Talk:Arpad Elo

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. 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 debate was no consensus. -- tariqabjotu 16:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

Multiple moves, as listed below — Revert a series of edits by Mibelz, most or all of them chess related, all made without discussion. The ones listed here are contrary to naming conventions standards. Many of these people have moved to English-speaking countries and are known for their history in chess competitions under the original article name, and many are also known as authors (especially of books about chess) of English-language books published under that name. In many Mibelz has also deliberately added incorrect sort keys which result in the articles being mis-sorted in categories. In the listing below, I have included some additional identifying information, with User:Mibelz edit summaries when making the move placed in quotation marks. Gene Nygaard 09:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• • Árpád Élő → Arpad Elo American, Mibelz edit summary "Hungarian form of his name." Note subsequent moves by Gene Nygaard and Calton, ending up where Mibelz moved it.
  • István Fazekas → Stefan Fazekas British, summary "Hungarian form of his first name."
  • Iossif Dorfman → Josif Dorfman French, summary "French form of his first name."
  • Michał Waszyński → Michael Waszynski American, summary "Polish form of his name", was moved from Michal Waszynski but article says in the United States, he was known as Michael Waszynski (he died 1965), no spelling Michał in article itself
  • Stanisław Ulam → Stanislaw Ulam American, moved from Stanisław Marcin Ulam without edit summary
  • Povilas Tautvaišas → Paul Tautvaisas American, summary "Lithuanian form of his name."
  • Elmārs Zemgalis → Elmars Zemgalis American, summary "Latvian form of his first name."
  • Kārlis Ozols → Karlis Ozols Australian, summary "Latvian form of his first name."
  • Géza Füster → Geza Fuster Canadian, summary "Hungarian form of his name."
  • Lucijs Endzelins → Lucius Endzelins Australian, summary "Latvian form of his first name."
  • Luděk Pachman → Ludek Pachman German, author of English-language books as Ludek Pachman, summary "Czech form of his first name."
  • Pál Benkő → Pal Benko French-born American, summary "Hungarian form of his name"
  • Vladimir Vuković → Vladimir Vukovic author of English-language book as Vladimir Vukovic
  • Gedeon Barcza → Gideon Barcza competed as and best known in English as Gideon, summary "Correct Hungarian form of his first name."
  • There may be other such moves by Mibelz that are questionable: some I don't know what they should be, and they are probably best dealt with individually if anybody wants to nominate them separately. Some other moves by Mibelz have already been undone or moved to name different from either of them, including Leonardo da Cutri → Giovanni Leonardo, Jevgēņijs Svešņikovs → Evgeny Sveshnikov, Lubomir Ftacnik → Lubomir Ftáčnik, and Efim Bogoljubow → Efim Bogoljubov.

• I suggest to look at solid sources on chess. One of the best is http://www.olimpbase.org/ (see, http://www.olimpbase.org/statistics/all_id01.html). Special attention to such persons as Gene Nygaard and his supporters. -- Mibelz 10:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Note Several users expressed their opposition to associating the article moves stated above to this Árpád Élő's. Each of the moves should have its own discussion instead of being tagged along.--Húsönd 18:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

It is just a pattern of unexplained moves done for bad reasons, exactly the sort of thing that should be considered as a group. If enough people express interest in condisering any particular ones separately, that can be done. It has been done on other multiple nominations in the past. It should only be done after the moves are first reverted, with the burden of proof of the reasonableness of the move placed on Mibelz who wants to move these from their established article names. But there are only a couple of them that anybody has raised any serious objections about. Gene Nygaard 20:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

