On Saturday 23 November 2002 12:39 pm, Julie Hofmann Kemp wrote:

.... Some while back, those of us most interested and most learned in these things worked together to come up with a nomenclature policy. We agreed that it made the most sense to use the most common English-language version of a name (different forms of English notwithstanding) for the title BUT, because we all felt it very important to let people know that other cultures and language-speakers had different names for the same thing, so we listed alternate names in the article itself. This means that English-speakers, arguably the largest audience, could search for articles in the way most natural to them, but the articles would still appear in searches by speakers of other languages searching in those languages. I can't see that Lir's political beliefs are valid reasons to change this policy ....

I is wonderful to hear from you again Julie. :-) I also most wholeheartedly agree with your entire message, especially the above text about our central naming convention. What is most commonly known and used by English speakers is the foundation for all our naming conventions and the current attack against Anglicization would seriously undermine that foundation and lead to confusion and more work.

In fact Anglicization is really a red herring and not at all needed when we already have "what is most commonly used by English speakers." I suggest we merge Anglicization with common English useage because the name of the convention itself may give the incorrect impression that we /prefer/ Anglicization and translation even in cases where the native form is more widely used by modern English speakers than an Anglicized or translated version. But we should also be careful to not make-up our own Anglicized terms for subjects that are not widely known and used by English speakers and don't have widely recognized English language forms. This is where our central naming convention breaks down and we are left with the confusing choice of alternate native transliterations.

So long as Mein Kampf, Les Miserables, Charlemagne etc are used and recognized by a majority of English speakers then by all means lets use them so long as POV or naming conflicts don't get in the way (We can't use Charles the Great because that is a POV title). What is most widely known and used by English speakers is all that really matters. Secondary spellings, translations, transliterations, native forms or Anglicizations should be redirected (at least eventually) to what most English speakers would recognize and expect. The article itself should eventually explain just when and where the other forms are used (but Wikipedia is not a usage guide or dictionary, so these explanations need to be brief in most cases).

If we don't stick with most common usage by English speakers then our naming conventions would be confusing mess that will lead to needlessly complex and foreign names. That isn't at all useful to either readers or writers.

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)