Talk:Patrik Eliáš

Patrik Eliáš v Patrick Elias

I object to the moving article from correct name Patrik Eliáš, to the incorect form Patrick Elias. I havent found any written wikipedia convenction about using or non using national alphabets, but generaly they are being used in wikipedia. Example is Luís de Camões. I do not think there was any reason for moving the article as there is no consensus on using national alphabets. Article should have remained as it was. I do not want to start edit war so I want change it back now, but I do not promisse I will not do it later if nobody proves me that there is a clear consensus against using national alphabets. Anyway his first name is Patrik not Patrick. --Jan Smolik 17:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

See the discussion that was discussed starting at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Player pages format#non english diacritics Croat Canuck 04:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Spengler Cup

Elias played on the Metallurg Magnitogorsk during the 04-05 season. They also won the Spengler Cup in 05. Can anyone find out if Patrik was on the team while they won the cup, so we can add it to the "Awards" section? I can not find any references, as of now. I will continue pursuing this tomorrow, though. I just want to find out if anyone else knows so I don't have to do so. Bsroiaadn 07:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Devils captains succession box

I've placed 'Scott Stevens' (only) as Elias' immediate predcessor. The Devils last captain (before Elias) was Scott Stevens, who retired September 2005 (Niedmayer only served Jan-Apr 2004, during Stevens's injury) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GoodDay (talk • contribs) 19:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

Whatcha know, Elias has been stripped of the captaincy. GoodDay 20:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

NTC

should we put in that he has a No Trade Clause in his contract? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dark Lord Revan (talk • contribs) 08:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Top Image

The image is kinda fuzzy, hard on the eyes. Is it possible to get a clearer one? GoodDay (talk) 01:41, 26 January 2008 (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. Ucucha 14:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Patrik Eliáš → Patrik Elias — WP:UCN and WP:UE. The firse sentence of the article says it all: "Patrik Eliáš listen^ⓘ (English Patrik Elias" If his name in English is "Patrick Elias", as is clearly the case, then that's what we should prefer in the English Wikipedia. The cs.wikipedia obviously can and shoudl use "Patrik Eliáš", but this sort of thing where we use diacritics for the title and then state what the English version of the name here on en.wikipedia has always struck me as a bit odd. The redirect from "Patrik Eliáš" → "Patrick Elias" should of course be kept.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 00:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per current compromise. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 06:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

  I'm all for compromise, but the "current compromise" seems to be the problem, so it's hardly a compromise (besides, I honestly have no clue what the "current compromise" is...).
  — V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 15:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support this is the English Wikipedia, not the not-English-but-something-using-some-Latin-based-character-set Wikipedia. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 12:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment it should be easily solved with whatever the New Jersey area newspapers call him. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 12:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

    Exactly, which is always "Patrick Elias" (I can provide a deluge of cites if it's really needed). That's why I cited WP:UCN above.
    — V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 15:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per the standard at WP:HOCKEY that player pages keep their diacritics. Diacritics are a huge battlefield at the hockey project and this was a long time coming compromise on the situation. The compromise is located at Wikipedia:HOCKEY#Wikiproject_notice. But to sum it up, its that all player pages keep diacritics because a proper name is a proper name and doesn't change with language. However, because the NHL and NA leagues don't put them on jerseys any page that has to do with hockey in North America like the New Jersey Devils page do not have them. But pages that are European or International in flavour do keep them, the Olympic hockey page for example. -DJSasso (talk) 21:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - You are inadvertently stepping into a huge pile of shit here, Ohm's Law.  ;) In general, I support the removal of diacritics per the fact that they aren't English, but there are hundreds, if not thousands, of articles like this. I think the removal of diacritics in this fashion requires a much broader debate with a proper scope. And, FWIW, the compromise Krm speaks of is internal to the hockey project after numerous diacritical wars. In short, we hide them on North America specific articles, but show them on European and biographical articles. Basically, a form of WP:ENGVAR in my view. Resolute 21:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

  Not to mention about half the editors on the wiki believe that diacritics are english. And that they are only left off by newspapers and the like due to former technical limitations and now just habit from the past. Diacritics are really a minefield that people need to tread lightly. Its a wikiwide war, not just at the hockey project but the hockey project found a way to stop the bickering, about 2 years back now and its been a pretty quiet ride since except for the odd pop of the situation by people who don't know about the current stale mate. -DJSasso (talk) 21:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

