Jump to content

Talk:Tomáš Kubalík

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Move?

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move page at this time. Diacritics have always been a contentious issue here, but support for their use has steadily grown over the last 5 years. Now it is clear that the practice of removing diacritics does not enjoy the consensus support that it once did. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One additional note: This page was recently moved from the title without diacritics to the current title. I'm not going to revert that move, because that would add yet another page move to the history, and it would be a move that's not supported by consensus. I know that some people like to take "no consensus" as "maintain the previous status quo", but I've never been that kind of closer. In this case, I know that the wind has been steadily changing in the direction of using diacritics, so I think that a reversion at this point would be especially pointless. This sort of thing is controversial, so I absolutely invite review of my actions by the Wikipedia community. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Tomáš KubalíkTomas KubalikRelisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The well-established policy is WP:VERIFY. There are NO sources shown to support the use of diacritics. ALL the sources in the article show name without diacritics. Where did this form of name come from? Is it original research? Or is it just made up? Dolovis (talk) 12:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can find numerous sources by googling Czech sites.--Kotniski (talk) 12:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest you provide a wikilink to either such a search or specific hits. English language ones, of course. Andrewa (talk) 01:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They aren't required to be in english if there are no reliable sources in english. Any source that drops diacritics are spelling the name wrong and thus aren't reliable for how to spell a name. In most cases this means that a switch to non-english sources is required. -DJSasso (talk) 11:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of the best examples of circular argument that I have seen in more than forty years of serious study of such things. Andrewa (talk) 03:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To de-circularize it, I think the argument is that we don't have any reliable English sources to answer (explicitly) the question of how his name would be spelt by an English-language work (such as Wikipedia) whose style is to retain original diacritics on the names of foreigners. So we have to use our common sense - this guy is not another Napoleon. --Kotniski (talk) 10:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The part of the argument that you have paraphrased was not circular. The circular argument is the attempt to disqualify any source that drops diacritics as ipso facto not reliable. You may even have introduced a new circularity by claiming Wikipedia's style is to retain original diacritics on the names of foreigners. I think that's sweeping enough in scope to include some of the issues under discussion. Andrewa (talk) 12:37, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whether you think its circular or not, it is a fact. In order to be a reliable source on a given bit of information you have to have a history of fact checking and correct information. Since it is not true that diacritics are not used in English it is wrong to remove them from names. So sources that remove them have either not done the research to use the proper name or are willfully ignoring the proper name. Either of which leads you down the road of being an unreliable source when it comes to spelling names. Now if we were talking about Munich and München I would agree with you as Munich is an anglicized name. But just removing diacritics does not anglicize a name. -DJSasso (talk) 12:46, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say that it's wrong to remove them, just that it isn't Wikipedia's style and practice to remove them. I don't really see anything circular about this argument - we can see by examining many categories of articles what the practice is; it's been explained why it's good practice for an encyclopedia (Britannica does pretty much the same thing); no reason has been given either for changing the practice or for making this person an exception. There are sources (which happen not to be English ones, but that doesn't matter) which leave no doubt as to how his name is spelt with original diacritics, i.e. in our style. --Kotniski (talk) 14:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I respect your opinions that there is no circularity in these arguments. Please respect my opinion that there is. Andrewa (talk) 01:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As you are well aware, the discussion you are referring to is still “going around in circles”, and it is abundantly clear no consensus to change policy will be reached, so the current policy of WP:EN and WP:COMMONNAME remain in effect. Dolovis (talk) 04:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The policies you refer to do not discount the use of diacritics. You should probably check your sources before throwing nonsense around. – Nurmsook! talk... 21:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are calling the policy of Wikipedia:Article titles nonsense. It isn't, and its policy should be followed. Dolovis (talk) 12:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Once again you are showing your complete lack of "getting the point". I have not once referred to WP:AT as nonsense, and am highly offended that you would assume that sort of WP:BADFAITH of me. I have referred to your complete and utter misunderstanding of the policy as nonsense, not the policy itself. Show me where in the policy diacritics are discounted, and then I'll refrain from calling your assertions nonsense. Frankly, your disrespect towards other editors is getting beyond acceptable for Wikipedia. – Nurmsook! talk... 18:26, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert per WP:BRD. As this looks like it would never pass a WP:RM, so it should be reverted. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 03:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, Other encyclopedias are valid usage models, per WP:DIACRITICS. I don't think any other encyclopedia has an article about this guy. But Britannica, Encarta, and Columbia all use diacritics for Czech names. It is Wiki's usual practice to retain diacritics when the person's native language uses them. This is the true, accurate name, the way he spells it in his own language, and isn't accuracy better than dumbing it down? Kauffner (talk) 14:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.