Talk:Vladimír Búřil

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

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 listed articles per WP:DIACRITIC#No established usage: It can happen that an otherwise notable topic has not yet received much attention in the English-speaking world [...] follow the conventions of the language in which this entity is most often talked about. Although this rationale doesn't appear to apply to Vladimír Búřil, however, who appears to have achieved more attention in English sources in comparison to his non-English sources, as Jenks rightly points out. Overall, however, using English birth names of non-English people, although still Latin text, would not make the stated articles uniform and would be inconsistent. It therefore comes to the point where it has to be one or the other, and the diacritic marks - although unpopular with the news sources - are more accurate. Thus, all articles have been moved to the correct diacritic text. Regards, KiloT 18:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Vladimir Buril → Vladimír Búřil – 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 vast majority of articles in the "Czech ice hockey players" and "Slovak ice hockey players" categories have diacritics in article titles. Darwinek (talk) 14:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of the name use:

--Darwinek (talk) 14:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose rename/move - This is the English Wikipedia, and according to the policy of WP:COMMONNAME, these articles do not use the names as they might be spelled in Czech or Slovakian (with diacritic) as their article title; they instead uses the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources that are used as references for the articles. Dolovis (talk) 14:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all, WP:COMMONNAME is intended to resolve "disputes" between a common name and a technical name, a person's full name and a short form of the person's name used more commonly, or an English name and a foreign language name. This is none of these, there are no "English" forms of these Czech/Slovak names, it is just a matter of whether the person typing them has diacritics on their keyboard or not. We shouldn't be renaming people just because writers of English sources don't have diacritics on their keyboards. Obviously the titles without diacritics should redirect to the ones with diacritics. - filelakeshoe 14:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per common practice, evidence and rationale given by Darwinek and Filelakeshoe, and consensus at Talk:František Ptáček and Talk:Tibor Višňovský. It is high time to move all articles in the affected categories, I think they are few more. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support even though this is English language Wikipedia, if someone's name has diacritics in it then it has diacritics in it. Simple as that. Demokratickid (talk) 19:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to the closing editor - please note that the stated rational for these moves is not supported by Wiki-policy, and that User:Darwinek has used inappropriate canvassing (as demonstrated here) to shore up support for his proposed moves. Dolovis (talk) 05:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dolovis, stop WikiLawyering and discuss. Your argument is, IMO, based on a grave misunderstanding of the WP:COMMONNAME policy, and of language in general, if you're actually suggesting that these names have "English" forms just with the diacritics missing. WP:EN, which is far more relevant here, says "the use of modified letters (such as accents or other diacritics) in article titles is neither encouraged nor discouraged". Since there are no reliable sources (e.g. reference works and other encyclopedias) writing about these hockey players, we follow WP:EN#No established usage. - filelakeshoe 08:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are several reliable sources that can be used as references for these and other professional hockey players. For example, you can find profiles for each of these players at hockeydb.com, eliteprospects.com, and eurohockey.net, and all of those reliable sources show the commonly used form of name without diacritics. Dolovis (talk) 19:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It can hardly be called "common use". The names are just incorrectly transcribed. The name of this person is Vladimír Búřil, without any doubts. ... this continuing and repetitive arguing seems to me more and more bizzare and useless. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, standard practice, should be automatic per the result of many past discussions.--Kotniski (talk) 16:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all per nom and User:Kotniski. Subjects are notable exclusively for actions in Czechia or Slovakia where the relevant diacritics are used. —  AjaxSmack  17:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Putting all of these proposed moves together into one discussion is the incorrect process. Each move should be debated according to its own merits, and lumping them all together does not allow for that to happen. Dolovis (talk) 04:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it's quite common (and much more convenient) for such proposals to be lumped together. If you think special considerations apply to a particular one of them, just say.--Kotniski (talk) 14:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that special circumstances apply to the articles Jan Srdinko, Roman Kadera, Matus Vizvary, Ivo Kotaska as none of those articles show sources as required by WP:VERIFY to support the new proposed name. Wikipedia does not allow original research so reliable sources must be provided, and so far none have been. If you wish to discuss these article on a case-by-case basis, then open up the discussions on the individual article. A canvassed discussion to mass move articles against policy should not be tolerated. Dolovis (talk) 04:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Original research? Do you think we have invented false versions with diacritics? I'm speechless. Wikipedia should strive for maximum accuracy. I respect the fact that English speaking people have difficulties typing diacritical marks, however, this project has sufficient tool to overcome any problems of such kind (redirects etc). I don't want to accuse you of cultural ignorance or disrespect, I just want to remind you that in the part of the world where I live, diacritic is a standard component of language, believe it or not. A really good encyclopedic project should respect that. I assume you know very well that the names are correct with the diacritical marks, and to be honest, I don't know what is your point in this discussion. You are fighting against the accuracy, which is really interesting ... to me it is like fighting against the claim that the sky is blue. This is the most bizzare debate I've seen during my years here on Wikipedia. Perhaps that's because my name is Antonín Vejvančický and I'm biased :) --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 06:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as this is the english language Wikipedia. The english language is made up of the english alphabet, which has no diacritics. GoodDay (talk) 17:13, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Czech and Slovak names have little to do with English language, GoodDay. English Wikipedia is the international flagship of