Jump to content

Talk:Saša Hiršzon

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

removal of diacritics

[edit]

User:Fyunck(click) moved the article from its original title Saša Hiršzon to Sasa Hirszon over redirect saying:

Tennis Project Guidelines are to use English alphabet as per ITF and ATP.

I see no such thing at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines - all I could find was Juan Martín del Potro over there (notice the í, his ITF page and his ATP page). We discussed such a matter at Talk:Mate Pavić already, and I'm moving it back. Can you please cease this apparent campaign of making non-English personal names inconsistent in tennis articles? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. You must not have read the guideline well enough. And this was discussed at many pages other than Mate Pavic. We use the English sources available and Sasa Hirszon is spelled as such in all of them. Would you please keep to Tennis guidelines and stop reverting English sourced spellings? Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:52, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please point us to the exact part of the WP Tennis guidelines that supports your position? I'm honestly not seeing it.
I will remind you that it is you who have started the reverting here, because the original article was written with diacritics by an Australian member of WP Tennis. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:27, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And I explained to Jevansen the error and he/she understood. Guidelines state - "Use common English spelling as found on ATP and WTA websites. Otherwise use press releases, grand slam websites, other tournament sites, books." This was discussed by the Tennis Project way back in 2008 (I think that was the timeframe). Administrators then moved the pages to the English alphabet. Of course since then many have been moved back. I don't just go by the English alphabet, I go by the English sources which 90% of the time are diacritic-free. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:52, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also when an article has been at an foreign spelling for a long time it's usually not worth my while to change it... but this was just created and Jevansen was also moving articles to non-project worthy titles (or pages he was working on were suddenly moved by others), so it got my attention very quickly. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:59, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As we have discussed previously, I believe any such Tennis Project guidelines that are apparently stuck in some talk archive can't magically trump WP:Article titles policy. If you want to object to this kind of interpretation of that policy (again), use WP:RM or similar procedures. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They don't trump title policy. Wiki policy does not say to use diacritics. It's a wiki guideline that is ambiguous at best so projects have developed their own work-arounds, and this is ours. No problem though... when I get the chance I'll list it as an RFM to get it done as we've done with other articles. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not talking about any guidelines, but about the article title policy. Article titles should be recognizable, natural, precise, concise and consistent. The diacritics may detract from naturalness by way of missing from the English alphabet, but that's because the name is not English in the first place - it's foreign. They don't detract from recognizability, precision, conciseness or consistency, in fact they improve three out of four of those parameters. Overall, it's pointless to claim that "Sasa Hirszon" is a better English title than "Saša Hiršzon" - *neither* is an English title, and both renderings of the surname are effectively unpronounceable by English speakers. It's hard to pronounce for Croatian speakers, too :) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's a matter of opinion. In this English Wikipedia, and using the English alphabet, it is easily more recognizable, natural, concise and consistent to use Sasa Hirszon. Precise I leave to experts. We also have to deal with Use English, Common name, etc...
As I said, wiki is ambiguous at the very best when it comes to titles so it is left to Projects to make some sort of guidelines that work for their topic. We have and we have plenty of English sources to back it up. And sourcing is our backbone here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Requested move

[edit]
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: not moved. It's pretty clear that we do not have the consensus needed to make this move. Aervanath (talk) 19:04, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saša Hiršzon → Sasa Hirszon — Per ITF, ATP, Davis Cup, Tennis Guidelines and Tennis project consensus, his English sourced name is Sasa Hirszon and that's where this should be located in this English wikipedia. The foreign spelled version should be in parenthesis in the first paragraph as normally required. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]

Discussion

[edit]

