Talk:Dominik Halmoši

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: No consensus to move at this time. Good arguments on both sides. This issues involved in this discussion need resolution before requesting moves like this. Both sides have their points and neither side seems swayed by the other. Mike Cline (talk) 20:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• Dominik Halmosi → Dominik Halmoši
• Jiri Hanzlik → Jiří Hanzlík
• Jan Herman → Jan Heřman
• Martin Herman → Martin Heřman
• Jan Kovar → Jan Kovář
• Patrik Petruska → Patrik Petruška
• Tomas Pitule → Tomáš Pitule
• Petr Prikryl → Petr Přikryl
• Dan Ruzicka → Dan Růžička
• Jan Stransky → Jan Stránský

–Relisting.--Aervanath (talk) 01:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC) – Per WP:HOCKEY standard, WP consistency and common sense. HandsomeFella (talk) 20:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support all as nominator. HandsomeFella (talk) 17:08, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose all: The proposed page moves fly in the face of the established Wiki-policies of WP:UE, WP:COMMONNAME, and WP:RS. Based on the comments made by the nom at the Ľubomír Višňovský RM, this RM appears to be POINTY. Dolovis (talk) 21:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

  Rubbish. This RM goes along the WP:HOCKEY guidelines (as stated above), while it contradicts nothing at the guidelines indicated by Dolovis. He's just back in his old crusade to eradicate diacritics from wikipedia, a habit that has brought him to WP/ANI twice (at least), and where a page move ban was ultimately imposed on him for gaming the system. And this move was coming up regardless of Dolovis's RMs. Check my talkpage, where I have been preparing them for some time. HandsomeFella (talk) 22:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• As most members of WP:Hockey (certainly those participating in recent renaming discussions) know, WP:CONSENSUS establishes that "… participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope."  The fact that a tiny group of ESL editors have chosen to hijack WP:Hockey as their vehicle to re-write English Wikipedia into a foreign language doesn't mean that your little group can dictate to the English speakers of the world how to speak, spell, or write English.  In fact, some of the people who regularly oppose these attempts are WP:Hockey members, like Dolovis and others who repeatedly argue to prevent these unsourced moves to foreign language titles; so in fact WP:Hockey's policy doesn't even have anything like unanimous consensus within WP:Hockey.  But regardless, WP:Hockey's policies to ignore RS, which obviously conflict with consensus policy, are just as irrelevant as if WikiProject:Rush Limbaugh decided to establish a policy that RS are irrelevant and then created an article declaring Rush Limbaugh President of the United States.  A group of 111 registered members (50 of which are active) (i.e. WP:Hockey) don't get to dictate to, or override the consensus decisions of, 146,110 active editors (of 15,686,412 registered editors); certainly not to dictate that English no longer uses the English alphabet but will now be expanded to include symbols which are not English.
  As for everything after the first sentence of your post, I could have sworn I read somewhere that we were supposed to be discussing the work not the editor; it's one thing if you're talking about what you believe someone motivations to be and how that may be colouring their arguments, quite another to simply say "he's been to ANI"; a quick look shows me that your name appears a couple of times at ANI as well; is that also something the closing admin should take into account? — Who R you? Talk 06:28, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose all, as this is the English language Wikipedia & thus we should go with english sources. GoodDay (talk) 22:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Petr Prikryl, Jan Stransky and Jan Herman get some coverage on Google News. But most of these players have never appeared in English-language RS and should be WP:AFD'd. As long as we are keeping them, we must follow the sources that we have, namely the box score sites. These sites give their names in the current form. Kauffner (talk) 02:04, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose WP:UE, WP:UCN, WP:COMMONSENSE, "Jan Stransky" is most definitely not "Jan Stránský" in English. This person has played in Canada, and therefore appears in Canadian English language press.  ; and we have the league page  ; even in French language press there are no accents in Canada -- 65.94.77.11 (talk) 14:01, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
• Comment treating Jan Stransky the same as the rest of the players is wrong. Jan Stransky played in North America, so is clearly different from the other players listed. (assuming the bios of the other players are complete enough to not be missing any North American play experience) 65.94.77.11 (talk) 14:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

  It doesn't matter if Stránský (or any one else for that matter) played in North America. That doesn't change his name. It would introduce massive inconsistency in wikipedia if Czech ice hockey players' names were spelled differently depending on whether they played in North America or not, not to mention that that would be a totally rediculous rule. The only sustainable position is that we spell people's names correctly, to the best of our knowledge. HandsomeFella (talk) 17:06, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

  WP:OFFICIALNAME , it doesn't matter what their original name is, it only matters what their WP:COMMONNAME in WP:USEENGLISH is. 65.94.77.11 (talk) 07:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support all. It doesn't matter if any of these players played in North America, their names and surnames contain diacritics and that's it. We do not and will not change hundreds of article names just because some players worked abroad. All mentioned articles don't use diacritics only because Dolovis created them as such in order to pursue his POINTy agenda. - Darwinek (talk) 19:44, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
  • No it's not, it has to comply with WP:UE and WP:UCN, or you have to apply a WP:IAR on it. If they played in North America, it's likely they have press coverage from North America, press coverage in North America is usually English. Per WP:RS, WP:UE, WP:UCN, we can therefore find the commonly used form in English reliable sources, and that is the name that is supposed to be used by WP:POLICY. If you want a different name from that you, you need to get a WP:IAR consensus. 65.94.77.11 (talk) 04:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support all the names are not English and you can't make them English when you remove the accent marks. Tell me what is Hanzlik, Herman, Kovar, Petruska, Pitule, Prikryl, Ruzicka, Stransky in English?? Just a nonsensical sequence of letters. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support all 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. These people do not have any English names. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

  Comment/reply: These people do not have any English names. Really? The sources used in the articles use their English names. 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. That is how the articles are currently named, and per established policy, that is how they should remain. Dolovis (talk) 03:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support all Their names include diacritics and the above policies that are mentioned do not say remove all diacritics. -DJSasso (talk) 13:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

  Comment: This is an RM to add diacritics, not remove them. Dolovis (talk) 14:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• Fully aware of that. But opposing the move is the same thing as trying to remove them. So the statement is still accurate. -DJSasso (talk) 16:52, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support all per supporters above and per my comments for other RMs (example, example). User:Vejvančický will agree with me that those are nonsensical sequences of letters in Czech too. For example "Kovář" is a (popular?) surname deriving from the word for "smith", but "Kovar" doesn't mean anything. --Theurgist (talk) 00:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: And yet interestingly, both of your examples were part of a 12 article multi-move which moved the article titles away from diacritics over to their English form; or were you intending to make sure the closer recognized that the consistent action to take here would be to turn down this request? — Who R you? Talk 14:39, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
    • I don't quite understand this. There I opposed the removal of diacritics, here I am supporting the addition of diacritics. To me, it makes little difference whether a diacritics-related discussion concerns Czech sportspeople, Vietnamese entrepreneurs, Hungarian villages or Swedish enterprises. My posts on those two talk pages address the diacritics issue from a much more global perspective. If you'd like, I can retell them here, but I don't think this would be of much use. And, by the way, I think it'd be just great if someone cited a reliable source stating that "taking the diacritics away from the name of a random person/place/institution/whatever produces its English form". This somehow reminds me of a Facebook group I came across a while ago: "Putting le in front of a word makes it French". --Theurgist (talk) 23:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
      • I was pointing out that the arguments you made in the linked RMs, similar to the ones you make here, were not sufficient to sway the judgment of the closing admin there, and should be equally unsuccessful here.  In other words, just as your arguments there, to keep articles misspelled in a foreign language failed, so too should your arguments here to move articles to a non-English foreign spelling.  In short, any argument made that English Wikipedia should use something other than English for its article titles should fail. — Who R you? Talk 06:52, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
        P.S.  Did they not even try to make the word lé to make it appear more foreign?  Incroyable, ces enfants stupides!
        • Let them fail, I no longer care that much. Comments like those are indeed more suitable for centralised discussions than for talk pages for random articles, and I should have considered choosing venues accordingly before placing such arguments and elaborating on them. Never mind, they have been repeated over and over again and elaborated on further by other users, as the issue has been thoroughly discussed elsewhere. As it's going, one will soon be able to toss a coin in attempt to come up with a guess whether one will find a given article title diacriticised or formatted sans diacritics. And I, like many other visitors actually, don't see the diacritics as some useless decorations of letters, which they actually really aren't, but rather I'm aware that they bear certain meanings and significances which could sometimes be lost with their omission, and I do or try to understand most of them. And still there are English-language publishers that prefer sticking with exactness and preserving diacritics when possible. For instance the National Geographic Society would refer to the Czech capital with the established English exonym "Prague" and not with the native designation "Praha" in its materials, but would cite names like (for example) "Uherské Hradiště" or "František Dřížďal" in the Czech way exactly. Yet, nobody accuses the NGS of publishing their materials in Czenglish (nor Franglais, Denglisch, Turklish or anything) instead of proper English. --Theurgist (talk) 02:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose all – The relevant WP policy sections are transcluded below.  The basis for this RM is "Per WP:HOCKEY standard…"; comparing WP's consensus approved policies, with WP:Hockey's private policies, it is clear that the two do not match; as part of the citation from WP:CONSENSUS (in the section below) states: “…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.”  In other words, WP:Hockey's policies are, as a matter of WP policy, invalid here, since, as we all know, diacritics are a contentious topic which there certainly has never been broad community support for WP:Hockey to establish its own policies on.  Therefore, simply on that basis and from the reasons given in the RM itself, there's nothing to support any of these moves.  The RM also mentions WP:Consistency (checking that link will lead you to a historical reference WikiProject page that says articles should be consistent in style and fact), meanwhile, WP:CONSISTENCY will direct you to the beginning of the Manual of Style (strange how inconsistent those two links are ); but if the argument is strictly for consistency, I know for a fact that Marek Zidlicky and Milan Jurcina were both recently moved to non-diacritic forms; so, in the interests of consistency, I'll argue that the 10 articles above should equally remain without diacritics.

