Talk:Facundo Argüello (tennis)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

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: moved to Facundo Argüello (tennis). Favonian (talk) 11:45, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Facundo Arguello (tennis)Facundo Argüello (tennis) – (1) primary notability in home country: per article La Voz, Argentina "Facundo Argüello, esperanza del tenis nacional" 27 Nov 2010, (2) WP:CONSISTENCY with Facundo Argüello (soccer). (3) per examples in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies WP:OPENPARA César Chávez and Title WP:UE Søren Kierkegaard. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment. Should we vote, or just let UtherSRG, diacritic warrior, move it where he likes? Kauffner (talk) 10:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Move. I'm not interested in personal attacks against other editors (and I'm slightly surprised to see a prolific editor arriving at yet another move discussion involving diacritics and then accusing the other party of being a diacritic warrior). I am interested in accurate titles. Argüello is the more accurate surname. bobrayner (talk) 12:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - and I am for following the English sources as we are supposed to be doing here at wikipedia. We have the ITF and ATP sources on this article. The only diacritic source given is from a non-English source. Wiki tells us to "Follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language." We usually have full names in the article body but the title should be kept at the sourced English alphabetic spelling. In addition to the ITF and ATP we have ESPN, Tennis Magazine, Tennis Live UK, and Getty Images. There are lots of these type English sources for this English wikipedia as opposed to the foreign language that most English readers can't fathom. This submitter is doing a lot of these move requests as of late to try and remove anglicized names from wikipedia article titles and even from use as an alternate spelling in the main article body. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment - the above contains a misreading of WP:DIACRITICS, but also an adhominem. "This submitter" (myself) have precisely 2x RMs submitted, this one (which is evidently egregious) and Talk:Stephane Huet which contains 5x French BLPs that are egregious even in their own category. If 2 RMs is "a lot", I tempted to ask what is a few? As regards WP:DIACRITICS please read on beyond the sentence you have quoted and look at the examples it gives for Irish and Norse, cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. The correct spelling is the only proper spelling for this name in English (per authoritative sources). The current title deviates from established practice and fails WP:UE ("Facundo Arguello" is not an anglicized spelling like Florence; it is a common misspelling like "Soren Kierkegaard"), WP:BLP (we must write encyclopedically and "get the article right") and WP:V (sources whose house styles lead to constant spelling errors are not reliable on the relevant spelling issues). Prolog (talk) 11:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
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.

Re: nonsense "known professionally as" clause[edit]

User Fyunck has been constantly re-adding the nonsensical clause "known professionally as Sergio Facundo Aguello", although there is no proof whatsoever that Argüello competes under another name than his own. If he did, he would most certainly try to find a name that differed more from his own than one that is just missing a diacritic.

I have cn-ed it, and I suggest we eventually (pending this discussion) remove the rubbish. HandsomeFella (talk) 09:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

And I thought an administrator had kept the truce till you came in again with your content removal. I had not added any more to other articles because of several administrators wishes to keep things calm, as long as no one did the reverse. Not what I wanted, to have censoring like that, but if it kept things running be it. We still have an open RfC on this issue, plus multiple ANI's. I was willing to let things stay status quo for wiki's sake, but I'm gonna guess you'll call in your usual couple of bully-boys here. We'll see. As always we can try different wording but that hasn't satisfied you in the past. I'm always open for discussion for the proper placement and wording, but not censoring. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
I note that you're not adressing the issue at hand. Do you have any sources that support your claim that he's "known professionally as Facundo Aguello"? And calling that phrase "content" – albeit unsourced – is stretching it a bit. You are aware that unsourced content can be removed immediately? It is not "censoring". HandsomeFella (talk) 12:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Fyunck, but none of the 5 sources you just added mention anything about what Argüello is being professionally known as. In fact, they are almost totally devoid of a narrative, and contains only short facts such as birth place, accumulated prize money, rankings, and so on. Thus, they do no support the claim. But I'll give you a few days more. HandsomeFella (talk) 21:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
I disagree. Two are the professional organizations that oversee tennis and they use a particular spelling. They are the governing bodies of tennis and it's who he registered with and the spelling he and they decided on when registering. The other 3 sources are respected in tennis and they also use a particular spelling for the professional player Facundo Arguello. Just because you don't like it, isn't good enough and your extra days comment was useless. As I said, the wording can be tweaked as we've done in other articles. We also have the official tournament he entered to gain his tennis notability... the Copa Claro Open. Their pdf of entries also spells it Arguello. No matter which way you slice it, pro tennis spells his name Facundo Arguello. We can use "spelled in professional tennis, Facundo Arguello", or "per the governing bodies of tennis, and sports authorities, Facundo Arguello", etc... Certainly we should be flexible, just no censorship of facts. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:39, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm not questioning the authority of the organizations that run those websites, so you don't need to bother going down that line. But the fact that they are professional organizations or governing bodies does not mean that they support any claim by some sort of default.
The question is whether there is any support for the particular claim in the article; that Argüello is "known professionally as Facundo Arguello" – as opposed to his real name, one has to assume. There is no such support. None of the sources indicate anything of the sort. Neither source has two name fields, one "professional name" and one "real name". There is only one name field. Yes, in that field, they are spelling his name without the diacritic. But so what? Do you mean that this implicitly supports the claim? I can't imagine implicit support is good enough as to count as verifiable. But if you really mean that, then English-language sources with the diacritic applied would support that he is "professionally known as Facundo Argüello", wouldn't they? Both statements obviously can't be true. So, likewise obviously, neither of them are.
