Talk:Édouard Deldevez

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 03:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Solfege

He invented Solfege? I think Guido d'Arezzo was responsible for that. What was his actual role involving Solfege?

Michael 01:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was move. Obvious consensus this version is used in English sources, including high quality sources, and it satisfies WP:MOS-FR and other relevant policies and guidelines. Cúchullain ^t/c 20:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

---

Edouard Deldevez → Édouard Deldevez – French ballet composer per sources, cf. WP:FRMOS. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support per sources shown Agathoclea (talk) 11:04, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

  Which sources? -- PBS (talk) 11:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment @Iio: The relevant guidance for article names such as this is WP:AT (probably the section WP:UE and the supplementary naming convention Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). @Agathoclea What sources have been shown? Using a Google Book search on English language sources since 1990 "Édouard-Deldevez" -"Edouard-Deldevez" returns 2 books (only one of which is in English), while -"Édouard-Deldevez" "Edouard-Deldevez" returns 191. Further investigation will need to be done to see if this survey is representative of usage:

  "In general, the sources in the article, a Google book search of books published in the last quarter-century or thereabouts, and a selection of other encyclopaedias, should all be examples of reliable sources; if all three of them use a term, then that is fairly conclusive. If one of those three diverges from agreement then more investigation will be needed. If there is no consensus in the sources, either form will normally be acceptable as a title."

  — Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English).

  Also the accuracy there search needs to be checked because for example: Minor Ballet Composers: Biographical Sketches of Sixty-Six Underappreciated Yet Significant Contributors to the Body of Western Ballet Music by Schueneman and Studwell (Routledge, 1999) p. 31, returns a small biography using the name "DELDEVEZ, Édouard Marie Ernest", but this book found using this search [-"Édouard-Deldevez" "Edouard-Deldevez"] because of the index entry on page 122 of "Deldevez, Edouard" (presumably if 122 had used "Deldevez, Édouard" then the book would have been listed under the first search). The point I am making is that much more investigation into English Language usage needs to be done before an informed decision over what is common English language can be used to decide which is the appropriate title for this article. Until such time as the is done and common usage can be ascertained this page should not be moved. If you are really interested in the title for this article that most closely matches the criteria of the article titles policy then you need to do much more research. -- PBS (talk) 13:04, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:FRENCHNAMES coupled with usage in English reliable sources - what more do you want - a letter from the article subject begging you to spell his name correctly? Agathoclea (talk) 13:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

What does "correctly" mean? WP:AT advises using the same spelling as is using in reliable English language sources. If we follow that usage then we are ascertaining the usage in English language sources. Verifiability not what editors think is the truth. -- PBS (talk) 11:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello PBS,

Re your comment above

(1) Firstly doesn't the current state of WP:AT, including the section WP:UE and the supplementary naming convention Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)/WP:EN in part reflect your own edits to both expressing your own view? What if I, or others not-a-voting in this RM, were to go there and propose edits more clearly expressing consistency with WP:IRS "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context."?

(2) Secondly WP:UE example "Søren Kierkegaard" and WP:EN example "Tomás Ó Fiaich not Tomas O Fiaich" are neither of them based on the simple principle of majority in English sources, but on selectivity of a minority per WP:IRS of "best such sources"

"Søren Kierkegaard was" -"Soren Kierkegaard" -"Sören Kierkegaard" 8,450 results

"Soren Kierkegaard was" -"Søren Kierkegaard" -"Sören Kierkegaard" 13,800

"Tomás Ó Fiaich" -"Tomas O Fiaich" 566 results

"Tomas O Fiaich" -"Tomás Ó Fiaich" 9220 results

Since WP:UE example "Søren Kierkegaard" and WP:EN example "Tomás Ó Fiaich not Tomas O Fiaich" incorporate WP:IRS "best such sources", should not WP:UE and WP:EN text also be improved to clarify "best such sources"?

