Jump to content

Talk:Ana Ivanovic/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9

Requested move 21 November 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. Unfortunately, we've got another contentious discussion on the titling question that has not found a consensus one way or the other. !votes are evenly split and there are good points (and bad) on both sides. Given the way the discussion has gone and previous precedent, I see no reason to believe that leaving it open longer will lead to a decision, so I'm closing as yet another "no consensus". Cúchullain t/c 16:19, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


Ana Ivanovic → Ana Ivanović – It's been two years since last tried to restore this bio title from ASCII to Unicode full fonts the same as every other straightforward -ć bio or geo article on en.wp, let's have another try. See also general texts on Serbia such as Deliso Culture and Customs of Serbia and Montenegro 2009 p.61 "Ana Ivanović" or below Laurence Mitchell Serbia 2013 p.49: $$ Note - since the RM was proposed, on the last day of listing the focus of discussion has changed from WikiProject Serbia practice to the question of MOS:IDENTITY - relist, time needed for further discussion $$ In ictu oculi (talk) 12:43, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

However, it is probably in the field of tennis that Serbia receives the most attention for its sporting prowess. Female stars include Jelena Janković, former World No.1 (No 26 in 2013); Ana Ivanović, also former World No.1 (No.13 in 2013); and Jelena Dokić, World No.4 back in 2002.

Someone might introduce that Đ, đ in Gaj's Latin alphabet used to be written Dj, dj and that a very few Serbian names with Đ, đ are known abroad by D, dj. ..... please note that surname Ivanović does not contain the letter Dj. :) Thanks In ictu oculi (talk) 12:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I have been asked to clarify what is meant by "every other straightforward -ć bio or geo article on en.wp," in the proposal to restore to the same MOS as the rest of the en.wp European bio and geo corpus. Put simply, for those who aren't familiar with the previous RFCs MOS and guidelines, it means "find a single modern bio which (a) hasn't emigrated, (b) isn't a stage name or nickname (c) doesn't include a non A-Z consonant (such as Đ/Dj or ss/ß)". Hope this clarification is helpful. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:36, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Note Ana Ivanovic herself doesn't use diacritics. She signs her name without them, she doesn't use them in her personal twitter or facebook accounts (which she easily could), she doesn't use them on her own website (which she easily could). And she emigrated from Serbia to Switzerland (and now I hear she's in the UK). Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:59, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
That is not true, no more than many European people on media like Twitter In ictu oculi (talk) 19:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Some editors tried to explain previously that the current title is preferred according to WP:COMMONNAME. My opinion is that this issue is not a commonname issue. It is clear that the name commonly used for this person is Ivanović/Ivanovic, which is basically the same, only difference being the usage of diacritics. Many English language sources do not use diacritics and they render the name as "Ivanovic". Other sources that use diacritics render it as "Ivanović". Those are two variants of the same, most commonly used name. So, the question is whether to use diacritics or not. Since there is no policy on this issue, we have to look at other similar cases. If we already established consensus on similar cases, there is no reason to make different choice here. There are many similar cases, like Agnieszka Radwańska, Ágnes Szávay and Petra Kvitová. In all those cases, those sources that do not use diacritics render their names without them. Examples: New York Times uses Radwanska, Kvitova, Szavay, BBC uses Radwanska, Kvitova, Szavay, Chicago Tribune uses Radwanska, Kvitova, Szavay, and so on. Great majority of English language sources do not use diacritics, but Wikipedia does use diacritics in all those cases. That is because those sources that I mentioned above do not use diacritics, while Wikipedia does use diacritics. Looking at all those examples, it seams that Wikipedia does not use diacritics only for some Serbian persons, while it does use diacritics for absolutely all Czech, Slovak and Polish persons. Since Serbian language is similar to Czech, Slovak and Polish (all are Slavic languages), it looks like a discrimination to me to ommit those diacritics just for Serbs. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:04, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
    P.s. For those who say that Ivanović's Facebook page also uses "Ivanovic", I have to say that Radwańska's Facebook page uses "Radwanska", while Szávay's Facebook page uses (surprise!) "Szavay". Vanjagenije (talk) 16:10, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
    Yet they could spell it with foreign letters if the player wanted to. Those sites allow diacritics. The main reason used in the past for most players is that we can't use any newspapers, any tv, or any magazines as sourcing... but only because those entities don't have the capacity to use foreign letters (or so we've been told over and over). We use English sourcing if possible, and for a few players we have sources that do use diacritics. So we can't use those either now? We can't use a players' own handwriting or their own management team for a source? We can't use a persons' own websites for a source? Are we now banning every English source for every biography? Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:38, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
    @Fyunck(click): I'm just saying that at the moment, Wikipedia does not use English sourcing without diacritics for Radwańska or any other player, but only for Ivanovic and Djokovic. To me, it looks like a systematic bias against Serbian players. Even for Croatian player Marin Čilić Wikipedia uses diacritics (Serbian and Croatian are same language), although no English source uses them, and although he himself does not use them[1]. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:11, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
    We used to. And we tried to fix those players. But the person who started this rm stopped us on those players because at the time they didn't have their own websites, twitter accounts and facebook accounts to confirm they don't use them. We are supposed to follow the sourcing and you could help us do that if you see non-Serbian players with the same circumstances. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:57, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose This particular player uses Ana Ivanovic herself. Her own twitter account (where she could use a diacritic) she spells it Ana Ivanovic, her own facebook account she spells it Ana Ivanovic, her own website uses Ana Ivanovic, her signature does not use the diacritic. Maybe among childhood friends in Serbia she spells it the old way, but she lives in Switzerland and today she spells in Ana Ivanovic. No reason at all to make it inaccurate. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:08, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Total BS, "she spells it". As the editor behind the endless WP:TENNISNAMES disruption of 2011-2013 how can you come out again with this nonsense? As a fan of this player you know full well that she doesn't sit in a web company office in Slough setting up webpages, you also know that Twitter doesn't lend itself to using full fonts. When this RM is over I hope you will at least go through all the 100+ articles where you have removed the ć from this person and restore the the person to conistency with every other living person on en.wp. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:01, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
This is just more fabrication from a continual disruptive editor who multiple times I've had to have administrators stop his attacks on me. Take your tennisnames crap to some other venue... we don't need it here. And stop the personal attacks and stay on topic. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:17, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Also, I now see that another editor who is usually on the side of using diacritics (and who I often butt heads) had recently told you to let this one go because Ivanovic uses it herself on multiple websites. You obviously didn't heed his advice. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