"Pro tennis spells his name Facundo Arguello". Indeed? Look here. It's the Argentine Tennis Association's website. As you see, many players, including Argüello, have their names spelled with diacritics. Are you questioning that the website is about professional tennis? Or do you mean they don't view Argüello as a pro? Or that he's a pro only when playing abroad? Or possibly only in the English-speaking world? No, your generalization is obviously wrong. And if you insist on English-language websites spelling with diacritics, check this and this.
Your alternative suggestions have an entirely different meaning than the current unsupported claim. “Known professionally as” does not have the same meaning as “spelled in professional tennis” or “per the governing bodies … etc”. It's not the question of a rephrase or a different wording, it's not the same meaning at all. What is you really want with your addition? Does it only boil down to your hot desire to mention that some websites lose the diacritic? Why is that so all important to you? As you said yourself, WP:IDONTLIKEIT does not apply here – nor does WP:ILIKEIT.
And please, please, let go of that rediculous argument of "censorship". You can't go on and add every tiny little piece of unimportant and unnotable information, and then, if people remove it, cry "CENSORSHIP". HandsomeFella (talk) 15:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
When pretty much every English source spells something one way it is not unimportant and un-notable...and would be censorship not to include it. This is not his shoe size. I know very well that tweaking the wording can bring differences to the meaning, but I've tried them all with no positive input from you. If the only thing was how it's worded we'd be done in a second. In English language professional tennis it is spelled Arguello. The press does the same. Goodness he even registered with the ITF, spelling it without diacritics. "Known professionally as" was one of many tried wordings. Originally the style was (English: Facundo Arguello)... simple and quick. I had administrator input that liked that version. As I recall in the many conversations "spelled in English, Facundo Arguello" was also liked by some. I was open to suggestion as to the best wording but was always greeted by a certain group with no compromise at all. none. zero. That's not what consensus is... it's not a majority or super majority, it a compromise to try and make all parties satisfied. And if it was one source spelling his name this way, we could say it's trivial, but the average English reader checking up on this guy will only see it spelled "Facundo Arguello" no matter where he looks. It is a significant alternate version of his name. Though wiki says it should be in the first sentence I wasn't married to that either and suggested other placements in the paragraph. Response was the same within that same small group. zip. You have to remember where I started. The players were listed at their common name in English. So the wiki article would have been titled "Facundo Arguello". Many had no Argentine-type spelling at all. After talking with an administrator I made sure that those articles were of the form - Facundo Arguello (Spanish: Facundo Argüello). I thought is was censorship not to include his home country spelling even though no English sources used that spelling. All my created articles used this form. Some reverted me but most did not. Then things got strange when articles moved from common name to birth country specific name. I was sure not happy about that (and still not happy) but that's the way it goes sometimes at wikipedia. But then suddenly all references to a player's common spelling started to be erased as if it never existed. When you have the governing bodies of a players profession spelling his name a certain way it's not trivial. With these players Wimbledon, US Open, French Open and Australian Open also use his common name. Davis Cup and major English new outlets ditto. This is significant. Encyclopedia Britannica uses the common spelling first with Ilie Nastase but notes it is also spelled Ilie Năstase. This is where I and others are coming from on this. Usually "my way or the highway" is all we get from several editors, but you are actually engaging a conversion with questions. That's always a good thing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:10, 6 November 2012‎ (UTC)
(Back after a business trip.) If the difference is negligable (which it is), and even the least gifted reader of the article wouldn't need the "explanation" (he/she wouldn't), then it should be removed, regardless of wording, and regardless of how many sources spell it without the diacritic, because it's not mentionworthy, the triviality of it is an insult to readers. If it is so important as you claim, then why is it only implemented in a few tennis articles on barely notable players – articles which you seem to guard as a chicken mother – and not in for instance the article on Björn Borg? Many people won't notice the absence of the diacritic, and the rest don't care, so basically, the only function of the remark is "Hey, did you notice that it was spelled without the diacritic in some sources?".
You know, Fyunck, it's a little bit funny, how you pretend to be ever so flexible over the wording, but essentially, what you really say is "it must stay in the article". Yet, you are accusing me – and anyone who dares to remove the crap – of an attitude of "my way or the highway". I'm not sure that you have realized the irony in that. This issue is pretty digital: it's either there (in some form), or it isn't, so there's no point in accusing either side of being rigid. It can't be there ... sort of.
Also, there is no such thing as "Argentine-type spelling" or "home country spelling" of personal names. How do you think his name is spelled in Germany or Austria? The spelling of his name doesn't change just because he crosses the borders into an English-speaking country. The spelling remains the same, just as Fyunck isn't suddenly spelled "Fyünck" if you go to Germany or Austria – or Argentine.