(3) Latin-alphabet European bio articles on en.wikipedia do not follow WP:UE and WP:EN as WP:UE and WP:EN have currently been edited. This RM is an example of why. Compare the following search:

"Édouard Deldevez" -"Edouard Deldevez" composer 6 results

"Edouard Deldevez" -"Édouard deldevez" composer 115 results

If we were simply blindly reproducing whatever is the majority in English sources we would be obliged to entitle the article "Edouard" - which is a name that doesn't exist in France, French-speaking Switzerland and Belgium, except in old metal-type and low-MOS websites sources, not in standard French orthography. As it happens however most Users (meaning content providers for en.wikipedia modern bio articles) are evidently from the state of articles like Édouard Manet aware that typographical limitations in English printed texts do not create exonyms of the "Edouard Deldevez is the English-exonym for Édouard Deldevez" variety. If anyone doesn't believe this Google Édouard on en.wikipedia. That suggests that there's a lag between WP:UE and WP:EN text and en.wikipedia article reality. WP:UE and WP:EN (despite examples "Søren Kierkegaard" and "Tomás Ó Fiaich not Tomas O Fiaich") seem to have kept out clear guidance on "best such sources" for the spelling of accented European names.

(4) I've asked this question so many times that perhaps it is one reason why I've been accused of "tenacity," but then those who avoid answering a question are equally or more tenacious. Anyone who opposes this RM, or opposes clearer guidance at WP:UE and WP:EN please cite 1x an accented Latin-alphabet European modern bio (excluding change of nationality, monarchs, wp:stagename and ß as usual) that is not accented on en.wp. I hope we will not see tenacious avoidance of such a simple and basic question.

In ictu oculi (talk) 16:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Iio, you I think you are using a tautology to argue you point by saying the sources that you think are the "best" are those that support you view that Édouard is best. Besides Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources is a content guideline, this is a question about the article title not the content and article titles are deicide by among other things common usage in reliable English language sources. I am disinterested as to where the article resides, but you really need to do far more investigation than you have, and your assumptions about "except in old metal-type and low-MOS websites sources" is not valid as I was careful to run the analysis with Book sources published since 1989 that means the survey I ran was not intended to use Websites or old texts. It appears from the search you did, that you did not limit the search to modern texts or to English text. "If we were simply blindly reproducing whatever is the majority in English sources we would be obliged to entitle the article 'Edouard'". Did you read all what I wrote above? Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) does not recommend that is done, and nor did I. There should be no "blindly reproducing" but a careful analysis of the available reliable sources to see what is the most common usage in reliable English language sources. If that is "Edouard Deldevez", that is what should be used (a few older sources name him Edward Deldevez), if it is "Édouard Deldevez" then that is what should be used. But at the moment you have not produced any evidence that usage in reliable English language sources tends towards "Édouard Deldevez", and neither have those who supported you proposed move. You seem to think that the majority of reliable English language sources use "Edouard Deldevez", so you really need to do far more analysis than you have to justify a move.

BTW your search on "Søren-Kierkegaard" is flawed. Instead of using either a Google Scholar or Book search you used a general Google search. This will return lots of unreliable sources. Using a Google Book search without without any year limits "Søren-Kierkegaard" -"Soren-Kierkegaard" returns about 463,000 reversing the search returns about 299,000."Søren Kierkegaard" is used as an example because the majority of English language sources spell the article title that way. -- PBS (talk) 19:52, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello PBS

(1) WP:IRS "best such source" is not a tautology Definition of "reliable source" states "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context." There is no second definition for "reliable source in article title" vs "reliable source in content", reliable source = reliable source, period.

(2) The search is not flawed, the reason for running a search in Google Books on "Søren Kierkegaard was" vs "Soren Kierkegaard was" is to restrict the comparison to book content and not pick up Google Books' own entry of author name in Google Books' cataloguing, or mentions of Danish books in bibliographies and footnotes in the actual text. The like for like comparison shows "Søren Kierkegaard was" 8450 in English language paragraph context results vs "Soren Kierkegaard was" 13,800 results. (There was no need to do that for Tomás Ó Fiaich as he is less catalogued as an author).

(3) No, of course there is no evidence that per WP:EN "usage in reliable English language sources" tends towards "Édouard Deldevez" - because it probably doesn't, not even in older French metal type sources. This is the point, the current wording in WP:EN, to which you have contributed, is misleading and ambiguous. It doesn't remind Users (or remind those who have edited WP:EN themselves) that "reliable" is defined by WP:IRS = "The reliability of a source depends on context." and "best such source for that context."

So no. "If that is "Edouard Deldevez", that is what should be used" - why? says who? Why should it be? As above WP:UE example "Søren Kierkegaard" and WP:EN example "Tomás Ó Fiaich not Tomas O Fiaich" don't blindly follow majority sources as the searches above show, then why should any other example?

