- 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: no consensus to move. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
Tomáš Divíšek → Tomas Divisek –
- Support Per WP:COMMONNAME as all sources used in the article show the name spelled without diacritics. This is the English Wikipedia, and according to the policy of WP:EN, a biographical article does not use the subject's name as it might be spelled in Czech as its article title, nor does it use the person's legal name as it might appear on a birth certificate or passport; it instead uses the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. Simply put, the use of "Tomas Divisek" is verified by the sources used within the article, and "Tomáš Divíšek" is not. Dolovis (talk) 16:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
- Oppose As the above position by Dolovis has overwhelmingly been rejected at the centralized discussion on the topic. One wonders why he keeps making WP:POINT move requests when he can clearly see the communities position is against him. I would also note there is an english source on the page for his name with diacritics. -DJSasso (talk) 16:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
- Support as there's no diacritics in the english alphabet. GoodDay (talk) 16:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
- Support. Per WP:COMMONNAME, "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it instead uses the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources" (my bolding). A google news archive search shows 245 results for "Tomas Divisek", compared to 96 for "Tomáš Divíšek" (and the large majority of them are non-English anyway). Jenks24 (talk) 23:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
- Oppose. With all due respect, his name is Tomáš Divíšek and not Tomas Divisek. If the "vast majority" of the pages that refer to him as "Tomáš Divíšek" in foreign languages, that is not really an argument for why his name should be changed for English-speaking readers. A simple redirect from "Tomas Divisek" to "Tomáš Divíšek" (his actual name) when typed in the search bar in Wikipedia will take one to the correct page anyway. Also, to those stating that diacritics are never used in the English language - that is simply wrong, names such Reneé and Zoë come to mind. Nearly every article of persons of non-Anglo nationality with diacritics keep them on Wikipedia, and I assume they are not merely notable in Anglophone countries. ExRat (talk) 11:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
- It should be changed to the most common name in reliable English sources because this is the English encyclopedia. According to policy, we don't use the "official" or "correct" name, we use the most common one. Jenks24 (talk) 14:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
- Oppose: Dolovis is deliberately trying to circumvent the ways in which policy can be changed on Wikipedia by continually listing various move requests while a discussion is on-going. It would be best served to wait until that discussion reaches a consensus. Further, per ExRat, his name is Tomáš Divíšek, not Tomas Divisek. – Nurmsook! talk... 20:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
- Comment from an objective source: The New York Times Manual of Style states at page 6 that "accent marks are used for French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese and German words and names. [...] Do not use accents in words or names from other languages (Slavic and Scandinavian ones, for example).” This authoritative reference is direct on point, and clearly states that modified letters should not be used for Slavic names. Dolovis (talk) 03:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
- Just one papers style guide, you have since been shown that many others do the opposite such as The Guardian, National Geographic etc. The Chicago Manual of Style... -DJSasso (talk) 15:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
- Oppose. Editors may be interested in the policy vote at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(use_English)#Specific_proposals_to_change_the_wording_of_the_policy. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
- As you are well aware, the discussion you are referring to is still “going around in circles”, and it is abundantly clear no consensus to change policy will be reached, so the current policy of WP:EN and WP:COMMONNAME remain in effect. Dolovis (talk) 04:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
- The policies you refer to do not discount the use of diacritics. You should probably check your sources before throwing nonsense around. – Nurmsook! talk... 21:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
- Oppose per standard practice to use a person's real name in cases where no English version exists. Encyclopedias do not and can not copy the unencyclopedic practices of news sites and stats databases. Prolog (talk) 10:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
- Oppose, do we have to go through this multiple times on many different articles? One centralized discussion on the principle ought to suffice, if consensus is going to be reached to change the established practice.--Kotniski (talk) 10:58, 18 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
- Oppose, I must protest the use of obscure stub articles as battlegrounds in a guerilla war on diacritics. Other encyclopedias are valid usage models, per WP:DIACRITICS. I don't think any other encyclopedia has an article about this guy. But Britannica, Encarta, and Columbia all use diacritics for Czech names. This is the guy's formal name, the way he spells it in his own language, and isn't accuracy better than dumbing it down? Kauffner (talk) 14:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
Comment: Wikipedians should be informed that Wikipedia's founder, Jimbo Wales, has recently made persuasive arguments on his talk page in support of moving articles to use English in their titles.
Jimbo Wales states: "To answer a bunch of specific questions above in one go: yes, all of those renamings to use English rather than foreign languages should happen immediately. I don't care what Britannica and Encarta do; they are resources for the 20th century, which is behind us now. I think moderation is in order, but I think we are very far from moderation. Đặng Hữu Phúc is a brilliant example: this is an absolutely ridiculous thing to have in an English encyclopedia as a title. What appalls me about this most is the weirdness of assuming that if something sort of looks like an English letter, we should have it, while if it doesn't sort of look like an English letter, we shouldn't. Shall we move Japan to 日本? Of course not, no one disagrees. But we have somehow, wrongly in my view, gotten to the point that Đặng Hữu Phúc is remotely plausible, since it sort of kind of in some weird way looks a little bit like English."[1] --Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dolovis (talk • contribs) 15:03, 21 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
- Best case of Wikipedia:Argumentum ad Jimbonem I have ever seen. Even fails to sign the posts -DJSasso (talk) 17:27, 21 June 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.
