Jump to content

Talk:Novak Djokovic/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Move-warring ...

... is massively disruptive and a number of controversial moves have been done already today. Page is move protected now. Guys, please work out this spelling issue on the talk page first, then let me know when you have reached some agreement. Thanks - Alison ❤ 06:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Have you read this talk page at all? Efforts have been made to reach consensus on the talk page, and when they failed, mediation was attempted and blocked by users on one side of the issue. --Tkynerd 16:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Tkynerd, please be nice to Alison, the administrator wanted to help calm the situation down and did the right thing by move protecting the page, because there is no consensus for the move and the page can not be moved until there is strong support of the move (but I doubt there will be one, only 2 or 3 users strongly support the move). --GOD OF JUSTICE 20:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not being "not nice," I'm just pointing out that agreement appears impossible to reach and dispute resolution has been blocked by one group of users. --Tkynerd 23:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I've pointed it out before, but it seems User:Yano has very few edits on Wikipedia, and has not edited Wikipedia over one year and returned to discuss this particular issue on September 5th. Because of this I'm not really sure why or how he feels so strongly about renaming this article. // laughing man 23:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Nor do you need to know. Yano, like me, is reasoning based on Wikipedia policy, which can't really be faulted. The fact that other people, including you, have a different view of Wikipedia policy is no reason for you to question Yano's motives. --Tkynerd 23:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
This might be a case of meatpuppetry or sockpuppetry. I'll investigate in the coming days. --GOD OF JUSTICE 23:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I think you should be much more careful about throwing those accusations around lightly. --Tkynerd 23:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't accuse until I investigate. --GOD OF JUSTICE 23:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Um, I hate to tell you, but you've already accused by implication. You would have done better to keep your keyboard shut until you investigated (and after that as well, of course). --Tkynerd 00:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
We can rule out sockpuppetry, I'd already thought of that but it's been checked out privately and came back clean. That being said, the issue of the edit history is of some concern. Orderinchaos 06:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
You'd already thought of that? I don't know under what conditions you found this discussion, but if I was one of the first people you suspected of impropriety, then those conditions certainly did not favor sound judgment of character. :-) I'll also assume the benefit of removing suspicion was worth the possible inflammation caused by your ribald divulgence. -- Yano 07:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Blame poor wording - I'm quite tired at the moment due to a chronic workload of university assignments. It had been suggested by others in the text on this page, which was the reason I got it checked out. As it came back negative (and effectively can be dismissed as a concern) I saw benefits in raising that outcome here as it would stomp on allegations that were being made and would stop a pointless argument over something that had been proven false. Had it unexpectedly come back positive, as far as I understand it, I would not be permitted to make that claim on this page as Wikipedia is protected by privacy laws as apply in Florida and only checkusers who have been selected by the Foundation can make that info public. As for how I found this discussion, I had seen reference to the RfM on a talk page while looking for something unrelated and thought that I might have been able to help by offering an outside opinion on the subject matter. I actually find it depressing that it's *had* to go to dispute resolution. Orderinchaos 11:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Is there some sort of arbitration on Wikipedia? Someone who hasn't wrote on Đokovic's page, and who can add a professional and neutral opinion? Because, I think, we could discuss until next millennium, I not go vary far. --Göran Smith 00:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. I would like an arbitrator. -- Yano 00:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I should note at this point I have never edited the article and was completely unaware of this dispute until yesterday. I'm neutral in the sense that English is my sole language, I am an admin who normally deals with Australian geography and politics articles, and I came here by seeing a link on someone's talk page to the failed mediation. My interest is more in getting it right than in favouring one side or another. I think the problem is there is two entrenched sides here and neither will budge. I'm going to raise a case on RFARB when I get time this afternoon - note ArbCom may refuse to hear it, but given the intractability of this dispute and the failure of other dispute resolution mechanisms, as well as the seeming endorsement of one side in an RfC on this page which has ended us no less certain, I think there's a reasonable chance they'll go some way to resolving it. Orderinchaos 06:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the RFARB! But I hope in a "seeming endorsement of one side in an RfC on this page" you aren't including the editors who were invited via forum shopping. The link to this discussion is still available on the WP:SERBIA Talk page, and while the editor who put it there did it in good faith, it has nonetheless built a few needless trenches, and may yet build more. At least six of those opposing the move, for example, are members of Project Serbia and likely did not arrive here via the RfC. -- Yano 07:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
It's now been filed as a request at Arbcom's main page. The issue is complex and I don't think anyone involved has acted in bad faith. Orderinchaos 08:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I really don't want to get involved in your dispute but have you ever thought about asking Novak himself which spelling he would prefer? I have found this on his website: Contact Novak: nomadjo@novak-djokovic.com
Pumukli 17:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

That would constitute original research, which isn't allowed. Thanks anyway. --Tkynerd 22:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

/* 2008 */

I have edited the information regarding the uniqueness of recent Djokovic's victory against Roger Federer (considered the first ever lost by the swissman in straight sets in a Grand Slam tournament. Actually Gustavo Kuerten of Brazil have defeated him by 6-4 6-4 6-4 on the third round of 2004 Roland Garros Grand Slam tournament). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.26.53.45 (talk) 04:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

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 Completed. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 12:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Move

After investigation, I've come to the conclusion that this article's title is incorrect. To establish wikipedia as an authoritative reference, we undertake to title our articles descriptively, to reflect the received conventions of the English-speaking community. I think it is overwhelmingly clear that the convention in this case is to call this person Novak Djokovic when writing about him in English. I searched in vain for even one citation of "Đoković" by doing a plain vanilla google search for "Novak Đoković", and by using google news--I found none. I have a certain experience in these sorts of issues, and I will tell you that to not find one citation is extremely unusual (I expect an exhaustive search could turn some examples up, but I doubt they would be enough to overturn the preponderance of evidence presented here). English media of record, his own official website, and tennis community sites all cite Djokovic rather than Đoković:

Websites of Tennis Events

General Media

Sports Media

Frankly, this is one of the more clear-cut cases I've seen in a while. Our own introductory sentence admits that Djokovic is usually used in English. If you're impressed with regulations/policy, see WP:ENGLISH Erudy (talk) 21:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Other discussion

I just noticed what appear to be some serious shenanigans in previous page moves.