Another example WP:FRMOS uses Évisa article as a title example for retaining the accent on É, this again follows WP:IRS "best such source for that context." not the majority of sources:

-Evisa Corsica 829 results

Evisa -Évisa Corsica 5,370 results

This is illustrated in this edit to WP:AT section WP:COMMONNAME. We do not simply follow the majority spelling for Søren Kierkegaard, Tomás Ó Fiaich, Évisa in otherwise reliable sources, we follow WP:IRS. Whether editors on WP:COMMONNAME allow the word "otherwise" into the sentence or not, this is the reality of how editors work and where article titles are.

(4) As above it would be helpful if you please cite 1x existing en.wikipedia bio title you agree with. Thanks.

Best regards. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:40, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:IRS is not a tautology you usage of it is to justify excluding sources that use a spelling you do not like is. -- PBS (talk) 11:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Iio, you seem to have wandered off topic. Even if we were to throw away 9 out of 10 books returned by the book search the name spelled "Edouard Deldevez" would still be the most common used in reliable English language sources by a factor of 19 to one. If you want the page moved then please bring forward evidence that Édouard Deldevez is the most common spelling in Reliable English language sources.

• Support: Proposed name is more accurate - reflecting what reliable sources say - and no less readable; what's not to like? bobrayner (talk) 16:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

  What does "more accurate" mean? To which reliable sources do you refer? -- PBS (talk) 11:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose until is is shown that Édouard Deldevez is the most common spelling in reliable English language sources (per WP:AT). To date those who have expressed an opinion that this page should be moved have not produced any evidence to show that Édouard Deldevez is the usual spelling of the man's name in reliable English language sources published over the last quarter of a century. A simple Google book search indicates that only one book published since 1990 uses the name "Édouard Deldevez" instead of "Edouard Deldevez" (which is used in 191 books), as I have indicated above, there are problems with this simple approach and further analysis needs to be done, but the onus is on those who wish to move the page to show that "Édouard Deldevez" is the name commonly used in reliable English language sources. -- PBS (talk) 11:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi PBS,

Obviously I don't share your view that it is an encyclopedia's job to reproduce low-MOS diacritics in the majority of English sources. But at least, could you please support your view by answering the questions given:

(1) citing Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (WP:IRS) is not off "wandering off topic", unless someone actually disagrees with WP:IRS definition of "reliable" being applied to titles. Question: Do you agree with the "Definition of 'reliable source'" or not?

(2) Question: do you accept the numbers above which show WP:UE example "Søren Kierkegaard" and WP:EN example "Tomás Ó Fiaich not Tomas O Fiaich" follow WP:IRS "best such sources", not "majority English sources"?

(3) "Édouard Deldevez" is not the name commonly used in the majority of English sources. Question: Who supports the idea that we must blindly follow the majority of sources? It isn't an encyclopedia's job to reproduce poor sources.

(4) since WP:UE has been edited by yourself, it is not off topic here to ask you to cite 1x article on enbaike.710302.xyz you agree with. Question, what is the 1x article?

Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

You are still not doing the analysis to explain why you support a move that contradicts the two searches you did:

• "Édouard Deldevez" -"Edouard Deldevez" composer 6 results
• "Edouard Deldevez" -"Édouard deldevez" composer 115 results

of the 6 books returned by the first search AFAICT only two of them are English language books and only one of them was printed in the last quarter of a century. On the first page of the 115 results all of them are in English which ones do you think are poorer sources than the one book left from the Édouard Deldevez" composer search. For example how do you explain away (Charlton (Cambridge University Press, 2003) p. 107) which uses "Edouard Deldevez" on a page with plenty of accent marks on other words? How does it fit into your assertion of justifying going against the WP:AT policy by "reproduce low-MOS diacritics in the majority of English sources"? Or put another way which of the books returned in the first page of the "Edouard Deldevez" are not reliable. Well lets dismiss all those over 25 years old (four books) lets dismiss the one based on Wikipedia. That leaves us with 5 books which of those do you think are unreliable? -- PBS (talk) 00:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello PBS

I believe you are misreading WP:AT, but in any case WP:AT is in flux due to edits you have contributed to, which I believe are against the community consensus of where article titles actually are.