• I support in some cases the English variant (Arpad Elo for example), that is in cases where the people lived most of their lives in English speaking countries and used the English variant of spelling. In other cases I oppose (e.g. Luděk Pachman, who was not German but Czech and I myself own some books authored by him as Luděk Pachman) - then the local version should be retained. So we should deal it on a case-by-case basis, I think.--Ioannes Pragensis 10:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• If it is first reverted, and the burden of justifying the unexplained move is placed on those seeking to move it, I have no problem pulling Luděk Pachman out for individual consideration. We can just move the discussion for that particular move back to the moved talk page. But to do it any other way, in light of this string of hasty, unexplained, and largely improper moves, would not be fair. The burden of proof belongs on User:Mibelz. Since Pachman published several books and they were published in more than one language, it may well be that they were published under various spellings of his name, and there is also the factor of the name under which he competed in international competitions. Then the question becomes whether he is well known in English under one of those, and whether or not there is any real cause to make the move for that or any other reason. Gene Nygaard 14:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose Correct name is as it currently is (Árpád Élő).--Húsönd 15:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Also strongly opposing the following associated proposed moves: Michał Waszyński, Stanisław Ulam, Povilas Tautvaišas, Elmārs Zemgalis, Kārlis Ozols, Géza Füster, Luděk Pachman, Pál Benkő and Vladimir Vuković.--Húsönd 16:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Arpad Elo never spelled it any other way. He never published anything about his Elo rating system under any other name (setting aside irrelevant things such as initials or use of middle name), and nobody ever spells that system with anything other than "Elo" or "ELO" (except some of the nonsense we have seen on Wikipedia, also picked up by some clones). He never competed in a chess tournament under any other name. He never taught a class under any other name. And even in death, he is "ARPAD ELO" in the Social Security Death Index. Árpád Élő cannot possibly be the "correct" title according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions. User:Husond just becomes totally irrational when it comes to slapping on diacritics even in places where they do not belong. Gene Nygaard 16:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't mock my neurons, Gene. Make a quick search for Árpád Élő and you'll soon see that that's the correct name of that person, whether or not most have referred to him without the diacritics. I should also remind you that in the very recent past it was extremely hard to reproduce the Hungarian letter "ő" (not long ago computer fonts didn't have it) so no wonder he has been credited without it. But that's not an excuse for misspelling the name as you fancy it.--Húsönd 21:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Couldn't care less which spelling is used, but we shouldn't be fighting about it. Articles should be named according to the guidelines. If people don't like the guidelines then they should take the debate there. How would wikipedia function if every time an editor disagreed with a guideline they started a poll outside the guideline talk page to subvert it? Once editors become emotionally vested in a debate to such an extent that it becomes non-productive fighting, then those editors should set it aside and find something else to work on. I mentioned above that I was going to rename the article per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) after a day, but fuck it - I'm learning not to fight over stupid shit. --Duk 16:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

What would you have? Nobody can ever move pages? That isn't acceptable either. Or would you have it that every article can be moved once, and then that move must always be deemed correct? That's silly, too. If they can move pages, those page moves are often going to be wrong, and need to be corrected. Those guidelines do give us guidance about what the names should be. But in order to apply those guidelines, there often needs to be interpretation of the facts involved. Wibelz did not claim his moves were in accordance with the guidelines, and many clearly were not. Some not nominated here may have been justified, but no case for them was made in any discussion either. They clearly ought to remain subject to challenge. What we have here is an editor making a series of moves disregarding those guidelines, making those moves without discussion and without justification. That's why this discussion belongs here. It does not belong on the guidelines pages. Gene Nygaard 16:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, you make good points about discussing it here. I know it's frustrating for an editor to try and do the right thing in a consistent way according to the guidelines, only to watch others ignore the guidelines. In this case it's clear, articles about people should 1) use the most generally recognizable name and 2) be in English. Since some editors don't accept this simple and clear instruction, then their problem is with the guideline and not with this particular article. That's why it doesn't make sense to argue about it here -- unless you can get them to actually read the guideline, understand it and conclude that guidelines are generally helpful and should usually (but not necessarily always) be followed. So discussing is good, but a poll in the wrong place that subverts a guideline isn't so good IMO. --Duk 17:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support. This is the English version of the encylopedia and articles should have names using the English alphabet. Most English language keyboards can't even type many of the names above. I have no problem with there being a redirect from the native language version in cases where the language uses Latin letters. Please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) for guidance. --StuffOfInterest 17:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) --Duk 17:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• I am afraid that Gene Nygaard does not understand an idea to write names in original languages (Latin alphabet). All of the presented examples were written first in English, and then moved to native names. In that case, it is always possible to find a name of wanted person, for every users who know only English version or non-English one (Lithuanian, Latvian, Hungarian, Czech, Polish, Croatian, etc.). --Mibelz 23:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

