Talk:Hradčany

---

suggested Rename from Hradčany to Hradcany

The following is a closed 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 oppose. Most people have got used to seeing foreign names in English text with diacritics. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC) Hradčany → Hradcany — I suggest to Rename this page from Hradčany to Hradcany - It would not be the proper name (czech), but we are on EN pegaes. ...Let's not make/cause troubles to users with other than CZ keyboards / OS localizations. Oashi (talk) 00:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. That is not really a concern, for two reasons, one, because most people get to pages by links instead of by typing, but more importantly, because there is already a redirect from Hradcany, so a move is really moot. 199.125.109.88 (talk) 01:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support It is, however, a minor nuisance to editor and reader alike. We have no guidance prohibiting or requiring diacritics; see WP:UE for more. What is the usual English spelling? The Library of Congress country study omits, and I believe this is typical. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• "I believe this is typical". Prove it. Knepflerle (talk) 17:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
  • It cannot (of course) be proven mathematically; but the first and obvious source I went to used Hradcany. The requester himself would show that some anglophones are used to the simple version, to an editor who assumed (or exhibited) good faith. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
• Please detail the minor nuisance, bearing in mind there is no obligation for any editor to use the version with diacritics, and the relevant redirect exists. Knepflerle (talk) 17:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
  • But some readers prefer not to arrive at articles through redirects (there are people who find the redirect tag unsightly), and editors who prefer not to use them (both for elegance, and to suit the readers). Both these have their (not unreasonable) expectations disappointed, unless they go to the trouble of typing in a hacek; this consistutes a minor nuisance.
  • Does Knepferle really fail to see this? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Obviously this is a small matter, and there's no general policy active right now about diacretics. However, given the redirect, users will be able to find this article, and editors can simply copy and paste the place name if they have difficulties. WP:NC broadly states that we should only use an English equivilent where one is already commonly used; this doesn't seem to be the case here. Might be worth informing WP:CZECH. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 16:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

  Evidence, or is this WP:ILIKEIT? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

  No, it isn't. If you are supporting the move, you should provide evidence that the proposed title is more common; right now you seem to be just making the case "I don't like it". I don't see the sources showing Hradcany as a common English alternative name for this location, and I wouldn't confuse Anglicising with simplification. And I agree with Knepflerle's point - you haven't explained how in practical terms it is an inconveniance. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 22:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - no inconvenience is being caused, thanks to redirects. You can get here without using diacritics by entering Hradcany in the search bar on in the URL. Knepflerle (talk) 17:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• It's also notable that popular encyclopedias (Britannica, Encarta) and guide books (Lonely Planet, Frommer's) don't find č enough of a nuisance to omit. Knepflerle (talk) 18:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose per São Paulo, Gdańsk. I have noticed that Montreal and Quebec City omit accents, however these cities have official English names. If Hradčany has an official English name, then that should be used. -M.Nelson (talk) 02:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Hm, now I do not see the rename as important neither: i.e. redirect exists; no "no diacritics" policy. I am ready to rollback the request... Thanks! Oashi (talk) 18:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment However, it's a notice for me, that from now, on CS wiki (and possible others), I will set page names with full CS diacritics for new Articles, no matter how weird URLs it will produce. ;) Oashi (talk) 18:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose a move based on what kind of keyboards people use. There's no current rule supporting ASCII-only naming conventions that I know of (in fact, "Wikipedia has no rule that titles must be written in certain characters, or that certain characters may not be used"). If you want to argue that the proposed title is more commonly used in English, please provide sources. Encarta seems to use "Hradčany",[1] as does Britannica in running text.[2] Jafeluv (talk) 01:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. WP:Use English discusses only those cases where the English word is different from the word in the original tongue. Munich and München are different words--Hradcany and Hradčany are the same word, but in one case, the diacritic has been omitted. There are a few exceptions, such as Mexico, where English usage by publications or organizations that do not indiscriminately strip diacritics indeeds omits the diacritic, but the case of Hradčany is not one of them, as Jafeluv has shown.--Atemperman (talk) 05:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • False. See Wikipedia:Use_English#Modified_letters, which addresses exactly this question, and comes to the same result as the difference between Munich and Muenchen: Follow the general usage in English verifiable reliable sources in each case, whatever characters may or may not be used in them. Since no evidence has been presented that the hacek has been adopted in English here, and some evidence that it hasn't, we should omit. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
    • You and I would probably disagree on who has the burden of evidence in move discussions. You said the Library of Congress uses "Hradcany". I said Knepflerle said that Encarta and Britannica use "Hračany". I'd say that's not enough evidence to support a move. Jafeluv (talk) 18:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
      • It should be pointed out that the leading paragraph of Wikipedia:Use_English#Modified_letters was written by Septentrionalis, which occasioned a lengthy debate among a few editors. My reading of the debate is that no consensus for the addition by Septentrioinalis emerged--editors who were opposed to or neutral toward Septrentrionalis's edit were not moved in favor of it by the end of the discussion, and those in favor of or neutral toward it were similarly not moved into opposing it. In any event, the following paragraph in WP:UE#Modified_letters is,

English usage is often best determined by consulting works of general reference which deal with the subject and seeing what they use.

This says to me that the value of the Encarta and Britannica evidence is strong, and, in the absence of countervailing evidence from similarly authoritative works of general reference, controlling. --Atemperman (talk) 23:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I also worded the sentence you now choose to quote. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• Moreover, I don't see why Septentrionalis wrote that "no evidence has been presented that the hacek has been adopted in English here" when links to Encarta's and Britannica's use of it had been provided just a few lines earlier. --Atemperman (talk) 23:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. As long as there's a redirect from the one that's easy to type, we may as well go with the correct one. It's not like anyone is going to say 'well, I was looking for Hradcany and all I can find is this page with the exact same word but with a little v over the c... Hradcany must not have a page'. --Helenalex (talk) 00:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

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.