- The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: Clear consensus to move to new title Mike Cline (talk) 19:44, 18 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
Andrej Gacina → Andrej Gaćina –
- You should strike the 'common-sense' comment, as it claims that would-be-opposers have no common-sense. A breach of commenting on contributors. GoodDay (talk) 17:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
- You seem to be very confused about our standard practice. While Polish standard practice is obviously to spell things with diacritics, as diacritics are used in the Polish (as well as Czechoslovakian) language(s); however, English doesn't contain diacritics; the English Alphabet consists of 26 letters (in both upper and lower case), and we use letter combinations to determine sounds rather than the Czech/Polish/Slovak/Croatian method of using diacritics. And as for the Facebook page, do you really think that this gold medal winning olympian created his own facebook account and put a single photo of himself, with his gold medal, standing in the middle of a restaurant with some strange chick that's just thrilled to be standing next to him and touching a gold medal (and gold medalist); or do you suppose it might be just slightly more probable that some chick saw this gold medalist in a restaurant, got him to take a picture with her, and then she created a Facebook profile for him because she wanted to be able to show him in her Facebook friends list? Which do you think is more likely? Personally, I suspect the latter option. — Who R you? Talk 13:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
- You seem to be missing two important points: 1) in English, the exclusion of diacritics is not the standard practice (French, German, Spanish?), and 2) languages that you mention (I can vouch for Croatian - probably applies to Polish and other languages too) do use diacritics, but they use diacritics from other languages too, not only the ones from the native alphabet, so it's not that someone's being hypocritical by asking more from English than from his or her native language. GregorB (talk) 13:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
- An you seem to be missing the entire point of this issue, English does not contain diacritics. The fact that Croats either do, or don't, use diacritics from other languages is entirely irrelevant; if you want to use them because other languages do, great; if you don't want to use them because they're not a part of your language, equally great; but the reality is that English does not contain diacritics. Almost all of our words come from languages that do use diacritics, French, German, Spanish, and therefore when we borrow these words and make them a part of the English language we sometimes start by including the diacritics; but then we drop them, or we drop them right away, but the point is that the basic concept of English is that rather than create a ridiculously large and unmanagable alphabet with literally hundreds and hundreds of characters, we use different combinations of 26 letters to make every sound in our language. That's it, that's the fundamental cornerstone of English is that we don't have all that extra crap to worry about. And since it is our language, we are the ones that get to make that choice; feel free to decide to do whatever you like with the Croatian language; start using Chinese symbols if that's what turns your crank; but stop trying to dictate to English speakers that we must abandon the basis of our language in order to follow what you do in your language. We don't use diacritics (and in particular we don't use Slavic diacritics), which is why our sources, our media, don't use diacritics; we, and particularly en.WP, follow our sources to determine things like spelling of names; that's what the consensus policies of WP:EN, WP:UE, WP:UCN, and WP:DIACRITICS are all about (I see I forgot to transclude the segments of policy yesterday so I'll do that after this post), we use the most common English spelling as determined by the English RS. That is what consensus policy says, so if you'd like to change what this article is named either present English RS that demonstrates that his name is spelled with diacritics by English RS, or start a campaign to get English RS to start using diacritics, but don't start an article-by-article campaign in Wikipedia to override consensus policy and ignore English RS. — Who R you? Talk 02:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
- You have said more than once that English does not contain diacritics, the alphabet having 26 letters. I see no point of repeatedly driving that point home since it is clear, and you said it yourself, that, once German, French or Spanish name comes along, suddenly diacritics are used. That's why saying that English alphabet has 26 letters, and that is it, is, while true, worthless as an argument in this discussion. Usage is another matter. GregorB (talk) 09:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
- Do you realize how xenophobic your comment actually is? We should favour READERS. Period. - Darwinek (talk) 17:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
- This is the english language Wikipedia & it should cater to the 'english' readers. Not someone who merely wants to have their mother-tongue shown in article titles & content. GoodDay (talk) 17:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
