Talk:Voßstraße: Difference between revisions

This article was previously considered for deletion on July 6, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Compromise?

In text, I have attempted the following compromise. The street is the Vossstrasse, as we agreed (see the archives; those who wish to change that agreement should go to WP:RM.) Note that omitting the is an idiom violation. The addresses are Voßstraße 1 and so on; the italics being proper to a foreign word. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

if anyone chooses to make a move request, fine; the last move request discussion is at Talk:Vossstrasse/archive1. I thank Avraham for intervening, and note that the MoS on Ireland is only one of the places we agree on following what English does to foreign names; there is another discussion at WP:NCGN. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The MoS on Ireland is of course completely and utterly irrelevant, since Ireland has places with both English and Irish names. Where a place has an English name, we use it. Where a place has no English name, we use the native name. Voßstraße has no English name, therefore we use the German name, which is Voßstraße. "Vossstrasse" isn't the English name; it's just a misspelling. It never should have been at this name in the first place, and it certainly shouldn't remain at this inaccurate name. —Angr 09:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely right. I suggested this barbaric spelling only because it was marginally more acceptable than the hyphenated version used by User:Adam Carr, which was his own invention (and even then, triple-s has been allowed in German only since the German spelling reform of 1996, which is widely disregarded). There is no reason whatsoever to not call this article by its real name, and that is Voßstraße. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 11:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I quite agree with Angr. -- Evertype·✆ 13:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

It remains both guideline and policy, however, to call articles by what English calls the subject. Those who disagree with policy should go to WT:NC; those who disagree that this is the English spelling should present evidence, and go to WP:RM. Evidence may convince me; a wider appeal may find people who agree with you. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I speak both English and German, and there is no English name for this street. There is no earthly reason for the sharp esses to be used in the name of this article. -- Evertype·✆ 00:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Google Scholar appears to disagree. Unfortunately for our purposes, they quite sensibly regard Vosstrasse as a hit for Voßstraße, and there's another one in Heidelberg, which appears to be Vossstrasse in the usage of the University Medical School; but including Berlin (and street, to ensure we get English) gets a number of returns in both spellinss, even when searched only with eszett. The results suggest Vossstrasse is spoken of in English, and is normally spelled with ss. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

No, that's simply because Google searches for variants on special characters, treating ß and ss alike (just as, for example, it treats l and Polish ł alike, although they are not interchangeable letters). The reasoning is pretty obvious; it makes it easier to search for a phrase without having to type all variants, and allows searches for foreign words without having to have the right keyboard installed, and so on. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 21:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

So much seems obvious; the combined sample, however, favors Vossstrasse.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, one more thing...

Nationalist? Moi? Very funny, Anderson. BTW, it's common courtesy to mention it when you go to WP:ANI. Perhaps you'll remember to do so next time. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 21:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps not as much as the editor I named; but certainly: a narrowly focused account, with a nationalist agenda, who will neither comply with our policies nor argue to change them; but movewars.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from edits which might be understood as personal attacks; please assume good faith even when you don't concur. Lectonar 15:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

And which nation would that be? ProhibitOnions ^(T) 11:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• If he doesn't movewar, that would be fine; for the past one, see the history of this article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok cut the crap guys. Avi should not have moved and then protected. Protection to stop an edit war is applied immediately, the article isn't reverted to anyone's preferred version first. Second, the word Vossstrasse simply doesn't exist. This is not a word that has been used so much in English that it has become and English word. Its rare in English, and remains German. Second, it is a proper noun, and as such should be spelled the way it is spelled in German. More people on this page support the ß version than the other and there is a consensus for the German version. The copious amount of pmanderson's rants doesn't change this. The page stood there for a while and Avi's interventions was inappropriate. It should be moved back to the ß version and left there. Since a redirect exists, there is no issue with English keyboards not having an ß. This sniping back and forth betwenn pmanderson and prohibit onions is absolutely juvenile and stupid. pschemp | talk 18:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Then file a move request at WP:RM. It may get consensus. As for Pschemp's argument, it would prove that we should move Nuremberg and Rome; it therefore contravenes policy. However, since it is the only argument (as opposed to flat declarations without evidence) presented, it is an immense improvement. I regret to see that he has spoiled an otherwise fine post with a flat lie; if he believed there was a consensus to spell as in German, he would have filed a move request - and the history of this page shows there isn't. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

No once again, you are using poor examples and Rome and Nuremburg are commonnly used in English whereas Voßstraße is not. Second, only you and Elonka think it should have English spelling, the rest of the editors on this page think it should be German. That is consensus. Third, a request doesn't need to filed because there is consensus. Fourth, you are still being uncivil and childish. pschemp | talk 18:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

No, it is policy that we should use English spelling; the question is what the English spelling is. On that, only I have bothered to check evidence. As for "on this page": before you make such claims, you should really remember to archive, unless you mean to claim that Adam agrees with you. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and policy states names go to the name in the language when and English equivalent doesn't exist. Please prove to me that this word is used as much as somthing like "Rome". To be English, it has to be used enough in the language to be common and the spelling changed. Which is isn't. Secondly, Adam hasn't edited since October 2006, so he's hardly part of this discussion. Rant on, but the consensus is still against you. pschemp | talk 19:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Now all you have to do is to prove that these 200 hits don't exist. They suggest, by the way, that Vossstrasse is more common, even in representing German postal addresses, but doubtless such valiant Defenders of the Truth will find that no problem. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

