Talk:Petr Sýkora

Petr Sýkora → Petr Sykora –

• Support Per
  reliable sources. Simply put, the use of "Sykora" is verified by the sources used within the article, and "Sýkora" is not. Dolovis (talk) 14:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose As the above position by Dolovis has overwhelmingly been rejected at the centralized discussion on the topic. One wonders why he keeps making
  WP:POINT move requests when he can clearly see the communities position is against him. That being said there is now a source on the page supporting the current spelling. -DJSasso (talk) 15:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Atleast he's going the RM route. Something which was mostly by-passed when these articles were moved to dios. GoodDay (talk) 15:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, as there's no diacritics in the english alphabet & this is English Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 15:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You know your supports/opposes would carry alot more weight if you would use a reason other than that. Since that is completely false and you have been shown countless references showing you that there are diacritics in English. -DJSasso (talk) 15:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no dios in the english alphabet. GoodDay (talk) 15:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right but this is the English-language wikipedia. Not the English-alphabet wikipedia. -DJSasso (talk) 15:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The english alphabet is the core of the english language. PS: The closing administrator of each RM, will have to weigh the comments. GoodDay (talk) 15:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The alphabet is only part of it. The rest is the orthography, which is the part of the language that includes the diacritics. Both together make up the language. This is why your argument is ridiculous in the wake of huge amounts of references you have been given. Your argument is the equivalent of saying there is no beef in a hotdog because there is no beef in the bun. Which of course is silly because both the bun and the wiener make up the hotdog and there is beef in the weiner. Two separate things that contribute to the whole. -DJSasso (talk) 15:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The closing administrator will decide the weight of my argument. As I noted above, atleast Dolovis is going the RM route. GoodDay (talk) 16:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except that there is already a discussion going on about it at another location. He is opening as many discussions as he can so that people can't keep up with them all. This is why he was asked to discuss at a centralized discussion. He is being disruptive. As much or more so than those who didn't discuss earlier because he already knows that a discussion is on going. -DJSasso (talk) 16:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's Dolovis' choice, to open numerious RMs. GoodDay (talk) 16:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is. Just like vandalizing a page is a choice. Doesn't mean its an ok choice. -DJSasso (talk) 16:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dolovis hasn't been banned or blocked, therefore his actions haven't been ruled as disruptive. I give him much credit, he's approached the dios argument much better prepared, then I ever did. GoodDay (talk) 16:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a sharp difference between approaching something well prepared and launching multiple assaults. Dolovis is simply launching multiple, disruptive assaults. If he were "well prepared" he wouldn't have to go this route. He could win this ridiculous "War on Diacritics" at a centralized location and stop abusing everyone's time. Seriously, his actions haven't been banned or blocked because no one has yet to take a serious issue with them. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 20:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose There's a source which supports the current spelling (with diacritics) in the article, and nothing which directly refutes it as his correctly rendered name. Canada Hky (talk) 20:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per
  WP:COMMONNAME . We should not be using diacritics in titles. Kurdo777 (talk) 22:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support
  WP:COMMONNAME. This person frequently appears in English language media, which does not use the accents on his name. Wikipedia follows usage established elsewhere, it does not prescribe proper usage. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 05:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose. The person's surname is Sýkora, not Sykora. - Darwinek (talk) 09:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I hope that the closing admin will take into consideration that Darwinek may have violated WP:Canvassing by his targeted notice here to the members of WikiProject Czech Republic. Dolovis (talk) 01:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per the same rationale given in other discussions, more unilateral moves against factual accuracy based on linguistically fallacious assumptions, the guy's surname is Sýkora. - filelakeshoe 12:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose In article title we strive to achieve two goals. One is to adress the article subject by its most common name and the other is accuracy and disambiguity of the article title. Please note, that as long, as the person does not change his surname or as long as he does not adapt stagename which would present his original name without diacritics, then the surname within english media might not be accurate (this is different from
  Wikipedia:Manual of Style (proper names)#Diacritics --Reo ⁺ 20:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • No, the MoS is not a policy, it is a guideline. For the actually relevant policy, see
    WP:COMMONNAME. Jenks24 (talk) 00:10, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Support. 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). A google news archive search gives 16, 800 results for "Petr Sykora", compared to only 433 for "Petr Sýkora" (and the majority of those aren't in English anyway). Jenks24 (talk) 00:10, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose: Per DJSasso. User who has listed this is abusing multiple routes in an effort to chance an already established consensus. There is a discussion currently on-going on the topic of diacritics, it would be best served to leave this article alone (and the other move requests) until that discussion reaches a consensus. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 20:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I prefer if we keep it encyclopedic. —KRM ^{(Communicate!)} 21:04, 11 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 Slavic names. Dolovis (talk) 03:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Just one papers style guide, you have since been shown that many others do the opposite such as The Guardian, National Geographic etc. The Chicago Manual of Style... -DJSasso (talk) 15:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  none of the English language references used in this article show that the accents are used. Do you have a reliable source to show it is used in English? (not a general reference about style guides, a specific reference that Sykora is spelled with accents in English) 65.94.47.63 (talk) 09:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Yup as is now referenced in the article. Prague Post. -DJSasso (talk) 18:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd prefer one from an English-speaking region of the world... but others probably don't care as long as an English language reference is available. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 04:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Editors may be interested in the policy vote at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(use_English)#Specific_proposals_to_change_the_wording_of_the_policy. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:15, 14 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:COMMONNAME remain in effect. Dolovis (talk) 04:13, 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... 21:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per standard practice to use a person's real name in cases where no English version exists. Encyclopedias do not and can not copy the unencyclopedic practices of news sites and stats databases. Prolog (talk) 10:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment an English version clearly exists, since we have reliable references using it, and it is different from the Czech version. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 04:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  That stems from the notion what it is english version of the name.

  Kong Fuzi

  name, but name with and without diacritic is still the same name, the same version of the name, just incorrectly spelled in details.

Normally there are no "versions" to the proper birth names, there might be transliterations or nicknames. --Reo ⁺ 08:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose and place some kind of moratorium on these continued pointy proposals; Wikipedia's style is to use diacritics in such cases, as everyone well knows by now, and to take them away in a few random instances would not remotely improve the encyclopedia. --Kotniski (talk) 08:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Yes, there's an agenda here, but this is also a valid move in terms of
  WP:AT. Amid all the clamour and shouting, has anyone noticed this? Andrewa (talk) 10:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]