Jump to content

Talk:Cristian Garín

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Christian Garín)

Requested move 27 June 2017

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. While there's been no evidence that the accented version is used in English sources (as well as evidence to the contrary), some other things are clear. First, we know that many English sources eschew accents as a matter of course, and so aren't necessarily good evidence in matters of style. Second, Garin himself does appear to use the accent which is relevant per MOS:IDENTITY. Finally, both the local consensus here, and the wider consensus at the tennis-related RfCs, state that it's generally preferable to use accents that are in wide use. As such, moving to the accented version should not be a problem. Cúchullain t/c 14:32, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Christian Garin → Christian Garín – This is the spelling of his surname used in Spanish-language sources, including the Spanish ATP website. Rovingrobert (talk) 03:12, 27 June 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. Andrewa (talk) 01:33, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support as nom. Rovingrobert (talk) 02:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this surname is spelled Garín in Spanish-speaking countries. Per also WP:ESMOS and WP:TENNISNAMES. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:09, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Relisting comment: In ictu oculi, I'm a bit puzzled by the argument from Spanish sources, WP:ESMOS and WP:TENNISNAMES both point to unadopted works in progress, and the !vote below from Fyunck seems to answer any remaining argument. Andrewa (talk) 01:33, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Andrewa: because the project has had 2 large RFCs WP:TENNISNAMES and WP:TENNISNAMES2 with 100s of editors participating rejecting the idea that tennis players are a different species from other human beings whose names we consistently spell with full unicode in millions (literally) of articles. We have already discussed to death diacritic-phobic (or quality hardback source phobic?) reasons for creating a ghetto of one group of foreigners on Wikipedia because tennis players have "English names". Tennis players are just the same as every other BLP on this project. Anyone going against two large RFCs is being disruptive. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:22, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • In ictu oculi I'm sorry to escalate this, but that appears unreasonable escalation to me. I admit I was misled by the first RFC (to which you did not link, but I did) being in userspace... I've never seen that before. I was also misled by the fact that the other link you namedropped and did not link is, as I said, an unadopted proposal. That second RfC you did not even mention. (Nor am I convinced that either RfC addresses the point in question, but that is irrelevant IMO.) To suggest that I am going against two large RFCs in relisting with the comment I did is ridiculous; To accuse me of disruption in so doing is itself disruptive. Please withdraw the allegation, and let us move on. Andrewa (talk) 01:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrewa: very sorry, apologies for that, I hope others will see from the editor names in the two RFCs it's clearly not you I'm referring to. However those were full scale legitimate RFCs, and the decisions should be honoured unless there's a third RFC reversing them. The whole point of those RFCs was to prevent tennis BLPs being given a separate font set to the rest of the encyclopedia. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:19, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose - English and official tennis organizations spell it "Garin" and some Spanish press spell it "Garín", but his apparently official personal Facebook page spells it "Garín.". Facebook allows the use of foreign characters, so it would be strange to go against his own preference. We might need more info on his personal choices before moving this article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:30, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Follow-up comment: Discussion above seems (reading between the lines I admit) to be more about the general (and long-running) question of whether to use diacritics when they appear in non-English sources rather than whether English sources support this particular use of a diacritic. Which is valid but I think we should be aware of the context. I find the suggestion that we should discount some less accurate sources particularly interesting. This principle is not supported by any guideline of which I'm aware, am I missing it? Andrewa (talk) 05:51, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As per RFCs, the relevant line in WP:RS is "reliable for the statement being made". As per the two RFCs an ASCII/tabloid font set with no ability to display accents is no more reliable than a black and white photo as WP:RS for a colour. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
An excellent point, but not as simple as it might seem. Nobody assumes that, just because a rose is shown as grey in a black-and-white photo (which means greyscale in this context), it is really grey. On the other hand however, when searching for a name that they've read in a source that uses no diacritics, an English speaker will not use the diacritics. How could they? They would not know how! So the reason that the source uses no diacritics is not relevant here. Otherwise-reliable sources that could not use them for technical reasons, or decide not to because of their local style conventions, are equally likely to provide search terms used by Wikipedia readers, and therefore equally relevant in deciding article titles. Our personal opinions as to how accurate their English is in this respect are irrelevant, and that line in WP:RS is perhaps being taken out of context.
