Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (hockey)/Archive 1

Objection to this policy
I want to express my objection to this policy. Based on discussion on Village pump and onWP:HOCKEY I do not feel there is a consensus about this. Until recently many ice hockey articles were naturally created with diacritics, but under the non-diacritics policy of WP:HOCKEY, objected by some editors, from the mid January 2006 these articles were renamed in the end of January and the begging of February. This document does not reflect how ice hockey articles are dealt by majority editors but just by editors grouped in WikiProject ice hockey. --Jan Smolik 23:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I too want to object to this convention. As a Swede, seeing the article titles of Hakan Loob (Håkan), Markus Naslund (Näslund) and Daniel Tjarnqvist (Tjärnqvist) really makes my eyes hurt. -- Elisson • Talk 13:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I feel for your objection as a "Swede" but this is the english language section of wikipedia, not the Swedish language of wikipeida. Simply because "your eyes hurt" doesn't mean that the entire english language should change its practices. Hockey wikipedia is merely following the standard practices of virtually all the major hockey English publications. I am sorry that almost the entire english language offends you. Masterhatch 01:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not know any English language rule, saying that the diacritics has to be dropped off the words taken from other languages (see e.g. both correct possibilities of "cafe" and "café" - does anybody need any consensus, which of them should be used?), and especially not from foreign names. And I have never heard about any English language rule, saying that names of hockey-players should be treated differently to names of other people, as it is done in Wikipedia. Major hockey English publications are written for English readers and they do not want to bother them with the diacritics, but English Wikipedia is being written for international audience.


 * By the way, people writing e.g. Czech Wikipedia would consider really ridiculous if English names were rewritten to "suit" better Czech pronunciation, e.g. George Bush into "Džódž Buš" :-)) Just kidding, but I really do not understand the anti-diacritical opposition. If it was just because some people do not want to bother with using these special letters, why do they bother with reverting them, when somebody else uses them? Jan.Kamenicek 23:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I, too, object to this proposed policy. We should not create any exceptions for hockey, nor should we exempt Czechs and Swedes from any such proposed policies. Just because there is a strong Czech or Swedish lobby does not mean that the same applies to Polish or Norwegian names. We should follow the general tradition of English Wikipedia to render names precisely, and if that means employing Unicode letters not found in English, so be it. In fact, it is strictly technical limitations that have caused the omission of native glyphs in the first place. Wikipedia, in its richness, may well be the one place among popularly accessible references that fixes the problem of "dumbed down" foreign names. Let's continue writing with the diacritics, hockey or no hockey. -- Mareklug talk  16:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Also I object to this proposed policy. 1. There is no need for a special guidline for hockey players, the same principles should apply as for other wikipedia articles. 2. Using latin letters with diacritics doesn't hurt the readability for English readers, but it makes the names look more correct for us that know other languages as well. By the way, Jonsson and Jönsson are two different Swedish surnames. I don't mind if American writers are not bothered to find the right letters, probably someone else will correct the text later. --Boivie 08:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I would feel considerably more comfortable if more of those objecting to the policy were genuinely interested in hockey. A perusal of Main space edits over the last six months is illuminating; three have a combined two edits to any hockey article, while a fourth has no hockey-related edits other than inserting diacriticals into names. While some of the objectors are demonstrably active on WikiHockey, this should be taken into consideration for any determination of consensus, in the same fashion that I hope would happen if a flood of nativist partisans barged in to shout the opposition down. RGTraynor 15:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I am interrested in hockey, mainly Swedish hockey. But my primary, and overwhelming interrest is football (real football), thus the few contributions to the "hockey namespace", and the lack of interrest in the hockey project. I still do feel that I am entitled to give my opinion on a matter that to a large degree is about Sweden. To finish this of, the discussion isn't even mainly about hockey, but about how Wikipedia in general should treat umlauts, or in some cases (including the Swedish å, ä and ö) completely separate letters. – Elisson • Talk 20:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The English language Wikipedia should follow English-language conventions. The Czech should follow Czech. The Swahili should follow Swahili. English articles should not be forced to follow non-English conventions. BoojiBoy 23:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Swedish exception
I have just found out that there is an exception to naming conventions, saying that Swedish names should be spelled in English in the same way as they are in Swedish. Does anybody understand why this is acceptable for Swedish and non-acceptable for names from other languages? Jan.Kamenicek 23:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I think Swedes (and, admittedly: I assisted them) built a good case presented at naming conventions (Swedish). Compare to, for example, Naming policy (Czech) (which btw, I also started): in that case there's no evidence presented that diacritics are generally used for sportspeople too. See also naming conventions (standard letters with diacritics), intended to give some general perspective on the issue. And, of course, village pump (policy)/Using diacritics (or national alphabet) in the name of the article where all this was discussed at large. --Francis Schonken 09:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, I inserted a copy of the mentioned village pump discussion below --Francis Schonken 07:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Using diacritics (or national alphabet) in the name of the article
I have coloured the section above to show clearly that it is a copy from another page. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Applied the same as a generic solution, tx for the idea. --Francis Schonken 09:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Diacritics and non-English characters
This is a copy of the Text from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Player pages format. It was copied here by Francis Schonken at 08:54 on 4 March 2006 (UTC). I have coloured it so that it is easy to see where the copy starts and ends. Please do not reply to any of the postings in the coloured section because the original authors may not see this copy and so will not be able to respond. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC) 