HandsomeFella (talk) 22:27, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Well we have a difference of opinion on triviality. If it was so trivial than some others wouldn't insist on changing a name to the diacritic version. As far as what pages it's been added to, I've been following the agreement not to add more as long as none are removed. Borg's article should certainly have it as should Nastase (as it does in Britannica). As far as being flexible, you can't compare where we started at with article being titled in the English alphabet to where we are now. I have seen "zero" flexibility in some in each step of the process while I have been willing to change... but only to a certain point. The complete and total censorship of a well sourced name by respected organizations, and often used by the player's themselves, is a final step I can't take and still be fair to our readers. And the "no such thing" as spellings in different locals I know to be false by personal experience with my own family. The "chicken mother" and "crap" comments I leave for others to worry about. As I said, I have no problems with discussing the situation and listening to other points of view where some other compromise I hadn't considered might come about. I thought this is what we were discussing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:46, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi HandsomeFella, what you say above is logical, sensible and conforms with en.wp's 4.0 million articles, minus the 100x tennis BLPs which have double-barreled "Zoë Baird known in diacritic-disabled sources as Zoe Baird" type ledes. But Fyunck already to Prokonsul Piotrus and elsewhere twice explained his conviction that when he visits Poland his British surname reverts to his father's name with a diacritic - Prokonsul Piotrus told him otherwise but that's by the by - so the argument "just as Fyunck isn't suddenly spelled "Fyünck" if you go to Germany or Austria – or Argentine" is going up against a brick wall. 6 months later it should be evident that no one by any amount of Talk discussion or edit reverting can convince User Fyunck to stop adding these WP:STAGENAME (sic) ledes to BLPs. For better or worse the only route available is to reopen WP:TENNISNAMES RfC, notify all the original participants and specify, does the result of WP:TENNISNAMES RfC cover Fyunck's "professionally known as" ledes or not? The amount of bytes involved on this talk page would already have been enough to reopen the RfC and notify participants. I do appreciate your argument, but it would be better cut-and-pasted into WP:TENNISNAMES RfC where the subject started. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:40, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello IIO, and thanks for the link to the RfC. I suspect that you have tried to bring my attention to it previously, but I haven't had the time to read it before. Very interesting. It was also somewhat humorous that it ended up exactly the opposite to the outcome hoped for by MakeSense64. By all means, go ahead and reopen the RfC (or start a new one), you're better than me at that, but in my view there's no doubt the existing one actually supports the removal of this rubbish. HandsomeFella (talk) 15:51, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Hey HF. If you don't mind I won't be the one to reopen the RfC, I evidently have a couple of hardcore opponents of foreigners having foreign names fuming and steaming after a series of RMs culminating in Talk:Dominik Halmosi. Time for someone else to step up, which I know you have before. Cheers. It's a slam dunk anyway, the original RfC was a snow result in favour of quality sources, and keeping it simple, "do we want these 100x ledes or not?" should be enough. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:05, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Why do we still have this nonsense in the article? It's a misspelling, not a stage name. bobrayner (talk) 19:23, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
  • It seems that "known professionally as..." construction is causing some huge issues. I have known that this type of wording has been employed by those against adopting diacritics to imply that such use is incorrect. I would suggest alternative wording: "spelling sometimes rendered as" that would seem to be a lot more neutral and verifiable. -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 02:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
That is certainly not my choice at all (especially the "sometimes" as opposed to "usually" or "often")... but if that's what it takes to make this issue go away I'd live with that and move on as a compromise. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi OhConfucius, thanks for your sensible input, but the result of the WP:TENNISNAMES RfC was a snow result for not treating tennis BLPs differently from other BLPs. To be consistent we'd have to (a) apply to non-tennis players, "François Hollande known in USA Today as Francois Hollande" and not to appear racist we'd also have to apply it to British and American accents, "Charlotte Brontë known in the BBC's webpage as Charlotte Bronte". This would be massively disruptive to up to 10% of en.wp's 4 million articles, wheras reopening and enforcing the RfC would only upset 1 editor, an editor who has a personal family reason for his conviction - "I know to be false by personal experience with my own family." which is fine if one wants to feel they have an "English name" and a "Polish name" when visiting relatives. But that comes with a change of passport. François Hollande is still French, he has not dropped his ç when taking an English passport. Wikipedia doesn't exist to issue "English names" to the world's notable BLPs. Fyunck will never agree to this, which is why the RfC needs to be reopened and turn off this dripping tap. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:01, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Whilst project-wide consistency may be desirable, there are few such "universal ways" within the project. In practice, we are only talking about those marginal cases where someone might feel the need to 'explain away' diacritics that may exist in Slavonic names. In my view, it's unlikely for anyone to go to great lengths to so qualify tens of thousands of names with familiar diacritics such as 'François Hollande', or 'Charlotte Brontë'. But if they feel the urge to do that, I don't see that as a huge problem, unless anyone is determined to oppose such construction "at all costs". -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 08:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi Ohconfucius, in other cases maybe, maybe not, I don't know. But in this specific case as above WP:TENNISNAMES RfC was a snow result for not treating tennis players differently from other human beings. Even the majority of tennis editors are opposed to Fyunck's ledes. WP:TENNISNAMES RfC. Tennis players are the one group that shouldn't have these ledes even if Charlotte Brontë does. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps your reading of the RfC is different to mine. My take is that it deals with what constitutes the title, where the discussion was firmly in favour of keeping diacritics. The above discussion is about mentioning how it's rendered in the lead section. The two are not mutually exclusive, IMHO. And it is not wholly unreasonable to expect the lead of Novak Đoković to mention that the name may be rendered as "Novak Djokovic", because their appearances are sufficiently different as to potentially cause confusion. -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 11:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi OhConfucious. Correct, as you say (1) no, the RfC didn't anticipate that the disruption would move from titles to ledes, hence the need to reopen the RfC, (2) no, with the Gaj's Latin alphabet Dj/Đ "because their appearances are sufficiently different as to potentially cause confusion" - and this exception was recognised in the RfC, and should continue to be recognised as an exception if the RfC is reopened too. The Category:Serbian female tennis players contains none, Category:Serbian male tennis players only contains 3 such players - which are still at "English names" so the 100x Facundo Argüello (tennis) ledes affected do not include these 3 anyway. The 100x ledes affected are all of the 'François Hollande', or 'Charlotte Brontë' do not come in the 3x "because their appearances are sufficiently different as to potentially cause confusion" - there is no "François/Francois" "Brontë/Bronte" confusion issue as with Dj/Đ. Hence this is simply confirming the original RfC result. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:26, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, you are correct Ohconfucius. That rfc was brought about by an editor writing a personal essay to try and change Tennis Project guidelines. Instead of using sourcing from all types of English sources (newspapers, Wimbledon, tv, Britannica, the governing bodies of tennis, ITF tennis registration, etc,) he wanted to use only one source (the ITF tennis registration) and I guess never use diacritics. That essay was also not in his user space but instead plopped into the Tennis project space. So an rfc was implemented on that particular essay with the title "Can a wikiproject require no-diacritics names, based on an organisation's rule or commonness in English press?". That particular essay was resoundingly defeated, we cannot ban diacritics. It was then edited by many editors and also put back in his personal user space. It really has no bearing on this argument at all. In fact this argument's rfc is almost the flipside... "Should we unilaterally ban the use of well sourced alternative English spellings at Wikipedia?" Some editors seem to want that, even going so far as to fight against a player's own personal webpages that use the English alphabet alternate spelling of their own name. That's not what wikipedia is about. When you have a tennis player's name spelled in American style English by one or two newspapers that's one thing... when it's found at Wimbledon, the Australian Open, LA Times, the ITF, the ATP, Davis Cup, plus is a spelling they register with at the governing body of tennis, it takes on a lot more meaning. If other people in other professions, such as music, also have their governing bodies, Hollywood Bowls, Musicians Quarterly, Sydney Opera House, London Philharmonic, etc... if they use an alternative spelling then surely that should at least be mentioned here at wikipedia. I really don't think that's an issue like it is in tennis though. We aren't talking about article titles or even the first name in the lead sentence... just a mention of the alternate spelling. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:01, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
We could just leave this as a monument to stupidity. What I would say here, which goes completely counter to WP:OWNER but what the heck, Fyunck is that you should at the least remove your ledes from e.g. tennis editor Jevansen's articles since although he hasn't reverted them (with 1 exception I think), but he has described it in edit summary as "removing the crap". If you want to make articles you yourself have created little monuments to xenonymophobia then that's still annoying but evidently not as annoying. Seems that about 50x of the 100x articles you have given "professionally known as" ledes to are your own creations. You should remove your ledes from those created by other WP:TENNIS editors. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I would note that in a previous (apparently failed) attempt to deal with edit warring around this wording over dozens of articles, that I had ruled that TENNISNAME does not actually address the "professionally known as" issue precisely (although it would be nice if it had). An attempt to find a global consensus on the wording failed recently to find consensus. So, local consensus (e.g., what the folks here say) seems to be guiding until a consensus can be reached that covers a wider range of articles. There's no doubt I'm somewhat frustrated by this issue at this point, and I would recommend finding a different admin to close any questions of local consensus (whether it be on this article, or over the tennis project) going forward. I will extend move protection, however, as I believe that TENNISNAMES does cover that. --j⚛e deckertalk 17:38, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

  • It is quite easy to do a fair and objective search to find the most common form of this name in English-language media using Google:"Facundo Argüello" tennis -tenis -site:es.* -site:*.ar -wikipedia. What this search does is (1) search for articles containing the name with diacritics, (2) include articles with the word "tennis" but not the word "tenis", (3) eliminate Spanish-language web sites prefixed with "es" (http://es. etc., like Spanish Wikipedia) from the results, (4) eliminate web sites with the Argentine suffix "ar", and (5) eliminate all of and sites that cite "Wikipedia".