Then lastly the move request gives a reason of WP:COMMONSENSE; and while I'm not quite sure what their common sense is, I trust most (and with a little luck all) of my statements will adhere to the concept.  Realistically, taking a look both at the request itself, and the support of the group of WP:Hockey group members (whom I assume are the ones that collectively nominated these moves), there's nothing to actually backup making the moves; and by nothing, I mean that they don't even offer a single page, or web site, let alone a reliable source (which is, I believe, what policy requires for a successful RM move), to demonstrate that they haven't made a bunch of horrible typos here.  I certainly acknowledge that (at least most of) the 6 supporters of this move generally present themselves as infallible possessors of the total sum of all knowledge on all things Czech; and I don't doubt for a moment that they know far more about that region of the world than I likely ever will; but even assuming that I grant that they are whole incapable of error, anything that is strictly their knowledge is, by definition, OR; and therefore, not an acceptable basis for a move like this (or really for anything in the Wikipedia world).  Where is their, at least basic, proof that their proposed spellings are any less inaccurate than they claim the current spellings to be?  Where is their WP:V evidence that allows us to even know that the destinations they suggest are the right ones?  Alright, enough WikiLawyering (because I truly hate non-wiki ones) but the fact is that this request amounts to a statement equivalent to "Just trust me, I know what I'm telling you to do is right."; and to my mind that pretty much defines what Wikipedia isn't, and goes against the very core of WP's methods, RS, consensus, V.

But then to the matter of spelling of the names themselves; (as listed below) WP:EN, WP:UCN, WP:DIACRITICS, and WP:UE all boil down to one thing, in determining article titles, en.WP follows English sources to use the most common English name for an article.  Clear, straight forward, unequivocal really, and definitely not what the policies of WP:Hockey say (and so WP:Hockey's statement of policy simply doesn't count for anything).  The Czech and other foreign editors supporting this request all seem to be under the impression that they can dictate to the English speaking world how to spell things in English; but the fact is, in North American, when someone moves to North America, we drop the diacritics in their names; and my proof of that is the English RS, which is what we follow to determine the names of articles on en.WP, and, to the best of my knowledge, all of these articles currently have the most common English names as determined by the best available English RS.  And if the group of 6 here want to dispute that, they do so by providing English RS to prove that I'm wrong and that the most common English spelling is what they are claiming.

Their statements that they look silly or that they're just a string a nonsensical letters simply demonstrates that these non-English editors have forgotten (or never understood) for whom en.WP is written; this is not esl.WP for foreigners to practice up on their English (the closest thing we have for that is simple.WP); this is not enBITCH.WP where the English peoples of the world get bitch-slapped around by those who want to tell us what to do; this is not earth.WP or esperanto.WP where the planetary consensus of what an English-like language should resemble has meaning; this is en.WP, where we write in English, using the English alphabet, to provide a (hopefully) accurate encyclopdia, for free, to the English speaking people of the world; and, in the interests of global harmony, where we permit non-English peoples to participate in (not only their own language's WP), but in ours as well; but make no mistake about it, don't forget even for a moment, this is our English Wikipedia written for the English speaking world, and the English speaking world are the ones who will determine what the policies are, just like the English media will determine what English spelling is.

These foreign editors apparently fail to understand that, if these words look funny to them without diacritcs, they look a hundred times more asinine to English speakers; a line over a "y" or an apostrophe over an "r", or changing the dot on the "i" to an ever so slightly different mark is as meaningless to us as Sanskrit is to them; a page full of diacritics is, to an English reader, the equivalent of spilling something on the paper so that there are dots all over and it is more difficult to read; nothing more.  And if they believe otherwise then they really have no sense of reality on this topic.  The fact is, they aren't claiming that they want to move these articles to the correct English names, their argument is that English countries don't have the right to drop the diacritics from peoples names, and therefore it doesn't matter how we spell their names, the important thing, from the 6's POV, is that these 10 are Czech and therefore English must expand its alphabet beyond the 26 letters it uses; these WP editors have decided that English is now comprised of, no less than 33 characters (and I assume they'll be letting us know in short order how much bigger they'll be making it next time around).  Non-English WP editors don't get to dictate to English WP editors what our policies are; non-English citizens that live in foreign countries certainly don't get to dictate to English countries how they spell things; and neither English nor non-English WP editors decided anything even remotely like this, we have absolute policy in place to cover these situations, and that is that we don't decide these things, we follow the RS; and on English Wikipedia, that means we follow the English RS, even on the spelling of Czech names.  And my standard apology; sorry I'm so long winded. — Who R you? Talk 13:22, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose The closing admin should be advised to delete for lack of notability rather than move. After looking at most of the articles that are the subject of this RM, it appears to me that the thing they have in common is to fail Wikipedia:Notability and must be removed. These articles belong in one or more of the wikipedias written in the many Eastern European languages. As best as I can determine (which is tough because this RM page is absent germane evidence of any sort upon which to make proper judgements about anything) all these players are Czech professional ice hockey players and have not played on a North American team nor played against a North American league. The external links of most “value” take readers to foreign-language articles like this. So…

  To User:Who R you?, I suggest you contact a bureaucrat and ask him or her to assign a good admin to speedy-close this RM since it is predicated on a nuance that is beside the point. Then I suggest you begin an RfC on this page to delete this and the other articles for lack of notability. I also suggest you delete or strike the below rules since they are inapplicable to the root issue here. It appears there is an avid crowd currently active the last few months who have been responsible for unwise things over on WP:HOCKEY and it is just getting them into hot water. Per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. That phenomenon has clearly taken root on our hockey-related articles if they think these players meet Wikipedia’s requirements for WP:NOTABILITY. Greg L (talk) 17:04, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

  • I agree with both you and Kauffner that all of these articles should likely be AFDd as non-notable; should you request one, I will (barring other sources proving otherwise) support deletion under WP:N and a lack of RS.  Meanwhile, so long as this RM remains open, I think it's important to argue the separate points which oppose these moves; specifically the complete lack of any kind of backup to support the move.  And I also have to agree with Kauffner that, so long as these articles do still exist, they should be spelled with the only spelling supported by any kind of English sources, that is, spelled without diacritics; I'm not aware of any English source which spells these names with the diacritics let alone a reliable one.  As for the transclusion of the naming policy citations in the section below, if you really think they're a problem, please feel free to remove the template; but as long as the RM's still active, I figured having all relevant policy segments in one place made it easier to review and discuss; but go ahead and remove if you disagree. — Who R you? Talk 06:54, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support all. Per WP:BLP, "We must get the article right." The current titles are riddled with errors ("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]"). WP:COMMONNAME does not advocate for common spellings and points out that inaccurate names, even if most common, are often avoided. WP:UE gives good examples of anglicized names, but none exist here. Per dictionaries and authoritative style manuals, persons do not get anglicized names by having their names appear in the media without diacritics; this is common but improper English. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and incorporates elements from other reference works. Those elements include the consistent and correct spelling of foreign proper names. This indeed is the project-wide de facto policy. Prolog (talk) 20:18, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Well, I agree with you this time—sorta—Prolog. You seem to be fond of alleging the existence of facts that amount to “the god’s all agree with me that this is the way things *really* work, and, though I can’t point to these gods, they exist; believe me.” Pointing to WP:HOCKEY, which this month is the product of a local cabal that is disinterested in following fundamental principles that guide Wikipedia is proof of nothing. Your arguments hadn’t worked at all in the past when we were discussing Czech players who came to the U.S. to play in the NHL. Why? Because the names of those players had been effectively Anglicized through frequent and familiar use in most-reliable, English-language RSs. But your arguments desires are well-grounded in this case and I was going to !vote “support” along with you on this one. That is…

