Talk:Petr Nedvěd

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

[edit] Article name

Since this person is a Canadian citizen now, shouldn't he be listed under the Canadian name of "Petr Nedved" instead of his original Czech name of "Petr Nedvěd"? Olessi 17:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this article should be located at Petr Nedved, not Petr Nedvěd. It was originally written as Petr Nedved and remained there for a long time until a few weeks ago when User:-Lemmy- moved it without consensus. It needs to be moved back to Petr Nedved. Masterhatch 18:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Enough of these move discussions, please. This man's name is "Petr Nedvěd", not "Petr Nedved". Ryūlóng 21:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Ryūlóng, normally I am a proponent of including diacritics in names. For this particular case, I am wondering if the diacritic-less version is proper, as he is a naturalized Canadian citizen. Olessi 23:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Ryulong, his name spelt in english is Petr Nedved. sorry that you don't see that. try looking in hockey reference books and magazines and maybe some light will come to you. My pov is based on "most common english spelling" and your pov is based on... well.... your own personal pov. Masterhatch 00:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPOV and there is no reason why this article should be moved at all until there is a consensus as to what should be done in situations like this. Ryūlóng 00:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

It should not have been moved to include diacritics in the first place until a consensus is reached. It works both ways you know. It should be moved back to the way it was 4 weeks ago. Along with all the other articles that you moved that started out without diacritics. It's fine and dandy that you wish articles to stay where they started, but you have to play fair. And that means moving a lot of articles back to non-diacritic form. Masterhatch 05:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)