Talk:Ľubomír Višňovský

WikiPoject: NHL team formats / Using Diacritics in Players' Names

Wasn't it agreed, to have title of European NHL players, written in English? GoodDay 22:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean in English? Is there an English translation, like how Enrique=Henry? If so, please provide it. --Muéro^(talk/c) 04:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

What I mean is 'Lubomir Visnovsky'. This is the English Wikipedia meaning English letters. As an English reader, I can't read 'squares' (that's how they appear, to me). Is their any Japanese names written in Japanese letters, on Euro-Wikipedias? Visnovsky (like the rest of the euro-NHLers), has consented to have his name Anglonized on his NHL jersey, why can't you pro-diacritics to the same? At least compromise, have the 'title' of this page in 'English' (eg 'Lubomir Visnovsky'). GoodDay 02:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks funny for me too, but I still respect (not saying that you're not) that in his country they spell his name like this and then Wikipedia should spell it like this to. And like Muéro said; There isn't any translation of his name. The japanese language use another writting system and therefore japanese text must be translated to the latin alphabet, slovak language doesn't. --Krm500 04:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem, leave it as is (with diacritics), let's just make sure, there's no diacritics on this name in the Los Angeles Kings article. GoodDay 22:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's also note, the NHLPA's Visnovsky bio page is English titled (with diacritic in content) as well. GoodDay 23:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there's no diacritics in his NHLPA bio content. Hmm. GoodDay 23:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

If I understood, diacritics in his name is allowed, but I have to add - his corect name is "Ľubomír Višňovský", so i will move the page --kelovy 08:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Are the squares in his name truely neccessary, can't we just use 'dots'? Honestly, I can't read 'square' shapes. GoodDay 17:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

This is an issue with your browser and the software you use, GoodDay. Wikipedia is fully Unicode (UTF-8)-capable, so there shouldn't be any squares for you to see anywhere. That said, I don't care one way or another regarding this article. The correct Slovak spelling should appear at least once even on the English Wikipedia page, while the rest of the spellings could be Anglicized – or not. Doesn't seem a big issue as long as your browser and software are properly adjusted. --Faterson 20:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Support, the title should reflect the english spelling because this is the english wikipedia. His full name spelled correctly should be in the lead. As is common for biographies.MilkStraw532 (talk) 22:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

Ľubomír Višňovský → Lubomir Visnovsky – 'Relisted. Discussion still active. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support – Per WP:UE and WP:COMMONNAME. Lubomir Visnovsky is a veteran NHL player of over 700 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 Lubomir Visnovsky is the COMMON NAME that is most frequently used to refer to the subject:

  Lubomir Visnovsky = about 295,000 total hits,[1] whereas

  Ľubomír Višňovský = has only about 5,780 total hits.[2]

His Official NHL profile uses name without diacritics[3] and even the name on his sweater is “Visnovsky”[4][5]. Dolovis (talk) 14:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support. ESPN, Los Angeles Times, and CBS Sports give this name without a diacritic. Kauffner (talk) 15:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support, as we should go with english language sources. This is the English language Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 16:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support: WP:COMMONNAME is official policy of this encyclopedia, and the evidence is overwhelming as to which version of Visnovsky's name is most commonly used in English-language sources. Ravenswing 18:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support Should go with english language sources, because its the english wikipedia. Besides that no one has those charactors on their keyboard.MilkStraw532 (talk) 18:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per WP:HOCKEY, consistency and common f*ng sense. The diacritic-hating one-man wrecking crew Dolovis has been on a crusade against diacritics for months, if not years, and to such lengths that he even had a page move ban imposed on himself. Nevertheless, he keeps working tirelessly to introduce discrepancy and inconsistency to wikipedia. A good many of us have previously kept an eye on Dolovis's actions, but we have obviously lost focus lately. And now he's back – with a vengeance. He's even using the sweater as an argument. Since when are sweaters a source in wikipedia? Is there a WP:SWEATER guideline? (The reason there's no diacritics on his sweater, by the way, is that he currently plays in NHL, and NHL's official policy is to ignore them. It's not his choice, and it does not mean that his name is spelled without them.) Yes this is the English wikipedia (and not the Simple English one), but so what? Yes, many English language sources skip the diacritics – but it's only for their convenience, they don't claim that this is how the name is spelled. The only sensible thing is to keep all diacritics on names written in alphabets derived from the Latin one. Otherwise we will end up have a virtual mess of kept and thrown discritics. Why don't we rename Mötley Crüe, Häagen-Dasz, Pelé and café too while we're at it? HandsomeFella (talk) 19:52, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