If pretty much every single English source uses Radwanska... if in English Radwanska spells it Radwanska, if her personal twitter, facebook and own webpage spells it Radwanska.... then at this English Wikipedia, what the heck is it doing at Radwańska? All those sites can use diacritics if they want to... those players CHOOSE not not. We use sourcing here. It's bad enough that we can't use English sources like newspapers, tv, magazines, etc because someone says "they can't handle foreign letter." I say baloney to that, but it doesn't matter in some cases. Ivanovic chooses to spell it Ivanovic per sources that can use diacritics... and they are her own personal sites. Our standard is not to purposely spell it against sourcing. It's just like we do for Novak Djokovic. Not every tennis player decides to use the English alphabet, but some do, and we have to respect them and the sourcing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Unless there is signicpficant sourcing missing using the other spelling that makes sense. If they are two aricles, one with a name following English language sources, and another that does not, the answer should not be to have two articles that go against English language sources.--65.94.253.102 (talk) 06:07, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Sock warning - okay, predictable, given the history of this article as the last bastion of the anti-diacritics group and that more than one anti-diacritics editor has been permanently banned for socking, we're going to need a sock check on discussion here. Fyunck isn't a sock or sockmaster, but other anti-diacritic posts with recent account creation will sadly need checking. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:30, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. As I have said before in many places, Ana Ivanović is the only encyclopedic spelling, just as Agnieszka Radwańska is. People actually come to Wikipedia to learn the actual true spelling of a name, knowing that the big media and the tour have glossed it. The reason Ana is singled out for discrimination is because loudmouth(s) consistently oppose correct spelling in her case. They have no traction, these editors, in the case of Polish players simply because the Polish editors are too numerous, well-organized, and vigilant. Now, is this any way to determine content of Wikipedia. --Mareklug talk 15:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per her preference, reliable sources and WP:UE. Calidum T|C 18:04, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Her name is pronounced "Ivanov-itch" and not "Ivanov-ick". It's an -itch and never an -ick. Never. Some foreign commentators have very irritating issues with pronouncing Slavic diacritics. I would have the 'ć' bolded, capitalized, and blinking, so that people perhaps could start giving a damn about pronouncing and spelling names properly. No, but seriously, do it right.--Zoupan 19:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
    Including Ivanovic herself who has dropped the diacritic. What sources do you propose we use? Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
    That is a good point. I hope that the supporters here are not suggesting that the subject is not spelling her name correctly. I believe that should be an obvious exception since I don't believe that Wikipeida editors should be considered a superior source for the spelling of a subject's name than the subject.--65.94.253.102 (talk) 21:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
So, Western keyboards decide how a person spells (and pronounces) her own name? This ad writes "Ana Ivanovic", though she pronounces it "Hi, I'm Ana Ivanović". There is obviously a difference between writing and spelling. Her surname is spelled Ivanović.--Zoupan 16:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Well that's because there has been previous discussion of the exceptional nature of this article's status among Serbian BLP article corpus before on the Serbia project, but if there's an imbalance you've corrected that by notifying Tennis, so I suppose we're on an even keel. Let's proceed. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Western languages don't have the letter ć and hence there is no diacritic in Western (i.e. English, French) sources. Rather West-centric if you ask me. Perhaps Ivanović doesn't use it on her Facebook or Twitter (and she probably does it to conform to Western markets), but if you were to look at her passport and official documents her name almost certainly has a diacritic. 23 editor (talk) 15:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose for this case. Not an expert on this person, but from above, it appears she self-identifies without the diacritic? Current & continuing self-identification for someone still in the spotlight is a very strong argument for BLP IMHO. (Especially obvious for people who outright changed their last name to something else, e.g. during immigration to another country pre-1960 or so.) I think using the diacritic is fine when the subject's preference is not clear re: reverting some of Kauffner's other moves, but this one seems legit. SnowFire (talk) 15:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Excuse me, sorry, but how do you know that this Serbian person wants to be different from all other Serbian persons? From what the article says, Ivanović seems to be proud of being Serbian: "I cried also when the Serbian national anthem was played". Where is the evidence she "self-identifies without the diacritic", what has she said that indicates that she wants to be the only East European person on Wikipedia to be anglicized in this way? In ictu oculi (talk) 19:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
I am solely going by the other Oppose votes, which say that her Facebook / Twitter / etc. use "Ivanovic". If a semi-recent source can be found that the subject uses "Ivanović" than I will change my vote. Sources indicating Serbian patriotism are a null tell (I'd certainly not be in favor of removing accents from Serbians ambivalent about Serbia!). SnowFire (talk) 21:20, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Also, as a side note, there are plenty of Serbians who Anglicized "ić" in their last names to "ich" upon immigration to the United States - checking Serbian Americans, George Voinovich, Bill Vukovich, etc. They're better known by these names. I'm sure others changed their last names entirely. While it's fine to use ić in 98% of cases, if there's evidence of a preferred non-standard form of the name, it should be honored - ic, ić, ich, Smith, whatever. It's up to them, especially if there are other sources that back it up. SnowFire (talk) 21:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC) (EDIT: Also, before anyone corrects me, yes, I know that Ana isn't a Serbian American. It doesn't matter, it was just an example - it'd equally apply to Serbians who change their name in Serbia, ones who change their name in Argentina, etc. SnowFire (talk) 21:37, 24 November 2015 (UTC))
This Serbian has not emigrated. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:51, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
I already pre-emptively said I knew that in the edit above wondering if this kind of missing the point would happen. Whether someone emigrated or not is utterly irrelevant. In fact it's probably much more common now for emigreés to keep the diacritic these days. It's not a matter of geographical location, it's a matter of WP:COMMONNAME + subject's preference... you do realize that your "are they in Serbia" standard would involve forcibly dropping the diacritic for Serbians outside of Serbia even if it's consistently used and the subject self-identifies with it, right? I don't think that's what you want... SnowFire (talk) 15:03, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Just to be really, really explicit about my argument thanks to the derailing here: the topic of Serbian Americans was merely convenient examples, nothing more. The point is this: If hypothetically this tennis player has their Twitter, Facebook, website, and most news media reports call her "Ana IvaZZ*ZZ", then Wikipedia should call her "Ana IvaZZ*ZZ". No general standard for transliteration can override both self-identification AND a preponderance of sources. SnowFire (talk) 15:12, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Would you mind please answering the question; sorry, but how do you know that this Serbian person wants to be different from all other Europeans on Wikipedia? How do you know she wants to be the one person being singled out? In ictu oculi (talk) 17:06, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