This does not make the RfCs irrelevant of course. The userspace RfC decided the question Can a wikiproject require no-diacritics names, based on an organisation's rule or commonness in English press. That result was no, and that stands. But it doesn't seem relevant here. The closer did however note a great majority of participants express a preference for retaining diacritics in the title of articles. That is relevant, but a bit vague and sweeping, and I think it's unsafe to rely on it, as it was not part of the question asked. It would have been good to follow up with a specific RfC on this question, properly scoped.
The second RfC did follow up the first, and asked Should BLPs contain a duplicate name in basic ASCII character set?, and again the result was no (with some possible exceptions noted). Again this doesn't seem relevant, it's about what to do once it has been decided to have diacritics in the article name, not about how to decide whether or not to have them in the name.
Many of the arguments put in the RfCs are relevant, but to take them out of context and accuse people of disregarding the RfC because they do not agree with your assessment of consensus on questions that either the RfC question or closer or both did not address is completely unfounded, in my opinion.
Thanks you for listening to my view. What do you think of it? Andrewa (talk) 13:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
One thing @Andrewa:... The ITF website is perfectly capable of using some accent marks because they did so in a player's birthplace right next to the player's name. I have not seen an example of them using a diacritic in a player's name, but that would be a business choice not an inability to display. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:05, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And as opposed to this article, there is no excuse to the Marin Cilic placement. Cilic spells it "Marin Cilic" on his personal website, facebook account, and twitter account. All sites that have no problem with foreign characters. That is how he likes it spelled in English sources or he wouldn't do it. It is hypocritical to spell it otherwise here at wikipedia. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:26, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In addition and some would say far worse than that, if that is true it is a gross violation of the spirit of wp:BLP, although not the letter of it IMO.
I think we would need very strong evidence that the diacritic is more common in reliable sources, and that the attempts above to disqualify sources that don't use them are groundless. Some want diacritics to be used wherever they occur in the source language, regardless of their usage in English, but this has not been adopted by Wikipedia. Andrewa (talk) 01:16, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Eventually an editor wears down from all the in-fighting and attacks. Basically what came of the 2012 RfC's was the following. Ban all official tennis spellings since the ITF, ATP, WTA, Davis Cup, and Fed Cup do not use diacritics in player names. Ban all newspapers and tv news as a source for player names because they do not use diacritics. Also, ban Encyclopedia Britannica as a source unless they happen to use diacritics. We must prove that a source can use diacritics if they wish. If a person has pretty much little English language sourcing we must go with their foreign spelling. If a diacritic is used in a player's name in an article title, it is forbidden to use the English sourced spelling anywhere in that article. Vice versa, if the English sourced spelling is used in the title, it is forbidden to use any diacritic spelling in the article (though this doesn't get followed). For better known/sourced players, you must prove that an English source can and does use diacritics... otherwise that source is banned. However, if you can show that the player purposely spells their name without diacritics in English sources (and they are sources that allow diacritics to be used) such as personal web pages, personal Facebook and Twitter accounts, then we use those and go by the player's preference. If an official signature can be found, that is also acceptable as a source. This isn't ideal, and it gets cheated on if you don't keep an eye out, but at least it's easy to follow, works most of the time, and stops most of the edit wars and nastiness. It helps keep the sanity around here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:16, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the top of Čilić's site. That's how he spells it. Rovingrobert (talk) 02:55, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite. What matters is how he spells it in English. And that stands out in ones face in giant white letters....Marin Cilic. On his personal twitter page... Marin Cilic... on his personal facebook page it's Marin Cilic. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:23, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The RFC was moved to userspace, but the result stands. We cannot treat tennis players as different from other human beings. And in fact we don't. The legacy of WP:TENNISNAMES boils down to one now retired blonde Serbian national heroine whose name has been ASCIIized across every article she is mentioned in on en.wp when the dozens of other BLPs mentioned in the same articles the ASCIIized lady played matches against are allowed to stand with "foreign" (i.e. accurate) names. It is the most bizarre case of targeting a living person for special name/font treatment on en.wp. And it is almost entirely the edits of one editor. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Administrator's comment: If I were to close this now, it would have to be as no consensus or no move. Supporters of the move would help the case substantially by showing English sources that include the accent, or evidence that the subject himself has a preference per MOS:IDENTITY.--Cúchullain t/c 14:52, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The onus on anyone proposing that this be the only Spanish-language BLP on the encylopedia to be singled out an "English name" is really for them to show why this BLP is different from 100,000s of others. But as regards MOS:IDENTITY, personal preference https://www.facebook.com/garinofficial/ shows Garín's family name spelled correctly, Garín. Unusual to find any MOS:IDENTITY among Chileans of having an identity which denies their own name. Unless someone has made statements repudiating their nation we shouldn't need to prove it. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:00, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, the onus is on the people supporting the change to make the case for it with evidence. It would be very helpful if there were evidence that some English reliable sources use the diacritics. So far it's been claimed that this both is, and isn't the case. MOS:IDENTITY comes into play especially when there isn't consistency in the sources - ie, when some sources do it one way, and others do it another way. It's not an overriding factor over what the sources use.--Cúchullain t/c 19:03, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You just asked for "evidence that the subject himself has a preference per MOS:IDENTITY", and you just got given it. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:55, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I also said "Supporters of the move would help the case substantially by showing English sources that include the accent". If English sources consistently eschew the evidence, we follow the sources barring a very strong local consensus that isn't evident here. MOS:IDENTITY comes into play "if it isn't clear which is most used". To repeat, we've heard some claims about what the sources say, but no evidence. So far we're mainly hearing individuals' personal preferences, which are not compelling reasons to move an article.--Cúchullain t/c 14:28, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Would this rule also apply to François Hollande and Gerhard Schröder? My comment above did not reflect a personal preference but Wikipedia's practice in nearly all similar cases. Such practice derives from WP:NOT as well as WP:COMMONNAME ("... inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources"). —  AjaxSmack  05:44, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok but since you brought up COMMONNAME, three sentences down from that it also says "Although ...birth... names are often used for article titles, the term or name most typically used in reliable sources is generally preferred. Other encyclopedias are among the sources that may be helpful in deciding what titles are in an encyclopedic register, as well as what names are most frequently used." So WP:COMMONNAME is ambiguous as best. But it's why at least the two RfC's made it easy to follow, whether we agree with them or not. Ban all English Press for name spelling sources. Ban other Encyclopedias for name spelling sources. Only use sources from the person's homeland for name spelling sources UNLESS you can find a source on how that person spells their name on their own personal websites (like facebook, twitter, own website, etc) since those sites can use any letters a person wants. An example of a person's writing of their own name with their own hand also is acceptable. Yes it's harsh, but it had consensus, and does keep most edit warring down. It IS the de facto guideline of Wikipedia now. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:32, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Eurosport and IMDb give his name as Garín. So does a French book, which is probably a better source than a multitude of websites. Rovingrobert (talk) 03:37, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The IMDB is a poor source because anyone can add to it, and the French book is written in French so it is a poor source on how a person spells their name in English. Plus it's a quiz book and for all we know self published. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:03, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There really doesn't seem to be much point in rehashing the old topic that non-full font enabled sources like tabloids and sports blogs only use the basic 24 character set. @SmokeyJoe: we're currently at 3 supports and 1 oppose. Do you want to address the question of why this bio should be different from every other Chilean bio, when the BLP's own official Facebook spells his own name correctly? In ictu oculi (talk) 08:00, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why is WP:AT fifth guideline "irrelevant"? WP:CONSISTENCY Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) as topic-specific naming conventions on article titles, in the box above. WP:AT isn't optional "This page documents an English Wikipedia policy. It describes a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow." And we do know every other Category:Chilean sportsmen, which here constitutes the "similar articles". They all follow en.wp Spanish MOS. So what is the point of having WP:CONSISTENCY if we don't follow it in just this one article? In ictu oculi (talk) 08:26, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, consistency is why to title biographies Christian Garin and not Garin, Christian. Diacritics use should be based on source usage. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:26, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's not the visible evidence of Category:Chilean sportsmen. In almost every case sports blogs and tabloids don't use full fonts, agreed. In almost every case hardback print sources are in a minority for sportsmen, agreed. Result in all cases the corpus of the encyclopedia goes with enabled sources, and doesn't look for the spelling of Spanish names in html and tabloid sources which contain on 24-character set. If anyone disagrees with this the thing to do (as has been done years ago) is to try and change en.wp in a high profile article like Lech Wałęsa rather than haggle at a minor Chilean tennis player. Back to WP:CONSISTENCY Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) as topic-specific naming conventions on article titles, in the box above: Why pick this BLP? In ictu oculi (talk) 09:59, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

----

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cristian_Garín&oldid=1257442001"