This is what I get when I view the logs for the page: 

   * 00:14, 15 September 2007 Alison (Talk | contribs) protected Novak Đoković ‎ (Move-warring / WP:RPP request [move=sysop] (expires 06:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)))
   * 21:44, 14 September 2007 Yano (Talk | contribs) moved Novak Đoković to Novak Djokovic (tennis) over redirect ‎ (Well-sourced spelling.) (revert)
   * 19:34, 14 September 2007 Yano (Talk | contribs) moved Novak Đoković to Novak Djokovic (tennis) ‎ (The spelling "Novak Djokovic" is reliably sourced as being a scientifically accurate transliteration into English according to UNESCO and Mathematical Reviews. It is the spelling most commonly used in English-language print and media. The previous) (revert)

Now, am I missing something? Why don't the other moves, by whoever the other participants in this "move-warring" for which the page protection was granted, show up in the logs? And who requested the page protection--likely an edit-warrior well versed in the inherently unfair way this page protection is done, would be my guess. Gene Nygaard (talk) 02:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't be sure, but is it possible that copy/paste moves were made during the warring, and they've been deleted during subsequent history merges? I've seen that happen with other pages in the past. --DeLarge (talk) 08:44, 19 February 2008 (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.

Proposed, and accepted, move reverted

Now this page move has been reverted without consensus. What are the rules here? Who can decide to overrule the above time spent on this (including my subsequent edits to make the article consistent with title)? I really don't get all this name fuzz. We write "Vienna" but not "Wien". But this guy must apparently, according to some, at any cost have his article listed under his native name, even though it is not at all used in English (and please remember, this article is on the English Wiki, not the Serbian). I don't see people from the Austrian capital going bananas over their city being called "Vienna" on the English wiki. --HJensen, talk 19:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

But why do You compare Đoković and old city like Vienna? Đoković is correct transliteration of Ђоковић. And why Đoković only? Why not Ana Ivanović or Björn Borg or Slobodan Milošević? I don't see people from the Serbian capital use Beograd instead of Belgrade. Simple, it is accepted name in English speaking areas, while Djokovic is not. And it is a last name, not a name of city -- Bojan  20:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Is "Djokovic" not accepted in English-speaking areas? I am surprised.--HJensen, talk 23:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
No. Those websites listed above simple don't use diacritics, probably because the don't know to adjust keyboards or simply don't want do it. And Đoković is not exception. I saw there Ivo Karlovic (corect form is Karlović, he is a Croat, etc)-- Bojan  04:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC) -- Bojan  04:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I prefer to use native spellings – I am unconvinced by supposed counterexamples which are usually due to either technical limitations (which Wikipedia does not suffer from) or a lack of concern for accuracy (unbefitting an encyclopædia). But I accept WP:UE's warning that we should "beware of over-dramatising these issues".

What interests me is the edit summary which accompanied the move back to the native spelling: We keep articles about living persons at their native spelling or their native transliteration. The proposed convention to do it otherwise was rejected. A move request vote can't override that (my emphasis). That would make some sense – a natural extension of the provisions of WP:BLP to ensure that with names, as with other aspects of biographies, we must go to especial lengths to be accurate in the case of living persons. But this edit summary implies that there is an explicit policy to that effect – in which case the move poll was a waste of time from the start (and the closing admin failed to check the relevant policies). Is there in fact an established convention on this specific point: the naming of living persons? Vilĉjo (talk) 02:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

No, the "living persons" was simply meant to contrast with "historic persons", for which there are often long established anglicized names and/or spellings. Of course, the poll to move the article was a waste of time - there are literally tens of thousands of articles about modern persons from around the world at articles with diacritics, and moving one article isn't going to accomplish anything but inconsistency. If we are to remove diacritics from names, it should be done by a bot en masse, but the proposals to do that have so far met with no consensus. Zocky | picture popups 06:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok. So we keep on the English wiki a version of his name that he himself - hopefully not a technically limited person :-) - not uses in English, and nobody else does. I see no sense in it, when this - to me the most obvious case where one should use English spelling - at any cost should be presented in a form that most readers do not recognize (in case you don't see it, it is the Ð that makes it hard to recognize - and that letter has an established tranliteration, "Dj", by international organizations). Diacritics in other articles are utterly irrelevant here. But I have had it for now with this article, and this name-war. (the argument about a person's name having special priority to a city name also escapes me completely) I have indeed wasted too much time on it (being one of the only consistenly trying to provide reliable references, removing libelous trivia, removing unsourced tales about his ancestor's and their relationship with the current affairs in Serbia, removing vandalism an so on). I will take a break from this article. BTW: Please remember to use his native spelling in the article as well, when it is so important. And also other places where I wasted my time trying to make things consistent after the page move, which apparnetly can be overruled by non-admins at will in one shot without discussion. Good luck!--HJensen, talk 08:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
His name would not be spelled properly without the diatric, would it? Someone said in the past that changing Đ to Dj is accepted by UNESCO and and that this is the scientific transliteration. I was going to suggest changing Đ to Dj and keeping the diatric at the end but no one seems to use that. мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 15:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Can we agree to use both Đoković and Djokovic within the article until there is a consensus? мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 18:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

This page needs to be moved back to Djokovic. We there was consensus in favor of this move, and I don't understand why it should be moved back. Some users complain about "inconsistency": we use diacritics for some names, why not all names? The answer is, we consistently follow English usage. Unfortunately for the spelling perfectionists out there, English usage is often inconsitent. Sometimes it uses diacritics, sometimes it doesn't. However, instead of imposing absolutist standards, we follow our mandate to verifiably describe reality as it is found, not as it is wished by those with (often nationalistic) agendas. The reality is, in English, this man's name is spelled Djokovic. No evidence has been provided to the contrary.Erudy (talk) 20:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