OK, team, it's simple. This is en-wiki. We don't have non-English characters on our keyboards, and people likely to come to en-wiki are mostly going to have ISO-EN keyboards, whether they're US, UK, or Aussie (to name a few) it doesn't matter. I set up a page at User:RasputinAXP/DMRwT for double move redirects with twist and started in on the Czech players that need to be reanglicized. There's a justification on that page, but to repeat:

DMRwT is the term I use to describe when a page has been redirected and has a history on both the redirecting and redirected page. As an example, Petr Prucha started there, was moved to Petr Průcha, causing a redirect at Petr Prucha; after reviewing WP:HOCKEY policy (specifically use of diacritics and non-English), the article needed to be moved back to Petr Prucha with a redirect at Petr Průcha but couldn't because both the article and redirect were extant.

I asked User:Wiki_alf to help me out, as many of the Czech players have been shuffled around and he obliged me by performing a Double Move-Redirect with Twist on Petr Prucha.

As such, this is a fluid list of NHL players that need to be juggled as above. Please add players to the "needing" list as you see fit.

Thanks, and PLAY ON! RasputinAXP talk contribs 15:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I object to this conclusion. Previous debate clearly proved, that there is no clear consensus about using or not using diacritics. You should not be doing any mass renaming and mass moving. At this moment both variants are considered to be right by wikipedians (or both wrong - depending whether you are optimist ore pessimist). --Jan Smolik 11:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Jan, I understand you're upset. Let's settle things on the Village Pump before you go changing WP:HOCKEY policy. If both variants are considered right, and there's no clear consensus, then we have the right to go about doing things based on how our consensus has been reached in our particular project. RasputinAXP  talk contribs 15:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * RasputinAPX, I am not upset. I just see that WP:HOCKEY policy does not reflect clear consensus so I just want to fix it so that does not confuse anyone. Simply, it is POV. For example admin User:Wiki_alf took it as a clear guideline for renaming. I will not do any other editing of the policy today, but tomorrow I will add following warning to the start of the section: "This section does not reflect a clear consensus. Before applying these recommendations, please see objections on the talk page". I think it is neutral. You can improve this warning if you want to.


 * The diacritics section of WP:HOCKEY was added by Masterhatch on 19 January 2006. It is quite new and it should not be treated as set-in-stone rules. Anyway prior this additions users Hazelorb on January 15and Elrith January 16 objected to not using diacritics. On January 24 you summarized the discussion with words "OK, team, it's simple". Again not reflecting the objections and asked User:Wiki_alf to change naming based on the project policy. You did not add the "policy" is 5 days old and that there were objections to it.


 * I would not say a world if using diacritics on Wikipedia was not common or was forbidden. Czech people are quite used not to use it on Internet or in SMS messages as for a long time there was no single encoding table for Czech characters. But when I arrived to Wikipedia, I saw that diacritics is commonly used and thus I am also using it. Most names of Czech people is written with diacritics. I see it as a consensus.