    …Until I realized why these players’ names haven’t been Anglicized: they’re utterly and profoundly non-notable in the English-speaking world. The body text of the first one has this: [Is a] Czech professional ice hockey goaltender. He played with HC Plzeň in the Czech Extraliga during the 2010–11 Czech Extraliga season. One editor, User:Dolovis, created all ten articles over a span of 14 hours. But it couldn’t be clearer than all ten are not the least bit sufficiently notable to merit inclusion in a general-purpose English-language encyclopedia. Ergo, “support” !votes are irrelevant now since I expect this RfC will soon be closed and we’ll move onto the issue of why the world they belong here at all. Greg L (talk) 21:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support all. I'm a member of the vast majority of English-speakers who don't understand Czech; but I do know the difference between ‹c› and ‹č› and I want to know which it is so that I have a chance of pronouncing it more correctly. There presumably exist readers who can say the same of Vietnamese, and I want them to have the same benefit even if the diacritics are meaningless to me; I am not harmed by seeing the funny squiggles, now that Unicode fonts are generally available. If Wikipedia excluded everything that a substantial number of English-speakers don't understand, I wouldn't bother with it. —Tamfang (talk) 08:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

• I don't think anyone's suggesting that the body of the article shouldn't contain the national spelling, in whatever language; rather, the issue is whether the article titles on English WP match what the verifiable English RS present as the most common English spelling (although in this particular group of articles there doesn't seem to be much RS to base a decision upon). — Who R you? Talk 09:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
• Yeah, I agree with an important point User:Who R you? made, above. I wrote earlier that I was preparing to !vote “support” because I couldn’t find a verifiable English-language RS that spelled any of these players’ names with diacritics. But that might not be the correct test to support. A galactic lack of English-language RSs either way suggests that there is a greater shortcoming to these ten articles: the only readers stumbling across them will have clicked on a hyperlink from elsewhere in the project. Other than the editors active in this subject, no English-speaking reader will be typing any of these players’ names into the search field. These articles would not even find themselves in a Slavic-language print encyclopedia; the only place one would properly find articles about these players is in Slavic-language hockey magazines and (periodically) in Slavic-language newspapers. The en.Wikipedia does not exist to give Czech hockey players bragging rights so they can tell some gal in a bar “Anglická Wikipedia článek o mně dostane osm návštěv denně.” Greg L (talk) 18:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support all: Per WP:COMMONNAME, "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 one of those situations. By removing diacritics, the names become inaccurate. Although non-diacritic usage is more common in North American media, this spelling should be avoiding by the simple virtue that it is inaccurate. An 'á' is different from an 'ǎ', and both are certainly different than an 'a', yet arguments are being made that an letter that has a diacritic mark above or below the 'a' can simply be removed. This is unquestionably wrong, and WP:COMMONNAME supports that argument. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 18:33, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

• While the 'á', 'ǎ', and 'a' may all be different in foreign languages, for example Estonian, but the fact is that only one of them is a part of the English alphabet.  Meanwhile, you seem to have confused the words "ambiguous or inaccurate" with "English"; you might have noticed that en.WP has an article on Czechoslovakia, not an article on "Československo"; the reason being that one is English and one isn't.  The Czechoslovakia article does note the foreign language spelling of it, just as the Estonia article does, just as this one does, just as they all should, but none of the others replaces the English titles with the foreign language names; that occurs on the appropriate foreign language Wikis.  None of the consensus policies state that article names should be spelled using foreign, non-English symbols. — Who R you? Talk 00:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

• You're talking about apples and oranges. Czechoslovakia is the direct English translation of Československo. That is not a case of simply removing diacritics; that's a full on translation. Using the logic established by those trying to remove diacritics from people's names, however, would result in Československo being translated to English as Ceskoslovensko, but that is incorrect. There is no direct translation of, say, Jiří to English as there is for Československo. Do you see what I'm saying here? I completely agree with you that Československo should be written as Czechoslovakia, but that is an entirely different case, in the same way as Göteborg is rightfully spelled here as Gothenburg. Those are both translations, not just a simple removal of diacritics. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 17:48, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

• And in every case, we Wikipedians do not make that decision; the English RS do for English Wikipedia.  That is en.WP's consensus policy.  If you think English RS are misspelling names, feel free to start a movement to compel them to change; but reality is they probably won't because, given the two options of either a) us English people choosing a completely different spelling for a name in order to produce roughly the same intonation as it would carry in some foreign tongue, and b) us simply dropping the diacritics and leaving it to the foreigner to decide if they'd like to pursue having an alternative English spelling as their most common English name, we (as in English society through the approved of actions of our press and other RS) choose option b) and leave it to the individual to decide (as many do) to opt for a different spelling if they want one.  You may have noticed that I didn't provide an option c), to add a few hundred extra symbol and sound combinations to the English language, because the fact is that we (native English speakers in English countries) aren't offering that option.
  If you would care to provide some RS that indicates that any of these people have requested a different Anglicized form, other than the standard English practice to simply drop the diacritics, please feel free to provide a reference and I will (as I suspect everyone else will, subject to verifiability and reliability of the source) support you in proposing a move to that English name; but the fact is that, until and unless the individuals in question opt to contact the appropriate publishers and request that their names be published in some other form, the standard English practice (as demonstrated by the normal and customary practice of the English RS) is to simply drop the diacritics.  Obviously most of the ESLers here WP:Just don't like it, but that's simply too bad, that is the way English society works (as you are fully aware, having lived in BC & Ontario).  When you go to work or school you don't see people's names written with all kinds of non-English symbols all over the place; that isn't because most of the immigrants coming from non-English countries don't use non-English characters in their names, that's because when they move to an English speaking country like Canada, the US, (and I still assume for the most part England, despite one or two known examples where that isn't the case), they quickly come to realize that we (native English speakers) are unwilling to double/triple/quadruple the size of our alphabet to accomodate them.  They either drop the diacritics, make clear that they have a preferred Anglicized spelling of their foreign name, or (quite commonly) adopt a highly Anglicized form which vaguely relates in some way to their original foreign name.
  The message is, you (meaning they) don't come to an English country and think you're going to dictate how English is spelled; the response to that is a general and resounding "Fuck off; if you don't like it, there's the door! →".  And that message goes double for people who don't even leave their country but instead think that because they have internet access in their foreign land they can dictate or harass us into re-writing our language to suit their nationalistic sensibilities.  You (Nurmsook) live here (in Canada) so you know that we are unbelievably accommodating to foreign cultures in terms of allowing them the freedoms to live and express their own cultural beliefs and practices; but, that ends abruptly when they think they are going to dictate that the English (or here English/French) cultures must surrender their own beliefs and practices to these guests.  There is a difference between what they choose to write or speak in their own language when they are amongst those who share the same language/culture/beliefs/whatever, and them telling us (the English majority to whose country they have chosen to move) how to adapt our society and language to suit them.  (And personally I like Tim's much better than Starbuck's; but that's another battle which you & I could hopefully fight peacefully over a couple cups of coffee! )  G'day; eh! — Who R you? Talk 23:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

