Talk:Martin Růžička

Requested move

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: pages not moved now, no prejudice against moving individually.

Some editors want to treat some of these articles differently from others, as regards naming. Furthermore, this page doesn't seem to be a place where people are willing to discuss the separate requests separately, as there's been ample time to do so. Therefore I recommend that anyone who wants to see these names change should proceed by breaking this request, if not all the way down to individual requests, at least into pieces that are easier to talk about all at once. There might be some natural way of grouping them; I don't know.

This closure is neither an endorsement of the current names, nor an endorsement of the proposed names. We're just changing procedural gears here. If you have any questions about this close, or about how to proceed, please let me know. Thanks. - GTBacchus^(talk) 06:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

---

• Martin Ruzicka → Martin Růžička
• Peter Hamerlik → Peter Hamerlík
• Lubomir Pistek → Ľubomír Pištek
• Tomaz Razingar → Tomaž Razingar
• Andrej Hocevar → Andrej Hočevar
• David Kveton → David Květoň
• Martin Hlavacka → Martin Hlavačka
• David Hruska → David Hruška
• Marian Smerciak → Marián Smerčiak
• Sabahudin Kovacevic → Sabahudin Kovačevič

– Rename to include diacritics, to reflect the standard practice across most biographies. The name is used by the subject of this article. The name is used by most non-English sources, therefore Wikipedia:DIACRITIC#No established usage should apply here. Also please note, that the only articles in the "Czech ice hockey players", "Slovak ice hockey players" and "Slovenian ice hockey players" categories without diacritics in article titles, have been created by User:Dolovis. References for diacriticized names are included in given articles. - Darwinek (talk) 10:41, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support per nom and is the standard for players who names contain diacritics. -DJSasso (talk) 11:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose some those who have played in North America should each have a separate requested move for each article, instead of being bundled into this one. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 13:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Why? Do different standards apply to each one? —Tamfang (talk) 21:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Those who have careers in English speaking regions would reasonably appear in English language sources, and may have English language names that are not the same as their names in the region of origin. It could be anglicized with variant spelling or name substitution, so therefore each of those cases should be examined separately. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 04:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

      Wouldn't it be weird to have one guideline for more notable people, and another for less notable people of the same nationality and spelling? Where draw the line? And should they be moved when they become more notable – and moved back when their notability eventually fades? Doesn't make much sense to me. HandsomeFella (talk) 15:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support per nom and WP:Hockey standards. Anthony (talk) 14:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support Using diacritics is a well-established standard for Czech names, at least for the players with real articles. These stubs should be brought into line. See the discussion at Talk:Jaroslav Špaček or Talk:Teemu Selänne. Kauffner (talk) 03:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, per WP:UE. Kauffner (talk) 01:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
• Stongly oppose multiple RM on procedural grounds. Each move must be judged on its own merits. Lumping these moves all together does not allow for a case-by-case anysis to determine if the rename is, or is not, justified per WP:AT. Dolovis (talk) 04:24, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support - move all. None of these are nationals of English-speaking nations and none have given up their Slavonic passports, AFAICT. I am opposed to bastard Romanisation by dumbly stripping away diacritics that effectively remove letters from an alphabet belonging to another language that cannot be rendered using only the '26 letters'. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment the ones who are/were in North America should be examined to see if they have a common name that is not their real name, such as a nickname. That should be done separately for each one of those players. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 10:23, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
    • A combined discussion does not stop this. People can support all but one or however many in a central discussion like this. Multiple articles are lumped together at Afd all the time and there is probably a bigger argument for those being separate than mere page moves. If you only support certain ones being moved then you say so in your comment. When it comes to an admin closing the discussion they decide which ones had support and which didn't. -DJSasso (talk) 14:37, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support mostly for reasons already outlined above by Kauffner and Ohconfucius.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support: Everyone has basically hit the nail on the head here. No established usage on diacritics means they belong. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 21:49, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support. These are standard diacritics in stable systematic use for a European language. Just as we would not convert "é" to "e" for the French name "René", we should not convert these for Czech. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an email. If the subjects themselves formally adopt anglicised versions of their names, we get a different story. Noetica^Tea? 23:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
• Stongly oppose on policy grounds. The policy as spelled out at Wikipedia:Article titles requires that the article title 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. Dolovis (talk) 14:34, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

