Talk:Joaquín

Untitled

I have removed the citation needed annotation from "Joaquin ... is a derivation of the name of Saint Joachim." No citation is needed. This statement is not particular to Saint Joaquin. The names, 'Joaquin', 'Joachim', and 'Joaquim' are all forms of the same name in different languages.

'Joachim', of course, is not the name of Saint Joachim; that name was written with a different script and was pronounced differently. 'Joachim' is simply one of the several transliterations of the name into the Roman script, as are also 'Joaquin' and 'Joaquim'. The same name is also found in (at least) Arabic, Greek, and Russian (pronounced differently in each case, of course, and spelled with a different script in each case). -- Joaquin—Preceding unsigned comment added by JoaquinMiller (talk • contribs) 03:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Requested move 16 December 2024

Joaquín → Joaquin – If all 42 bulleted entries listed on the Joaquín page were accented, then the main title header should likewise retain the accent mark. However, since 12 of those entries do not use an accent and, since on English Wikipedia, it is necessary to type "Joaquin" to access this page, Joaquín should redirect to Joaquin, rather than the other way around. It may be also noted that a similar page, listing bulleted points under the header, San Joaquin, does not use the accent mark. — Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 02:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. RachelTensions (talk) 04:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 15:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support. Some names doesn’t use the accent. Theparties (talk) 07:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  The above user account was indefinitely blocked in the meantime. --Joy (talk) 19:12, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

• Just like in the case of Talk:Nikola Kalinić, I don't understand this logic. It's clearly a foreign name, that has a 'complex' foreign spelling and a 'simple' foreign spelling, but they're all still clearly foreign. In this case the 'simple' variant is used by less than a third of them, so technically it's even worse than the other case. I would have thought the failure of that discussion would have deterred further attempts to introduce this sort of weird one-drop rule against diacritics. (Oppose) --Joy (talk) 09:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - there is no possible reason to move this. The majority of uses are accented. Red Slash 22:14, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
• This discussion seems to really be a question of how to interpret WP:DABNAME, which has two bullets in support of this move (use English-language versions, simplest form of the name) and one in support of the current title (use the spelling that most articles on the DAB use). This seems like something where a wider RFC or RM would be useful, because I'm sure there are more DAB pages like this out there (though I guess this one is a name list, not a DAB, but they're pretty similar). Skarmory (talk • contribs) 14:25, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

  I wonder if these principles in the disambiguation guideline were actually added based on consensus, or just based on an old contentious discussion. I'll bring it up over there at WT:D. --Joy (talk) 08:00, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Anthroponymy has been notified of this discussion. RachelTensions (talk) 04:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. The current title is the predominant form, and the one without the accent cannot claim to be the "English" spelling, since that is Joachim. The only reason to prefer the unaccented form is to spare readers the trouble of typing an accented 'i', and the only reason that it's found this way in English is because it used to be hard to type accents on a typewriter, and English speakers don't seem to know what they're for or think they're important enough to learn how to type, hëåvÿ mêtäl bands excepted. I see no reason to encourage lazy spelling, when readers who can't type 'í' still arrive at the correct page thanks to a redirect. P Aculeius (talk) 05:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)