
Úbeda is a city in the province of Jaén (province) in the autonomous community of Andalusia, Spain, of about 36,000 inhabitants in 2003, located near a hill of the same name. It is best known for its association with Antonio Muñoz Molina and Joaquín Sabina. In 2003 it was declared a World Heritage Site by UNESCO in a cultural unity with Baeza. The city is near the geographic centre of the province of Jaén, and is the capital of the local region "the Hill of Úbeda". It is an important local centre, with a hospital, a remote University, and local government facilities, Social Security, Courts, etc. It has one of the higher indices of centralidad (?) of Andalusia. According to the yearbook of "the Caixa", it is the economic hub of a catchment area with a population of 200,000 inhabitants. Twenty nine percent of employment is in the service sector, with many people working in commerce and local government administration. People are also employed in agriculture (fundamentally olive), cattle ranch, industry and tourism.
==Requested move: Úbeda → Ubeda== *Support. User:Niteowlneils 01:43, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC) *Support But the move should be possible without a RM request. User:Philip Baird Shearer 08:25, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC) *Oppose. No justification for move. On the Spanish Wikipedia, page is at User:Gdr 19:11, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC) *Support because this is english WP. english has almost no diacritics User:Tobias Conradi User_talk:Tobias Conradi 23:03, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC) *Oppose. No point in moving when there is a redirect. / User:Tupsharru 12:23, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC) *Support. Spanish users of the Spanish Wikipedia will no doubt be used to typing accented characters; English-language users aren't, and are overwhelmingly likely to type 'Ubeda' when searching for this topic. User:Mel Etitis (Μελ_Ετητης)">User talk:Mel Etitis 15:32, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC) *Oppose. Absurd idea. User:NoPuzzleStranger 09:02, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC) *Support - I agree with Mel Etitis. Whereas é and è may be common in the English language, Ú is definitely not. User:Nobbie 10:04, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC) *Support User:Violetriga User_talk:violetriga 15:00, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC) User:Violetriga User_talk:violetriga 15:00, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC) I contest the validity of that vote because it is not clear how Úbeda is a special case justifying a specific vote. To be consistent with that vote result, we could excise all diacritics on Wikipedia, and it is quite clear that there is no consensus for that. This specific vote just reflects an insufficient and non-representative sample of users who happened to come across this. Why move Úbeda to Ubeda but not São Paulo to Sao Paulo? This is a general question that has to be decided elsewhere. As long as there is no general consensus to remove all similar diacritics, this article should remain at Úbeda in conformity with the existing general practice. User:NoPuzzleStranger 09:44, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC) :See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) (Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English)) --User:Philip Baird Shearer 10:34, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::What's there? It says use English names if those exist. Stripping diacritics doesn't make an English name. Munich or Warsaw are English names. Úbeda doesn't have an English name. User:NoPuzzleStranger 11:34, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC) :NoPuzzleStranger, if you have a look at the official website of the [http://www.ubedainteresa.com/portal/ City of Ubeda], you'll find that ''Ubeda'' is used in the English text, not ''Úbeda''. Searching for Ubeda on English language sites reveals that using ''Úbeda'' in English is very rare. I agree with you that Ubeda doesn't have an officially recognized English name (like Zurich, Cologne, Beijing...) but ''Ubeda'' is the natural choice. 'Ú' is simply not used in the English language. I noticed that Zurich has been moved around quite a bit (Zurich - Zürich)... Zurich should be at Zurich! Otherwise, well... let's move Tokyo to 東京, or at least Toukyou. I admit, however, that Ubeda is a much more difficult case. :But let's face the facts. The current title of this article is ''Ubeda''. Both versions (with and without diacritical mark) should be given in the first line. I favour Philip Baird Shearer's approach. User:Nobbie 15:19, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::If you look at the English intro, the accent is used in the graphic. In the texts, you can easily see that there are ''no'' diacritics used at all ("Lopez", "Constitucion" etc.). The point is that "Ubeda" is acceptable only in a context where the decision is made not to use ''any'' diacritics. If you say "Ú" is not used in the English language, well then no diacritic is, and we should remove all of them. But there is no consensus for that on Wikipedia. And Tokyo is a perfect English name like Munich, so it has nothing to do with this. This article was at Úbeda originally, and should be moved back there, but I want to avoid a move war on top of the edit war. User:NoPuzzleStranger 17:34, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC) ==Links in the text== If there is no article on a person (or whatever other topic), it should be ''redlinked'', to make that obvious, not interwiki-linked. Adding internal interwiki-links, instead of just wikifying, also makes it impossible to use the "What links here"-function from the unwritten article to see if there are any ingoing links that might be useful to check out. / User:Tupsharru 15:01, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC) :That should be obvious, and