Talk:Zoë Baird

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)

Zoë Baird & Zoe Baird

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

. @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)

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)

Censorship for personal preferenances, is still censorship. The alternative spelling is doubly sourced. GoodDay (talk) 12:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Pure censorship. GoodDay (talk) 13:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

"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)

F-cking brilliant! HandsomeFella (talk) 13:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

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)