  • If you page through the first 18 pages of Google results, there is only one Indian newspaper with a couple of pages that have the name with diacritics in a title (and seemingly identical pages that have the name without diacritics if you click on "Profile")—but no content whatsoever about the player, and two or three French-language articles on about the 18th page of search results that show the name with diacritics. I can't see the name with diacritics in the body of the articles either. Surely this is pretty conclusive evidence that virtually nobody uses the name with diacritics in English? Yet we have people who would go so far as to say that it is unethical not to use the name with diacritics, and "commonsense" to completely eliminate the universally-used plain-English version of the name. The counter-argument is here. LittleBen (talk) 18:31, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Fine application of the fudged (IMHO) Google test, but it completely ignores the fact that Spanish and French diacritics are already widely employed for proper names throughout English language sources on all soubjects (independently of whether tennis ones do or not), and the sound arguments stated above that nothing proves that 'Facundo Argüello' isn't the subject's correctly-spelt name, so that the existing spelling ought to be retained for the sake of encyclopaedic accuracy. -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 06:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
  • The results show quite clearly that, for this name, diacritics are not used in English in any reputable sources—especially not in article titles. You are giving the fait accompli argument: that commonsense rules for spelling names in English—and Wikipedia guidelines—have already been widely ignored in Wikipedia, "which makes it OK to do so". But that people have ignored Wikipedia guidelines and virtually universal commonsense rules for spelling names in English doesn't make it OK to do so. Frivolously moving articles to titles with diacritics creates a lot of needless and pointless work; intimidating editors and administrators who refuse to go along with these games just poisons the Wikipedia environment. LittleBen (talk) 07:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
  • We're in fact digressing, because this ought to take place centrally. The opposite to what you said also applies: - frivolously moving articles to titles without diacritics creates a lot of needless and pointless work; intimidating editors and administrators who refuse to go along with these games just poisons the Wikipedia environment. This discussion is about how we should formulate the lead. -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 07:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
  • A simple Google search shows that the plain English spelling without diacritics is used virtually universally in English (except for a single Indian newspaper that seems to have copied Wikipedia's article title)—and you are proposing to completely completely eliminate it (the widely-recognized and preferred plain English spelling) from the article? LittleBen (talk) 07:34, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Ohconfucius is correct... whether LB is right or wrong means little in the conversation as the title or diacritics is not what was being discussed. The best way to handle multiple sourced spellings is what is at hand and Ohconfucius came up with his best compromise to try to satisfy both sides of the issue. Thanks by the way. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
  • "Sometimes rendered in English as" is ridiculous. A little research shows that it is always (even usually is a very big compromise) written that way in reputable English sources. Your "usually known as" or "professionally known as" are quite appropriate. It's the article title that is the problem. It doesn't represent what he is called in reputable English sources. Surely it's important to make clear what is the most widely-accepted way of writing a name in English, as discussed here. The title should really represent the most recognizable and widely-accepted way that a name is written in reputable English sources, so usually the seldom-used foreign-language version would appear in the lede. LittleBen (talk) 11:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
  • György Balázs is yet another example of this "just add diacritics, but don't bother to confirm the correct name on foreign-language Wikipedia" sloppiness. A simple Google search György Balázs or György Balázs should give the correct name if the person is notable. If not, then the shortened English version of the name may be a nickname. If you do some research as to how the name is written in English media:"György Balázs" tennis -site:hu.* -site:*.hu -wikipedia I think you will see only two articles in the first 18 pages of search results that use diacritics, and both of these articles are obvious ripoffs from Wikipedia. LittleBen (talk) 12:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Try 'Balázs György'. That's the native form in Hungarian. Plus rien à dire – the name of the article isn't under discussion. And as UncleG says, Google isn't research. But anyways, looks like there isn't any margin for compromise from LittleBen. -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 14:45, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

To be fair though, I haven't seen any margin of compromise from those on the other side in regards to your suggestion either. LB is just more vocal about it. LB is absolutely correct with his "usually" comment... I'm just willing to compromise down to your suggestion because that's what we are supposed to do in trying to find a consensus all can live with. It's not supposed to be either or, we are trying to satisfy all parties as best we can. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
  • It's surely obvious that no reliable sources spell the name that way in English, and that nobody can show otherwise. You don't have to agree with something that is grossly misleading, gross misrepresentation that compromises Wikipedia's integrity, neutrality, and trustworthiness. If you agree to this BS then surely the same will happen to all the articles with the widely-accepted English version of the name only in the lede. LittleBen (talk) 22:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

  • You seem to take strongest issue with the "sometimes" in my proposal; I don't know if "often" would be acceptable to you. But my view is that using 'Lech Walensa' as a person's name when it should be 'Lech Wałęsa' is what is truly "grossly misleading, gross misrepresentation that compromises Wikipedia's integrity, neutrality, and trustworthiness" -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 01:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
  • If you do a little research:"Lech Wałęsa" -site:*.pl -site:pl.* -wikipedia you will find that reliable sources, like the Nobel prize organization near the top of the search results, spell his name in English without diacritics, and don't use the "Lech Walensa" that you suggest. He is well enough known that most people know how his name is spelled in English in reliable sources (like the NY Times, and the Polish American Culture Center—even Mitt Romney spells his name without diacritics, what could be more conclusive than that ;-) even if Wikipedia doesn't do it that way. But surely this does not apply to the other people mentioned above: the majority usage in English should be clearly spelled out—especially when the person is not so well known that most people know it. LittleBen (talk) 03:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
  • As already mentioned, I don't actually oppose including rendering of names that have diacritics natively in script without diacritics where it's necessary. It's good that you don't see the necessity of including the "Lech Wale[n]sa" rendering, and I certainly don't think 'Facundo Argüello' needs to be so stripped either – as most readers you have in mind would probably ignore the umlaut anyway. Perhaps we can agree that only those names that include the most abundant unfamiliar diacritics – and not just the most famous – need this treatment... -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 07:50, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
  • The form of the name that is seldom used or never used by reputable English publishers and the English media should never be the English Wikipedia article title. That is like using a Chinese, Japanese or Korean name in an article title and then stripping out the common English version of the name from the article because "everybody knows it, and there are redirects from it". LittleBen (talk) 14:12, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
While Argüello is far from the top, he is an international professional tennis player, isn't he? The same goes for Jörgen Windahl (albeit retired now), right? In contrast to Argüello and Windahl, Björn Borg, Anders Järryd and Ilie Năstase are internationally well-known (to say the least) former tennis players. They too have a diacritic in their name. Yet, as far as I know, Fyunck has not attempted to add that nonsense to those articles. So what's the difference? The former players are barely known to the general public, and thus the articles on them are rarely visited, while the opposite goes for the latter players. This is why Fyunck – and possibly one or two other editors – can play these silly games as a petty revenge for being on the losing side of the discussion on diacritic-titled articles (which ended up with a result that didn't please them), while going virtually unnoticed by the wider community of wikipedia editors.
