Talk:Milan Jurčina

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Milan Jurcina)
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: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)



Milan JurčinaMilan Jurcina

  • Support – Per WP:UE and WP:COMMONNAME. Milan Jurcina is a veteran NHL player of almost 400 games. He has been playing in North American for almost 12 years, and his name is commonly used in its anglicized form. The established Wikipedia policy regarding diacritics is to follow the majority of the English-language reliable sources. All English language sources spell his name without diacritics. A Google search confirms that Milan Jurcina is the COMMON NAME that is most frequently used to refer to the subject:
    Milan Jurcina = about 401,000 total hits,[1] whereas
    Marek Jurčina = has only about 20,400 total hits.[2]
Even the name on his sweater is “Jurcina”.[3] Dolovis (talk) 01:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
This is English Wikipedia, not Slovak Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 15:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
That argument fails WP:Use English, the Slovak Ice Hockey Federation page is not in English, Slovakia is not an English-speaking jurisdiction. 65.94.77.11 (talk) 05:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support: While on the face of it I support such moves, on the grounds that WP:COMMONNAME should trump the fanaticism of a vocal minority for non-English usages, this move will be futile without securing the consensus to apply this to all pertinent hockey-related pages. Ravenswing 19:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Indeed, the current road (RM to RM) is a long bumpy ride. GoodDay (talk) 19:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
  • So, if you are an ice hockey player and your name contains the accent marks, you automatically loose the accents here on en-wiki. It is an interesting and unusual logic. What about politicians or footballers? (I mean soccer, this sport is not so popular in the North America, from what I know). What is the difference between a name of a Slovak football and ice hockey player on the English Wikipedia? Is profession the decisive voice? (You are an ice hockey player = forget the accent marks, you are a footballer = okay, you are allowed to retain the accent marks here on en-wiki). It is nonsense, but I have to admit that it is funny. Shouldn't we keep some consistency between the names on Wikipedia? Btw, how would you determine the word "pertinent" to make a mass move? Now, you try to bring inconsistency to an islet of articles related to the ice hockey players born in the European countries. I understand and respect your efforts, you are a small (surely not fanatic) group of ice hockey fans from the North America and you see things from your own cultural perspective. I'll take this interesting idea to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English), so we can see it all from broader perspective. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
This name has appeared in over 2,000 news stories without a diacritic. Every single news story that gives it as "Milan Jurčina" is non-English. The reference works do the same, see Sports Illustrated Almanac or The National Hockey League Official Guide & Record Book. This situation is hardly unusual for sports players with Slavic names. It is not the role of Wiki editors to blaze new trails and create usage that does not currently exist. We must think of the reader who seeks information, the one who wants to know, "What is the usual name of this individual as it is given in English?" Kauffner (talk) 10:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
The reader should be given correct information. This name is not English, it is Slovak, no matter how many English sources refer to the incorrect version. We write an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. You can find a detailed example of the standard and up-to-date practice of the English reference works at User:Prolog/Diacritical_marks#External_guides. Most of the authoritative reference works recommend to retain the accent marks in foreign names. Btw, my previous comment is a reaction to the proposal to move "all pertinent hockey-related pages." Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
The answer to all of that, of course, is to take up your disapproval with WP:COMMONNAME, not with us. The English Wikipedia routinely - as WP:COMMONNAME holds - lists articles as what they are called in English, not how they are rendered in the subjects' home languages. You'll find redirects or redlinks for the likes of Slovensko, Donava, Wien, Tatry and other such names. Why, look - those are all geographical features in and near Slovakia. Ravenswing 14:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  • The fact is that until this 'ice hockey battle' emerged, the English Wikipedia routinely listed (and still lists) names of people in their native form (I'm talking about European and few other languages written in Latin script). There are some understandable exceptions, but the common practice is to retain the accent marks of the native form. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  • It wasn't so ago that all the titles were ASCII. 100% Unicode was once pretty exciting stuff, but at this point I have to say enough is enough. Now that we can use Google to find the usage rate for a diacritic, it is harder to claim that a given diacritic is in fact common use. Kauffner (talk) 17:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose This article started life with diacritics; the subject does not appear to have naturalised, thus encyclopaedic accuracy according to the name on the subject's passport ought to prevail. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 14:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