- Isn't it handy how, for a Pole or a Czech trying to promote their homeland and the expansion of their foreign, non-English language into English Wikipedia that's... what? National pride?... but if an English person dares to say that English WP should contain, oh, I don't know, let's say English letters, all of a sudden that person is a xenophobe. What's wrong with en.WP favouring 'English only' readers? How much of cs.WP is written in English? What?... none! Quelle surprise! How about you go re-write cs.WP in English and then come over here and start calling us names for writing the en.WP in English. I'll save the rest of my comments for my !vote below. — Who R you? Talk 13:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
- Support per established convention used in literally hundreds of other articles on Croatian sportspeople. Actually, make that thousands of articles on sportspeople with diacritics in their names. As long as there is a redirect using the non-diacritic version pointing to Andrej Gaćina, I fail to see how the diacritic in article title would be a hindrance for our readers. Timbouctou (talk) 17:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
-
- There are hundreds if not thousands of articles on Croatian sportspeople, politicians, actors, writers, soldiers, artists, scholars and the like whose articles all use the original name spelled with diacritics. They were not moved to their titles - they were in fact created that way and the majority of them have been there for years. Darwinek certainly did not create many of them. The arbitration ruling you cite talks about using fait accompli to push edits which are "controversial or disputed", which none of these are. Timbouctou (talk) 16:12, 11 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
- While it certainly is common to here these kinds of claims during these discussions, investigation of the facts usually ends up showing that the claims put forth in favour of diacritics often seem to have little semblense of reality. Since I know, for a fact that there are numerous articles that Darwinek has moved from English to non-English, foreign spellings (maybe later after responding to this and the number of other RMs and the RfC discussion going on about diacritics I'll come back and add a few links to some of Darwinek's moves), then you can go about explaining how "… hundreds if not thousands of … articles all use the original name spelled with diacritics. They were not moved to their titles …" and we'll see how you explain a small example of the hundreds if not thousands of articles Darwinek, and others, have moved to non-English spellings. — Who R you? Talk 13:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
- I have no idea what sort of gripe you have with Darwinek, and frankly I don't really care. Croatian people articles on the English Wikipedia have consistently used diacritics in titles and content for many years now and there's been but a trivial amount of discontent about it, only in some of the more extreme cases (cf. Talk:Goran Višnjić - there are three non-English letters in that surname). That's a simple fact that doesn't seem to be affected by whatever other problem you two seem to be having. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
- Well since you say you're okay with redirects, you should be just fine with a redirect from the non-English spelling to the English article title, kind of like the consensus WP policies establish should be done. — Who R you? Talk 13:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
- Which is how it should be spelt at Croatian Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 17:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
- Croatian language uses Latin script and as such names are normally not transcribed but spelled in their original form even in English. It's the same thing with French (Ségolène Royal), German (Herta Müller), Spanish (José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero), Serbian (Nemanja Vidić), Czech (Karel Poborský) and many other languages. Timbouctou (talk) 17:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
- I'm concerned with the english reader, who doesn't recognize or understand these non-english accents. GoodDay (talk) 18:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
- And English language uses Roman script, a subset of the present day, expanded, Latin script. And thank you for identifying some of the other many many articles on en.WP that have potentially been incorrectly named; but, of course, the only way to be sure is to check the English RS and see how they spell the name; for example José Luis Rodriguez Zapatero may well have been spelled by the majority of English RS with an acute accent over the "e"; seeing as much of our language is derived from French root words, we are not entirely unaccustomed to the acute accent so used and therefore the sources might, in fact, have used it in this case; however, as for the acute accent over the "i" in Rodriguez, I suspect that English press will have dropped that since that is decidedly un-English, but again, it will depend on what the RS actually says. The French we may well have spelled with the accents; the German we almost certainly dropped the umlaut; and the Serbian and Czech are almost guaranteed to have been dropped since neither the "c" nor the "y" have ever supported an acute accent in English or any of its primary contributors. But regardless of those arguments, the determination is made by the RS. — Who R you? Talk 13:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
