G'day John,
I fully understand that. The most common way you see Dvořák's name printed in English is "Dvořák," fully and diacritically correct.
That said, if the full policy is that the most commonly recognized English name for the person or thing addressed in the article is where the article should reside, then [[Jaromir Jagr]] is right where it belongs.
<snip />
English is not --- any longer --- the twenty-six characters we learn about in school. "Café" is still "café", even if a couple of very silly people in Millwall insist on pronouncing it "kaiph"; I find it rather astonishing that there are people who would be very unhappy at the idea that our article wouldn't spell it "cafe". "Göring" is "Göring", "Schrödinger" is "Schrödinger", etc., etc.
There are words we know best in their Anglicised form, and there are words (and names) which we don't. I appreciate your approach --- the most commonly recognised name, in English --- although I hope *you* appreciate that English is not just a language spoken in parts of North America ... and the views of an English-speaking fellow in Poland are just as important as those of someone who once rang up and complained because his copy of /TV Guide/ included diacritic marks over the names of a football player.
Displaying an Anglicised word because that's how the word is best-known amongst English speakers is bonza. That doesn't mean we need to operate with a deliberate bias against those funny little foreign characters used by funny little foreigners.
We're not saying "change Dvořák," we're saying "respect policy."
Fuck policy. Policy is a stick to hit stupid process wonks with until they're willing to do the Right Thing. If policy currently prescribes the Right Thing, then don't say "respect policy" --- it's senseless when you could just say "do the Right Thing". If policy is *wrong*, then don't say "respect policy", because then you'll be doing the Wrong Thing.
(Well, policy is also useful when the identity of the Right Thing is ambiguous. My alternative proposal --- everyone does what Mark Gallagher says --- hasn't quite caught on the way I hoped it might, so following policy can be a good compromise. But we should follow policy for a good reason, *never* "just because it's policy".)
Cheers,