200 vs 81,000? 200 hits that are spelled that way only because English people don't have an ß on their keyboard? If a word can only be found 200 times in Google, it has hardly become intergrated into English. It isn't even a German loanword at that frequency. That's the whole point you are missing. It isn't and hasn't been used enough in English to be an English word. It isn't in the English dictionary. I can find 200 hits for recently made up nonsense words. The MOS clearly states, "For terms in common usage, anglicized spellings are used, or native spellings if they use the Latin alphabet" 200 google hits does not equal "common." Second, the ß ligature is considered part of the Latin alphabet. The MOS states in the "Diacritics, ligatures and letters from (extended) Latin alphabet not commonly used in modern English" section that redirects should be used when a ligature is in the correct spelling. An example is Ægir where the ligature is used in the title, and the separated out spellings are redirected to Ægir. This applies here because it is also a proper noun. pschemp | talk 19:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I am thinking over your request, pschemp, but I would like to point out the MOS specifically states that the esszet is controversial here WP:Use English#Disputed issues. -- Avi 20:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Well you should do it because your move violated policy, regardless of the outcome here. While that does indeed indicate the ß is controversial, both the majority of editors involved in that poll, and the majority of editors involved in this discussion prefer the ß. Second, the MOS clearly states, "anglicized spellings are used, or native spellings if they use the Latin alphabet" and the Latin alphabet article indicates ß is a ligature in the Latin alphabet. Third, the section of the MOS that talks about ligatures indicates they should be used as the title with redirects to the spelled out forms. While the Ireland MOS is interesting, it doesn't relate because German and English are closely related language families where the alternative English spelling is easy to figure out, whereas Irish Gaelic is incomprehensible to the average English speaker. pschemp | talk 20:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Page name

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support Voßstraße''' or *'''Oppose Voßstraße''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

OK, everyone, let us try discussing this cordially and on its merits. -- Avi 21:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I dislike this pseudo-poll considering much cordial discussion has already gone on and should not be discarded because you started a new section. The opinion of the editors previous still stands, and should not be ignored if they don't happen to come by and want to say the same things that they did again. pschemp | talk 22:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Consensus can change over time. The issue has erupted anew, so it makes sense that the discussion do so as well—free from rancor. -- Avi 00:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and I doubt that people such as Angr have changed their view in less than 48 hours. It isn't fair to discard their opinions above when they are so current. Discussion without sniping is a good goal however. pschemp | talk 00:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Voßstraße More accurate and there is no reason to avoid the use of ß. Support use of {{foreignchar}} at the top of the page. Stefán 21:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• Vossstrasse English usage; which usually, but not always, does avoid eszett. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Here's a fine instance where it should not be avoided. -- Evertype·✆ 08:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Voss Strasse or Vossstrasse Vossstrasse - Common English spelling, as indicated on sources including on the web,[1] and in the Lonely Planet guidebooks. --Elonka 21:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • After having spent some time looking through major English-language newspapers, I am switching my opinion from "Vossstrasse" to "Voss Strasse or Vossstrasse". The "Voss Strasse" spelling is the primary one used by papers from The Age to The Guardian, and even the German press agency DPA. For details, see the references I've been adding to the article. --Elonka 17:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
• Voßstraße The word is not common in English at all. The ss spelling has only 200 google hits. This is not a word that has become integrted into English or which can be considered a loan word. MOS reasons support the ß which I will explain below. (again) pschemp | talk 22:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Falsehood. That's scholar.google.com's total for 'both spellings.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • One can avoid double counting by using [Voßstraße -Voss-strasse Berlin] or [-Voßstraße Voss-strasse Berlin] but it does not help in Scholar because German articles are returned as well. --Philip Baird Shearer 14:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• Voßstraße I am really on the fence here, but pschemp actually had a good point when he differentiated between the the treatments of Gaelic and German, and as the esszet is technically in the Latin alphabet, I am leaning ever-so-slightly to this spelling with a redirect from Vossstrasse. -- Avi 00:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Gaelic is (in practice) spelt in the standard Latin alphabet; and the Gaelic "alphabet" is the Latin alphabet with slightly variant letter forms, exactly like Gothic or fraktur. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
    • You mean the Gaelic script. -- Evertype·✆ 08:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Voßstraße per Use English. When there is no common English name we use the native name and Latin-alphabet languages need no transliteration. While the original author was active here I was willing to defer to him to some extent but, alas, he is gone. Haukur 00:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Voßstraße, as above, for accuracy. Let's not twist "use English" to cases where it doesn't apply. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 09:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Voßstraße, use local spelling if no real "English name" exists (I'm thinking of Munich etc. here). Kusma (talk) 09:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Voßstraße. there is no English name for that, only a possible English spelling. Lectonar 15:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Voßstraße Because no English name exists and a name should not be transliterated if it uses one of several variants of the Latin alphabet. For a further reading, including some of my arguments, take a look at the archive. Blur4760 00:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Voßstraße — more accurate; English does not have a name for the street beyond borrowing the German. --Stemonitis 06:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Voßstraße. That's its name and the ß is not to be shunned in English. -- Evertype·✆ 08:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Vossstrasse As I said in the archive Talk:Vossstrasse/Archive_1#All_the_fuss (Has anyone in this survey bothered to read the archives?) the WP:NC says Generally, article naming should prefer 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. No word containing an "ß" character is going to be "second nature" to the majority of English speaking people. --Philip Baird Shearer 08:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • "with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity" - I think in this case using the ß is a reasonable minimum. Redirects take care of linking issues. pschemp | talk 04:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
    • So you state that funny foreign squiggles are ambiguous, I presume that you will now support Vossstrasse as it is less ambiguous and is in line with the guidelines. As you point out for those familiar with funny German squiggles redirects can take care of that usage. --Philip Baird Shearer 14:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Funny foriegn squiggles? Could be any more xenophobic? Speakers of English are no so stupid that they can't deal with reading something once it is pointed out that ß = ss. You've twisted my words to incomprehensibleness, but it remains that ß is not that difficult for English speakers to deal with. pschemp | talk 20:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• Vossstrasse; No matter what anyone says here, this is what is more commonly recognized and used by English speakers. The people pushing Voßstraße would be overwhelmed by 90% of en.wiki users if they even had a whiff of the debate that goes on these pages over the use of "ß". And, as I indicate below, the ß pushers want to have it both ways. Kusma says that he's cool with Munich because that's a commonly accepted English name, but then why on Franz Josef Strauss are we subjected to ß, when his name was incredibly commonly written as "Strauss" during his life? Unschool 10:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Please prove the Voßstraße is commonly used in English anyway, in any spelling form. So far the best that anyone has come up with is about 200 google scholar hits where it's an address on a paper, wherein the author didn't have an ß key. That doesn't mean it's an English word. pschemp | talk 20:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• Voßstraße — as per Iain Boyd Whyte, Professor of Architectural History in "Reflections on a Polished Floor - Ben Willikens and the Reichskanzlei of Albert Speer, a source which has been deleted from the article by User:Pmanderson. In this "Harvard Design Magazine, Fall 1998" article, Voßstraße is mentioned five times, in total the ß is used 14 times in four different words, e. g. Ringstraße. The street names are not set in italics nor altered to "ss" nor otherwise "explained", unlike Zusammenschluß and “Großdeutsches Reich”. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       14:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
• Vossstrasse . English does rarely use the "ß".Rex 15:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
• Voßstraße. The English language never uses three of the same letter next to eachother. It's a propoer name, and "Vossstrasse" looks utterly ridiculous. What's wrong with a few non-English letters here and there? Regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 14:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

