Talk:Peter Čerešňák

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: not moved. Favonian (talk) 16:23, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Peter Čerešňák → Peter Ceresnak

• Support – Undo controversial move to invoke Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Contrary to WP:AT and WP:EN, this article was moved to a non-English title that is not verified by any sources used in the article. Dolovis (talk) 15:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose: The current consensus regarding diacritics usage at WP:AT and WP:EN (ie: the interpretation of if the policy supports or opposes them) is no-consensus, so the default would then be to refer to the consensus at WP:HOCKEY, which indludes their usage. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 16:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per Nurmsook. The no-consensus at AT and EN pretty much sums up exactly why we have the compromise at wp:hockey. -DJSasso (talk) 17:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. User:Dolovis has been recently restricted thanks to WP:ANI and cannot move pages, so he tries to game the system even further by these meaningless particularized RMs. I have added the reference confirming the name use. - Darwinek (talk) 17:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support per the two sources in English. On the procedural claim: this is how such matters should be discussed; I am surprised that ANI did not restrict DJSasso and Darwinek, and regret it was not done. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:29, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

  I don't initiate page moves to or from diacritics so there was nothing to restrict me on. I only revert the moves of others who are going against what little consensus there is on the situation. Secondly it wasn't the page moves that were the main issue there. -DJSasso (talk) 19:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support as this is English Wikipedia. We should go by the english (i.e. non-diacritics) sources. GoodDay (talk) 19:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - It's early days yet on this player. I've not seen an English source with the Čerešňák spelling as currently used. However, it does appear that the player has achieved notability by playing professionally in Slovakia, not in North America. I would have to guess that either spelling is okay at this point and moving it again is probably premature. He has not yet moved to North America, but he is going to play with the Peterborough Petes this season, so he will likely be adopting the English spelling. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 04:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:HOCKEY compromise and non-existant guidelines on diacritics in personal names, whether in WP:AT or WP:UE. HandsomeFella (talk) 12:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - A quick Google search confirms that Peter Ceresnak is the commonly used name per WP:COMMONNAME:

  Peter Čerešňák = about 1,670 hits[1]

  Peter Ceresnak = about 23,600 hits[2] Dolovis (talk) 13:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

  You do realize WP:DIACRITICS warns against using google searches to try and prove your case when it comes to use of them right? Because its not at all accurate. -DJSasso (talk) 14:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

  I followed the method as laid out at WP:COMMONNAME. Dolovis (talk) 15:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

  No actually you didn't which is why diacritics specifically mentions not using google search numbers. Because google search numbers are not all reliable sources as commonname says you need to use and because of OCR errors google search results often list characters with them as not having them etc. -DJSasso (talk) 15:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

  No, actually I did. WP:DIACRITICS warns that “Search engines are problematic unless their verdict is overwhelming”, and in these cases the number of hits does demonstrate an overwhelming verdict. Dolovis (talk) 14:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

  I think it's not quantity that should be examined, but quality. You want to be conclusive, although I doubt it's possible yet. Do you have any sources from say the NY Times? And, are they significant articles about him? I get the impression that people are voting, not discussing here. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 15:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

  You are probably right that people are voting and not discussing. He has made 50+ requests for moves over the last couple months. He long since tired people out from discussing. -DJSasso (talk) 15:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose for several reasons: Accuracy (as the proposed title is arguably a grammatical error or misspelling), consistency (as per standard practice with personal names in this language), the recommendations of style guides, the practice in other English-language encyclopedias such as Britannica, harmlessness (as the diacriticless spelling is deducible from the proper name, but not vice versa), pronunciation guidance, informativeness (as our primary purpose as an encyclopedia is to educate the readers by providing accurate, complete and trustworthy information) and respect (as people usually want their name spelled right and knowingly misspelling a living person's name is both unencyclopedic and unethical). Prolog (talk) 20:52, 16 July 2011 (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.