We've been over this many many times, with all sorts of silly arguments. There is a wide, long-term consensus to keep articles about people from non-English speaking countries at titles with diacritics. If you want more specifically, there is a consensus to keep articles about Serbian people (Đorđe Balašević, Vojislav Koštunica, etc.) at the titles with diacritics. There's also consensus to keep non-English speaking tennis players at the titles with diacritics (Daniela Hantuchová, Björn Borg, etc. etc.). As I've said, If that practice changes some day, we'll get a bot to move the articles. In the meantime, moving individual articles is counterproductive and divisive, so please stop. Zocky | picture popups 20:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Where are these consensuses? I oppose them if they say or imply "keep articles about people from non-English speaking countries at titles with diacritics, irrespective of English usage" I think a lot of other people would agree--that's the consensus at WP:UE: to use the most commonly used English version of the name for the article.
  • The official wikipedia policy (as opposed to guideline) WP:NAME clearly states Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.
  • It's suggested by WP:NCON, which says The most common use of a name takes precedence...A number of objective criteria can be used to determine common or official usage: Is the name in common usage in English? (check Google, other reference works, websites of media, government and international organisations)...Is it the name used by the subject to describe itself or themselves? (check if it is a self-identifying term)...Where a choice exists between native and common English versions of names (e.g. Deutsch/German), the common English version of the name is usually preferred.
  • WP:NAMES: the article title should generally be the name by which the subject is most commonly known
  • WP:NAMEPEOPLE: suggests that one of the two main ideas of wikipedia article naming is to use The name that is most generally recognisable.
It has been demonstrated that Đoković is not the most commonly used English version of the name. Moreover, it is clear that Djokovic is the name used by the subject to describe himself. Finally, reports of English language wikipedians have shown that Djokovic is the most recognizable. Against this, no evidence has been provided. Whatever a small number of users feel about the impurity or incorrectness of Djokovic, or its conflict with their own wikipedia-internal rules, it does have on its side the real world. In the end, that's what we are here to document.Erudy (talk) 21:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't want to make a big deal about this. I think status quo will suffice. мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 21:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
WP:UE also says that only Latin alphabet should be used and this includes diatrics. We don't need to move any articles because they do not conform to the English alphabet. мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 21:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
But we do have to move them when they do not conform to English usage. Sometimes English usage includes diacritics. In this case it does not.Erudy (talk) 21:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
There are no "English versions" of foreign names, at least not for most non-royals. The fact that English-language newspapers more commonly use some name without diacritics doesn't mean much in itself. All foreign names with diacritics are most commonly written without them in English-language newspapers, and thus in most sources, if you decide to simply count them. But, in encyclopedias and dictionaries, it's as common (if not more common) to use diacritics for foreign names. Britannica sometimes uses them, sometimes doesn't, Encarta mostly does, many editions of Webster's do, some editions don't, etc., etc. The practice in Wikipedia has been to use them, and make redirects from the versions without diacritics. Zocky | picture popups 23:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

My take on this is that convention should be used in most cases. But in the end, consensus trumps everything else on Wikipedia. And besides, we do have articles that don't use diacritics but could. Nadia Bjorlin comes to mind. Her name is Nadia Björlin but she's always gone by Bjorlin. Her website says Bjorlin. All references to her say Bjorlin. I say that if their website doesn't list the diacritic, then we shouldn't. Nothing says that we must always follow the convention, especially when the consensus is so overwhelming. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 15:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

My take on this is that after overwhelming support for a page move, one disgruntled user has ignored consensus and made a highly disruptive reversion, and then proceeded to try and rehash the move debate over again. That's nothing short of pig ignorant. You (Zocky) dont have to agree with every admin decision, but when consensus is so overwhelming you should at least respect it. No admin worth their salt could have possibly closed it any other way. There are plenty of channels open to you if you disagree, none of which involve provoking another move war -- it's only the restraint of other editors which has prevented a messy escalation occurring.
I personally feel quite offended that, having offered my contribution to a debate which leaned so heavily in one direction, a single user should so casually dismiss all of that to get his way. If the opposite had happened -- the move had finished 8-1 in opposition followed by a renegade pro-mover shifting it anyway with a "per WP:UE and damn you all" edit summary -- there would have been an instantaneous pile-on of righteous Serbian indignation. To be frank I feel sanctions against the editor in question would not be out of order here. Horsesforcorses (talk) 00:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Correct me I am wrong, but I think that the policy can be used only for names of kings - Heinrich der Löwe -> Henry the Lion. -- Bojan  05:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (standard letters with diacritics) contains much previous discussion about names with or without diacritics. A majority on a talk page at an obscure article (not everybody is a tennis fan), can't overrule years-long site-wide discussions about the subject. At least one of the people who voted for the move is well aware of that and other previous discussions, and of the fact that the push to remove diacritics from foreign names were rejected. Zocky | picture popups 14:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (standard letters with diacritics) has not been meaningfully edited since April 2007. Besides, pointing to the talk page of a rejected guideline which anyway states "this guideline, does not apply to... Ð" is simply Wikilawyering to labor a point long after the fact. None of that page, or those discussions, somehow overrule the long accepted conventions cited by other users in the above discussion. Those conventions, and the weight of numbers behind them, were recognised by the closing admin and you should recognise them too, not dismiss them as if you were an all-knowing, objective and uninvolved party. Horsesforcorses (talk) 23:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Um. Is there a better guideline you can site, Zocky? Citing a rejected proposal isn't enough. And the obscurity of this article is besides the point. All articles are equal. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 03:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
The rejected guideline was a proposal to remove diacritics. When somebody restarts that discussion and gathers consensus for passing that guideline, then the diacritics should be removed. Zocky | picture popups 12:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Does not need restarted--
Screaming in bold doesn't help, so please stop. As for your points:
  • Most people, including Novak Đoković, don't have English versions of their names. This is about which spelling of the same version of his name to use. This is a different situation from Cologne, John Paul II, etc, so the same rule doesn't apply.
Do you have any evidence for this? Evidence has been presented that English, as it is used, does in fact have English versions of proper names. In fact, it does so in this specific case. At wikipedia we often title our articles with the "English versions" of people's names. Obviously it happens when people were originally named using different scripts (Chinese, Arabic etc.) Sometimes even when the person was originally named using latin script (Franz Josef Strauss for example). You suggest that wikipedia uses diacritics for other articles--that's fine, if it's supported by English usage.Erudy (talk) 00:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Whether the majority in that poll was considered consensus at the time or not, the current overwhelming practice is to use diacritics in names of non-English people.
  • "Foreign terms" there applies to words like cliché or übermensch, not to personal names. Zocky | picture popups 23:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Zocky seems to me to have it right on this. I would add that it strikes me as ludicrous to say, in effect, that the decision is to be made in each individual article quite without reference to any other comparable articles, simply on the basis of a poll among people who happen to be interested in that particular article at that particular time. That's not a policy but a shambles, and if the same thing happened at every article with diacritics the whole of Wikipedia would grind to a halt. At present, the overwhelming practice is to use diacritics in names of non-English persons, the general tenor of discussion at policy level (i.e. not on individual articles' talk pages) seems to support this, and it's inappropriate for that to be overridden by so highly localised a poll. Consensus on such a matter, potentially affecting as it does tens of thousands of articles, needs to be determined at the wider and long-term level rather than as a narrow snapshot. Vilĉjo (talk) 00:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Just a few minor remarks. Is the stuff about diacritics actually relevant? From D with stroke:

"Đ is considered a distinct letter, and placed between Dž and E in alphabetical order. . . When a true đ is not available or not desired, it is transcribed as dj in Serbian . . ."

