Talk:Jakub Čutta

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 15:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

 * 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: No consensus to move. Jafeluv (talk) 07:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Jakub Čutta → Jakub Cutta –
 * Support Per WP:COMMONNAME as all sources used in the article show the name spelled without diacritics. He played in North America in the WHL, AHL and NHL using the name “Jakub Cutta”. This is the English Wikipedia, and according to the policy of WP:EN, a biographical article does not use the subject's name as it might be spelled in Czech as its article title, nor does it use the person's legal name as it might appear on a birth certificate or passport; it instead uses the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. Simply put, the use of "Cutta" is verified by the sources used within the article, and "Čutta" is not. Dolovis (talk) 14:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support as there's no dios in the english alphabet. GoodDay (talk) 00:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * OPPOSE Are you freaking kidding me!? Stop being disruptive and actually WAIT until the discussion YOU initiated reaches a consensus. For crying out load, talk about bad faith editing. – Nurmsook!  talk...  02:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This move request is made in good faith, and it is supported by process and policy. As you are well aware, the discussion you are referring to is still “going around in circles”, and it is abundantly clear no consensus to change policy will be reached, so the current policy of WP:EN and WP:COMMONNAME remain in effect. Dolovis (talk) 03:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Clearly you can't see that no new consensus will come, and therefore the current one should remain. What am I to think other than the obvious fact that you have given up on your previous route of trying to gain consensus, and have now moved to attempt to simply gain evidence from these ridiculous page move requests. How is this method good faith at all? You clearly are not getting the message to stop being disruptive. Check out today's featured article, by the way? Going to start a hellstorm with that one too? – Nurmsook!  talk...  04:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I intend to keep my comments focused on this article which has zero sources to verify that modified letters are required. Dolovis (talk) 04:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Took all of two seconds to find a source to verify it. You are just trying to ram your way through and refusing to even make an attempt. -DJSasso (talk) 22:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Support all references and external links do not use the diacritic. The diacritic is not referenced at all. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 04:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose per standard practice to use a person's real name in cases where no English version exists. Encyclopedias do not and can not copy the unencyclopedic practices of news sites and stats databases. Prolog (talk) 10:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:USEENGLISH, do you have an English-langauge reference that uses the diacritic? 65.94.47.63 (talk) 08:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * English-language sources are preferred over same-quality sources in other languages, of course, but they're not required. Do you have an encyclopedia or other reference work to support "Jakub Cutta"? Encyclopædia Britannica generally uses the accurate name of a person, common or not, so it's easy to guess what their article would be called. Prolog (talk) 11:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Prolog is correct, English language sources are only preferred over other language sources if the sources are of equal quality. However, use english does not require the use of english sources. -DJSasso (talk) 11:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:COMMONNAME applies. He played in the NHL with his name "CUTTA" on the back, the same as when he played in the AHL, and the same as when he played in the WHL. If the player himself felt strongly about using the modified letter, then that could have been arranged for his jersey - but it wasn't. Dolovis (talk) 12:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Common name does not prohibit the use of diacritics in the common name. As you have been told by countless editors now, having them or not having them doesn't change the fact that it is the same common name. As for names on the back of the jersey we can't assume that he would have arranged for a jersey with them. The NHL for example seems to choose not to use them for anyone, as such it wasn't necessarily the players choice and to assume so would be applying some original research. -DJSasso (talk) 16:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Without an English language source to contradict existing English-language sources, there is no proof the accent is used in English, so the accentless form is the only one with proof it is used in English. Which is why WP:Use English exists, why it is Munich and not Munchen, Kiev and not Kyiv. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 04:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose for the same reason I have opposed over and over and over again. Are you going to stop with the WP:POINT request for moves yet? -DJSasso (talk) 22:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The person's surname is Čutta, not Cutta. - Darwinek (talk) 14:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose, more WP:IDHT copypasta. - file lake  shoe  14:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The article was created with the original spelling, there's no need to move it.  His name has the marks in it.  If you don't want the marks in an article, pipe it. Anthony (talk) 14:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Person's real name. Person's real name's spelling(diacritics) variant is not covered by COMMONNAME. --R e o + 19:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment ofcourse it is. Lady Gaga and not Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta . One is a real name, one isn't. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 06:41, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * A pseudonym is a completely different matter than the addition or removal of diacritics. -DJSasso (talk) 21:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Mark Antony and Marcus Antonius ? Or the 16 different ways to write William Shakespeare's name? 65.94.47.63 (talk) 03:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Translation, which also isn't the issue. The problem people have with dropping diacritics is that dropping them isn't a translation. I don't think anyone disagrees with actual translations. -DJSasso (talk) 14:33, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Not that it matters, since "our" opinions obviously don't matter here, but I may as well spit into the ocean here and say Support. That this person is commonly referred to as "Jakub Cutta" in English is obvious. Like it or not, for better or worse, it's simply a fact that nearly any player that joins the NHL will have a deluge of newspaper and magazine coverage about the person that uses that person's name without diacritics. Not using diacritics is the NHL's policy, and every North American newspaper and Magazine, and most international ones, follow suit. I understand where those of you who are opposed to this are coming from, but the fact is that we're supposed to follow our sources. We're here to document what others are saying, after all. We're not here to wright great wrongs, or anything like that. If there are players who, for example, play a few years in the NHL but then go on to play several years in the KHL or in some league in Easter Europe, I could support moving that players article to a name with diacritics (if the player continues to receive coverage in English newspapers and magazines, using the marks). — V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 15:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose It is standard practice for Wiki to use diacriticals when that is the way a name is spelled in the subject's native language, and certainly Czech is one of the languages that this is done for. This policy not peculiar to Wikipedia and is followed by other encyclopedias as well, as you can see here and here. This conforms to WP:DIACRITICS, which allows us to use other encyclopedia as usage models in this matter. To use a hockey player's NHL name would allow a particular name to be presented differently depending on what profession the person is in. The naming conventions for Czech names should be established at WP:Naming_conventions_(Czech) (unfortunately inactive at the moment). This issue was exhaustively debated and resolved with respect to tennis players earlier Kauffner (talk) 08:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * But English language usage of the diacritic is not verified. Only Czech usage. Since this person has played in English-language jurisdictions, there's a point about the verifiability of the diacritic's usage in English. The only reference to the existence of the diacritic is in Czech, so it is attested to in Czech. There needs to be a reference in English for someone who plays in an English speaking country. If they never played outside of the Czech Republic, that's one thing. This is another. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 04:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Wikipedians should be informed that Wikipedia's founder, Jimbo Wales, has recently made persuasive arguments on his talk page in support of moving articles to use English in their titles. Jimbo Wales states: "To answer a bunch of specific questions above in one go: yes, all of those renamings to use English rather than foreign languages should happen immediately. I don't care what Britannica and Encarta do; they are resources for the 20th century, which is behind us now.  I think moderation is in order, but I think we are very far from moderation.  Đặng Hữu Phúc is a brilliant example: this is an absolutely ridiculous thing to have in an English encyclopedia as a title.  What appalls me about this most is the weirdness of assuming that if something sort of looks like an English letter, we should have it, while if it doesn't sort of look like an English letter, we shouldn't.  Shall we move Japan to 日本?  Of course not, no one disagrees.  But we have somehow, wrongly in my view, gotten to the point that Đặng Hữu Phúc is remotely plausible, since it sort of kind of in some weird way looks a little bit like English." --Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dolovis (talk • contribs)
 * Best example of Argumentum ad Jimbonem I have ever seen. -DJSasso (talk) 17:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.