Now, if we look at what Fyunck has kept adding and re-adding, time after time, on low-profile tennis player article after low-profile tennis player article, "known professionally as X X", it is a claim that, if it's true, would be true in any language, wouldn't it? That is, in, the article on Argüello would say "conocido profesionalmente como Facundo Arguello", and in, the article on Windahl would say "känd professionellt som Jorgen Windahl", or something similar, wouldn't it? Wouldn't it? Now, has anyone seen that – ever? This proves that it's rubbish. It's very hard to assume good faith on Fyunck's side for adding that crap to any low-profile tennis player article he can get his hands on, but not to other tennis player articles – where it would be removed promptly. (Thanks, Google Translate.)
HandsomeFella (talk) 22:28, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
And here I thought you were wanting to discuss this nicely and intelligently. I guess we can throw that out with the bathwater after seeing this rubbish post. Ohconfucius was constructive and tried, while this post is just "my way or the highway" bad faith once again. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:52, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Quote Ohconfucius: "It's good that you don't see the necessity of including the "Lech Wale[n]sa" rendering". Reply: I would have thought that it might be acceptable to omit the most widely-used English spelling only in the case of somebody as famous as Walesa, because "surely every native speaker of English knows the English version of his name". But you, Ohconfucius, have proven that this view is wrong: people like you who are not native speakers of English come to English Wikipedia to find correct and trustworthy information about how the names of even famous and well-known people like Walesa are spelled in English by professional editors, by reputable sources like the Nobel prize committee, and by people like Mitt Romney. When Wikipedia does not contain this information, they are forced to guess—and they guess wrong (Walensa?). So it is clearly unacceptable to strip out the majority English spelling, as with the Walesa article. What is the best way to handle the idiotic situation where the majority English spelling has been stripped from the article?  In the case of the Lech Walesa article, something like "spelled Lech Walesa in major English sources" in the lede would surely be appropriate. LittleBen (talk) 01:12, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Me, not a native English-speaker? Have I ever written anything with blatant errors likely to make you think that is the case? Or are you sure than no native would ever be so supportive as I am of retaining diacritics and elevating their importance to their proper place in today's world? There's no point any longer talking to someone who's xenophobic and obviously just as sloppy at fact-checking as the Newsnight team. As to Mitt Romney, I don't see how this Mid-Westerner qualifies as any sort of authority on Lech Wałęsa – he's just another American who won't know a diacritic if it hit him in the face. -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 01:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  • PS 'Lech Walesa' and 'Lech Walensa' are two spellings that are often found in English-language media (neither of which are 'right'), to the extent that the uninitiated would wonder how his name was actually spelt; or even more confusion in working out how it's pronounced. There are 9 redirects to his name: Walesa, Walensa, Lech Walesa, Lech Walensa, Wałęsa, Lech Wasa, Lech walesa, Lech Wa³êsa, Lech walęsa, so woe betide anyone who fails to find him here on Wikipedia. -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 02:58, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  • The preferred spelling in English is the spelling that the majority of reputable sources—like the Nobel committee, for example—use. Surely they confirm the preferred English spelling with the recipient of the prize. Google will tell you that "Walensa" is wrong. Surely an ability to research what reputable major sources use in English is a desirable minimum acceptable competence level for contributing to English Wikipedia? Surely it is unacceptable not to make this preferred English spelling clear in English Wikipedia? LittleBen (talk) 03:12, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Let me reiterate: I agree that "Walensa" is wrong; I also feel that English rendering without the diacritics would not be entirely inappropriate at that article, but to insist that we do that for 'Facundo Argüello' over a pathetic little umlaut is undoubtedly 'over the top'. So where do we go from here? -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 03:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
I note that Fyunck isn't offering any counter-argument to my last post, the reason of course being that he can't come up with any. Instead he can only repeat his "my way or the highway" accusation. The rediculous expression is either in there, in some form, or it isn't, so the accusation is equally applicable to himself. His attitude can be summed up as "it must stay there" because he likes it. HandsomeFella (talk) 10:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
You have arrived a little late to this discussion, so you might not know that there is an overwhelming consensus to keep articles with diacritics at their diacritical name for encyclopedic reasons, aside form the fact that this actually isn't what we're discussing here (see the heading of this section). And contrary to what you seem to believe, a proposal to add the rubbish that Fyunck keeps adding (as some sort of consolation prize) was resoundingly defeated by the community. HandsomeFella (talk) 15:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  • There are no naming policies or guidelines that say that majority-usage English spellings must not be used in BLP, and that majority-usage English spellings must be stripped out of existing articles. If RfCs about stub articles have agreed otherwise, they have still not changed established policies or guidelines. But there are not unlimited numbers of unpaid volunteers to police Wikipedia against English-stripping vandals. If few people volunteer for Admin. duties, and Editor numbers continue to drop, then you know who will have earned the credit for this. If English Wikipedia ceases to be a respected authority for the way that names are written in English by professional editors—and ceases to be a reliable, neutral, properly-sourced and trustworthy reference—then users will eventually figure this out and move on. The Seven Wonders of the Ancient World only coexisted for under sixty years. Will English Wikipedia last as long as that if people continue to fight to destroy its credibility and real-world usefulness? What's next—replacing English article titles with Latin, "because English is derived from Latin"? LittleBen (talk) 17:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  • These statements by HandsomeFella are getting stranger and stranger when it comes to the truth. And your last query was simply a loaded question. In any language the international governing bodies of tennis still spell it Arguello. Individual wikis spell names different all the time and often in accordance to their own language's rules. What they do to standard English alphabet names is often funny, but hey it's their wiki so they can do what they please and add what they want. It's your "my way or the highway" no compromise attitude and attempt at censoring wikipedia that has brought me here. And now what I thought started as an exchange of ideas to come to a compromise has turned into a dustbowl. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:52, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  • It's interesting that "commonly rendered Walesa" was stripped out of the Walesa article on June 29—guess who?—but this Argüello article has just been changed to read "also rendered as". LittleBen (talk) 18:34, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