- They likely are, in Croatian; however, in English (the language we speak here in English countries) we don't use diacritics; they aren't a part of our alphabet; so when we English speaking people spell Croatian names we generally don't use diacritics; as for what we English speaking Wikipedians do, we follow the consensus policies of English Wikipedia, and those policies say that we determine the common English name, and therefore the common English spelling, by referencing the English RS, as per our policies like WP:EN, WP:UE, WP:UCN, WP:DIACRITICS. So if you don't mind, we'll stick with the policies that consensus has developed and we'll follow the English RS. — Who R you? Talk 13:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
-
- Support as that is proper spelling. Also be sure to provide a redirect as described by Timbouctou. I trust that English readers will not be inconvenienced by the diacritics-containing name - the Britannica uses diacritics to name one example. The fact that a casual reader will not distinguish ć from c doesn't seem tragic, and such a reader will probably ignore the diacritic mark altogether, as in case of ç in François Mitterrand or ö in Gerhard Schröder. A portion of the readers might on the other hand be interested in actual spelling of the name. Moreover, in case of proper or given names originally written using Latin script, unless there is an Anglicized variant of a proper name, removing diacritics will not make them any more "English" than they already are.--Tomobe03 (talk) 00:22, 10 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
- It certainly is interesting that you think that you can not only dictate the English language to the English speakers of the world, but that while doing so you believe you can decern the attitudes and opinions of the English populace from your foreign, wholely non-English land on the other side of the planet. We, English speakers, determine how we spell English; for the most part we allocate that responsibility to our lexicographers and media, who go to a great deal of effort to know and understand what we do, or don't, accept as a spelling of things (although perhaps you believe that they should retain you to assist them in knowing what native English speakers, and readers, will or won't accept, or be inconvenienced by; most assuredly they would be tremendously appreciative of your professional level English language skills and unique insight in this area; tell me, is this some knowledge that you've arrived at through years of painstaking OR, or is it more of a sixth sense where you are simply able to use you omnipotent powers of divination to perceive the inherent acceptance level of the English people; is that a special skill that they taught just you, or is it a natural ability you were born with, or perhaps that is something they teach all of the Croatian people; or perhaps you acquired this definitive knowledge through you close personal association with military peacekeeping personell assigned to your region from English speaking countries; perhaps because they we nice to you, you believe that you have an intimate knowledge of English language, society, and all the wide and varied aspects of English culture). — Who R you? Talk 13:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
- I must say that I resent the tone of your reply; at the very least, it does not help the discussion. Instead of arguing further, but using a bit of that sarcasm, let me ask you the following. Are Encyclopedia Britannica and National Geographic, two reference sources that use Eastern European, Icelandic and Vietnamese diacritics: 1) ESL crowd, 2) saboteurs of the English language, 3) irrelevant 4) ignorant, 5) insane, or 6) something else? GregorB (talk) 14:09, 14 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
- Comment. Let's also not forget that "Gaćina" is pronounced /Gâtɕina/, while "Gacina" is pronounced /Gâtsina/ (disclaimer: hope I'm getting IPA right), and even for a Croatian reader there is no reliable way to say, upon reading the article title as "Andrej Gacina", how it is supposed to be pronounced. The same might apply to knowledgeable English-speaking readers. That is one of the reasons I find using WP:RS as an argument against diacritics ("English sources don't use them, so Wikipedia shouldn't use them either") is missing the point ("English sources that don't use them are not encyclopedias, while Wikipedia is"). By virtue of being an encyclopedia, Wikipedia has different objectives and caters to different audiences than, say, a daily newspaper. The claim that the use of Croatian diacritics is incompatible with the English language (as used in reference works) is not true (counterexamples: EB, per above, and also National Geographic). GregorB (talk) 09:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
- Fortunately, we often include a Pronunciation tag indicating the IPA coding, so it will not make the slightest bit of difference if we spell the title of this article in English, with the foreign, non-English spelling listing in the body of the text; in other words, if we follow the consensus policies of en.WP. And, of course, for the exceeding small number of English readers that care, the article lede will include the foreign spelling so they can enjoy themselves learning a foreign language; and this can also benefit those ESL readers and editors who might happen to view this two sentence stub.