  Note: If we're not going for ßs, then I could live with "Voss Strasse", because in English, we say "Cape Town", not "Capetown". Regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 14:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

That's the one thing I can't live with. I don't care much about Vossstrasse or Voßstraße, although I prefer the latter. What I don't like is writing a German word not only with nothing but English letters but also according to English orthographic rules. Vossstrasse still remains a German word, only the ß is substituted. Thus, I see no reason to use English orthography. And it just looks utterly ridiculous for anyone who speaks German (and still has some sense left as to how compounds are formed) Blur4760 14:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

With all respect, Celestian, while there is certainly logic in your suggestion, making one choice either because it "looks better" or because it's what "we say" in English, would constitue OR, either way. No, we need to both follow policy and use outside sources for verification of our English usage. It appears to me from what has been said that there's ample evidence for either Voss Strasse or Vossstrasse. Personally, I don't care which. I do object to the unnecessary inclusion of foreign characters in an English-language encyclopedia, so I do not approve of using Voßstraße, per many other comments I have made on this page.

If, like Blur4760, other German speakers also prefer Vossstrasse to Voss Strasse, then I would think that their sentiments merit serious consideration. Unschool 16:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I am leaning more and more towards "Voss Strasse", but Vossstrasse is a legitimate spelling, since it is what is used in major English-language sources from Lonely Planet to the Guardian to the New York Times. Wikipedia follows the lead of outside sources, we don't make things up as we go along. --Elonka 19:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• Vossstrasse . Avoid the B in English as always. If someone is interested in the (correct) German name he can look to the first line of the article or jump to the German wikipedia via the interwiki link.--Supparluca 14:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Reasons for Voßstraße

• 200 hits that are spelled that way only because English people don't have an ß on their keyboard do not an English word make. If a word can only be found 200 times in Google, it has hardly become integrated into English. It isn't even a German loanword at that frequency. That's the whole point the ss supporters are missing. It isn't and hasn't been used enough in English to be an English word. It isn't in the English dictionary. I can find 200 hits for recently made up nonsense words. The MOS clearly states, "For terms in common usage, anglicized spellings are used, or native spellings if they use the Latin alphabet" 200 google hits does not equal "common." Second, the ß ligature is considered part of the Latin alphabet, thus Voßstraße is a native spelling using the Latin alphabet . The MOS also states in the "Diacritics, ligatures and letters from (extended) Latin alphabet not commonly used in modern English" section that redirects should be used when a ligature is in the correct spelling. An example is Ægir where the ligature is used in the title, and the separated out spellings are redirected to Ægir. This applies here because it is also a proper noun.pschemp | talk 22:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Note, while use of the ß is contested according to the MoS in WP:UE, and so that does take some strength away from the second half of the above argument, it still is considered "native" to the Latin alphabet. -- Avi 00:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Correct, but the poll you pointed out earlier *did* have a majority of users preferring the use of ligatures and diacritics, so there is a precedent to use it. pschemp | talk 01:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
      • This is a prime example of the abuse of statistics. There are 81,500 English hits for Vossstrasse. I'm sure they are the same 81,000 hits as for the German spelling, and no google distinguishes between them; but the 200 scholar.google.com for either hits are examples of scholarly usage, and they are few enough to actually look at. They are primarily actually English text; and there are more than twice as many with double s than with eszett. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Abuse? cute. If you'll notice, most of the hits on scholar are in addresses, and there are actually more that use the ß than don't. About 400 for ss to 500 for ß. It also shows that this isn't a word actually used in common English discourse. It is only used to identify addresses. pschemp | talk 03:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
          • Addresses should not be counted, per WP:NCGN; they testify to German usage, not to English. The fact that so many addresses use Vossstrasse is really quite impressive — it raises doubts that the double eszett is in fact the official German spelling. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• Example: Zeitgeist - This actually is a word that has been taken in and is commonly used in English. It has 15,900,000 google hits. Compared to 200....it really shows that Voßstraße is not English. pschemp | talk 01:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • You are comparing apples to oranges. Firstly, you are comparing www.google.com to scholar.google.com; second, you are comparing a human emotion to a street in Berlin. Of course Zeitgeist has more google hits. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
    • No, I'm showing that Voßstaße isn't an English word, and giving an example of one that is so you can see the difference in hits. Also, Zeitgeist isn't an emotion. pschemp | talk 03:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Reasons for Vossstrasse