The principle benefit is that the reader is provided correct information as to how this name is commonly spelled, per English-language reliable sources. A typeable title is also easier to link to and to search for, but that's a secondary matter. Kauffner (talk) 14:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You used the adjective "correct", and that opens a very slippery slope for your argument - if you want to talk about what is "correct", then "Sasa Hirszon" can be immediately disqualified as not being "correct" because this is not in fact the person's name. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:04, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And, I'll spell out the obvious retort to the sources argument just in case people read this out of context - the spelling laziness of English sources influences the criterion of recognizability of article titles, but that doesn't magically trump the criteria of preciseness and consistency. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The general idea of Wikipedia is that we follow and summarize the English-language sources, not argue with them. In any case, it is easy to show that your argument is quite wrong. Sports writers remove diacritics because that is the convention of English-language sports writing. Kauffner (talk) 20:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So you prefer to be arguing against a living person's birth certificate? :) Also, the general idea of Wikipedia is that we try to be an encyclopedia, as opposed to a meta sports journal. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As we look to our English sources that's what we use. Have you looked at the Czech wikipedia lately? You'll see they change the English spelling of people like Serena Williams to Serena Williamsová... that's fine because if that's the way they spell it in Czech with Czech sources then that's the way it should be over in their wiki. Here at tennis and this English wikipedia we use the multitude of tennis sources and English press to determine how a name is spelled in English. Since they usually use the English alphabet so do we. My birth certificate may say Kołodziej, but in the USA and UK our family spells it Kolodziej. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and this person spells his name Saša Hiršzon, because he didn't move to the USA or the UK. Besides, the Czech example you presented is flawed - even if the Czechs did add a "ová" suffix, they didn't seem to "fix" the foreign letter "W" or the foreign word "Williams". If they had spelled it e.g. Viliemsová, that would have been vaguely more convincing. The suffix seems to be making it more in the spirit of the language (female surnames seem to take a feminine form). "Sasa Hirszon", on the other hand, is not in the spirit of the English language, it's got nothing to do with it because it's still a foreign blurb that's exceedingly hard to write and pronounce in English. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Newspapers follow AP style and strip off diacritics for the convenience of copy editors with deadlines. But in the case of sports, this convention goes across mediums. Magazines like SI, or reference works like ESPN Sports Almanac and Sports People in the News, do the same. Kauffner (talk) 04:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter how this person spells his name. What matters is how we spell his name in English, just like editors have to consider how to spell names in Czech for the Czech WP and how to spell them in Russian for the Russian WP. How is this person's name written in reliable English sources? It is always Sasa Hirszon, so that's what we should as the title for this article per WP:TITLE. MakeSense64 (talk) 11:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you can extend that argument to say that in the case of everything it goes across mediums, because a lot of people don't have/care for Unicode and such. Yet, that still doesn't trump all other WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What? criteria like WP:UE, WP:UCN, WP:OFFICIALNAME, WP:COMMONSENSE, WP:RS would all point to moving it to Sasa Hirszon. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
UCN is not about spelling and notes that common inaccuracies are often avoided. RS states that we must use the sources that are reliable on the issue at hand; in this case, the spelling of a Croatian person's name in an encyclopedic context. Prolog (talk) 10:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The sports writing convention does not extend to general-purpose encyclopedias and dictionaries. The Encyclopedia of Tennis and the Historical Dictionary of Tennis also spell player names with the correct diacritics. Prolog (talk) 10:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Croatian top tennis Davis Cups players have been Ivan Lubicˇić, Mario Ancˇić, and Goran Ivaniševic´. That's from HDT. Looks like Scarecrow Press still has a thing or two to learn about Unicode. Kauffner (talk) 11:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is not because one reliable source uses diacritics that we should use them too. Per WP:TITLE we have to use the name that is found most frequently in reliable English language sources. It is very clear what is used most frequently in English sources: Ljubicic, Ancic, Ivanisevic....MakeSense64 (talk) 11:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have you seen 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." – at WP:AT? HandsomeFella (talk) 17:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This should be interesting. What RS has claimed that "Sasa Hirszon" is inaccurate? Kauffner (talk) 23:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear. Are you seriously denying that his name is spelled Saša Hiršzon? HandsomeFella (talk) 06:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here's one: [2]. Took me a few seconds on google. HandsomeFella (talk) 06:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware that the subject's name can be spelled with diacritics. That does not establish that other versions are inaccurate. Perhaps you should read WP:Official names. Kauffner (talk) 06:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The name is spelled with diacritics. And there's nothing on WP:Official names about diacritics. If you continue to the "Official names" section of WP:COMMONNAME, you'll find that it's about whether the name of the article on former president Clinton should be "William Jefferson Clinton" (official name) or "Bill Clinton" (for instance). It has nothing to do with diacritics. HandsomeFella (talk) 06:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As for the title of an article it doesn't matter how it is spelled, because the real spelling and full name is always given right at the start of the article. The most common name in the given language is used as the title, for a simple practical reason: 99% of people who look for Mario Ancic on the English WP will look for "Mario Ancic" and 1% will look for "Mario Ancˇić". So it reduces server load (and thus cost) if the article is put on "Mario Ancic" while "Mario Ancˇić" is a redirect. Just like the Czech WP uses Czech names for eveybody, thus adding "ova" to every woman's name. To find "Venus Williams" on Czech WP you have to look for "Venus Williamsová" because that's the common name in Czech language. It is definitely not how her name is spelled, but is how her name is spelled in Czech. In the same way, Sasa Hirszon is how his name is spelled in English. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, in Croatia the name is spelled with diacritics, not in the English alphabet. For the same reason I spell my name Kolodziej in English and Kołodziej when in Poland. Both are correct and concise in their proper settings and this is an English wikipedia that uses English sourcing if possible. With Sasa it was an easy call. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You may have a point, MakeSense (on the server load and cost thing), but as there's nothing supporting that in the naming guidelines, it's not anything that can be considered here. And also, what you're actually suggesting is that we should spell things the way people believe they are spelled (whether they're correct or not), so people will find things more rapidly. I doubt that is the task of an encyclopedia. You don't find misspelled words in dictionaries, even if many people are mistaken about the spelling. HandsomeFella (talk) 15:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I really doubt the veracity of the server performance claim. Although we editors should not even worry about performance, I'll note that only 5-6% of readers access the article on Mario Ančić through the diacriticless redirect. MediaWiki has strong built-in support for these marks. Prolog (talk) 16:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You think the 94-95% are typing in the diacritics? They come to the article through Google. The percentage of readers outside Croatia who type in the diacritics is virtually nil, according to Insights. Kauffner (talk) 17:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think that. Along with Google, the MediaWiki search engine ignores diacritics. I was debunking the alleged performance issues. Prolog (talk) 17:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Per WP:RMCI this should not be a given a non-admin closure. It is not unanimous and there was a contentious debate going on, which is cut short by this sudden closure. Two criteria which demand for non-admins to stay away from closing it. While assuming good faith, Jenks24 has just counted the heads here. Somebody mentioned 116 news sources using the anglicized version of the name, opponents of the move have produced one English source that uses diacritics. That's a clear concensus in our sources. I will ask to reopen this debate and give it proper admin closure after the debate is done. MakeSense64 (talk) 06:00, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