also Wikipedia:Interlanguage links says nothing about putting interwiki links in the text. But Philip Baird Shearer is completely stubborn on this. Would you certify an RFC on the matter if he continues? User:NoPuzzleStranger 09:02, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC) NoPuzzleStranger for someone who has just created an account you are very aggressive. Me thinks you have done this before. As two people object to the interwiki links, I will desist from linking in the names of the two people. Personally I think it is a good idea because it would allow someone who was interested to translate the Spanish text into English and create the articls for those two people. I intend to re-instate the link to the interwiki to the Spanish town as it for fills two useful functions. # It allows the word with and without diacritics to be included # It informs a person who does not know that the word is Spanish in origin to obtain that information. In this case it is obvious, but for many articles the origins of the word is not so obvious. --User:Philip Baird Shearer 10:03, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC) :I'm not aggressive. I explained myself, you didn't, so I had to prepare for some other recourse. Glad you're talking now. However, I don't see what the interwiki has to do with your two points here. You could write "Ubeda (Spanish: Úbeda)" without any interwiki link. Of course, I would still object to that since that implies that "Ubeda" is the English name of Úbeda, which is just not true. Stripping diacritics doesn't create an English name. This city does not have a separate English name, the only name is Úbeda. User:NoPuzzleStranger 10:58, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC) It could be written "Ubeda, also written Úbeda," or "Úbeda, also written Ubeda," but that does not convey as much information as "Ubeda (Spanish: Úbeda)". User:Philip Baird Shearer 14:56, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC) == Intro == Removing the diacritic-less spelling from the first paragraph is clearly counter to the Manual of Style guidelines. That said, having an interwiki link to the Spanish version of the article in the intro seems non-standard, and redundant with the interwiki link in the left margin (assuming default skin/css). I'd follow the lead of Montreal, among others, and keep it simple: "Ubeda or Úbeda is a city...". User:Niteowlneils 00:05, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC) :Where does it say in the Manual of Style that all names with diacritics have to be repeated with the diacritics stripped? Montreal is something entirely different, because it's a true English name, as seen by the fact that it is also ''pronounced'' in a distinctly different way as compared to the French. The same goes for Mexico, which is a true English name of México. But Ubeda is not an English name of Úbeda, just like Sao Paulo is not an English name of São Paulo; it is just a removal of diacritics. User:NoPuzzleStranger 11:16, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::The longer I think about this, the more I tend to agree with what your saying. But if ''Úbena'' really is the only correct name, why do virtually all English sources on the net use ''Ubena'', even sources written by Spanish people? User:Nobbie 16:04, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC) (excuse shouting) we need a new policy page, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (diacritics). The issue has been beaten to death at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English), and Philip ''still'' confuses orthography and language ("Ubeda (Spanish: Úbeda)"). In any case, this is not something that should be discussed on individual talk pages. We need a ''policy'', or at least ''guidelines'', and a list of precedents, on how to handle names with diacritics. It does ''not'' fall under "use English", and we should really address this intelligently and from all angles, because the same discussion is reiterated on lots of unrelated pages, ad nauseam. User:Dbachmann User_talk:Dbachmann 17:53, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC) ps, the case at hand perfectly demonstrates the need for such a policy. Why would we actively move Úbeda to Ubeda, but keep Jaén (province) etc.? Note that the redirects are in place, and Ubeda and Zurich work in either case. Also note the potential for disambiguation of diacritics (that's why they are called diacritics in the first place): No need for Panini (scholar) if we can have Pāṇini. User:Dbachmann User_talk:Dbachmann 17:58, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC) ==Including a Ubeda without diacritics== NoPuzzleStranger added this comment into the history of the page ''anything with diacritics is "often written without" in English, this is no special case''. Including the word Ubeda without diacritics helps external search engines to find the name when it is entered using a typical English search engine like www.google.co.uk or www.ask.com. NoPuzzleStranger by removing the diacritic free version you are stopping many English speaking people from finding this article. For the sake of a few words why will you not allow others to help others? User:Philip Baird Shearer 19:23, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC) I repeat, this is no special case. Do you want to include a stripped version in every article with a diacritic in the title? If not, the reader must think that there is a real English name here. Actually Google finds Úbeda just fine, even when searching for "Ubeda". But regardless of that, you're mixing editorial and technical issues. We don't include things just for the sake of some search engine. User:NoPuzzleStranger 20:19, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC) * Yes I do want to include a stripped version of every article which has a diacritic in the title. Who is "We don't include"? * So you are not in the UK. Which Google are you using? Try the