    Not true. The article started life as "Milan Jurcina" and was moved[4] to diacritic title. Dolovis (talk) 22:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
    You should check your diff again. Prolog (talk) 01:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
    Instead of "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit," the project's slogan can be, "Show us your passport we will give you a diacritic." Kauffner (talk) 17:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment I refer to this discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(use_English)#Diacritics_in_European_ice_hockey_bio_articles_-_A_solution.3F. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - This is an English wikipedia that uses English sourcing. I see that Canada.com uses Milan Jurcina. In fact most all the English sourcing has it spelled that way so per wikipedia guidelines WP:UE and WP:COMMONNAME should apply. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The subject of this article is a Slovak person using Slovak surname. "Jurcina" is just his surname incorrectly rendered without diacritics. - Darwinek (talk) 20:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Contradictory sources, let's go with the native name. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 20:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Comment let's use Moammar Ghaddafi's Arabic spelling then, since there is no standard English spelling. 65.94.77.11 (talk) 03:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support WP:UE, WP:COMMONNAME, every English language source doesn't use diacritics 70.77.248.99 (talk) 01:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - As per all the RS identified above.  All policies on en.WP, which were established by consensus, are clear; those policies are (as the list below, copied from the Talk:Marek Zidlicky move discussion, still shows), very clearly, use English from English RS.  All the English sources for NHL hockey player Milan Jurcina spell his name without diacritics.  The single reference to Milan Jurčina in English RS simply identifies his as a member of the Slovakian Olympic Ice Hockey team, a mention which is of such minor importance that, were he not a member of the NHL, he wouldn't have an article in en.WP as that mention fails to meet the standards required by WP:N.  The standard is really quite simple and straight forward with regards to the use of diacritics in English countries; we generally use diacritics in the names of foreign people in foreign lands.  When someone moves to an English speaking country, the spelling of their name changes to the English spelling. 
English doesn't generally use diacritics; period.  On extremely rare occasions, when we borrow / take, (which ever you prefer), a word from another language, we keep the original diacritics, at least for a time.  Not sure why; I'd guess it's probably so that we recognize it as a foreign word, with foreign pronunciation; but after a while, once everyone knows the word, we drop the diacritics.  Take naive, it's been pointed out in some of the many previous conversations that this was originally spelled naïve; but now, that is the alternative form, in 10 years it'll likely be the rare form, and in another 20-50 years, it'll probably be either the obsolete or even more likely the unmentioned long forgotten spelling; and perhaps by then the next Webster will come along and respell it nieve just to standardize the language a little bit; even if it does take away some of it's colourcolor colour and variety.  The point is, it is our language, we speak it, we use it, we spell it, and we determine how we spell it.
I notice that, in yet another proposal and rehashing of this matter at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English)#Diacritics in European ice hockey bio articles - A solution?, where once again hundreds or thousands of hours that would otherwise be spent working on creating an encyclopedia will now be wasted arguing to keep the English encyclodedia in English, this time proposed by Vejvancicky, you acknowledge that a …group (mainly Europeans) always vote in support of the accent marks. … and since you also note that you're … a supporter of the "pro-diacritics" opinion … so I'm going to assume, by inference, that English is a second language for you.  So what gives you the right to dictate to foreign (i.e. English) countries, and English speakers, how we must spell our language and what our policies are for the spelling of names?  Is there a big problem with English editors removing diacritics from articles in the Czech, or Slovak, or whatever foreign language wiki that you primarily edit in?  Has some group of English editors been coming over to your wiki and harassing and disrupting you by continually starting the same argument over and over again?  Are there some English editors who, despite having repeatedly lost attempts to gain consensus for a policy change to strip diacritics from all your article names, continue to regularly disrupt you by making that proposal again and again?  Because if there is, please let us know and we'll take care of them from this end.  But, of course, if the problem is simply that the English editors really couldn't care less about any of the foreign language wikis (other than perhaps to simply generally support the idea of as much freedom for everyone else as we seem to have to continually fight for for ourselves), then that really is just too bad and you'll just have to suck it up.
The policy is Use English, the way we determine what is the proper English spelling is by referring to English RS.  Please stop trying to disrupt us by telling the English speaking people how to spell English; we know that these names are spelled differently in foreign languages; we know that ru:Борис Николаевич Ельцин will never have a page on English Wikipedia because there has never been such a person identified as notable by English sources.  We also know that, in some foreign countries, like the one Milan Jurcina comes from, they spell his name "Milan Jurčina"; but in English we don't!  I trust you'll let me know if you need that explained to you any more clearly.