If the redirects weren't there, they should have been created. But the redirects from the names you moved these articles to will remain behind when they are moved back. You will still be able to find them, but they will properly be listed under the names they are best known by. Gene Nygaard 02:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strongly support. WP:NAME#Use English words is policy; we should use the form used and expected in English, for the sake of our readership. Anyone who wants something else has two options:
  • Demonstrate strong consensus to change policy at the policy page;
  • or create a fork providing their version of Wikipedia.

For Stanislaw Ulam, see this title page. There may be specific evidence demonstrating English usage of diacritics for some others of these; but it hasn't been presented. A link like http://www.olimpbase.org, which leads to a page with hardly any personal names (none of those here in question), is worthless. Which page does Mibelz mean? This is the only olimpbase page I can find with Arpad Elo on it - and it does not use diacritics. Septentrionalis 01:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Support The most common spelling in English should be used every time for all articles. Masterhatch 01:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose any mass moves. This material falls into at least two categories. If a person moves to another country and actively changes his / her native name to something completely different, then the choice is simple: list under the new name; e.g. "George Michael", not "Georgios Kyriacos Panayiotou". The "English spelling prevails" argument is also is very relevant for royalty and well-known historical figures, so "Alexander the Great" not "Megas Alexandros". However, ordinary people often simply have their names misspelled due to misunderstandings / technical limitations (e.g. printers often owned typefaces only including French and German diacritics). It is also problematic that many names have been "transliterated" / "translated" differently by different people, thus increasing the risk of more duplicate articles. Some of the examples mentioned above might be relevant for a rename but some are clearly not: E.g. Barcza never left Hungary, so there is no reason at all to deviate from the name he used all his life. Vladimir Vuković was Croatian and lived in Austria-Hungary and Yugoslavia throughout his life, so the same case with him. The most sensible solution would seem to be to examine case-by-case how people referred to themselves (naturally with the beforementioned exceptions: royalty, historical figures (Plutarch) and a very small number of modern people (e.g. Isaac Asimov)). Wikipedia has no policy that names should actually be translated into English and articles about both well-known and obscure people generally use the native spelling; e.g. Slobodan Milošević. This practice should continue and be employed except where very strong cases can be argued for deviating. Redirects can take care of the rest. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 21:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

That is not a proper response, since multiple nominations are specifically provided for at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.

The burden of proof ought to be on the one making the moves. Mibelz has offered no proof that this is the spelling that any of these people actually used, nor that any of these people are best known in English under the spelling which he used. He has made mass moves for improper reasons, but even the improper reasons were never explained except for the brief edit summaries quoted above. He never discussed any of these moves before making them. His moves ought to be reverted. You make the case yourself by your point about the stage name of George Michael, and that is even more applicable when you are dealing with the names that people used for all purposes. Gene Nygaard 22:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I simply draw the line differently than you, and I have as much right to have my opinion as you have to have yours. If a person has taken active action to change his / her native name to something different then by all means update to the most recent name (e.g. George Michael). However, most people do not do this (something which particularly applies to first-generation immigrants). Their names might often have been rendered less than perfectly in the past, very often due to technical limitations, but that is no reason to continue such practices. I have seen many bad examples of proper names with a native form transliterated through German or French and then transliterated again into English, resulting in very inconsistent renderings for the same persons / places and duplicate articles. Since proper names have been transliterated in many different ways throughout the ages, mixing these standards is confusing and counterproductive.

