Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ice hockey)

I strongly propose that we abolish the "no diacritics" article.

My reasons are as follows:

1. Botching diacritics can be seen as very disrespectful by native speakers;
2. Botching diacritics can be a strong indication that the editor has little or no knowledge/acknoledgement of their functions and/or linguistic/cultural significance;
3. With new generations of computers and tablets becoming more and more available, the "I don't know how to type it" excuse is becoming no longer valid.

Therefore, I would like to propose these replacement articles:

1. "Diacritics should be applied in accordance with exactly how they are applied in verifiable, reliable sources."
2. "If no verifiable, reliable English sources are available, their non-English counterparts (like this news release by the Czech Ice Hockey Association) shall be deemed acceptable." Cedric tsan cantonais 17:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• Good luck to you. I agree with using them, but this has gone through many discussions that has included hundreds of editors. The rough split on those who support and those who don't support is roughly 50/50. The purpose of this naming convention was to stop the constant fights and warring about this topic by allowing their use in some areas and not in others in the absence of a true consensus. I don't think you fully realize the hundreds of pages of discussion that has gone on regarding this topic. There have been wikiwide discussions on the topic that have lasted months and have lead nowhere but to the same outcome. Maybe sometime in the future people will be more willing to allow the use of them fully, but as long as the NHL doesn't use them on players names you are going to have a hard time convincing people to use them. -DJSasso (talk) 17:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• What Cedric proposes is actual Wikipedia policy, per WP:V.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

The diacritics wannabe-rule is bassackwards

The "Article titles" section is preferring the diacritics (or rather no-diacritics) preferences of an organization (a hockey league) that doesn't like to bother with them, rather than a) the preferences of the often-living individuals to whom these names belong, and b) facts about what these people's name really are as reported by reliable sources. This conflicts with MOS:DIACRITICS, so it's a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS policy problem, as well as a WP:V and WP:NPOV policy problem. It's also militantly Anglicization-supremacist enough that at least one productive editor has left en.wiki because of it. I also note that User:Tennis expert, one of a handful of anti-diacritics campaigners, was caught sockpuppeteering about it and indefinitely blocked. It's really well beyond time for this "our sovereign little sport wikiproject will make up its own jingoistic rules against wider consensus" campaign behavior to stop (and I say that as the co-founder of a sport wikiproject that has a topical style guide, BTW).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:19, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes well I agree with User:SMcCandlish that this is backwards, I also think the User:Tennis expert is still around as different socks, but I can't remember now what the last one was. Ice Hockey and Tennis were sort of reserves of an Ellis Island English name zone mentality, which is justifiable for those that have actually taken US or Canadian citizenship but not for 1-season visitors. User:SMcCandlish if you want to smoke out socks a good way would be to put an RM to get the one blonde Serbian lady back In ictu oculi (talk) 05:54, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

The irony is it was actually the other way around at the time it was created. We were the only project where you could use them. Most of the rest of the wiki was removing them and we were attacked for allowing them. The reason it has slowly become acceptable to have them on the wiki is because our wikiproject created this compromise. It allowed other projects to point to us and say look how that compromise stopped the never ending edit warring that was going on in the topic. Since there was no wiki-wide consensus and since there still hasn't been a wiki-wide RfC that has gone clearly to one side or the other we have a compromise to keep the edit warring down. As has been determined in many discussions outside our project on the existence of our compromise, as long as there is no wiki-wide consensus our compromise can't be a local consensus because there is no wiki-wide consensus for it to be disagreeing with. Also it is a guideline, not a local advice page. And I say that as probably one of the most well known advocates for using diacritics on the wiki although I think ictu oculi has long since passed me on that front. ;) -DJSasso (talk) 12:29, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Frankly SMcCandlish, you appear to be the one serving as an example of jingoism. You seem to be angry Cedric quit because he isn't getting his way, but attacking people for it doesn't make you look good. Honestly, if he's going to go out with jingoistic (what a useful word here...) commentary like "English-supremacists", then all I can say is "bye". And I say this as someone who presently supports the use of diacritics. In your case, lamenting the fact that someone who engages in battleground rhetoric on your side is leaving while whining about the supposed battleground mentality of the other side only reveals an inevitably unsurprising level of hypocrisy. Take a step back, and take a look in the mirror, dude.