this encyclopedic project, and it should see the world in its diversity and complexity. Using the diacritics in foreign names could be an opportunity to learn more about the world, it could help you better understand the pronunciation of the names. Matus Vizvary is a nonsense (resulting from missing letters on a keyboard), while Matúš Vizváry has the sound and meaning of the name. It isn't easy to explain that, the language barrier is maybe too high ... --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 20:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. GoodDay (talk) 21:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is your right. Thanks for your elaborate comment :) --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 05:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support since the english language does include diacritics. The english language is actually made up of the english orthography. GoodDay has a misunderstanding of how language works. The alphabet is only part of what makes up the language. -DJSasso (talk) 17:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all. Policy arguments per above. Also, its not policy, but it must be horribly insulting for someone to find a Wikipedia page, and realize someone has changed their name for them. Newspapers get stuff wrong all the time, but an encyclopedia should strive for better. Canada Hky (talk) 17:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. There are no English versions of these names. Most English (non-encyclopedia) sources might or might not drop the diacritics but they do many things that go against our standard practice. Prolog (talk) 07:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This an encyclopedia, lets try to get peoples names spelled correctly. Do not change the characters that they have in their names just to make the contents easier to read or more 'English'. --Stefan talk 05:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Per WP:COMMONNAME, "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it instead uses the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources" (my bolding). In some cases, there are simply not enough English-language sources to define what is the common name and in those cases we default to foreign-language reliable sources. The only problem is that, in many of these cases, using diacritics is not even the common name in the non-English sources. I'll go through one by one:
    Vladimir Buril: A google news archive search gives 26 results for "Vladimir Buril", compared to only two for "Vladimír Búřil". It is also interesting to note that all of the 26 articles that choose not to use diacritics are non-English sources that use diacritics throughout the articles, but deliberately choose not to use diacritics for Buril's name. It is therefore not the common name.
    Jan Srdinko: Google news archive search gives 10 results for ""Jan Srdinko"" (five English, five non-English), compared to 29 for "Jan Srdínko" (all non-English). In this case, using diacritics is the common name in non-English sources, but not in English sources (I could not find one English source that uses diacritics, compared to five that do). Of particular note, The New York Times does not use diacritics.
    Roman Kadera: A google news archive search gives 44 results for "Roman Kadera" (5 English, 39 non-English), compared to nine for "Roman Kaděra" (all non-English). In short, not the common name in English or non-English sources.
    Matus Vizvary: A google news search gives zero results for "Matus Vizvary", compared to nine for "Matúš Vizváry" (all non-English). I support the move of Vizvary as it is clearly the common name in non-English sources and there are no English sources to be found.
    Ivo Kotaska: Again, a google news search gives zero results for "Ivo Kotaska", compared to 15 for "Ivo Kotaška". I also support the move of Kotaska as the use of diacritics is the common name in non-English sources and there were no English sources to be found.
    To sum up, I support the move of Matus Vizvary and Ivo Kotaska, but oppose the move of Vladimir Buril, Jan Srdinko and Roman Kadera. If this were split up into separate moves, I would be happy to support the two I have mentioned, but must oppose due to the fact this is a multi-move request. Jenks24 (talk) 17:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your research, Jenks24, but I disagree. Dividing the names to separate groups based solely on the number of G-News search hits is in my opinion totally unencyclopedic. Do you think that number of G-hits should be the main rule for Wikipedia naming conventions? It would cause a pure mess and inconsistency. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jenks24 comment is based on well established Wikipedia Policy, which is something that the "Support" comments have chosen to ignore or dismiss in their comments. Dolovis (talk) 13:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is not well-established policy to copycat news sources. In fact, we have several policies and guidelines, both written and de facto, that go directly against the practice in such sources. The pedia in Wikipedia is there for a reason. Prolog (talk) 14:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment about "copycat news sources" is off-topic. What is your point? And please cite the "policies and guidelines" that you are referring to. Vague claims that policy supports your position is trite. Dolovis (talk) 14:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was not off-topic. You and Jenks24 object to the moves citing sources that are news sites and not encyclopedias or other reference works. I'm pointing out that there are a number of differences between us and news sources. We write encyclopedia articles about fixed-wing aircrafts, the Climatic Research Unit email controversy and Dominik Hašek, they write news stories about airplanes, Climategate and Dominik Hasek. Pretty much every content policy and guideline we have is somehow at odds with news sources. I didn't say all were relevant here. WP:NOT certainly is and the BLP principle of getting the article right and the Foundation resolution of respecting the living subjects are important as well. Prolog (talk) 16:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from an objective source: The New York Times Manual of Style states at page 6 that "accent marks are used for French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese and German words and names. [...] Do not use accents in words or names from other languages (Slavic and Scandinavian ones, for example).” This authoritative reference is direct on point, and clearly states that modified letters should not be used for Czech or Slovak names. Dolovis (talk) 03:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, you would accept the Portuguese accents but not the Swedish or Czech :)? This is an outdated concept unacceptable for any serious and modern encyclopedic project. Wikipedia has human resources and technical tool capable of far more accurate work. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Guardian ("People's names, in whatever language, should also be given appropriate accents where known.") and the National Geographic ("Retain the original diacritical marks (accents, apostrophes, dots, cedillas, glottals, etc.) in unanglicized words in the following languages: Czech, Danish, Dutch, Finnish, French...") disagree. Prolog (talk) 14:16, 13 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vladimír_Búřil&oldid=1206481755"