How do you know that any of the other Serbians give a damn whether their name is spelt on Wikipedia with or without diacritics? If their social media pages don't use them, it's probably a safe bet to assume that they couldn't give a tinker's cuss if Wikipedia uses them. Moreover, for simplicity of the majority of their fanbase, diacritics are very difficult to type on a western keyboard, so no doubt they would be pleased to see the articles in a more accessible, more commonly spelt place. Really, time to start taking the advice of some other editors, drop this before it becomes a problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:04, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
P.S. Stop making fallacious claims. There are plenty of examples of other Europeans who don't have diacritics on Wikipedia, you just conveniently overlook them in your crusade. Statements such as "the only East European person on Wikipedia to be anglicized in this way" is a pure lie, so stop it now please, because there may be people engaged in this discussion who aren't used to your tactics of making fake claims to suit your personal opinion. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:11, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
User:The Rambling Man "pure lie" - firstly please see Wikipedia:No personal attacks, secondly please name one. If you fail to name one straightforward -ć bio, then you need to (a) apologize for calling me a "pure liar", (b) justify why this BLP should be singled out. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:17, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm really sorry I didn't notice that you had so many caveats in place to suit the naming criteria you applied, I really am. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:49, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Well this is the basis of titling across the whole encyclopedia, the basis of the guidelines, the basis of all previous discussions so it shouldn't have come as a surprise：＂same as every other straightforward -ć bio or geo article＂what else would "straightforward" mean other than straightforward. At least I take that as a grudging apology for calling me a "pure liar" but what would be better is not singling out this person to be unique on en.wp. Can you do that? In ictu oculi (talk) 11:43, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
You managed to manfully avoid answering most of my points, as you normally do. But to the point of your clarification, you are asking for "find a single modern bio which (a) hasn't emigrated...", and I suppose you would say the Djokovic has emigrated, as his Wikipedia article suggests he's a resident of Monaco (but doesn't reference that he's emigrated there in any way other than a couple of categories which aren't backed up by any reliable sources), and you would say that Ivanovic has not emigrated despite her Wikipedia article suggesting she's a resident of Switzerland. Or is it the inconsistent usage of categories which is causing the problem? We'll never know because these issues aren't addressed. Could you also point me to the guideline which supports the caveats you have suggested please, I have clearly overlooked that. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:06, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
To answer your questions. On (a) residence in Basel does not require taking Swiss nationality, as regards (c) please scroll up to "non A-Z consonant (such as Đ/Dj or ss/ß)", thank you. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:51, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I get it, you're making assumptions without reliable sources. Can you link the guideline that I requested please. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:57, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
As regards (a) the sources in the proposal Deliso Culture and Customs of Serbia and Montenegro 2009 p.61 p.79 p.80 "Ana Ivanović" and Laurence Mitchell Serbia 2013 p.49 confirm the BLP's nationality as Serbian not Swiss. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:02, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Don't be silly, both of them are Serbian, just one happens to live in Monaco (and is still a Serbian national), the other in Switzerland (and is still a Serbian national). And what you're now saying is that your claim to be following "the basis of the guidelines", you're not actually referring to a Wikipedia guideline? I see, well that's clarified things enormously, thank you. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:09, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
As above "(c) please scroll up to "non A-Z consonant (such as Đ/Dj or ss/ß)", thank you." - the surname Ivanović (see listing of all en.wp Ivanović bios) does not include a non A-Z consonant, such as Đ/Dj. It is therefore a straightforward -ć surname and WikiProject Serbia guideline across all Serbia bios is to use full Unicode fonts, the same as for any other European Latin alphabet language. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:19, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Where is the Wikipedia guideline you are basing your caveats on, please, as I don't seem to be able to locate it? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:20, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Please follow the link and if you can't find it then please ask at Project Talk. In the meantime, can I ask if you intend to apologize for "Statements such as "the only East European person on Wikipedia to be anglicized in this way" is a pure lie," or even that "pure lie" was inappropriate, because to call another editor a "pure liar", as you have done, isn't cricket, is it. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:25, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Please add a direct link to the Wikipedia guideline right here, that way others will benefit from it too. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:28, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
So there isn't a Wikipedia guideline then? If so, please link it directly here. If not, why pretend there is one? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:16, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello? Is this working? For the last time, before this descends further into farce than it already appears to be, please link the Wikipedia guideline to which you allude when you say "the basis of the guidelines". It would be most instructive to see where these guidelines have been enshrined in guideline-dom. After all, it would be terrible to think that you had just pretended that they are guidelines when, in fact, they are nothing of the sort. Clarification is essential here. Let's see it! For the record (!) I've now asked you five times to link the Wikipedia guidelines you have alluded to. If the guidelines you have alluded to are not actually Wikipedia guidelines, please let us all know so I can stop this line of questioning with which you are clearly uncomfortable, or else why would you be so unhelpful? I look forward to seeing the Wikipedia guideline(s) (plural!) that you have referred to above, as would, I'm sure, many of the other people involved in this discussion. Thanks in advance for that link. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
I am still waiting for an apology for being called a liar. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:12, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
It's fine, that won't be happening, you clearly have nothing in Wikipedia's guidelines to back up your "claim" of "guidelines" - if you do, then you probably aren't promoting falsehoods, but right now it's hard to tell because, as usual, you are failing again and again and again and again and again and again and again to answer the questions posed to you. You probably know by now that it looks really shady, almost dodgy! Let's see who's trying to pull the wool over our readers' eyes! Now then: PLEASE LINK ME TO THE WIKIPEDIA GUIDELINES YOU HAVE REFERRED TO IN ORDER TO SUBSTANTIATE A PORTION OF YOUR POSITION. If you can't, the cap fits, you should wear it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
You said: "Statements such as "the only East European person on Wikipedia to be anglicized in this way" is a pure lie," In ictu oculi (talk) 21:44, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
