Talk:Kemal Izzet

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Y Done Neıl ☎ 13:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

The legal form of his surname in the country in which he was born and has always lived and played his entire career is spelt without diacritics, and the vast majority of references in the press, and by his club, have used a simple I. It would seem quite proper that in tr.wikipedia the Turkish letter is used, but English allows the appropriate pronunciation without any need for the diacritic, and therefore it is not necessary to make a phonic distinction, nor is it accurate in legal-historic terms, nor is it in keeping with normal usage. The relevant policy says:
Diacritics should only be used in an article's title, if it can be shown that the word is routinely used in that way, with diacritics, in common usage. This means in reliable English sources, such as eencyclopedias, dictionaries, or articles in major English-language newspapers.
If the word is routinely listed in reliable English sources without diacritics, then the Wikipedia article should follow that method for the article title, though the diacritics version should be given in the initial paragraph of the article as suggested in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English).
If it is not clear what "common usage" is, then the general Wikipedia guideline is to avoid use of diacritics in article titles.
It does not appear that these criteria have been met. Kevin McE (talk) 13:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support, the less diacritics on English Wikipedia, the better. GoodDay (talk) 17:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

That view goes against the consensus expressed at WP:UE which says that we should use them when English usage predominantly does - e.g. Besançon. Knepflerle (talk) 13:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no evidence whatsoever that English usage predominantly does use them in this case. Gene Nygaard (talk) 14:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support The guideline quoted is disputed; but there is no question that we should call articles what their subjects are usually called. Unless there is massive evidence that this Canadian is usually described with the diacritic, use English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

What Canadian? Kevin McE (talk) 18:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

That's what I get for skimming. Could have sworn I saw Edmonton. British subject? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support, the proper name by which this Englishman is best known, and the way it is spelled in all the cited sources. As far as can be seen, the current article name was pulled out of a hat. Gene Nygaard (talk) 14:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Please see my comment at Talk:Muzzy İzzet: can we please have some demonstration of actual usage? That's what matters, and not a lot else. From my experience Izzet is more common. Can anyone provide anything more concrete? Knepflerle (talk) 13:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: The quote that Kevin McE gives above, calling it "the relevant policy", is actually from a page that has been marked Rejected since last April. There is no policy regarding this issue. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 08:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Callmederek (talk) 21:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.