This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The result of the proposal was
The result of the move request was: Move to Marek Zidlicky, without prejudice on broader issues of policy regarding diacritics.
I'm going to spend a bit of time and bandwidth explaining this, so my thinking is as transparent as possible.
I assess the following consensus on the basis of policy and guideline-related arguments put forward below:
No strong argument in refutation of that 5th argument has been made and that is the one that draws on COMMONNAME policy.
Opponents of the move have argued passionately and I have felt some resonance with their comments, but WikiProject guidelines and userspace essays cannot trump policy. Furthermore, tempting as it is to defer to precedent, Wikipedia doesn't work on precedent, so I have not viewed any previous diacritic-related page moves referred to by Darwinek. If it is the case that there are a good number of English language RS that use the diacritics, I have missed it and I'd invite the opposers to question this decision.
I have no doubt that I will be pilloried for this decision but it seems to me that while a straight vote count would show this to be a fairly balanced discussion, the policy-related arguments are for the rename. As such, the weight of supporting opinions is far stronger than those opposing and thus that's the way I close this discussion. Dweller ( talk) 14:15, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
![]() | It was proposed in this section that
Marek Židlický be
renamed and moved to
Marek Zidlicky.
The discussion has been closed, and the result will be found in the closer's comment. Links:
current log •
target log |
Marek Židlický → Marek Zidlicky –
Marek Zidlicky | Marek Židlický | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
English Press | Foreign Press | English Press | Foreign Press | |
Google News - 35 Hits | 24 | 5 | 0 | 6 |
Only slightly more foreign language press even uses the diacritics; all English RS use straight English spelling. If someone wants the move to North America, part of the deal is you end up with an English name! If I move to Germany, my user name becomes "Wer sind Sie?"; in France, "Qui êtes-vous?"; you want to move to another country, you take on their standards, you don't expect them to change to suit you! Slightly different story when English press reports on French named people in France, or German named people in Germany; but if they live in an English country, they get English names — period. That's basically what North American press policy is and WP follows the sources, as a matter of policy. And to others that want to make up inaccurate information in userspace (which Wiki-ediquette requires other users not to correct), then don't link it to the WP space as if it's anything more than your inaccurate, biased, POV. If you want to cite some sources to use diacritics, how about citing some non-British sources, from the parts of the world where most of the people that speak
English live? Oh, right, the rest of the English speaking world that isn't surrounded by foreigners and part of a political union with them doesn't have any such sources because everywhere else uses actual English. |
Your argument still amounts to “Židlický = quality and the future” and “Zidlicky = bad & poopy and unenlightened.” That is insufficient to rise to the level of overturning the principle of “follow the English-language RSs.” You guys can’t have it both ways. If this is article was governed by the rules that globally apply across the Wikipedia project, we would follow the RSs. If this article was instead governed by some sort of “Hockey-based” local phenomenon (an island unto itself), it would still be in flagrant violation of follow the RSs given that the NHL and other hockey-related websites—and Marek himself on his Facebook page— use the English alphabet when writing his name.
This all explains why it has to be moved; because Wikipedia always goes with the RSs and it is beyond the purview of mere wikipedians to do otherwise and promote the expansion of the English alphabet into territory the RSs don’t tread.
Oh… and if facts actually matter at all (since you allege that Encyclopedia Britannica is now in the business of expanding the English alphabet into foreign territories): the Vietnamese Wikipedia article on their infamous spy spells his name as Vũ Ngọc Nhạ. Encyclopedia Britannica (you know… the dudes who write using English?) spells it using that unenlightened, boring English alphabet and write Vu Ngoc Nha. So please spare us from nonsense that if the EB actually thought Marek was notable and created an article on him, they’d suddenly start changing the English alphabet for him.
The simple reality of the RSs and the English language and its alphabet is that only certain diacritics like the acute (´) have been adopted for use in English. I came down on the side of changing Crepe to Crêpe (does that surprise you?) because the finest RSs spelled it that way and the circumflex (ˆ) is generally accepted as being part of the English language for certain words of foreign origin. So too, certain Czech spellings that use certain diacritics are acceptable, such as Václav Klaus. And, not surprisingly, EB's article on Václav Klaus spells it that way. You may not be pleased that the English language is not more *inclusive*, but the simple reality is only some diacritics are generally accepted for use with English.