• This is great and all, but it still doesn't mean it's right. Regardless of what publishers choose to do, and how people choose to react to those publishers, a name is a name, and that is how I view this debate. I have interpreted policy to support my arguments in the same way the other side has theirs. I am well aware that this diacritics debate will likely go on forever. And for the record, because your response seems to assume I am a foreigner or ESL, I was born and raised in Canada. I just have dual citizenship through family lineage. English is my first language, but I still believe that diacritics should be in names. I think it's a little presumptive to assume that all ESL people "don't like it", I'm sure many are fine with having no diacritics and others use policy to support their argument. And as for the last comment, I'll gladly buy you a Tim's coffee if you cover my Starbucks, it's really starting to hurt my student wallet ;) – Nurmsook! ^talk... 00:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• Well, regarding your last comment, that's one of the problems, IMO, with Starbucks; why pay twice as much for something that isn't worth it; mostly because of the attitude (and I'm not saying necessarily you) that la-dee-da, look at me, I'm drinking Starbucks, I like to pay twice as much as something's worth so that I can feel special spending ten minutes deciding to order a half-caff mocha latte with a twist (or whatever) when the majority of us are just looking for a hopefully good-tasting cup of coffee, at a reasonable price, as quickly as possible so that we can get back to doing whatever it was that we were doing.  But, I guess, as with this topic, we simply don't agree.
  And as for your argument that it doesn't matter what the publishers choose to do, what's important is what you, and the other 11 people on this page that support this move think is the right spelling, that quite simply isn't the way Wikipedia works, as you well know.  It doesn't matter in the slightest what you think, or for that matter what I think, what's supposed to matter is what the English sources do; and the fact is that, for those that we have any information about here, what the English sources do is that they drop the diacritics, as I would say they rightly should.
  And if you don't think they should, the proper thing to do is to start a campaign to get them to change their policies and start writing their publications in foreign languages using foreign alphabets because we've invented Unicode which gives them that ability.  I pretty sure you won't get anywhere; but that fact doesn't mean that the proper course of action is therefore to start a campaign to move en.WP to foreign language spellings.  We, English speakers, of which you are one, drop diacritics in our country; if you think that's wrong, start an Facebook movement to change it, but I think most people, a lot of whom couldn't care less about Facebook and would rather protect their privacy rights than sell all their personal stats for the right to be friends with a bunch of people who most of them have never met, but if that's your thing, use that to stimulate social change, if it's not your thing use another method, but Wikipedia is not a valid method to promote your opinions about whether English societies should use diacritics; Wikipedia simply follows what the RS do, so if you have references to some RS that says that all 10 of these names are spelled in English with diacritics, then please provide provide the links; if, on the other hand, your entire argument is that you really think that they should be used because their pretty, or cool, or make you feel smart, or because they're used in foreign languages, or whatever, this isn't the place to have that conversation. — Who R you? Talk 02:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose: Each proposal should be made on its own merits, on its own talk page. That some (but not all) of the players have played in North America, and would reasonably be discussed in English-language sources, is a serious drawback to a bundled move. That some (but not all) of the players may fail of pertinent notability standards is likewise a serious drawback to a bundled move. I certainly believe that a hockey player who has not been discussed in English-language sources should have his article titled rendered as is customary in his home language (although I question whether such a player would meet notability standards), and would be happy to comment on the same on a case-by-case basis.

  That being said, I Support in the case of Halmosi, whose talk page this is, who having played in the Extraliga satisfies WP:NHOCKEY, and who has never played in North America. Ravenswing

• Oppose Why would we want to go against common sense and wikipedia COMMONNAME? This is an English wikipedia not a Serbian or Swedish wikipedia where they use a non-English alphabet. Just make sure that in the article body the mother tongue alphabetic spelling is shown and we're set to go. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• The great part about COMMONNAME that those that keep spouting it fail to read is the part that says "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." Simply removing the diacritics is an error thus per common name should not be used even though it is the most common version. If they were properly translated that would be a different story and I would have no issue. But simply dropping the diacritics is a common error. -DJSasso (talk) 12:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• Exactly. Examples of such translations are Munich for München, Copenhagen for København, Cologne for Köln, Gothenburg for Göteborg, etc. But personal names are generally not translated. Ergo the diacritics should not be dropped. HandsomeFella (talk) 20:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support all; generally speaking, the names with diacritics are more accurate; they are supported by sources. I respect the stances of those who argue that this is an "english" encyclopædia; but being an encyclopædia it covers some subjects with foreign connections, and should aim to cover them accurately; if the real name is readable, show the real name, instead of mashing it into an arbitrary subset of the characters available to us. Those angered by the sight of diacritics really ought to stop reading articles about foreign subjects - it's no good for your blood pressure. bobrayner (talk) 17:17, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• Of course, generally speaking, the names with diacritics are not English.  And while I fully agree that WP:V does relate to things being supported by sources; however, linking the phrase supported by sources to the policy of WP:V seems more like WP:GAMING to me than anything else.  And when one looks at the preceding conversation, one might perhaps notice that the only people citing actual sources are the ones opposing these moves.  The rest of the people here all argue to ignore the RS and ignore WP Policy because foreign countries spell things differently in foreign languages; duh!  That's why we speak English, because we speak English; if we spoke French, or Swahili, or Czech, then we wouldn't be asking to write these names in English, but since this is English Wikipedia, it seems like a good idea to follow the consensus policies of en.WP, to follow the English RS, and to name these articles in English (with the appropriate indication of the foreign spelling); and of course, the French, Swahili, Czech, and all the rest are welcome to spell things in their own languages on their own wikis.  And no, I don't agree that I should have to avoid a certain percentage of English Wikipedia if I don't want to see articles written in foreign languages; how about we just follow policy and follow the English sources.  And of course, if you'd like to provide a link to actual sources that show that these names have been spelled in English by English RS the way that you're trying to have them named in en.WP, then by all means provide an actual link, not some slimy scumbag trick to imply that what doesn't exist really does, because anybody can provide a link to the 60-foot tall – 4,000 pound Duck or Irrefutable evidence of Bigfoot.  But reality is that there is no such RS because in English we don't spell things with diacritics and therefore there are no English RS with such a spelling; so instead you have to use deception to imply that you, and everyone else pushing this move, isn't really just making all this up and hoping that the admin won't look to closely at what you claim. — Who R you? Talk 00:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• Since you mention "slimy scumbag tricks", there are sources with the diacritical marks, such as this despite you pretending that I was bluffing; but I note you subtly redefined RS to mean an english RS even when there is no such distinction in WP:V. That mendacity is very frustrating. Please try to play nicely. bobrayner (talk) 11:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• No, I haven't 'subtly redefined RS to mean an English RS'; on the contrary, I read policy word-for-word (See section below); WP:EN – "…most common in the English language…", "…most commonly used in the English-language,…", "…transliterated into characters generally intelligible to literate speakers of English…", WP:UCN – "…used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources…", WP:DIACRITICS – "…general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language…", and WP:UE – "…should follow English-language sources…".
  I follow names and spellings used by English sources and words used in English Wikipedia policy. — Who R you? Talk 02:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support all as more accurate, per WP:COMMONNAME. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• The relevant portions of WP:COMMONNAME (a.k.a. WP:UCN and WP:NCCN) are listed in the section below.  The consensus there is to use the name most common in English sources.  Kauffner and IP:65.94… have provided links demonstrating the most common English spelling (not surprisingly without diacritics) earlier in the conversation.  The only common spellings of these names with diacritics are, of course, foreign language spellings; but consensus policy is to use the most common spelling as determined by the English RS.  Just what does the version of WP:COMMONNAME that you're reading say?  Is it the section that says that because User:OpenFuture is Swedish, and his/her language uses diacritics, English should too; because I can't seem to find that section in my copy. — Who R you? Talk 00:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• Actually Common name says "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." If these were correct translations of the names to English I would agree with you and say use the translated version, but simply removing diacritics the vast majority of the time is a common error. And per commonname we should not use the name even if it is the commonname when it is inaccurate which is what it would be if they were simply stripped. -DJSasso (talk) 02:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support I don't see any real established usage in English for these players. (Possibly Slansky, but he did not gain any real notability in North America) I cannot see how you can claim any kind of established English names for these players. So how could you determine an English common name? Really, don't know how you can even support these articles in the English wikipedia? Hard to support, and localized notability. (No offence intended) ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 00:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• It certainly seems that the standard practice with these things is, more often than not, no amount of proof is enough for an article originally named in a foreign language to be moved to English and that, for any article existing in English, a lack of RS is sufficient reason to move them to foreign spellings.  Seems like quite the double-standard.  As for the reality that these articles shouldn't exist at all in English Wikipedia, I agree totally; but the fact is that, while the policies regarding names of articles does say that we follow the English RS (a consensus policy which it seems is simply ignored at present), the policies for the notability sufficient to keep an article in Wikipedia is that someone somewhere once did a story about them, so the fact is that for a Croatian person to be included in English Wikipedia, they only need a trivial story done by a third rate rag in their country and the decision is to keep the article, but a person in Toronto, where the metropolitan area is the same population as the country of Croatia, an article in English Wikipedia would likely face deletion because there was a lack of national coverage.  So the result is that the English Wikipedia ends up with a bunch of foreign language stories about foreigners that nobody gives a shit about in places that English speakers couldn't care less about, but what actually affects the lives of English speaking readers of Wikipedia is excluded from en.WP; but interestingly, assuming that the policies of foreign wikis are as fucked up as they are here, that story would appear in say the Chinese, German, or Czech Wikipedia, just not in the English one where anyone might possibly care about it.  And so WP ends up being a collection of trivial foreign shit, which nobody gives a damn about, spelled in foreign languages.  And since the nominator of this group of 10 articles decided to nominate them as a group, it's up to them to prove that all of the 10 should be moved, if you know that one of them shouldn't be moved (considering that we aren't agruing individual articles but rather a move of a collection of articles) then obviously this multi-move shouldn't take place.  It's obviously impossible for anyone to disprove that which isn't ever claimed but is just implied without any reference to any sort of facts, like RS.  Which is probably why Wikipedia policies are what they are. — Who R you? Talk 01:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• When there's only one english mention on the net, I don't know if there is any verifiable accuracy to be found. I basically went by that these players are basically obscure in english, and should be treated as foreign words in the english wikipedia. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 17:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support. I agree with Alan. Diacritics are helpful. At the same time, I'd like to lobby for an earlier idea - diacritic filter that could be used by those who like their content diacritic-free. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 04:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support all As WP neither encourages nor discourages diacritics, let's strive for encyclopaedic accuracy above all. Follow the current practice for most articles about foreign individuals with foreign-looking names, so long as it can be verified. No only will it lead to a better quality article, the information is more helpful for the reader. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support, as usual in these discussions, makes the encyclopedia better by providing more accurate information (people who want to know how the names are spelt without diacritics will have no problem deducing).--Kotniski (talk) 08:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support mainly since only a few editors seem unable to accept that the English language is littered with loanwords using diacritics. Some of the reasoning used above is jaw-droppingly backwards. --HighKing (talk) 10:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose for consistency, which I think we should have. Always using the native language name would result in our articles on Chinese and Russian individuals unfindable so it seems to me that a practice of anglicizing foreign names is reasonable, which makes sense for an English encyclopedia. The native language name should, of course, be given in the article body. JORGENEV 11:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• I don't think anyone here supports the use of non-Latin names. English-language encyclopedias and dictionaries (like Britannica, Columbia, Americana and Webster's) do spell Czech names correctly, complete with the necessary diacritics. You can not anglicize these names by simply removing the marks. For example, The Chicago Manual of Style says that "foreign words, phrases, or titles that occur in an English-language work must include any special characters that appear in the original language", and the AMA Manual of Style that "accent marks should always be retained in the following instances: Proper names..." Prolog (talk) 13:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support all, per nominator. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 12:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Each of these requires scrutiny as to whether it conforms with policy: WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RS. A WikiProject guideline has no standing against two policies. --Dweller (talk) 13:17, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support all for consistency with roughly 4% of all Wikipedia articles (that's the number of articles whose titles are personal names with diacritics, whereas roughly 0% of titles are personal names in which diacritics have been dropped), consistency with all English encyclopedias that I have checked (Britannica, Britannica 1911 and Encarta all use diacritics consistently except for emigrants), consistency with the hockey naming guidelines, and also in accordance with WP:COMMONNAME and WP:USEENGLISH when interpreted correctly. In the case of Jan Stransky weak support because he actually played in Canada for some time. Hans Adler 13:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support all If people's names are written in the Latin alphabet in their native language and have diacritics in them, then they should be used. Wikipedia shouldn't be dumbing down spelling the way that many media outlets do because they are afraid that readers won't understand what an š is. Number 57 15:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support all - can't honestly believe that this is such an issue, the accents are more accurate, something an encylcopedia should always strive to be. GiantSnowman 17:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support. The subjects of the articles are notable(?) primarily or exclusively for activities in places where their names are written using the relevant diacritics. —  AjaxSmack  01:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - Those who support the move by claiming COMMONNAME have obviously not done any research. A quick search of Google News shows that the Commonly Used Name for each of the ten subjects is the currently used English title:

1. Dominik Halmosi has about 5,610 results, whereas Dominik Halmoši has only about 105 results.

2. Jiri Hanzlik has about 7,090, whereas Jiří Hanzlík has only about 499.

3. Jan Herman has about 224,000 results, whereas Jan Heřman has only about 4,170

4. Martin Herman has about 114,000 results, whereas Martin Heřman has only about 525

5. Jan Kovar has about 31,100 results, whereas Jan Kovář has only about 11,900

6. Patrik Petruska has about 3,880 results, whereas Patrik Petruška has only about 90

7. Tomas Pitule has about 3,940 results, whereas Tomáš Pitule has only about 9

8. Petr Prikryl has about 31,600 results, whereas Petr Přikryl has only about 12,900

9. Dan Ruzicka has about 10,300 results, whereas Dan Růžička has only about 771

10. Jan Stransky has about 21,200 results, whereas Jan Stránský has only about 3,810

The established Wiki-policies of WP:UE and WP:UCN, and not just personal opinion, strongly oppose the moves. Dolovis (talk) 15:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

And while you keep quoting UCN...you keep ignoring one of the most important lines in it. "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". So yes, its great that they have more google hits. But as has been pointed out many many times, its is a common error to simply strip the diacritics instead of translate the name. As such simply removing the diacritics is inaccurate and per UCN we should not use the common name if it is inaccurate even if it is used more frequently. -DJSasso (talk) 17:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Shame on you for quoting half a sentence out of context from the policy at large, and then clinging to it as though you have heard the Word from God. The same WP:UCN goes on to make the truly important and unambiguous statement to sum up 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. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article." It really is all about references found in English reliable sources. Dolovis (talk) 18:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Rubbish. Quoting an exception does not qualify as taking something out of its context. Most people understand that an exception applies to a rule, and does not stand by itself. Moreover, what you quote does not rebuke that exception. HandsomeFella (talk) 18:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

That you are falsely labeling your half-sentence to be "an exception to the rule" is in itself telling commentary. Where does it say that? The half-sentence is not an exception to the rule of using English reliable sources to determine the commonly used name, and for you to state so is patently false, and in any event, the current article names are neither ambiguous nor inaccurate. Dolovis (talk) 18:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

If anyone should be ashamed, it's Dolovis, for – intentionally or not – omitting precisely that sentence when quoting WP:COMMONNAME. That very sentence is in fact a coup de grâce to all the fundamentalist diacritic-haters. Dolovis has now retreated to the fig leaf of labeling these names "formal names". Formal names goes to William Jefferson Clinton vs Bill Clinton, or Dolovis Middlename Lastname vs Dolovis Lastname. It has nothing to do with diacritics. Soon the fig leaf will blow away, and Dolovis will stand naked. HandsomeFella (talk) 21:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The whole purpose of that sentence is for situations just like this. It isn't even remotely out of context. I am not arguing to use the "official" name like the sentence you are quoting which does not contradict my quote. I am arguing that the version just stripping the diacritics is wrong, in cases where they aren't simply stripped and are translated properly (ie still not the official name) then I have no problem with removing them. Its the ones that are clearly done inaccurately that are the problem and which UCN takes pains to make sure people understand. For a famous example, München becomes Munich properly translated not Munchen. This is what UCN is trying to make clear that even if all the reliable sources said you should spell it Munchen that would be inaccurate since the actual English translation would be Munich. -DJSasso (talk) 22:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not a question of using "official" names. The official name of a person is that persons full name, which often includes middle names, etc. Hence the official name of Björn Borg is "Björn Rune Borg". The Common name is "Björn Borg", that is what he is mostly called. "Bjorn Borg" is a misspelling of "Björn Borg" due to that Americans aren't used to using "ö" and instead substitute an "o". But that spelling is incorrect. Just as incorrect as if you has substituted an "a" or and "i". "Bjarn Borg" and "Bjirn Borg" is no less correct that "Bjorn Borg", it just seems that way to non-Swedes. --OpenFuture (talk) 02:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Nope. It isn't that Americans "aren't used to using ö", we don't have an ö in our alphabet. We will occasionally borrow a foreign alphabetical letter but it usually just fades away like with hôtel and général. We use the closest looking letter as a replacement and make it correct in English for all English uses. Then for wikipedia we look for direct English sources and how those sources spell that particular name in English. No name no source. An ö may as well be a hieroglyph as far as English is concerned. We certainly wouldn't use it for pronunciation as we pronounce every letter differently all the time even when words are spelled the same. If editors want to change the rules of this English wikipedia so that all spellings are allowed, whether it's Swedish, Russian, Arabic that's fine and dandy. Then you can use all the ö, Ř, ζ, Й, Ệ, Л, you want but we won't know how to pronounce any of them. Until then I'll just keep checking English sourcing for this wikipedia and use those so that all our readers will understand. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