In keeping with what does seem to be an unwritten WP standard, in terms of the use of the second line of Infobox titles for foreign spellings, I'd like to suggest that Template:Infobox ice hockey player, and any others where it's appropriate, be updated to include a "| foreign spelling =" or equivalent parameter.  If anyone has any better suggestions that foreign spelling, please indicate so and I'll recommend the appropriate minor change to this perma-locked template.
Meanwhile I'll now go spend another hour or two figuring out how to respond in opposition of your proposal at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English)#Diacritics in European ice hockey bio articles - A solution? to re-write the English language. — Who R you? Talk 01:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support There is no other valid choice that is compliant with well established Wikipedia policies and guidelines. As has been clearly demonstrated, the English-language RSs spell his name “Milan Jurcina”. This is true for notable hockey websites such as Yahoo sports, NHL.com Network, and Hockey Reference.com. It is also the spelling used by The New York Times. Milan’s own jersey spells it “JURNCINA” as does his Facebook fan club. It is simply not the proper role of mere wikipedians to debate such fundamental issues as if we fancy ourselves to be the Soldiers Of the Encyclopedic Truth God®™© when writing about individuals whose names are spelled differently in their native countries. None of that gives us license to flout the preponderance of most-reliable English-language RSs—“higher calling” notwithstanding. Wikipedia must follow the RSs. Greg L (talk) 01:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the five pillars, our house style and the BLP principle of getting the article right. None of the sources presented here are authoritative or relevant to an encyclopedia; Wikipedia is not a news site, sports organization or a jersey manufacturer. It is well known, and even noted on The Elements of Typographic Style, that newspapers (like sports writers generally) fail to spell foreign names correctly. This common usage differs from the proper English used by encyclopedias and is therefore not a justification for us to deal with sports persons differently from politicians and Nobel Prize winners. As people usually want their name spelled right and English allows or even requires this, we should do so and get this BLP right by starting with the title. COMMONNAME is widely supported but extreme interpretations of it are not; the common name we use often differs from the the most common spelling (diacritics, capitalization, hyphens/dashes...). Prolog (talk) 10:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Please provide the reference to the English RS, (media, book, encyclopedia) that spells the name of the NHL Hockey player the same incorrect way that Wikipedia currently spells it.  This is not Czech Wikipedia; that may be found at cs:main_page, just as the foreign language, non-English version of this page is available at cs:Milan Jurčina.  And isn't it interesting how it's ok for Czech's to spell names however they want (See: cs:Boris Jelcin) and yet if others don't agree to quadruple the size of their alphabet they get one agrument after another about how the Slavic languages dictate to the rest of the world how to spell things. — Who R you? Talk 12:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
  • It would appear that lies and deception are the Prolog idea of how to discuss things.  Isn't it interesting how you cite The Elements of Typographic Style, a book about layout and design of type (i.e. typesetting) in the printing industry, and then you just make up some BS about how it says according to you "… that newspapers (like sports writers generally) fail to spell foreign names correctly."  But of course one need only follow the link to see that this is just another Prolog lie and deception, not unlike the Marek Zidlicky RM when you created a WP link (WP:DGUIDE) to the middle of an essay document in your user space that you intentionally set up to mislead other editors into believing they were viewing a policy document.  I guess based on this pattern of deception and falsification of sources, it's probably appropriate to go through every edit you've made in en.WP and remove anything where the source hasn't been verified by someone else, since it would obviously be stupid to trust a Prolog citation.
It seems pretty clear that we should all just start ignoring Prolog; and if this were the real world I certainly wouldn't have anything to do with you, but since you keep coming into these discussions and lying and trying to manipulate people, I am, to my great disappointment, forced to read the garbage you write.  So since we all know that you have a tendency to lie and just link to any document you can think of that you think others won't be bothered to check, I guess we have to start checking and asking questions, you mention the 5 pillars, just where in the 5 pillars does it say that English Wikipedia ignores the sources and makes up it's own spelling of things because Prolog says so?  Because I looked and I couldn't find that line.