The principal question here, is "what does English do?" This is the English WP; it should be edited for English-speakers.

• It is policy to use English names; and there is a guideline, at WP:NCGN and elsewhere, to spell as English does.
  • The policy states that "When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it" The tiny amount of google hits shows that this is not a widely accepted name, in fact, it is hardly ever used in English. Thus there is no requirement to use an Anglicization. It also says "If no name can be shown to be widely accepted in English, use the local official name." again, 200 google hits, (or even less google scholar hits) vs the 81,000 for Voßstraße shows that the ss is not widely used. A mere 200 hits can be attributed to the simple fact that the author didn't have an ß key, and doesn't mean that he/she consciously made a choice to use sss. In fact, there is no proof of that being standard or widely used. pschemp | talk 23:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• There is a substantial pile of instances of scholarly use of Vossstrasse, here. Less than a third use eszett and many of the hits are German addresses, which may be expected to follow German official usage.
  • 126 total hits is not a substantial pile. pschemp | talk 23:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Actually for Google Scholar, on a street name, it is. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
      • • No it isn't. Its all hits on the author of a paper's address, not a real use in English. pschemp | talk 03:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• There is a survey of usage of German symbols at Wikipedia:German-speaking_Wikipedians'_notice_board/Umlaut_and_ß. Umlaut is fairly common, eszett comparatively uncommon. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • That survey refers to English. Voßstraße is not an English word. pschemp | talk 23:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
    • No, Vossstrasse is; that's why we should use it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Vossstrasse is not an English word. It's a rendering of a German word done only because people don't have an ß key. The vast majority of the Google scholar hits are addresses of authors, not use in real communication. pschemp | talk 03:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Guidebooks tend to follow local usage, because it's what's on the street signs. That Lonely Planet does not is fairly strong evidence that the eszett is unnatural in English here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Guidebooks are specifically written to be easy for English speakers, not to be accurate. They have never been the arbitrators of English style. The fact that you have to look to a guidebook for a usage shows that this is not a common word in English, and as such does not have an English spelling. pschemp | talk 23:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
    • But you don't. Guidebooks are less likely to use English; there's even one, in English otherwise, titled München Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Give it up here. half the guidebooks use ss half of them use ß. They support no one's position. pschemp | talk 03:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Oh really? And which English-language guidebooks in particular are not using Vossstrasse? Please be sure to list them at Wikipedia:German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board/Umlaut and ß, which currently is showing unanimous avoidance of the ß character for this subject. --Elonka 16:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
          • The Michelin Green Guide, already listed there for one. pschemp | talk 04:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
            • Michelin produces a fine set of guidebooks, but just because they may use the ß character in some contexts, does not mean that they are using it for Vossstrasse. If the English-language Michelin guides have a page that spells the name "Voßstraße", I am unaware of it. --Elonka 18:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
              • Honestly, if the Michelin guidebook talks of eg. Poststraße (p137 of the copy I looked at in the bookstore yesterday) and uses straße and not strasse in every other instance I could find, can we not surmise that it would find Voßstraße the appropriate form? Stefán 18:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
                • If the Michelin guidebook does not have a page that lists Vossstrasse at all, then instead of trying to guess or interpolate how they might be spelling the name, we simply should not use it as a source for this subject. I would rather that we stick to guidebooks that do list the name, such as Lonely Planet, to determine "common English usage". --Elonka 18:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
                  • Right, [2] Stefán 19:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
                    • I think that the guidebook discussion can be terminated immediately. It's irrelevant. If I'm an English speaker going to Germany I'm going to expect to see signs in German using non-English characters—the guidebook is doing me a disservice if it does not portray information the way I will see it on the signs. And an English-language encyclopedia does the English speaker a disservice if it employs characters that are no more recognizable to me than they would be if they were Cyrillic. Unschool 20:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
                      • I agree the guidebooks prove nothing. However, a name written entirely in cyrillic characters is quite a different thing than a name where all but two characters are common in English. English speaking people aren't as stupid as you seem to implying. pschemp | talk 20:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
                        • It is not I who am implying that the English-speaking are stupid. It is the "ß" pushers who think that the everyday run-of-the-mill English-speaking users of Wikipedia are so stupid that we can be told with a straight face that "the most common English spelling" of this town is Voßstraße and we'll just accept it. This is so patently dishonest it makes me ill. Unschool 20:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
                          • Calm down. My point is the that Voßstraße is not an English word and therefore doesn't have an English spelling at all. pschemp | talk 01:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
• The spelling of Vossstrasse is standard in English-language sources such as Lonely Planet guidebooks and the UK's The Guardian newspaper, which uses either "Vossstrasse" or "Voss-strasse". --Elonka 22:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • We already established the guidebooks are not a relevent source here, considering that they go either way. Please cite an actual page where these newspapers use that spelling. pschemp | talk 01:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