It isn't that Americans "aren't used to using ö", we don't have an ö in our alphabet. - Yes, that is the *reason* you aren't used to it. As I'm not used to Arabic characters. for all English uses - Foreign names do not become English because you remove the diacritics. An ö may as well be a hieroglyph as far as English is concerned. - Absolutely not. You treat diacritics by ignoring them and pronouncing 'ö' like 'o'. That is very different from hieroglyphics which you can't do that with. If editors want to change the rules - There is no consensus on what those rules are, so it's not a matter of changing anything. whether it's Swedish, Russian, Arabic that's fine and dandy. - Again the ignorance displayed in this discussion is overwhelming. We are discussing diacritics on the Latin alphabet, nothing else. I suggest you learn the difference between that alphabet and other scripts. No-one has suggested adding non-Latin letters like Hieroglyphs, Arabic, or Kanji to the article names. Pronounciation does not come into it, as you yourself points out. You don't know how to pronounce Björn Borg, Björk Guðmundsdóttir or Dominik Halmoši, and stripping diacritics doesn't change that. You don't know how to pronounce Ingrid Bergman either, and that name has no diacritics to strip. Hint, it's not "Enguid Bhuuurgm'n". --OpenFuture (talk) 08:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Your misunderstanding is astounding. "We are discussing diacritics on the Latin alphabet" is not correct. We are discussing diacritic usage here in this English wikipedia using the English alphabet and English sources. Nothing else. I suggest you learn the English alphabet and stop trying to force other letters down our throats. We learn how to pronounce names in English by people telling us how to pronounce them. It's probably why it's not an easy language to learn because we throw away all the rules, but it is what it is. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:45, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

"Using the English alphabet". How can we be discussing the diacritics on an alphabet that doesn't have them? Don't be silly. This is about Latin-alphabet diacritics in non-English names. Once again, pronounciation, as you yourself admitted, is irrelevant, so I don't know why you bring it up all the time. This is not about pronunciation, but spelling. I'm not trying to force anything down anyone's throat. Again you take the existence of foreign languages and names as some sort of threat. That explains your standpoint, but it does not make that standpoint correct. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Which is exactly why this debate is silly. Here we use the English alphabet, not the Swedish or Russian alphabet. Sources can do a couple things to change them so we can understand and write them. They can translate, they can drop etc... We follow the English sources and use what they use. Just like my Polish relatives born in the USA and given English names get them spelled with diacritics in Polish when they return to Poland. Our family has no problem with this, just like the opposite way our family drops the Ł when using it in English to simply L. Sure it sounds different but it's what happens when you spell a name in English that came from a foreign alphabet. But the bottom line is English sourcing. When sourcing any and all of the names in question what comes up on English sources? That's what we use here. If there are zero English sources or if the sourcing is evenly split "then" we may need to spell it using foreign letters. I have no problem with that. But if English sources drop the foreign alphabet, for whatever reason, then that's what gets put in this English wikipedia. I didn't check each and every name under discussion so maybe some of them are different from the others as far as sourcing. It's why we are supposed to take these things on a case by case basis, so we can research and determine what the sourcing is telling us. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:45, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The diacritics are annoying & they've no educational value to 'english only' readers. It's very frustrating that 'english only' readers & their supporters, have to struggle to get rid of the them. GoodDay (talk) 08:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, you repeat this on many articles. That uneducated people find them annoying (which I doubt) is still not a good reason. And you don't have to struggle to get rid of them. You can just let them stay. No struggle needed. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Better idea, remove the non-english accents & allow English Wikipedia to work for english only readers, as it was intended to. Those with english as a 2nd language, know where the Wikipedia of their 1st language are. GoodDay (talk) 08:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

That idea is admittedly marginally better than your other ones of randomly adding diacritics to English names on the Swedish Wikipedia, or deleting all references to non-English people from Englih Wikipedia. It's still a pretty bad idea though. As I've already pointed out, most people who understand English also speak another language. Probably upwards of 90% of everyone that reads Wikipedia articles also speak another language than English. Why you want to make Wikipedia focus only on the uneducated in Great Britain and United States is beyond me. Wikipedia certainly was never intended for people who spoke only English. I have no idea where you get that absurd idea from. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe because Britannica, Britannica Kids Encyclopedia and Encarta, with their routine use of diacritics in article titles, already serve the market of over-educated brainiacs who can strip off diacritics on their own without becoming totally distracted or, gasp, maybe even learned one of those strange, exotic languages such as French at school, whereas Wikipedia is meant primarily for the remaining 0.5% or so of English speakers for whom conventional encyclopedias are mostly useless? Hans Adler 12:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

No, I think you are thinking of simple.wikipedia.org. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I thought it was clear that I was putting words in GoodDay's mouth to provoke some less woolly thinking out of him, for a change. Sorry if I didn't use enough sarcasm markers. Hans Adler 13:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• Unless I'm missing something, WikiProject Hockey is not at liberty to invent new naming guidelines and roll them out over the objection of the wider project. Mandating the use of diacritics is most certainly a new proposal. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The wider project has no objections to this. Most articles for persons with diacritics in their names use them in article names. Some people think they should not, no consensus has been reached, and status quo (which in practice means to use diacritics) remains. Consensus about this and subsequent clarification in policy documents would be highly desirable. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The status quo is that we agree to disagree and thus address cases on an individual basis. If we were assessing these page moves individually then most of them would likely not be moved as there are many more sources using the non-diacritic titles than the "correct" ones. It isn't really kosher to move them anyway based on the hockey's project's local consensus and then using that as further evidence of an established consensus to change the project-wide guideline, fait accompli. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Most BLP's for people with diacritics in their name already have diacritics in the article name as well. Wikipedia practice is to include the diacritics in the article name. Moving these articles to use diacritics do not contradict Wikipedia policy or general usage, and hence needs no new proposal. Neither would removing the diacritics. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

That User:Darwinek and others have, contrary to policy, controversially moved thousands of articles must not be used to justify these proposed moves. In fact, the Arbitration Committee has ruled (see Wikipedia:FAITACCOMPLI) that "It is inappropriate to use repetition or volume in order to present opponents with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change." Dolovis (talk) 15:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Dolovis would know everything there is to know about WP:FAITACCOMPLI, with his editing of the redirects that were the result of his moves, so they could not be undone without involving an admin. This constitutes gaming the system, and Dolovis deservedly had a page move ban imposed on him as a consequence. HandsomeFella (talk) 21:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

You mean sort of like you have been doing with your never ending move requests over the last few months instead of sticking to the centralized discussions like you have been asked by numerous people? -DJSasso (talk) 17:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Reply: Poppycock. Darwinek's multi-moves have been unilateral, controversial, excessive, and contrary to policy. Further, you know that the centralized discussions have taken place, and that the relevant Wiki-policies remain in effect... and by saying “never ending move requests”, you mean the grand total of four move requests, namely,

• Marek Zidlicky - October 21, 2011
• Milan Jurcina - October 28, 2011
• Lubomir Visnovsky – November 4, 2011 (still open)
• Ales Hemsky – November 7, 2011

all of which were supported by a consensus following a discussion. Dolovis (talk) 18:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep up with those RMs, Dolovis. The pro-dios side should've went the RM route years ago, but arrogance played a role. Just ask Ravenswing & Masterhatch, they'll tell ya about the pro-dios side's unilateral actions. GoodDay (talk) 18:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I've personally done several moves, because I did not know about the WP:RM process until I got into a dispute with Dolovis in June. That would account for my "unilateralism". The dispute eventually led to Dolovis receveing a page move ban. As for Dolovis's math, I think it's flat out deceiptful of him to try to give the impression that his "grand total" of page moves and requested page moves is 4. Would anyone who reads this buy a used car from Dolovis? HandsomeFella (talk) 21:30, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm hoping Dolovis will continu from player article to player article. GoodDay (talk) 21:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your mature contributions. HandsomeFella (talk) 10:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

You are quite aware you have been making many more than just those 4 move requests over the past few months. Those centralized discussions did take place indicating there was no-consensus and yet you kept making moving requests over and over again. So much so and in such a disruptive manner that you were banned from making move requests for awhile. If anyone is trying to "exhaust their ability to contest the change" it is you. If you want a consensus on the issue which you have been shown clearly does not exist then take it to a centralized place again instead of opening up discussions over and over again in any and every forum you can find. -DJSasso (talk) 18:45, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

You are shoveling pure bullshit. My edit history tells the whole story, so there is really no point in you continuing to unload your fantasy fabrications in your pathetic attempts to discredit me. Dolovis (talk) 03:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not fiction. Several editors who have been commenting on this page were around when the ANI, that ultimately ended in you receiving a page move ban, was processed a couple of months ago. They've all found you out. But you have been so industrious here on wikipedia, so poring through your edit history to find the evidence will be very time-consuming. You're obviously relying on that nobody will take the trouble of doing so. But it's there allright. HandsomeFella (talk) 10:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Atleast Dolovis is going the RM route. GoodDay (talk) 19:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

