Jump to content

Talk:Zoë Baird

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

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Cewbot (talk | contribs) at 03:21, 10 February 2024 (Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 3 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "Stub" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 2 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Biography}}, {{WikiProject Law}}. Keep 1 different rating in {{WikiProject New York City}}.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Untitled

[edit]

a very messy, list-like article. can we change it? yes we can ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.129.173.49 (talk) 19:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zoë Baird & Zoe Baird

[edit]

We've 2 sources in this article, which have the non-diacritics version of Baird's name. We should have the 'alternative spelling' of her name, put in the article's lead. It would be more informative for our readers. GoodDay (talk) 22:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

She is the president of the Markle Foundation. At the President's Message page of that website, written by her, her name is spelled Zoë. You are, in effect, telling her that she doesn't know how to spell her own name. Please revert your own edit. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 23:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the harm in showing readers that her name has been spelt without diacritics, which it has been. The lead is suppose to be as informative as possible. GoodDay (talk) 23:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You can easily find "sources" that spell the name of Condoleezza Rice with only one "z", just go to Google and use the "verbatim" option. Try it and see, you get millions of hits. Her IMDb page even states: "Alternate Names: Condoleeza Rice". Should we edit her page, just to be more "informative"? No, because inaccurate information is not informative, it's the opposite. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 00:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't the Condi Rice article, so let's concentrate on this one. I've made the 'alternative spelling' less prominant in the lead, due to the article's title. GoodDay (talk) 00:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you use correct names as an exampliar, there'd be many article titles changed across Wikipedia. Bob Gainey & Bobby Hull (for examples) would be moved to Robert Gainey & Robert Hull. GoodDay (talk) 00:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're being disingenuous, and you've been active on Wikipedia long enough to know better. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 02:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's best we let others weigh in on this article, as the 2 of us aren't likely to agree on the intro. GoodDay (talk) 02:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

. @P.T. - Putting alternative names in the lede does not amount to "telling her that she doesn't know how to spell her own name.". WP frankly doesn't care how she wants to spell her name, all we do care about is how her name is spelled (in our reliable English-language sources). If more than one rendering of her name is common in English-language sources, then we can mention them as "alternative names" in the lede. What we basically do is inform the readers by what name(s) the subject is typically referred to in English.

Yes, it is obvious that Zoë Baird may also be written Zoe Baird when the diacritic is dropped (as happens often and easily in English). What is not obvious is whether or not "Zoe Baird" is actually used for the person in question. Mentioning it in the lede tells the readers that "Zoe Baird" is also used for her (and maybe even by her), as is adequately confirmed by several cites for the article. We try to be accurate, but we also try to be complete. If there are alternative names for a subject, then what are the arguments against mentioning them? MakeSense64 (talk) 04:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is really, really one of the most important in the history of wikipedia (irony). Most readers, or even all, are capable of imagining how a name with diacritics looks without them – effortlessly, without even reflecting on it. Therefore, it's obviously not needed. In general, one could say that reliable sources that spell a name with diacritics prove that it's spelled that way, while reliable sources that spell the same name without the diacritics do not disprove that it is spelled with them. And nobody is "blocking", or "censoring", those sources (which GoodDay claims).
Accounting for those alternate spellings, whether mistakes or policy-based, is meaningful only if the difference amounts to a certain level. Similar to the misspelling of Condoleezza above, just losing the diacritic does not even come close to that. Just imagine the consequences: that silly, silly addition to every single article with a diacritic (there must be hundreds of thousands of them): Häagen-Dazs, or Haagen-Dazs, ... Motörhead, or Motorhead, ... André X, professionally known as Andre X, is a French tennis player ... yeah right. Just the thought of it makes me wanna puke. HandsomeFella (talk) 09:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Censorship for personal preferenances, is still censorship. The alternative spelling is doubly sourced. GoodDay (talk) 12:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're not responding – in spite of your edit summary – to what I wrote above. And please stop that childish "censorship" argument. How old are you really? HandsomeFella (talk) 13:19, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship has been established on this page, by atleast 2 pro-diacritics editors (who've been following me around). Until other editors get involved here, I'm restricted. GoodDay (talk) 13:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you fail to obtain a consensus for your changes, that's not censorship. It's you trying to "force" your "personal preferences" on wikipedia (with your own words). You're adding a new dimension to self-pity. HandsomeFella (talk) 13:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pure censorship. GoodDay (talk) 13:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Manchester United Football Club, also known as Manchester United F.C., Manchester United, Man U, Man United, Man UTD"... funny how I never see the anti-diacritics crowd campagining for lead sentences like this. It's only when it's a name with diacritics that you're interested in insulting the reader's intelligence by assuming they can't work out that "Zoë" and "Zoe" are likely to be the same person. If there were another lawyer called Zoe Baird who spelled her name without the diacritic, it would be confusing anyway. If she were notable, there would be a massive dab notice at the top of the article. As for "how reliable sources spell someone's name", sorry, but that's such a bogus argument. Fine for when we're working out which transliteration of Gaddafi to use, not when newspapers are reporting the death of "Obama Bin Laden" or clearly misspelling Schwarzenegger, Mississippi or Condoleezza. - filelakeshoe 13:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