  Comment: Support for established policy should not be construed as "diacritic-hating". This page move request follows the established Wiki-policy of WP:UE, WP:COMMONNAME, and WP:RS, whereas the recent multiple-page move request made at Talk:Dominik Halmosi by User:HandsomeFella is follows no established policy. Dolovis (talk) 21:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

  As you yourself usually put it: Rubbish. First, "diacritic-hating" refers to you personally. WP:UE should not be construed as to meaning that diacritics should be ignored. There's nothing that supports your claims there. Instead, your move proposal is contrary to the guidelines at WP:HOCKEY. So, following established policy there, this page should be kept were it is. Why don't you get a life, instead of maintaining your crusade that would ultimately lead to a poorer wikipedia, being much less accurate than it can be? Have you ever imagined a wikipedia void of all diacritics? It would be totally uncyclopedic, totally unreliable, and ultimately totally disregarded in topics unrelated to the English-speaking world. Oh, and your disrupting additions WP:RM to might lead to another round at WP/ANI. HandsomeFella (talk) 21:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

  Cool off, like I've been doing these last few RMs concerning the dios. GoodDay (talk) 22:18, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

  Not very big on WP:CIVIL, are you, HandsomeFella? That being said, Wikipedia's definition of "disruptive" isn't "I don't like it." And that being said, are you seriously suggesting that WP:HOCKEY's now-fraying and always-threadbare gentlemen's agreement supercedes official Wikipedia policy? Ravenswing 02:04, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

  I admit I was a bit pissed off when I added my post. But if you had followed Dolovis's actions over the last year, I bet you'd understand. He's been ignoring the WP:HOCKEY guidelines since forever, and if anyone deserves being hit with the I don't like it argument, it's him. First he kept moving pages to diacritic-less versions, against WP:HOCKEY consensus, and despite being repeatedly told that this was violating WP:HOCKEY. Then he edited the redirects so the moves could not reversed without admin help. For this, he was deservedly reported to WP:ANI for gaming the system. A page move ban was ultimately imposed on him as a result. Immediately after that, he instead started peppering WP:RM with move requests along the same old lines. Most (or even all) of them where opposed by the community of editors that by now was keeping an eye on his actions. It seems to me that he's been keeping a low profile for a while, making us lose concentration. But no he's obviously back, trying to sneak in one single move after the other. He's apparently an SPE: he wants to rid wikipedia of all diacritics. That's why I call his additions to WP:RM disruptive.

  Regarding WP:UE and WP:COMMONNAME, there are no guidelines that support what Dolovis claims, so nothing is really superceded by the WP:HOCKEY guidelines. HandsomeFella (talk) 17:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

  You unfortunately seem to misunderstand North American culture and laws as much as you misunderstand the English language.  First, the simple one, "café"; this is the etymological root of, and is an alternative spelling to, the English word "cafe") it is often used in English, with the accent, to give a foreign flair to a coffee shop, but the English word is, none-the-less, "cafe"; and I think you might be right, we probably should look at correcting the WP article's title.
  As for Mötley Crüe and Häagen-Dasz, neither are words, nor names, let alone English or any other language; they are, rather, Registered Trademarks, as Häagen-Dasz® makes clear at their website.  A Trademark has nothing to do with language, or for that matter characters; examples include McDonald's Golden Arches  or the Nike Swoosh ; similarly, the combination of English and foreign letters Mötley Crüe, or Häagen-Dasz® are simply a registered brand, which, because of legal considerations, can't be freely copied and are owned by the related corporation; if these things were words, it would actually be impossible to trademark them since words cannot be trademarked, only copyrighted; further, you'll note that the Mötley Crüe web site writes the band's name as Motley Crue and only include the umlauts when they are talking about the brand, i.e. a concert.  And by all means, if you think these are words, just paste the English dictionary link for us to check out.  If "Ľubomír Višňovský" is a internationally Registered Trademark, please let us know as that changes the conversation entirely.
  As for Pelé, this is one of the rare occasions where the English RS spell the name more commonly as Pelé than as Pele; this is likely due to the fact that Pelé was an internationally renound personality and resident of a foreign land, when he first started being written about by English press.  Of course, Wikipedia should, and does, in accordance with all the policies, follow the English RS and spell the name using non-English characters, in this case the acute accent over the e (which is a common French configuration and much of English stems from a French root); but, of course, none of these deal with things like the caron diacritic, or accents on the y, which are both decidedly un-English. — Who R you? Talk 11:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose this isn't simple. --—KRM ^{(Communicate!)} 23:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
  • What does simple have to do with this issue? And, as an FYI, simple do use diacritics (e.g. simple:Björn Borg). Jenks24 (talk) 07:33, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Diacritics are a part of English language and English Wikipedia and this is not Simple Wikipedia, we do not change people's names and surnames here. - Darwinek (talk) 19:39, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• In reality, only a few hundred words exist in the entire dictionary (of somewhere between 171,476 and 988,968 words) which contain diacritics, and they are all alternative spellings (such as the way the French word "café" is the etymological root of, and is an alternative spelling to, the English word "cafe") to the preferred English spellings (which do not use diacritics); further, no word in the English language has ever used a caron or an acute accent over the y or as a replacement for the dot in the i; therefore, in reality, none of the proposed foreign characters are, in any way, part of English. — Who R you? Talk 09:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Per WP:HOCKEY and common sense. Accuracy should be before simplicity. --Sporti (talk) 11:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Support It is clear why simple nose-counts of the !votes in this RfC don’t cut it and why the closing admin must look at the strength, consistency, and merits of the reasoning to ascertain the true consensus. The move must be made and the article’s spelling made compliant with the rest of the English-speaking world.