A fair decision

[edit]

A fair decision by the closer. Unless a side gets 70%–75% it usually goes to no consensus to move by most closers (unless they are completely swayed by one side's arguments). That doesn't mean I'm happy about it though :-( Cheers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think it is a shame. Wikipedia is not a democracy, so it is not the votes we should count. And per WP policies, the title of an article is not based on the concensus of voters, but on the concensus found in our reliable sources about the topic. A grand total of 1 English language source was brought where Sasa Hirszon was written with diacritics, while somebody counted 116 English language news sources who write Sasa Hirszon without diacritics. All official tennis websites (ITF, ATP) also write it without diacritics. If that's not a clear concensus in reliable sources then what is?
Why does WP have policies if they are not used anymore? MakeSense64 (talk) 16:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi MakeSense64, I'll reply to both your comment here if that's OK. First, my policy for non-admin closures is that if anyone has a good faith objection I will re-open it without you needing to take it a noticeboard, so if after reading the rest of this comment you're still not satisfied with my closure, I will re-open it. Secondly, the RM process is almost permanently backlogged, so non-admins are generally given a little more leeway in their closes than they are at processes where there a lot of admins willing to make closures (e.g. AfD). If you look through some of the recent archives at WT:RM you can see a few discussions where quite a few experienced admins disagree that NACs should be restricted to "nearly unanimous" RMs. Anyway, onto the actual discussion. I haven't just counted heads here, but it should be abundantly clear that the majority favour the diacritics version (7–3, if we count your comment as a support), and all !voters are experienced contributors (not SPA accounts or anything dodgy like that). I personally agree with your arguments about COMMONNAME and have been on the same side as Fyunck, et al on many previous diacritics-related RMs. But the fact is that the community has shown through the multitudes of RMs and the 2011 RfC that there is no community consensus one way or the other in regard to diacritics. While your arguments about the weight of sources are strong, it is my opinion that they are not strong enough for me (as a closer) to discount the 70% majority opinion, especially when that majority has made valid counter-arguments. In particular, Prolog's comments about reference works and style guides and HandsomeFella's note about UCN. I could probably go on and on about how you guys then refuted those points and then they refuted your counter-counter-arguments, but the fact is both sides had valid points and both sides made valid references to policy. In short, I closed this discussion because, having seen what feels like a few hundred of these diacritics RMs, I can guarantee you that no other admin would make a different closure – it will be not moved/no consensus. But if you still want me to re-open it, I will do so. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 08:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that no admin I know of would have closed it any other way. This isn't like the debate at Talk:Denes Lukacs where blatant canvassing has been going on. This was a straight forward poll. Sure I wish it had gone the other way... sometimes it does. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining your reasons in this NAC. While it may be true that many admins disagree about the NAC rules, I want to go with the current rules until they are rewritten.
This was not 'nearly unanimous' , especially if we negate the votes that were not based in policy. There was a contentious debate going on. AND the debate was not finished, you closed it less than 24 hours after last comment was made. I still had a few things to say about the latest comments, but found the discussion closed in the morning.
It doesn't matter to me that any admin would close it in the same way. The point is that rules and policy should be used (or changed), and that the discussion should be allowed to run its course (which means until no replies for at least 24 hours if I am correct). So, I still want it to be reopened.
I have actually read Prolog's essay. First, we should remember it is an 'essay', not a guideline or policy. So, actually wikiproject tennis guidelines should weigh more in this than an editor's essay, no matter how well written it may be. Secondly, if you read his entire essay, then it is a good argument to move all tennis article titles to the non-diacritics names, because many of the reliable sources he mentioned, advise to use diacritics in names, but to not use them at all if they cannot be used consistently and correctly. Well, it is quite clear here on WP and especially in tennis that we cannot use the diacritics consistently. Hence per many of prolog's sources we then better avoid the diacritics altogether. I will discuss that when this RM is reopened.MakeSense64 (talk) 06:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've reopened it. I did notice that discussion was still ongoing when I closed it, but I went ahead with the closure anyway because it had devolved into a general diacritics vs no diacritics argument (something the community has on consensus on), it was clear no side would change the others' minds, and it was pretty obviously at "no consensus". I hope you and the others get something out of any discussion that may follow the reopening, but I would bet my house on this being closed as no consensus/not moved. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 11:32, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

repetitio ad nauseam

[edit]