search using www.google.co.uk. * No I am not mixing technical and editorial. There is a techical issue BUT the much more important issue is that to strip diacritic off a word is quite acceptable in English and is practiced by most Engish speaking people. User:Philip Baird Shearer 21:01, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC) When working with a German Müller, she used to get very vexed that most Brits in the organisation could not hear the difference no matter how often she tried to explain the difference between Muller and Müller let alone pronounce the difference. There is a add which is currently running on Britsh TV for Müller yougart and the voice over pronounces it Muller. The Müller web site in the UK is http://www.muller.co.uk/ because they know that no-one will type in http://www.müller.co.uk Does that help explain why there ought to be a version of the word without diacritics on a page to help English speaking people find it? --User:Philip Baird Shearer 21:01, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC) :"We" is the majority of Wikipedians. Find a consensus for your idea first. Clearly no one before ever saw a need to repeat thousands of article titles with diacritics stripped. I use Google.com, but Google.co.uk finds Úbeda as well [http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=ubeda]. As to the "Muller" URL, it wasn't even possible until recently to use diacritics in URLs. And they use "Müller" on the site itself. What people type in is no issue for us anyway, since we have redirects. User:NoPuzzleStranger 22:24, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC) In many many case articles are written with words without diacritics. Most of the problems seem to arise when people start to add diacritics in the mistaken belief that it is correct to do so in English (not realising that it is just as correct not to do so). They are often people who's mother tongue is not English. You have no way of knowing that the majority of Wikipedians agree with your position. The guidelines already say "''Only use the native spelling as an article title if it is commonly used in English''". So as you will see in the search below as Ubeda is 6 times more common than Úbeda in this case seems to be that Ubeda is common English usage. So I do not think you are standing on very thick ice when making such an assertion. Particularlly when you are willing to ride roughshot over a consensus poll which was carried out here and try to reverse a move agreed after a WP:RM poll. You are not using the standard settings for www.google.co.uk. Which country are you in? With standard settings as used in the UK www.google.co.uk returns: Results 1 - 10 of about 59,500 English pages for Ubeda; Results 1 - 10 of about 7,740 English pages for Úbeda. It differentiates between the two and most people in England will not use any flags. Also other web search engines (like "ask Jeeves") differentiate between the two User:Philip Baird Shearer 13:46, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC) :It is you who is skating on thin ice by implying that stripping diacritics makes an "English spelling". It is true for ALL words with diacritics that the diacritics are commonly ignored in English usage. But one should either use them everywhere, or ignore them everywhere, and the consensus on Wikipedia obviously is to use them. And it is downright absurd to list a word both with and without diacritics. Anyone who doesn't care about the diacritics can ignore them by himself. User:NoPuzzleStranger 21:01, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC) Hello, I'm Juan, I live in Jaén (Spain) and I'm very impressed because of this discussion. Úbeda is a Spanish name, and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so I think this article must be renamed Úbeda. Why? Because Ubeda is a word that DOESN'T EXIST. Spanish diacritics are used in order to know how to pronunce the word, and you are ignoring it. If an ''ubetense'' (person from Úbeda) sees this article, I'm sure that he or she will be offended by the vote. Please, don't forget that English people are not the ones that use Wikipedia. User:217.217.131.215 12:47, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) :Why would anyone be offended by the way another language group spell a word? If they are then they are free to read the article in Spanish. Does the City of Zurich exist? Because if you go to that page you will see that opinions are split as to the spelling. With about half the voters arguing it should be spelt "Zürich", yet the Spanish Wikipedia spelles it , so should that article be changed to Zürich so as not to offened a native from Zurich? The diacritics may help a Spanish speaker pronounce the word by to most English speakers it is just a funny foreign squiggle which no meaning beyond that. User:Philip Baird Shearer 13:05, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
Words begining with Ubeda:
Ubeda
Ubeda
Ubeda
Úbeda is a city in the province of Jaén (province) in the autonomous community of Andalusia, Spain, of about 36,000 inhabitants in 2003, located near a hill of the same name. It is best known for its association with Antonio Muñoz Molina and Joaquín Sabina. In 2003 it was declared a World Heritage Site by UNESCO in a cultural unity with Baeza. The city is near the geographic centre of the province of Jaén, and is the capital of the local region "the Hill of Úbeda". It is an important local centre, with a hospital, a remote University, and local government facilities, Social Security, Courts, etc. It has one of the higher indices of centralidad (?) of Andalusia. According to the yearbook of "the Caixa", it is the economic hub of a catchment area with a population of 200,000 inhabitants. Twenty nine percent of employment is in the service sector, with many people working in commerce and local government administration. People are also employed in agriculture (fundamentally olive), cattle ranch, industry and tourism.