  No legitimate argument has been (nor can be) put forward to justify why this article should be treated differently from our “Marek Zidlicky” and “Milan Jurcina” articles. Lubomir Visnovsky has moved to North America, now plays on the NHL, and his name has clearly become Anglicized through frequent and familiar use in the preponderance of most-reliable English-language RSs. The NHL itself (here) is one of the most reliable RSs and they spell his name without diacritics. So too does The New York Times (here) and Sports Illustrated (here).

  It is not within the purview of mere wikipedians to pretend to debate—with pouted lower lip—the *proper* practices for the English language, as if they fancy themselves to be soldiers of the God Of Literary Higher Truth (and to help make Slovaks feel their culture is being *embraced*).®™© None of that can possibly justify eschewing one of Wikipedia’s most bedrock principles: follow the RSs. Greg L (talk) 18:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

  It goes without saying that NHL could not count as an RS when it comes to the spelling the names of foreign players – their openly-stated policy of ignoring diacritics obviously disqualifies them in that respect. Or are you saying that the players didn't really know how their names were spelled until they started to play in NHL? NHL are intentionally introducing less than precise spelling, and that says it all.

  You're right in one respect: the Židlický and Jurčina articles should not be treated differently than this one; they should be moved to their diacritical versions too. A person's name isn't anglicized just because he plays hockey in NHL for a few years. It's the player himself who decides if he wants to officially change his name (probably because he has decided to stay in the US or Canada for good). One such example is Bob Nystrom. Unless a player officially changes his name, dropping the diacritics, we should adhere to the correct spelling.

  It's a silly notion that the spelling of personal names vary by language. James Bond is not spelled Jämes Bönd in German, Dolovis isn't spelled Døløvis in Danish, and Greg L isn't spelled Grëg L in French. HandsomeFella (talk) 21:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Quoting User:HandsomeFella: [The NHL’s] openly-stated policy of ignoring diacritics obviously disqualifies them in that respect. Wow. Under “circular logic”, dictionary’s definitions should say “See User:HandsomeFella’s above argument.” Nice job, BTW, ignoring that inconvenient truth about the practices of The New York Times. They are defined as being an RS in numerous policy pages on Wikipedia. Should we disqualify them too since they embraced a practice regarding the use of diacritics that meets with your disapproval? Why not go to WP:Spelling and replace “The New York Times” with “User:HandsomeFella” so we don’t have new editors running off half-cocked. Earth calling HandsomeFella: It’s not Wikipedia that defines perfect English, that’s done by the rest of the English-speaking world; we follow them. M’kay?? Greg L (talk) 21:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Circular? What's circular about it? Are you saying that if you just misspell something intentionally, then it becomes the correct spelling. So, if NHL would declare this is the way we spell Grëg L, it would suddenly become the de facto "correct" spelling?