"Distinct letter" - does that mean that it is not a letter with diacritics? Moreover, when not desired, I don't think it is "ludicrous" that a decision against common practice (if a such exists) is made at the article's talk page. Where else should it be made? Every wiki policy contains room for exceptions, and such go by definition against then common, and have to be treated separately (as in this article's - to me - obvious case). So "higly localised"? Yes indeed - by definition. And why is it relevant to consider tens of thousands of other articles? If they are fine, then fine. Finally, I still find it peculiar to talk about a "consensus" that was not officially reached. Is that not a slight abuse of terminology? So any consensus only exists in the eyes of those wanting it to be reality. I just guess some has more localized reasons for feeling so strongly about this issue than others, such that they overlook the purpose of this particular encyclopedia: To establish a free service aimed specifically at English-speaking readers. --HJensen, talk 11:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Breach of Wikipedia rules and regulations!

This has ALREADY been discussed to death, and the unilateral moves of one of the sides is NOT allowed by Wikipedia. Novak Đoković will stay Novak Đoković, because this Wikipedia stands for factual integrity.

--GOD OF JUSTICE 19:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, those who have used these unilateral moves, did it RIGHT at the time of Kosovos unilateral declaration of independence, when Serbs couldn't focus on this article and the factual integrity of the article of this Serbian tennis player has been most grossly violated. THE TALKS ARE DONE, THERE WAS NO CONCENSUS, YOU CANT JUST WAIT FOR A WHILE AND HOPE THAT CERTAIN USERS WON'T VISIT THIS PAGE FOR A CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME AND ASSUME THAT YOU HAVE YOUR CONCENSUS. ACCEPT THAT THERE WILL NEVER BE A CONCENSUS! --GOD OF JUSTICE 19:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree that there really was no consensus. An even lengthier discussion in the archives than the one above also supports your comment. However, I'm not sure if a revert war is really necessary, especially over a name of a person. I prefer Novak Đoković as the title of the article, but I don't really think that Novak Djokovic will cause that much of a problem. мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 20:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Move war can also be tedious especially when editors have to fix double redirects. мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 20:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I read your comment more thoroughly and you say that the discussion was held right at the time when Serbs were distracted because they were so busy commenting on Kosovo? This is a bit dubious. мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 21:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
On the contrary, I noticed at the time that it was extremely unfortunate timing. To be fair, Erudy proposed the move on 15 Feb, two days before Kosovo's declaration of independence, but most of the votes/comments, and the closure, were at a time when I would have expected many interested parties on one side of the discussion to have been focussed elsewhere. I'm not necessarily saying the result would have been different, but in the circumstances this issue very likely came in under their radar (though I don't think there can be any suggestion of deliberate manipulation as to the timing.) Vilĉjo (talk) 00:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing up the timing, so as to rule out "conspiracy theories." Still, your mention of "interested parties" to me clearly suggest that this is a nationalistic thing, that has nothing to do with Wikipedia guidelines and/or interest in producing an good article on Novak for the English Wikipedia. I find it extremely disturbing that editors can openly admit that nationalistic matters are the core issue in the naming of an article in an encyclopedia. Such matters sould not blur editors' visions. --HJensen, talk 08:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
There are all sorts of considerations at play here - it is too simplistic to suggest that "nationalistic matters are the core issue". Besides, nationalism cuts both ways: Americans, Brits etc. can have nationalistic reasons for objecting to "foreign squiggles", however they dress up their arguments. There are good and valid (non-nationalistic) arguments on both sides here, but it's likely that, for some people, their cultural background will make them, perfectly properly, more receptive to some of those arguments than to others. So we must not assume that Serbs (or Americans, or whoever) who take an interest in this matter are necessarily doing so for nationalistic reasons.
(BTW, it occurs to me that to the untutored eye my username may look vaguely Slavic - so just to clarify, I am a Brit with no axe to grind on this issue.) Vilĉjo (talk) 10:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. It was not my intention to claim that all take that a nationalistic approach. Sorry that it came out like that. I just wanted to state that by some remarks made here, it has now become explicit that for some editors, the nationalistic angle appears of high importance. That, in itself, I find very troublesome.--HJensen, talk 11:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

After a consensus was reached, see discussion above, an admin then moved the page to "Novak Djokovic". This was therefore not a "unilateral move." That move was unilaterally reverted by another admin, which I found quite disturbing (also, see above). Almost as disturbing as your angry political outbursts which have little if anything to do with factual integrity, but are merely nationalistic and very confrontational. Your "ACCEPT THAT THERE WILL NEVER BE A CONCENSUS!" is particularly offensive in my opinion.--HJensen, talk 22:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

As a Korean, I know that everyone has her/his bias and I have seen plenty of edit wars that were solely driven by ethnic pride, which is extremely aggravating. I guess Serbian editors don't like the anglicized version of his name? I hope that they cited Wikipedia policies for their rationale in the past. Regardless of the time the discussion above took place, national pride should not have swayed the result. мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 01:05, 8 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 PAGE MOVED per discussion below and per established usage. Working for a year and a half in requested moves, I can say that the community has been quite consistent about saying, when asked, that we follow established English usage as determined by our sources, rather than attempting to "correct" established usage. If you have any questions about this move, please feel free to contact me at my talk page, or just start a new section below, and I'll see it. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like to move this article to Novak Djokovic. Some editors have bitterly complained that this is "factually inaccurate" as his name, in Serbian, is "Đoković". I maintain that our article title implicity states the common, conventional name for a subject in English. If this article title makes a statement of fact, it is currently "By English convention, the name of this person is Novak Đoković". This statement of fact is verifiably false: the overwhelming majority of citations from all English language sources, including the English version of the man's official website, use "Djokovic"

This is the second request that I have launched. The first, a couple weeks ago, had near-unanimous consensus, and the page was moved by an admin. Without any discussion, the move was reverted. Subsequently, no evidence has been provided that English convention is in fact "Đoković". There were complaints that the request had suspiciously been posted around the time of Kosovo's independence, meaning, apparently, that Serbian editors were too distracted to defend the Đ. Frankly, that sort of nationalistic paranoia makes me shake my head in wonderment, but in intrests of good faith, I'm making another request. I'm re-posting an enlarged list of evidence here:

These sources use Djokovic instead of Đoković

Websites of Tennis Events

References

Media of Record

Sports Media

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Erudy (talk • contribs) 21:47, 8 March 2008