It is not your or my job to go through the whole list of diacritics and try to decide whether more of them should be adopted into the English language so we can be more inclusive and less xenophobic (or “huggy” or hold hands on a mountaintop and sing about the world of Coca-Cola and how we’d like to teach the world to sing). Again, mere wikipedians don’t debate what is good for humanity in hopes of serving as some sort of paradigm that others might follow. It’s the other way around; we follow them. Greg L ( talk) 20:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Page | Dates | Synopsis | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Wikipedia talk:Usage of diacritics | Late June / Early Jul'08 |
"This is a failed proposal. Consensus in its favor was not established within a reasonable period of time. If you want to revive…" | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wikipedia talk:Use diacritics | Early Jun'08 | "See also the current guideline Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) and the prosed guideline Wikipedia:Naming conventions (standard letters with diacritics) which was {{rejected}} on 21 April 2007" | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (standard letters with diacritics) | 2 archives (in 3 parts) Feb-Jun'06, Mar-Dec'06, & 2007 | Summary: "See also the current guideline Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) and the proposed guideline Wikipedia talk:Use diacritics which was {{rejected}} on 18 June 2008" | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English)/Diacritics RfC | Jul − Aug'11 | "Please Note... this RFC has been closed with a "no consensus" decision. This means that any further discussions on changing the language of the guideline should now take place at the guideline talk page itself, and not here. Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 16:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)" | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English)/diacritics | Nov 2004 | Didn't see any obvious summary Some 42,000 characters in ~46 comments. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English) |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Player pages format | Jan−Jun'06 | Some 91,000 characters with ~124 postings in 8 successive sections (plus 4 or 5 or more sections, on the same page, about diacritics) — Never even came to any sort of vote although a proposal was made. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Finnish) Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Finnish) |
Aug/Sep'06 Jan'07 |
This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. 9 Sections/sub-sections, 48,000 characters in ~69 posts. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Swedish) Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Swedish) |
Feb−Jul'06 | This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. 7 (sub)Sections, 43,000 characters in ~70 posts including more than half cut & pasted from a Village Pump conversation. — The debate has continued here Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Finnish). Masterhatch 16:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Hawaii-related articles#Proposal to avoid okina's and kahako's | Oct'07 − Apr'08 | 37,000 chars, ~48 posts — Although full consensus could not be reached on this proposal, of those commenting there was a clear majority of 11 opposed to 4 in favor. Furthermore, many of those opposed felt very strongly that diacritics should be retained, and all of those in favor have not been actively involved in editing Hawaiʻi-related articles other than to remove diacritics. Therefore, the debate is considered resolved in favor of placing okina and kahakō where appropriate for Hawaiian-language words and place names in the text of articles (diacritics in article titles is a somewhat separate issue; see section below). The discussion is archived below. KarlM (talk) 18:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC) Note: The article's title remains State of Hawaii (Mokuʻāina o Hawaiʻi); along with Oahu (Oʻahu), Kahoolawe, Kauai (Kauaʻi), Lanai (Lānaʻi), Maui, Molokai (Molokaʻi), Niihau (Niʻihau), in accordance with article naming policies). | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles/More macrons discussion#Yet again on diacritics | Oct'06 | 87,000 characters, ~167 posts — This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. … | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
To user:Who R you: It was good that you posted the above list of relevant policies. They clearly indicate to me that the proper way to close this RfC is to ensure that a good admin does so. As you know, RfCs are not nose-counts but are decided by the strength, weight, and consistency of the arguments.
Even if the balance of nose-count here was 2:1 in favor of expanding the English language with Cyrillic characters out of well-meaning motives of being inclusive, non-xenophobic, and leading the way to a New And Brighter Future Without Cultural Barriers Dividing Us From Love [yadda yadda], it seems clear that if this article was to adhere to the rules that apply elsewhere on Wikipedia, the guy’s name simply must be spelled like the rest of the English-language press spells it—not as Mark spells his name in the Czech Republic. It is not the proper role of mere wikipedians to debate such fundamental issues as what characters rightfully should be part of the English alphabet; that is beyond the purview of wikipedians.