Since it is often difficult to determine if / when any person in question changed his / her name, it will have to be decided on a case-by-case basis. E.g. two of the persons you mentioned lived in Hungary for half their lives and became famous there before emigrating, but merely trying to Anglicanize them will be felt by many as disregarding this part of their story. Two others never left their countries of birth, however printers with poor equipment and a "nobody will ever care about this" attitude rendered their names imperfectly when publishing some of their works. One of your examples was a German citizen but of Czech extraction. I can't help but notice that the German Wikipedia does not try to Germanize his name. Such practices are common but - at least in Europe - considered bad style. Unfortunately, it also spread into the Internet age since Microsoft was incredibly slow in adapting proper support for such characters (something that gave Microsoft a bad name among many Europeans). I honestly don't believe that you are editing in bad faith, however, I am not sure you realize how strongly such "forced" changes of personal names is frowned upon in many societies. History is full of examples of one nationality repressing the other by outlawing one language and forcibly changing the relevant groups' personal names administratively, while punishing those that dared to continue using their original names. In Europe, this kind of administrative behaviour often produced hatred between nationalities, often lasting many generations. Furthermore, both personal and geographical names often have variants very closely related, but not identical, resulting in confusion when one name is accidentally changed to another.

I should also like to point out that the English language is written in more than one way, variations that have more causes than it makes sense to repeat here. E.g. the official webpage of the European Union is clearly written by native speakers of British English, however, it does not change the native spellings for proper names using Latin-based alphabets. Most Irish are native speakers of English as well, but they don't change the spellings of Irish-based named either. I see no reason why Wikipedia should spell German, French and Spanish names the native way and Japanese names with macrons when relevant, but using a different standard for other languages also using the Latin alphabet. Ñ and Ç are not part of the English alphabet either, yet they are used all over this website and a big box of "non-standard" characters is located just below this edit window. I don't see this as an error but as a great benefit to people trying to learn these languages - in particular since the proper use of diacritics is absolutely essential to ensure correct pronounciation in a large number of languages due to both closely-related words and closely-related sounds. Using diacritics is also a great help when people try to locate more information about these persons / places. A good application of redirects can take care of the rest. Regards. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 11:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Nothing you say here justifies your strong oppose to these nominations. Much of what you say here is wrong, certainly debatable, and I can deal with that later. But in all your explanations, you are not saying that none of these should moved, but rather that each of them should be considered on an individual basis. But, of course, Mibelz never discussed any of these on an individual basis before he made his moves--that's why he got so many of them wrong. You need to make that clearer for the people who will have to interpret the results here. Gene Nygaard 15:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

If I chose to strongly oppose something or not is up to me to decide. You seem to believe that I don't know what I am talking about. Well, I am quite comfortable knowing that many other editors have taken the same position as myself in similar debates in the past. I believe that Mibelz is essentially right in his actions here and that articles should use a person's given name unless exceptional circumstances apply. If you present proof that any of these persons are household names on par with Alexander the Great, Plutarch or similar or that these persons made an active effort to change their names, then I am willing to reconsider them on a case-to-case basis. E.g. the article on Victor Borge should be located under this name since he made an active effort to change his name from Børge Rosenbaum. However, I see no such proof presented on this page. Unless this is established, I oppose deviations from the original names. I still see no arguments why one standard should apply for French, Spanish and German material but another for other Latin-based alphabets. I support one standard for all Latin-based material. The box of international characters below the edit window does not discriminate between all the Latin characters shown there, so neither should we. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 17:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Since User:Husond isn't rushing to take up the challenge, I'll issue the same challenge to you (and to anyone else who runs across this discussion). Can you cite any reliable published source that would verify that Arpad Elo ever, anywhere, spelled his name "Árpád Élő"? Or even any other reason (specify it) why that spelling could ever be considered acceptable, let alone be the proper choice for the one slot available for an article's name? Note that Wikipedia is not a reliable source, nor is something that someone else got from Wikipedia. Gene Nygaard 17:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I also note that your objection, as Duk pointed out about others before you, is to existing policies and guidelines, and is not based on Mibelz's moves being in accordance with those guidelines. Gene Nygaard 17:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

