CZ Talk:Romanization

Roman-script languages

Do we want to have a brief discussion about languages written in Roman script with diacritics on this page? Or at least a mention, and a link to some other page? I think it is entirely conceivable that folks will end up at this page when they are looking for information about whether or not to use diacritics... Otherwise, good start. Brian P. Long 07:23, 26 April 2008 (CDT)

I think it is entirely reasonable to cover most Roman-script languages here, unless one has so many individual issues that it deserves a separate page. J. Noel Chiappa 11:42, 26 April 2008 (CDT)

Diacritics do need covered but perhaps on a separate page. Personally, I don't have a problem with people using them within the text. When used for the article title, a non diacritic version should provide a redirect, including popular misspellings. Derek Harkness 10:44, 29 April 2008 (CDT)

More content

This page is woefully short on content; a lot of material from the Proposal page, which could be simply cut-and-pasted here, isn't here. Someone should improve this page, or... I will! :-) J. Noel Chiappa 11:42, 26 April 2008 (CDT)

Yeah, I know... it's a start. Yes, we can copy material from the proposals page. John Stephenson 21:15, 26 April 2008 (CDT)

Famous last words...

In the CZ:Romanization page as currently written, it says "once agreement is reached, these decisions will form policy." What exactly does that mean? Are contributors who come along later allowed to re-discuss these decisions-- i.e., is there an appeals process?

It seems like the simplest method would be to follow the 'Ad Hoc Proposal' method, where someone sets a date for a vote, and then everyone who has had a chance to contribute to the discussion gets a vote.

Perhaps the policy should be that the original decision will stand unless someone points out there is a crucial fact that the folks who originally made the decision ignored or did not know about. If two of the original decision-makers feel that the decision merits re-examination, they may move to re-open discussion and have a fresh vote. Thoughts? Thanks, Brian P. Long 07:48, 29 April 2008 (CDT)

The original proposal said that after consensus had been reached, the decisions would be "formally adopted". I always took that to mean, after we conclude discussion, we pass the proposed rules to the Editorial Council and they would rubber stamp them.

If someone later on wanted to alter things, then they would have to draft a new page and have that approved by the Editorial Council in much the same way as we have editors approve our articles, if someone wants to add to an approved article they must edit a new draft version first then have an editor sign off on it again.

There was one comment, made after the vote, on the proposal page, that suggested that some people thought the proposal allowed for the bypassing of the editorial council. However, that is not explicitly stated in the proposal and would require editorial council approval. My understanding of the words "formally adopted" were that the official, formal, editorial council resolution system would come into play. Derek Harkness 10:33, 29 April 2008 (CDT)