  Double !vote. -DJSasso (talk) 15:49, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

  Djsasso, that's WP:JUSTAVOTE. Cloudz679 (talk) 13:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

  You realize that link has nothing to do with this situation right? That it is standard to point out when someone double !votes? So that they aren't mistaken for a second person. -DJSasso (talk) 14:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

  My mistake, thought you were voting here. Apologies, Cloudz679 (talk) 14:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support as standard practice and also WP:HOCKEY standard, which a single super persistant user can't change.--Sporti (talk) 14:56, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose as we're not here to name articles, merely to sooth those with 'mother country' pride. GoodDay (talk) 17:03, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

  The motives (per your assumption) of some editors don't matter, it's the issue at hand and the merits of the case. HandsomeFella (talk) 15:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support per standard encyclopedic practice with non-anglicized personal names written in the Latin alphabet. Prolog (talk) 18:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMNONAME, WP:UE, and WP:AT.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
• Comment Jimbo Wales has commented on diacritics, see User talk:Jimbo Wales. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 06:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support because that's his name, no matter where he lives (WP:COMMONSENSE?) Cloudz679 (talk) 17:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support, standard practice.--Kotniski (talk) 11:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support per our standard practice. People get English names by moving to English-speaking countries and changing their names, or by becoming so famous that their names become household words. But none of these guys is a US resident nor does any of them come even close to the notability of Václav Havel, who also doesn't have an English name. English names for foreigners are rare cases, e.g. Napoleon. Why does this have to be argued out in dozens of individual cases while there are huge discussions with wide participation going on in which there is clearly no consensus for changing our practice, and a majority for keeping it? This is getting very disruptive. Hans Adler 09:10, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support per Kotniski and Hans. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

  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. Boldly stating that it is a common practice does not make it true. 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) 15:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

  This has been standard practice for years, as the huge number of articles on barely notable subjects show which are located at diacritics titles. Wikipedia is a wiki that tries to be an encyclopedia. It is not surprising at all that a lot of people take that seriously and choose precisely the article title that Britannica or Webster would chose, and if a different title is chosen initially the article is renamed by someone with more experience with reference works / someone who is able to get the diacritics right – usually with no opposition at all because everyone agrees it's the right thing to do. This doesn't take a conspiracy or group effort of "pro-dios" editors. It's just what you get naturally when you set up a project such as Wikipedia. Hans Adler 15:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: I wonder what the people above mean by WP:UE -- surely "Martin Ruzicka" is not English, it's just modified Czech. If the argument is that the names without diacritics are most commonly used in English-language sources, I would expect to see some evidence of that. WP:DIACRITIC#No established usage does seem to indicate that these names should have diacritics barring evidence to the contrary. Jafeluv (talk) 10:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - A quick Google search confirms that each of the current article titles is the commonly used name per WP:COMMONNAME (with the exception of Martin Hlavacka where the usage is about equal):

  Martin Růžička = about 138,000 hits[1]

  Martin Ruzicka = about 1,670,000 hits[2]

  Peter Hamerlík = about 2,620 hits[3]

  Peter Hamerlik = about 18,300 hits[4]

  Ľubomír Pištek = about 1,730 hits[5]

  Lubomir Pistek = about 6,600 hits[6]

  Tomaž Razingar = about 3,120 hits[7]

  Tomaz Razingar = about 8,790 hits[8]

  Andrej Hočevar = about 32,500 hits[9]

  Andrej Hocevar = about 490,000 hits[10]

  David Květoň = about 6,190 hits[11]

  David Kveton = about 75,100 hits[12]

  Martin Hlavačka = about 25,100 hits[13]

  Martin Hlavacka = about 25,100 hits[14]

  David Hruška = about 72,000 hits[15]

  David Hruska = about 706,000 hits[16]

  Marián Smerčiak = about 86 hits[17]

  Marian Smerciak = about 2,770 hits[18]

  Sabahudin Kovačevič = about 4,160 hits[19]