A paradigm for how issues like this are settled can be found at Talk:Crepe, Move?. There, the issue was simply resolved by looking at best English-language practices as practiced by RSs.
Were I you, I would do my homework, approach a respected Wikipedia bureaucrat, and have said ‘crat assign a closing admin to this, who should be entrusted with carefully parsing the above arguments to see which side of the debate is best grounded in Wikipedia’s policies. I am actually shocked at how much an aberration this discussion is considering that it is a hockey-related article and the Hockey Hall of Fame and the NHL both spell his name using the English alphabet. The article’s current name is so wrong at so many levels.
And, for whatever it’s worth, I’ll bet you dollars to doughnuts that even Marek doesn’t write “Židlický” in hotel guest books while checking into hotels and motels in English-speaking countries. Why the hunch? Well, HERE is a Facebook page parroting Wikipedia’s article on him and it uses Wikipedia’s current title (“Marek Židlický”). However, HERE is his personal Facebook page (“Marek Zidlicky”). I would have thought Marek himself would be an RS in this regard. Greg L ( talk) 16:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello. I received a message on my talk page asking me (a possibly respected crat, lol) to come along and close the discussion, but reading this section it seems you may actually want a crat to help you find an admin to make the close. Happy either way. Lmk. NB I'll be onwiki (on and off) for another 4 hours or so, and then offwiki until Monday morning UK time at the earliest, possibly Tuesday. -- Dweller ( talk) 10:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm utterly flummoxed by the formatting the templates have created. Anyone bright enough to fix it for me will earn my gratitude. Apologies for the ham-fistedness. If you'd like some help fixing double redirects etc, I'll be back in a few days. -- Dweller ( talk) 14:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
</div><!-- Template:pollbottom -->
needed to be moved to below my autosignature, is all.
Greg L (
talk)
17:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC)|}
at the end of it. (Phew). I think our div-templates could use a little bit more error handling capability.
Greg L (
talk)
01:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)Prolog, I note your complaint ( ∆ edit, here ) on User talk:Dweller’s talk page; specifically your first sentence: This was, while done in good faith, an inappropriate way to close a hotly debated RM on an issue where the community has not formed a consensus.
(*sigh*) As an experienced admin, I’m surprised you would resort to such a familiar refrain: “There was no CONSENSUUUUS.” I lead the charge to turn around Wikipedia’s three-year-long practice of using language from the planet Vulcan in our computer articles (The Dell Dimension offered 256 MiB of RAM). Note that this wasn’t easy; WT:MOSNUM’s archives has 18 separate “Binary Prefix” archives on this one subject! And I was also part of the group that overturned Wikipedia’s practice of linking dates to articles that amounted to a Ripley’s Believe It Or Not list of trivia totally unrelated to the subject of the article.
Why did I write that above paragraph?
Because in both cases, the losing side complained that there was no consensus—just like you did on Dweller’s talk page. In all three cases (those two and this one), there was too a consensus; just not one to the losing side’s liking. Moreover, the debate over “mebibyte (MiB)” also entailed advocates who cited how it was future-talk that was more—as Sarah Palin might say—“all scientificy” and furture‑ific and Wikipedia should Lead By Example®™© and not succumb to what the rest of the planet does with their old-fashioned “megabytes.” It was another argument based on “what mere wikipedians think are the very-best, little-finger-out practices for the future” vs. “what do all the RSs do.” Now…
You seem to be a sufficiently experienced admin to recognize when one’s personal biases blind them to reality and you should have thought one additional day before lambasting a respected, totally uninvolved bureaucrat for closing this. Apparently the shortcoming you saw with Dweller closing the above RfC was that he had been solicited by a partisan, User:Who R you, whom you must feel wears one of those “evil Mr. Spock beards” and all that bad ‘cess somehow rubbed off on poor Dweller.
