Jump to content

Talk:Petr Sýkora

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

HCD

[edit]

Sorry i miight be wrong but Sykora played for HC Davos (Switzerland) during the season 10/11 and they have won the championship i guess! edit: sorry i was worng there are two of themand the other played for Davos. sorry!

Untitled

[edit]

Can the comment about Sykora not returning to the Rangers be sourced? I never read that. Zookman12 20:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SWEEET!

[edit]

When did this guy become an Oiler? Was he traded for a draft pick or signed?Ohyeh 19:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its not totally official yet but here: http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story/?ID=173939&hubname=nhl Yes it is the better known Petr Sykora, not the other one currently with the Caps (Petr Sýkora (ice hockey b. 1978)) ccwaters 19:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's official now. He was signed by the Edmonton Oilers earlier today to a one-year contract with no financial details disclosed. You might as well provide the news article from the Edmonton Oilers' official website as the citation that's requested in the main article. http://www.edmontonoilers.com/news/index.php?id=691



I'm not sure where to put this, but the statement about Sykora playing with Crosby first, then he was switched to Malkin when Crosby got hurt...that is simply not true. Sykora got the least amount of ice time with Crosby of anyone on the team, including grinders. The only time Sykora got with Crosby was on the powerplay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zlj2755 (talk • contribs) 03:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this should be included

[edit]

"During the 2005-06 NHL season, he and the management of the Mighty Ducks no longer saw eye-to-eye and..." how would we know that they no longer saw eye to eye? Any references that could be used to prove this? Also, it sounds a little funny in my opinion...not funny like it didn't happen...funny like it seems out of place. Bsroiaadn 18:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
No consensus to move. Courcelles 19:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Petr Sýkora → Petr Sykora –

  • Support Per WP:COMMONNAME as all sources used in the article show the name spelled without diacritics. 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 "Sykora" is verified by the sources used within the article, and "Sýkora" is not. Dolovis (talk) 14:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As the above position by Dolovis has overwhelmingly been rejected at the centralized discussion on the topic. One wonders why he keeps making WP:POINT move requests when he can clearly see the communities position is against him. That being said there is now a source on the page supporting the current spelling. -DJSasso (talk) 15:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Atleast he's going the RM route. Something which was mostly by-passed when these articles were moved to dios. GoodDay (talk) 15:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You know your supports/opposes would carry alot more weight if you would use a reason other than that. Since that is completely false and you have been shown countless references showing you that there are diacritics in English. -DJSasso (talk) 15:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's no dios in the english alphabet. GoodDay (talk) 15:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Right but this is the English-language wikipedia. Not the English-alphabet wikipedia. -DJSasso (talk) 15:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The english alphabet is the core of the english language. PS: The closing administrator of each RM, will have to weigh the comments. GoodDay (talk) 15:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The alphabet is only part of it. The rest is the orthography, which is the part of the language that includes the diacritics. Both together make up the language. This is why your argument is ridiculous in the wake of huge amounts of references you have been given. Your argument is the equivalent of saying there is no beef in a hotdog because there is no beef in the bun. Which of course is silly because both the bun and the wiener make up the hotdog and there is beef in the weiner. Two separate things that contribute to the whole. -DJSasso (talk) 15:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The closing administrator will decide the weight of my argument. As I noted above, atleast Dolovis is going the RM route. GoodDay (talk) 16:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Except that there is already a discussion going on about it at another location. He is opening as many discussions as he can so that people can't keep up with them all. This is why he was asked to discuss at a centralized discussion. He is being disruptive. As much or more so than those who didn't discuss earlier because he already knows that a discussion is on going. -DJSasso (talk) 16:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's Dolovis' choice, to open numerious RMs. GoodDay (talk) 16:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it is. Just like vandalizing a page is a choice. Doesn't mean its an ok choice. -DJSasso (talk) 16:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dolovis hasn't been banned or blocked, therefore his actions haven't been ruled as disruptive. I give him much credit, he's approached the dios argument much better prepared, then I ever did. GoodDay (talk) 16:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's a sharp difference between approaching something well prepared and launching multiple assaults. Dolovis is simply launching multiple, disruptive assaults. If he were "well prepared" he wouldn't have to go this route. He could win this ridiculous "War on Diacritics" at a centralized location and stop abusing everyone's time. Seriously, his actions haven't been banned or blocked because no one has yet to take a serious issue with them. – Nurmsook! talk... 20:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I hope that the closing admin will take into consideration that Darwinek may have violated WP:Canvassing by his targeted notice here to the members of WikiProject Czech Republic. Dolovis (talk) 01:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the same rationale given in other discussions, more unilateral moves against factual accuracy based on linguistically fallacious assumptions, the guy's surname is Sýkora. - filelakeshoe 12:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose In article title we strive to achieve two goals. One is to adress the article subject by its most common name and the other is accuracy and disambiguity of the article title. Please note, that as long, as the person does not change his surname or as long as he does not adapt stagename which would present his original name without diacritics, then the surname within english media might not be accurate (this is different from transliteration, both languages use the same alphabet), so let's have some thouhts abou wp:BLP here. It is humiliating to aply rules without consideration that, they are being aplied to living person, here BLP aplies too. The only real name form is the one with diacritics. Importantly, for the only policy dedicated to the usage of diacritics within proper names in the article title, please visit: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (proper names)#Diacritics --Reo + 20:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Per WP:COMMONNAME, "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it instead uses the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources" (my bolding). A google news archive search gives 16, 800 results for "Petr Sykora", compared to only 433 for "Petr Sýkora" (and the majority of those aren't in English anyway). Jenks24 (talk) 00:10, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Per DJSasso. User who has listed this is abusing multiple routes in an effort to chance an already established consensus. There is a discussion currently on-going on the topic of diacritics, it would be best served to leave this article alone (and the other move requests) until that discussion reaches a consensus. – Nurmsook! talk... 20:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I prefer if we keep it encyclopedic. —KRM (Communicate!) 21:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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) 04:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The policies you refer to do not discount the use of diacritics. You should probably check your sources before throwing nonsense around. – Nurmsook! talk... 21:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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) 10:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That stems from the notion what it is english version of the name. Prague is english version of Praha czech name; Confucius is latin and subsequentli english version of chinese Kong Fuzi name, but name with and without diacritic is still the same name, the same version of the name, just incorrectly spelled in details.
Normally there are no "versions" to the proper birth names, there might be transliterations or nicknames. --Reo + 08:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and place some kind of moratorium on these continued pointy proposals; Wikipedia's style is to use diacritics in such cases, as everyone well knows by now, and to take them away in a few random instances would not remotely improve the encyclopedia. --Kotniski (talk) 08:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Yes, there's an agenda here, but this is also a valid move in terms of WP:AT. Amid all the clamour and shouting, has anyone noticed this? Andrewa (talk) 10:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Petr Sýkora. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:37, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Petr_Sýkora&oldid=1208028991"