And then you link to the Category of Slovak people and call it the house style, a category with only 4 names that even contain diacritics, 1 being a stub, 2 being people who have, from the looks of it, have probably never been outside of Czechoslovakia, and one which is a single sentence stub created in October; one of the articles list a single English RS that doesn't even mention the person the WP article is about, one of the people, from the looks of it, has never been written about by an English source of any kind, and one indicates the persons name is possibly mentioned (and only mentioned) in the Auschwitz Nazi Death camp report published by the United Stated Holocaust Memorial Museum; in other words, of the four articles, all four should likely be deleted as failing to satisfy WP:N for the English Wikipedia (despite the fact that they may or may not be notable in Czechoslovakia).  All the other people's articles in the category provided in the link are, in fact, spelled without diacritics.  Meanwhile, perhaps you would care to explain all the moves to non-English spellings which you have done, like you did here with Miloslav Mečíř, Jr. or here with Victoria Larrière or here with Iryna Brémond for example, moved contrary to consensus, contrary to the RS, and contrary to Wikipedia policies, apparently all on the basis of Prolog as source, editor, and administrator?
And then you mention BLP, well, we certainly all know what that is, so since you've impressed us with your ability to remember the acronym of one of en.WP's policies, why don't you tell us what it is about BLP that you'd like us to consider; is it the avoid WP:OR doctrine (like you making up your own spelling for this article even though you know that all the English RS spell it in English, or is it the use citations to prove what your saying (for example perhaps you'd care to cite a source for the non-English spelling currently being used for this article), perhaps it's WP:BLPPRIVACY which says "… Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources …", again the policy of en.WP to use only what the RS have established, in this case "Milan Jurcina".  And then of course you finish your argument by saying that the policy, established by consensus, that says "use the name that is used most commonly by the majority of the sources", and your argument is, of course, that doesn't really mean what it says, what it really means is that Prolog gets to say that we should ignore all the sources and spell things the way Prolog wants them to be spelled because he's proclaimed himself to be the ultimate source.  It truly is unfortunate that WP doesn't have a spam filter so we could just have the system automatically hide what Prolog posts so we don't have to waste our time looking up background information in order to prove that Prolog is lying once again; because after a while it really isn't worth the hassle involved in proving it.  Perhaps if English were your primary language, you would have heard the story of the boy who cried wolf; it sure does fit you.  It seems fairly obvious that it is a waste of time to even bother reading what Prolog writes. — Who R you? Talk 15:08, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Your constant incivility, personal attacks and tl;dr rants ("vandalizing", "lies and deception", "lying and trying to manipulate") show your grasp on community standards. Prolog (talk) 01:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Prolog, please first go get our guidelines and policies changed rather than flit about asking us all to just ignore them. Your arguments just don’t hold water. You write Wikipedia is not a news site, sports organization or a jersey manufacturer. That sort of reasoning was apparently in the vain hope that such nonsense won’t be contested here, but it’s not the jersey manufacturer who decided it will be spelled “JURCINA” on his jersey; it was Jurcina himself and/or the NHL. Those clearly serve as English-language RSs for this article. Indeed, Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Yet it is imbedded right in Wikipedia’s DNA that we follow the spelling practices of RSs, including newspapers. In fact, following the practices of preeminent English-langauge newspapers and magazines such as International Herald Tribune, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Time, Newsweek is spelled out in various places all over Wikipedia, including at here at Wikipedia:Spelling. Do you not understand this fundamental truth, or is it that you just don’t like it and therefore chose to pretend that these inconvenient truths do not exist?? You clearly disagree with critical parts of WP:RS and Wikipedia:Spelling but that doesn’t matter; your vote! flouts bedrock principles about following the RSs with regard to spelling. You don’t like how the NHL spells it “Jurcina”? Too bad, on a hockey-related article about an NHL player, the NHL is a highly reliable RS Wikipedia must follow; that’s the brick house that broke the camel’s back. Do you understand any of this(?): how Wikipedia follows the RSs and it’s not the other way around? If you want to change our core principles, please go take it up at WP:RS and Wikipedia:Spelling and first get our rules and guidelines changed. But it would be just splendid if you didn’t promote reasoning here like you did over at Talk:Marek Zidlicky that essentially asks us all to pay no attention to that nonsense behind the curtain regarding how Wikipedia shouldn’t following the RSs. Greg L (talk) 16:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
  • No change in policy is necessary, although clarifications could of course be made. Your comments seem like wikilawyering around the fact that this is a project to build a high-quality encyclopedia, and that achieving this target sometimes means not following the practices of reliable but non-encyclopedic sources. NHL.com and newspapers are good sources for expanding the article's career section, but other encyclopedias along with dictionaries and style manuals are the best sources on how we should spell foreign names. That is in line with both the letter and the spirit of WP:NOT. Prolog (talk) 01:04, 4 November 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.