Dweller took the perfect approach when closing. He wrote …without prejudice on broader issues of policy regarding diacritics and foresaw the inevitable cornhole-fest that would descend upon him when he added …I have no doubt that I will be pilloried for this decision but it seems to me that while a straight vote count would show this to be a fairly balanced discussion, the policy-related arguments are for the rename. Did you note that business Dweller added about “vote count”??? It is a subject I touched upon above when I wrote as follows:
“ | Even if the balance of nose-count here was 2:1 in favor of expanding the English language with Cyrillic characters out of well-meaning motives of being inclusive, non-xenophobic, and leading the way to a New And Brighter Future Without Cultural Barriers Dividing Us From Love [yadda yadda], it seems clear that if this article was to adhere to the rules that apply elsewhere on Wikipedia, the guy’s name simply must be spelled like the rest of the English-language press spells it—not as Mark spells his name in the Czech Republic. It is not the proper role of mere wikipedians to debate such fundamental issues as what characters rightfully should be part of the English alphabet; that is beyond the purview of wikipedians. | ” |
And as I also wrote above:
“ | A majority vote! to break all rules is no consensus; it is just a local cabal that desires to break rules. | ” |
Each article is different. As you pointed out, Encyclopedia Britannica uses Czech diacritics when spelling the name of notable political figures in the Czech Republic. But as I pointed out, adopting diacritics into the English language is a complex business and even the EB doesn’t use Vietnamese diacritics. And as many people pointed out here, Marek Zidlicky’s name, being that he plays on the NHL, has had his name effectively Anglicized because the RSs—including the NHL themselves—spell it without diacritics. I’ve carefully deconstructed many of your arguments (such as how deadline-intensive publications don’t have time to properly use diacritics by pointing out that the NHL has no deadlines to speak of) but you seem utterly undeterred and apparently thought it exceedingly wise to pillory Dweller on his talk page, which only proved his premonition to be prescient, and—in my book—that being biased beyond all comprehension can make otherwise smart people make really *poor choices*.
I suggest you not harangue Dweller any more and give it up. Just accept that what was appropriate application of our policies for this particular article doesn’t broadly apply for every Czech on whom we have an article; each article has its own circumstances. Greg L ( talk) 02:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
“ | Regarding your closure, you cite COMMONNAME, like the supporters, but the move is not supported by this policy but by your interpretation of it; the stretching of this principle to always cover the most common spelling (includes diacritics, capitalization, hyphens/dashes...) of the common name is not supported by consensus and was in the slight minority in the recent RFC. You also did not respond to the 5P concerns (Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and incorporates elements of other reference works), the NOTBURO argument ( actual practice on Czech people) or to the BLP point of getting the article right (well-sourced unencyclopedic material is rejected from BLPs all the time). | ” |
“ | The heart of this RfC is a proposal to change the wording of the guideline at WP:DIACRITICS. There is no consensus to go forward with that change. There is general agreement that diacritics should be used for the name of a subject if the majority of English-language reliable sources use them, and there is agreement that if the commonly used name for the subject is an Anglicized version that everyone will recognize, it should be used. But these are items that already had consensus before the RfC started. On everything particular to the RfC, even the question of what the exact impact of the proposed wording would be, opinion appears to be split down the middle. --RL0919 (talk) 23:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC) | ” |
“ | when deciding between versions of a word which differ in the use or non-use of modified letters, follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language (including other encyclopedias and reference works). The policy on using common names and on foreign names does not prohibit the use of modified letters, if they are used in the common name as verified by reliable sources. | ” |
“ | …they are usually closed by the regulars who know this dispute inside out. So, why did you not leave the discussion to be closed by someone experienced in that area of the project… | ” |
Since canvassing was used in the vote above, and the canvasser also personally approached a person of their choice to close the RM - resulting in a fairly controversial decision - should the move be reconsidered? I wouldn't want anybody to get the impression that a small but noisy minority is colluding to game the system. bobrayner ( talk) 16:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was moved. -- BDD ( talk) 19:59, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Marek Zidlicky → Marek Židlický – Two reasons: 1) the vast majority of Czech ice hockey players are at their diacriticized name variants, 2) it appears on the talkpage that the close of the previous move was not met with much enthusiasm. The discussion itself is why I post this RM instead of just boldly moving the page. I don't see why this particular player should be an exception. HandsomeFella ( talk) 20:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The result of the proposal was
The result of the move request was: Move to Marek Zidlicky, without prejudice on broader issues of policy regarding diacritics.