That's only because he's got not choice, as he's banned from personally moving pages. HandsomeFella (talk) 21:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Please, don't compare Dolovis to Darwinek, in terms of unilateral page moves. GoodDay (talk) 21:29, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I haven't. HandsomeFella (talk) 10:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Well if you won't, HandsomeFella, I certainly will. One of my comments in one of the ANI discussions against Dolovis was the fact that he unilaterally moved hundreds of pages from diacritic to non-diacritic pages within a matter of weeks, days even. It's a shame that what Dolovis does (and what got him a page ban move in the first place, something that didn't happen to Darwinek, eh GoodDay?) is thought of as so revolutionary and great by the anti-dio gang, while anyone else moving pages in the opposite direction is looked at as "vile repugnant scum". We Wikipedians have long memories, GoodDay. Recall the whole story before you make these assumptions. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 21:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: This proposed move is contrary to even the WikiProject Czech Republic's own stated Naming conventions which reads: “Prefer the English name, if it exists, as the title and in the article.” Dolovis (talk) 17:30, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• And of course the argument as you have been told probably hundreds of times now is that simply removing the diacritics does not make one an English name. Again for a basic popular example, Munich is the English name not Munchen which is the diacritic stripped version of its name. -DJSasso (talk) 17:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• Big deal. It's irrelevant to 'english only' readers, who are English Wikipedia's primary readership. GoodDay (talk) 18:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec):

@Darwinek: The situation where most articles used diacritics has persisted for a long time. Björn Borg has for example always had diacritics, except for a short move in 2008 that was quickly reverted. Björk has always been Björk, etc.--OpenFuture (talk) 17:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

@Dolovis: There exists no English name. Removing diacritics does not make the name English. That rule is for articles like Prague. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Irreleveant to 'english only' readers. GoodDay (talk) 18:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

GoodDay, I think you are really underestimating most 'English only' readers. I think most of them – if not all – will be able cope with them without falling off the chair when they read articles with diacritics. If they wouldn't, they'd be having big problems with Häagen-Dazs, Mötley Crüe, Pelé, etc. I don't think they have any problem whatsoever. HandsomeFella (talk) 21:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The english sources are proof that diacritics are generally not used, so please don't use them. Leave English Wikipedia to the laymen, not the professionals. GoodDay (talk) 21:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

You are now arguing against having professionally useful correct information, because apparently this is inconsiderate towards the uneducated, who should instead be fed incorrect easily digested crap so as to not disturb their brains and cause them to start thinking for themselves. You are welcome to have that standpoint, but I think you might find a more fertile ground for your views at Conservapedia than here. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia was built for the laymen. GoodDay (talk) 22:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm a Layman. I don't know why you think that implies "stupid" or "not speaking multiple languages". It doesn't. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

This layman doesn't speak multiple languages & isn't stupid. But, this layman gets peeved when non-english is pushed on English Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 06:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Again, to get rid of non-English you must remove all articles about foreign people and places. I suggest you raise that proposal somewhere appropriate. This is certainly not the place to discuss it, as this is a question of if we should have diacritics on this article name or not. No matter if the diacritics is there or not, his name is still non-English. You apparently want to delete this article, and many more. Then please suggest that somewhere. But here, we discuss if this non-English name should have diacritics or not.

Btw, for someone who loves English so much, you might want to know that English is a proper noun, and should therefore be written "English", not "english" as you consistently write it. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

"This layman" has for many weeks been repeating the same uninformed drivel about the English language in dozens of places, has been corrected many times, and appears completely immune to the absorption of well-sourced information that does not conform to his ill-informed misconceptions. So it appears that "stupid or not speaking multiple languages" is fair comment in this context, especially now that you have admitted that the second condition also applies. Hans Adler 08:18, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support all. Except in really clear-cut cases, the more accurate name should be preferrred for use in what, after all, are meant to be encyclopedia articles. So I would expect to see very strong evidence that the non-diacritical name is more commonly used by reliable sources to justify its use instead. In this case, that doesn't seem to apply, and my understanding of the policies so extensively linked and quoted above would suggest that in such cases accuracy comes first. Alzarian16 (talk) 20:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support all per WP:COMMONNAME and because that is how these names are spelled. Fear of diacritics by some editors threatens to make Wikipedia a joke. — O'Dea (talk) 14:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

• Actually, WP:COMMONNAME is the policy being quoted to oppose the move, as already demonstrated earlier in this discussion, English-language reliable sources clearly favour the status quo for these article titles. Dolovis (talk) 04:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

• And has been pointed out to you, WP:COMMONNAME actually supports the move. -DJSasso (talk) 13:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

• Rubbish. Dolovis (talk) 13:45, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

• Only if you ignore this sentence: 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. HandsomeFella (talk) 15:42, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support all per common sense. I know diacritics are not perfect, but not everyone out there is named the English way. And no, the article on Jan Kowalski should not be moved to John Smith just because WP:UE suggests so. Also, guys, if you have a problem with diacritics, that's what redirects are for. Really, this feature's been here for ages. //Halibutt 02:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

  WP:UE suggests no such thing; but it does say (at WP:TITLECHANGES), "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." Dolovis (talk) 04:45, 22 November 2011 (UTC) Dolovis (talk) 04:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

It does suggest translating article names, yes. It has to be recognized that words are not names of things and places and names of things and places are not names of people. None of the policy makes this difference yet. This is the major problem IMHO. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:05, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It seems abundantly clear that the following ten articles…

• Dominik Halmosi → Dominik Halmoši
• Jiri Hanzlik → Jiří Hanzlík
• Jan Herman → Jan Heřman
• Martin Herman → Martin Heřman
• Jan Kovar → Jan Kovář
• Patrik Petruska → Patrik Petruška
• Tomas Pitule → Tomáš Pitule
• Petr Prikryl → Petr Přikryl
• Dan Ruzicka → Dan Růžička
• Jan Stransky → Jan Stránský

…should be deleted for lack of notability.

Wikilawyering and logical machinations can produce near-endless arguments about how all ten of these articles meet our requirements for WP:Notability. But if one cuts to the chase and looks at the intent and objective underlying the policy, it is clear. As it says on WP:Notability:

This page in a nutshell: Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not excluded for other reasons. We consider evidence from reliable independent sources such as published journals, books, and newspapers to gauge this attention. Notability does not directly affect the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article.

The policy cites, among other things, Wikipedia's concept of notability applies this basic standard to avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics.

It seems clear that articles on the above ten players wouldn’t be found in a Slavic-language print encyclopedia. Clearly, articles on these ten Czech players belong only in Slavic-language hockey magazines. They have no business being in an English-language encyclopedia; just because a hockey player appears in the hockey magazines in some places on earth, does not equate to the players having received “significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time”. Wikipedia is not a sports almanac that includes any sports player, no matter how inconsequential. Greg L (talk) 18:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

