Talk:Toni Androić

Latest comment: 11 years ago by Cuchullain in topic Requested move 2

Requested move

edit
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:39, 5 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Toni AndroicToni Androić – There was no consensus regarding the use of diacritics, so this article should use the diacritics until a consensus is reached. See also: Talk:Mate Pavić.

PL Alvarez Talk, 07:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

full name Toni Androić in BLP lede

edit

WP:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#First_mention states:

"While the article title should generally be the name by which the subject is most commonly known, the subject's full name should be given in the lead paragraph, if known."

None of the examples given in the guideline support the way this article first line is formatted. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

wiki is pretty flexible. Nothing has to be done one way only. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
Isn't the subject's full name given in the lead paragraph? Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:17, 23 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
Twice "Toni Androic (Croatian Toni Androić) (b 1991)", but WP:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#First_mention has 3 examples of the format per "Toni Androić (b 1991)". In ictu oculi (talk) 11:57, 28 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Requested move 2

edit
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was move. Cúchullain t/c 19:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)Reply


Toni AndroicToni Androić – Per sources (in Croatian language), encyclopedic correctness and consistency. HandsomeFella (talk) 16:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

In addition, there are two more specific insult-to-injury issues here:
After all this, I find it hard not to think that that the point of the whole exercise isn't on actual support for the English language and care for the native English readers, rather that it's merely thinly veiled xenophobia that has no place in an encyclopedia.
Overall, *facepalm* --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
For the umpteenth time, nobody's claiming the version without diacritics is incorrect, it's merely the less precise version that has no relevant encyclopedic advantages over the precise name. You can't claim Toni Androić is unverifiable in reliable English sources as opposed to Toni Androic, because the two are interchangeable - that's the common usage. Use of the version without diacritics does not indicate willingness of these sources to pretend that they've actually changed the name of the person to a different, more English one, rather it indicates their unwillingness to adopt a character set that supports the precise name. Which is a perfectly legitimate decision, but one that has nothing to do with what the encyclopedia. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • Actually, I'm claiming that. ć and c are written and pronounced differently. That you can replace one with the other and not impede understanding much doesn't matter. I could talk all day about Bareck Obama and you'd understand what I'm saying, but I'd still be wrong. Reliable sources are not infallible sources, and where they are wrong they should not be used. (I know, I know... WP:TRUTH) --BDD (talk) 15:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • I think that's actually an argument that fits the other viewpoint: if one thinks that we should lose the acute accent because sources do it, too, they'll say it's not "wrong" because they'll say there's no requirement to be "right" - they simply want only the English alphabet used like the sources do, thereby also invoking the inviolable WP:V. What I'm saying is that my argument is orthogonal to that argument - there is no actual loss of verifiability if we use the acute. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.