Think this through: 1) is it good if we have consistency in wikipedia? 2) consistency can only be obtained on two ways, either we rid wikipedia of diacritics, or we keep them; and if we rid wikipedia of them, will it be a better place, more correct, more encyclopedic? 3) what harm do they do?

In my view, the only sustainable position is that we spell people's names correctly, to the best of our knowledge. That would be the most encyclopedic. HandsomeFella (talk) 20:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support — The policies and RS only support a move.  The RS could not be clearer; Google results are: Foreign spelling – "Ľubomír Višnovský" – News: zero – Books: zero; compare with English spelling – "Lubomir Visnovsky" – News: 74 – Books: 115; the reality is that those opposing this move would be unable to provide a single WP:RS capable to proving that their version of spelling is similar to how this name might be spelled in a foreign language; perhaps the non-English spelling is really "Łǖƃǒɰɨŗ Ṽḭṩṋṏṽšǩỷ", we don't know because there isn't one reliable source that spells it in any form other than the requested destination of "Lubomir Visnovsky".

But, of course, WP Policy isn't "find some single source that backs up a foreign looking spelling and go with that because it makes us feel like we're superior to the stupid population of English speaking countries and we will get a kick out of telling them how stupid they are for not recognizing how much better our mother-tongue is when compared to theirs"; as a matter of fact policy is article titles on English Wikipedia follow the most common name used in English reliable sources.  I'll provide the relevant sections of the policies below (as they appeared for Zidlicky and Jurcina and as the policies have themselves existed, based on consensus, going back to the founding of Wikipedia); if one of the oh-so-vocal pro-diacritic group, who claim that policy is not follow the English RS to determine English spelling, would care to provide their interpretation of these policies, I would be interested to see how an ESL translation of repeated statements in plain English end up meaning the opposite of what they say.  And as indicated in WP:CONSENSUS, relevant sections of which are also cited below, secret agreements made in private by small groups like WP:Hockey, in an attempt to re-write English through back-room private deals, (given that all attempts to gain consensus to change the existing policies to use English have failed), are specifically identified as carrying no weight in WP.  The fact that a small group of like-minded ESL editors got together and usurped WP:Hockey as the vehicle for their anti-English tear through en.WP does not replace the global en.WP policies developed by consensus.  The members of WP:Hockey like to repeatedly argue that they are justified in moving countless (thousands) of articles to foreign spellings because there is no consensus and therefore the dozen or so editors from WP:Hockey get go create their own rules and run around en.WP saying we've decided, as per WP:Hockey; but a reality check paints an entirely different picture; the reality is that there is no consensus to change the existing policies on the use of diacritics; several thousand attempts have been made, including countless proposals to change existing WP policy, and they have all failed; but these ridiculous claims that, because proposals to change the agreed policies continually fail, this somehow means that the agreed policies are null and void is stupid and goes against even the most common of common sense.  The policies are as they have always been, WP:EN, WP:UCN, WP:DIACRITIC, and WP:UE all clearly establish, that English Wikipedia decides the titles of articles on the basis of the most common English spelling as determined by the English RS, period.  One has to shake one's head after trying to follow the lunacy of the arguments from the other side, that WP:Hockey's private little agreement supersedes accepted consensus policy because consensus doesn't support WP:Hockey's proposed changes.  And the fact that this scheme would appear to be being undertaken by a group of admins, who on the one hand propose the policies to convert en.WP to non-English, while alternatively using their authority as admins to make mass moves and reversions, and worse, bully other editors in bureaucratic processes like ANI, is quite simply sickening.

As for these constant attacks focused squarely on Dolovis (talk · contribs), I am quite honestly offended to see such slanted, biased attacks against an editor who, from all appearances, is attempting to do what he feels is right, to follow policy established by consensus, and to fight against back-door politics at WP:Hockey.  Having read some of the numerous discussions at ANI, it seems that the same group of admins and editors whose names appear on many of these move discussions as part of the pro-diacritic movement are the same ones voting to ban Dolovis from moving articles to adhere with policy because the consensus policies fly in the face of the secret agreements, enforced by this small group of admins, in furtherance of their usurpation of WP:Hockey and consensus based democracy.  The fact is that a review of the countless moves to diacritics, made by some of the editor/admins participating above, demonstrates that they are in direct opposition to the WP:RS as was the case when this article was moved to its present foreign spelling without so much as a single supporting source.  And clearly Dolovis has made a few minor mistakes in dealing with people in the past, as every human being (including myself, and every other WP editor) has, but the difference appears to be that in his case those missteps are used as justification for something resembling a witch-hunt more than a considered discussion of any minor violation of guidelines, which in this case resulted in a baseless decision for a move ban against the editor who was following policy, while the admin who consistently conducts moves in violation of consensus policy is protected by their admin buddies who conspired with them to come up with WP:Hockey's anti-English, consensus opposed, non-policy to begin with.  Serious flaws and abuses at Wikipedia begin to become apparent.