  Well, at least I understand the background a bit better now. It doesn't change my stance, though. I'm perfectly comfortable dealing with the "pile of shit", as long as people aren't intentionally disruptive about it. Regardless, no offense to those of you who identify with WikiProjects, but I don't give WikiProject specific "guidelines" much weight. In my experience most of them have been created in an Echo chamber, and they usually ignore or directly contradict general Wikipedia wide consensus (and this "compromise" definitely appears to qualify for that criticism). It's great that several of you have reached some sort of local consensus, but that doesn't really include myself or the next hundred editors who come along. If you want to carve out a specific exception for Wikipedia:HOCKEY that's fine, but you should go and talk to everyone at WP:NAME in order to gain consensus to do so. Until and unless something like that happens, nothing is really "settled" (and, not to be thretening about it, but you're really opening yourselves and everyone else who tries to be involved here into larger disputes by pursuing the "the is the WikiProject solution" route. It's a real disservice to the encyclopedia as a whole, in my view).

  Anyway, in terms of this article specifically (which is really all we're discussing right now), the case for a change seems fairly unassailable, if we use to general principles. Patrick is certainly Czech, but he's notable as a player on an NHL team, and he lives in New Jersey. He should not use diacritics in the title, and the article should be in AmEng, based on a "least surprise" principle expressed both in WP:UCN and WP:ENGVAR.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 23:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

  Absolutely. Our internal compromise exists only so long as it withstands a challenge from the community at large. If you were to propose a guideline/MOS change at WP:NAME over this issue, I would support you. I do believe, however, that DJ is right in stating that there would be equal opposition. As to the dialect on the article itself, EN-UK or EN-CA has typically been used on European players, though I would not change an article if it was EN-US either. Ultimately, I find the argument that it should be EN-US because he plays for an American team to be not at all compelling, as I find no value in changing dialects every time such a player is traded or signs with a team in a different country. We've always tried to tie dialect to the player's nationality, as that ultimately remains their strongest tie, and it is generally set in stone. This is, incidentally, an entirely separate debate from the usage of diacritics in my view. Resolute 00:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

  Ah, this: "Ultimately, I find the argument that it should be EN-US because he plays for an American team to be not at all compelling, as I find no value in changing dialects every time such a player is traded or signs with a team in a different country." is where we disagree slightly. See, to me, the preponderance of coverage/notability is what matters. That's why I don't subscribe to anything that purports to be a universal solution to these issues. The question should be resolved on an individual article level because, while each instance will share certain commonalities with all others, each article is going to be unique for various reasons. In an instance such as this one, it seems fairly obvious to me where we should "geolocate" the article. I mean, like I said above there's no denying that he's Czech, and he did play for HC Kladno as a junior, but he's clearly notable as a star player for the New Jersey Devils. The article needs a lot more sourcing added to it, which I planned to do myself (looking back, it probably would have been better to do that first, but c'est la vie), but the preponderance of coverage for him is naturally American centric based on the simple fact that most primary coverage comes from The Star-Ledger, and other local and NHL oriented media. That's at least true right now, with the complete awareness that it may change at some future point (one of the great strengths of Wikipedia as a platform is that it can remain current at relatively low cost). This blanket decision to use diacritics where available creates conflict in individual cases such as this simply because it's ignoring the "real world" in favor of our often queer internal politics.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 00:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

  If it is nothing else, Wikipedia is a great example of queer internal politics.  :) As you say, this is where we diverge in opinion. I would always use EN-CA for a Canadian player, always use EN-US for an American, and typically use EN-CA for a European player because it is natural to me. But, if you created an article on a European using EN-US, I'd simply accept that and go with it for that article. Personally, I find basing the dialect on the nationality of the player to be the simplest solution that generates the least potential for conflict. Not a perfect solution, of course, but it has worked for several years now. Resolute 01:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

  heh... it's only worked because trying to do anything else often tends to be shouted down with misconceived and unthinking cries of "Oppose WP:ENGVAR!". I'd like to simply point out that ENGVAR (currently, and historically to date) does have a section entitled "Strong national ties to a topic". One of the examples there is that Australian Defence Force ought to use EN-au, if anything. Probably more directly relevant here though would be the "Opportunities for commonality" section which, along with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), strongly suggests that the page title should avoid diacritics where the subject has any significant English language coverage (incidentally, if you want to see a real mess caused by this issue take a look at WikiProject Ireland and any of several articles in that project... ).
  — V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 01:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