It would really be very helpful if you would answer questions:

(1) - unanswered

(2) - unanswered

(3) - unanswered

(4) - I still cannot locate the place where you have replied to my repeated question to cite 1x Wikipedia modern (etc) bio title you would agree with. Can you either provide the link or answer?

(5) - not answering questions does not mean I cannot ask new ones. Related to this particular RM as a second question. What is the name here - if written in unicase in French, is it "édouard," or "edouard"? Is it pronounced "édouard," or "edouard"? Is it a different name from "édouard Manet" or "édouard Daladier"?

To your question, my answer; all 115 English sources returning "Edouard Delvedez" are unreliable for capital É according to French orthography as confirmed by WP:FRMOS. How do we know this? In the case of about 20-30 of the 115 it is because they do not carry any French accents, and are thus not by Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources "reliable for the statement being made." Untypically, since this is a classical-music area the majority of the 115, about 85-95 of 115, do carry other French accents, just not majuscules such as É. But that still makes them not by Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources "reliable for the statement being made."

Definition of "reliable source"

The word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings:

the piece of work itself (the article, book),

the creator of the work (the writer, journalist),

and the publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press).

Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other editors.

Context matters

The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context.

How do I "explain away" (why "explain away"?) (Charlton (Cambridge University Press, 2003) p. 107) which uses "Edouard Deldevez" on a page with plenty of accent marks on other words? Why do you think - because Cambridge University Press in 2003 was not using a character set equipped with majuscule accents for this book. See the mentions of Émile Deschamps, various Etiennes, various Edouards. Which is why we are heading to "the best such source for that context" from where we get the source in the article footnote R. J. Stove César Franck: His Life and Times 2011 Page 62 "Its reporter, who signed himself only with the initials “ED,” has been variously identified as Édouard Deldevez — who later became.." Note that Stove's book is a 2011 source, and therefore more equipped to use majuscule accents than pre-2000 books in English. Your "25 years old" is way too long. This only really became possible easily since 2000, as anyone who has worked in publishing should be able to tell you. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

"To your question, my answer; all 115 English sources returning "Edouard Delvedez" are unreliable for capital É according..." So only books that spell the name the way you prefer is reliable. This contrary to the Article Title policy, and there is no point continuing this debate as you are not willing to debate the issue within the context of WP:AT policy. I hope that the closing administrator notes that you suggestion for moving this article is not based on policy but on you own personal preference as you will not even that continuance University of Cambridge published books on a subject are reliable if they do not fit in with you ideas of what is the "correct" spelling of a name. -- PBS (talk) 15:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi PBS

Can you see above where I have asked 5 questions:

(1) - unanswered

(2) - unanswered

(3) - unanswered

(4) - unanswered

(5) - unanswered

Is there any reason why someone, anyone, should argue a view on diacritics strongly since 2006, make many edits to WP:AT, WP:EN, WP:MOSPN reflecting their view on diacritics, but not answer questions about their view?

As regards your statement, I'm assuming "as you will not even that continuance" means "as you will not even countenance", then no, I don't think anybody serious will countenance that a book published in 2003 with a character set excluding French majuscule accents is a reliable source for whether a French name has majuscule accents or not. The only way one can distinguish a French Edmond (no accent) and a French Édouard (cf. Edmond Aman-Jean vs Édouard Manet) is by having a source "reliable for the statement being made".

Re the current sorry state of WP:AT let's be clear, I am not the only person who does not agree with your edits to WP:AT. The WP:AT guideline desperately needs the actual "definition of 'reliable'" - "reliable for the statement being made" from Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources to be inserted into the text to make clear what "reliable" means.

Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support – The Library of Congress authority file [1] uses the accented form. The British Library is part of this project, so also uses it. These English-speaking librarians can make mistakes of course, but they do have access to lots of source info. --Robert.Allen (talk) 02:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support – subject is French – there is no such thing as "Edouard" in French, only "Édouard". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:45, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

  Just because there is no Edouard in French (I'll take you word for it -- but not one ever so named?) does not restrict English language usage to French rules. If we were to follow that to its logical conclusion does that mean all the article that start "Guillaume" in French should be renamed to William if they are about an English person? I think not because usage should be based on what is used in reliable sources in the target language of the specific Wikipedia not what is used in other languages unless there is little to no usage in target language. I note with interest two French articles Guillaume le Conquérant and fr:William de Cambridge both presumably based on usage in French reliable sources. Would your logic mean that Guillaume should be the spelling used by the English for the the article on the Conqueror? What should the French and English rename the article on fr:Guillaume III d'Orange-Nassau and William III of England] to the Dutch spelling? What about fr:Guillaume IV du Royaume-Uni William IV of the United Kingdom? It seems to me much more sensible to base names on those used in reliable sources of the target language so that inconsistencies such as different usage between Guillaume and William are sorted out by reference to sources rather than arbitrary rules based around what some editors think is correct. -- PBS (talk) 16:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