    Wikipedia:German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board/Umlaut and ß#Guardian Online (UK), New York Times Technology. --Philip Baird Shearer 17:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

    • Your "point", pschemp, that a word "doesn't have an English spelling at all"—which is frequently bandied about as a justification for throwing non-English characters into an English-language project with an official Use English policy—is exactly the sort of garbage that I spoke to in my points below on the spirit of WP:UE (which I noticed were ignored). Even if I accept that there is "no English word", it does not mean that non-English characters then become acceptable. That is an absolute perversion of the intent of the policy. The lack of a pre-existing English word for every person and place on the planet is a given, but it does not justify implanting non-English characters into the English language. Your insistence on this line of logic is either disingenuous or obtuse. Assuming good faith, I shall presume the latter. Unschool 13:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It is specifically allowed here: "For terms in common usage, anglicized spellings are used, or native spellings if they use the Latin alphabet" - right from the MOS. Note that that doesn't say you must use the English alphabet, it says you must use the Latin alphabet, of which ß is a part. pschemp | talk 14:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't accuse you of violating policy; I am aware of what MOS says. But my assertion is that that was written by and pushed by your fellow ßÞ-pushers, in contravention of the intent of WP:UE. Look, 99% of Wikipedia's readers are unaware of what is being done here in the name of "accuracy". I'd guess that half the editors don't even know that this is a point of contention (which it is, as it says in WP:UE). And that's the only reason such practices continue here. If this issue was widely known, this practice of using non-English characters would evaporate in a heartbeat. And, for the record, I think in the interest of educating all readers of Wikipedia, the article should include the native spelling immediately after the opening of the article. I do want to know how the native speakers write such things, and such is already done both in many Latin-alphapbet articles and non-Latin alphabet articles. Look at the article on Japan. Why is the article called "Japan" and not "日本"? Why does it use "Japan" throughout the article and not "日本"? Because English speakers of the English language Wikipedia do not know how to pronounce "日本". And everyone recognizes that it would be dumb to use 日本. This is absolutely no different than the situation with "Voßstraße". If anything, the typical English-speaker is going to think that it's "Vobstrabe", which actually places him farther from the correct pronunciation! We don't allow Arabic writing, Chinese writing, or Cyrillic writing, but for some technical reasons you and yours think that we should use ß. And only the unawareness of this community allows you to get away with it. I wouldn't tell Germans how to write their encyclopedia, and if I did have a suggestion, it sure wouldn't be to get them to adopt English-spelling. Unschool 15:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The difference is that 日本 is kanji and not a part of the latin alphabet and the MOS cleary allows characters that are part of the latin alphabet. pschemp | talk 04:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I have located several other English-language newspapers that are using the spelling of "Voss Strasse". Including an English-language paper in Germany. Shall I just give citations to the date/publication here, or do people want me to actually transcribe individual paragraphs? --Elonka 15:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
• Scores of books which use "Voss Strasse".[3] --Elonka 19:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
• Scores of academic papers which spell it "Voss Strasse" or "Voss-Strasse".[4] --Elonka 19:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Scores of other things use in English use Voßstraße too. Like this academic paper. Is your claim that Harvard doesn't write in English? All you've proved is that there are a billion variations in English, none of which are common Because people don't know what to do without an ß key. That makes Voßstraße even more sensible - no one English variation can even be agreed on! Iain Boyd Whyte, Professor of Architectural History in "Reflections on a Polished Floor - Ben Willikens and the Reichskanzlei of Albert Speer, a source which has been deleted from the article by User:Pmanderson. In this "Harvard Design Magazine, Fall 1998" article, Voßstraße is mentioned five times, in total the ß is used 14 times in four different words, e. g. Ringstraße. The street names are not set in italics nor altered to "ss" nor otherwise "explained", unlike Zusammenschluß and “Großdeutsches Reich”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pschemp (talk • contribs) 22:10, August 10, 2007 (UTC)
    • Pschemp, I am trying to assume good faith here, but it is getting more difficult. Can you please provide proof of these "scores of other things" that spell Voßstraße in major English-language sources? I'd be happy to review a few newspaper articles that do so. I've been looking all day, and haven't found any. I have, however, found many other examples of major English-language newspapers that use the form "Voss Strasse." Also, could I please ask you to stop deleting valid sources from the article? Thanks, --Elonka 23:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Harvard isn't notable enough for you? Interesting. pschemp | talk 03:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The title Voßstraße was a clear favorite in the discussion. Section closed after no input for a week. Stefán 22:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Reopened; more input requested less than an hour before "closure" by participant in the discussion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

So you don't think it is appropriate to close a poll after a week without discussion. Right, when is it appropriate to close a poll or is this perhaps supposed to be an indefinite poll? Stefán 00:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It is appropriate, and encouraged, to appeal from an unrepresentative minority to the wider community. If the wider community takes no interest, so be it; however, Unschooled's arguments stand unanswered. It is distinctly inappropriate for either of us to close this poll. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The discussion has trailed off, you don't win an argument just by having the last word, the attitude of the people who have commented has not changed. And actually, I don't think it is at all inappropriate for either of us to close the poll. I hereby propose that you close the poll, you don't have to do it now but I would appreciate if you would fix a time or a criterion for when you will close it. I trust that you will do it fairly. Stefán 18:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Would you be so generous knowing the principles I would close it under:

• The central meaning and intent of WP:UE is that we should call s things as English does.
  • This includes spelling; often this means diacritics, sometimes none.
• Most arguments to the contrary lack meaning, or foundation in policy.
  • In more heated moments, I suspect the lack to be intentional.
• Therefore, this, giving due weight to the arguments, is probably no consenus (that's why I want it kept open).
• A no consensus close really should be at the point of the last no consensus close.