And as far as MOS:DIACRITICS goes, I wish you good fortune demonstrating the existence of a wiki-wide consensus on the matter. You and I both know there isn't one. And you and I both know that you won't take DJSasso's advice and start a new RFC on the matter because you and I both know that it won't pass your way. And again, I say that as someone who would support you if you started that RFC. Resolute 14:24, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• Not very big on WP:CIVIL, are you, SMcCandlish? That being said, are you sure you're citing the guideline you think supports your POV? MOS:DIACRITICS contains the following:

  "Names not originally written in one of the Latin-script alphabets ... must be given a romanized form for use in English. Use a systematically transliterated or otherwise romanized name ... but if there is a common English form of the name ... use that form instead."

"The use of diacritics (such as accent marks) for foreign words is neither encouraged nor discouraged; their usage depends on whether they appear in verifiable reliable sources in English and on the constraints imposed by specialized Wikipedia guidelines (see also Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Proper names § Diacritics). Provide redirects from alternative forms that use or exclude diacritics."

"For foreign names, phrases, and words generally, adopt the spellings most commonly used in English-language references for the article, unless those spellings are idiosyncratic or obsolete."

Given that the great majority of English-language sources for hockey players does not use diacritics -- something proven again and again -- perhaps you want to cut back on the mud throwing. And honestly, I take Resolute's POV a bit further: in a consensus-driven environment such as Wikipedia, anyone inclined to take his ball and go home because he doesn't get his way is helping the project out, by way of leaving one fewer person hot-tempered enough to edit war or toss around battlefield rhetoric until he does. You claim there's a "wider consensus?" Spiffy. Prove it. Ravenswing 19:09, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Ravenswing "Given that the great majority of English-language sources for hockey players does not use diacritics -- something proven again and again" ... what is the relevance of this comment. Wikipedia is a full UNICODE font source, wheras hockey sources are generally ASCII equivalent 26 letters only. Are you suggesting that the Hockey bit of Wikipedia be written with a restricted font set in imitation of sports html? If so how is a "hockey fonts for hockey" different from the kind of "use tennis fonts" argument which the cluster of blocked tennis "English names" editors pursued. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Since when is this a technical issue? I don't base my opposition to the use of diacritics on how many keyboards have or haven't the proper keys, or how difficult it is to insert ASCII codes. I base it on the fact that diacritics are seldom used in English-language sources, and that WP:COMMONNAME enjoins us to employ the usages found in the preponderance of English-language sources. I can't imagine what is so hard to grasp about that argument, beyond that you disagree with it. Ravenswing 06:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

This isn't a "technical issue", choice of full fonts is a cost issue [everyone who has worked in publishing will know this as a reality, and anyone who hasn't worked in publishing won't accept this as a fact even if 100 people who have worked in publishing tell them repeatedly again and again and again and again - they will never get it]. "diacritics are seldom used in English-language sources" User:Ravenswing that's right, diacritics are used in hardback books, not tabloid newspapers. But this is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid newspaper. So the issue is what does en.Wikipedia use? This has ZERO to do with WP:COMMONNAME please read the guideline again. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:29, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Teams

I think we need to update the Team naming sub-section, as the NHL team article has since been moved to St. Louis Blues. -- GoodDay (talk) 18:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

There's a much bigger naming issue: Articles purportedly titled with team names are typically mal-titled with an association name, which is used by numerous teams supported by that association, playing in several divisions based on ages (IP, Novice, Atom, ... Maj. Jr.) and skill levels. There are standard development paths within and among associations. Normally a tier-1 team is fed from several tier-2 teams within its geographic area. A specific team article should identify that team's home rink, age group, skill level, association, league, feeder teams and parent team affiliations. Similarly, a league article should identify a governing body, age group, skill level, member teams, and geographic area. An association article should normally identify the supported teams at different ages and levels, home rinks, etc. All of this is being confused by the practice of using the association name for its highest-tier team article. It would be far better to adopt a naming convention of explicitly stating the division in the team article title. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:13, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Another reason why now is the time to drop "Convention №. 2"

For those who use the "not to right great wrong" as their shield, here's some disturbing news for them: It's becoming apparent that the NHL itself is dropping the "no diacritics" rule on its social media outlets. Instead of "Puljujarvi" from "Karpat", this drafté is listed as "Puljujärvi" from "Kärpät". (See it for yourselves.)