I'm going to spend a bit of time and bandwidth explaining this, so my thinking is as transparent as possible.
I assess the following consensus on the basis of policy and guideline-related arguments put forward below:
No strong argument in refutation of that 5th argument has been made and that is the one that draws on COMMONNAME policy.
Opponents of the move have argued passionately and I have felt some resonance with their comments, but WikiProject guidelines and userspace essays cannot trump policy. Furthermore, tempting as it is to defer to precedent, Wikipedia doesn't work on precedent, so I have not viewed any previous diacritic-related page moves referred to by Darwinek. If it is the case that there are a good number of English language RS that use the diacritics, I have missed it and I'd invite the opposers to question this decision.
I have no doubt that I will be pilloried for this decision but it seems to me that while a straight vote count would show this to be a fairly balanced discussion, the policy-related arguments are for the rename. As such, the weight of supporting opinions is far stronger than those opposing and thus that's the way I close this discussion. Dweller ( talk) 14:15, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
![]() | It was proposed in this section that
Marek Židlický be
renamed and moved to
Marek Zidlicky.
The discussion has been closed, and the result will be found in the closer's comment. Links:
current log •
target log |
Marek Židlický → Marek Zidlicky –
Marek Zidlicky | Marek Židlický | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
English Press | Foreign Press | English Press | Foreign Press | |
Google News - 35 Hits | 24 | 5 | 0 | 6 |
Only slightly more foreign language press even uses the diacritics; all English RS use straight English spelling. If someone wants the move to North America, part of the deal is you end up with an English name! If I move to Germany, my user name becomes "Wer sind Sie?"; in France, "Qui êtes-vous?"; you want to move to another country, you take on their standards, you don't expect them to change to suit you! Slightly different story when English press reports on French named people in France, or German named people in Germany; but if they live in an English country, they get English names — period. That's basically what North American press policy is and WP follows the sources, as a matter of policy. And to others that want to make up inaccurate information in userspace (which Wiki-ediquette requires other users not to correct), then don't link it to the WP space as if it's anything more than your inaccurate, biased, POV. If you want to cite some sources to use diacritics, how about citing some non-British sources, from the parts of the world where most of the people that speak
English live? Oh, right, the rest of the English speaking world that isn't surrounded by foreigners and part of a political union with them doesn't have any such sources because everywhere else uses actual English. |
Your argument still amounts to “Židlický = quality and the future” and “Zidlicky = bad & poopy and unenlightened.” That is insufficient to rise to the level of overturning the principle of “follow the English-language RSs.” You guys can’t have it both ways. If this is article was governed by the rules that globally apply across the Wikipedia project, we would follow the RSs. If this article was instead governed by some sort of “Hockey-based” local phenomenon (an island unto itself), it would still be in flagrant violation of follow the RSs given that the NHL and other hockey-related websites—and Marek himself on his Facebook page— use the English alphabet when writing his name.
This all explains why it has to be moved; because Wikipedia always goes with the RSs and it is beyond the purview of mere wikipedians to do otherwise and promote the expansion of the English alphabet into territory the RSs don’t tread.
Oh… and if facts actually matter at all (since you allege that Encyclopedia Britannica is now in the business of expanding the English alphabet into foreign territories): the Vietnamese Wikipedia article on their infamous spy spells his name as Vũ Ngọc Nhạ. Encyclopedia Britannica (you know… the dudes who write using English?) spells it using that unenlightened, boring English alphabet and write Vu Ngoc Nha. So please spare us from nonsense that if the EB actually thought Marek was notable and created an article on him, they’d suddenly start changing the English alphabet for him.
The simple reality of the RSs and the English language and its alphabet is that only certain diacritics like the acute (´) have been adopted for use in English. I came down on the side of changing Crepe to Crêpe (does that surprise you?) because the finest RSs spelled it that way and the circumflex (ˆ) is generally accepted as being part of the English language for certain words of foreign origin. So too, certain Czech spellings that use certain diacritics are acceptable, such as Václav Klaus. And, not surprisingly, EB's article on Václav Klaus spells it that way. You may not be pleased that the English language is not more *inclusive*, but the simple reality is only some diacritics are generally accepted for use with English.