  That of course assumes that he is most strongly tied to New Jersey. And yes that is obviously where he became a star, but I bet if you asked someone from his home country where he is probably equally covered in the news what country he was most tied to they would say theirs. This is why we try to tie it to their nationality because its far more concrete a tie than trying to determine it by where they play or what not. For example what do you use if a player played an equal amount of time in Canada and the US. Its far more easy (and less POV in my opinion) to just use the country of their birth than to come up with a POV decision on where to draw the line that determines when they have been more notable in one place than another. But anyways thats about dialect and this is about diacritics so we are probably a bit off topic. As an amusing side note, if you are going to go with the idea of where they got the most media coverage, it would probably almost always be EN-CA because, and this is just an educated guess, Canada writes far more news articles on any given hockey player than anywhere else in the world. The couple NJ papers might write about something elias did but every paper in Canada will write about the same news bit, while I doubt all the americans ones would, since alot of teams have a hard enough time getting papers to write about their own teams never mind other teams. -DJSasso (talk) 04:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

  The Czech Republic is (A) not an English speaking locality (B) not legally English using locality; neither is Serbia, Germany or Iceland. I fail to see how WP:ENGVAR applies since they are not varieties of English, they are varieties of non-English. The diacritics arguments just get lots of users who are not English who argue for their local not-English conventions, which is how so many European articles end up using non-English grammar. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 05:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

  Believe it or not English is used in countries that speak other languages, papers are still published in other languages. I was just using this player as an example because its this page we are talking on, but the arguement stands for any player. I am English speaking and I don't even have any ancestors from any countries that you would call diactritic heavy countries. So please don't make assumptions. That would be like me assuming you don't like them because you are a xenophobe who doesn't like ways different than your own. I am sure you are not one, so its good not to make generalizations. And as far as diacritics go Patrik Eliáš is a proper name, and proper names don't generally get translated (or in this case transliterated) on wikipedia unless they use a alphabet that is non-latin. Just like if you go to the Czech Republic your name would still be spelled without diacrtics even if it should have them in their language, because that is not how you spell it. -DJSasso (talk) 05:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

  Just because English is used in those localities, does it actually form a variety of English that is clearly recognizable? And my problem with diacritics isn't because I'm a xenophobe, it's because it favours some non-English over other types of non-English, when a monoglot anglophone will even recognize those glyphs more than these Latin-derived-but-not-English characters. (ie. Greek letters are taught in High School science and maths, but are not allowed on Wikipedia for general titles, but we use eszett and thorns when they are not taught at all) - they favour non-English alphabets such as German or Serbian, over other non-English alphabets such as Arabic or Cyrillic unfairly. All non-English alphabets should be treated equally. I would ban non-ASCII characters (7-bit standard ASCII) for most purposes in titles, on usability grounds ... Wikipedia should be usuable on a Web-by-Email basis and 7-bit mail routers should be able to handle it. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 06:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

  And as pointed out below, diacritics are used in English. Its a misconception that they are not. -DJSasso (talk) 05:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - Howdy Ohms. IMHO, you should cancel this 'page move' request. GoodDay (talk) 21:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• aka, GoodDay supports your proposal.  ;) Resolute 22:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support - UCN and UE are compelling here. WikiProjects get to set their own standards, but they don't get to overrule wider policies. The WP:HOCKEY statement is made ultra vires. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 22:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• FWIW, WP:HOCKEY has overruled no policy in this case as the battle over diacritics remains unsettled. There is no consensus policy on their use that I am aware of. Resolute 00:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• WP:UE and WP:COMMONNAME say this should be a matter of using the name most commonly used in English-language sources. WP:HOCKEY carries a statement to the effect that diacritics must be used. As in cases like this, it has the effect of contradicting our naming policies, and is therefore not within the power of the WikiProject to make such a statement. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 19:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• Also please be aware that the fact that english doesn't use diacritics is incorrect. See wikt:Appendix:English words with diacritics for a list of some. So there is no reason to believe a proper name would not also keep them in English. -DJSasso (talk) 04:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