It's the very same (at least in nature) argument that I've been using against those monolingual Hong Kong translators who insist on applying English pronunciation rules on non-English names and on transliterating non-English names based on such erroneous pronunciations: "Now that even BBC, ITV and Sky Sports are switching to simulated closest-to-original pronunciations, if you're still making yourselves stuck with those erroneous pronunciations, you're the one looking backwards." — Now that even the NHL itself is dropping the practise of exterminating diacritics, those who insist on exterminating diacritics are the only one who are looking backward. To put this "convention" in a nice way, it's like Ellis Island. To put is in a not-so-nice way, it's like the residential schools.

Still, I'm willing to compromise for a bit. I offer two options of compromise:

1. Replace "All North American hockey pages" with "All US hockey pages";
2. Pro-diacritic editors keep the existing names (with or without diacritics) untouched while anti-diacritic editors keep the names of newcomers (especially names with diacritics) untouched, until this practise is completely phased out.

Sincerely, "Convention №. 2" 🔫 Cédric 04:24, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

• And when the NHL starts putting diacriticals on uniforms, team webpages, and in the record books, that's time to revisit the issue. You're claiming that a single Facebook post is a seachange in how the NHL and the English-language media operate? Ravenswing 11:44, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Let me ask you something: Haven't most of us (if not all) learned how to tell which sources are reliable and which sources are not reliable in secondary school? "Convention №. 2" 🔫 Cédric 20:00, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like an absurd strawman coming up, but however much you might be surprised by the answer, it'd be "of course not." What would lead you to think that any part of the education of the average high school student involved any such level of discernment? (Beyond that, what would lead you to feel that such a question has any place in this discussion?) Ravenswing 02:15, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Most of those who had learned how to tell which sources are reliable and which sources are not should be able to tell that most English-language media that are not run by linguists (or, at least, people who understand languages where foreign names like Chára, Meszároš and Řepík come from) simply aren't reliable sources when it comes to non-English diacritics — as unreliable as claiming that the NHL is abandoning its "no diacritics" practice based on nothing more than a Facebook post. It's anything but a straw man. The bigger problem here is that the conventions against unreliable sources and the rule of "not righting great wrongs" are at odds against each other here.

Just like how General Ferdinand Foch said about the Treaty of Versailles, this "Convention №. 2" is not peace, but merely an armistice, and it, as an armistice, does more harm than good to Wikipedia as an encyclopaedia. "Convention №. 2" 🔫 Cédric 22:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with exactly one thing you say, and I'll get to that. In the meantime, the definition of "reliable source" on Wikipedia isn't "it agrees with me." English-language sources use names as commonly rendered in English, and suggesting there's something wrong or "unreliable" about that is as sensible as screeching at the Economist, or the New York Times, or CNN, or the Times of India because they use (say) "Germany" and "Japan" instead of "Deutschland" or "Nihon." If you have a problem with that (and it is apparent that you do), then go to the COMMONNAME talk page and argue that the English Wikipedia should only be allowed to render foreign names as per their native languages.

In the meantime, yes: the compromise was an armistice, not a peace. Few are enthusiastic about it, and I'm not one of them. But it stopped a great deal of edit warring, and hard feelings and hostilities that led to Arbcom sanctions against multiple editors. That did more harm than good to the encyclopedia, far more than can conceivably be inflicted upon people used to the practices of English-language sources (otherwise, what are they doing here?) who nonetheless go red with fury at seeing names without umlauts or cedillas. Ravenswing 23:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

"Deutschland" and "Nihon" cannot be understood by people that only know English. But they can all understand that "Nicklas Bäckström" is the player they know as "Nicklas Backstrom". Diacritics don't reduce legibility for English only readers, but they enhance the value for everyone that knows something of other languages. ⛐Boivie (talk) 12:43, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

«[S]uggesting there's something wrong or "unreliable" about that is as sensible as screeching at the Economist, or the New York Times, or CNN, or the Times of India because they use (say) "Germany" and "Japan" instead of "Deutschland" or "Nihon."», now this sounds like a straw man, and not just any straw man, but a straw man soaked with moonshine.

In accordance with your arguments above, could I assume that you couldn't tell the old days of deriving English names for foreign names and the modern days of copying and pasting foreign names while wrongfully ignoring all diacritics? Back in the old days when English names used to be results of derivation, yes, English speakers derived John Cabot from «Giovanni Cabotto», Dublin from «Duḃ linn», Moscow from «Moskva», etc., and I don't deny any of that. However, may I remind you that this practice became no longer popular after WW1 and the abolishment of monarchy in most European countries? Nowadays, derivation is reserved for Papal names (and that why in English people say "Pope Francis" instead of "Pope Franciscus"). As for foreign monarch names, copying and pasting has taken over. That why most English speakers uses «Juan Carlos the First» rather than «John Charles the First» and «Margrethe the Second» rather than «Margaret the Second».