If this is how you interpret my vote, then I should have been more clear: I am opposing what I believe is a misinterpretation of said rules and guidelines (I am also keeping in mind that Wikipedia is not a book of law.) One of my own POWs does sneak in as well; I do not like seeing other nationalities offended, no matter how. I do not believe it is your intention to do so, however, language has been used for this purpose quite a lot of times in European history, which is why many Europeans are cautious to avoid being accused of making the same mistakes as our ancestors did. (If anybody considers my approach to be too cautious, I respectfully disagree.)

I am no expert on Hungary or Hungarian culture, but I definitely know that Árpád can only be spelled with the diacritics, since I have encountered that name many times. But why don't you make a post on the noticeboard of the Hungarian Wikipedians? We could be lucky they had a few chess buffs around. I do believe I mentioned a good reason before: Using the names people received at birth, baptism or a similar ritual is a good idea unless we have extremely good reasons to do otherwise. Why? Because a given name is a lot easier to verify rather than speculating on when / if somebody changed his or her name or when somebody achieved enough fame to be known under a new name. What about a famous person leaving Europe, settling in the U.S. for a few years, and then returning or moving to a third destination? When is he / she famous / English enough? After 1 year, 2, 10? Is citizenship necessary? Should the person have represented the new country in any way? Should he / she have worked for the government of his new country? What if the person spoke no or next to no English? Etc etc. This problem applies even more to people who never left Europe in the first place, as is the case with your Croatian examples. I have explained how I believe these policies should be interpreted but I respect if you disagree. I have neither the time nor the money to go down and buy books just to make a point. However, I still don't see any reason at all why one standard should be applied to West Europeans and a different one for North and East Europeans. This is an international encyclopedia, based in the United States and written by means of the English language. It is not an American encylopedia. I also consider the spirit of "Avoid Systematic Bias" rather significant. The number of French, German and Spanish-speaking Wikipedians is pretty high (both native speakers and foreigners). I would be very surprised if these editors had not been through this discussion a thousand times before, yet apparently reaching what seems like a consensus for naming material about these countries / nationalities. The number of East and North European Wikipedians, on the other hand, is significantly smaller. However, I do not believe that numerical differences between nationalities should justify one nation being treated differently than the other. Such an approach would go against many of my impressions of / hopes for Wikipedia. My regards. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 20:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

No, Valentinian. "I definitely know that" doesn't cut it for you any more than it does for Husond. Verify it. Gene Nygaard 20:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Hungarians do indeed use the spelling "Árpád" for holders of that name. Here is a page on the Hungarian king of that name [1] and here a description of a bridge named after him [2]. Here is the webpage of an ethnic Hungarian MEP by that name[3] I am not 100% sure what the entymology of "Élő" is but it is definitely an actual name and a Hungarian word. It seems to be derived from the word for "Living". This page is about chess and uses the same spelling [4] (the column beginning with 2813) referring to his rating. This page is about a Hungarian academic with the same family name [5]; one more Hungarian with this name [6], and one more seems to be hosting a tv show [7]. Again, I believe the Hungarian Wikipedians might have more information about him and Hungarian spelling and I still don't see any reason why the same naming standards shouldn't be applied to both West, East, North and South Europeans. In particular for those that never left Europe in the first place. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 22:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

That isn't what you were asked to verify, Valentinian. Gene Nygaard 22:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

