Talk:Ondřej Šedivý

Requested move

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: moved to Ondřej Šedivý. Favonian (talk) 12:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

---

Ondrej Sedivy → Ondřej Šedivý – In ictu oculi moved this page, it was reverted under "moved without discussion..." and put up for a contested requested move by PBS (talk) 08:33, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

From the history of the article:

• 03:00, 1 May 2012‎ In ictu oculi ‎ m . . (In ictu oculi moved page Ondrej Sedivy to Ondřej Šedivý: Another Ondřej, per BLP accuracy, sources confirm family name Šedivý)

-- PBS (talk) 08:33, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose, as this is the English language Wikipedia & therefore the name should be in english. GoodDay (talk) 19:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
  • This may be the "english" wikipedia, but it contains foreign subjects too; their names occasionally contain diacritics. If you are offended by the presence of "foreign" names I cannot fathom why you'd be reading an article about a Czech person. bobrayner (talk) 14:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support per accuracy. There can be a redirect in place for those who don't know diacritics. -DJSasso (talk) 19:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support (same rationale as for today's other "Ondřej" RMs: Diacritics provide important pronunciation information for those familiar with a language and do not hinder reading or understanding for those who choose to ignore them. Although some English sources have omitted diacritics due to typographical or display constraints, scholarly and encyclopedic sources (which is what Wikipedia aspires to be) are far more likely to include them. Modern computers universally support display of European-language diacritics, eg, at least the ones in WGL-4 or similar subsets. Wikipedia should render names with diacritics accurately. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 00:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
  • "Although some English sources have omitted diacritics due to typographical or display constraints, scholarly and encyclopedic sources (which is what Wikipedia aspires to be) are far more likely to include them." do you have as source for this assumption or is it WP:OR? -- PBS (talk) 16:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support per P.T. Aufrette --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support for the sake of accuracy, and keep the non-diacriticized name as redirect. - Darwinek (talk) 05:18, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support move to more accurate name. bobrayner (talk) 14:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment what does more accurate name mean?. -- PBS (talk) 15:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• Simply removing diacritics is a mistake and not how you properly translate a name to English. As such the diacritics are more accurate than removing them incorrectly would be. -DJSasso (talk) 19:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• Removing diacritics doesn't make a name english, it makes it misspelt. PBS, which bit of "more accurate name" is causing you problems? It's three unambiguous words.
• (I do wish we didn't have to copy and paste the same comments on multiple pages). bobrayner (talk) 23:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• "Simply removing diacritics is a mistake and not how you properly translate a name to English". Who says it is a translation into English. This is about what name us used in Reliable English language sources. Making statements about "mistake" implies an editorial POV not a decision based on usage in reliable English language sources. A more constructive approach would be to preform a survey on reliable English language sources, and present that information here for further analysis. "Removing diacritics doesn't make a name english" who say it does? Who says it makes it "misspelt" in English? If reliable English language sources remove accent marks, then is that not the name used in reliable English language sources? If English language sources leave the accent marks in place that is that not the name used in English reliable sources? The content of Wikipedia articles and article titles should follow policy and be based on usage in verifiable reliable sources, not on editorial POVs. It seems to me that "accurate" as used here is an editorial POV and not an observation based on usage in reliable English language sources. If not, then what is the reliable source being used to determine that "Ondřej Šedivý" is more accurate than "Ondrej Sedivy"? -- PBS (talk) 17:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support (see Talk:Ondřej Látal) In ictu oculi (talk) 00:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

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.