!votes and reasoning

• Delete There must be clear and convincing evidence that these players received “significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time”. Wikipedia is not a sports almanac that includes any sports player, no matter how inconsequential. Per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, a cabal active on one of our WikiProjects can not override this bedrock principle. Greg L (talk) 18:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
• We do not discount topics because sources about them may all be foreign language. If they are professional hockey players in their country, they will likely meet WP:NSPORT, and if further say there are articles about them in these foreign language magazines, then there's the likelihood these are secondary sources (without of course seeing the magazines or specific articles). Yes, for the article to go anywhere in quality on en.wiki, we need reliable translations, but just because the source is foreign means little to article inclusion. --MASEM (t) 19:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
  • No one suggested that the articles should be deleted because any RSs would be in a “foreign language”. They should be deleted because there is zero evidence they are sufficiently notable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Please, a dose of WP:COMMONSENSE here. Editors must provide clear and convincing evidence that these players are notable when they weigh in with how all ten articles truly belong in an encyclopedia. Solid evidence of true notability please; not just a web site mentioning that they merely exist on this pale blue dot. Greg L (talk) 19:16, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Then again, I point you to WP:NSPORT. Now, granted, I have my own problems in terms of inclusion per that guideline, but that's the current consensus that pro athletes are topics to be included. You're going to be fighting against that assuming all other factors hold true. --MASEM (t) 19:23, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Sports fans on Wikipedia can not override exceedingly fundamental and important policies. Per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, 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. Greg L (talk) 19:30, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
        • I totally agree with you in that NSPORT does allow for far too much inclusion, and I've tried to fight NSPORT, but it's not going to happen barring a larger shift in people commenting on that guideline. (Consider that it allows for any pro player than has participated at minimum of one game as being notable...). If you try to AFD them, you will be overwhelmed with keep votes. The fact that this is a new player is also going to not work well, as they will argue you need to give time for these players to get sources to talk about them (which is what the sub-notability guidelines are supposed to do , when they work right). --MASEM (t) 19:35, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
          • This AfD a no-wikilawyering zone and we need to ensure it stays that way, Masem. It is not unreasonable to demand that editors who want these ten articles here provide clear evidence that they received significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time. Hockey fans on a WikiProject can’t just declare they don’t abide by such a principle because they want to turn Wikipedia into a sports almanac. Per WP:NOT too, that is impermissible. Greg L (talk) 19:50, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
            • But it's not the WIkiproject that is saying it (technically), it is the community-based NSPORT that has set that bar. I don't like it, but I'm a small vocal minority relative to those that have interest in sports. I've argued with that page several times to trim down, generalize, reduce, but to no avail. --MASEM (t) 20:04, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
              • Whether it is a WikiProject or is instead NSPORT, both amount to nothing more than a local consensus, right? And that local consensus has been flouting a core principle of Wikipedia, Masem. As such, they may not override community consensus on a wider scale. Specifically, NSPORT may not flout WP:INDISCRIMINATE, which is part of our five pillars. The only reason this has persisted so long is because Wikipedia is so big and there are so many “clubs”; it is hard to find sufficient neutral & wise editors to override a cabal with nose-counts alone. That effect (local cabals) lead to our three-year-long practice of writing “256 mebibytes” rather than the “256 megabytes” the rest of the planet used. Indeed, Wikipedia is both big and odd and dumb things happen. But, after a while, they get reversed. I think the time is ripe to stop treating en.Wikipedia like it is the world’s biggest, most complete list of sports players, no matter how inconsquential they are. To accomplish this, we must insist that Wikipedia’s core principles be abided by and ensure a good admin or ‘crat is involved in closing this AfD. Like all RfCs, the admin or ‘crat should consider the strength, weight, and consistency of the arguments in determining a consensus. Greg L (talk) 20:27, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
                • I'm simply going to caution: others have tried in more dramatic fashion to change the approach to sports and failed. I think it should change too (I think the GNG should be sufficient for most sports players, with the understanding that the type of reliable sources will change depending on the sport), but the sports culture clique will not bulge and unless you get a major dispute resolution approach in place, (ArbCom won't get involved from past arguments), we're stuck with that. The only think I've tried to do is chip away at the fact that sub-notability guidelines like NSPORT are temporarily and presumed assurances of notability, with the anticipation that secondary coverage will be found for them. I personally think that if you take these to AFD as you're doing, they will be snow kept, and you yourself will be attacked for countering that. That's why I focus my efforts at NSPORT's talk page to try to change that (which is one voice among hundreds and not going to happen). --MASEM (t) 20:33, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
• Why are you even having this discussion here? WP:AFD is the proper venue for discussing whether articles should be deleted. See the instructions on how to WP:BUNDLE the ten nominations together. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I added it (here) to the AfD deletion log. As I wrote there, whereas I might be a reasonably experienced wikipedian, I am a novice on AfDs. Beyond adding it to the deletion log, I am at a loss for what else to do. Can you help there, WhatamIdoing? Greg L (talk) 19:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
  • It's completely fair to see if there's a potential for deletion prior to AFD; AFD should only be evoked if you believe the only solution is deletion. I'm cautioning here that while I would agree that these are not topics for en.wiki, the AFD is doomed to failure due to the pile-on that it will get due to the support NSPORT has. --MASEM (t) 20:28, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Don’t worry about “pile-on”, Masem. According to Consensus-building by soliciting outside opinions, Consensus is ultimately determined by the quality of the arguments given for and against an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy, not by a simple counted majority. Greg L (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose bringing this to AFD WP:NHOCKEY specifically states that ice hockey players are notable if they have "played one or more games in an existing or defunct top professional league such as the National Hockey League, World Hockey Association, Elitserien, SM-liiga, or Kontinental Hockey League". May I also point out that WP:NSPORT and WP:Notability are both notability guidelines, neither of them take preference over the other so only one requirement must be met. The fact that these players clearly meet the requirements means that any AFD would probably be speedy-kept. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:33, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Furthermore, this needs to stop being referred to as an AFD. It is not an AFD and a deletion decision cannot be drawn from this discussion. If it was an AFD it would be taking place on a specific AFD page and there would be a message advertising the AFD on the pages of all articles involved. Without going through the proper steps the community cannot come to consensus because many members of the community would be unaware that discussion is in progress. If you want to take this to AFD and you aren't sure how, use Twinkle. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:37, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Facepalm This is still not an AFD discussion Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Please refer to WP:BUNDLE and WP:AFDHOWTO. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:42, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, just pardon me all over the place, Ryan, for pointing out that your reasoning violates Wikipedia’s core policies. And, since we are discussing an AfD, we are discussing an AfD. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Over a time span of 14 hours, the same editor created ten near-identical articles on ten hockey players and the exact same issue affects all ten. There is zero point repeating the same discussion ten times on ten different pages. Now that this discussion resides on a central transcluded page, it can be transcluded to all ten articles; we’re in the processes of adding the various AfD tags to all ten articles now. Patience please. And please dismount from your high horse; your “facepalm” icon, ∆ edit here, is arrogant in the extreme and is high theater intended to paint yourself as someone who doesn’t suffer fools easily. And…

Remember, this started with an RfC on the talk page of a single player, where the subject of the RfC was to affect ten articles. No one seemed to have a problem with that so long as it satisfied the needs of a cabal of sports lovers who want to turn Wikipedia into a gazette containing all sports trivia known on this pale blue dot. Now that it has become a discussion on just AfD’ing all ten articles, we have to go cross a few Ts so the sports crowd doesn’t have a forehead hemorrhage while we try to get some order here. I want to ensure that everyone is afforded an opportunity to weigh in on this issue just as much as you do. Greg L (talk) 22:21, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

• Delete – It seems clear that these articles fail to meet the necessary level of notability for their own WP articles; this is particularly true in the case of these individuals who wouldn't exist on the cs.WP except for the fact that the league involved is substantial in the small regional Czech market and in the regional Czech Wikipedia.  For an encyclopedia of en.WP's global scope, the players in this small regional market (fifth ranked league in the second tier IIHF) don't qualify as even remotely notable; although perhaps someday one or two of them might become so.  But, while I fully agree with you that these minor hockey players do not have sufficient notability to justify their own articles on en.WP and should be deleted, it also seems apparent from some of the previous comments that any failure to follow bureaucratic process to the letter (despite the fact that Wikipedia is not a Bureaucracy!) will unfortunately distract the focus from deleting these articles which should not exist, I hope you'll therefore make the effort to discover and follow the long and unnecessarily overly complex steps to begin the process to have these articles deleted. — Who R you? Talk 03:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
• COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT: No one needs to have a vote in order to decide whether to take articles to AfD. Any non-IP can do so, wholly on his own initiative, whether anyone else likes it or not. If you think any or all of these articles fail of notability, take them to AfD. If you don't, then vote Keep at AfD. It's pretty simple. Ravenswing 06:59, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

---

→Return to Talk:Dominik Halmosi

• Comment All the players definitely meet the notability requirements, as they played one or more games in an existing or defunct top professional league, see WP:NHOCKEY. Moreover, there is a potential to expand all of the articles and create a good encyclopedic information contributing to our coverage of the ice hockey topics. @Greg L: And, since we are discussing an AfD, we are discussing an AfD. No. This is not a standard and transparent AfD procedure, but a hidden forum open only to a handful of editors. Of course, you can create the AfD, but I can't recommend that, as the articles would be in my opinion speedily kept. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: I'll repost something I put on that abortive AfD GregL attempted to file: "If you want to seek consensus to overturn notability criteria, that is properly done on the talk pages of those criteria; AfD is an improper venue to do so, and can only be judged by the black-letter rules in force at the time." It's too bad that the NSPORT/NHOCKEY criteria aren't to GregL's liking, but assuredly there are factions displeased with every subordinate notability criteria in force on Wikipedia. Were consensus with their POVs, the criteria would be written to reflect that. In his rush to claim that tiny cabals are foisting extremist POVs on Wikipedia, GregL has failed to demonstrate one important fact: where are the horde of (presumably) "more reasonable" people who (presumably) oppose these POVs? They seem to be nowhere in evidence. Ravenswing 14:23, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
• Keep all All these players are notable, they have played in a top level ice hockey league, in the Czech Extraliga. They meet criterion 1 of WP:NHOCKEY. Just because these players play in Europe in a league that gets less coverage in North America, does not mean they are less notable than North American players playing at a similar level. The articles are stubs, but looking at past articles on Euro players, in due to time, someone (possibly even me) will expand these articles with more details, statistics, and refs.--Hockeyben (talk) 14:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: Out of process deletion nomination. Should be moved to WP:AfD. Dolovis (talk) 15:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, please nominate at WP:AfD. Discussion here will achieve nothing. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:26, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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.