It is not your or my job to go through the whole list of diacritics and try to decide whether more of them should be adopted into the English language so we can be more inclusive and less xenophobic (or “huggy” or hold hands on a mountaintop and sing about the world of Coca-Cola and how we’d like to teach the world to sing). Again, mere wikipedians don’t debate what is good for humanity in hopes of serving as some sort of paradigm that others might follow. It’s the other way around; we follow them. Greg L ( talk) 20:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Page | Dates | Synopsis | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Wikipedia talk:Usage of diacritics | Late June / Early Jul'08 |
"This is a failed proposal. Consensus in its favor was not established within a reasonable period of time. If you want to revive…" | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wikipedia talk:Use diacritics | Early Jun'08 | "See also the current guideline Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) and the prosed guideline Wikipedia:Naming conventions (standard letters with diacritics) which was {{rejected}} on 21 April 2007" | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (standard letters with diacritics) | 2 archives (in 3 parts) Feb-Jun'06, Mar-Dec'06, & 2007 | Summary: "See also the current guideline Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) and the proposed guideline Wikipedia talk:Use diacritics which was {{rejected}} on 18 June 2008" | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English)/Diacritics RfC | Jul − Aug'11 | "Please Note... this RFC has been closed with a "no consensus" decision. This means that any further discussions on changing the language of the guideline should now take place at the guideline talk page itself, and not here. Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 16:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)" | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English)/diacritics | Nov 2004 | Didn't see any obvious summary Some 42,000 characters in ~46 comments. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English) |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Player pages format | Jan−Jun'06 | Some 91,000 characters with ~124 postings in 8 successive sections (plus 4 or 5 or more sections, on the same page, about diacritics) — Never even came to any sort of vote although a proposal was made. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Finnish) Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Finnish) |
Aug/Sep'06 Jan'07 |
This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. 9 Sections/sub-sections, 48,000 characters in ~69 posts. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Swedish) Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Swedish) |
Feb−Jul'06 | This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. 7 (sub)Sections, 43,000 characters in ~70 posts including more than half cut & pasted from a Village Pump conversation. — The debate has continued here Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Finnish). Masterhatch 16:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Hawaii-related articles#Proposal to avoid okina's and kahako's | Oct'07 − Apr'08 | 37,000 chars, ~48 posts — Although full consensus could not be reached on this proposal, of those commenting there was a clear majority of 11 opposed to 4 in favor. Furthermore, many of those opposed felt very strongly that diacritics should be retained, and all of those in favor have not been actively involved in editing Hawaiʻi-related articles other than to remove diacritics. Therefore, the debate is considered resolved in favor of placing okina and kahakō where appropriate for Hawaiian-language words and place names in the text of articles (diacritics in article titles is a somewhat separate issue; see section below). The discussion is archived below. KarlM (talk) 18:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC) Note: The article's title remains State of Hawaii (Mokuʻāina o Hawaiʻi); along with Oahu (Oʻahu), Kahoolawe, Kauai (Kauaʻi), Lanai (Lānaʻi), Maui, Molokai (Molokaʻi), Niihau (Niʻihau), in accordance with article naming policies). | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles/More macrons discussion#Yet again on diacritics | Oct'06 | 87,000 characters, ~167 posts — This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. … | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
To user:Who R you: It was good that you posted the above list of relevant policies. They clearly indicate to me that the proper way to close this RfC is to ensure that a good admin does so. As you know, RfCs are not nose-counts but are decided by the strength, weight, and consistency of the arguments.
Even if the balance of nose-count here was 2:1 in favor of expanding the English language with Cyrillic characters out of well-meaning motives of being inclusive, non-xenophobic, and leading the way to a New And Brighter Future Without Cultural Barriers Dividing Us From Love [yadda yadda], it seems clear that if this article was to adhere to the rules that apply elsewhere on Wikipedia, the guy’s name simply must be spelled like the rest of the English-language press spells it—not as Mark spells his name in the Czech Republic. It is not the proper role of mere wikipedians to debate such fundamental issues as what characters rightfully should be part of the English alphabet; that is beyond the purview of wikipedians.
