:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

That is correct. By "native spelling" I meant "Icelandic spelling", i.e. Þórðarson. I already knew about the sources above which reference using Thordarson; if nobody can come up with reliable English sources which use Þórðarson then there is no good reason to keep it at the current name.--Aervanath (talk) 11:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. Misunderstood. I don't know of any English print sources for the Icelandic spelling. I don't know that there is one. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Page move warring

See this comment @ User talk:Husond#Move warning over Teitur Thordarson --PBS (talk) 14:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Inadequate threats replied here. Húsönd 19:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Use the English transliteration until this is resolved

I disagree that this page should be the primary location for the person. I have no problem with it being a redirect. I do have a problem with someone undoing the approved move until the issue is resolved. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no "English spelling", this is not an English word. On Wikipedia we do things by steps. The name of the article was (and is) "Teitur Þórðarson" and can only be moved to another spelling upon closure as "move" by an admin. Húsönd 19:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

There is a commonly used English spelling of the word. This has been pointed out on several occasions. Therefore mu.

It was moved to the common English spelling, but someone complained and it was moved back.--Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Naming conventions says: It can happen that an otherwise notable topic has not yet received much attention in the English-speaking world, so that no established usage exists. Very low google counts can but need not be indicative of this. If this happens, follow the conventions of the language in which the entity is most often talked about (German for German politicians, Turkish for Turkish rivers, Portuguese for Brazilian towns etc.). "Teitur Thordason" gets us 6000 Google hits, that's fairly low I'd say... Arsène Wenger ramps up over 2 million hits. Akerbeltz (talk) 18:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

You've lost me. What does hit count have to do with a commonly accepted transliteration of the name? If Google is the final word: about 2,930 for "Teitur Þórðarson". So what does that say? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

None of us seem to have any printed (non-newspaper) references. Hence Google is our only way of measuring anything. The fact that "Teitur Þórðarson" has a lowish count too is fairly irrelevant, the question that needs answering is if there is strong evidence for the use of the Thordarson spelling to warrant not using the native spelling. Akerbeltz (talk) 20:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Lame excuse. All of the referneced usage is available online. Search the the Whitecaps F.C.'s news archives for their usage. Their press releases are reproduced in the local papers and the original articles represent the Whitecaps' spelling. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but *ONE* archive using that spelling over and over falls under has not yet received much attention in the English-speaking world so to me, Wiki policy seems to read here "stick with the native spelling". Akerbeltz (talk) 22:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The spelling does not have to be common throughout the English-speaking world in general because Wikipedia has the concept of national varieties of English. So just because a word is not commonly used in all dialects of English if it is commonly used in one national dialect then that is the spelling we use. --PBS (talk) 10:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Akerbeltz, I don't understand your point.

The fact is simple: there is a commonly used English transliteration and it should be used. If you don't like the transliteration, contact the person and see if they like it better than the one the company they work for is using. Until you get word back, I suggest that we use the commonly used one since the Icelandic spelling is not used at all in the English speaking world other than on Wikipedia. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Accessibility

I've got a question, about the naming dispute on this article. What happens if a blind person is using Wikipedia, and they've got reading software, that reads to them. How does it handle "Teitur Þórðarson"? Does anyone know? I've often wondered this. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Most software is language specific, since "Teitur Þórðarson" does not have English typography, some software will spit trash right there, others will skip it, some will complain about an unrecognized word. 76.66.193.69 (talk) 14:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to give significant weight to accessibility questions in a case like this. I think I'll post over at WT:ACCESS and see what they think. -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Accessibility:

Provide a transliteration for all text in a non Latin writing system. Screen readers without Unicode support will read a character outside Latin-1 as a question mark, and even in the latest version of JAWS, the most popular screen reader, Unicode characters are very difficult to read.