You asked for documentation that this was the Hungarian spelling further up this page. You also asked for "any reason" to use this name. I have presented both, more than adequately. The Hungarian links I've presented further up prove that this is indeed the Hungarian spelling of this man's name, although you claim it doesn't exist anywhere in the world (your first post on this page). I find it alarming that you try to Americanize names for people that never left their country of birth - most notably Vladimir Vuković and Gedeon Barcza - using Élő (or whatever) as leverage. A mere glance at the relevant categories prove that Wikipedia normally list Europeans under their native names, see e.g. Cat:Hungarian people, Cat:French people, Cat:Spanish people and Cat:Polish people. I've suggested asking the Hungarian Wikipedians for input, but you don't fancy this option either. As long as you insist on making a mass move of unrelated articles I strongly oppose the lot. This move might go unnoticed by the general community but if you begin making mass moves of Hungarian, Serbian, Croatian, Romanian, Danish, Swedish, Norwegian, Finnish, Faroese, Icelandic, Polish, Czech, Slovak, French or German material using a mere "English has 26 letters" argument, that will not go unnoticed. Any such action would however succeed in offending many editors and driving many of them off Wikipedia. Since you haven't answered a single one of the concerns I have listed further up this page, I see no reason to contribute further to this thread. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 23:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

So, you think that since you can point us to a foreign language page that spells the name of a long-dead king in squiggles in that language, but in that website's own English pages spells it Arpad, that some Slovakian spells his given name "Árpád", that three different people in Hungary today more than a century after our subject's birth spell their own surname "Élő", and from that we should, by some strange leap of logic, conclude that combining those two spellings is undeniably the true, God-given spelling of this person's name, and it is our duty as good Wikipedians "correct" a confused and obviously misguided (while he still lived) American who was so god-damned ignorant that he misspelled his own name as "Arpad Elo"?

And then on top of it you have the unmitigated gall to whine about the fact that the English language quite naturally is more likely to borrow from the languages most closely related to it, the ones that are in its same "family" of languages.

Excuse me for being so slow to figure out the new rules promulgated by Mibelz, Husond, and Valentinian, et al. The black-letter rule is apparently along these lines:

• The primary rule is the more squiggles you can squeeze into a name, the better, with points awarded for the proportion of letters in the name which have diacritics. Don't let doubt about the exact spelling, hold you up—just make one up out of thin air, anything to avoid the inherent ugliness of a plain vanilla English alphabet name. Additional points are awarded in inverse proportion to the likelihood that an English-speaker can create those letters, or even distinguish one from another. If you can stấc͡k thểm ẫtờp, ữpðn, or aǂongside one anothễr or top ặnđ̣ boẗẗom ịf possible, that's worth extra bonus points! And above all else, never discuss it before making the move. That way you might be able to shift the burden of proof to someone who wants to move it back.

Something isn't right in this picture.

And before anybody complains about it, assuming good faith is a rebuttable, and in this case clearly rebutted, presumption, and in Husond's immortal words, "sarcasm doesn't equal incivility". Gene Nygaard 10:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support — Use English, because this is the English Wikipedia, not "Diacripedia."--Endroit 17:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Cluelesspedia should it rather be then I presume.--Húsönd 17:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Please be WP:CIVIL, Husond. --StuffOfInterest 17:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