 * I am glad you were bold and went on with proposal you thought is right. But as there are clearly expressed objections to this proposal you should not start edit war with mass renaming. For my person I can promise you I will not go to the ice hockey articles only for reason of renaming players. But if I write hockey article or add substantial part to it I will probably use diacritics as it is normal on Wikipedia. In the conclusion I repeat this is international project written in English and not project of Britons and Americans. --Jan Smolik 20:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not touching another hockey article until this is over, and I'm not edit warring over it; We let the proposal sit for a while before we did it, and now that there's something to deal with we've stopped. I'm goign to stick to turning Wayne Gretzky into a FAC and then I'll probably leave WP:HOCKEY; I'll keep an eyeball on New York Rangers and their players and leave it at that. RasputinAXP  talk contribs 21:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Whatever happens though, it should be important that the non-diacratical version gets redirected into the diacratical version of the article. That is my only objection either way... the version many people are used to, myself included, has to redirect into the actual name (with diacratics, accents or whatever). This was not happening in a few cases which amounted to confusion. Croat Canuck  03:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * That is for sure. --Jan Smolik 12:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

More discussion here: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Using diacritics (or national alphabet) in the name of the article. ccwaters 03:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Alright Jan, I've been watching the olympics and noticed that the Czech and Slovak uniforms drop the diacritics on the back of the jerseys. ccwaters 17:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It was mentioned earlier that oficial IIHF documents do not use diacritics and jerseys only reflect that. But it does not mean that it is the correct spelling. I personally think that avoiding of diacritics is historicaly done from technical reasons. With Unicode these reasons are not valid anymore. On the other hand I also drop diacritics from my Wikipedia signiture (it should state Smolík). So I am not completely against avoiding diacritics, especially when the first line includes original spelling. But troughout WP I saw many articles that use diacritics even in the title. And they were in more important languages than in Czech. However, I feel that for encyclopedia it is more acurate to use diacritics. But there was an important argument (I think it was yours) that we should follow habits in the real world, rather than coining new ways of doing thinkgs. BTW: I checked Czech encyclopedias and they generaly try to use diacritics (non-czech one) but are very inconsistent.


 * Today I added "No consensus warning" to the diacritics section of Wikiproject Ice-Hockey. It is not to fight but to say that anybody using this policy will soon run into dispute. --Jan Smolik 17:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * That's only fair; plainly it's a contentious subject and likely to remain so. RGTraynor 21:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * So let's start moving the featured articles Karl Dönitz, IFK Göteborg and Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius to "Karl Donitz", "IFK Goteborg" and "Tlon, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius", eh? Might as well move Åland to "Aland". Once we're at it, we could translate Antero Niitymäki into "Andrew Fieldhill" (compare Wien->Vienna, United States->Yhdysvallat, Sverige->Sweden). Just "kidding". Anyway, my point is, that we should try to continue using the style that most similar articles use in Wikipedia.
 * To me, the most commonly used style appears to be using ä, ö and ü in the article name. However, I only say this after looking around at categories about Finnish, Swedish, German, etc people, so I might not be entirely correct. Here's a few examples: Eemil Nestor Setälä, Anneli Jäätteenmäki, Kyösti Kallio, Kaarlo Juho Ståhlberg, Franz Gürtner, Andreas von Bülow, Melanie Oßwald, István Széchenyi, Zoltán Böszörmény, Leni Björklund (OK, enough, I think you can see the point...).
 * I think that the dots on 'em letters should be present in either all wikipedia biograpical articles or none (at present, both styles are used, which makes things even more confusing). Anyway, if it is decided that the ä's and ö's should go, then put the 'official' (ie passport) way of spelling the name in brackets in the first sentence. If, in turn, the 'real' (with ä, ö, ü) way of spelling is chosen, then have the 'American' spelling (ie Teemu Selanne way) redirect into the 'correctly' spelled article (ie Teemu Selänne). --HJV 03:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. I have just received a "No consensus warning" so I have stopped rewriting hockey players' names into their correct diacritical forms, but I do not understand the point. I was doing so for the same reason, which was already mentioned above: Non-hockey articles usually respect the diacritical spelling of personal names (places, cities ...). Why should names of hockey players be treated differently, especially when redirects solve the problem in a very simple way which can be acceptable for everybody, no matter what sort of keyboards they use? Nobody has answered this question. And if somebody wants to start a new article and they do not want to bother with the diacritics, they can omit it. If the diacritics needs correction, somebody will do it.