What you did above was confusing derived names from the old days and the copied-and-pasted names from the modern days. Both "Germany" and "Japan" are derived (along with some other factors playing their roles) names from the old days. In fact, if we were still in the old days, Andrej Meszároš might've become «Andray Mezzarosh» and Michal Řepík might've become «Michael Sheppeak». But since the old practise is no longer the norm, the premise of your argument is no longer valid.

Now let us return to our sheep: WP:NONENG did state that sources in English are «preferred over non-English ones», but the often-overlooked premise is that there need to be «English sources of equal quality and relevance» available. In our case here, while most English sources like TSN and Sportsnet are «of equal relevance», there're always non-English sources of better quality when it comes to verifying non-English names. "Convention №. 2" 🔫 Cédric 18:14, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Another advocate for diacritics here

Not to start a discussion or flamewar, but just wanted to identify as one more person who strongly feels Rule #2 here is wrong. To answer a point raised by a previous editor, the NHL has now started to put diacritical marks on jerseys; I think they have been doing that for a couple years now. I don't think it's very far along and they may not be doing it elsewhere, but it's a start, and I think it means the tide is turning. In the meantime, nobody ping me here unless we've decided to revisit this issue six years on from the last time people bickered about it; I'll fully support repealing the rule. I'm just saying when that time comes, you all know where to find me. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 05:18, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

• I agree that the number of sources and entities using diacriticals is increasing, and that by several years down the road, their use may well be in the majority. If it does, COMMONNAME will obviously need to reflect the new reality. Ravenswing 05:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I perfectly understand your stance on diacritics, but I just follow what WP:NCIH says. In my opinion, WP:NCIH should not been introduced at all in the past. – Sabbatino (talk) 14:28, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

    Purely for the record, I was not aware this page even existed when I made my edits, and to be honest I'm not sure other articles or links have always abided by it, so maybe I was being led by a contrasting example (one I obviously agree with, but contrasting to consensus all the same). If I had known, I would have just posted my dissent here and not made those edits. I did not intend any sort of disruption, and will refrain from any further activity in that regard unless/until we revisit this issue down the road. Perhaps we ought to boost the visibility of this page somehow... Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 19:24, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

The "no diacritics rule" is old-fashioned and disrespectful.

This is by far the worst rule (or style recommendation, or whatever it can be called) that I have ever seen on English Wikipedia. It’s so sleepy (i.e. un-woke) and old-fashioned. Wikipedia forbids deadnaming, which is – obviously – much more important. But giving ice hockey players their correct names? No, that is explicitly forbidden. I don’t know if athletes themselves have seen this English Wikipedia naming custom and what they would say, but it’s generally disrespectful to call people by something else than their real names.

I would like to add, that regarding Swedish and Finnish, the dots and rings of letters å, ä, ö are not considered diacritics but the letters are distinct letters. They are as distinct as are v and w in English, and I guess that a Walter Watson would certainly be upset if we called him Valter Vatson in a Sweden context.

I got into this issue due to reverted edits on the spelling of Swedish ice hockey players Markus Näslund and Mats Näslund. Thus I checked what 14 other Wikipedias wrote in their articles on Vancouver Canucks (where Markus played). 13 of them never wrote ‘’Naslund’’, the only exception being the Spanish one (and, to be honest, Spanish speaking countries and areas are not known for their ice hockey research).

This present rule should be altogether abandoned and changed immediately. Fomalhaut76 (talk) 12:08, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