But ignoring that digression, on the topic of this move, the RS, the backbone of Wikipedia, indisputably support the move to the man's name in North America, which is "Lubomir Visnovsky".  And while the foreign, ESL editors and admins who oppose this move might have their hearts set on dictating English spelling to the English world, the truth of the matter is that we (of which I am one, and which I know, from living in an English country, having travelled in English countries, and having spoken with countless native English speakers, the vast majority of English speakers agree that we) reserve the right to determine what the English spelling of names are, that our media and press (i.e. the RS) represent and present our views of what the proper English spelling of a name is, and in this case (as with almost every case of individuals immigrating to an English speaking country) the English name does not contain diacritics.

For those who oppose this move to the English form, while I certainly recognize that you don't think that we have the right to determine English spelling of names and you believe that it is your inherent right as a citizen of a non-English country to dictate to the English speaking world how English should be spelled, and what our policies should be on the use of English, the fact is (without any real intention to offend you) I personally don't care what you think on this topic; I don't give you the authority to dictate to the English world, or to English Wikipedia, what our policies must be, with regard to spelling of foreign names or anything else; and I challenge you to follow WP policy and cite a preponderance of English sources that support your demands that the English language double the size of its alphabet because we've developed computers capable of generating the symbols.  And please ensure that your citations include links to the relevant sections that backup your claims so that the rest of us don't have to waste our time, searching in vain, for statements that don't exist or that aren't supportive of your interpretations. — Who R you? Talk 00:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support per WP:UE, WP:UCN, WP:OFFICIALNAME, WP:COMMONSENSE, WP:RS. 65.94.77.11 (talk) 10:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per our de facto policy, WP:NOT (the likes of sources presented here are known to disagree with encyclopedias and dictionaries), the BLP principle that we must get the article right, the practices of other English-language encyclopedias and the recommendations of authoritative style manuals. The common name here is Ľubomír Višňovský. The common spelling is "Lubomir Visnovsky", but this is a grammatical error ("Common errors of grammar are: comma splices, mixing tenses, using “however” as a conjunction, confusing “its” and “it’s,“ confusing “that” and “which,” and not putting in diacritical marks in foreign words or names. [emphasis mine]") The idea that we should deliberately propagate common errors and misconceptions is contrary to the goal of building a high-quality encyclopedia. No amount of wikilawyering, alphabet soup or policy interpretations that ignore the spirit or the letter of core policies, or both, can justify such silliness. Prolog (talk) 13:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment That is not a WP:POLICY, that is a list article. 65.94.77.11 (talk) 14:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Which is probably why he said defacto, he is showing that even if the written word says one thing that actual actions on the wiki show otherwise. And since our written policies are supposed to reflect what actually happens we have a defacto policy of using them. -DJSasso (talk) 14:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Really? See my above “Ditto” post for why “de facto actions” of some well meaning wikipedians—who like the concept of, as you say, the written word says one thing that actual actions on the wiki show otherwise—will seldom be pleased with RfCs like this. Why? Because aberrations like that are not allowed to persist once exposed: we would otherwise end up with Wikipedia running off *being unique* and talking about “256 mebibytes of memory” despite what the rest of the English-speaking world does and the project would look foolish as a result. Wikipedia actually did that insanity (mebibytes and kibibits) for three years—just because a local cabal voted to do so.

        Eschewing the vast majority of most-reliable English-language RSs is just soooo bankrupt of a notion.

        One of the proponents of doing precisely this (ignoring the RSs)—right here on this page—declared that since the NHL has a stated policy of not using diacritics in these circumstances, (and since this is an outcome he doesn’t like) the NHL can’t be properly regarded as an RS. (Wow…) Perhaps The New York Times must also be invalidated as an RS because they apparently have an unstated policy of not using diacritics in this regard (and the above editor thinks that to be a poopy thing). Gee, if I see reasoning like that actually gain any traction, I think I’ll try some of it myself on other wiki-issues.