Ubeda
==Requested move: Úbeda → Ubeda== *Support. User:Niteowlneils 01:43, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC) *Support But the move should be possible without a RM request. User:Philip Baird Shearer 08:25, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC) *Oppose. No justification for move. On the Spanish Wikipedia, page is at User:Gdr 19:11, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC) *Support because this is english WP. english has almost no diacritics User:Tobias Conradi User_talk:Tobias Conradi 23:03, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC) *Oppose. No point in moving when there is a redirect. / User:Tupsharru 12:23, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC) *Support. Spanish users of the Spanish Wikipedia will no doubt be used to typing accented characters; English-language users aren't, and are overwhelmingly likely to type 'Ubeda' when searching for this topic. User:Mel Etitis (Μελ_Ετητης)">User talk:Mel Etitis 15:32, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC) *Oppose. Absurd idea. User:NoPuzzleStranger 09:02, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC) *Support - I agree with Mel Etitis. Whereas é and è may be common in the English language, Ú is definitely not. User:Nobbie 10:04, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC) *Support User:Violetriga User_talk:violetriga 15:00, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC) User:Violetriga User_talk:violetriga 15:00, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC) I contest the validity of that vote because it is not clear how Úbeda is a special case justifying a specific vote. To be consistent with that vote result, we could excise all diacritics on Wikipedia, and it is quite clear that there is no consensus for that. This specific vote just reflects an insufficient and non-representative sample of users who happened to come across this. Why move Úbeda to Ubeda but not São Paulo to Sao Paulo? This is a general question that has to be decided elsewhere. As long as there is no general consensus to remove all similar diacritics, this article should remain at Úbeda in conformity with the existing general practice. User:NoPuzzleStranger 09:44, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC) :See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) (Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English)) --User:Philip Baird Shearer 10:34, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::What's there? It says use English names if those exist. Stripping diacritics doesn't make an English name. Munich or Warsaw are English names. Úbeda doesn't have an English name. User:NoPuzzleStranger 11:34, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC) :NoPuzzleStranger, if you have a look at the official website of the [http://www.ubedainteresa.com/portal/ City of Ubeda], you'll find that ''Ubeda'' is used in the English text, not ''Úbeda''. Searching for Ubeda on English language sites reveals that using ''Úbeda'' in English is very rare. I agree with you that Ubeda doesn't have an officially recognized English name (like Zurich, Cologne, Beijing...) but ''Ubeda'' is the natural choice. 'Ú' is simply not used in the English language. I noticed that Zurich has been moved around quite a bit (Zurich - Zürich)... Zurich should be at Zurich! Otherwise, well... let's move Tokyo to 東京, or at least Toukyou. I admit, however, that Ubeda is a much more difficult case. :But let's face the facts. The current title of this article is ''Ubeda''. Both versions (with and without diacritical mark) should be given in the first line. I favour Philip Baird Shearer's approach. User:Nobbie 15:19, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::If you look at the English intro, the accent is used in the graphic. In the texts, you can easily see that there are ''no'' diacritics used at all ("Lopez", "Constitucion" etc.). The point is that "Ubeda" is acceptable only in a context where the decision is made not to use ''any'' diacritics. If you say "Ú" is not used in the English language, well then no diacritic is, and we should remove all of them. But there is no consensus for that on Wikipedia. And Tokyo is a perfect English name like Munich, so it has nothing to do with this. This article was at Úbeda originally, and should be moved back there, but I want to avoid a move war on top of the edit war. User:NoPuzzleStranger 17:34, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC) ==Links in the text== If there is no article on a person (or whatever other topic), it should be ''redlinked'', to make that obvious, not interwiki-linked. Adding internal interwiki-links, instead of just wikifying, also makes it impossible to use the "What links here"-function from the unwritten article to see if there are any ingoing links that might be useful to check out. / User:Tupsharru 15:01, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC) :That should be obvious, and also Wikipedia:Interlanguage links says nothing about putting interwiki links in the text. But Philip Baird Shearer is completely stubborn on this. Would you certify an RFC on the matter if he continues? User:NoPuzzleStranger 09:02, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC) NoPuzzleStranger for someone who has just created an account you are very aggressive. Me thinks you have done this before. As