Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ice hockey)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Ice Hockey (Rated NA-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Ice Hockey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of ice hockey on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 NA  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

I strongly propose that we abolish the "no diacritics" article.[edit]

My reasons are as follows:

  1. Botching diacritics can be seen as very disrespectful by native speakers;
  2. Botching diacritics can be a strong indication that the editor has little or no knowledge/acknoledgement of their functions and/or linguistic/cultural significance;
  3. With new generations of computers and tablets becoming more and more available, the "I don't know how to type it" excuse is becoming no longer valid.

Therefore, I would like to propose these replacement articles:

  1. "Diacritics should be applied in accordance with exactly how they are applied in verifiable, reliable sources."
  2. "If no verifiable, reliable English sources are available, their non-English counterparts (like this news release by the Czech Ice Hockey Association) shall be deemed acceptable." Cedric tsan cantonais 17:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Good luck to you. I agree with using them, but this has gone through many discussions that has included hundreds of editors. The rough split on those who support and those who don't support is roughly 50/50. The purpose of this naming convention was to stop the constant fights and warring about this topic by allowing their use in some areas and not in others in the absence of a true consensus. I don't think you fully realize the hundreds of pages of discussion that has gone on regarding this topic. There have been wikiwide discussions on the topic that have lasted months and have lead nowhere but to the same outcome. Maybe sometime in the future people will be more willing to allow the use of them fully, but as long as the NHL doesn't use them on players names you are going to have a hard time convincing people to use them. -DJSasso (talk) 17:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  • What Cedric proposes is actual Wikipedia policy, per WP:V.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  04:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

The diacritics wannabe-rule is bassackwards[edit]

The "Article titles" section is preferring the diacritics (or rather no-diacritics) preferences of an organization (a hockey league) that doesn't like to bother with them, rather than a) the preferences of the often-living individuals to whom these names belong, and b) facts about what these people's name really are as reported by reliable sources. This conflicts with MOS:DIACRITICS, so it's a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS policy problem, as well as a WP:V and WP:NPOV policy problem. It's also militantly Anglicization-supremacist enough that at least one productive editor has left because of it. I also note that User:Tennis expert, one of a handful of anti-diacritics campaigners, was caught sockpuppeteering about it and indefinitely blocked. It's really well beyond time for this "our sovereign little sport wikiproject will make up its own jingoistic rules against wider consensus" campaign behavior to stop (and I say that as the co-founder of a sport wikiproject that has a topical style guide, BTW).  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  04:19, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes well I agree with User:SMcCandlish that this is backwards, I also think the User:Tennis expert is still around as different socks, but I can't remember now what the last one was. Ice Hockey and Tennis were sort of reserves of an Ellis Island English name zone mentality, which is justifiable for those that have actually taken US or Canadian citizenship but not for 1-season visitors. User:SMcCandlish if you want to smoke out socks a good way would be to put an RM to get the one blonde Serbian lady back In ictu oculi (talk) 05:54, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
The irony is it was actually the other way around at the time it was created. We were the only project where you could use them. Most of the rest of the wiki was removing them and we were attacked for allowing them. The reason it has slowly become acceptable to have them on the wiki is because our wikiproject created this compromise. It allowed other projects to point to us and say look how that compromise stopped the never ending edit warring that was going on in the topic. Since there was no wiki-wide consensus and since there still hasn't been a wiki-wide RfC that has gone clearly to one side or the other we have a compromise to keep the edit warring down. As has been determined in many discussions outside our project on the existence of our compromise, as long as there is no wiki-wide consensus our compromise can't be a local consensus because there is no wiki-wide consensus for it to be disagreeing with. Also it is a guideline, not a local advice page. And I say that as probably one of the most well known advocates for using diacritics on the wiki although I think ictu oculi has long since passed me on that front. ;) -DJSasso (talk) 12:29, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Frankly SMcCandlish, you appear to be the one serving as an example of jingoism. You seem to be angry Cedric quit because he isn't getting his way, but attacking people for it doesn't make you look good. Honestly, if he's going to go out with jingoistic (what a useful word here...) commentary like "English-supremacists", then all I can say is "bye". And I say this as someone who presently supports the use of diacritics. In your case, lamenting the fact that someone who engages in battleground rhetoric on your side is leaving while whining about the supposed battleground mentality of the other side only reveals an inevitably unsurprising level of hypocrisy. Take a step back, and take a look in the mirror, dude.
And as far as MOS:DIACRITICS goes, I wish you good fortune demonstrating the existence of a wiki-wide consensus on the matter. You and I both know there isn't one. And you and I both know that you won't take DJSasso's advice and start a new RFC on the matter because you and I both know that it won't pass your way. And again, I say that as someone who would support you if you started that RFC. Resolute 14:24, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Not very big on WP:CIVIL, are you, SMcCandlish? That being said, are you sure you're citing the guideline you think supports your POV? MOS:DIACRITICS contains the following:

    "Names not originally written in one of the Latin-script alphabets ... must be given a romanized form for use in English. Use a systematically transliterated or otherwise romanized name ... but if there is a common English form of the name ... use that form instead."