  • Support per nomination (and all my previous comments). This is the English wikipedia, and articles should have the names that are recognizable to the intended readers. Whatever the native spelling of the article's subject is, should not distract from this purpose (which, e.g., does not include educating English-speaking readers in local spellings). Note that, as argued above, this is not an issue involving use of diacritics (Đ is considered a distinct letter) —- on which, by the way, there is no general consensus. Note that the page was originally moved from Djokovic to Đoković without a reached consensus on March 8, 2006 (see here), leaving open the question of who is moving without consensus. --HJensen, talk 22:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Evidence of English usage is overwhelmingly in support of "Djokovic" over "Đoković". What his name in Serbian is essentially irrelevant, if there is differing widespread usage in English. Parsecboy (talk) 16:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
That argument is a red herring; we are not talking about a new guideline for Wikipedia articles, we are talking about this specific instance, and nothing more. The only relevant question here is English usage. As can be demonstrated by the plethora of sources provided above, English usage clearly favors "Djokovic". Please read the naming conventions guidelines carefully, and you'll see that your position is unteneble. Also, if you want your arguments to be relevant at all, you need to provide sources demonstrating more common usage of "Đoković" in English-language sources. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 20:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
C'mon people, you are pushing incorrect version because of some people don't know or don't want to use non-ascii characters. As Jovan said, You surely can find more examples. Do it with all articles, and You will have my support-- Bojan  20:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Is Djokovic himself spelling his own name wrong then? You're ignoring that his own website uses standard English characters to spell his name. If examples of English usage of "Đoković" can surely be found, why have you not done so? At this point, there are 20-odd sources in favor of Djokovic, including his own website, Britannica, ESPN, Reuters, the AP, the BBC, and so forth, with zero provided to justify the position of those opposed to the move. Again, what names other articles use is irrelevant to this discussion. Parsecboy (talk) 05:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Of course not. I'm pretty sure that he spells and pronounces his name as Đoković. Names of other articles are relevant because of consistency. And why do you think this is specific instance? Why don't you apply same standards for Slobodan Milošević. BBC, Britanica use Slobodan Milosevic. Or Zoran Đinđić? -- Bojan  12:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Have you taken a look at the first source provided? It's Novak's own website; the English version of which spells his last name Djokovic. Surely he knows how to spell his own name in English. I'm here participating in this specific instance because I help work at WP:RM, where this page has a listing. FWIW, Milosevic probably should be moved as well, for the same reasons as this article. Parsecboy (talk) 14:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I did. And what now? I have already said that some people doesn't want to use Unicode. -- Bojan  14:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose his isn't some name that is used in english for years. You has heard for djokovic before few years, so this can't be common name. If someone use wrong name (they use only ASCI letters) wikipedia shouldn't do the same. For example we have article Ivo Karlović not Ivo Karlovic, but australian open site has Ivo Karlovic, We have Guillermo García López, but australian open oficial site has Guillermo Garcia Lopez etc. So if you change this article, you should change all articles that has non asci characters --Jovanvb (talk) 19:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
This request is not for Ivo Karlović or Guillermo García López. If these people are named without diacritics in English, by the same overwhelming convention as Djokovic, I will support their move. However, that will be up for discussion on their talk pages, not this one. If they are, by convention, named as they are now titled, then I would support their current titles. I am not opposed to diacritics, I am only opposed to contravening English usage. Erudy (talk) 01:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose
    • English Wikipedia uses Velimir Ilić, not Velimir Ilic (e.g. as does this BBC article), also "Cacak" is used in the same article, instead of correct form "Čačak", which is Wikipedia's style of choice, as well
    • English Wikipedija also uses Slobodan Milošević, not Slobodan Milosevic (e.g. as does [news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/382005.stm this] BBC article, this UN article, and many others in the Internet)
    • English Wikipedia also prefers Franjo Tuđman over e.g. Britannica's Franjo Tudjman

There could be found literally thousands of articles with the same style, i.e. problems of other data sources all over the Internet are not something we should be worrying about. BBC, UN, Britannica and other famous organizations have their own reasons for selecting such styles, but that is not something we should depend on - Wikipedia has its own concept of presenting names, and that is something the community here has always supported. I really don't see where this idea is coming from right now, but I don't like it, because it could be a precedent that could cause similar moves in other articles that contain similar letters, it does not follow the convention we've been using up until now and last, but not least, that would not be Đoković's original last name. --Ml01172 (talk) 21:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not see how wikipedia's current state should be cited as a reason for not changing. The whole point is that wikipedia can adapt to fix errors. And I believe the current title, which implies that English convention uses Đoković, is factually incorrect. As for the other titles, I think the question of whether or not they are correct or incorrect should be sifted on their talk pages. The case of Franjo Tudjman is particularly interesting...I may start a request to have that moved as well, if the evidence merits itErudy (talk) 01:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose per User:Ml01172 and User:Bojan's rationale. Wikipedia has its own style. I can see that the English media does not use diacritrics and such as characters outside of the English alphabet is not desired. However, Wikipedia has a distinct practice of preserving diacritrics in non-English names. Unless the article is moved to a title containing Serbian Cyrillic, it's not really a big deal. I oppose this move until there is a consensus (a Wikipedia guideline) that calls for the removal of diacritrics or any characters that are not part of the English alphabet. мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 21:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Please see WP:UE. Parsecboy (talk) 05:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
This is from WP:UE:
There is disagreement over what article title to use when a native name uses the Latin alphabet with diacritics (or "accent marks") but general English usage omits the diacritics. A survey that ran from April 2005 to October 2005 ended with a result of 62–46 (57.4%–42.6%) in favor of diacritics, which was a majority but was not considered to be a consensus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iricigor (talk • contribs) 07:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Indeed - thanks for stressing that. There is no policy or consensus that say that diacritics must be applied. Moreover, to repeat what I said above: "Is the stuff about diacritics actually relevant? From D with stroke: 'Đ is considered a distinct letter, and placed between Dž and E in alphabetical order. . . When a true đ is not available or not desired, it is transcribed as dj in Serbian . . .' " So, the issue about discritics or not is apparently not event relevant to this case.--HJensen, talk 09:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose

Why we should apply this "rule" ONLY to Novak? Among top 20 on ATP list there are 5 more players whose names written in latin alphabet have non-ascii characters. For ALL of them on Wikipedia their names are written like they are. On all of the web sites HJensen mentioned their names are written only with ASCII characters.