two people object to the interwiki links, I will desist from linking in the names of the two people. Personally I think it is a good idea because it would allow someone who was interested to translate the Spanish text into English and create the articls for those two people. I intend to re-instate the link to the interwiki to the Spanish town as it for fills two useful functions. # It allows the word with and without diacritics to be included # It informs a person who does not know that the word is Spanish in origin to obtain that information. In this case it is obvious, but for many articles the origins of the word is not so obvious. --User:Philip Baird Shearer 10:03, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC) :I'm not aggressive. I explained myself, you didn't, so I had to prepare for some other recourse. Glad you're talking now. However, I don't see what the interwiki has to do with your two points here. You could write "Ubeda (Spanish: Úbeda)" without any interwiki link. Of course, I would still object to that since that implies that "Ubeda" is the English name of Úbeda, which is just not true. Stripping diacritics doesn't create an English name. This city does not have a separate English name, the only name is Úbeda. User:NoPuzzleStranger 10:58, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC) It could be written "Ubeda, also written Úbeda," or "Úbeda, also written Ubeda," but that does not convey as much information as "Ubeda (Spanish: Úbeda)". User:Philip Baird Shearer 14:56, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC) == Intro == Removing the diacritic-less spelling from the first paragraph is clearly counter to the Manual of Style guidelines. That said, having an interwiki link to the Spanish version of the article in the intro seems non-standard, and redundant with the interwiki link in the left margin (assuming default skin/css). I'd follow the lead of Montreal, among others, and keep it simple: "Ubeda or Úbeda is a city...". User:Niteowlneils 00:05, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC) :Where does it say in the Manual of Style that all names with diacritics have to be repeated with the diacritics stripped? Montreal is something entirely different, because it's a true English name, as seen by the fact that it is also ''pronounced'' in a distinctly different way as compared to the French. The same goes for Mexico, which is a true English name of México. But Ubeda is not an English name of Úbeda, just like Sao Paulo is not an English name of São Paulo; it is just a removal of diacritics. User:NoPuzzleStranger 11:16, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::The longer I think about this, the more I tend to agree with what your saying. But if ''Úbena'' really is the only correct name, why do virtually all English sources on the net use ''Ubena'', even sources written by Spanish people? User:Nobbie 16:04, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC) (excuse shouting) we need a new policy page, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (diacritics). The issue has been beaten to death at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English), and Philip ''still'' confuses orthography and language ("Ubeda (Spanish: Úbeda)"). In any case, this is not something that should be discussed on individual talk pages. We need a ''policy'', or at least ''guidelines'', and a list of precedents, on how to handle names with diacritics. It does ''not'' fall under "use English", and we should really address this intelligently and from all angles, because the same discussion is reiterated on lots of unrelated pages, ad nauseam. User:Dbachmann User_talk:Dbachmann 17:53, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC) ps, the case at hand perfectly demonstrates the need for such a policy. Why would we actively move Úbeda to Ubeda, but keep Jaén (province) etc.? Note that the redirects are in place, and Ubeda and Zurich work in either case. Also note the potential for disambiguation of diacritics (that's why they are called diacritics in the first place): No need for Panini (scholar) if we can have Pāṇini. User:Dbachmann User_talk:Dbachmann 17:58, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC) ==Including a Ubeda without diacritics== NoPuzzleStranger added this comment into the history of the page ''anything with diacritics is "often written without" in English, this is no special case''. Including the word Ubeda without diacritics helps external search engines to find the name when it is entered using a typical English search engine like www.google.co.uk or www.ask.com. NoPuzzleStranger by removing the diacritic free version you are stopping many English speaking people from finding this article. For the sake of a few words why will you not allow others to help others? User:Philip Baird Shearer 19:23, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC) I repeat, this is no special case. Do you want to include a stripped version in every article with a diacritic in the title? If not, the reader must think that there is a real English name here. Actually Google finds Úbeda just fine, even when searching for "Ubeda". But regardless of that, you're mixing editorial and technical issues. We don't include things just for the sake of some search engine. User:NoPuzzleStranger 20:19, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC) * Yes