"The use of diacritics (such as accent marks) for foreign words is neither encouraged nor discouraged; their usage depends on whether they appear in verifiable reliable sources in English and on the constraints imposed by specialized Wikipedia guidelines (see also Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Proper names § Diacritics). Provide redirects from alternative forms that use or exclude diacritics."

"For foreign names, phrases, and words generally, adopt the spellings most commonly used in English-language references for the article, unless those spellings are idiosyncratic or obsolete."

Given that the great majority of English-language sources for hockey players does not use diacritics -- something proven again and again -- perhaps you want to cut back on the mud throwing. And honestly, I take Resolute's POV a bit further: in a consensus-driven environment such as Wikipedia, anyone inclined to take his ball and go home because he doesn't get his way is helping the project out, by way of leaving one fewer person hot-tempered enough to edit war or toss around battlefield rhetoric until he does. You claim there's a "wider consensus?" Spiffy. Prove it. Ravenswing 19:09, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Ravenswing "Given that the great majority of English-language sources for hockey players does not use diacritics -- something proven again and again" ... what is the relevance of this comment. Wikipedia is a full UNICODE font source, wheras hockey sources are generally ASCII equivalent 26 letters only. Are you suggesting that the Hockey bit of Wikipedia be written with a restricted font set in imitation of sports html? If so how is a "hockey fonts for hockey" different from the kind of "use tennis fonts" argument which the cluster of blocked tennis "English names" editors pursued. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Since when is this a technical issue? I don't base my opposition to the use of diacritics on how many keyboards have or haven't the proper keys, or how difficult it is to insert ASCII codes. I base it on the fact that diacritics are seldom used in English-language sources, and that WP:COMMONNAME enjoins us to employ the usages found in the preponderance of English-language sources. I can't imagine what is so hard to grasp about that argument, beyond that you disagree with it. Ravenswing 06:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
This isn't a "technical issue", choice of full fonts is a cost issue [everyone who has worked in publishing will know this as a reality, and anyone who hasn't worked in publishing won't accept this as a fact even if 100 people who have worked in publishing tell them repeatedly again and again and again and again - they will never get it]. "diacritics are seldom used in English-language sources" User:Ravenswing that's right, diacritics are used in hardback books, not tabloid newspapers. But this is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid newspaper. So the issue is what does en.Wikipedia use? This has ZERO to do with WP:COMMONNAME please read the guideline again. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:29, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


I think we need to update the Team naming sub-section, as the NHL team article has since been moved to St. Louis Blues. -- GoodDay (talk) 18:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Another reason why now is the time to drop "Convention №. 2"[edit]

For those who use the "not to right great wrong" as their shield, here's some disturbing news for them: It's becoming apparent that the NHL itself is dropping the "no diacritics" rule on its social media outlets. Instead of "Puljujarvi" from "Karpat", this drafté is listed as "Puljujärvi" from "Kärpät". (See it for yourselves.)

It's the very same (at least in nature) argument that I've been using against those monolingual Hong Kong translators who insist on applying English pronunciation rules on non-English names and on transliterating non-English names based on such erroneous pronunciations: "Now that even BBC, ITV and Sky Sports are switching to simulated closest-to-original pronunciations, if you're still making yourselves stuck with those erroneous pronunciations, you're the one looking backwards." — Now that even the NHL itself is dropping the practise of exterminating diacritics, those who insist on exterminating diacritics are the only one who are looking backward. To put this "convention" in a nice way, it's like Ellis Island. To put is in a not-so-nice way, it's like the residential schools.

Still, I'm willing to compromise for a bit. I offer two options of compromise:

  1. Replace "All North American hockey pages" with "All US hockey pages";
  2. Pro-diacritic editors keep the existing names (with or without diacritics) untouched while anti-diacritic editors keep the names of newcomers (especially names with diacritics) untouched, until this practise is completely phased out.