The RfC was not specifically about stub articles. If we know how it's spelled, then there's no reason to spell it in another way than that, and introduce an "English-language spelling", when the difference is negligable. Fyunck's additions will only serve the purpose of saying "Hey, did you notice that his name was spelled Facundo Arguello in some sources?". It's pointless and in-the-face of people, and for no good reason. Also, there's nothing that supports the claim that he plays under another name that his own. Why would he do that? Tennis players don't use stage names. would it enable him to travel incognito under his real name? The reason ITF spells it without the diacritic is either sloppiness or laziness, and that doesn't give him another name that he would be "professionally known" by (giggle). HandsomeFella (talk) 20:23, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Very important sources spell his name without diacritics when you are talking the ITF, ATP, ESPN, etc... Tennis players use a registration system with the ITF also, where they are asked how they would like their names spelled using the English alphabet. The number 1 player in the world chose Djokovic as opposed to Dokovic. The ITF(ILTF) also has bylaws that require it to use English. A single printing of someone's name can be sloppy or lazy, but not 100s or thousands of times like some players. That tennis names rfc pertained to a particular personal essay about banning the use all available sources at wikipedia, and that's not what wikipedia is about. There have been plenty of other full-range rfc's on diacritics that have been pretty evenly split, plus a recent rfc on this very subject that was no consensus. So I have no idea where you're coming from. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Looks like circular reasoning to me; the IPIN registration form gives the erroneous impression that diacritics aren't part of the English language, so player names are registered without diacritics, so names without diacritics are English! Just for comparison, the IPIN database treats "Hong Kong", "Gibraltar", "French Guiana" &c as separate countries - shall we go round "correcting" each article that mentions them to reflect the quirks of IPIN input-validation? Or shall we accept that the arbitrary constraints of the IPIN database do not constitute the most reliable source on English orthography or international politics? bobrayner (talk) 23:23, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
The system described above effectively makes the ITF the guardian of players names in English (which of course does not actually make it so). Under such system, players don't have the choice of how to correctly spell their name but instead they have to opt for the 'least bad' solution using letters without any adornment ;-). And when these players go on the circuit, these errors get replicated and the press (and some wikipedia editors alike) then treat this rendering as an 'authoritative English spelling'. This in fact allows the ITF (and the like) to continue the practices either because somebody doesn't want to accept letters with diacritics or their computer systems are not geared up to cope with them. It would have been free choice if it weren't the only gig in town, but it is, and they have to take Hobson's choice. -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 01:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
It's not a question of why the governing bodies of tennis, news agencies, tennis venues, sports sites, etc. use a particular spelling. It's a question of following all the sources. It's overwhelming in the English sources to use the English alphabet. When we see something in the press that says so and so won the "channel-slam" we aren't going to use that term here at wikipedia if there's only one press release that prints it. However if the ITF or ATP or Wimbledon also uses the term, then it's proper to include it in a tennis article. Or if multiple sports outlets also use the term it become legit. It may not headline the article but we also wouldn't ignore the existence or censor it out. Now, if IPIN is the only source using Hong Kong as a separate country when determining inclusion in a particular article then no, we wouldn't use it. It's only one source of many. However, if every English source says a fribit flower only grows in Gibraltar, then to not mention that fact would be bad, and to ban it's use completely would be horrific. Remember something else... some of these player's own websites and signatures are spelled using the English alphabet. We have some editors posting here that that should also be banned from wikipedia, and that those players, regardless of how they spell their own names in English must be bound by their mother tongue. That just isn't right in my book and if we have major organizations, venues, tennis registrations, newspapers and tv all spelling something a particular way then it deserves at lease a cursory mention here at wikipedia. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:34, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Following the world, which is in turn following a gatekeeper who is illiterate is not the way to go because it sacrifices encyclopaedic accuracy. If an individual's name is habitually written in Romanic script, there's only one correct way to spell the person's name, whatever any "authority" has to say. But' I'm still open to having a rendering without diacritics somewhere in the article - perhaps the infobox might be the place: under 'alias'... -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 02:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Quote: Following the world, which is in turn following a gatekeeper who is illiterate... Reply: It is idiotic to claim that the Nobel prize committee is illiterate, that the people who run the Olympics are illiterate, that all the professional editors in all the major press organizations are illiterate, and that you know better. Particularly for BLP, English Wikipedia is about recognizing today's majority usage in reputable English sources, not the usage of paper encyclopedias that can't afford to substantially revise and update style guides/content created ten or twenty years ago.