Of course, the truly tragic thing about all this is that, for the amount of effort that we all have expended on these stupid, endless, RM discussions, we could have easily fixed the problems of perhaps thousands of articles throughout en.WP; but since Darwinek and crowd are apparently determined to translate English Wikipedia to a foreign language while still in en.WP, rather than any of the dozens of other options (by way of foreign language Wikipedias) you have been offered, we English editors will unfortunately need to waste our time on these entirely useless and meaningless conversations in the hope that the admin closing the discussion will ignore the irrelevant opinions of six ESL editors and that the admin will instead follow the policies arrived at by the 144 thousand (currently active) en.WP editors.
- I'm kind of surprised; I know that if anyone here is capable of making a good argument, you are. Perhaps it just didn't seem worth the effort with only GoodDay trying to deal with this all by himself. After all, when there are all these RMs and discussions going on all over English Wikipedia, trying to turn it into the non-English, Czech, Slovakian, Croatian, French, German, Japanese, Vietnamese, Tibetan, made-up stuff language Wikipedia with English subtitles, I guess one has to try to budget their time and only contribute to those conversations that seem to be most in need of another voice or good argument; but when you've one of a small group of 10 or 15 ESLers, that apparently have nothing better to do than try to force English speakers to re-write their language, you surprising seem to have the numbers on your side since it would appear that the majority of Wikipedians are so fed up with this discussion and this continuous waste of time that they either ignore the subject (and discussions) or leave WP by the tens of thousands. And I can't say as I'm at all surprised. But with the others, the foreigners that have their own private agendas, wanting to feel like they're making their tiny little foreign countries seem somehow more important by screwing around with en.WP, I can kind of understand it, I obviously don't condone or agree with it, but I can kind of understand it.
But you, a fellow Canuck, are obviously well aware that this is in no way representative of English; you know full well that nowhere in North American society do we use diacritics (with the exception of French and even they drop them some of the time), so I'm at a loss to understand your participation in this. The only thing I can figure is that your real-world name contained diacritics and you're pissed because we made you drop them or because we won't use them; that's truly the only thing that makes sense to me; but if that's the case, then you really should understand now, quite clearly, why that is; it's a big world out there, and there are hundreds of countries, with hundreds of languages, in tens of thousands of dialects, and the choices are either English as we know it, or a non-language of foreign gibberish. Which languages do you plan on adding to English? All of them? Were you going to include Chinese and Russian in this new world language that you seem to think English will become, or were you only including all the other languages? Were you going to include Vietnamese, Arabic, Sandskrit, and Hebrew, or did you figure that paring it back to nothing more than all the languages that use the Latin alphabet was good enough? Sure you say, and why not? I'll show you why not, because if you do then you get (and I think you think you know what's coming) this:
