I'm not going to fight against someone who wants to use koelsch instead of kolsch since it does have SOME currency, though I'll note that both are underlined in red in most systems with "Kolsch" and "Kölsch" as the suggestions for how to write it. I was mentioning that it's less common than the original German spelling and the English variation with "o" substituted for "ö." As I mentioned, I've never been a fan of prescriptivism and would strongly describe myself as a descriptivist. I personally use jalapeño, café, Kölsch, and so on in my work, but when I'm writing a post on a thread or a text to a friend, I'm far more likely to use jalapeno, cafe, and Kolsch instead of the versions with the special characters, and there's nothing unusual about that. Although you are 100% correct that technology with computers and smartphones has allowed special characters that were not possible on old typewriters, even in 2025 we still have issues where the English version of an Asian app will be made with an "English font" that is missing special European characters such as diactrics so we have to write "facade" instead of "façade," for example. But facade is a perfectly valid spelling. And that's my point. Not to criticize the use of "Kölsch" or "Koelsch," but to point out that "Kolsch" is a perfectly correct spelling in English, when Miraculix was saying that it is not (with the grammar/spelling check, I'll point out that Kölsch and Kolsch both do not have red lines under them, but Koelsch does because it's not as common).