A Summary of all relevant WP:Policies[edit]

Policies[edit]

  • WP:EN: The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language, as you would find it in reliable sources…
If an examination of the sources in an article shows that one name or version of the name stands out as clearly the most commonly used in the English-language, we should follow the sources and use it. …
Names not originally in a Latin alphabet, as with Greek, Chinese or Russian, must be transliterated into characters generally intelligible to literate speakers of English. …
The native spelling of a name should generally be included in parentheses, in the first line of the article, with a transliteration if the Anglicization isn't identical. …
  • WP:UCN: Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. …
…The term most typically used in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms, whether the official name, the scientific name, the birth name, the original name or the trademarked name. …
  • WP:DIACRITICS: The use of modified letters (such as accents or other diacritics) in article titles is neither encouraged nor discouraged; when deciding between versions of a word which differ in the use or non-use of modified letters, follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language (including other encyclopedias and reference works). The policy on using common names and on foreign names does not prohibit the use of modified letters, if they are used in the common name as verified by reliable sources.
  • WP:COMMONSENSE: Why isn't "use common sense" an official policy? It doesn't need to be; as a fundamental principle, it is above any policy.
  • WP:BURO: … Written rules do not themselves set accepted practice. Rather, they document already existing community consensus regarding what should be accepted and what should be rejected. When instruction creep is found to have occurred, it should be removed.
  • WP:CONSENSUS: … Editors usually reach consensus as a natural and inherent product of editing; generally someone makes a change or addition to a page, then everyone who reads it has an opportunity to leave the page as it is or change it. When editors cannot reach agreement by editing, the process of finding a consensus is continued by discussion on the relevant talk pages.
… unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope.
Wikipedia has a higher standard of participation and consensus for changes to Policies and guidelines than to other types of articles. This is because they reflect established consensus, and their stability and consistency are important to the community. As a result, the best practice is to propose substantive changes on the talk page first and then allow sufficient time for thorough discussion before implementing the change. …
Raising the same issue repeatedly on different pages, to different admins, or with different wording is confusing and disruptive. It doesn't help to seek out a forum where you get the answer you want, or to play with the wording to try and trick different editors into agreeing with you, since sooner or later someone will notice all of the different threads. …
  • WP:UE: The choice between anglicized and local spellings should follow English-language usage…
 If  there are too few English-language sources to constitute and established usage…
Editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial title to another is strongly discouraged. If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed. If it has never been stable, or unstable for a long time, and no consensus can be reached on what the title should be, default to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub.

Past Discussions[edit]

