Changes

Wikipedia is built on the idea that our article on Foo should reflect what reliable sources have to say about Foo. By the same logic, our guideline on diacritics should reflect what published style guides have to say about this subject. No guide advises editors to “follow the general usage in reliable sources,” do a Google Book search, and count how many books use a diacritic and how many don't. GBooks isn't structured to do this type of research, and counting diacritics is an unusual skill with application only on Wikipedia. As for Ngram, it may be able to tell you which name is more common or which spelling is more common. But it doesn't detect diacritics with any accuracy.  

Wikipedia is built on the idea that our article on Foo should reflect what reliable sources have to say about Foo. By the same logic, our guideline on diacritics should reflect what published style guides have to say about this subject. No guide advises editors to “follow the general usage in reliable sources,” do a Google Book search, and count how many books use a diacritic and how many don't. GBooks isn't structured to do this type of research, and counting diacritics is an unusual skill with application only on Wikipedia. As for Ngram, it may be able to tell you which name is more common or which spelling is more common. But it doesn't detect diacritics with any accuracy.  

We need guidance that is short, sweet, and based on the advise of style specialists. All the major guides recommend that editors consult a widely available reference work, preferably a general purpose dictionary from a major publisher. The current guideline includes the parenthetical clause "including other encyclopedias and reference works." This clause suggests that editors are already permitted to follow the approach outlined below. But it needs to be made clear that this is the preferred approach, the one the experts recommend. The guides recommend various dead tree dictionaries for use as a first reference. But their online counterparts obviously make more sense for our purposes.

We need guidance that is short, sweet, and based on the advise of style specialists. All the major guides recommend that editors consult a widely available reference work. The current guideline includes the parenthetical clause "including other encyclopedias and reference works." This clause suggests that editors are already permitted to follow the approach outlined below. The guides recommend various dead tree dictionaries for use as a references. But their online counterparts obviously make more sense for our purposes.

I propose replacing the following standard for diacritics:

I propose replacing the following standard for diacritics:

|-

|-

! style="background:#FFFFA0;"|'''Tadeusz Kościuszko'''

! style="background:#FFFFA0;"|'''Tadeusz Kościuszko'''

| style="background:#E0FFFF;"|'''Koś·ciusz•ko''', Tadeusz Andrzei Bonawentura

| style="background:#E0FFFF;"|'''Koś·ciusz·ko''', Tadeusz Andrzei Bonawentura

| style="background:#E0FFFF;"|'''Koś·ciusz•ko''', Tadeusz Andrzei Bonawentura

| style="background:#E0FFFF;"|'''Koś·ciusz·ko''', Tadeusz Andrzei Bonawentura

| style="background:#FFFFA0;"|'''Kos·ci•uśz•ko''' or '''Kos•ci•us•ko, Thaddeus'''

| style="background:#FFFFA0;"|'''Kos·ci·uśz·ko''' or '''Kos·ci·us·ko, Thaddeus'''

| style="background:#E0FFFF;"|'''Kosciusko, Thaddeus'''

| style="background:#E0FFFF;"|'''Kosciusko, Thaddeus'''

| style="background:#FFFFA0;"|'''Kosciusko''', Thaddeus

| style="background:#FFFFA0;"|'''Kosciusko''', Thaddeus