This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all
disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the
project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the
discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I think it's perfectly appropriate inline because it's common for English readers not to have keyboards that can easily type in the umlaut, so the diacriticless version of the same word is a logical helper for navigation. I'm not really sure why we include it only as "Other uses", though, since it should fit under "Places". --
Joy (
talk)
19:09, 3 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose per Station1, while the absence of diacritics don't distinguish its clear it isn't primary by usage even assuming almost no one types the diacritics which is probably the case in English but still not primary. Crouch, Swale (
talk)
21:13, 3 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment Just to clarify, the only reason I proposed this is because it's the same name (albeit with diacritics) as the DAB, not because it qualifies for primary topic on grounds of importance, page views, or anything else. Or alternatively what about moving
Ehrenbürg to
Ehrenbürg (hill)?
Laterthanyouthink (
talk)
04:18, 4 August 2023 (UTC)reply
How many English readers will type Ehrenbürg (with the umlaut) at all? And SMALLDETAILS is not the be all and end all and does not say what advocates seem to think it does. At the end of the day, clarity rather than dogma is the best policy. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
14:34, 9 August 2023 (UTC)reply
The idea of disambiguation is that it's clear what is ambiguous, and the umlaut is generally considered a fairly visible diacritic, it's not unclear that it's a distinct title. It's also a generally recognizable diacritic, even by English readers who won't type it, because a lot of people heard of German. There's nothing dogmatic about following the applicable guideline, it just makes sense. If we were talking about a small Slavic, Turkic, Arabic, ... diacritic, one that really isn't obvious, you might have a point, but umlauts are the worst choice for this kind of an argument IMO. --
Joy (
talk)
17:56, 9 August 2023 (UTC)reply
I don't think that the average English-speaking reader is that familiar with diacritics, and wouldn't necessarily recognise the word as a different spelling. While many of us understand the difference, I'm not confident that the wider readership do.
Laterthanyouthink (
talk)
12:58, 10 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Be that as it may, it would still not really be an argument for article title changes, but rather for a hatnote at the top of
Ehrenbürg to point people at
Ehrenburg, disregarding
WP:NAMB to help people who might have gotten lost. --
Joy (
talk)
19:00, 10 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose alternative move per
WP:SMALLDETAILS, while you can't rely on the absence to distinguish the presence does distinguish per Joy unless there are any other uses and the German Wikipedia does the same. Crouch, Swale (
talk)
18:16, 10 August 2023 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all
disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the
project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the
discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I think it's perfectly appropriate inline because it's common for English readers not to have keyboards that can easily type in the umlaut, so the diacriticless version of the same word is a logical helper for navigation. I'm not really sure why we include it only as "Other uses", though, since it should fit under "Places". --
Joy (
talk)
19:09, 3 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose per Station1, while the absence of diacritics don't distinguish its clear it isn't primary by usage even assuming almost no one types the diacritics which is probably the case in English but still not primary. Crouch, Swale (
talk)
21:13, 3 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment Just to clarify, the only reason I proposed this is because it's the same name (albeit with diacritics) as the DAB, not because it qualifies for primary topic on grounds of importance, page views, or anything else. Or alternatively what about moving
Ehrenbürg to
Ehrenbürg (hill)?
Laterthanyouthink (
talk)
04:18, 4 August 2023 (UTC)reply
How many English readers will type Ehrenbürg (with the umlaut) at all? And SMALLDETAILS is not the be all and end all and does not say what advocates seem to think it does. At the end of the day, clarity rather than dogma is the best policy. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
14:34, 9 August 2023 (UTC)reply
The idea of disambiguation is that it's clear what is ambiguous, and the umlaut is generally considered a fairly visible diacritic, it's not unclear that it's a distinct title. It's also a generally recognizable diacritic, even by English readers who won't type it, because a lot of people heard of German. There's nothing dogmatic about following the applicable guideline, it just makes sense. If we were talking about a small Slavic, Turkic, Arabic, ... diacritic, one that really isn't obvious, you might have a point, but umlauts are the worst choice for this kind of an argument IMO. --
Joy (
talk)
17:56, 9 August 2023 (UTC)reply
I don't think that the average English-speaking reader is that familiar with diacritics, and wouldn't necessarily recognise the word as a different spelling. While many of us understand the difference, I'm not confident that the wider readership do.
Laterthanyouthink (
talk)
12:58, 10 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Be that as it may, it would still not really be an argument for article title changes, but rather for a hatnote at the top of
Ehrenbürg to point people at
Ehrenburg, disregarding
WP:NAMB to help people who might have gotten lost. --
Joy (
talk)
19:00, 10 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose alternative move per
WP:SMALLDETAILS, while you can't rely on the absence to distinguish the presence does distinguish per Joy unless there are any other uses and the German Wikipedia does the same. Crouch, Swale (
talk)
18:16, 10 August 2023 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.