 * I do not think that writing "Rucinsky" instead of "Ručínský" is an "English spelling" of his name, it is just omitting the diacritics in his Czech name. Despite the fact that non-Czech speaking people won't know how to pronounce his name correctly written both with or without diacritics, unless they have already heard it, for people who know the Czech alfabet it makes a difference.


 * Omitting the diacritics in the Slovak name "Šatan" may cause some amusement, but an encyclopedia should prefer accuracy. English ommitting the diacritics in the name of Croatian football player "Dado Pršo" used to cause even more amusement to Czech people, as the result meant "a tit" in Czech language (and, as far as I know, the same Croatian word is spelled also very similar). By the way, Dado Pršo is spelled correctly in Wikipedia, using the non-diacritical spelling as a redirect.


 * The fact, that players themselves drop the diacritics on their jerseys, is not an argument. They play hockey, that is what matters to them, they do not bother about spelling accuracy. But we write encyclopedia. Jan.Kamenicek 22:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * yes, we are writing an encyclopaedia, but guess what! this encyclopaedia reflects the current, most common forms of the English language. in english media and other publications, the removal of diacritics is the most common way of writing. Masterhatch 02:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Its "Jagr" and "Hasek" in worldbook.com, encarta.msn.com, and britannica.com. That's the 3 currently produced encyclopedias that I know of. I'm not sure why a Croatian surname translating to "tit" in Czech is any concern for an English publication?. There's Fucking, Austria, Nevermind the natively named Dick Trickle.  ccwaters 02:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I've decided to anglicize the names in the articles I've put together or made significant contributions to, something I now realize I should've done in the first place. The thought came to me recently when someone replaced "Selanne" with "Selänne" in the 1992-93 NHL season article.  That gave me the idea to search for "Selanne" in the article, which returned zero results.  And that tells me that the article is broken.
 * Wikipedia is an electronic resource, and one of the major benefits of that is that it is searchable. And if I'm prevented from finding any instances of a name I'm looking for because I didn't use characters my keyboard doesn't have, the article is broken.  I don't care what the "ä" in his name is, because whether it's an a with an umlaut or a completely separate character, my keyboard doesn't have it, and nor do the keyboards of the overwhelming majority of native english speakers.  And I can't be expected to remember every single diacritic/non-latin character in every language out there just so I can locate info at an english encyclopedia.
 * The place for "Selänne" is fi.wikipedia.org. Here, we speak and type in english. Aottley 01:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * So why should Selänne be treated differently from Gerhard Schröder who has his name spelled correctly in Wikipedia? You might wanna look at Category:Finnish_people, Category:German_people, Category:Swedish_people, Category:Estonian_people, for a start. If you do, you'll notice that pretty much 99% have their named spelled properly, as they are spelled in their passport. I bet if you counted, a large majority would have their names written with the ä's and the ö's (I did mention this up there already). Try searching for, say "Gerhard Schroder". It'll take you to the article, even though you replaced the ö with an o. The same goes for all the other similar articles, as long as there's a redirect from the umlautless version to the actual article. Therefore your argument that, say, Selänne couldn't be found by searching for "Selanne" is false. I repeat, you can find the article using search regardless of what characters your keyboard has as long as a redirect spelled without the umlauts exists (assuming your keyboard is not chinese or something). Type in Selanne in the box to the left and press search. His article is the first result on that page.