For the seventh time: PLEASE LINK ME TO THE WIKIPEDIA GUIDELINES YOU HAVE REFERRED TO IN ORDER TO SUBSTANTIATE A PORTION OF YOUR POSITION.. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Stop using caps. Take it easy. We know that a) her name is Ivanović. b) she pronounces it as such. c) the character set neglects the diacritic. Shall we be incorrect and lazy, just give the finger to orthography, despite being an encyclopedia?--Zoupan 23:20, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Actually, no, yes and no. We know that in English, Ivanovic herself spells it Ivanovic per multiple sources. She pronounces it however she wants but that makes zero difference. In the English language anyone can spell their name "Fred" and pronounce it "sink." That's their choice. And it's not a question of lazy and incorrect. It is sourced as "Ivanovic" by herself. Are we to go against Ana Ivanovic and millions of sources and simply ignore them in how we spell it? Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:58, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Should never have been moved in the first place. -DJSasso (talk) 20:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose nothing has changed, but if anything, there's even more weight behind not using the diacritic. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:59, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - and it looks like she has moved from her home in Switzerland and gone to the UK. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:49, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Calidum --Dweller (talk) 17:03, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support because this is not really a matter of spelling distinction for most English readers (it has nothing to do with using English per se, only whether you have an English keyboard), and it helps explain the pronunciation ('itch', not 'ick') that is also used in the English-speaking tennis world. Per WP:AT, the title has to be recognizable, natural, precise, concise, consistent, and common. Both titles are all that, really, and the nuances can be argued until the twelfth of never, because for some readers, the acute won't be recognizable, for some it will; for some readers any non-ASCII letter is unnatural, for some it's natural exactly because it's a foreign person; someone will say if it's precisely like in her passport, and someone will say it's precisely like in sources that tilt towards ASCII; someone will say it's consistent with all the other -ić people articles, someone will say it's consistent with some sources; someone will say it's common for diacritics to appear in the encyclopedia, someone will say it's common for them to be stripped in other sources. Lacking a serious argument to single out a handful of tennis players, I say make it so it shows up like the rest of Wikipedia, where there is never anyone complaining about the squiggly marks, curiously enough. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:54, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
    Yeah, but you need to be aware that according to In ictu oculi, it's okay to drop all that stuff under certain circumstances via "guidelines" which he is not prepared to link. Hence why Novak Djokovic and Monica Seles are just dandy (apparently) and why Ana Ivanovic is not. In all honesty, this discussion has clearly forgotten about our readers, wholesale. For the avoidance of doubt, this is ENGLISH LANGUAGE WIKIPEDIA and we work on reliable sources, pretty much all of which don't use the diacritic. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
    @The Rambling Man: If so, then why are Ivanovic and Djokovic only two articles that do not use diacritics, while Čilić, Ivanišević, Janković, Tipsarević, Kvitová, Radwańska, Tecău, Ríos, Năstase, Novotná etc. all use diacritics. There are almost no English sources that use diacritics for any of those players, yet Wikipedia does use them. There are currently only two articles about major tennis players that do not use diacritics. Your argument is obviously wrong. If there are so many articles that do use diacritics (all except two), then it is clear that Wikipedia's consensus is to use them. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:24, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
    There are a couple reasons why this is so. There used to be many that did not have diacritics, but one editor went on a crusade and made hundreds of changes with and without the consent of about 4 to 10 people. We throw the term community around but usually there are 4-10 !voters. Hey that's fair and square by wiki standards but that how most of them changed. Then there was an RfC with these same people that we have been forced to follow for years now (good or bad). It's not a guideline but it was an RfC. It said two things. 1) For tennis players, unless the players themselves can be shown to not use diacritics (signatures, personal websites, etc), then we use only sources from that player's country. No US sources. In fact, if a player does not show personal sources that refrain from using diacritics, then we must use diacritics no matter if 10,000 US/UK/Australian,or Canadian newspapers/books/tvs/radio/magazines say otherwise. It's so strict that we are not allowed to mention/spell a player's name without diacritics anywhere in the article for threat of being reported and blocked. In the past, unless a player is really really popular, they have not had personal websites/twitter accounts/facebook accounts/signatures that show they do not use diacritics in English. Ivanovic and Djokovic have had proof of personal usage in English of non-diacritics for many years so it's been easy to keep the titles in place... obviously till right this second. For some reason some think that even if we have all these extra sources, their names still must be spelled as they do in their birthplace. So that's why we're here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:43, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Ok! So then ask In ictu oculi why we're not changing Djokovic! Your "argument" is without any basis other than "other things do this so it must be right". Utterly flawed. We are English language Wikipedia, 99.9% of English language sources don't use diacritics at all. But thanks for your input! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
    @The Rambling Man: If that is so, than how is it possible that hundreds of pages about top tennis players have wrong, unverifiable titles, while only two have verifiable titles and nobody cares about that? How is it possible that Wikipedia community has two opposite consensuses about the same thing at the same time? Vanjagenije (talk) 21:35, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
    Well, according to In ictu oculi, one is legitimate because it meets some Wikipedia "guideline" which he is not prepared to link, i.e. Novak Djokovic is "fine" (as is Monica Seles by the way). The community doesn't have this consensus at all, it just grew tired of fighting against the diacritic crusade. Most of the people involved seem to be content that, despite this being English-language Wikipedia, every common name entered into the search box results in a redirect. Frankly, who cares. But it's a piss-poor state of affairs when certain editors claim that "guidelines" back up their position, especially when they aren't even prepared to link to them. Sad and pathetic. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose; Wikipedia's content is based on what is verifiable, rather than what is or is not. As has been noted above, the majority of modern sources use "Ana Ivanovic", including the athlete herself. That spelling is the most common, and coupled with her own usage of it, must guide us. Harrias talk 19:22, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment most of the supporters are neglecting Wikipedia guidelines (such as WP:COMMONNAME) while righteously striving for accuracy. It's worth reminding people that Wikipedia is founded on verifiability, not truth. The principal move requester (who is continuing to make page moves left, right and centre/center, all without any justification or consensus) has wholesale failed to back his own claim of relevant guidelines supporting his unique position. It's time now to start reacting against this kind of insidious editing, demand evidence and guideline or policy support for such single-minded and personally preferential edits. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose in this particular case per WP:ABOUTSELF and MOS:IDENTITY. We can't push a "self-"identification on a subject (much less a WP:BLP) that the self in question does not identify with in public. I strongly support properly using diacritics in any case where the subject uses them, but some "agency" like a lazy sports governing body or lazy national newspaper drops them. But it's fairly common for people born into families with diacritics in their names to professionally choose to drop them as adults, and we're not in a position to second-guess that. Just as we're also not in a position to side with third-parties who can't be bothered with diacritics to omit them when the the subject can be sourced as using them by personal choice.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:48, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
