- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was move all. Cúchullain t/c 13:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
– per WP:HOCKEY, "All player pages should have diacritics applied (where required, according to the languages of the player in question)" P.T. Aufrette (talk) 01:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Oppose, per WP:USEENGLISH: "The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language, as you would find it in reliable sources (for example other encyclopedias and reference works, scholarly journals and major news sources)." I doubt if any of these players have appeared in a reference work or a scholarly journal, so that leaves us with major news sources. Giving the correct English-language spelling is useful to more readers than giving only a non-English spelling. Treating Slavic diacritics as if they were part of mainstream English misleads the reader. The native-language spelling would still be given boldfaced in the opening for those sports fans interested such things, per WP:FULLNAME. The only player here who has gotten any English-language media coverage worth mentioning is Tomas Vincour. No English-language RS gives any of these players with diacritcs. Here's what I came up with:
- Kauffner, again and again in every single RM that involves East European living peoples' names you link to sources effectively saying "look, this person is mentioned by a low-quality website that never spells East Europeans names correctly" But so what? So you've presented a list of unreliable sources that fail WP:IRS, "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context." Can you instead provide an example of where a single one of these Czech and Slovak living people is spelled without accents next door to a non-sportsperson Czech or Slovak whose name is spelled correctly? Because if not all you're saying is "hey look, I have some unreliable-for-spelling sources!" We can all produce those. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
- PS re. "The only player here who has gotten any English-language media coverage worth mentioning is Tomas Vincour" the per WP:USEENGLISH indicates "It can happen that an otherwise notable topic has not yet received much attention in the English-speaking world, so that there are too few English sources to constitute an established usage. Very low Google counts can but need not be indicative of this. If this happens, follow the conventions of the language in which this entity is most often talked about (German for German politicians..." Would you object to "Czech for Czech sportspersons" being added to WP:USEENGLISH so that we don't have to have any more RMs like this? Seriously. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Support per nom. --BDD (talk) 16:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Support all per nom. Couldn't have said it better. -DJSasso (talk) 17:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Support, per nominator. I recognise that a subset of sources may systematically strip diacritics, but we don't have to make the same mistake. This is an encyclopædia, so why would we wilfully move articles away from accurate names to inaccurate ones? bobrayner (talk) 12:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Oppose; usage in reliable English-language sources is predominantly diacritic-less. Powers T 19:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Oppose. WP:AT says to follow common usage, and common usage in reliable sources is largely without the diacritics. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:38, 20 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Support per nom to achieve better encyclopedia accuracy. - Darwinek (talk) 18:42, 20 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Oppose some may possible be justified on the grounds that too few English sources exist to constitute an established usage but this does not apply to all and for several WP:HOCKEY "All North American hockey pages should have player names without diacritics" applies as well as WP:USEENGLISH: "The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language". --Wolbo (talk) 14:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
- You missed the part where WP:HOCKEY says "All player pages should have diacritics", a couple of lines earlier. It is the team pages where the "compromise" calls for diacritics to be omitted for North American teams (except for QMJHL and LNAH). If you follow WP:HOCKEY guidelines, then this is a straightforward move. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 03:18, 22 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Vincour is an NHL player for the Dallas Stars.[1] Titles come under the titling guidelines, like WP:DIACRITICS. Kauffner (talk) 03:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Yes, but the "compromise", as spelled out at WP:HOCKEY, is that all pages about players have diacritics in them, whereas pages about teams do not if they are North American teams (except teams in QMJHL and LNAH). So the page Tomáš Vincour would use diacritics, but the Dallas Stars page could call him "Tomas". At least, that's what WP:HOCKEY spells out as a guideline... whether people here feel any inclination to go along with it is another story. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 12:15, 22 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Support per nom / WP:Hockey / encyclopedic accuracy. Agathoclea (talk) 07:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Oppose per Kauffner, Wolbo, etc. We've been here what feels like a hundred times, so I'll just say that my interpretation of WP:AT and WP:DIACRITICS is that we should use the form most commonly found it reliable sources (and, no, I do not think sports websites, newspapers, etc. are unreliable for names). My main reason for commenting, though, is to ask whether the ice hockey "compromise" has been altered. I was under the impression that the compromise was for players in North American leagues to use the diacritic-less form, but perhaps I was mistaken (I never really agreed with the compromise in the first place). Jenks24 (talk) 08:53, 25 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
- The article history is available for examination, like any other article. Wording to the effect that "all player pages should have diacritics where required" has been there since June 2007. An edit was made in January of this year, to paste material formerly at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Player pages format [2][3] At the latter location, the material had also been there since 2007 [4], with the text expanded by another user in 2008.[5] — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 19:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Not a vote Currently we have 10 in favour of consistency with the rest of category:Czech people, 5 against, but some of the 5 against have cited WP:AT/WP:UE which has "Besançon, Søren Kierkegaard and Göttingen," and WP:DIACRITICS/WP:USEENGLISH which has "Tomás Ó Fiaich, not Tomas O'Fiaich." - which suggests the opposes are based on misreading WP guidelines. WP:MOSPN also has "Wikipedia normally retains these special characters, except where there is a well-established English spelling that replaces them with English standard letters. For example, the name of the article on Hungarian mathematician Paul Erdős is spelt with the double acute accent,". Where is the contrary example in any MOS guideline "Tomas Matousek not Tomáš + Matoušek"? There isn't one. We don't anglicize foreigners' names on en.wp. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Support as to represent people with their real names.--Zoupan 03:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