I do want to include a stripped version of every article which has a diacritic in the title. Who is "We don't include"? * So you are not in the UK. Which Google are you using? Try the search using www.google.co.uk. * No I am not mixing technical and editorial. There is a techical issue BUT the much more important issue is that to strip diacritic off a word is quite acceptable in English and is practiced by most Engish speaking people. User:Philip Baird Shearer 21:01, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC) When working with a German Müller, she used to get very vexed that most Brits in the organisation could not hear the difference no matter how often she tried to explain the difference between Muller and Müller let alone pronounce the difference. There is a add which is currently running on Britsh TV for Müller yougart and the voice over pronounces it Muller. The Müller web site in the UK is http://www.muller.co.uk/ because they know that no-one will type in http://www.müller.co.uk Does that help explain why there ought to be a version of the word without diacritics on a page to help English speaking people find it? --User:Philip Baird Shearer 21:01, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC) :"We" is the majority of Wikipedians. Find a consensus for your idea first. Clearly no one before ever saw a need to repeat thousands of article titles with diacritics stripped. I use Google.com, but Google.co.uk finds Úbeda as well [http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=ubeda]. As to the "Muller" URL, it wasn't even possible until recently to use diacritics in URLs. And they use "Müller" on the site itself. What people type in is no issue for us anyway, since we have redirects. User:NoPuzzleStranger 22:24, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC) In many many case articles are written with words without diacritics. Most of the problems seem to arise when people start to add diacritics in the mistaken belief that it is correct to do so in English (not realising that it is just as correct not to do so). They are often people who's mother tongue is not English. You have no way of knowing that the majority of Wikipedians agree with your position. The guidelines already say "''Only use the native spelling as an article title if it is commonly used in English''". So as you will see in the search below as Ubeda is 6 times more common than Úbeda in this case seems to be that Ubeda is common English usage. So I do not think you are standing on very thick ice when making such an assertion. Particularlly when you are willing to ride roughshot over a consensus poll which was carried out here and try to reverse a move agreed after a WP:RM poll. You are not using the standard settings for www.google.co.uk. Which country are you in? With standard settings as used in the UK www.google.co.uk returns: Results 1 - 10 of about 59,500 English pages for Ubeda; Results 1 - 10 of about 7,740 English pages for Úbeda. It differentiates between the two and most people in England will not use any flags. Also other web search engines (like "ask Jeeves") differentiate between the two User:Philip Baird Shearer 13:46, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC) :It is you who is skating on thin ice by implying that stripping diacritics makes an "English spelling". It is true for ALL words with diacritics that the diacritics are commonly ignored in English usage. But one should either use them everywhere, or ignore them everywhere, and the consensus on Wikipedia obviously is to use them. And it is downright absurd to list a word both with and without diacritics. Anyone who doesn't care about the diacritics can ignore them by himself. User:NoPuzzleStranger 21:01, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC) Hello, I'm Juan, I live in Jaén (Spain) and I'm very impressed because of this discussion. Úbeda is a Spanish name, and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so I think this article must be renamed Úbeda. Why? Because Ubeda is a word that DOESN'T EXIST. Spanish diacritics are used in order to know how to pronunce the word, and you are ignoring it. If an ''ubetense'' (person from Úbeda) sees this article, I'm sure that he or she will be offended by the vote. Please, don't forget that English people are not the ones that use Wikipedia. User:217.217.131.215 12:47, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) :Why would anyone be offended by the way another language group spell a word? If they are then they are free to read the article in Spanish. Does the City of Zurich exist? Because if you go to that page you will see that opinions are split as to the spelling. With about half the voters arguing it should be spelt "Zürich", yet the Spanish Wikipedia spelles it , so should that article be changed to Zürich so as not to offened a native from Zurich? The diacritics may help a Spanish speaker pronounce the word by to most English speakers it is just a funny foreign squiggle which no meaning beyond that. User:Philip Baird Shearer 13:05, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
U
UA | UB | UC | UD | UE | UF | UG | UH | UI | UJ | UK | UL | UM | UN | UO | UP | UR | US | UT | UW | UX | UY | UZ |Words begining with Ubeda:
Ubeda
Ubeda
These materials are based on Wikipedia and licensed under the GNU FDL
YouTube.com videos better site than Turbo Tax 2007