Sincerely, "Convention №. 2" 🔫 Cédric 04:24, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

  • And when the NHL starts putting diacriticals on uniforms, team webpages, and in the record books, that's time to revisit the issue. You're claiming that a single Facebook post is a seachange in how the NHL and the English-language media operate? Ravenswing 11:44, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Let me ask you something: Haven't most of us (if not all) learned how to tell which sources are reliable and which sources are not reliable in secondary school? "Convention №. 2" 🔫 Cédric 20:00, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Sounds like an absurd strawman coming up, but however much you might be surprised by the answer, it'd be "of course not." What would lead you to think that any part of the education of the average high school student involved any such level of discernment? (Beyond that, what would lead you to feel that such a question has any place in this discussion?) Ravenswing 02:15, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Most of those who had learned how to tell which sources are reliable and which sources are not should be able to tell that most English-language media that are not run by linguists (or, at least, people who understand languages where foreign names like Chára, Meszároš and Řepík come from) simply aren't reliable sources when it comes to non-English diacritics — as unreliable as claiming that the NHL is abandoning its "no diacritics" practice based on nothing more than a Facebook post. It's anything but a straw man. The bigger problem here is that the conventions against unreliable sources and the rule of "not righting great wrongs" are at odds against each other here.
Just like how General Ferdinand Foch said about the Treaty of Versailles, this "Convention №. 2" is not peace, but merely an armistice, and it, as an armistice, does more harm than good to Wikipedia as an encyclopaedia. "Convention №. 2" 🔫 Cédric 22:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree with exactly one thing you say, and I'll get to that. In the meantime, the definition of "reliable source" on Wikipedia isn't "it agrees with me." English-language sources use names as commonly rendered in English, and suggesting there's something wrong or "unreliable" about that is as sensible as screeching at the Economist, or the New York Times, or CNN, or the Times of India because they use (say) "Germany" and "Japan" instead of "Deutschland" or "Nihon." If you have a problem with that (and it is apparent that you do), then go to the COMMONNAME talk page and argue that the English Wikipedia should only be allowed to render foreign names as per their native languages.

In the meantime, yes: the compromise was an armistice, not a peace. Few are enthusiastic about it, and I'm not one of them. But it stopped a great deal of edit warring, and hard feelings and hostilities that led to Arbcom sanctions against multiple editors. That did more harm than good to the encyclopedia, far more than can conceivably be inflicted upon people used to the practices of English-language sources (otherwise, what are they doing here?) who nonetheless go red with fury at seeing names without umlauts or cedillas. Ravenswing 23:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

"Deutschland" and "Nihon" cannot be understood by people that only know English. But they can all understand that "Nicklas Bäckström" is the player they know as "Nicklas Backstrom". Diacritics don't reduce legibility for English only readers, but they enhance the value for everyone that knows something of other languages. Boivie (talk) 12:43, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
«[S]uggesting there's something wrong or "unreliable" about that is as sensible as screeching at the Economist, or the New York Times, or CNN, or the Times of India because they use (say) "Germany" and "Japan" instead of "Deutschland" or "Nihon."», now this sounds like a straw man, and not just any straw man, but a straw man soaked with moonshine.
In accordance with your arguments above, could I assume that you couldn't tell the old days of deriving English names for foreign names and the modern days of copying and pasting foreign names while wrongfully ignoring all diacritics? Back in the old days when English names used to be results of derivation, yes, English speakers derived John Cabot from «Giovanni Cabotto», Dublin from «Duḃ linn», Moscow from «Moskva», etc., and I don't deny any of that. However, may I remind you that this practice became no longer popular after WW1 and the abolishment of monarchy in most European countries? Nowadays, derivation is reserved for Papal names (and that why in English people say "Pope Francis" instead of "Pope Franciscus"). As for foreign monarch names, copying and pasting has taken over. That why most English speakers uses «Juan Carlos the First» rather than «John Charles the First» and «Margrethe the Second» rather than «Margaret the Second».
What you did above was confusing derived names from the old days and the copied-and-pasted names from the modern days. Both "Germany" and "Japan" are derived (along with some other factors playing their roles) names from the old days. In fact, if we were still in the old days, Andrej Meszároš might've become «Andray Mezzarosh» and Michal Řepík might've become «Michael Sheppeak». But since the old practise is no longer the norm, the premise of your argument is no longer valid.
Now let us return to our sheep: WP:NONENG did state that sources in English are «preferred over non-English ones», but the often-overlooked premise is that there need to be «English sources of equal quality and relevance» available. In our case here, while most English sources like TSN and Sportsnet are «of equal relevance», there're always non-English sources of better quality when it comes to verifying non-English names. "Convention №. 2" 🔫 Cédric 18:14, 30 June 2016 (UTC)