I really mean all of those. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what to say now. You would discount the opinion of those who don't agree with you as being meaningless, and for good measure accuse those people of sometimes being intentionally disruptive. Then you ask whether I would accept these premises as a valid basis for a decision, implying that you don't expect me to and you even seem worried that I would consider this a joke.

I don't consider these principles of yours a joke but since you seem to be hesitant to go ahead with them, (perhaps because you fear that your decision would be reverted, by me or someone else), let be propose another way forward: We adjourn this poll for a week and see if we can in that time reach a consensus on how to interpret the results. If after a week we are nowhere close to a consensus on how to close the poll then we reopen the poll. Stefán 03:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Thinking about it further, this seems a silly idea. A simpler one is the following: if you are confident that your method of closure is appropriate given the results of the poll you should just go ahead with it. You can also leave it open if you want, or whatever. Stefán 06:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I an reluctant to proceed because I recognize that I am involved in this; an uninvolved close would be better, and opinions by users not involved in this would be better still. I do not find any meaning, other than WP:ILIKEIT, in several of the !votes; and think they should be set off against the common !vote of WP:IDONTLIKEIT which has been routinely registered here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

My second language is English, my first language is non-European. The word "Voßstraße" is incomprehensible to me, the word "Vossstrasse" I can read and pronounce. Thus I keep on reading and broaden my knowledge - the original intention of an encyclopedia. There is no version of Wikipedia in my language.

Most recent pagemove

Given the controversy over whether this page was properly moved and then move-protected, and with the consent of both admins who were involved in a dispute over that issue (Pschemp and Avraham), I have reverted the last pagemove. This is a procedural step that I have taken to avoid any perception of unilateral action by an administrator while the matter was under discussion, and I am not expressing a personal opinion (I have none) on what the name for the page should ultimately be. Newyorkbrad 00:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Avi 00:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you too. pschemp | talk 00:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

While the page is at Voßstraße it seems logical to have that name used in the article and put up the foreignchar template. Of course if it gets moved again to this Vossstrasse thing then the article can be changed accordingly. Any objections? Stefán 01:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not tempted to bother until the issue is resolved. pschemp | talk 01:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. The present compromise is an effort to keep this page comprehensible to English speakers, since this is, after all, the English WP. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

If there is the redirect from Vossstrasse, and the term Vossstrasse is in bold as the fourth or so word of the article, would ou consider that sufficient? -- Avi 16:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to make things clear, if this page ends up at Voßstraße then we should put up the foreignchar template at the top of the page and in that this Vossstrasse thing appears bolded. I have put it up for demonstration purposes, please take a look. (This is more directed at Avi than Septentrionalis, I think I know what the opinion of the latter is.) Stefán 18:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The template is fine; although there was a link to ß in the first line. A mass reversion of spelling would be {{totallydisputed}}. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I am slightly confused by this comment. If after the current discussion the page name ends at Voßstraße then it is appropriate to use that form in the article as well. So the introduction would read: "Voßstraße is a street in central Berlin, capital of Germany. It runs east-west from Ebertstraße to Wilhelmstraße in the borough of Mitte, one street north of Leipziger Straße." Does anybody disagree with this hypothetical position or think a {{totallydisputed}} tag would be appropriate for the page in that form? Stefán 00:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) While the proper name of the street is with the ß, and that is a valid argument for the title, this remains ENGLISH wikipedia, and while it may seem somewhat contradictory, I think the text should have the "ss" predominate. Accuracy in the title is well and good; difficult text flow is not. -- Avi 02:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

No offence, but we aren't writing this encyclopedia for the stupidest speakers of English we can find. Once it is pointed out that ß = ss I think even those of lower than average intelligence can cope. This isn't the simple English wikipedia. pschemp | talk 03:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

No, but I am not sure whether merely pointing it out is enough. I do not think e would PRINT an encylopedia that way in English, even if the heading retains the ligature. -- Avi 12:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to note that before I went traveling in Germany a few years ago I bought a travel guide. (This was before I started editing Wikipedia.) That guide was the Michelin Green Guide (in English). They have a single comment at the beginning of the book that they will use ß and then they use it consistently on maps, in headings and in the main text for the whole book. (Somebody remarked later that a new version of the book did not use ß as consistently.) Also, later when I was discussing this issue previously, I looked in the Guardian newspaper i had bought that week and there appeared "Deutscher Fußball-Bund" in the text. In the online version of the article the phrase did not appear. Stefán 18:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Having it both ways?

