- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: no consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:25, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
Gechu → Gechū – correct spelling. Gryffindor (talk) 17:27, 19 July 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 23:35, 26 July 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 01:07, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
- Looking at the references paints an entirely different picture. Of the six web references currently available only one of them uses the proposed spelling. Granted, we may have a bad sample but so far the evidence leans towards English language sources using the current spelling and if that holds up we should not change to the far lesser used spelling.--67.70.24.37 (talk) 03:17, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
- Then don't repeat the mistake. Gryffindor (talk) 09:11, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
- Support long vowel pronunciation helpful to readers. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:53, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
- Oppose per points raised by 67.70.24.37. Unlike names of Wikipedia article subjects whose native languages, such as Lithuanian or Swedish, use the Latin alphabet with diacritics and / or accents, this is a name transliterated from a non-Latin alphabet and should only be depicted with diacritics if such diacritics are part of this name's standard form as referenced in the English-speaking world. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 03:43, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
- Oppose (original article creator here) agree with points made by Roman Spinner. My research showed Gechu most often as the standard form in the English-speaking world Keithh (talk)
- Support. WP uses diacritic where they belong, and the title needs to agree with the lead. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 09:20, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
- Could change the lead to agree with the title, no? Ductwork (talk) 03:04, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
- Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 01:54, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
- Oppose let's see what the guidelines say. WP:ROMAJI prescribes Modified Hepburn romanization in general, but also comes with an important exception for
those cases where another romanization is determined to be in common usage in reliable sources
. This is elaborated in a subsection on Determining common usage which cites WP:COMMONNAME and WP:ENG as basis. Therefore, 67.70.24.37 is right in arguing that we follow available sources. — 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) 15:35, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
- Oppose - no sense putting diacritics in a transliterated title Red Slash 22:55, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