It appears, based on watching games this season and last, that the NHL is allowing diacritics on sweaters. I’m a Capitals season ticket holder, so they’re the team with which I’m most familiar, and I notice that their new defenseman, Hardy Häman Aktell, has an umlaut on the back of his sweater (it reads "Häman Aktell"). I noted last season that Nicolas Aubé-Kubel (who is Canadian) had a diacritic as well, though I was never motivated enough to raise the issue here. I tend to think that if a player chooses to spell his name in a certain way on his NHL sweater, then it’s reasonable to spell his name the way he chooses, either with or without diacritics, in NHL-related articles (the case of Semyon Varlamov comes to mind, for example, as his name was initially transliterated as either "Semen" or "Simeon" and he was emphatic about spelling it "Semyon"). I think a player's own usage is a far better guide than media usage precisely because of media laziness, inattention, or erroneous stylebooks (e.g., the New York Times incorrectly spells "NHL" as "N.H.L."), and we know Canadian TV and in-arena announcers routinely and intentionally butcher the pronunciation of foreign last names, so who knows if they have a similar attitude towards spelling. I have no opinion on the issue of "disrespectful" or similar because if a player wants to omit the diacritics, I think that’s his prerogative (and yes, I’m calling them diacritics because in English that is what we consider them, regardless of what they call them in other languages). I do think the issue is worthy of consideration and is worthy of something more than glib one-line "we don’t do it that way" types of responses, as it’s perfectly understandable why new users find that sort of response to be off-putting (it also arguably comes across as having a bit of a WP:OWN tone to it even when that isn’t intended). Directing the new user to the prior discussion in which a consensus was reached would be a more useful reply than just saying "we don’t do that"; among other reasons, it shows the rationale for the current practice, and a review of the discussion that led to the current consensus might, in some cases (I’m not saying this is or is not such a case), demonstrate that the circumstances on which the consensus were based may have changed. (To give a hypothetical example: Suppose NFL articles had, at one point, forbidden the use of a generational suffix like "Jr." because the NFL didn’t refer to players that way. That consensus would have been invalidated as of 2012 when the league allowed a suffix on jerseys, as with Robert Griffin III.) 1995hoo (talk) 13:11, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

It looks like that since the 2020–21 season some European players use their native spellings on jerseys. For example, both Tim Stützle and Alexis Lafrenière have used the spelling with "ü" and "è" on their jerseys since NHL debuts in 2020–21. The same applies to Juraj Slafkovský, Gustav Lindström, Jesse Ylönen, Juuso Pärssinen, etc. However, other players like Simon Holmström (Holmstrom), Martin Fehérváry (Fehervary) or Nicklas Bäckström (Backstrom) do not use their native spellings. Therefore, I believe that this has something to do with personal preference or team's policies. I was never a fan of WP:NCIH, because it is obvious that English Wikipedia is Americentric for the most part. – sbaio 15:06, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

The rule-in-question, has maintained peace for several years. There was a lot of effort behind the compromise that was eventually achieved. Let's not re-open a can of worms & re-start these old arguments, please. Overturning the compromise, will only end up starting disputes on each (for example) NHL team page, between those European & French-Canadian players who choose to have or not have the dios on their backs. GoodDay (talk) 15:08, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree, until the NHL unequivocally allows (or better, forces) all players with special symbols to have their names spelt on jerseys and secondary, reliable sources also agree to include those symbols in their names, then I say this conversation remains moot. Even then, what about retired players? I think this may even require a full on RfC to change. Conyo14 (talk) 19:59, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I totally agree here. If my name was Näslund or Selänne etc. I wouldn't want people to call me Naslund or Selanne. The dots and overrings (äöå) should totally be included for atleast the Finnish and Swedish players since those are in fact actual letters. I think that the same might apply to Norwegian and Danish but i'm not 100% sure on that. Btw, just using the name they have on their jersey isn't a good idea since teams usually just don't care about that and we can't know if that's just the player's own preference or if the team enforces that – Kilaseell - Message me! - 12:49, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

@Kilaseell: It applies to almost all European players, because most languages in Europe have distinct letters. For example, my language has ą, č, ę, ė, į, š, ų, ū, ž (all of them are separate letters). Probably the biggest reason why WP:NCIH was created is because English language does not have diacritical marks so it is automatically assumed by English-speaking population that anything with a special symbol above it is not a separate letter. – sbaio 15:15, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Anyways, I think that the whole thing is stupid about not letting people use the correct letters. The rule should be completely removed. Also, it should apply to team names with "special letters" (for example, Ässät, Malmö RedHawks and Kärpät), since the meaning of those words could actually change if we replace the letters.

For example "Näinkö väärin?" (did i see wrong) and "Nainko vaarin?" (Should I marry my grandpa) is a famous example of this in Finnish.

