- 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 to Ondřej Malinský. Favonian (talk) 11:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
Ondrej Malinsky → Ondřej Malinský – In ictu oculi moved this page, it was reverted under "moved without discussion..." and put up for a contested requested move by PBS (talk) 08:22, 1 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
From the history of the article:
- 02:54, 1 May 2012 In ictu oculi m . . (In ictu oculi moved page Ondrej Malinsky to Ondřej Malinský: another Ondřej, clean history, sourced, per BLP accuracy)
- Oppose, as this is the English langauge Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 19:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Support per accuracy. There can be a redirect in place for those who don't know diacritics. -DJSasso (talk) 19:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Support (same rationale as for today's other "Ondřej" RMs: Diacritics provide important pronunciation information for those familiar with a language and do not hinder reading or understanding for those who choose to ignore them. Although some English sources have omitted diacritics due to typographical or display constraints, scholarly and encyclopedic sources (which is what Wikipedia aspires to be) are far more likely to include them. Modern computers universally support display of European-language diacritics, eg, at least the ones in WGL-4 or similar subsets. Wikipedia should render names with diacritics accurately. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 00:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Support per P.T. Aufrette --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 04:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Support for the sake of accuracy, and keep the non-diacriticized name as redirect. - Darwinek (talk) 05:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Support move to more accurate name. bobrayner (talk) 14:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Comment What does more accurate name mean and is that a name returned in a survey of reliable English language sources? -- PBS (talk) 15:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Removing diacritics is a mistake and not how you properly translate a name to English. As such the diacritics are more accurate than removing them incorrectly would be. Per commonname inaccurate names are not used even if they are more commonly used in reliable sources. -DJSasso (talk) 19:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Removing diacritics doesn't make a name english, it makes it misspelt. PBS, which bit of "more accurate name" is causing you problems? It's three unambiguous words.
- (I do wish we didn't have to copy and paste the same comments on multiple pages). bobrayner (talk) 23:18, 2 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
- "Removing diacritics doesn't make a name english" who say it does? If reliable English language sources remove accent marks, then is that not the name used in reliable English language sources? If English language sources leave the accent marks in place that is that not the name used in English reliable sources? The content of Wikipedia articles are based on verifiable reliable sources, not on editorial POVs, as should article titles. It seems to me that "accurate" is an editorial POV and not an observation based on usage in reliable English language sources. If not, then what is the reliable source being used to determine that "Ondřej Malinský" is more accurate than "Ondrej Malinsky"? -- PBS (talk) 09:23, 3 May 2012 (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.