F-cking brilliant! HandsomeFella (talk) 13:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, censorship by the pro-diacritics crowd. The 'alternative name' is double-sourced & yet it's being blocked from the article's lead. It wasn't even replacing the diacriticized name, nor was it as prominant, but that wasn't going to pass - was it? Again, censorship by pro-diacritics editors. GoodDay (talk) 13:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such thing as pro-diacritic editors. Nobody's trying to introduce diacritics where they aren't supposed to be. If there was a missing f somewhere, and somebody corrected it, would he be a pro-f editor? You're just failing to obtain a consensus, and again, this is not censorship. HandsomeFella (talk) 13:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pure censorship, you (plural) are denying readers 'sourced' information, simply because it has no diacritics. You (plural) are attempting to deny that her name was ever spelt without diacritics. GoodDay (talk) 13:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking for myself, I'm not trying to deny that, I just don't consider it necessary to note in the article. - filelakeshoe 14:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Everybody knows that media often don't care to use diacritics. That is why we're having this dispute. It doesn't necessarily mean that it's relevant. So nobody is "denying" that there are such sources – it's just not relevant information for the article. HandsomeFella (talk) 14:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You folks all need to get a life. Seriously! --160.39.17.21 (talk) 02:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only completely reliable source for a personal proper name is, surely, the person's birth certificate (or, occasionally, deed poll certificate). I recently found that my mother's birth name was spelt differently on her marriage certificate, so which of them is is correct? I don't think a so-called "reliable source", e.g., a newspaper of record, could possibly be regarded as an incontrovertible source for that particular proper name. If 100 otherwise reliable newspapers were to agree on the incorrect spelling, it would simply mean that 100 newspapers all got it wrong. And, incidentally, I know a few chaps called André and would regard it as both rude and ignorant to drop the accent from their name. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 06:49, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia doesn't name its articles on the basis of not offending somebody. GoodDay (talk) 22:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thankfully, nor does it accede to naming its articles insensitively and incorrectly, as shown, e.g., by many on persons named André, so please let it be. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 04:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Birth certificates are not filled in by the parents, they are typed in by the unit clerk and signed by the attending physician. The parents fill in a form by hand that is transcribed into the computer terminal that is connected to the printer that has the birth certificate forms at the hospital. That same information is passed on to the state to issue the state birth certificate. It is up to the parents to file a form to emend spelling errors. My grandfather was one of 15 children and there are six different spellings of the surname, most of them phonetic interpretations. I would say the best source is a signed document by that person, like their driver's license or passport. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:57, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Zoë Baird. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:09, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Zoë Baird. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:32, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zoë_Baird&oldid=1205635051"