Wikipedia should have the correct writing of names of both players and teams. When Wikipedia has them wrong, then people who read from Wikipedia will get them wrong. – Kilaseell - Message me! - 16:09, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

"When Wikipedia has them wrong, then people who read from Wikipedia will get them wrong". Wikipedia doesn't have it wrong. All those special letters and diacritics don't exist in English. So, in reality, it's wrong for English wikipedia to use them except in cases where it's common to use them, such as Déjà vu and Jalapeño. I find it offensive that wikipedia uses Aßlar and Peter Šťastný in English wikipedia. The most common usage in English should be used. Asslar and Peter Stastny are not spelt wrong in English. Sure, in their native tongues they're wrong, but this isn't German or Slovak wikipedia. Let me repeat, it's not spelt wrong in English. I mean, in English, who gives a crap if Nainko vaarin and Näinkö väärin have different meanings in Finish? It doesn't affect the price of beer on English wikipedia. Masterhatch (talk) 18:21, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I should clarify: I don't find the use of special characters offensive, I find it offensive when people say its spelt wrong without them (there's nothing offensive about Häagen-Dazs). Sorry, but English doesn't spell English wrong. It's a piss-pour argument to say it's spelt wrong. Masterhatch (talk) 19:10, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Just because about 2 or 3 teams out of 32, are allowing diacritics/foreign letters to be placed on their players' jerseys, doesn't mean we should suddenly blow up the compromise. Maybe the rest of the teams will do the same or maybe the 2 or 3 teams will discontinue doing it, next season. As for former players? that's another big mess that should be left alone. Those former players did not use diacritics on their NHL jerseys & we certainly shouldn't be retro-adding them. Again, it's been peaceful & calm for years, concerning this topic. Leave it be. GoodDay (talk) 17:02, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

The articles aren't about the names on the jerseys. They are about the people wearing them. – Kilaseell - Message me! - 18:17, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Not where the non-player North American pages count. We have the dios in the player bio pages, Non-North American pages & that's enough. The "it's offensive" argument, doesn't impress me. This is the English language Wikipedia, not the Swedish or Finnish language Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 18:26, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I was recently informed of this rule. I don't think there's a good reason for its existence.

Moreover, it appears to me that the Manual of Style actively discourages a rule like this: Such matters are determined on a topic-by-topic basis; a small group of editors cannot "prohibit" or "require" diacritics across a category of articles.

Also: If there was a consensus-establishing conversation that led to this rule, could someone please link it? Thanks.

Wracking ^talk! 23:10, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Your last comment about someone linking to the discussion that led to the current status quo is similar to a point I made on Saturday when I said the following: "Directing the new user to the prior discussion in which a consensus was reached would be a more useful reply than just saying 'we don’t do that'; among other reasons, it shows the rationale for the current practice, and a review of the discussion that led to the current consensus might, in some cases (I’m not saying this is or is not such a case), demonstrate that the circumstances on which the consensus were based may have changed." It's arguably similar to citing one's sources. I've noted a similar sort of non-response from time to time in the past. A few years ago, I edited the article on the Seattle expansion draft to use American English and was reverted with the glib, and useless, comment that "All NHL league based articles such as this one are written in Canadian English." When I asked for a link to a manual of style or similar, nobody was ever willing to provide one, although after discussion ultimately the consensus for an article about an expansion draft involving a US-based team was to use American English. There is nothing wrong with providing people a link to the prior discussion instead of just chest-thumping along the line of, "This was discussed before. Accept it or go away." Referring the new participants to the prior discussion might well help them understand the thought process that went into reaching the previously established consensus and may well demonstrate that the prior rationale might no longer be valid. Again, I'm not purporting to say what the correct outcome should be. My point is simply that citing prior discussions but refusing to provide a link pointing to them is unhelpful to the new users who are raising the issue and (whether intentionally or not) comes across as a circling-the-wagons WP:OWN tactic to stonewall people raising questions. 1995hoo (talk) 14:04, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I doubt anyone has the precise discussions bookmarked, and you have the same recourse that any of us would have to search them out: to (say) use "diacritics" in a search of the WikiProject's archives.

With that, I'm at a loss as to what "thought process[es]" went on that you're not already seeing. The use of diacritics was contentious. Edit warring was commonplace, and more than one editor drew a topic ban over it. The pros made the same arguments about being disrespectful, and the antis made the same arguments about COMMONNAME and the lack of diacriticals in the English language. I've no objection, obviously, to you looking up the discussions for yourself, but I'm not going to look them up for you.