PBS, you have been politely asked many times to please not to bring arguments drawn from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) into non-royalty and nobility bio discussions. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) is the more general guideline and includes examples: Antoni Gaudí and Teresa of Ávila. Also Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies which has example from François Mitterrand.

There are several questions outstanding for you. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:12, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

@PBS: 1) I have no idea about the naming rules on the French Wikipedia, but I expect them to be different from those here. 2) Comparing naming conventions for English royalty and William the Conqueror with Deldevez seems, er, hysterical. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:37, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

• William the Conqueror is a particularly unhelpful example, because he is part of both English and French history (he and his successors retained and ruled some French territories along with England). Also, names from long ago were often anglicized (e.g., "Joan" of Arc) and we often retain those entrenched names to this day, whereas the modern practice (19th century and later) is to be culturally sensitive and preserve the original name. Finally, I don't know about France, but in Quebec the name "William" has actually been the most popular name given to baby boys in French-speaking families for several years running (while "Guillaume" is ranked 77 and falling).[2] So all in all, this example you cite is not indicative of anything in particular. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 09:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support — this is a French person and his name in French unquestionably has a diacritic (although in the metal typesetting era it was not uncommon for diacritics to be omitted on capital letters for purely practical reasons, this would never be omitted in a French encyclopedia). In English, careful scholarly sources — the most reliable — do not omit such accents, although more mainstream sources sometimes might, and Wikipedia should emulate the former and not the latter. Philip Baird Shearer appears to insist that we must do a massive amount of original research to perform an indiscriminate "diacritic census" across all sources, weighting those that are carefully copy-edited and proofread equally with those that are not. It seems more reasonable to adopt a general rule that privileges the most reliable sources, including other encyclopedias, and it is no surprise that these tend to be more careful about diacritics. For instance: Grove's Dictionary of Music and Musicians, vol. 1, p. 686 (published 1904) [3] — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 02:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
  • If the name is to reflect English usage then research needs to be done. It is not original research to check for sources, if it where then nothing would be added to Wikipedia because no one would be allowed to add anything which had been looked up in a source. If I ask you how do you know "French person and his name in French unquestionably has a diacritic" you will have to look up the facts in sources and provide those sources to me to prove it. Asking that research is done to see common usage in English is no more original research than any other sort of research carried out to provide information for a Wikipedia article. You have produced one book from 1904, not exactly a new publication, if you were to look at what I wrote above, I noted Minor Ballet Composers: Biographical Sketches of Sixty-Six Underappreciated Yet Significant Contributors to the Body of Western Ballet Music by Schueneman and Studwell (Routledge, 1999) p. 31, returns a small biography using the name "DELDEVEZ, Édouard Marie Ernest". However that does not get away from the fact the the vast majority of English language books listed by Google in the last quarter of a century use the spelling of "Edouard Deldevez". Wikipedia is a source based encyclopaedia, Wikiepdia should follow sources and spell names the way they are usually spelt in reliable soruces, so unless it can be show that "Edouard Deldevez" is an aberration then the spelling used on Wikipedia should follow that in reliable sources. You seem to be using the same logic as Iio, when you write "In English, careful scholarly sources — the most reliable — do not omit such accents" (you logic seems to be if they do omit accent then they are not "careful scholarly sources") but the evidence provided by Google Scholar does not support you AFAICT all the papers returned in the last quarter of a century do not use "Édouard Deldevez" but use "Edouard Deldevez" (there are only a few and because they are restricted there may be OCR errors). If a search is put into Google Scholar for on "Édouard Marie Ernest" only one item in the last quarter of a century is returned and it is the book I mentioned previously (Schueneman (Routledge, 1999)). -- PBS (talk) 16:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