        I’m sure there are all sorts of motivations of some editors here to advocate that Wikipedia should ignore how the rest of the English-speaking world handles the spelling of Visnovsky’s name. However, the rules Wikipedia has for governing this are clear. That inconvenient truth seems to have left the proponents of defying the RSs with little recourse but to use arguments that crumble under even the slightest critical scrutiny—like the one that goes “The NHL must not be an RS ‘cause they don’t use diacritics.”

        Fortunately, Wikipedia is generally pretty good at assigning admins who are sharp and on-task at closing these RfCs. They tend to do a pretty good job of looking at the stated reasoning behind these !votes to see if they have weight and consistency and are well grounded in our policies, which is a strong factor in determining what a consensus is. Greg L (talk) 17:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

        • All I was pointing out was that Wikipedia's guidelines are descriptive not prescriptive. Currently they don't clearly explain what the actual practice of the wiki is. The vast majority of articles on this wiki in any subject that require diacritics have them. As such to say it goes against our guidelines is a bit of a farce as our guidelines should actually be describing that they are used in most cases. Your example of megabytes is different, that word isn't someones proper name. Proper names don't change simply by dropping the diacritics. That is factually incorrect, even if the New York Times does it. If you are going to make the name english by properly translating/transliterating it to its correct spelling then by all means. But that usually does not mean simply dropping the diacritics. Any sources which do just drop the diacritics are making errors. Now whether or not that makes them unreliable that can be debated, but generally factual errors render a source unreliable for that topic. (in this case spelling of names with diacritics) -DJSasso (talk) 19:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
        • NYT's policy on diacritics is based on the fact that it's a newspaper targeted for a specific and limited audience, and that getting diacritics right consistently would be a hassle for them. They do not claim that this is a good practice in English generally: "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), which are less familiar to most American writers, editors and readers; such marks would be prone to error, and type fonts often lack characters necessary for consistency." It is good to note that the most respected American newspaper is the one that most often uses diacritics (as far as I know). In the UK, the situation seems to be the same with The Guardian and The Times. Prolog (talk) 07:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
          • You mean NYT targets its english readers. GoodDay (talk) 13:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Ditto A list of Slovaks is not a WP:POLICY, de facto or otherwise, and certainly does not override WP:RS. The “oppose” reasoning on this page all amounts to “forget what the RSs do; we know what is best.” Our three-year-long fiasco with writing garbage like “the computer came stock with 256 MiB of random access memory” serves as a paradigm of what happens when a cabal of wikipedians set off to ignore what the rest of the English-speaking press does and instead do something that is more *righteous*. It’s folly, which is why WP:RS exists, including for spelling (see WP:Spelling). Greg L (talk) 15:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
    • The list article shows the established practice on the issue (WP:NOTBURO). There are no clear written rules on the interwiki sorting order either, but through practice one format turned into a de facto policy. The verifiability of this person's name is not in doubt, so I don't know why you bring up WP:RS. Your spelling link seems to be about variations of English. Proper names are covered by WP:MOSPN and the Paul Erdős example is suitable here; the common spelling is "Paul Erdos", followed by "Paul Erdös", but we still use the rare but correct double acute. Prolog (talk) 07:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per Prolog. The defacto policy on the wiki is to use them. It is clear by the tens of thousands of articles in all subjects that this is the case. The guidelines already clearly allow for this albeit should obviously be written clearer so as to stop this constant fighting to remove them by those who just don't like them. -DJSasso (talk) 13:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Removing the diacritics looks ridiculous. So what if any English-language newspaper has bad keyboards lacking keys for inputting diacritics? Using a bad keyboard doesn't make anything more English than using a good keyboard. This person doesn't have any English name. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

  Comment: This person doesn't have any English name. Really? An overwhelming abundance of English-language reliable sources show otherwise, and his English name is spelled Lubomir Visnovsky. 13:37, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