User:SMcCandlish, thank you for the courteous statement. When put like this we should take objection seriously. You are an editor I recognise and respect as competent, fair, and experienced on MOS boards, you're also not denying that this bio is all-but unique on en.wp, which editors coming from a project with few European bios (e.g. Category:Cricketers by nationality) may not be aware of.
But here's the thing, per WP:ABOUTSELF and MOS:IDENTITY the default is that someone who doesn't indicate a desire to not be known by their "native name" (as the Unicode has been called) should by default not be considered to not identify with (to deny) their nationality. The article clearly states that this BLP was representing Serbia at the Olympics and here is a photo of the BLP marching in Serbian colors at the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics. Nothing in this picture indicates that the BLP does not identify as Serbian, and would not want to be treated the same as every other Serbian bio per Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Cyrillic)#Serbian. User:Zoupan User:Joy User:Vanjagenije have already noted that Twitter and Facebook are not a benchmark of a person's national identity. Nor in this case is the Slough website. That website used to have a Serbian side, Serbian webpages - the fact that the pages have been removed from the server does not indicate a repudiation of Serbian identity does it? Wouldn't it just be the management company's marketing decision. Similarly as for residence in Basel, that shouldn't affect en.wp MOS for a Serbian resident in Basel. Looking at 06:34, 12 August 2013‎ we see the -ć from the BLP's name being removed for the third time in a year, and restored for the third time by a passing Switzerland editor shortly afterwards. Those editors clearly do not see residence in Switzerland as being an WP:ABOUTSELF or MOS:IDENTITY issue. Has the BLP expressed at any point in any form that she wants to be treated differently from other Serbians on en.wp? In ictu oculi (talk) 15:16, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is trying to suggest that she doesn't identify as Serbian, but that as an international celebrity, she has chosen to publicly spell her name Ana Ivanovic. Doing so does not make her any less Serbian. I think her residence and where her website is based are completely irrelevant to the discussion. As you suggest, living in Basel does not mean she has emigrated away from Serbia: obviously if she started to represent Switzerland, that would be a different issue, but she doesn't. However, her website, whether it be located in Slough or Belgrade, is hers. Obviously she doesn't sit down and write it herself, but if she wanted it to say Ana Ivanović, it would. Her name is her brand, and she has chosen that brand, that name, to be written Ana Ivanovic. Harrias talk 15:28, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
User:Harrias, first thank you for civil and friendly comment. Re the server, yes perhaps, but I think that everyone here understands that the issue here, given current en.wp practice, is en.wp precedent. So can you please give an example of precedent on en.wp where a European BLP has publicly chosen to spell their name without the basic diacritics (excluding additional A-Z consonant problems as Đ/Dj or ss/ß) of their current nationality. It would be very helpful if someone could demonstrate a precedent. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:16, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Precedent is important, and I will happily admit that with the exception of Djokovic, there doesn't seem to be another significant example, and as you say, Djokovic has other issues. But while precedent is important, there is no reason we have to be tied down by it. To be completely honest, in this case, I think there is a good argument for the article to be at either of the titles, and as such I don't think there is a strong enough argument that this is the wrong title. Harrias talk 16:24, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm agreeing with Harrias on this that residence and legal nationality (whether they coincide or not) don't trump an unmistakeable ABOUTSELF publication, in English, using "Ivanovic". I could legally change my surname to mac Cuindlis, as various "Celticists" are wont to do with their Gaelic names, then move to Botswana and become a naturalized citizen there, and later take up permanent residence in India, and it wouldn't affect how to spell my name, even if I publicly still self-identified as an American with a Scottish background. It wouldn't "really" be McCandlish just because the conventional anglicized (including American and including Scottish for that matter) spelling is "McCandlish". And my name right now, without all that what-if, is "McCandlish"; it isn't "really" mac Cuindlis because that's the proper, original Gaelic spelling, even if I were to be a Scottish Gaelic speaker and strongly identify as as a "Gaelic American" or whatever, if I didn't choose to use that spelling (and even if I'd been born with it). There's a subtle WP:OR problem here of trying to tie the Ivanović spelling to "Serbian identity" or "Serbian nationality" in the face of the subject's own clearly published, and self-published, choice in English. I'd be opposed to the Serbian Wikipedia spelling it Ivanović, too, for the same reason, unless the subject herself code-switches to that spelling in that language. It's enough to give the Ivanović version here, and probably at other Wikipedias, as the spelling of the birth name. I don't buy the WP:COMMONNAME argument, because the analysis results are polluted by sports organizations that refuse to honor diacritics no matter what the subjects prefer. We we never take seriously the idea that a sport organization or publication that rewrote all names like "Aleksandr" and "Karl" the English way as "Alexander" and "Carl" somehow trumped the actual, verifiable real names of sportspeople as they use them themselves. We have a responsibility to not aid distortion of the truth. But this isn't a case like that; it's analogous to someone born "Èibhlin" willfully choosing to be known in English as "Evelyn".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:58, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, again. I still disagree with the practice of adding diacritics to everything, especially in cases such as this where the number of English-language reliable sources that spell it "Ivanovic" far outweighs the number of English sources that use the proposed title. All large-scale RfCs attempting to alter any guidelines away from "use what the majority of reliable sources use" have ended as no consensus and most of the articles moved have been forced through in an attempt to create a fait accompli. But I have largely given up complaining about it because there are things here that I would much rather spend my time on. In a case like this though, where the subject herself does not use the proposed title and the reliable sources clearly prefer to use "Ivanovic", it is ridiculous to me that the article should be moved when our guideline on the topic says "The use of diacritics (such as accent marks) for foreign words is neither encouraged nor discouraged". Jenks24 (talk) 06:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi User:Jenks24 I think these are two different issues aren't they? (A) use of reliable sources, (B) use of diacritics. You see a disconnect between the results of RFCs on (A) reliable sources, and RFCs on (B) diacritics - of which there have only been two, the Hockey Names and Tennis Names RFCs, both of which came down overwhelmingly on the side of use of diacritics. Can I please suggest that there is no contradiction between (A) reliable sources and (B) diacritics, and the reason is WP:RSCONTEXT