rank Wikipedia article Australia Open US Open Davis Cup Wimbledon
3 Novak Đoković Novak Djokovic Novak Djokovic Novak Djokovic Novak Djokovic
10 Tomáš Berdych Tomas Berdych Tomas Berdych Tomas Berdych Tomas Berdych
13 Fernando González Fernando Gonzalez Fernando Gonzalez Fernando Gonzalez Fernando Gonzalez
18 Carlos Moyà Carlos Moya Carlos Moya Carlos Moya Carlos Moya
19 Ivo Karlović Ivo Karlovic Ivo Karlovic Ivo Karlovic Ivo Karlovic
20 Guillermo Cañas not found Guillermo Canas Guillermo Canas Guillermo Canas

So I suggest. APPLY this rule to everyone or DO NOT APPLY it on Novak. Or again this is some rule that is uniquely applied only to Serbian people and it should not be treated as precedent? --Irić Igor -- Ирић Игор -- K♥S (talk) 21:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

If by "this rule" you mean "follow English usage", then I agree that it should be applied to everyone. However, this does not mean that all articles, or the articles mentioned above, should be stripped of diacritics. It could well prove that some or all of those articles are correctly titled. I've presented an overwhelming case for Djokovic, and these other articles might not meet the same level of evidence.
Comment. I just signed the Page Move request, which wasn't made by me but by Erudy (so the collection of web-sited were not made by me). Moreover, I fail to see the relevance of other articles here. We cannot agree on a page move, conditional on commitments on editorial actions to be made subsequently on other articles. That simply makes no sense. Neither does it have importance that other articles use diacritics: We are not taking a stand on the appropriateness on their names here. (Also, I find it unlikely that this page-move proposal has anything at all to do with the Serbian people.)--HJensen, talk 23:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment The most commonly used name and its correct form can be different. English speakers may leave out the é in cliché for convenience. Cliche may be more used than cliché but this practice doesn't make the former correct. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should use the correct spelling of a person's name; Wikipedia does not serve as a sandbox or a notepad where people can abbreviate, misspell or leave some letters out for convenience. ć and c each produces unique sounds although it seems acceptable to use Dj in place of Đ. (based on the archive where the discussion took place) мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 00:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Bojan and мirаgeinred (issues of consistency and accuracy). There's no point in Erudy producing ever longer lists of evidence of English-media use of "Djokovic". I don't see anybody disputing that that is the majority spelling among Anglophones. What is in dispute is whether that has any bearing on the issue. OK, so someone trying to look up "Djokovic" in a paper encyclopedia would be understandably frustrated to draw a blank on the basis that they should have looked up "Đoković". But Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. You can look up the more familiar form and be directed seamlessly to the correct form with no hassle, angst or confusion. You get the information you were after – plus, you find out how the guy's name is actually spelled! I really don't see how that is anything other than a win-win. Vilĉjo (talk) 01:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Vilcxjo, you are dead wrong. English usage is the only criteria that should be used in this move proposal. It's fine that some of you oppose the move because you think there's some sort of anti-Serbian bias going on. It's also totally and completely irrelevant. Using English is a standard guideline on Wikipedia; to quote the first paragraph,
"Article titles should use the Latin alphabet, not any other alphabets or other writing systems such as syllabaries or Chinese characters. However, any non-Latin-alphabet native name should be given within the first line of the article (with a Latin-alphabet transliteration if the English name does not correspond to a transliteration of the native name)." (Emphasis mine)
Clearly the issue isn't really up for debate. Overwhelming English usage has been demonstrated to be in favor of standard characters. What other articles on Wikipedia do is not in any way relevant to this discussion. As I stated above, we are merely taking a specific guideline, and applying it to this article. The results should be fairly clear-cut. Parsecboy (talk) 05:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
"Article titles should use the Latin alphabet". Fine, so on that basis we obviously continue to use the Latin letters Đ and Ć. (Way to shoot yourself in the foot, Parsecboy!) Vilĉjo (talk) 23:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment on comments
@HJensen, Sorry for misnaming that list.
@мirаgeinred, You are right that sometimes it is acceptable to use Dj in place of Đ. Even in Serbian media, people often use it. But it is not correct! If you must use only ASCII then one can understand that. Although, Wikipedia deals with that nice. Take a look at Franjo Tuđman, Dino Rađa, Srđan Lakić, Đakovo, Milko Đurovski, Duško Đurišić. All of them have Đ and also titles have it! Just add foreignchar box, couple of redirect pages and that's it. On the other hand, this argument says nothing why we should change ć with c.
@HJensen, About "appropriateness on their names" and after. If this is just about the rule, why there was no article moving on some of the tennis players I mentioned? Or some non-Serbian people that have Đ in their name mentioned above?
--Irić Igor -- Ирић Игор -- K♥S (talk) 01:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
How should I know? I, and no other editor, can be held accountable for what is not happening on other articles. I really fail to see the relevance of the argument. The way you pose this question, indeed demonstrates clearly the irrelevance of other articles (the irrelevance is analogous to the WP:OTHERSTUFF in relation to deletion debates): We are not discussing a new "rule" here, as you purport. We are discussing how to apply existing naming policies to this particular article. --HJensen, talk 07:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Are any of you trying to say that not holding to the rule in other articles is not relevant to this discussion, as this is the first in many articles that will have their contents anglicized just after we finish the discussion about this one? I am not sure about the "rule", as I find it hard to believe that up until now it hasn't ever been followed, and now we're going to start with this article and do a general reform on all Wikipedia articles that use diacritics in their subjects' names. --Ml01172 (talk) 11:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, but what is this "rule" people keep bringing up? It is established that use of diacritics is not a policy; see above. Also, Đ is a distinct letter, so discussions about diacritics are irrelevant. So why are you saying that "now we're going to start with this article and do a general reform on all Wikipedia articles that use diacritics in their subjects' names"? The suggestion here is about renaming this article, where the nominator argues with WP:EN that one on the English wiki should use English spelling. There are no strict rules covering any contingency (in the sense that WP:EN leaves room open for judgement). Therefore, there is a specific discussion here. We are not discussing general policies on diacritics.--HJensen, talk 14:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I as a member of Wikipedia can't accept the idea of dealing with one article differently then with all other articles. I think you're not right when trying to isolate this case and say "Let's talk about this one, not mentioning the others". General tidyness is, among other things, in having basic uniformness. --Ml01172 (talk) 14:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't see how citing a rule that mentions Chinese and Arabic letters can be related with a purely Latin alphabet that merely uses diacritics for clearer image of what the subject's name is pronounced like. It's not like we're talking about Cyrillic or Hebrew letters in the title. As mentioned before, there can be found many media all over the Internet that use the incorrect version, which probably has something to do with their a) tradition b) technical problems c) not having a need to be precise d) anglicizing everything so that even illiterate people can deal with their texts e) something else. But that shouldn't be pathway for us, us that have all the time been leaning toward correctness, not convenience. --Ml01172 (talk) 11:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

