Talk:Martin Čech

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

Hidden[edit]

Why is this hidden away in oblivion with Martin Cech a redlink? Gene Nygaard 17:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article title[edit]

The policy as spelled out at Wikipedia:Article titles requires that the article title is to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This applies to the title of the article – but within the text of the article, pursuant to WP:MOSBIO, the person's legal name should usually appear first in the article. I trust that explains the current Wikipedia policy as it relates to this issue. Dolovis (talk) 13:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, as the interwiki link on the history of the French page fr.Martin Čech shows, this was created at en.Martin Čech and at en.Martin Čech for 4 years until User Dolovis came along and made this edit and edit summary:
(cur | prev) 13:46, 21 June 2011‎ Dolovis (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (2,436 bytes) (0)‎ . . (moved Martin Čech to Martin Cech over redirect: Undo controversial move to invoke Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle) (undo)
There was no "controversial move" and WP:MOSPN#Diacritics supports use of diacritics with Czech names. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:57, 20 April 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: page moved -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Martin CechMartin Čech – over redirect. I only just noticed this one. This bio won't be covered by the current tightening of Living Persons names accuracy proposal at WT:BLP since Čech died in a car crash in 2007. See page history.In ictu oculi (talk) 23:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The redirect was not "gamed". The reason non-admins can't move over it because of this edit from HandsomeFella, an undoubtedly pro-diacritcs editor. Jenks24 (talk) 00:14, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken, sorry, certainly wasn't aimed at HandsomeFella, gamed struck from proposal. "See page history" will cover other concerns. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:58, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for accuracy and pronunciation information. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 00:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per P.T. Aufrette. Properly anglizied it would be "Chech" or some variant, not "Cech". --Bejnar (talk) 00:26, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; more accurate spelling. Doremo (talk) 12:54, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Accuracy is important and cheap. AlexTiefling (talk) 20:41, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; move to a more accurate spelling. bobrayner (talk) 07:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per most of the above. Much more accurate. -DJSasso (talk) 11:49, 23 April 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.