 * Some people say we need to misspell the names because that's how other publications spell them. If the common belief in the world was that the earth is flat, should we write that in wikipedia, even if we know that it's not flat but round. No, we should write that the world is round. One reason to the very existance of encyclopedias is to broaden people's view of the world. Not to narrow it, which we would be doing by telling them to spell the name in an incorrect way. --HJV 04:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You clearly misunderstand what I mean by search. I mean search within the page using a browser's text search, i.e. ctrl-f.  In fact, I made that quite clear by using the words "in the article".  If someone is at the 1983 NHL Entry Draft article, knowing that Dominik Hasek was drafted that year and wants to know which selection Hasek was, he might press ctrl-f and type "Hasek" into the text box that appears.  As the article is now, those perfectly logical steps would result in him successfully finding the info he wanted.  But if the article spelled his name "Hašek", the find would be unsuccessful and the person would be left mistakenly believing that either he was wrong about Hasek's draft year or that the article was incomplete or incorrect, all because of a diacritic that isn't on his keyboard and that he probably has never even heard of.
 * So no, my argument is not at all false. The diacritics and non-english characters in the article titles are less concerning to me what with redirects and all, but those in the article bodies themselves are an impediment to text searching for people whose keyboards lack those letters.  That so many articles have them is irrelevant.  It doesn't necessarily make them right.  And what's that about broadening people's views?  There's nothing wrong with having the person's native spelling pointed out right at the beginning of a person's article (see Sergei Fedorov for one of a great many examples), so there's your broadening right there.  But once every instance of a name everywhere on wikipedia gets replaced with something I can't easily type, then wikipedia articles become more difficult for me to search and therefore less useful.
 * Oh, and who are you to say that the names are being misspelled? By all means, show me some reference of authority that says that "Selänne" is the proper english spelling of his name.  By the way, I don't see any explanation of "Antero Niitymakiho" as mentioned above.  It's not exactly as his name is spelled in Finnish, so it must be incorrect, right?  Someone misspelled Владисла́в Алекса́ндрович Третья́к as "Vladislav Tretiak".  Should something be done about that?  I eagerly await your answer.
 * Stop with this "incorrect" nonsense. Finnish is not English is not Czech is not Russian and so on, and peoples' names often look different between different languages. Aottley 07:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

... consensus --Francis Schonken 08:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Francis IMHO a simple redirect would have done. There is no need to cut and past text from one article to another.

"If you could see her throught my eyes..." I'm sorry Francis but I do not see a wide "authorized by consensus", in the the text you have pasted above, for "Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (hockey)" to proceed from a proposal to a guideline. I agree with the others who have posted to this talk page that there is not a clear true consensus or even a consensus for this proposal to become a guideline. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

No consensus (yet)
I do not see any from of consensus for this guideline which does not seem to have a history of being a proposal. Only one person has edited the page and of those who have commented on this talk page not everyone was in favour of the proposal. See Policies and guidelines:
 * A guideline is something that is (1) actionable and (2) authorized by consensus.....
 * A proposal is any suggested guideline or policy that is not yet authorized by consensus,...

So I am changing this from a guideline to a proposal. Please do not change it back until there is a clear consensus in favour of this becoming a guideline --Philip Baird Shearer 11:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Haukurth beat me to it. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

In fact, it appears that this proposal is mostly objected to, and that the people advancing it and supporting it are a niche minority (some members of the Wiki project for hockey). I certainly object to it. -- Mareklug talk  16:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm, now there is a Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia:Naming conventions (hockey) page with a vote, if anybody is interested. I though it would be relevant to link to it from this talk page. Stefán Ingi 18:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The trouble is that the Policies and guidelines clearly states that
 * A guideline is something that is (1) actionable and (2) authorized by consensus. Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. Amendments to a guideline should be discussed on its talk page, not on a new page - although it's generally acceptable to edit a guideline to improve it. (My Bolding)
 * A proposal is any suggested guideline or policy that is not yet authorized by consensus, or any process not yet in use, as long as discussion is ongoing. Proposals should generally be advertised to get feedback and reach consensus. Proposals are NOT decided upon by voting on them.
 * So it seems to me that any such consensus building should take place on this page. --Philip Baird Shearer 19:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was quite surpriced to find that the voting page was not even linked to from the conventions talk page. Although I would say that now there has been provided a link to it from this to the voting page that this setup is not completely unacceptable, it seems rather pointless to split it up. Perhaps we can merge the content of the voting page to here and make the voting page a redirect. Once the voting has concluded we can eventually move it to an archive page. Stefán Ingi 19:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That would seem to be a good solution. What do others think --Philip Baird Shearer 20:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that the merge of the voting page with this talk page, and leaving a redirect in place of the voting page would be a good thing to do. -- Mareklug  talk  22:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * So I'm going ahead with that. Stefán Ingi 22:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Voting
Sorry, Philip Baird Shearer just made participating in this vote redundant by advocating Amendments to a guideline should be discussed on its talk page, not on a new page, which only applies to guidelines, not to proposals. The only work now is to improve the guideline according to the method quoted by Philip.