  This is a completely misleading argument, and the link provided should actually help settle the issue in favor of avoiding diacritics here on en.wikipedia generally, where possible. Diacritics are used in English for load words and for archaic words. Modern English has purposefully removed all diacritics, and the English alphabet does not include diacritics worldwide. This isn't even an engvar issue, since loan words and archaic English are not English. As I said in the opening of this, I'd be opposed to not using diacritics on say es.wikipedia just as much as I disfavor their use here on en.wikipedia. In this particular instance, this persons name is Patrick Elias in English, and Patrik Eliáš in Czech. That should be readily acknowledged in the lead of the article, as is appropriate in accordance with (IAW) WP:LEAD, but the article title should clearly be at the established English name IAW WP:UE and WP:UCN.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 17:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

  Not really, this is a proper name, proper names don't translate through languages unless they are in a different non-latin alphabet. Removing diacritics is also not a translation, its a transliteration. His proper name includes diactritic, to remove them is to spell it incorrectly, people come to encyclopedias to get correct information, not information thats been warped. -DJSasso (talk) 18:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

  It's important to recognize that we're not the ones transliterating his name, and as a practice we should avoid doing that as much as possible (with obvious exceptions for non-latin languages, such as Japanese, Chinese, Arabic, etc...). I definitely would not have started this, and I wouldn't support it, if others outside of Wikipedia didn't already transliterate his name in English publications. If The Star-Ledger, The Hockey News, and the other places where he has received the vast majority of his recognition from were to begin using, or had been using, "Patrik Eliáš" then this wouldn't be an issue. The reality of the situation is that he is pretty undeniably known as "Patrick Elias" in the English speaking world, and so insisting on the use of "Patrik Eliáš" can easily be perceived as polemic and unprofessional on our part.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 19:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - I don't think this should move for a variety of reasons. The most important is that this is his name. The NHL doesn't seem to support diacritics on the back of its jersey, but when he plays for the Czech national team his name is spelled with the diacritics. Why? That is his name, with the redirect without the diacritics being in place, I don't see the need. I see this as WP:IDONTLIKEIT, I'd say keep this as is. Since the characters are all part of the Latin font on here, I don't see a problem. If you start wanting to move names from Cyrillic languages to Cyrillic characters, then I can see the point.
  Just as an aside, Ohms law, I'd really recommend avoiding this subject. You really don't want the can of worms opened due to this. In the North American sports world, this is likely the secondly most hotly debated subject, outside of the merge of the Expos and Washington Nationals pages. A compromise was reached and it created peace, we don't need to start this war again. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 04:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

  As a quick question: Is Elias' name actually spelled with diacritics on his international jersies? It seems very rare to me that they are used. Resolute 14:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

  I wonder if we could persuade Elias to drop his Czech citizenship & get his American citizenship. That's the only way the argument for moving this article, would be accepted. GoodDay (talk) 15:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

  I can't say for sure about czech, but I have seen them on Swedish and Finish and Russian players. -DJSasso (talk) 15:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

  Russian? Never. Never ever. As far as Elias goes, here's a pic link, and here, and no diacritics on the Czech team jersey.--Львівське (talk) 19:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

  I have too. GoodDay (talk) 15:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

  Czechs don't have them at the World Championship, but they do have them during the Euro Hockey Tour. Don't know if it has to do with the edge jersey which they only use at the World Championship/Olympics, the EHT jersey is a different style. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 15:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