PS: whoever told you that "all NHL league based articles are written in Canadian English" was bullshitting you. Certainly not the first, or the first ten thousandth, time someone made something up on Wikipedia. Ravenswing 15:22, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

• The reasons for the compromise have already been stated. Whether you like those reasons or not doesn't invalidate them. I also agree that this is the English Wikipedia, and it is no more "disrespectful" to not use symbols not found in the English language in names than it is "disrespectful" to use the words "Sweden" and "Finland" instead of "Sverige" and "Suomi." Ravenswing 08:37, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
• Resolute provided some history in an arbitration case amendment request, including linking to the related discussion on the ice hockey wikiproject discussion page. The compromise approach was suggested by GoodDay, and it served to stop arguments at the time. At the root of the issue is that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) § Modified letters doesn't provide guidance on what constitutes reliable sources for a person's name. Some people feel by default, if a person has not in some way made it clear that they have anglicized their name, sources using an anglicized version are not reliable with respect to the spelling of the name. The last time there was a big RfC on the topic in general, it split nearly 50/50 on whether or not modified letters should be used. Thus in the absence of project-wide guidance, the ice hockey project continued with its compromise approach. The enthusiasm in enforcing this has waned, though, with the passage of time, and modified letters becoming more visible generally as publication production workflows have upgraded to modern typeface technology.
• Now the practical aspect for NHL (and other North American league) players is that player names are spelled out on player sweaters and in official team rosters, which influences common usage, even if a player hasn't publicly anglicized their name. However with the NHL starting to use modified letters, this factor is diminishing. isaacl (talk) 17:11, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Thank you for providing additional context. So, from what I can glean, this NCIH rule was originally created in 2007. Then, in 2012 (per MOS:DIACRITICS), an RfC decided that wikiprojects should not institute blanket rules on diacritics. (It's not clear to me how this wouldn't apply here, but I am open to hearing explanations.) Wracking ^talk! 02:13, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

    There have been many general discussions on modified letters, so I'm not going to try to trace the history of all of them. Numerous editors interested in hockey-related articles have said they are fully willing to follow general guidance, once it is in place. As of now, there is no general consensus on how to balance common usage versus determining if a person has decided on a specific anglicization of their name. I suspect that before a consensus can be reached to modify English Wikipedia's guidance on modified letters, the NHL will already be using accents more widely and thus common usage will change, making the current approach obsolete. isaacl (talk) 11:54, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

    It helps that those are available. I would be more open to allowing the newer players who advocated their diacritic symbols go on their jersey and more importantly roster name, whose names are also being spelt that way in reliable sources, to be put into circulation. However, I still feel there needs to be some consensus regarding future players vs past players. Conyo14 (talk) 22:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

    I believe that would only create confusion, disputes over consistency & encourage IPs or passers-by to wonder why some (for example) European players have dios on their names on NHL team rosters, while others don't. This would include within the same NHL team roster, thus creating 'more' confusion. GoodDay (talk) 22:27, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

    You give a good point there. I do think that an RfC would be more important to establish that baseline (probably in MOS or here), especially if this continues to be such a contentious issue. Which judging by the progress of the NHL on diacritics, could get worse. Conyo14 (talk) 22:59, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

    Given the trend of following how people identify themselves, I suspect there may be general consensus eventually on using original names for those written in Latin-script alphabets, with notes on spellings that were commonly used in contemporary coverage by major English sources. I'm not sure, though, if any consensus can be found at present. isaacl (talk) 23:23, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

    It does apply here. A small group of editors cannot "prohibit" or "require" diacritics across a category of articles. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:44, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

    Best to keep the peace, which the compromise provides. GoodDay (talk) 21:43, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

    Or apply the rules we have and the small minority of editors who don't like it can get over it. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

    Or the small minority of editors who keep complaining about this can demonstrate genuine consensus to change the clear language of MOS:DIACRITICS to make their use explicitly compulsory, as well as striking the sentence "Wikipedia normally retains these special characters, except where there is a well-established English spelling that replaces them with English standard letters" (emphasis mine), or get over it. (Not that they would. They haven't yet. Speaking of small groups of editors seeking to require diacritics across a category of articles.) Ravenswing 23:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

    If an article has diacritics in its title, that spelling should be consistent across the encyclopedia. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:03, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

    And are you willing to likewise stipulate that a title that has a well-established English spelling shouldn't have diacritics in the title in the first place? Ravenswing 02:58, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