A paradigm for how issues like this are settled can be found at Talk:Crepe, Move?. There, the issue was simply resolved by looking at best English-language practices as practiced by RSs.
Were I you, I would do my homework, approach a respected Wikipedia bureaucrat, and have said ‘crat assign a closing admin to this, who should be entrusted with carefully parsing the above arguments to see which side of the debate is best grounded in Wikipedia’s policies. I am actually shocked at how much an aberration this discussion is considering that it is a hockey-related article and the Hockey Hall of Fame and the NHL both spell his name using the English alphabet. The article’s current name is so wrong at so many levels.
And, for whatever it’s worth, I’ll bet you dollars to doughnuts that even Marek doesn’t write “Židlický” in hotel guest books while checking into hotels and motels in English-speaking countries. Why the hunch? Well, HERE is a Facebook page parroting Wikipedia’s article on him and it uses Wikipedia’s current title (“Marek Židlický”). However, HERE is his personal Facebook page (“Marek Zidlicky”). I would have thought Marek himself would be an RS in this regard. Greg L ( talk) 16:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello. I received a message on my talk page asking me (a possibly respected crat, lol) to come along and close the discussion, but reading this section it seems you may actually want a crat to help you find an admin to make the close. Happy either way. Lmk. NB I'll be onwiki (on and off) for another 4 hours or so, and then offwiki until Monday morning UK time at the earliest, possibly Tuesday. -- Dweller ( talk) 10:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm utterly flummoxed by the formatting the templates have created. Anyone bright enough to fix it for me will earn my gratitude. Apologies for the ham-fistedness. If you'd like some help fixing double redirects etc, I'll be back in a few days. -- Dweller ( talk) 14:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
</div><!-- Template:pollbottom -->
needed to be moved to below my autosignature, is all.
Greg L (
talk)
17:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC)|}
at the end of it. (Phew). I think our div-templates could use a little bit more error handling capability.
Greg L (
talk)
01:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)Prolog, I note your complaint ( ∆ edit, here ) on User talk:Dweller’s talk page; specifically your first sentence: This was, while done in good faith, an inappropriate way to close a hotly debated RM on an issue where the community has not formed a consensus.
(*sigh*) As an experienced admin, I’m surprised you would resort to such a familiar refrain: “There was no CONSENSUUUUS.” I lead the charge to turn around Wikipedia’s three-year-long practice of using language from the planet Vulcan in our computer articles (The Dell Dimension offered 256 MiB of RAM). Note that this wasn’t easy; WT:MOSNUM’s archives has 18 separate “Binary Prefix” archives on this one subject! And I was also part of the group that overturned Wikipedia’s practice of linking dates to articles that amounted to a Ripley’s Believe It Or Not list of trivia totally unrelated to the subject of the article.
Why did I write that above paragraph?
Because in both cases, the losing side complained that there was no consensus—just like you did on Dweller’s talk page. In all three cases (those two and this one), there was too a consensus; just not one to the losing side’s liking. Moreover, the debate over “mebibyte (MiB)” also entailed advocates who cited how it was future-talk that was more—as Sarah Palin might say—“all scientificy” and furture‑ific and Wikipedia should Lead By Example®™© and not succumb to what the rest of the planet does with their old-fashioned “megabytes.” It was another argument based on “what mere wikipedians think are the very-best, little-finger-out practices for the future” vs. “what do all the RSs do.” Now…
You seem to be a sufficiently experienced admin to recognize when one’s personal biases blind them to reality and you should have thought one additional day before lambasting a respected, totally uninvolved bureaucrat for closing this. Apparently the shortcoming you saw with Dweller closing the above RfC was that he had been solicited by a partisan, User:Who R you, whom you must feel wears one of those “evil Mr. Spock beards” and all that bad ‘cess somehow rubbed off on poor Dweller.