The FULL Latin character set
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z
ª º À Á Â Ã Ä Å Æ Ç È É Ê Ë Ì Í Î Ï Ð Ñ Ò Ó Ô Õ Ö Ø Ù Ú Û Ü Ý Þ ß à á â ã ä å æ ç è é ê ë ì í î ï ð ñ ò ó ô õ ö ø ù ú û ü ý þ ÿ
Ā ā Ă ă Ą ą Ć ć Ĉ ĉ Ċ ċ Č č Ď ď Đ đ Ē ē Ĕ ĕ Ė ė Ę ę Ě ě Ĝ ĝ Ğ ğ Ġ ġ Ģ ģ Ĥ ĥ Ħ ħ Ĩ ĩ Ī ī Ĭ ĭ Į į İ ı IJ ij Ĵ ĵ Ķ ķ ĸ Ĺ ĺ Ļ ļ Ľ ľ Ŀ ŀ Ł ł Ń ń Ņ ņ Ň ň ʼn Ŋ ŋ Ō ō Ŏ ŏ Ő ő Œ œ Ŕ ŕ Ŗ ŗ Ř ř Ś ś Ŝ ŝ Ş ş Š š Ţ ţ Ť ť Ŧ ŧ Ũ ũ Ū ū Ŭ ŭ Ů ů Ű ű Ų ų Ŵ ŵ Ŷ ŷ Ÿ Ź ź Ż ż Ž ž
ſ ƀ Ɓ Ƃ ƃ Ƅ ƅ Ɔ Ƈ ƈ Ɖ Ɗ Ƌ ƌ ƍ Ǝ Ə Ɛ Ƒ ƒ Ɠ Ɣ ƕ Ɩ Ɨ Ƙ ƙ ƚ ƛ Ɯ Ɲ ƞ Ɵ Ơ ơ Ƣ ƣ Ƥ ƥ Ʀ Ƨ ƨ Ʃ ƪ ƫ Ƭ ƭ Ʈ Ư ư Ʊ Ʋ Ƴ ƴ Ƶ ƶ Ʒ Ƹ ƹ ƺ ƻ Ƽ ƽ ƾ ƿ ǀ ǁ ǂ ǃ DŽ Dž dž LJ Lj lj NJ Nj nj
Ǎ ǎ Ǐ ǐ Ǒ ǒ Ǔ ǔ Ǖ ǖ Ǘ ǘ Ǚ ǚ Ǜ ǜ ǝ
Ǟ ǟ Ǡ ǡ Ǣ ǣ Ǥ ǥ Ǧ ǧ Ǩ ǩ Ǫ ǫ Ǭ ǭ Ǯ ǯ ǰ DZ Dz dz Ǵ ǵ
Ǻ ǻ Ǽ ǽ Ǿ ǿ Ȁ ȁ Ȃ ȃ Ȅ ȅ Ȇ ȇ Ȉ ȉ Ȋ ȋ Ȍ ȍ Ȏ ȏ Ȑ ȑ Ȓ ȓ Ȕ ȕ Ȗ ȗ ɐ ɑ ɒ ɓ ɔ ɕ ɖ ɗ ɘ ə ɚ ɛ ɜ ɝ ɞ ɟ ɠ ɡ ɢ ɣ ɤ ɥ ɦ ɧ ɨ ɩ ɪ ɫ ɬ ɭ ɮ ɯ ɰ ɱ ɲ ɳ ɴ ɵ ɶ ɷ ɸ ɹ ɺ ɻ ɼ ɽ ɾ ɿ ʀ ʁ ʂ ʃ ʄ ʅ ʆ ʇ ʈ ʉ ʊ ʋ ʌ ʍ ʎ ʏ ʐ ʑ ʒ ʓ ʔ ʕ ʖ ʗ ʘ ʙ ʚ ʛ ʜ ʝ ʞ ʟ ʠ ʡ ʢ ʣ ʤ ʥ ʦ ʧ ʨ
Ḁ ḁ Ḃ ḃ Ḅ ḅ Ḇ ḇ Ḉ ḉ Ḋ ḋ Ḍ ḍ Ḏ ḏ Ḑ ḑ Ḓ ḓ Ḕ ḕ Ḗ ḗ Ḙ ḙ Ḛ ḛ Ḝ ḝ Ḟ ḟ Ḡ ḡ Ḣ ḣ Ḥ ḥ Ḧ ḧ Ḩ ḩ Ḫ ḫ Ḭ ḭ Ḯ ḯ Ḱ ḱ Ḳ Ḳ ḳ Ḵ ḵ Ḷ ḷ Ḹ ḹ Ḻ ḻ Ḽ ḽ Ḿ ḿ Ṁ ṁ Ṃ ṃ Ṅ ṅ Ṇ ṇ Ṉ ṉ Ṋ ṋ Ṍ ṍ Ṏ ṏ Ṑ ṑ Ṓ ṓ Ṕ ṕ Ṗ ṗ Ṙ ṙ Ṛ ṛ Ṝ ṝ Ṟ ṟ Ṡ ṡ Ṣ ṣ Ṥ ṥ Ṧ ṧ Ṩ ṩ Ṫ ṫ Ṭ ṭ Ṯ ṯ Ṱ ṱ Ṳ ṳ Ṵ ṵ Ṷ ṷ Ṹ ṹ Ṻ ṻ Ṽ ṽ Ṿ ṿ Ẁ ẁ Ẃ ẃ Ẅ ẅ Ẇ ẇ Ẉ ẉ Ẋ ẋ Ẍ ẍ Ẏ ẏ Ẑ ẑ Ẓ ẓ Ẕ ẕ ẖ ẗ ẘ ẙ ẚ ẛ
Ạ ạ Ả ả Ấ ấ Ầ ầ Ẩ ẩ Ẫ ẫ Ậ ậ Ắ ắ Ằ ằ Ẳ ẳ Ẵ ẵ Ặ ặ Ẹ ẹ Ẻ ẻ Ẽ ẽ Ế ế Ề ề Ể ể Ễ ễ Ệ ệ Ỉ ỉ Ị ị Ọ ọ Ỏ ỏ Ố ố Ồ ồ Ổ ổ Ỗ ỗ Ộ ộ Ớ ớ Ờ ờ Ở ở Ỡ ỡ Ợ ợ Ụ ụ Ủ ủ Ứ ứ Ừ ừ Ử ử Ữ ữ Ự ự Ỳ ỳ Ỵ ỵ Ỷ ỷ Ỹ ỹ fi fl
and lest you wonder if this is anything extra, it isn't, this is certainly not the entire Unicode character set of tens of thousands, and this does not include Greek, Cyrillic, Armenian, Hebrew, Arabic, Devanagari, Bengali, Gurmukhi, Gujarati, Oriya, Tamil, Telugu, Kannada, Malayalam, Thai, Lao, Tibetan, Georgian, Korea Hangul, Japanese Hiragana, Japanese Katakana, or Chinese Bopornofo.
This is just the Latin alphabet which everyone keeps saying Oh, but English uses the Latin alphabet and so does my foreign language so you have to just all the same crap that I use in my language.; but the reality is that English uses the Roman subset of the expanded Latin alphabet; in other words, the top two lines (depending on your screen resolution).
|
- Which is why the arguments that we should include these as part of our language is ridiculous. You obviously learned English at some point, either in school as a child or later in life as a second language, aren't you glad that they only make you learn the English Alphabet? What we accept at en.WP will be what the children of this and the coming generation see and learn; there is a tremendous difference between exposing a child to knowledge of this vast world (i.e. Here's some information about Andrej Gacina; among other things, you may be interested to learn that, in his homeland of Slovakia, his name is spelled Andrej Gaćina.) compared with forcing a child to fully understand your alphabet (i.e. The only proper way to write this name is Andrej Gaćina; learn it, memorize it, know it, know how to pronounce it, there may be a test; and you may be interested to know that Andrej Gaćina comes from
Slovakia Slovensko [ long form: Slovenská republika ].) And it's important that the title of this article be spelled in this foreign language why? So that we don't offend a population the size of the GTA. I care more about the children that will learn English than I care about this foreign ping-pong player, despite the fact that he's an Olympic gold / bronze medalist. — Who R you? Talk 13:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