I have been confused about this stuff before. But I saw the following argument advanced— Second, the word Vossstrasse simply doesn't exist. This is not a word that has been used so much in English that it has become an English word. —for keeping the article at "Voßstraße". I've never heard of the place, so I shall assume that the writer is correct. But if I accept the argument that this needs to be kept because . . . "This is not a word that has been used so much in English that it has become an English word", then I assume the writer will support changing "Franz Josef Strauß" to "Strauss", since that is "a word that has been used so much in English that it has become an English word". Hmmmm? Unschool 01:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I did not write that but I could have. I agree that Strauss is a word which has been commonly used in English, we even have an article about it at Strauss and Strauß redirects there. On the other hand the German politician Franz Josef Strauß is not so commonly discussed in English that he has an English name. We have an article on Saint-Étienne although there is a quite similar English word Saint Etienne. Or perhaps you are suggesting that these should all be moved to Saint Stephen? Stefán 01:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Franz Josef Strauss is the common spelling in the UK. For example all four major daily national newspapers spell his name that way: guardian.co.uk independent.co.uk telegraph.co.uk timesonline.co.uk. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

It depends on which name is commonly used in English. Often foreign names stripped of their funny foreign squiggles are the most common in English without a full translation into English. It is unusual for a foreign name to be translated into English, for example Helmut Kohl and Bernhard Vogel were never translated into Cabbage and Bird, so the German jokes of that period about their names had to be explained to English speakers who spoke no German. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

"the German politician Franz Josef Strauß is not so commonly discussed in English that he has an English name". Are you kidding? Did you follow German politics at all during the 1980s? He was everywhere. And in the 1970s, my German-born professor who taught my course in "Politics of the German-speaking states" spelled his name "Strauss" as well. Every one of thousands of mentions of him in Time, The Economist, Newsweek, The New York Times, the Chicago Tribune, everywhere I turned it was spelled Strauss. You are either trying to fool us or else you are fooling yourself. Unschool 21:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

And before you throw the semantic and pedantic argument me that Strauss is not "an English name", let me just say then that it is a "name commonly used in English", and that is what the spirit of WP:UE is all about. You ß-pushers are in complete violation of the spirit of WP:UE, and have created technical arguments that belie the original intent of the policy.Unschool 21:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Restore to original title during the poll

I'm confused about something here. There were extensive discussions about moving this page back in September 2006, and it was agreed to keep the article at Vossstrasse. We then had relative peace for several months. Someone attempted to move it to Voßstraße in March 2007, but then it got moved back. In mid-July the move wars started heating up again. I am glad that we are doing another poll here, and I'll support whatever the clear consensus is, but I'm uncomfortable with keeping it at Voßstraße during the poll, since that is not what our result was from the last major discussion, and I'm uncomfortable with this attitude of "I'll move it to the title I like, and then you're going to have to prove consensus to move it back." I recommend restoring the page to Vossstrasse, and continuing with the discussion from there. --Elonka 15:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree --Philip Baird Shearer 17:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

As do I. Unschool 20:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The page is move protected. The protection was put into place to stop the move war. it would be a violation of the policy to move it again while protection applies. The whole idea of protection rests on a page being protected in whatever form the admin happened to run across at the time action was needed. For you to suggest this be changed is disingenuous and shows a complete lack of understanding of policy. This demonstrated lack of knowledge is especially distressing coming from a person who recently ran for admin. pschemp | talk 20:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

And it was moved after it was move protected, because of the whinging, on this discussion page, of the poor self-pitying nationalists. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Septentrionalis—If you promise to tell me when I'm sounding too bitchy, I promise to tell you when you are doing the same. Unschool 21:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Fine; since this is an adaption of a dated English cliche, it probably won't have its full effect on non-native speakers, anyway — and I did mean whinging. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected and educated; I was unfamiliar with the spelling. Unschool 12:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

If you'd like to keep ignoring the fact that the move directly prior to the protection was contrary to policy and reversed only because it violated policy (and by a neutral, well respected, admin) go ahead. It won't get you anywhere. pschemp | talk 01:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, ProhibitOnion's move was disruptive and contrary to policy. It is fully worthy of the support it has received. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 07:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Could you please stop the sarcasm? We are talking about Avi's move here.pschemp | talk 14:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Avi's reversal of ProhibitOnions' move, to the result of the last move request, was entirely proper, and should be restored. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It violated policy. pschemp | talk 22:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Which Wikipedia policy was violated? AFAICT there was a WP:RM survey where there was no consensus to move and there has been no intermediate one. So why should the article not remain at Voss-strasse as of the WP:RM survey that ended on 13 July 2006? --Philip Baird Shearer 22:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The protection policy that says, "Except in cases of clear vandalism, or issues with legal impact such as copyright or defamation, pages protected in an edit war are protected in whatever version they happen to be currently in." Avi moved the page then protected directly after. That was violation. He then got an uninvolved admin to undo that since the move gave the appearance of forcing his view by abuse of the protection button. No one who has ranted here seems to be able to tell the difference between protection policy and the naming issue, which are two separate subjects. If you had read the previous conversations on this page, rather than making assumptions, you might have figured that out. At the time Avi stepped in to stop the move war, the page was at Voßstraße. Therefore, protection had to be applied to that version. pschemp | talk 03:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I quote: "the rule against an admin protecting his or her own preferred version of the page (with some narrow exceptions that I don't think apply here) is equally applicable whether the protection is applied just before or just after the move, as otherwise it would be far too easy to evade, and the policy considerations are the same in both cases. Newyorkbrad 00:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)" The options to fix Avi's mistake were to either undo his move or unprotect the page. Due to the interesting vehemence of certain users responses, it was decided removing the protection was perhaps not wise. pschemp | talk 03:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Awww, did Avi protect m:The Wrong Version, then? That was what he was supposed to do. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should see a therapist. pschemp | talk 04:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Both of you just crossed the line, and it's not helping.