    But encyclopedias and dictionaries are considerably more likely to use diacritics in English (e.g., the Minor Ballet Composers: Biographical Sketches book you cite and the Grove's Dictionary of Music: reference books consisting of multiple entries where the person's name is the title of the entry). These are the careful, scholarly, and encyclopedic reference works — in a word, "reliable" sources — that should be given greater weight, and should be what Wikipedia emulates. When a person's name is the title of a biographical encyclopedia entry, the editors often take considerable care to get it right; when a person's name is simply mentioned in passing in prose passages of various other books, it has already been observed that they sometimes don't bother with diacritics. But the latter sources should not be given the same weight as the former. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 09:32, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

    I do not think we should give much weight to a book that is over 100 years old. If the numbers of were closer then I would agree with you that usage in the book I have found would carry more weight, but one swallow does not a summer make. There ratio in favour of the spelling Edouard Deldevez in English language books is running ratio of many tens to one, with those sorts of numbers we shoudl follow common usage in Reliable English language sources. -- PBS (talk) 19:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

No evidence whatsoever for these assertions. You are obviously just doing simplistic google book searches without actually looking at the results or paging through to the end. And, as has been pointed out, accents on capital letters were not even available for printing in older sources in some cases, so the only valid sources for your claim would be those that had É on some names but *not* on his; no such sources have been produced yet. On the other hand, I've given at least 10 sources below, recent, that use Édouard properly; your blatantly false and misleading assertions about #s of books just serve to illustrate how much you are misusing google search in this instance.--KarlB (talk) 20:54, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support per nom. HandsomeFella (talk) 12:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

  The nominator say "per sources" What source have you examined to support the nominator? -- PBS (talk) 19:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• support per nom and PT Aufrette. This is not simply a source-counting contest, we strive for accuracy and high quality sources. If 100 sources say X but one high quality source says Y, we should consider Y instead of X. (this is commonly done in medical articles for example). The assertion that the name Edouard does not have an accent in French is just silly and barely merits a response. Google books is also not a great source, b/c of OCR issues with diacritics.--KarlB (talk) 03:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

  No one is Suggesting that French sources may spell the man's name differently. However we base our analysis on usage in modern reliable English language sources. Do you have any evidence that the Google books search in this case is not returning accurate results? -- PBS (talk) 19:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

This seems to be a bad case of WP:IDONTHEARYOU. Have you ever actually looked at the books returned in the google results? I've just looked at several; they show up as Edouard in the search, but in the actual book they show up as Édouard -> thus OCR issue, which manifest itself especially with capital letters. Here are a few examples from 2 minutes of searching, that don't show up if you eliminate "Edouard" from the search: [4], [5], [6], [7],[8],[9],[10],[11],[12],[13]. Perhaps you should read WP:GOOG --KarlB (talk) 20:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. This request was made more than seven days ago, and there really only seems to be minimal, if verbose, opposition to it. Shouldn't it be closed by somebody at this point? --Robert.Allen (talk) 17:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

  This is not a vote. It is a matter of weighing the evidence and deciding on the correct name based on reliable English language sources. You have provided a piece of information about the cataloguing of this person in the US congress library. If the sources were anywhere close to parity then I think that like the Minor Ballet Composers they would be pivotal, but as it appear that the ratio of usage is may tens in favour of "Edouard". If you have evidence that this is not the case then please supply it. -- PBS (talk) 19:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

PBS, this may not be a vote, but it is an expression of overwhelming community disagreement with your interpretation of "reliable" which runs counter to WP:IRS Definition of "reliable source" which states "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context." If you consider that WP:IRS is wrong then can I suggest that you go to the WP:IRS Talk page and propose a change in the Definition of "reliable source" . In ictu oculi (talk) 03:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• an analogy PBS's argument is analogous to looking at black and white photos and then deciding that in the 1920s everyone wore black, white and grey as a result. If you want to know what color people wore, you have to look at color photos. If you want know whether the name has an accent over the É, you must find a source that is capable (and willing) of putting an accent over an É, and then see if they skip it for our friend Édouard. To date, any English-language source we *have* found that is demonstrably capable of putting an accent over the E has done so for Édouard. PBS' argument about ratios is thus bogus and misleading.--KarlB (talk) 04:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: after 14 days 8 favour, 1 oppose - consistent with WP:IRS. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:48, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Édouard Deldevez. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091006100051/http://hector.ucdavis.edu/sdc/ to http://hector.ucdavis.edu/sdc/

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) 20:02, 20 December 2017 (UTC)