The guideline doesn't specifically address characters such as those discussed here, and it doesn't specifically address titles of articles. I'm asking about that. -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Certainly anything that's not plain ASCII will botch up some software, whatever it is. 76.66.193.69 (talk) 15:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

My screen reader, JAWS, the most popular Windows screen reader, pronounces the title roughly as "Teter thorn Ortharson". It does not handle "Þ" correctly, either in upper or lower case, but it reads "ó" and "ð" acceptably. I've just gotten used to hearing "thorn" randomly in Scandinavian names, and I don't think accessibility should be a significant factor in an article title. As said above, any character that is not plain ASCII will not speak correctly in *some* systems. Graham87 04:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, Graham. Our purpose is to build an encyclopedia; what good is that if we're not making it accessible to a significant segment of the population? And it seems that it did not pronounce the eth correctly. It's supposed to sound like a "d", but it apparently rendered it as a "th". Parsecboy (talk) 13:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Two things: Since there is a common English transliteration, there's no need to have mess-up reading software. The characters in question is not Scandinavian, it's Icelandic. I suspect Scandinavians wouldn't be able to read the name correctly. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

We're going to have to mention the original name somewhere - let's just do it in the title, where the guidelines support that. But it turns out that this guideline discourages the use of characters like "ð" in an article title. My screen reader said ð like the th in "them", not the "th" in "thin". Graham87 08:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm a little confused; one pronounces the "th" in "thin" and "them" exactly the same. The only other pronunciation of "th" is as one would do it for "Thames" or "Thailand". Parsecboy (talk) 12:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The "th" in "thin" is voiceless, while the "th" in "them" is voiced, as it says in the article you linked. Graham87 13:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Regardless, the eth is not pronounced in either manner. Parsecboy (talk) 13:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

moved Teitur Þórðarson to Teitur Thordarson over redirect: Per request at WP:RM

Hallelujah! Now the discussion begins as to whether the name should be Thordarson in the article or remain Þórðarson in all locations. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Noticed that the Finish site dropped the Icelandic spelling. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Estonian order

He was awarded the Order of the Cross of Terra Mariana (4th class) in 2000, source: http://president.ee/et/vabariik/teenetemargid/kavalerid.php?tm=&pn=Thordarson&en= Amherst99 (talk) 17:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Name (Thordarson/Þórðarson)

This has obviously been much discussed, but of all pages on Icelandic persons on this wiki, this is the only page I know of where the Icelandic name isn't the title. finval (talk) 22:37, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

There are many Icelandic footballers who use English spelling. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Having read the debate about moving or not moving...

I note that the only arguments to keep the article with the non-Icelandic spelling are based on the concerns of editors that diacritics and special characters are somehow "difficult" to understand, despite them being an integral part of a great many languages written in the Latin script other than English. The arguments in favour of spelling the man's name the way it's spelled in his native language are supported by policy and aren't simply a case of think of the children. There are a great many Icelandic footballers (20 in the "current squad" section of the team's article at the time of writing alone) whose names in Icelandic are written with assorted special characters and who - by virtue of the fact that the team will be participating in Euro 2016 - will be being written up in non-Icelandic sources. Indeed, all but one of the present squad are currently playing in countries which aren't Iceland and are presumably being written up thusly at the moment. That's before we consider every other Icelandic person, place, thing or concept and those in languages other than Icelandic which nonetheless are titled with special characters not found in your standard English alphabet. Therefore, in the interests of being an encyclopedia, the Iceland spelling is patently the most sensible one to use. If the scary and difficult characters are truly that bothersome, I note further that a number of Icelandic articles do transcribe them into "normal" writing in the intro just in case people panic. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:31, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I moved it back. This is the English wikipedia and the consensus is this article's subject is more commonly known by this spelling of his name. Get consensus before moving. This article displays the Icelandic spelling in the lede. The argument, that "only arguments to keep the article with the non-Icelandic spelling are based on the concerns of editors that diacritics and special characters are somehow 'difficult' to understand" is incorrect. I never argued that. I simply stated that there was a WP:COMMONNAME in English. The press in Vancouver used this spelling exclusively as the club did as well. I will say that we don't have articles of other foreign subjects in their non-Latin scripts, I'm not sure why we should do so for Icelandic subjects, but that's a different debate. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Walter. Jonathunder (talk) 04:22, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion on this page doesn't at all reflect the points you're making, but since it apparently matters to you so much, then go right ahead and be insular about it. I note that you're conflating articles on subjects in non-Latin scripts (Chinese, Arabic etc) with those written in Latin script but using characters not found in the 26-letter English alphabet, which are two separate issues. I will, of course, be more than happy to help in deleting all the diacritics in the interests of consistency. Walter, should your namesake town be written as "Gorlitz" or "Goerlitz"? Do we keep the "-ur" endings on names like the first name of the present Icelandic President, or should he just be plain old "Olaf"? Probably best that we hash these problems out before stepping on each other's toes further, no? BigHaz - Schreit mich an