So if the decision is to stay with native spelling, then by your arguments about relevance for all of Wikipedia means that tons of articles should be renamed. "Vienna" is simply incorrect. It is called "Wien." So you should see that it gets changed — that would be "correctness." (This, I, of course, don't mean, but I say it in the hope that you will see that bringing up other articles, and what should be done to them conditional on whatever decision is made here, are simply not valid arguments.)--HJensen, talk 14:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
That is different - names of countries and important cities have shown to have different spellings in various languages through history. In English it's Vienna, in German it's Vien, in Croatian and Serbian it's Beč. But we are not dealing with historically accepted names here, we're talking about a person that has their own name, which does not have historic legacy of misspelling or mispronouncing which had been eventually accepted as do many towns and countries in various languages. It's a different subject one can't mix with this discussion. --Ml01172 (talk) 14:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
The point you and others consistently fail to address is that Wikipedia doesn't decide what is correct, only what is used in English. The side arguing to use standard characters has provided 20+ reliable sources demonstrating widespread usage in English; the side arguing for keeping the page at its current location have failed to provide a single source. to justify your positions. There doesn't have to be a specific guideline for when use non-standard characters and when to not. It's already covered in WP:UE: use English if there's a well-known name in English. This is, afterall, the English Wikipedia. Parsecboy (talk) 15:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid that is not correct. The very first task of Wikipedia is to bring correct knowledge to people. Consider the following quote from Naming conventions: Borderline cases rule:
"At the same time, when there is no long-established history of usage of the term, more consideration should be given to the correctness of translation, rather than frequency of usage(1)"
It can hardly be said that "Djokovic" has a "long-established history" in English, while at the same time we can without hesitation say that "Đoković" is the correct form. --Ml01172 (talk) 16:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
So far, no newspaper is obligated to be correct when we speak about this matter. What I don't see the answer on is that: (1) Đ/đ is a Latin letter with diacritics, (2) Form "Dj"/"dj" is incorrect in the Serbian language and should be avoided every time when there are technical means to use Đ/đ. "Dj"/"dj" is an acceptable form for, say, a chat session, but not when we're speaking about grammar. (3) Still I also can't help thinking are you actually serious about telling that the other articles do not matter. There are lots of articles that use this letter, and it is natural question why do you run this question for this particular article and not on a higher instance. If it is not correct to use letter Đ/đ in spite of both arguments mentioned above, then it should cause an overall reform. Not just a single change. Bravo for you if you find out that the usage of Đ/đ had a wide use in the newspaper mentioned above. Mihajlo [ talk ] 17:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per arguments from above. If there is a rule which specially enforces approximating Đ/đ then it should be applied. So long as we vote, my answer will be this. Mihajlo [ talk ] 15:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong support per WP:NAME. The "correct" Serbian spelling is not material to us; there is a Serbian WP, to which it does matter. (It is in any case the Cyrillic Ђоковић.) If English writers spell Djokovich, so should we. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. I dont think Ive ever seen it written anywhere in any English language source in any form other than "Djokovic". The fact that, as other users have pointed out, he uses that form on his own website, seems like the clincher. Callmederek (talk) 17:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
    On his website you can also see Đ-form. So he's not using only "Dj"-form on his site. Mihajlo [ talk ] 17:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
    Another thing, on the site "ć" has also been replaced with "c" (in the English version). Shall this mean now we're writing as well "Djokovic" instead of "Đoković"? I'm pretty sure it's just the ignorance of the person who designed the site and I dispute this form in the light of the arguments I mentioned above (Đ is latin letter, "Dj" is incorrect replacement for "Đ" in Đoković's mother language). Mihajlo [ talk ] 17:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Note that the usage of "Đ" is on the Serbian language version of his website, which is totally irrelevant to this discussion. We're talking about English-language usage only. Parsecboy (talk) 18:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I dispute using this site as a reference, since it replaces as well "ć" with "c" in the English version, thus being terribly inaccurate when we see the other slavic names that don't have đ, like Slobodan Milošević. If you agree that Novak's name must contain "ć", you can't call on his website as a reference. As well, there are numerous examples of names containing Đ/đ/Ć/ć on this Wikipedia (Milo Đukanović, Zoran Đinđić for example). I doubt you can either find these names in such forms in the newspapers mentioned above, which makes them no different than this case. So, if something is going to be changed, it would be fair that it happen on an overall instance. If it doesn't then you have interest in applying double standards on this article particularly. Mihajlo [ talk ] 19:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Notice nr. 2. Beg my pardon, why it is irrelevant here and relevant everywhere else? I already implied there is no difference between this and other cases, sinlce newspapers that you are using as references (have I got you right?) very likely don't use diacritics in the other cases too (I say they don't, you showoff they do). Mihajlo [ talk ] 19:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
You dispute Djokovic's own website being used as a reference in this discussion? Who is more of an expert on the proper English spelling of his name? I never said I think that "ć" should be used, on the contrary, I think it should be replaced by "c", given that "c" is the dominant usage in English. Yes, the other articles here on Wikipedia are no different than this case. However, we're not deciding how articles should be named based on whether it's "fair" or not. We are taking naming guidelines, and applying them to this article. If you want to go change Slobodan Milosevic's article to use only standard characters based on the arguments provided in this discussion, go right ahead, and I'm sure many here in favor of such changes here would support you in that effort. Regardless, the fact that other articles do things that are against the consensus of the Wikipedia community is not in any way justification to continue doing the same thing here. Have you ever heard the expression "if all of your friends jumped off a cliff, would you do it too?" Parsecboy (talk) 19:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
If you jump off the cliff, I hope the others won't. No offense, I still think you have some reason to interpret the guidelines on your own way on this particular article for your own reasons. Now, what if I tell you that even websites of our newspapers and even *.gov domain don't follow many grammatic rules? In this particular case the book I quoted down is more competent than anything to say what's right concerning the original than anything else. Yet, if you are going to use so-called Anglicisation of the original as title, then I absolutely must disagree with applying that on this particular article and not on everything else, thus characterizing this move as a pure vandalism. Mihajlo [ talk ] 20:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • This is an assumption of bad faith, and is inherently incivil and thus contrary to policy. It is offensive by nature, doubly so because no evidence has been presented that Parsecboy has any reason other than those he has stated. Is there any evidence for it whatever, or is this more collective self-pity?
  • If Mihajlo were to tell me that even websites of our newspapers and even *.gov domain don't follow many grammatic rules, I should ask for evidence of his competence to recognize English grammar or idiom, since this sentence displays none beyond the capabilities of Babelfish — which would be unlikely to find the obsolete grammatic. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