"Sasa Hirszon" is not an "English name" or a "common name" as opposed to "Saša Hiršzon". It's the same name, only with diacritics stripped. It does not confuse readers to leave the diacritics on, because to people who don't understand them, it's effectively the same. It would only confuse them more if we suddenly duplicate the two strings and make it seem as if it's two different names. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It is obvious to the reader that a name with diacritics is often spelled without the marks in certain types of sources. {{Foreign character}} was recently deleted partly for this reason. Prolog (talk) 17:29, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No it is wiki "policy" to include multiple names and the common name or English name or alternate name is always placed right afterwards... as the foreign name is in Novak Djokovic. This is getting ridiculous, it's as if you are closing your eyes and wishing the English version would go away and that's wrong. There are lots of tennis articles without diacritics that have listed the alternate foreign spelling in parenths as guidelines tell us. Shall I start to go through and list them so you two can remove the foreign spellings so it doesn't look like you're being biased here. Or shall I do it and when they are reverted you two will back me up 100%? Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand you correctly, the policy you refer to is laid down in the section WP:TITLE#Treatment of alternative names, where it says that "significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article". As a pertinent example is used the Polish city of Gdańsk, but the alternative name mentioned is the German Danzig (for historical reasons), not the diacritically liberated Gdansk. The way I read this, stripping diacritics does not constitute a "significant alternative name", it's just something anyone can do more or less consciously. Favonian (talk) 20:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you read it that way? We have plenty of non-diacriticed tennis articles where we show the diacriticed foreign spelling right afterwards in parenths because it has been argued we must. It would be reverted on the spot if I went around removing them. I have no problem with it there at all since this is written with the reader in mind and it is something they may recognize. But it works both ways. The line says "These may include alternative spellings, longer or shorter forms, historical names, significant names in other languages, etc." The two versions are different alphabets, Sasa Hirszon is the spelling recognized by the ITF, and ATP and is the version he chose to sign up with in pro tennis. Saša Hiršzon is the rarity. Sure consensus was not to move... that's fine as it's the usual outcome in these things, but to not have the same rules apply to articles is hypocritical. Having both versions of names also allows for easy copy and paste into things like the ITF database of players, which I'm sure tennis fans like me often do. Try it with Hiršzon and you get a non-existent player. I assume good faith with User:Joy not having dealt with him/her on a regular basis. And it's not like I don't ask around about these things to make sure I'm not doing something loony. When I get conflicting reports from different administrators it gets very frustrating. And this one I'm just amazed at. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly makes you think that it's a name he chose to sign up with in pro tennis? Have you ever examined the issues of keyboard layouts and character sets? In general - administrator status hasn't got anything to do with this, you're not doing anything loony, and the inclusion of diacritics in personal names hasn't got anything to do with hypocrisy. For a nice overview of how omitting diacritics from this person's name would have been a rarity, have a look at Category:Croatian people where there are literally thousands of entries, all of which have the appropriate diacritics. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:45, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read the bylaws of professional tennis and what the ITF requires since 2004? And have you ever noticed that some players listed in the ITF or ATP database have residences listed with diacritics? We do that sort of thing at tennis project because that's what we're there for. We are talking here not about the article title, we are talking what else is required besides the title. So yes, hypocrisy as I see it if you don't apply the same thing to all tennis articles, with or without diacritics. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please link or elaborate some of those items you mentioned so that I can read about it? International Tennis Federation and googling don't seem to help me much on this front. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing. An ITF example that their keyboards aren't broken is located here with Saavedra-Corvalan birthplace. The ITF has pretty much always registered only Anglican names that players themselves provide. As for the "requirement" that all players must register these names try this archive way back in 2007. No IPIN no play. This particular registration style started back in 2004 with registered IPIN names (I guess they were slow with the internet), but the ITF was always had the final say in names. Did the ITF ALWAYS give players the choice of their anglicized name rather than just telling them... I don't know. In older ITF records I had only seen the English alphabet. They've given players the choice for some time now as long as it's the English alphabet. A quick example today without digging through more archives is step 6 of ITF registration where it says to only use the English alphabet. Djokovic obviously chose to add a "j" to his English name. At the tennis project we try to tell other editors these types of things because we are expected to know more about tennis inner workings than the average editor. At least that's how I try and help new tennis editors. I wouldn't try to tell the classical music experts the fine points of keeping their project well oiled because my knowledge is limited there. We try to keep within most wiki guidelines but each project has tweaks that need to be made because none are an exact fit. So unless the wiki gods come down and rewrite wiki rules and the tennis bureaucracy follows suit with their rules, I will fight for sourced English tennis article names with the ITF at the top of that source list. If however foreign editors and others prevail in a move request to a non-official-tennis name there's not a lot we can do about it. However we still know that even if we think the name is wrong for a "notable tennis player", not having the English/Common/Alternate name right afterwards is hypocrisy if we must do the same for players who have been placed at their ITF names at wiki. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is correct. To play any notable tennis you need an IPIN, and on the ITF site where you can register for an IPIN you cannot even enter a name with foreign diacritics. Thus the players themselves have chosen the name they want to go by in their tennis career. Even before this system went into effect, there was probably a pen to paper registration system (~ players license) with a strict naming convention, because otherwise they would have had big trouble just to keep up the tennis world rankings (which are needed in organization of tennis tournaments, e.g for seeding the players and for entry cut-off).
And let's not forget that WP already has a naming convention for sportpeople: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sportspeople). Quoting: "As with any other biographical article, the name of an article about a sportsperson (or other type of notable gamester, such as a professional poker or chess player) should be the most commonly used name of the person. That is, it should be the name that is most generally recognizable."
Other sports like baseball formulate it even clearer in their own specific naming convention Wikipedia:Naming conventions (baseball players): "The title of an article for a baseball player should reflect the name they most commonly went by during their career. Informally, the name that appeared on a player's baseball cards should serve as the article's title."
If we do the same for tennis players then we should also use the name they went by during their tennis career, which is thus the name they have registered to play tennis, and which appears on draws, scoreboards, world rankings and so on. That is then of course also the most generally recognizable name for that player, which gets picked up by news media when they write about tennis. But as once again became clear in recent RM discussions, a lot of policies and guidelines are not used anymore, and there is a pro-diacritics crowd that descends on our articles from time to time. MakeSense64 (talk) 09:54, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The players might be able to choose the name they want, but they clearly have little choice regarding the spelling of it. Even some Britons and Americans, such as Brontës, Raúls and Dvořáks, wouldn't get their names spelled right. Prolog (talk) 13:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The job of an encyclopedia is to report on facts. We report on what we find. The name they use in connection with their career as a tennis player is a name written without diacritics. It is not our job to figure out whether they like that or not. That would be OR. You are trying to force the diacritics back in, against WP policy that we have to use the most common name and the most recognizable name. MakeSense64 (talk) 13:50, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be going off-topic, but I'll note that I'm not "trying to force" anything "against WP policy". Since MediaWiki 1.5, implemented in June 2005, the correct and consistent use of diacritics has been a de facto policy. I fully support our policies, but none of them says anything about using common spellings. Furthermore, we're not transcribers; encyclopedic (WP:NOT) and ethical (WP:BLP) considerations are both commonplace and necessary. Prolog (talk) 15:55, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you show us the policy that requires us to use diacritics consistently? I have found this WP:DIACRITICS, which requires us to use what is most common in reliable sources that are written in English language. MakeSense64 (talk) 16:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of any article that lists a diacriticless spelling as an alternative in the lead sentence. Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir's name contains the rare character eth, but even there the common spelling is mentioned as a footnote. You seem to be proposing a major change to established practice, and this is not the best forum for that. Prolog (talk) 13:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a tennis player and if she was one, then she would be playing under a name without diacritics. Then if we follow policy her article would be at the name she uses to play tennis (common name), and her "real" name would be mentioned in the beginning of the lede. The problem you mention only occurs because diacritics have been pushed in the title. Now where are you going to mention the name this player uses to play tennis "Sasa Hirszon", because tennis is the only activity he is notable for? This is what happens when policies are violated, then other policies that are supposed to work in tandem with it do not work anymore either. Then all you end up with is a mess. MakeSense64 (talk) 13:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So, are there diacriticless alternate spellings in tennis biographies? If not, why should we start including spellings that are unnecessary for the reader and considered erroneous by style guides? Prolog (talk) 15:55, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are not that many tennis biographies, so that is not going to help us much further. You explain exactly why we should not have diacritics in these tennis players names: we don't need to include spellings that are unnecessary for the reader and considered erroneous by style guides. The strange thing is that you seem to read exactly the opposite in our policies then what I can find. WP is diacritics neutral, and it depends on what we find in English sources. For tennis players you will find over 90% in English alphabet. If you want to change policies, you can do that elsewhere. In our articles we try to apply the policies. MakeSense64 (talk) 16:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you all please document this "International Player Identification Number" at the ITF article, per http://www.itftennis.com/ipin/ipininformation/index.asp etc? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we would need reliable secondary sources about IPIN before we can add it into the ITF article. They have implemented the changes to internet based registration quietly and stretched out over a couple of years, so there is not much of a story around it that was picked up by media sources. MakeSense64 (talk) 15:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I added it anyway, with mostly ITF sourcing, as it was important to readers, but I'm still discouraged at the disarray of tennis naming, the hypocrisy of alternate names and different answers from different Administrators. I see no reason in the future for articles created in English to have the foreign name in parentheses when the opposite gets torn asunder. It's hard enough explaining to new tennis editors things like the differences in mens and womens tournament notability, so giving them double talk on this issue, plus telling them the ITF requirements for English alphabet names that may or may not be followed, will cause them even more confusion. Heck it does me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:09, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a minute, you don't think the IPIN as a whole is verifiable information, but still think that we should name biographies of living people using the same scheme? And then Fyunck throws around charges of hypocrisy aimed at me? Seriously? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:33, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I never said it wasn't verifiable. It's a primary source (with also a secondary source) but after talking to admins at the verification page there are sometimes good reasons why you include those primary sources, as with tournament draws. I couldn't write it verbatim so as not to plagiarizer, but I didn't infer... I simply plopped up what was on the ITF site as you asked. If someone else wants to word it better that's fine with me. As for the hypocrisy in putting the alternate names in one article but not another, that's pretty much as plain as can be. So on that issue, yes... seriously. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Joy. The hypocrisy is this: when an article is kept at commonname or stagename, then we are required to mention the official name and any alternative names or the foreign spelling name in the lead section. And we do that in our articles. But when it is the reverse situation, when an article is put at the "real" name, then alternative names, including the common English spelling of the name, are removed from the article. So, we are operating on double standards that go against English spelling. A reader who comes across this article may have doubts whether this person is the same person as the player he always sees as "Sasa Hirszon" in all tennis draws and results. So, at least we should mention the common alternative name he always uses when he plays tennis. The argument that a reader can "guess" or "see" that this is the same person does not cook. MakeSense64 (talk) 09:49, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, we're not operating on double standards, you simply seem to be (by default) pretending as if the diacritics-stripped version is an alternative name as opposed to a simple result of a technicality that is in no way opaque to any English reader. With this IPIN scheme, there's a valid argument to be made that "Sasa Hirszon" is in fact elevated from the level of a technicality, and instead it is the "IPIN name" of the person. So, I am not opposed to tagging it as such. I am opposed to misrepresenting it as "a common English name", when it isn't so. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Significant alternative spellings are to be included in parentheses. As a reader of "English" WP I shouldn't be required to guess or "known" how a foreign person's name is spelled in English alphabet, especially when it frequently appears in anglicized form in many sources. I don't care about 'technicality', it doesn't matter it is opaque, if an article is at some foreign spelling, then the most common English spelling should also be given (provided that such spelling is used in a significant portion of reliable sources about the subject). Now it is as if the English spelling of the name is being banned from the article when it is at foreign name. How does that rhyme with WP:NPOV? If a writer used more than one pseudonym, then we also mention them. MakeSense64 (talk) 11:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately this one has WP:ANI written all over it. We know the diacritic issue is contentious (I see administrators argue against each other on that point), but this one-sidedness on alternative names is ridiculous and I haven't seen a satisfactory answer of why it only applies to one side. If we are required in the first line to have articles such as Zen Zeliski (Franistani: Zĕn Zełĭski), then when it arises we should also have Zĕn Zełĭski (English: Zen Zeliski), or perhaps worded slightly differently Zĕn Zełĭski (Common name: Zen Zeliski) or Zĕn Zełĭski (Alternate name: Zen Zeliski). I have had conflicting answers from administrators on this but the one that counts is arguing with me right here, right now... the one that is reverting my edit. I haven't heard why it only works one way, To be flexible I have asked that if we don't have the parenthetic name on one version will he support the removal of the other version to keep things balanced in our tennis articles... no answer. Something is wrong with this scenario and I can't just shrug it off because many articles I edit and create are affected. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(random break for ease of editing)