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 in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article.

Whether you or I agree or not, it appears that en.wp editors across the BLP article corpus are taking "whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content" and applying it to sport magazines and websites with ASCII type fontsets and saying "sources which don't contain any diacritics are not reliable for spelling Spanish, Croatian etc names". That's what I think is happening, that is how I would explain the disconnect you see between (A) use of reliable sources, (B) use of diacritics. What do you think to this suggestion? In ictu oculi (talk) 09:15, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Can you link the ice hockey RfC? I can't find it. I can find the tennis names RfC (User talk:MakeSense64/Tennis names) and the consensus there is not "use diacritics", it's "WikiProject guidelines cannot overrule our article titles policy", something I agree with. The last actual RfC on the broad issue of diacritics in biography titles that I can find was Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)/Diacritics RfC which ended no consensus. I note on reading over that RfC that I was neutral and that my thoughts on the topic remain the same – until a consensus gets up to change the wording at WP:DIACRITICS to lessen the importance of what the majority of reliable sources use, then I will continue to oppose these types of RMs. If there is apparently a clear majority of editors who now favour diacritics, something that is often said but never proven, then it should be easy to get a clear consensus. The 2011 RfC could almost be copied word for word, it was a decent proposal.
I completely disagree that, for example, a biographical article on someone in a reliable source is not a reliable source for their name. To me, it is blatantly a reliable source for how the name is rendered in English. What seems to be lost on some diacritics crusaders is that diacritics are often dropped when translating into English, including by the subjects themselves, as this case so clearly demonstrates. And the real problem I have with accepting that any source that doesn't use the diacritic is unreliable is you are effectively saying "any source that doesn't use the title I prefer is unreliable". It is just an untenable situation to have a discussion from. Again, it comes back to getting a consensus to change the guideline wording – if a consensus is formed to change the wording to prefer diacritics regardless of the common name in reliable sources, then I will happily support these types of RMs.
As to the preponderance of articles using diacritics in their titles, frankly I have a low opinion of most of these editors who seem to go around and add a diacritic simply if it's a Slavic (for example) looking name. I work a lot on biographies of Australian sportspeople and these hit-and-run pro-diacritics editors often move articles on people with Slavic sounding surname with simply no regard to whether any sources use that title, whether the person was even born in Europe and has ever had the diacritic in any sort of official name, and whether the subject uses the diacritics on their various public profiles. So I cannot take the fact that a lot of biographies have been moved over recent years in what to me looks like an attempt to force a fait accompli as a reason for renaming any articles when we are looking through the hopefully objective lens of an RM. Again (and I know I'm repeating myself), I would say that if there really is such a preponderance of editors who favour diacritics then it should be fairly easy to get a consensus for that via an RfC. Jenks24 (talk) 10:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi Jenks24, thank you for courteous reply. To answer, as far as I know we do not add diacritics to Australians of Eastern European ancestry, or even those who emigrated to Australia and took Australian citizenship. In the case of the 3 RMs open at the moment none of the 3 has changed nationality.
As requested the link for the result of the Hockey RFC is at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ice_Hockey#Wikiproject_notice. As to WP:RSCONTEXT I only offer it as a suggestion why (A) and (B) above might not have the disconnect which you see. All the best. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:03, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Oh yes, I agree the Australians have little to do with this RM – I was just using it as an example of why I'm a bit sceptical of people who mass-move a lot of articles to add diacritics (thereby causing the scenario where diacritics are obviously prevalent in many article titles) without looking in to things properly, but that's obviously not to say that everyone who prefers diacritics does that.
And I do see your point now about RSCONTEXT – as I elaborated above, I personally disagree with that at the moment, but I understand how others can hold that view. Jenks24 (talk) 07:19, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Guideline reference request from In ictu oculi