So, I moved the vote back to the place where it should've been if this were a proposal, and concluded the vote. --Francis Schonken 00:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Francis I did not write it I quoted Policies and guidelines and what I thought were two revelvent points. You have chosen only to quote part of the two clauses I quoted here they are in full again:
 * A guideline is something that is (1) actionable and (2) authorized by consensus. Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. Amendments to a guideline should be discussed on its talk page, not on a new page - although it's generally acceptable to edit a guideline to improve it. (My Bolding)
 * A proposal is any suggested guideline or policy that is not yet authorized by consensus, or any process not yet in use, as long as discussion is ongoing. Proposals should generally be advertised to get feedback and reach consensus. Proposals are NOT decided upon by voting on them.


 * Now it does not seem to me that there is a clear consensus for this proposal to become a guideline. If you think there is a clear consensus, I suggest we re-install the straw-poll you have removed and see if we can use it as a tool to build such a consensus. But until there is a consensus to authorize a change from proposal to guideline this proposal should remain just that. --00:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Please establish there is no consensus: that there was consensus was established at and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Player pages format - the only problem was that formally this hadn't gone through RfC yet. But it has in the mean while. --Francis Schonken 00:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't have to establish a no consensus. Even the retrospective Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia:Naming conventions (hockey) which you have aborted was not showing a consensus for this page to be a guideline. I have read throught the comments of the various editors on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Player pages format and there is not a clear consensus there either. Which was a point commented on by at least one contributer to that discussion. It is not up to me to show that there is a consensus for this to stop being a guideline you need to show that one existed to change it from a policy to a consensus. As you are aware I am not in favour of using diacritics in names, but riding rough shod over widely accepted procedures, is not the way for Wikipedians to work in harmony and develope stratagies that everyone can agree to work with. --Philip Baird Shearer 01:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Still proposed
Because this clearly does not have consensus among editors, I have amended proposed to the page. It is not a guideline or policy, at least not in this point in time.--Sean Black (talk) 03:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

This proposal is fatally flawed
This proposal rests on an untenable assumption, that what people do is a good criterion to decide how they should be called. While that assumption may be true in a limited number of cases (mainly for monarchs and people who have multiple names), the vast majority of people are known by their personal names from birth do death, before they go to school, while they're students, hockey players, coaches, politicians, media pundits, retired criminals, or whatever becomes of them.

There are two ways to read this proposal - (1) that the title of the article should be changed when a former hockey player becomes better known for something else, and (2) that the article title for anybody who has ever played hockey should follow this proposal, regardless of other things they do or did. Both sound like very bad ideas.

Naming conventions for personal names make sense when they need to deal with transliterations from a particular language, choice of which name to use when people have different names in different languages, or when somebody's name changes when they assume an office. None of those is the case here.

NB, although the proposal says "hockey articles", this proposal is clearly about hockey player articles. Obviously nobody thinks that i.e. a football club and a hockey club which have the same name (and are possibly two parts of the same sporting association) should be spelt differently.

There are legitimate concerns in naming conventions for hockey articles, but they extend to formats of club and competition article titles and similar things, not general linguistic and stylistic issues like diacritics, which have no hockey-specific properties whatsoever. Zocky | picture popups 15:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I will propose this to be deleted in a couple of days, or at least to tag it as failed and remove from the list of proposed naming conventions. Zocky | picture popups 15:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me, your point that there are no hockey-specific properties that need to be taken into account is especially strong. Haukur 16:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)