I'm not conflating them. But you're right, my legal name, in English, is Gorlitz and Thordarson's is Thordarson. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

"I will say that we don't have articles of other foreign subjects in their non-Latin scripts, I'm not sure why we should do so for Icelandic subjects, but that's a different debate." As per Latin script, Icelandic is written in Latin script, just like French, Basque or Swahili. The fact that we have an article about "Beijing" and not "北京市" (its name in a non-Latin script) is separate to the question of why we have one about "Þingvellir" and not "Thingvellir" or "Thingfields", as you point out, but claiming that Icelandic is written in anything but Latin script is a fallacy, and one you've contributed to the discussion before. As for the question of legal names, you'd be right if the subject of this article were of an Anglophone nationality. Fact is that he isn't, and is in fact Icelandic. Therefore, Teitur's legal patronymic (to use the appropriate terminology) is in fact Þórðarson. His father would have gone by the name of Þórðar Somebodysson (don't quote me on the exact grammar of the first name there, Icelandic cases are a menace), and he is the son of said individual. His brother, likewise, has the same patronymic. You wouldn't find a man called "Thordar" anywhere in his family tree, for the simple reason that Icelandic uses "Þ" to represent the unvoiced "Th" English uses. Now, if we take the question of the town (umlauted) that you share your legal name with, should its article be renamed "Goerlitz", "Gorlitz" or keep its present name of "Görlitz"? I'm genuinely curious here, so please don't take this the wrong way. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

So you seem to want to have the other debate. I don't. That's why I said "that's a different debate". I will focus on COMMONNAME. Cheers. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, so Beijing versus 北京市 is a different debate. Fine by me. Why, then, are we spelling this man's name differently to the way it's spelled on his birth certificate or passport? Or, if you prefer to look at the question in the opposite direction, why are we spelling "Þingvellir", "Görlitz" and other things using Latin-script letters which aren't found in English? You're having a bob each way at the moment at best, and deliberately ignoring facts that don't suit you at worst. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's a different debate as is the spelling of man's name differently to the way it's spelled with on his non-English birth certificate. Icelandic uses a mix a Latin characters with a Runic characters, and that's what we're dealing with here, and it's not my argument. I see yours, now address my argument: COMMONNAME. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Since you asked, I will. There are two ways we can take this. One is to give primacy to "[Wikipedia] generally prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article." This way, you get your wish of spelling the man's name the way it's currently spelled in the article. We then need to look carefully at every single article with a diacritic or other special character and work out a consistent methodology of changing it where applicable (and in the case of names such as the German town above, we need to work out a consistency between different methods of spelling it as well). Sounds like a lot of work, but I'm not going to argue with how you'd choose to spend your free time. The alternative approach is to be pragmatic about it. I suspect there aren't many keyboards accessing the English Wikipedia that are set up to type "Teitur Þórðarson" - certainly mine isn't. That said, neither is it particularly well-set-up to type "Eiður Guðjohnsen", and yet through the magic of redirects if I type "Eidur Gudjohnsen" (which is how he'd normally be spelled during his extra-Icelandic career in places like the Premier League), I'm taken straight to the page with the special characters in it. Surely that's simpler. And if not, we can always put a quick message in that while Teitur's name is spelled in one way in English-language media, his actual name, his legal name, is spelled properly in a different way. Much less effort for all involved, surely? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 21:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Legal names do not determine the title of the article. We use common names, especially as given in English. Jonathunder (talk) 23:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. So when I wake up tomorrow, I take it Eiður Guðjohnsen will be Eidur Gudjohnsen, Ísafjörður will be Isafjordur and Reykjavík will have lost that annoying accented "i" character as well? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:54, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I take COMMONNAME. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:09, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