  An English-language reliable source needs to use some name for people mentioned in the source. This doesn't make the name English, though. Typically, people only possess real names in one language, and so reliable sources in other languages are required to use a real name written in a language different from the language of the rest of the text in the source. In this case, the person doesn't have an English real name, so English reliable sources are required to use two Slovak words (his first name and his last name) instead of two English words. Similarly, if an English reliable source mentions a French or German book title, this doesn't make the French or German book title into something in English. If the book doesn't have an English translation, using the original title (which is not in English) is typically the best option in English reliable sources. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• Question/Comment. It strikes me that we discussed this precise issue, just days ago. Are we really going to discuss the same issue, on bios ... one-by-one? That seems an awful waste of time for people on both sides of the issue. Am I missing something? If not, shouldn't this be centralized in some manner? For the benefit of all involved?--Epeefleche (talk) 18:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• It has been discussed centrally recently. With an almost exact 50-50 !vote on the issue. Basically the wiki declared a great big no-confidence on the policies that the people here keep quoting as being what the wiki believes in when really the wiki had an RFC and quite clearly said we don't agree with those policies. -DJSasso (talk) 13:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. As has been stated earlier, but deserves repeating No legitimate argument has been (nor can be) put forward to justify why this article should be treated differently from our “Marek Zidlicky” and “Milan Jurcina” articles. For the usual suspects to continue to flog their POV of opposition, which is unsupportable by any wiki-policy, must now be viewed as disruptive. Dolovis (talk) 19:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll make one right now. How about all of the RMs that haven't succeeded through your POV RM move process? It's funny how you argue that those who support dios are being disruptive, when you fail to consider that you ignore any evidence that opposes your stance? Doesn't that make you disruptive for not being open to democratic debate. Democratic debate is the foundation of Wikipedia, so for you to suggest that having people oppose your view is disruptive really goes against what the Wiki stands for. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 00:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose: An issue that will never die. Some Wikipedians interpret policy to make their argument that dios do belong on the Wiki. Other Wikipedians interpret policy to make their argument that dios do not belong on the Wiki. Problem is just that; interpretation. No policy says that they do belong, and no policy says that they do not belong. All of these move debates are simply endless arguments that will be won by whichever side has more of their supporters notice this RM. It's so sad that this will forever keep going on, wasting everyone's time and energy to contribute to Wikipedia. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 00:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

  Comment/Reply: You wrote: All of these move debates are simply endless arguments that will be won by whichever side has more of their supporters notice this RM. That would be sad if it were true, but thankfully Wikipedia's policy is that this move will not be decided based on a head count, but on the strength of the arguments presented. Wikipedia administrators understand and accept that it is their role to enforce established policy. Specifically on point is the policy of WP:UCN which says that we are to use, for the article title, the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources, and there is no policy that is more fundamental to the principles of Wikipedia than Reliable Sources. Dolovis (talk) 02:10, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: And no such argument is the underpinning for the proposed page move. To suggest that "diacriticals don't belong on Wikipedia" is the stance in question is a straw man. That is blatantly incorrect. Obviously, in all cases where diacriticals in a proper name is the most common usage in English-language sources, that is the version which should be the title of any such article. This has nothing to do with a putative WP:IHATEDIOS. It is a matter of WP:COMMONNAME. Nor is this a matter of policy being "interpreted" by the pro-diacritical troops; it is a matter of relevant policies being ignored outright, between "Oh, we've done it this way," "Oh, this is the way they do it in other languages/on other wikis" and the ever-popular "It's not our fault if English keyboards aren't properly designed." Come now ... what "interpretation" of WP:COMMONNAME is being proffered by the Oppose advocates here? Ravenswing 02:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• Those opposing this move interpret common names the same way as all professional publications. Or can you name even one publication that uses common spellings with the proper names of European people? For example, Britannica (their policy: "Title: the personal name by which the subject is best known") uses correct spellings, complete with the (common or uncommon) diacritics. The fact is that some sources usually retain the marks (reference works and scholarly journals) and some don't (newspapers and sports writing), but all agree on one thing; consistency. We too have consistency as one of the criteria on WP:AT, so the established practice does matter. Prolog (talk) 08:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• The Britannica has its rules, absolutely, and I expect that entries conform to them. Wikipedia has its rules, and we expect that entries conform to them. The "consistent" approach ought to be in accordance with those rules, and WP:COMMONNAME is clear on what the pertinent rule here is. If you disagree with that, you should be on COMMONNAME's talk page seeking consensus to overturn it. Have you been? Ravenswing 14:49, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• To be fair WP:DIACRITICS does emphasize that you should use them based on the common use in encyclopedias and reference works. So there is policy that makes his statement relevant. The argument of course is always what is the more important one...wp:commonname or wp:diacritics. -DJSasso (talk) 16:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
• Overturn which rule exactly? I'll clarify my position a bit: Not only does COMMONNAME not advocate for common spellings, it points out that factually incorrect names, even if most common, are often avoided. Per several reliable sources, the stripping of diacritics proposed here leads to a common but incorrect spelling and should therefore be avoided. Prolog (talk) 17:22, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry Prolog, but I have to call bullshit on that one. COMMONNAME makes no reference to factually incorrect names. Where are you getting this stuff from? COMMONNAME refers to the name most commonly used in English-language reliable sources. Dolovis (talk) 18:03, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• From the very first paragraph: "ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined by reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources." Prolog (talk) 18:39, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• And that has always been my point...and why I have zero problem with names that are properly translated from diacritics. ie not the ones that just strip them off the letter so ö becomes o. When the correct translation would be oe. (in the case of German) -DJSasso (talk) 20:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: Also, it's not unreasonable to expect 'english only' readers be given preferential treatement - when it comes to making sure English-language Wikipedia is readible. GoodDay (talk) 02:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support. This is an unfortunate waste of the time of lots of good editors, as it seems to be popping up w/regard to more than one athlete. The discussion seems repetitive to what editors have said before. I find the views of the supporting editors to be more policy-based and logic-based, and therefore think that view should prevail as it did in the instance of the last hockey player where we discussed this. It will also be unfortunate if the habit of discussing it as to player after player seriatum continues ... we need the talents of the editors in this discussion in other areas, where they will do more than simply repeat themselves endlessly, on tp after tp.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

