Talk:Roy Henkel

Hinkel vs. Henkel
Roy's lastname is Hinkel, not Henkel. The article was started under the proper name (see first edit), but was moved to the incorrect spelling based on the misspelled name found at sportsreference.com. Dolovis (talk) 15:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah I think sports reference must be a typo, when I do a search for that spelling + hockey I get 7 pages (not all related). But when I do it with the original spelling I get many many hits. -DJSasso (talk) 15:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Hinkel vs. Henkel
The following relevant discussion has been "cut and pasted" from DJSasso's talk page:

Please use your admin given powers to overwrite a redirect, and move the article Roy Henkel to Roy Hinkel. Roy's lastname is Hinkel, not Henkel. The article was started under the proper name (see first edit), but was moved at a later date to the incorrect spelling (apparently due to reliance on the misspelled name found at the unreliable sportsreference.com). Dolovis (talk) 15:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah I have been wondering about that today myself when I saw it in the move listings. Trying to decide which of the sources would be the more reliable. Would you happen to know of any other sites that have the Hinkel spelling? I have no problem moving it back. Just trying to make sure that is correct before I do so. Sports-reference I believe is reliable because I know their sister site baseball-reference is considered reliable. That is why I have been hesitant to make the move. I will do a google search I guess. -DJSasso (talk) 15:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've moved it. Could find almost nothing with the other spelling. -DJSasso (talk) 15:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hinkel is incorrect. Research by Bill Mallon's Olympic group has shown that Hinkel was a frequent misspelling by contemporary newspapers, but all of his official paperwork (death index material, father's obituary, and so on) has his name as Henkel. It's all right there in the source. I have emails from the team detailing this if they need to be submitted to OTRS (although I don't know why on earth it wouldn't be considered a reliable source when it was named one of TIME Magazine's 50 Best Websites. I find it rather disrespectful, however, that while Dolovis could take the time out to insult an IP address, neither of you bothered to leave me a note on the issues so that we could have a discussion, but instead resorted to immediate reversion. I don't really blame Djsasso, but I wonder why Dolovis couldn't have gone to me (I have "admin given powers") to explain my edits instead of going to someone else? Was there any reason for that? Canadian   Paul  01:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Feel free to move it back. I should have read in the paragraph on the source closer. That being said it could be a case of common name if all the papers were misspelling it. I do apologize for not giving you a note, I assumed you would be watching the page and the note that Dolovis left there. As for immediate reversion that is part of the BRD cycle so it wasn't completely out of process but as I said go ahead and move it back. I have no preference either way. -DJSasso (talk) 10:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Discussion continued on article talk page
I think being accurate trumps the name being a commonly used one personally, but I'm fine with leaving it as Hinkel and writing a footnote instead if that's what the consensus is. Canadian  Paul  03:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want to use an alternate name for Hinkel, then I request that you reference it with reliable 3rd party sources. Almost all references to Hinkel use the "Hinkel" spelling, so you should reference the research that purports to correct this error. Remember - the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Dolovis (talk) 17:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There's no point in having this discussion in two places - let's keep it on the talk page of the article. Here's what I wrote: please actually read the reference that I provided, as everything is explained clearly there. As I mentioned before, Sports Reference was rated one of TIME Magazine's Top 50 Best Websites, so I don't see any problem with the reliability of the source that I have provided. The correct spelling of his surname is perfectly verifiable - but only if you take the time out to actually read the reference I have provided. I have no particular qualms about leaving it as Hinkel with a footnote, but it shouldn't be completely ignored. Canadian   Paul  17:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Continuing objections?
Seems that the discussion went dead here and was then forgotten. Are there any continuing objections to moving him to Henkel? As far as I see it, a reliable source has an explanation for why the more common spelling (Hinkel) is incorrect. I think a mention in the article about the name would be necessary, but I still think that "Roy Henkel" would be the better title here. I'll leave a message here and notify the other two participants in the discussion. Canadian  Paul  16:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think there will be any objections. As I mentioned I don't have any strong opinions either way and Dolovis has been inactive since his 6 month block expired so I wouldn't expect him to show up here. I would go ahead and make the change. If someone objects then a discussion can begin again. -DJSasso (talk) 16:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, I'll do that, thanks. I just didn't want be the "I'll just do this in two years when I don't think anyone remembers" guy. Canadian   Paul  17:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)