Dweller took the perfect approach when closing. He wrote …without prejudice on broader issues of policy regarding diacritics and foresaw the inevitable cornhole-fest that would descend upon him when he added …I have no doubt that I will be pilloried for this decision but it seems to me that while a straight vote count would show this to be a fairly balanced discussion, the policy-related arguments are for the rename. Did you note that business Dweller added about “vote count”??? It is a subject I touched upon above when I wrote as follows:
“ | Even if the balance of nose-count here was 2:1 in favor of expanding the English language with Cyrillic characters out of well-meaning motives of being inclusive, non-xenophobic, and leading the way to a New And Brighter Future Without Cultural Barriers Dividing Us From Love [yadda yadda], it seems clear that if this article was to adhere to the rules that apply elsewhere on Wikipedia, the guy’s name simply must be spelled like the rest of the English-language press spells it—not as Mark spells his name in the Czech Republic. It is not the proper role of mere wikipedians to debate such fundamental issues as what characters rightfully should be part of the English alphabet; that is beyond the purview of wikipedians. | ” |
And as I also wrote above:
“ | A majority vote! to break all rules is no consensus; it is just a local cabal that desires to break rules. | ” |
Each article is different. As you pointed out, Encyclopedia Britannica uses Czech diacritics when spelling the name of notable political figures in the Czech Republic. But as I pointed out, adopting diacritics into the English language is a complex business and even the EB doesn’t use Vietnamese diacritics. And as many people pointed out here, Marek Zidlicky’s name, being that he plays on the NHL, has had his name effectively Anglicized because the RSs—including the NHL themselves—spell it without diacritics. I’ve carefully deconstructed many of your arguments (such as how deadline-intensive publications don’t have time to properly use diacritics by pointing out that the NHL has no deadlines to speak of) but you seem utterly undeterred and apparently thought it exceedingly wise to pillory Dweller on his talk page, which only proved his premonition to be prescient, and—in my book—that being biased beyond all comprehension can make otherwise smart people make really *poor choices*.
I suggest you not harangue Dweller any more and give it up. Just accept that what was appropriate application of our policies for this particular article doesn’t broadly apply for every Czech on whom we have an article; each article has its own circumstances. Greg L ( talk) 02:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
“ | Regarding your closure, you cite COMMONNAME, like the supporters, but the move is not supported by this policy but by your interpretation of it; the stretching of this principle to always cover the most common spelling (includes diacritics, capitalization, hyphens/dashes...) of the common name is not supported by consensus and was in the slight minority in the recent RFC. You also did not respond to the 5P concerns (Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and incorporates elements of other reference works), the NOTBURO argument ( actual practice on Czech people) or to the BLP point of getting the article right (well-sourced unencyclopedic material is rejected from BLPs all the time). | ” |
“ | The heart of this RfC is a proposal to change the wording of the guideline at WP:DIACRITICS. There is no consensus to go forward with that change. There is general agreement that diacritics should be used for the name of a subject if the majority of English-language reliable sources use them, and there is agreement that if the commonly used name for the subject is an Anglicized version that everyone will recognize, it should be used. But these are items that already had consensus before the RfC started. On everything particular to the RfC, even the question of what the exact impact of the proposed wording would be, opinion appears to be split down the middle. --RL0919 (talk) 23:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC) | ” |
“ | when deciding between versions of a word which differ in the use or non-use of modified letters, follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language (including other encyclopedias and reference works). The policy on using common names and on foreign names does not prohibit the use of modified letters, if they are used in the common name as verified by reliable sources. | ” |
“ | …they are usually closed by the regulars who know this dispute inside out. So, why did you not leave the discussion to be closed by someone experienced in that area of the project… | ” |
Since canvassing was used in the vote above, and the canvasser also personally approached a person of their choice to close the RM - resulting in a fairly controversial decision - should the move be reconsidered? I wouldn't want anybody to get the impression that a small but noisy minority is colluding to game the system. bobrayner ( talk) 16:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was moved. -- BDD ( talk) 19:59, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Marek Zidlicky → Marek Židlický – Two reasons: 1) the vast majority of Czech ice hockey players are at their diacriticized name variants, 2) it appears on the talkpage that the close of the previous move was not met with much enthusiasm. The discussion itself is why I post this RM instead of just boldly moving the page. I don't see why this particular player should be an exception. HandsomeFella ( talk) 20:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)