    Sure. If it's common to spell a name without diacritics, then it's appropriate to use that consistently, while mentioning in (e.g.) a lead section of a biography that it's sometimes spelled with them. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

    So you'd support Teemu Selänne's page being re-named without diacritics (Teemu Selanne)? After all he didn't use diacritics on his sweater, during his entire NHL career, which made up a majority of his ice hockey career. GoodDay (talk) 04:25, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

    I don't think that sweaters are the primary sources that should be used for determining article titles. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:11, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

    The compromise is the result of editors not getting it all their way. So best not to upset it, by trying to have it all your way. GoodDay (talk) 07:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

    Nothing is "my way". A small group of editors cannot "prohibit" or "require" diacritics across a category of articles. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:46, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm asking you to drop this & move on, please. GoodDay (talk) 07:59, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks for posting the links to the prior discussion. I haven't had time to take a look at them (and likely won't have time today either), but it's very useful to have the reference available. 1995hoo (talk) 13:20, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

No? As long as a small group of editors cannot "prohibit" or "require" diacritics across a category of articles, then that's a problem. Do you disagree? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:09, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

If you're going to keep pushing for what you want, that's your choice. Enjoy stirring the pot. GoodDay (talk) 08:22, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Is a small group of editors trying to "prohibit" or "require" diacritics across a category of articles? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:33, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Nice try. GoodDay (talk) 08:36, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

That doesn't answer my question. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:09, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm really broken up, about that. GoodDay (talk) 09:19, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

There's no reason for you to act like that. Please answer the question or don't respond--answers like the ones you are giving are inappropriate. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:54, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Creating an RfC on the diacritics rule

I'm going to create an RfC on All North American hockey pages should have names without diacritics, except where their use is likewise customary (specifically, in the Quebec Major Junior Hockey League and the Ligue Nord-Américaine de Hockey).

I do not intend for this post to be a rehashing of the rule itself, I just hope to get feedback on the formulation of the RfC.

Here's what I have so far.

Should WikiProject Ice Hockey prohibit diacritics from North American hockey pages in its naming conventions?

Option A: No change: All North American hockey pages should have names without diacritics, except where their use is likewise customary (specifically, in the Quebec Major Junior Hockey League and the Ligue Nord-Américaine de Hockey).

Option B: Remove sentence

Option C: something else???

I also have a list of previous discussions that I will link to. Thanks, Wracking ^talk! 21:17, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

We're opening this can of worms again? Masterhatch (talk) 21:21, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes Wracking ^talk! 21:22, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Why? Masterhatch (talk) 21:27, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

As I said, I'm hoping to get feedback on the formulation of the RfC. I don't wish to rehash the rule here. Wracking ^talk! 21:31, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

If you don't want to rehash the rule, then it brings us back to 'why'? Masterhatch (talk) 21:35, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't want to rehash the rule here, as I intended for this post to gather insight on the formulation of the RfC itself. Wracking ^talk! 21:43, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that any RfC is necessary. Flibirigit (talk) 21:58, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Wracking. I'm disappointed that you seem determined to abolish the compromise (at least the part you don't like) & potentially start another diacritics content dispute. Things have been quiet here for quite a while & now you want to re-start this argument? I'm begging you, drop this & move onto another topic. GoodDay (talk) 21:49, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

GoodDay, I'm not determined to abolish the compromise, I'm want to find consensus to support NCIH (either way). While I'm sure things are quiet compared to the discussions in the late aughts, I think we would benefit from some outside perspective on this rule which has been discussed and challenged since its institution.

I was hoping that this WP:RFCBEFORE post would demonstrate my genuine desire to pursue this discussion in good faith. I still plan to create the RfC. Wracking ^talk! 22:04, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

But you rarely (if ever) edit ice hockey pages. I'm aware of WP:OWN, but you must understand, editors who frequently edit in an area of Wikipedia, tend to become a tad annoyed, when a perceived outsider shows up, to push what they want onto that area. GoodDay (talk) 22:12, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I find this a strange assertion. While my editing is wide-ranging due to my interests in copy editing and cleanup, I also edit hockey-related pages and am active on the wikiproject's talk page. I understand that you may feel annoyed, but I do consider myself part of this community. Wracking ^talk! 22:24, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

In other words, you're going ahead with the RFC. No matter how many editors request that you don't :( GoodDay (talk) 22:28, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Note for continuity: I won't be creating an RfC (see other thread) Wracking ^talk! 21:44, 1 January 2024 (UTC)