  • Quote: Fyunck's additions will only serve the purpose of saying "Hey, did you notice that his name was spelled Facundo Arguello in some sources?". Reply: Didn't you read the above? There surely isn't a single reliable source that spells his name with diacritics in English. English Wikipedia is not primarily about how his name would be rendered in Chinese, Japanese, Korean, or in his home country. English Wikipedia is primarily about how the Nobel Committee, the Olympic Committee, the major international sports federations, and all the professional editors in all the major English press organizations actually render such names in English. The name with diacritics clearly is solely a foreign-language rendition, and belongs only in the lede. WP:BLP suggests the use of "better known in English as" LittleBen (talk) 03:29, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
  • an observation It seems that there are still a significant number of editors on en.wp who still stick out for the "English doesn't have diacritics" approach. However, I surveyed the sister language-wikis for 'Lech Wałęsa' and was pleased to note that the vast majority of those employing Roman script spelt his name without bastardising or murdering the diacritics. -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 05:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
  • What is (or is not) English is not defined by what the Polish "sister Wikipedia" does. They would not be critics of diacritics ;-)  LittleBen (talk) 05:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
  • PS: Using the search methods described above, it looks as if Björn Borg and Anders Järryd strongly prefer their names to be written with diacritics (Borg apparently uses his name as a brand for selling men's underwear), but Ilie Năstase is virtually never written in English with diacritics. Quote Fyunck: "Encyclopedia Britannica uses the common spelling first with Ilie Nastase but notes it is also spelled Ilie Năstase".   LittleBen (talk) 17:56, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
  • PPS: Surely it's not all that difficult to research how the name of somebody as famous as Lech Wałęsa is really written in English by publishing professionals?  Examples here—autobiography!, here, here, earlier-version autobiography, he's in Playboy even!, another by Walesa, by his brother, by him, yet another, Newsweek, and a few dozen more. Isn't it remarkable that some people could strip every single instance of the majority English spelling of his name out of English Wikipedia? A competence problem?  This Walesa article was originally created in 2001 by User:WojPob—who is in Warsaw, Poland—and contained the Polish spelling with diacritics only in the lede. I like the second motto on the User:WojPob user page, and may adopt it myself ;-).
  • PPPS: Another famous Polish person whose name is widely spelled without diacritics is John Paul ;-).  Isn't it "unethical" to "dumb down" a Polish name with diacritics, so that as many people as possible worldwide can read, write, remember, and revere it?  LittleBen (talk) 17:04, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

LittleBenW, the amount of noise and disruption and personal attacks you have spread on MOS, WMF, Talk pages etc. against en.wp consensus for foreigner's names being spelled according to WP:RS, is completely out of proportion to your contribution (as far as I can see zero contribution) to any affected BLP or geo articles. Please see WP:TROLL, and if you have further comments about Polish names, as before you are welcome to take them to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poland and express your views on foreigners' names there. Otherwise the discussion should be centred on "Charlotte Brontë professionally known as Charlotte Bronte" to demonstrate that there's no xenophobia involved in the discussion. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

  • This discussion is not about WikiProject Poland, this discussion is about WP:BLP, so any reference to Charlotte Brontë is totally inappropriate. I am putting together an essay at BLP to get wider input on transparent, reproducible NPOV criteria and methods to determine majority usage in English, to try to stop the bitter and never-ending crusades to eliminate the use of English in English Wikipedia. I agree that xenophobia may mean that the projects of certain countries will argue that articles about their country will not recognize Wikipedia guidelines as to reliable sources in English, but that's something that can be discussed later.  LittleBen (talk) 05:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

But LittleBenW,
Again, to demonstrate that there's no xenophobia involved in the discussion then you should go for British and American names with diacritics.
As to essays, you are welcome to do whatever you want in your sandpit and then point to it, but there's still the question of why someone who doesn't contribute to relevant articles and has no apparent experience or expertise in any related area be writing "essays" for editors who actually do create and contribute to articles to follow. I find your behaviour considerably more problematic than Fyunck - who actually does create and contribute. Half of these "professionally known as" ledes are his own article creations. But you don't contribute at all. Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass or at the very least take Chloë Sevigny, Beyoncé Knowles, Chloë Grace Moretz, Chloë Sevigny, Renée Zellweger to your sandpit and please beat the horse there. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The opening sentence of an article should not be a list of trivial name variations. The common name of the subject should be on top of the infobox, even if the article title is something else: "It should be named the common name of the article's subject...this does not need to match the article's Wikipedia title," per MOS:INFOBOX. Kauffner (talk) 06:15, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd been writing quite a few tennis biographies this year but lost the motivation as the articles are soon made into a joke by Fyunck or whoever it is that is inserting this "professionally known as" embarrassment onto pages. Why does there have to be a "compromise"? You compromise when there is no consensus either way. "Professionally known as" is in articles where there was clear support for a move to diacritics (Talk:Gérard Solvès). Jevansen (talk) 06:34, 22 November 2012 (UTC)