C'mon, sarcasm doesn't equal incivility.--Húsönd 18:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I apologize anyway, if that happened to sound rude.--Húsönd 18:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I hope nobody was offended by my sarcasm as well, and I appologize as well. Getting back to our topic now.... I'm looking for conclusive proof of widespread English usage in the diacritic/native language-form, and I may change my vote if that happens.--Endroit 18:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support in general. For the record, my Google search of "Árpád Élő" returned the extact same set of results as "Arpad Elo". A quick glance of the results revealed no diacritics at all. If some of the names are more commonly presented with diacritics in English publications, then I may be inclined to support the diacritics there. However, as a rule, I think we should use the spelling that is most common. Besides, this is an English language publication, and English doesn't use diacritics, it just takes the pronunciation it creates and adds it to the long list of different ways to pronounce the same letter. Croctotheface 12:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Opppose bundling of unrelated move requests. Discuss each case on its own merits and on its own talk page, please. Whether diacritics are English usage or not depends on the field people work in (less commonly used for hockey players, more commonly used for mathematicians). Kusma (討論) 13:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • For the record (and I don't want to speak of something I know little about, but that's never stopped me before), my understanding is that one editor undertook all of these moves at roughly the same time and without discussion or establishing consensus. If they are all related in that way, i'm OK with putting them back where they were before and then placing the burden on those who wanted to move them to where they are now (with diacritics) to establish a consensus for a move. Croctotheface 14:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I tend to agree with this. The moves were done out of process. There should have been a discussion and concensus before they took place. At that point it is likely that guidelines such as WP:ENGLISH would have been cited which would have kept the move request from reaching concensus. --StuffOfInterest 14:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong support per nominator. Several of these chess players and authors are widely known in the English speaking world under the English spelling of their names, and this is the English wikipedia. No evidence whatsoever has been provided that Elo ever spelled his name Árpád Élő, so this cannot stand. Pachman, Benko, Vukovic, and Barcza are equally well known and in English their names are never spelled with diacritics (in Barcza's case no diacritics, but he is Gideon in English). We went through similar nonsense with Savielly Tartakower, where POV-pushers tried to force a spelling never before seen in any English language publication. Quale 00:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Valentinian. No prejudice against some moves on individual basis. Duja► 10:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support all. Most if not all of these names should be without diacritics in English Wikipedia. If there are exceptions (and I'm skeptical that there are any in this particular list) then discuss these individually later. Andrewa 06:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments:

[edit] Moved

Per the discussion above I feel that consensus is clear enough to move this particular article because Arpad Elo spent much of his life the USA where "Arpad Elo", without the different marks, is the common spelling. This is not a general precedent for dealing with such symbols in general, especially not for people who are not commonly named in English texts. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I've moved the rest of the articles based on three reasons:

1. Discussion, when discounting the ones saying "don't group discussions", was leaning towards moving them back. The move happend in mass so I see no reason not to discuss them in mass.
2. Mass moves should have had a discussion before taking place. Really, any move other than a trivial one should make some attempt to established concensus first.
3. Original moves went against WP:ENGLISH. It is one thing for the Hungarian Wikipedia to have accent marks, but they don't need to be used in article titles on the English version.

If you want to move these articles to the non-English names please hold a discussion before moving them again. --StuffOfInterest 15:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Vladimir Vuković was the original article name, i.e. it was moved by User:Mibelz immediately after he created the article himself. Since no proof exists that he has ever left Croatia and purposefully sought to anglicize it, I'll take a liberty to move it back, in line with other from Category:Croatian people.
I'd spare the comment on the others, but I'd say that you do have a conflict of interest, having voted in the discussion above. As an admin, I could have close this poll myself judging "no consensus", but that would obviously be a conflict of interest. Your arguments 1) and 2) have merits, but I must say I think that WP:ENGLISH is the most abused Wikipedia guideline, and seeing it pulled wherever a "diacritic conflict" emerges makes me puke. It certainly should apply to cases like this (I was just lazy to do that move myself), but its application on diacritic issues is heavily, thoroughly and utterly disputed, and that fact is even acknowledged on WP:ENGLISH. I'd appreciate that it's not referenced to in diacritic disputes. Duja► 16:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more with Duja. I reverted StuffOfInterest's moves, as they were clearly against the positions expressed herein that the other articles should not be moved all together with this one. Furthermore, StuffOfInterest had already stated his position in favor of moving the articles, so the moves were blatant own POV enforcing. Please respect community consensus, or the lack of it.--Húsönd 17:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.