Talk:Étienne Arnal

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived 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 moved by Kleinzach. --BDD (talk) 17:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

– per WP:BLP, WP:IRS, WP:PRECISION, WP:EN, WP:UE, WP:MOSPN, WP:FRMOS. French theatrical actor, French endocrinologist, French painter, WWI pilot, Spanish painter, Venezuelan boxer, Spanish canoer, Spanish hockey player, Mexican cinematographer, Spanish cartoon-book artist, Argentine guitar maker, Mexican-era Texas land commissioner, French war game maker, Serbian sugar businessman. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:51, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ha Joy, so that's Support for the Serbian and don't care about the rest? Well you aren't the first to say the time is right to just use TechReqs, but it takes just as long to put in 14 tech requests as 1 multiRM, and there's no urgency here. Cheers to you. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What tech requests? When the target is a red link, just use the Move function. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: My initial reaction was horror, as in high school French class I was taught never to put accents on capital letters (and would have lost marks if I had). But I see that fr:Étienne Arnal does exactly that, so perhaps French is changing. But there still seems no attempt above to relate the change to WP:AT. How do English speakers spell these names? Proposer (a long time proponent of using diacritics wherever possible) name-drops seven more detailed policies and guidelines but gives no clue as to why any is relevant, and WP:PRECISION for example seems at first sight not relevant at all. So tempted to relist, this is controversial IMO. The arguments above seem to ignore and even contradict what is still official policy, but that may be changing too. Encyclopedic correctness may soon be policy. But it's not yet AFAIK. Andrewa (talk) 06:05, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Andrewa, can you remember what textbook you used for high school French? If you can remember the author or title we can check your memory on this.
Certainly, in the period to which I referred we used A New French Course Parts 1-3 (but not 4) by Ronald Horan and others, and then in later years various grammars. But I doubt there's much value in your finding a copy of a 1960s Australian schoolbook even if you can, see below. I note it's still in print but will undoubtedly have been revised, so a later edition would tell you nothing about my memory!
As for the other comment, I recognise your User name as the user who made vocal opposition to a Serbian citizen being allowed a Serbian spelling in a RM several months ago, but that's by the by. If you want to propose a rule that living persons names should be spelled not accurately but depending on the vagaries and typographic limitations of English sources (which is basically a rule to spell respectable professions accurately and sportpeople inaccurately) then by all means propose it and push it. In the meantime en.wp has approaching 500,000 bio articles. Apart from a few odd leftovers they are all spelled accurately. And in the case of French we do have WP:FRMOS which says to follow accurate accentation on capitals, États-Unis not Etats-Unis. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:07, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for repeating that last link, it is what we should all have been looking at all along. I missed it in your earlier post, distracted I suppose by the first six.
I note particularly Wikipedia:Manual of Style/France and French-related#Accents & ligatures which says in part Common French usage is to omit accents in capitals, however this is not the proper usage and accents should be included in capitals. This is obviously relevant (and seems entirely consistent with what I said above, so you probably don't need to check (my) memory of Horan & Wheeler, whom I didn't quote as my source anyway, it was rather the teachers' verbal advice of what the examiners including themselves would require and give marks for... and I did get reasonable marks, which is one reason I studied the language for six years of High School and then one of University).
I note also that it seems to be the opposite to what the original version of the page said... The most general rule of the Wikipedia is that editors should use the most common form of the name or expression used in English. There are however many cases in which this rule is difficult to put into practice. [1] That's six years ago now, and now the guideline prefers a proper form rather than common usage, even in a case like this where there seems no problem with using the common form.
Wikipedia is continually changing, and there's nothing wrong with that. I just want us to be intentional about important changes such as this one. There is a pattern, and part of it is the increasing use of diacritics and other orthographic features from other languages.
As to your recognising my User name, I'd hope so, we've both been involved in many similar discussions, in which you have most often advocated the use of diacritics as here, and I have more often than not opposed this. But I'm afraid I think you're misrepresenting that particular discussion. vocal opposition to a Serbian citizen being allowed a Serbian spelling indeed. That was not the point at all.
No vote on this one as yet, but I stand by my earlier statement that the original rationale for these moves is inadequate. Andrewa (talk) 11:53, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew,
What's your own view? What would you personally like? In ictu oculi (talk) 14:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My personal view is not all that relevant, but as you ask, I'd like Wikipedia's policy clarified one way or the other so that moves such as this would become uncontroversial, and we'd all have more time to improve articles instead. Part of this is that the use or otherwise of these diacritics in article titles should not be seen as a view that their use or otherwise is more correct or reflects accuracy. Article titles are handles; Their primary purpose is navigation, not information.
And I think that is happening, albeit slowly, and that the French MOS section is a step in the right direction. But I'm not as sure of that as I'd like. As of yet I don't think that it's generally recognised just how sweeping a change to Wikipedia's whole philosophy is involved in the seemingly minor matter of adoption of non-English diacritics in cases such as this. It may involve for example the appeal to reliable sources not just for information content, which has always been a fundamental policy, but also for English usage. And this is not necessarily a bad thing, as we have in a sense allowed WP:OR when deciding article names, which isn't all that consistent, and we still do. Lots more could be said.
What would you personally like, and why? You seem to have a strong personal view that Serbian spellings should be used for Serbian citizens. That is obviously impacted by the wider policy and practice on diacritics. Andrewa (talk) 23:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No I mean, what would you, Andrew, personally like per se. Forget about the 4 or 5 editors who edit MOS guidelines for a moment. Do you personally like to see Charlotte Brontë or Charlotte Bronte? Do you personally like to see Lech Wałęsa or Lech Walesa?
Yes, my personal preference is that I would like living and preferably also modern peoples names spelled accurately without distinction of whether they are Australian, like Renée Geyer, or foreigners. This is my personal preference. I like that en.wp consistently does this already. What would you like? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Renée Geyer is a very interesting case to cite, as she uses both spellings, and both are common in English. There are more than 50 links through Renee Geyer as I write.[2] So, what is accurately without distinction? Andrewa (talk) 02:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Andrew, "accurately without distinction" means without national distinction. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Assuming accents are correct. Normally corrections like these can be done on a individual basis without a special discussion. --Kleinzach 01:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Kleinzach 01:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At 4:0 after 10 days move to formal close. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Jacques Gérard is already indexed under Jacques Gérard.Georgejdorner (talk) 14:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Étienne_Arnal&oldid=1205351999"