Jump to content

Talk:Andrej Tavželj

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Andrej Tavzelj)

Requested move

[edit]
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. Please note that the use of diacritics in general is under discussion at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)/Diacritics RfC. Jafeluv (talk) 09:54, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

– Rename to include diacritics and use correct names, to reflect the standard practice across most biographies and also WP:HOCKEY. The name is used by most non-English sources, therefore Wikipedia:DIACRITIC#No established usage should apply here. Similer request as here. As this is standard practice, I could move them without a request, but this would only result in a move/unmove war with User:Dolovis.--Sporti (talk) 14:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Nurmsook, you really need to take a second look at these articles' histories as, contrary to your assertion, they were all created with English titles.
I stand by my assertion. Per Wikipedia:DIACRITIC#No established usage, "follow the conventions of the language in which this entity is most often talked about". That certainly is not English. Your argument that they shouldn't be moved from the original title based on no established usage would require you to revert the 19 moves you conducted in the past 4 days in which the article originated at a diacritic title. But you aren't doing that, aren't you? – Nurmsook! talk... 23:07, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose move: Two of these have already failed a RM, and all moves fail the policy as spelled out at Wikipedia:Article titles that requires article titles is to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This applies to the title of the article – but within the text of the article, pursuant to WP:MOSBIO, the person's legal name should usually appear first in the article. As Nurmsook said, they shouldn't have been moved in the first place. Dolovis (talk) 22:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose piecemeal approach: Whilst I am generally supportive of the move in principle, now is not the time to move these articles. The global issue of under what circumstances diacritics are used in article titles needs to be resolved at the relevant MOS. This type of ping pong is disruptive. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Two failed RMs should not be bundled into a group nomination. Further, what's up with ignoring WP:Use English ? Is this not the English Wikipedia, or is this the European non-English Wikipedia? I think every time you invoke WP:IAR to rename something against English usage, it should be for each article separately. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 04:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Replacing letters with diacritics with similarly shaped letters without diacritics doesn't make a name English, just misspelled. --Sporti (talk) 05:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I googled "Andrej Tavzelj" hockey -Wikipedia and got almost 30,000 hits, every one on the first page without diacritics. If these people ever appear in The New York Times, it will be without diacritics, since their policy is to strip them off for Slavic languages. The name with diacritics should appear in boldface in the opening of the article, not in the title. The title should the form of the name that makes it easiest for the reader to find the article. Putting complex diacritics in article titles is "anti-reader" and "incredibly pretentious", as Jimbo puts it. Kauffner (talk) 07:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    For an Occidental who has spent a long time in Asia, I'm a bit surprised that you would endorse what Jimbo Wales says about diacritics being, what was it, "anti-reader" and "incredibly pretentious". In fcat, what it betrays is Jimbo's very own arrogance that English is immutable, and that there is only one way of spelling a name that is not inherently "English", and that's by stripping it of all its diacritics. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 07:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You must know that the common practice at the overwhelming majority of English-language publications is to strip off diacritics in all contexts. Even in terms of Google Books, Antonin Dvorak gets more than twice the hits of Antonín Dvořák. I guarantee that the diacritic-free to diacritic ratio is higher for any other Czech who is at all well known. The ratio for Alexander Dubček is well over 20:1. In short, Jimbo's views on this issue are quite mainstream and I'm a pro-diacritic extremist compared to existing usage. Kauffner (talk) 14:17, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. A large number of sources are unable or unwilling to use diacritics at all. (Reasons include technical restrictions and lack of expertise and manpower to get diacritics consistently right.) Most sports sources are of this type. The quality news press generally tries to get diacritics right, but has trouble because the wire services still have technical restrictions that do no even allow them to use the full ASCII character set. (E.g. * and % are problematic.) So the newspapers must add the diacritics to the agency news, under time pressure, and obviously this doesn't always work. Recent high quality print sources such as (English!) encyclopedias and academic books generally use all diacritics for names from Latin-based names.
    Once one of these names hits the quality press, or even encyclopedias, there is no doubt how it will be spelled there: With the diacritics. A rule that says, basically, for people who are almost unknown in English speaking countries, remove the diacritics, but for those who are well known leave them – such a rule simply makes no sense. It just creates inconsistency and chaos for the sake of inconsistency and chaos.
    Since there was a claim above that English encyclopedias don't use diacritics: See the Britannica articles (or pages) for Milan Kučan [1], Slobodan Milošević [2] etc. (This isn't a special rule for politicians that doesn't apply for sports people. See Britannica's Björn Borg article [3].) Hans Adler 21:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:NOTADVOCATE WP:NOTTEXTBOOK; Wikipedia is not here to prescribe the way people should spell the names, it follows the way people DO spell the names in English. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 05:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as such it follows the way encyclopedias spell names in English. Ever since diacritics became easily available, using diacritics in cases such as those under discussion here has been absolutely standard in the big mainstream reference works. Hans Adler 12:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:UCN Titles are often proper nouns, such as the name of the person, place or thing that is the subject of the article. 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. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article.
          Encyclopedias use the official name in most cases, we do not, so we are not like other encyclopedias. Further Wikipedia policy is to use the form found in references in English language sources, not non-English language sources. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 04:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all for now until the debate about the use of diacritics in article titles has been resolved. – ukexpat (talk) 18:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, stupid to have just a few without diacritics when our standard practice is to use them.--Kotniski (talk) 09:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not standard practice to use diacritics is article titles and, in fact, it is a violation of Wiki-policies WP:AT and WP:EN. Just because a few dedicated pro-dios editors have been moving hundreds of articles to use non-English letters in the title does not make it a "standard practice". Dolovis (talk) 15:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. It is exceedingly standard practice to use them on this wiki. -DJSasso (talk) 16:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. These letters are not diacritics and the standard is to use them. --Eleassar my talk 16:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per standard practice here and in other English-language encyclopedias. This accuracy and consistency is also supported by the great majority of English style guides. Prolog (talk) 18:56, 11 July 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.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Andrej Tavželj. 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) 02:34, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Andrej Tavželj. 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) 05:23, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Andrej_Tavželj&oldid=1210638251"