[edit]

Fyunck, I also create bio articles. I would never I hope create a BLP without WikiProject:Poland, WikiProject:Slovakia, etc. I would also never omit the accents from a BLP lede 1st line and then create a redirect from the correctly spelled name to the incomplete BLP. BLPs require a higher level of accuracy than historical bios. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:54, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's why significant alternative names or alternative spellings are to be mentioned in the lede: because BLPs require high accuracy. WP:LEAD. Sometimes we may even have to make a section for the different names a person has used. High accuracy doesn't mean we should stick to the "official name" or "real name" only, higher accuracy means we mention all significant names by which the person goes (or has gone), especially when there are alternative names he used in connection with his notable activity. Any alternative name(s) we mention in the lede should of course be backed up by reliable sources. MakeSense64 (talk) 06:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And I would never create a bio with improper English sourcing as you must do. I follow the sources as wiki tells us and wherever they lead that's what I use. You obviously don't. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:53, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to create bios on composers and religious history where there's a more National Geographic approach to accents and umlauts. You have cited in several edits the example of alternative names, where Gdańsk is referred to as Danzig (in German). You do realise that even though they are etymologically related Gdańsk and Danzig are different names due to having changed hands in history. Just as the Prussian Ernst von Bunsen became Ernest de Bunsen in London. That isn't the same thing as an English source writing Gdansk because most English sources only use simple accents (French for example). Can you see the difference between an alternative name (Danzig) and an accentless one "Gdansk" (which Wikipedia:Article titles doesn't mention).
Wikipedia:Article titles says "Gdańsk and Danzig"
Wikipedia:Article titles doesn't say "Gdańsk and Danzig and Gdansk"
This is the point. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:56, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added in again

[edit]

Half a dozen editors reverted this addition already. This was the latest. See also new variant in RfC at Talk:Frédéric Fontang In ictu oculi (talk) 02:32, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Saša_Hiršzon&oldid=1250123434"