- Oppose – When I first began looking at this RM, I considered just letting it go and not becoming involved. The comments here all basically say that there's no sources to determine the proper spelling of this guy's name so we should go with the foreign spelling. So then I checked the three sources in the article, and two of the three spell it "Andrej Gacina" without diacritics; but still I figured, that's only two sources, the guy's otherwise unknown, there's no available information to base a decision upon, so consensus policy is that we defer to his foreign spelling, given that there are only two sources to dispute it. Then I did the basic searches, Google: Andrej Gacina – 169,000 vs Andrej Gaćina – 34,600 ; and gNews (all foreign language): Andrej Gacina – 7 vs Andrej Gaćina – 1 . WP policy (as relevant sections transcluded below indicate), as per WP:UE, WP:EN, WP:UCN, and WP:DIACRITICS, is use the most common English spelling as per the sources. We would use English sources if there were any, but there aren't; so then we use the most common spelling as per the preponderance of all sources, and the numbers are overwelmingly the English form "Andrej Gacina". If the facts were otherwise, then I would support the foreign spelling; but the facts are what they are, and the most common name/spelling is without diacritics and our consensus policy is that we title our articles according to the most common spelling. That is the name that our readers expect to find the article titled and that's how policy says it should be titled. The foreign spelling will be included in the two sentence stub so any users that care can discover the foreign spelling of his name; but what we tell are readers is the most common spelling of his name (i.e. what we entitle his article) should be the most common spelling of this name. Anyone that has a problem with the spelling should be contacting the source(s) that spelled it; we wikipedians just follow sources; the idea being that it prevents us from wasting our time having conversations about what our opinion is of what an article should be entitled and otherwise engaging in speculative OR. — Who R you? Talk 13:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
- This argument reminds me why my !vote is actually "Comment", rather than "Support": I'm uncomfortable supporting something that I know is, strictly speaking, not in accordance with current policy. (Whether I agree with this policy or not is irrelevant.) I also know three things: 1) it is probably next to impossible to change this policy in a centralized discussion, 2) this policy is, and will remain, a dead letter, 3) fait accompli will increasingly favor the diacritics option in the future, as the sheer volume of content generated by pro-diacritics editors works against the change. Unless I'm mistaken on these three points, this discussion is unfortunately a waste of time. GregorB (talk) 14:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
- For me, User:Who R you?'s behavior, and lack of listening to other people's arguments while continuing to ramble, just remind me how quickly any debate can be turned into a Usenet-style flamewar. It's truly sad. Their whole premise is completely off base - the others did not claim that "there's no sources to determine the proper spelling of this guy's name so we should go with the foreign spelling", so the whole argument is a straw man. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