There are currently 2,285 pages in Article Talk, 833 in Wikipedia, and 615 in WP:Talk namespaces (excluding redirects) containing the word "diacritic".  A brief sample of some of these ad nauseam discussions on diacritics, selected from the first 50 found in WP:Talk, include:
Page Dates Synopsis
Wikipedia talk:Usage of diacritics Late June /
Early Jul'08
"This is a failed proposal. Consensus in its favor was not established within a reasonable period of time. If you want to revive…"
Wikipedia talk:Use diacritics Early Jun'08 "See also the current guideline Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) and the prosed guideline Wikipedia:Naming conventions (standard letters with diacritics) which was {{rejected}} on 21 April 2007"
Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (standard letters with diacritics) 2 archives (in 3 parts) Feb-Jun'06, Mar-Dec'06, & 2007 Summary: "See also the current guideline Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) and the proposed guideline Wikipedia talk:Use diacritics which was {{rejected}} on 18 June 2008"
Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English)/Diacritics RfC Jul − Aug'11 "Please Note... this RFC has been closed with a "no consensus" decision. This means that any further discussions on changing the language of the guideline should now take place at the guideline talk page itself, and not here. Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 16:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)"
Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English)/diacritics Nov 2004 Didn't see any obvious summary
Some 42,000 characters in ~46 comments.
Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English)
DIACRITIC RELATED DISCUSSIONS LISTED IN ARCHIVE INDEX
Discussion Topic Replies (estimated) Archive #
Are diacritics part of everyday English? 5 #4
Clueless on diacritics 7 #6
Diacritics and this policy 17 # 7
Diacritic marks in article titles 12 # 1
Diacritics, South Slavic languages 20 # 4
Diacritics January 2008 1 # 6
Fact: it is a common practice to use diacritics on Wikipedia 42 # 9
Fact: Using diacritics in article titles is contrary to the policy of WP:Article titles 22 # 9
Pointer to discussion about WP:DIACRITICS and MOS:FOREIGN 75 Main Talk Page
Proposal and straw poll regarding place names with diacritical marks 146 # 3
The English alphabet includes diacritics 7 # 3
Use of diacritics in biographical article titles 490 # 8
Using diacritics (or national alphabet) in the name of the article From Village Pump # 4
Wikipedia:Usage of diacritics 15 # 7
With/without diacritics: how about "anything goes if you can prove you can clean up your own mess?" 5 # 2
WP:DIACRITICS 8 # 7
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Player pages format Jan−Jun'06 Some 91,000 characters with ~124 postings in 8 successive sections (plus 4 or 5 or more sections, on the same page, about diacritics) — Never even came to any sort of vote although a proposal was made.
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Finnish)
Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Finnish)
Aug/Sep'06
Jan'07
This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference.
9 Sections/sub-sections, 48,000 characters in ~69 posts.
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Swedish)
Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Swedish)
Feb−Jul'06 This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference.
7 (sub)Sections, 43,000 characters in ~70 posts including more than half cut & pasted from a Village Pump conversation. — The debate has continued here Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Finnish). Masterhatch 16:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Hawaii-related articles#Proposal to avoid okina's and kahako's Oct'07 − Apr'08 37,000 chars, ~48 posts — Although full consensus could not be reached on this proposal, of those commenting there was a clear majority of 11 opposed to 4 in favor. Furthermore, many of those opposed felt very strongly that diacritics should be retained, and all of those in favor have not been actively involved in editing Hawaiʻi-related articles other than to remove diacritics. Therefore, the debate is considered resolved in favor of placing okina and kahakō where appropriate for Hawaiian-language words and place names in the text of articles (diacritics in article titles is a somewhat separate issue; see section below). The discussion is archived below. KarlM (talk) 18:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Note: The article's title remains State of Hawaii (Mokuʻāina o Hawaiʻi); along with Oahu (Oʻahu), Kahoolawe, Kauai (Kauaʻi), Lanai (Lānaʻi), Maui, Molokai (Molokaʻi), Niihau (Niʻihau), in accordance with article naming policies).
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles/More macrons discussion#Yet again on diacritics Oct'06 87,000 characters, ~167 posts — This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. …
There is not now, nor does there ever appear to have been, consensus on changing the existing policies on the use of diacritics; there is, however, a policy on the use of diacritics; it basically boils down to this:
WP Policy regarding diacritics is to follow the majority of the (English) RS!

Previous Page move[edit]

I'm curious. Were RMs used to move this or any other hockey player articles to the diacritics titles? GoodDay (talk) 04:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

No, no RM for this page. It was moved in June 2006. The edit summary says, "moved Milan Jurcina to Milan Jurčina: diacritics." A lot of pages were moved to diacritic titles at about that time. Perhaps this is when editors became aware of the capability. UTF-8 (full Unicode) was part of MediaWiki 1.5, released in 2005. Kauffner (talk) 05:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
It's no wonder these dios discussions get heated at times. Those unilateral pro-dios page moves, should never have happened. GoodDay (talk) 15:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
They should just be reverted to pre-diacritic versions per WP:BRD . 65.94.77.11 (talk) 04:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

First mention[edit]

WP:MOSBIO#First_mention gives some examples of how bios should open, and none of them put an alternative name in parenthesis as the current opening does. IMO, the current format is quite awkward and for no good reason. The opening sentence tells us three times that the subject is Slovak. The name in the opening is not necessarily the same as the common name or the one used in the title, so it can contain diacritics even if the title does not. Kauffner (talk) 13:46, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

It can contain diacritics but it is not the formal name (as you wrote in one revert) it is simply the full name. Like Ricky Nelson is actually Eric Hilliard Nelson in English. Tennis player bios do this all the time if their birthname is in a non-english alphabet. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:11, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress which affects this page. Please participate at Talk:Stephane Charbonneau - Requested move and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 23:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress which affects this page. Please participate at Talk:Stéphane Charbonneau - Requested move and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 23:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Milan Jurčina. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:55, 4 December 2017 (UTC)