So the opposition is simply tossing out nonsense? How are the arguments of the supporters more logical or policy based? The first paragraph of COMMONNAME reads, "ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined by reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources". This is exactly what's going on with diacritics in names. And what is more logical than leaving diacritics in names? An 'ö' is not the same as an 'ô', but because this is Wikipedia both an 'ö' and an 'ô', two completely different letters, are considered to be another different letter, an 'o'? How is that logical? How is it at all logical to take two different things and say they are the same as another different thing? Is a '-1' the same thing as a '+1' because they both have some fashion of the number 1? Not at all, yet we are supposed to apply that logic to letters? 1=1=1 and o=o=o, but -1≠1 and ö≠ô≠o. See the math, it works from grammar too. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 02:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

You ignored my main point -- that making the same points, on tp after tp, is a waste of everyones' time. It may scratch an itch for some people with certain disorders/syndromes, but it is a waste of time. Of good editors. On both sides of the issue. As to the "arguments", I find the supporters to have the better argument, for the reasons outlined above (and on other talkpages). Frankly, I don't see much difference in your arguments between using diacritics and in using Japanese (where the name is Japanese), and Hebrew (where the name is Hebrew), etc. Just make a redirect of the diacritic in these circumstances. No need for diacritics, and Japanese, and Hebrew as the primary form of the name. This is especially true where the people are notable, as here, performing in uniforms that don't even bear the diacritics ... this is about as "worst case" as one can get for those seeking to require that diacritics be in the primary form of the name used.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

• I couldn't agree with you more; and without a doubt all of the English editors here would like to be spending their time concentrating on productive work on articles.  All the efforts wasted on these and the countless other RMs, without any real benefit to the readers and the project as a whole, are a complete waste of time; but if those of us for whom English is our native language don't waste our time to defend en.WP against this small group of non-English editors, apparently bend on a private agenda of converting English into esperonto or something equivalently meaningless, then the English readers, the ones for whom we're all contributing our time, suffer.  Apparently some of us must sacrifice our production to prevent en.WP from becoming the fore-runner to Blade Runners 'Portu-Greek' multi-lingual non-language.  Personally, I wouldn't donate my time to a multi-lingual encyclopedia; and perhaps that's just one more reason why tens of thousands of editors are leaving WP; at this point it's hard justifying wasting my time to help all the foreigners in this discussion, and other RMs, practice their English and debating skills.  Maybe at some point we'll be able to get enough of the English editors to recognize that if we all just invest a little bit of time and revise the policies to prevent these constant arguments and move wars we could all enjoy spending some time making en.WP better.  But somehow that appears less and less likely; but then I suppose the proper attitude would be Churchill's "We will never surrender".  Cheers — Who R you? Talk 07:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

A Summary of all relevant WP:Policies

Policies

• 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

There are currently 2,285 pages in Article Talk, 833 in Wikipedia, and 615 in WP:Talk namespaces (excluding redirects) containing the word "diacritic".  Template:Bigbold 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!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Who R you? (talk • contribs) 00:53, 7 November 2011 (UTC)