  Sabahudin Kovacevic = about 14,600 hits[20] Dolovis (talk) 14:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

  WP:DIACRITICS clearly lays out that counting pure google numbers is an invalid way to determine this because it is completely inaccurate. -DJSasso (talk) 14:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

  I followed the method as laid out at WP:COMMONNAME. Dolovis (talk) 14:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

  No actually you didn't which is why diacritics specifically mentions not using google search numbers. Because google search numbers are not all reliable sources as you need to use and because of OCR errors google search results often list characters with them as not having them etc. -DJSasso (talk) 14:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

  No, actually I did. WP:DIACRITICS warns that “Search engines are problematic unless their verdict is overwhelming”, and in these cases the number of hits does demonstrate an overwhelming verdict. Dolovis (talk) 15:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

  Well this numbers are just wrong, because for example "Andrej Hocevar = about 490,000 hits[21]" also include the proper Andrej Hočevar variant (4X just on first page), not to mention first page of results includes myspace, facebook and (2X) youtube links. --Sporti (talk) 08:31, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

  "A quick google search" never "confirms" anything. Period. - filelakeshoe 09:08, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support per WP:HOCKEY compromise and non-existant guidelines on diacritics in personal names, whether in WP:AT or WP:UE. HandsomeFella (talk) 15:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

  Oppose use of Cyrillic these diacritics on English Wikipedia as most readers will not recognise them. --Bermicourt (talk) 21:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm ... nobody's talking here about using Cyrillic on English Wikipedia. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 06:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment – If we really should enforce the WP:HOCKEY#Wikiproject notice compromise on all player articles (as the community is divided regarding use of diacritics), then there may be a few hundred other articles to also fix. HeyMid (contribs) 16:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

  There are many other articles affected by this question. The "compromise" is nothing of the kind, by the way. All it is, simply, is a small group of editors who have decided to take the position that diacritics should be used as much as possible. They have various reasons for feeling that way, but... it's only a "compromise" between them.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

  That isn't the case at all. The compromise actually removes them from more pages than it adds them to. It removes them from every page involving the NHL or hockey in North America which greatly outnumbers the number of pages for actual players. There used to be battles on hundreds of pages adding and removing them. This compromise or whatever you choose to call it stopped that from happening on many pages so that on team pages/season pages/league pages/lists and whatever else exists they are removed. There are far more of those types of pages than there are player pages. -DJSasso (talk) 11:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

  Sure, sure... I don't agree with your compromise at all, though. As a matter of fact, I think that it's damaging to the community. If it didn't exist then there would have been quite a bit more discussion a while back, but it would have reached an actual conclusion eventually. The current situation just makes the dispute simmer on the back burner for everyone who cares about it at all, leaving it unresolved and festering, with minor eruptions every time that something like this comes up. Just because nobody is willing to be disruptive enough to get blocked over the issue doesn't mean that there's consensus for it. If you weren't around (as an admin, incidentally... you deny that has an effect, and it's certainly true that you've never make an overt threat to enforce things as an administrator, but the implied threat is obvious to everyone [except yourself?]), I'm certain that things would be much different among Ice Hockey articles, at least (which are now pointed to as a reason to generally move to a "diacritics wherever possible" system). Anyway, I don't expect to really be heard about this. It'll simply to continue to fester, unresolved. Such is life.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• V = IR is absolutely correct. There is no WP:HOCKEY compromise. The links offered in support of this mythical compromise just send you out on a Snipe hunt. Dolovis (talk) 01:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

  Wow. The number of times you just blatantly ignore established procedures on Wikipedia really begs the question of if you actually look into any of these things before stating your opinion on them. To say that no compromise exists, when it has in fact been around for quite some time, and followed by most WP:HOCKEY members, is absolute craziness. It's getting beyond too difficult to take anything you say here seriously. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 13:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. It is important for an encyclopedia to be consistent in the naming of articles. So we should have as close to one naming convention for peoples names as is practical. Anything less is confusing. The policies listed by the above opinions in support of this really are supporting this basic need. When we have a project saying that we can override those conventions for certain sports players when they make sense for the rest of the encyclopedia, we are asking for confusion in naming. If a specific form of someone's name is more commonly used in English, that is what we should be using. The fact that in their native land they have a different name is something that is covered in the articles lead and not the title. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