  I'm pretty sure that his Czech/international jersey, which would appropriately use Czech, uses Patrik Eliáš. I don't see what bearing that has on the issue here, aside from certain editors nationalist POV pushing issues.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 17:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. While I support this move as opposed to defenceman, trust me when I say it's not worth the headaches and shitstorm that comes every single time the diacritics are brought up. --Smashville^talk 20:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Trust me Ohms. When last I checked, the Wiki-hockey community was divided on the diacritics issue. Due to the division, we decided to compromise on the North American & Non-North American based articles. Let's maintaine the peace & tranquilty. GoodDay (talk) 20:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Both the above commenters, see WP:FORTHEPEOPLE. We should not be afraid of causing trouble, and we should especially not allow a debate to come to the wrong conclusion to avoid it. Eggs and omelettes come to mind. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 19:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Causing trouble = desruption, which is something we all don't need on the ice hockey-related articles. There's simply no consensus either way on diacritics, therefore the WP:HOCKEY came up with a compromise to stop what would've been indefinite bickering on the topic. GoodDay (talk) 20:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
  • One could start by looking in the mirror. For one thing, the comments directed to me specifically, on this page, are not at all appreciated. If you want to say something to me personally then do so on my talk page. I've been around for quite a while, and I've seen this sort of thing before, so I know that the motivation behind posting those replies here is less then the most honest, so I'm asking nicely that you both please stop. As for the issue that "this subject is too contentious", we're all at fault for allowing that to happen. This is the sort of thing that happens when you ignore a problem. It only becomes worse over time. If you don't want to participate in the debate though, you're welcome to remain silent on the issue. The rest of us are perfectly capable of making decisions without you. Now, can we return to the issue at hand?
    — V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 04:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Actually most of the people who have said it are probably your strongest supporters. You yourself need to stop assuming things and patronizing the people in the debate. Maybe you need to open your mind and actually think for a moment, that there is a reason people are telling you this. Sometimes they know that if you kick off this debate that you will then lead to 6 months of wars over other articles, people quitting wikipedia, us losing valuable editors etc etc etc. This has all happened in the past, sometimes there is a reason why situations exist, not just because we ignored, because we actively pursued this as the solution. Wikipedia is better served by current situation than by forcing change into a situation where it isn't actually needed except for a bias some hold. -DJSasso (talk) 14:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Believe me Ohms, nobody despises the usage of diacritics more then me (I've many witnesses to proove this). However, I've come to the realization that there'll likely never be a consensus for either the full inclusion or full exclusion. Thus my reasons for seeing another dispute as being a waste of time (at best), an all out fight (at worst). GoodDay (talk) 17:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
      • So, you've decided to be disruptive? Diacritics should neither be fully included nor fully excluded, since taking either extreme position would do wild amounts of damage to the encyclopedia. On the other hand, yourself, Djsasso, and WikiProject Ice Hockey have absolutely no authority to dictate to en.Wikipedia on the use of diacritics. At least after doing some research I can understand your own and Djsasso's unreasonable attitudes on this subject though. (incidentally Dj, your worth to the project is not tied in to this supposed "compromise" which you've held so near and dear for 2+ years now.) Anyway, regardless of the outcome here the need for wider discussion on this issue is obvious. This has been building up for some now, so its about time that we discuss it and reach an actual solution on the issue.
        — V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 04:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
        • I don't think that is a fair characterization of either GoodDay or DJ myself. Lets keep focused on the topic, not the individuals. The reasonability of an argument is in the eye of the beholder. Incidentally, could you wait until the weekend to launch the great diacritic debate? In theory, I'm participating in the dramaout, and would hate to have to join in that debate a little late. ;o) Resolute 04:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
        • Wow, can you get more condescending? Please comment on the proposal and not the editors. -DJSasso (talk) 12:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
        • And just for the record I think you misunderstand our comments, I would and I am sure the others also agree, that we would love for a wikiwide consensus to come about on the situation. We don't think we can dictate to the wiki at all. It's just that this has gone to a wiki wide discussion a few times and every time its shot down as no consensus. So in order to atleast have some order in our corner of the wiki we came up with this solution. Maybe its not a solution you like, and that is fine. But to say we are trying to dictate to the wiki how to do things is wrong. We only came up with this compromise because the wiki as a whole has be unable to do so on the multiple occasions its gone to a wikiwide debate. -DJSasso (talk) 13:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
        • WP:CIVIL. Seriously. There is absolutely zero reason for you to be commenting on editors. --Smashville^talk 15:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
        • WP:HOCKEY's compromise, covers 'only' ice hockey related articles, not the whole Wikipedia. Jumpers, we ain't that powerful. GoodDay (talk) 19:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support for obvious reasons. --Львівське (talk) 19:48, 20 January 2010 (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.

no longer has most points in a session as of April 11th 2023

he holds the franchise records for the most points in a season (96) this needs to be removed. 50.238.179.2 (talk) 22:27, 12 April 2023 (UTC)