- 169,000? Or maybe 441. You are doing it wrong. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
- Support; the name with diacritics is more accurate and is supported by sources. This is an encyclopædia, isn't it? bobrayner (talk) 17:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
- Support as per original poster. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
- Oppose - Hard to disagree with Who R you on this one. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 00:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
- Oppose Cialo (talk) 09:32, 15 November 2011 (UTC). I have created this page along with several other pages regarding table tennis players. In my opinion, as indicated in WP:EN, the most reliable source for table tennis players is the ITTF database which is linked in this wikipage. In that database each player is listed with English version of the name that is used in all the international competitions. The same applies to names not originally in a latin alphabet (e.g., chinese players). I guess that the nemae version used in the ITTF database should be also used as title of the page. Also, it is very important to reach a decision because the same issue applies to several players listed in List of table tennis players.Reply
- Most foreign people will not have such an authoritative list of international spellings of the names to fall back on, so I'm not sure it's a generally applicable principle. Also please note that the name is not an "English version" of the name. A non-English name does not become English by removing diacritics. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:16, 15 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
- I understand. However, here we are not looking for a general rule, but for a rule applicable to all the table tennis players. For this scope, in my opinion, the ITTF database can be considered as a very reliable source. Cialo (talk) 10:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
- Well, it seems complicated to apply a specific principle only for tennis players... --OpenFuture (talk) 10:32, 15 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
- Support. The proposed title is correct, proper English (per style manuals) and in line with the standard practice here and in other reference works (such as Britannica, Columbia, Americana and Webster's). Our policies agree as well. We should get the article right (WP:BLP), and avoid common but inaccurate names (WP:COMMONNAME). As we are building a high-quality encyclopedia and must maintain the relevant standards (WP:NOT), we should use the sources that are most reliable on the issue at hand (WP:V). Prolog (talk) 15:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
- Support. Dependence on the ITTF database seems something of a red herring - has anyone verified that their house style is not determined by their database software having an issue with diacritics? The general policy in UK broadsheet newspapers is to use diacritics for names, that's enough of a WP:RS for me.Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
- As a computer programmer my guess is that when they started computerizing these records, they only supported ASCII and therefore put ASCII-only practices in place, which remains to this day, for hystorical reasons. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.
|