You've made your point. So let's get started on all the other articles which use non-English letters and re-spell them so there's no diacritics in sight. Or is that just something I should leave you to do over a lazy weekend or two? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:48, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Once again you seem to think that because other stuff exists that we are bound to deal with it. if you want to make it your life's mission, feel free to. It's not mine. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I just question the purpose of a policy which only works when you want to invoke it. If there are articles whose titles feature non-English letters and spellings which are less common than their 100% English-letter equivalents (and a very cursory experiment with Google would suggest that there most definitely are a great many of these), why does one particular article get singled out for being spelled in this particular way? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 21:39, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Which policy is that? If you mean the idea you just made-up—If there are articles whose titles feature non-English letters and spellings which are less common than their 100% English-letter equivalents, etc.—it's not a policy. My reasons for not apply this same guideline to other articles is simple: I have not done the research on COMMONNAME for those other articles to speak authoritatively or even intelligently about those subjects. If you feel so inclined, you may become the expert on those subjects. I find no need to tilt at those windmills. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:23, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I've made up nothing of the sort. You're citing COMMONNAME. According to its own page, that's a policy. I quote 'This page is about the policy for article titles.' (emphasis mine). You're saying that the reason to spell the title of this article in a way other than the way you'd find on the man's passport or birth certificate is because of COMMONNAME. The section I quoted earlier goes on to say '[Wikipedia] generally prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article.' Again, this is a policy that you're referring to and that you're using to explain the rationale for titling the article a certain way. So if there are more sources which spell 'Reykjavík' as 'Reykjavik', should the page be moved accordingly, with COMMONNAME the rationale? In other words, if it's a policy, it should be treated as a policy and things which aren't in line with it should be changed accordingly. If things that aren't in line with it shouldn't be changed, then why does COMMONNAME apply here and not elsewhere? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:54, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I stand corrected. COMMONNAME is on a policy page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:47, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

So if it's on a policy page, and is therefore the way that Wikipedia is "meant to operate", for want of a better phrase, why does it only apply to Icelandic football coaches plying their trade in Vancouver and not globally? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 21:25, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't. A great many decisions rely on COMMONNAME. However, you're not going to goad me into changing any other articles. That's your shtick. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:52, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

So it's a policy that only applies when people feel like saying it applies, then. I'm not trying to goad you into changing things. I'm just pointing to the oddity of having a policy which says "do this" interpreted as "do this when the subject of the article is an Icelandic football coach in charge of a team in Vancouver, but not when the subject of the article is anything in particular else." You do see how that makes a policy look a lot less than a policy, don't you? And you do see how that leads inevitably to the question of why this guy is so special as to be spelled in this way, don't you? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:01, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

No. It's a policy that can always apply, but it needs to be applied by editors who care enough to discuss whether it should apply to a specific article or not. I don't care about other subjects. WP:OVERLINK is a guideline that applies to all subjects, but there are many articles where it's not applied. WP:INFOBOXFLAG is a guideline that applies to all articles, but there are many articles where it has not been applied. I could continue, but I'll remind you that editors are volunteers and you can't force us to do things in which we have no interest. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:21, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not forcing you to do anything at all. Well, I began by having a strong desire to understand the logic behind your position, so I guess I'm forcing you to explain your position. The two guidelines you've mentioned there are different. "Infoboxflag" describes itself as a guideline, which is different to a policy, and "Overlink" doesn't actually call itself either of the two. But now to the substance of the point. If it's a policy that can apply but doesn't have to, why does it need to here? If a user in Vancouver wants to find out about their football team's coach, they can surely type in "Teitur Thordarson" (as he'd be spelled in Canadian media) and be redirected to "Teitur Þórðarson", even with (as I had earlier) a sentence in the early part of the article saying that his name is often written "Teitur Thordarson". To use an example, not one that I'm forcing you to change, but an example nonetheless: I can never remember (or reliably type in) the diacritics in Tomáš Rosický's name. If I type "Tomas Rosicky", Wikipedia automatically redirects me to the correct Czech spelling, even though that's not what I typed. If the titling of the article were to cause confusion, the opening paragraph could be updated to say that his name is often written "Tomas Rosicky". Isn't that a more sensible outcome? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:11, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia generally prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. There will likely be more such sources for a subject active in Vancouver than for one in Vogar. Jonathunder (talk) 15:32, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Point addressed above. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:11, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

There having been no responses since late November, I think we can conclude that there's no particular need to continue having the article titled eccentrically. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:20, 18 March 2016 (UTC)