I crossed no line. I am seriously and genuinely concerned about his anger issues and made a suggestion becasue I am worried about the well being of fellow editor. It was not meant in any way to be sarcastic. pschemp | talk 04:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Only you can know what was in your heart. But I can say that your explanation sounds disingenuous; few Wikipedians offer sincere health advice to persons with whom they are engaged in a dispute. Unschool 14:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

As for me, I'm willing to forgo the issue of the blocking. I don't know who's right on that and, frankly, I don't care. (Yes, I do understand the 'advantage' to the side that has its version up during the ensuing debate.) But ultimately, what's important is what version is going to be used when this is all said and done. I want someone to explain to me why non-English characters should be used in an English encyclopedia, when Chinese and Cyrillic are not, and I don't want to hear any technical crap about transcription vs. transliteration vs. transfiguration or whatever. This is supposed to be English, and I want to see the same English here as I would read in Newsweek or the Chicago Tribune. I have still made several points about the spirit of WP:UE that no one has addressed, and I'm starting to think it's because they know that they don't have an answer. Unschool 04:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Did you perhaps mean to say move rather than block? No blocks have been giving out. Chinese and Cyrillic are not used in article titles because they aren't latin characters. Many characters from the latin alphabet not in english are, such as é and ó and ü. Chinese and cyrillic scripts have little relation to English, whereas latin characters do and aren't that confusing. In fact, the article about Über resides there rather than Uber, and that word is much more a part of English. The umlaut is no more confusing than an ß. pschemp | talk 04:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I thank pschemp for his doubtless sincere concern; but all he need do is to stop wiki-lawyering and abusing statistics to confuse a simple discussion of English idiom; a subject on which he would be more listened to if he did not himself write "the well being of fellow editor". [sic]. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

As for the substance of his claims: Umlauts are much less confusing than eszetts.They are also far more common in English, as Wikipedia:German-speaking_Wikipedians'_notice_board/Umlaut_and_ß shows. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, pschemp, when I spoke of the block, you are correct; I was speaking of the issue of the move. Has not the ability to move this page been blocked?
• Septentrionalis is quite right that the issue of an umlaut and a ß are very different things. While there are some on this project who also object to the excessive use of accents and umlauts and other diacritical markings, many if not most of us have a more relaxed attitude about them. Look (getting away from German, for a moment), if, as an English speaker, I read "vous êtes la personne la plus ennuyante que j'ai jamais rencontrée", even if I don't speak a word of French, I feel pretty comfortable saying that I am familiar with these letters. The presence of an acute accent and even something as foreign as a circumflex does not disturb me; indeed, I am likely to simply ignore them as I read. Not so with ß and þ. These "interrupt" my reading, and force me to think about how they must be said, instead of allowing me to learn what they are about. If I'm reading something interesting on Bavarian politics, and come across "Strauß", I stop thinking about the article's content and I start thinking, "what is that?" I know that some of the editors who are ß-pushers do so because they genuinely believe that it will enhance the understanding of English readers to see non-English characters. I appreciate their sincerity, but this purpose can simply be accomplished by including the foreign spelling in parentheses immediately at the beginning of the article. This is what many encyclopedias have done for decades, anyway. Using the foreign spelling throughout the article, and, indeed, for the heading of the article, actually makes it less likely that the reader will learn something new, since he is confronted by something that he knows that he can't read.
• As to the issue of "Latin characters". This is the sort of technical argument that I spoke of earlier. As I indicated earlier, I am familiar with what MOS has to say on this. But the heart of the policy is to promote the use of anglicizations. If there is any reasonable way at all of anglicizing something, it should be done. Here you are, pschemp, splitting hairs over which is more common, Voßstraße or Vossstrasse. If you were attuned to the spirit of the policy, then the mere fact that "Vossstrasse" does exist as a usage within a few major reputable English-language sources (say, The Times, or Time) would be enough for you to release this argument and let it go. Yes, yes, I know, WP:UE does have provisions for the use of non-English characters. But what was the purpose of the policy 'in toto', pschemp? It wasn't to create opportunities for hair-splitting "gotcha" moments. It was to create an encyclopedia that the typical English-speaking reader would be able to read comfortably. Just step back from the rancor that has been created (by you, me, Septentrionalis, and many others elsewhere) and ask yourself what is more natural for an English speaker to read, Voßstraße or Vossstrasse? I do not know what your language background is; normally, I do not normally think that personal information is pertinent to talk page debates, but in this case it may be. You may very well be a monolingual English speaker, but I do know that the vast majority of those whom I have encountered on these pages who do favor using ß are either native-German speakers or people who have studied some German. And having such a background really can make it a bit more difficult to say what is and isn't confusing.
• I'm probably worse than most people at getting hung up in the technical issues of an argument (certainly my wife will attest to that with a vengeance). But Wikipedia will never be perfect. The best we can hope for is to provide the most information possible to our English-speaking audience. In making sure that we are providing them with the most accurate information possible, it is important that the native spellings be used in every article, up near the beginning, so that the reader understands that the version he is reading has been anglicized. The goal of this article should be to provide the reader with information on the history, sights, and other such things about the street that Berliners call Voßstraße, and that anglicization is important so that the reader can actually absorb the content. Unschool 14:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I could not agree more; which is why I have delayed commenting. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)