I've now asked In ictu oculi at least seven times to show me where the "guidelines" he has noted in his comment which stated "... the basis of the guidelines ..." which is being used as some kind of substantive concept with which to back up this crusade. Seven times. I have yet to see such "guidelines". I am looking, explicitly, for Wikipedia guidelines, nothing more. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:59, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's a shame it had to come to this. Can you show me where the three caveats IIO has declared are noted in that guideline? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:09, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
I gave the project. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:16, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
What are you talking about, you "gave the project"? I asked for the guideline which includes your three caveats, or "the guidelines" that you've been using to substantiate this position. I've yet to see it. It's fundamentally important because you're claiming it to be something like a "guideline" where it appears to be nothing other than your own personal feeling on something. It's misguiding others so please clarify this situation. If you genuinely give a damn about the situation you'll actually be prepared to start speaking slowly and clearly and with links to all the relevant guidelines that you're quoting, including those which include emigration and the other caveats you've noted. Please do that as soon as is convenient. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:42, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Relist?

  • This is currently evenly split between East Europe and non-East Europe project editors, so is evidently going to need a relist, see also other editor's request on other 2 RMs for closing admin to address all 3 tennis diacritic RMs together, which will mean relisting all 3 tennis diacritic RMs together. Same issues in each case. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:00, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
    That, of course, is nonsense. We don't assess consensus based on the assumed origins of editors. I'm not sure how you believe that you understand the origins or heritage of any of the editors here, in fact to do so is insulting, assumptive and grossly negligent. I would advise that you stop doing this henceforth, it's something that only paints you in a worse light. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
    You also completely failed to demonstrate where the three caveats you claim to be "guidelines" are actually guidelines. Would you now do that, or are you going to persist with your disingenuous approach to this debate? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:08, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
As above, I do not engage with those either in real life or on Talk pages who indulge in personal abuse; "disingenous" etc, is just repeating the charge of "pure lies" above. Could you please stop using abuse language. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:39, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
As above, the community should not have to wade through your "version" of how these things should be. Stop trying to mislead the community and now provide the links to the Wikipedia guidelines that contain your three caveats. Finally, could you please stop avoiding the pertinent questions, as you have done for several years now. And for what it's worth, the word is "disingenuous". The Rambling Man (talk) 23:16, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) I'm skeptical this one would need to be relisted; haven't looked at the other two. Where an editor is from (or where someone thinks they're from) isn't tied to what opinion they express anyway, [I now grok that "East Europe editors" was intended to mean "editors on topics relating to Eastern Europe" not "editors from Eastern Europe"] but I don't think any admin would have trouble closing this RM. This isn't a case of irrational anti-diacritics campaigning. There simply is no more reliable source for a subject's name in English than what they themselves say it is in English.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:58, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
User talk:SMcCandlish, honestly when it was 8 support to 5 oppose, then yes, but following your and two other !votes it is now 8 support to 8 oppose. which means a relist has less point. And I personally would welcome an end to this. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:19, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Wouldn't we all. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:16, 29 November 2015 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Restore lead per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies

From

Ana Ivanovic (Serbian: Ана Ивановић, Ana Ivanović ;[3][4] Serbian pronunciation: [âna iʋǎːnoʋitɕ] ( listen)) (born November 6, 1987) is a former world no. 1 Serbian tennis player.

to

Ana Ivanović (Serbian Cyrillic: Ана Ивановић; [3][4] Serbian pronunciation: [âna iʋǎːnoʋitɕ] ( listen)) (born November 6, 1987) is a former world no. 1 Serbian tennis player.

This will restore what was the longstanding version before WP:TENNISNAMES and bring the lead into line with the examples in MOSBIO under WP:OPENPARA and WP:FULLNAME. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

But that would necessitate us moving the article to "Ana Ivanović" in order to meet the MOS requirements that the article title and references to it within the article should be formatted the same. And as you no, there's no appetite in the community to move this article. Nice try though. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
User:The Rambling Man, please link to such MOS requirements. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
And quite clearly you'd expect internal consistency wouldn't you?! No, after all, scratch that, the double standards you and Mareklug have adopted tell a different story. I'd start another RM if I were you, it's been a few months since the last one after all! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
No, not necessarily since Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies refers to mainly to article body not titling, and WP:FULLNAME refers to lead, as above. Again, please link to the MOS requirememts you refer to. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Oh ho ho, I think it's clear to see that you prefer double standards across Wikipedia, or else they'd be hell to pay about Novak. Perhaps it's because he's not a "trophy" "girl"? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Do you have a specific link to a guideline-conflict argument against MOSBIO or not? If the answer is no then MOSBIO should be followed in the lead of this BLP. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Do you have specific answers to the many questions you've avoided? Do you have a reason to believe that you need to add a diacritic to the lead? We have plenty of reliable sources, including Serbian ones now (thanks to Mareklug) that do not use a diacritic. And you have.........? crickets chirping The Rambling Man (talk) 14:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
For the record the "specific answers to the many questions you've avoided" are all un-related to this article and related to the special cases list (change of nationality, consonant change, monarchs, saints names, stagenames etc.) which don't relate to this article. If you want to start a discussion, then you are welcome to do so at the Talk pages of other articles. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Aha, of course. It would be entirely inappropriate to expect you to be helpful and demonstrate or explain the benefit to English-language Wikipedia of your double-standards approach. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ana Ivanovic article.

Per the verbage of many in the last rfc, Ivanovic and Ivanović are identical as far as wikipedia is concerned, and since it's a two way street there shouldn't be any mention at all of the term Ivanović. However, not being vindictive, if forever censoring Ilie Nastase is wrong, then likewise censoring Ivanović is also wrong. I would want what's most informative for our many English readers, regardless of squabbling. In Serbia, and probably several neighboring countries, sources indicate that Ivanović is often used. We have sources that in Serbia she spells it Ivanović and Ivanovic. Policy says the Serbian spelling has to remain in this article in prose, and it should be mentioned in the lead or first paragraph. I think as a tennis bio, it's important to mention it in the infobox as well (just as I do the obverse). Whether it comes first in the lead or later as (Serbian: Ana Ivanović) doesn't matter as much to me, as long as it's there to let readers know in some places it is spelled differently. We just had an RM that ended in July, and we know how it's spelled in English, so Ivanović can't be used throughout the article or with linkage, but it must be mentioned here. To do otherwise would be censoring. We don't censor at wikipedia... err.. I don't want to add to the censoring here at wikipedia. My thoughts. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Haha I just read this whole page. I love Wikipedia. On the topic - I haven't seen anyone adequately contradict the apparent fact that Ana Ivanovic herself spells her name without the diacritic in English language forums. And while I read many times the claim that this article must be treated the same way as another (with Jelena Jankovic repeatedly cited as 'the other' that must set the standard), many examples have since been given of articles where diacritic marks have been dropped. I haven't seen any adequate rebuttal here, so perhaps the insistence on "two for the price of one" has conveniently been dropped? Nathan T 16:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Stand by for IIO to pop by and tell you why your common sense and reasonable logic is entirely incorrect. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ana Ivanovic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:01, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Ivanovic / Schweinsteiger

I figured after seeing some back and forth on the main page that some dialog should be started here. Right now I see one source that said Ana was taking her husband's name, but with the caveat that professionally she will still be known as Ana Ivanovic. So all her endorsements, products, news, WTA, ITF will still all be under Ivanovic. Her checking account and gas bill will be under Schweinsteiger. We use the most common name here, plus the reason she is notable at all is because of tennis so "Ivanovic" should of course be what we should use for all things tennis. However there should be a mention of this in her personal life section. I assume we can find more than one source that confirms that legally she'll be Ana Schweinsteiger (or maybe Ana Ivanovic Schweinsteiger), but that for professional reasons she will be publicly using Ana Ivanovic for tennis and autographs. Just some thoughts. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:29, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ana Ivanovic. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 06:21, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ana Ivanovic. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 20:42, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 22 external links on Ana Ivanovic. 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) 07:20, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ana Ivanovic. 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) 19:27, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Ana Ivanovic. 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) 12:04, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ana Ivanovic. 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) 10:12, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ana_Ivanovic/Archive_8&oldid=1136516944"