  Ridiculous argument. The move proposal is perfectly in line with general Wikipedia practice, general practice in English reference works such as Britannica or Webster, and with the naming guideline (unless you interpret it incorrectly). About 4% of our article titles contain diacritics. The number of article titles that could conceivably contain diacritics but don't is significantly less. (Less than 1%, but I don't have an estimate for the number since my random experiments haven't turned up any so far.) Hans Adler 05:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per Vegaswikian. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support Hans put it nicely. Agathoclea (talk)
• Oppose for procedural reasons. (Can't support 100% either way) I think there is too much variation. That said, I would not move Ruzicka, Hocevar or Hruska. Those seem to have enough English sources without the diacritics to satisfy commonname (for the purposes of this English wiki). The rest don't IMO, and I would not object to moves as their notability is primarily in Europe. But examining the content might reveal otherwise. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 21:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
  • And you make a key point, that some of these may make sense, but as a group nomination we are not really discussing those. For those articles where there are reliable sources for the rename, they should be renominated on that basis. This gets articles at the correct name and ends the drama of this long discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
    • I don't see why we can't discuss them individually right here and now. Nobody's stopping you; just say which ones should move and which ones should stay. Why not?

      I guess it would freak people out too much, and we need to close this and open separate requests so people see recognizable procedures behaving predictably.... it would be a lot more efficient to just sort it all out once and be done with it.

      Should I go ahead and close this, and recommend that they be brought back as individuals? The discussion's not quite stale, but I don't see us reaching a conclusion on this talk page, at this time, about all those articles. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

      • Sounds reasonable to me. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:19, 21 July 2011 (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.

RfC: Multiple move requests

Should we tolerate multiple move requests, possibly contrary to WP:AT, that are all be placed at the same location, or should each move request be made on its own page so the merits of the many move requests can be discussed on a case-by-case basis? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dolovis (talk • contribs)

• It seems sensible to have these discussions all at the same place, rather than dispersed over 10 different talk pages; there appear to be appropriate notifications on each talk page to the effect, so people will know to come here. What's the issue? --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

What's the issue? It is an effort of the "anti-diacritics fighters" to complicate things a bit more. We jump from a talk page to another and parrot the same words over and over. The result is still the same, as far as I know, but I have to admit that the effort is entirely legitimate. It is a big trump in the hands of the "anti-diacritics fighters", and they are able to take advantage of this. It is apparently entertaining for some editors, but not for me. Nobody forces me to comment here, however, I feel that I have to help to prevent chaos and inconsistency and I comment in the "discussions" like a stupid monkey. I'm afraid we can hardly stop this, unless we compile a precise guideline about using diacritics in the article titles. Their strategy consists of reverting and copypasting three sentences on various forums, and it is an interesting and good strategy. It wins over rational thinking. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 06:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

One of the other requested moves for Czech hockey players claimed the name had diacritics but at the time it was filed, there was no reference showing the form of the name with diacritics, so it was being requested with a handwaving reason. Indeed no reference was provided until several days after the requested move was started. This seems to violate WP:BLP - moving to a name that is not attested to is not verified. This is why each living person should be examined closely to see if the references support the request. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 10:34, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• Not sure I see the issue, it is common practice, and actually preferred to have discussions happen in one place so that they don't have to be rehashed over and over again in multiple places. -DJSasso (talk) 14:34, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
• Nothing is stopping editors from discussing the individual articles individually, and on this page. Just start talking about each one, and work out which one(s), if any, should stay and which one(s), if any, should move. There's no need to fuss about which venue to use; just discuss. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:17, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

oblique case

The last edit changed the name in the lede from Martin Ruzicka to Martina Růžičku, which I guess is genitive case. (This is only an educated guess, so I won't revert.) I'm all for diacritics but let's leave him in the nominative case when he's subject of the sentence. —Tamfang (talk) 23:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

That would be the accusative. But yes, even when he isn't the subject of the sentence, English is not an inflective language. - filelakeshoe 15:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)