This discussion is not on proper most common spelling of Novak's last name using English alphabet. It is Djokovic. The discussion is how articles on Wikipedia are (or should be) written. In that way, his website should not be considered as relevant.
Also, from my point of view using standard characters to write Slobodan's last name would be Milošević. Using ASCII would be like you said. Wikipedia is using Unicode with non-ASCII characters allowed by guidelines!
I am trying to find, but I just can't. Is there any article with Đ transliterated to Dj? Or is there any "move request" like this?
--Irić Igor -- Ирић Игор -- K♥S (talk) 20:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose after reading the passages from WP:UE that Mirage in Red quoted in the summarizing. Crucially, an enycyclopaedia is supposed to increase knowledge - not perpetuate mistakes because the mass media finds it convenient to do so. Perhaps this is a partial affront to some Wikipedia policy but it's impossible not to go against it sometimes...those things weren't/aren't written with enough consulatation. Novak Djokovic redirects here, so what is the problem? If we were opting for a name that made the page (virtually) inaccessable then I'd understand the point. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 16:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, so I withdraw that point. I still think the rest are relevent arguments. I think the compromise suggested is a viable, good solution to the problem. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 11:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support again. WP:UE seems to clearly favor Djokovic to me. I agree with the discussion below that the article should start with Đoković, but the article is written in English, for English readers. We can explain the local form without being required to use it exclusively, especially when all sources mentioned by nominator use the Anglicised version. Iamaleopard (talk) 22:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support "Novak Djokovic" as the name most English speakers will search for, and expect to see. Argument that 'other tennis players are at non-English names' seems not significant, especially since every one except Fernando Gonzalez started at the English version, and was later moved without discussion. Check page history move logs for proof. Tigeron (talk) 01:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, overwhelmingly the common spelling in English language sources. WP:UE should not be read as declaring that all bets are off as regards extended Latin characters, but simply as noting that it's a contentious area in practice. The general principle of "use English" still applies. Alai (talk) 02:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Đoković? In an English language encyclopedia? Especially when references to "Novak Djokovic" have been found in two encyclopedias and his own website, the argument that it is "English media" using a wrong transliteration is clearly not so. Finally, I really hope Wikipedia does not have "its own style". We are not experts, and every style rule we have should be echoed at least somewhere else, to demonstrate we are not just making things up and making mistakes along the way. A tertiary source should always follow the exaples of others, and I see no English language references supporting our use of "Đ". Whydontyoucallme dantheman (talk) 19:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Please note that WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a valid argument. Please base your argument in policy or cite sources that support your position. Parsecboy (talk) 16:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Please note that WP:OTHERSTUFF Wikipedia:Other stuff exists does not apply here. He did not mention that some other article exists. He was talking about generally accepted rule amongs editors. --Irić Igor -- Ирић Игор -- K♥S (talk) 22:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
On the contrary, it most certainly does. We do not cite other Wikipedia articles as justification for making any decision for this article's name. That's what we have policy for. Parsecboy (talk) 23:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
This is precisely OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, because it cites existing practice elsewhere that's (also) expressly contrary to the naming conventions. Which as we've seen, cite this article when it's proposed to fix those. We have to start somewhere, and this seems like an excellent candidate. You're correct that he did not cite some other article, or some other set of articles, but made a claim about "all" other articles, which in addition makes it factually incorrect, but otherwise a scaled-up instance of the same thing. It's certainly not a generally accepted rule, otherwise the "use English" and "most common name" guidelines would expressly say "but it's open season on any and all Latin-derived character sets". Alai (talk) 01:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
But convention on tennis articles supercedes these outdated and repeatedly broken rules on names. It's clear, from the hundreds of thousands of articles that use diacritics, that a substantial number of users don't agree with this rule, and it obviously needs further discussion before it can be binding. People have pointed out that Djokovic was moved to Đoković and a lot of tennis articles underwent this - I think it's worth noticing that nobody fought it when it went that way, and the process is still occuring. Foreign language wikis also use diacritics on their tennis articles, even when their media is too lazy to print names in the correct form. Every section on here is like an encyclopaedia within an encyclopaedia, and one policy cannot be applicable to all. And I think other stuff is entirely relevent here - why are you fighting this, and not Slobodan Milošević, or another, more prominent page? Yohan euan o4 (talk) 14:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Just because a rule isn't followed by other people doesn't mean we shouldn't follow it here. Yes, the pages were moved without discussion, remember though, that at least for this article, there have been two previous move discussions, before this one. Clearly, that's ample opposition, and both moves to the current name have been moved by a minority in the face of general consensus, which is contrary to the very spirit of Wikipedia. Again, we don't cite the English language Wikipedia, likewise, what other language Wikipedias do is equally irrelevant. As for "why this article, and not others", this has an open request at WP:RM, where I participate frequently. Hence, my involvement in this debate. In any case, let's not question others' motives here, ok? As Septentrionalis points out, it verges on incivility. Parsecboy (talk) 16:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There is no "English-language form" of Đoković’s surname. The name is simply misspelled as Djokovic when the diacritics are not prefered, just like in other names from the table above. I’m quite sure Novak only has one last name, not two different surnames one of which is used in Serbian and the other one in English. --George D. Božović (talk) 02:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I can't think of a handy "bad arguments to use" wikilink for "I know better than all the reliable sources", but perhaps we should coin one for the occasion. I'd be fascinated to learn how you proposed to determine which usages are (valid) "English-language forms", and which are "misspellings" on some systematic basis. (I'm provisionally guessing that the 'systematic' part will be conspicuously missing.) Alai (talk) 02:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, this argument is really weak. The sentence "There is no "English-language form" of Đoković’s surname" is just wrong. Of course, Novak has only one name. It is just written in two different ways in native Serbian and English.--HJensen, talk 17:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Reluctant support I think a debate like this one really shows that there is some tension between wanting accuracy (which is what Wikipedia's pro-diacritics stance is reflective of) and wanting to reflect the "most common" English usage, even when that includes sources more concerned with simplicity and perhaps ASCIIness than accuracy. Maybe newspaper readers would find Đoković pedantic - but pedantic is what people expect an encyclopedia to be. So I think perhaps "most common" needs to be reinterpreted to mean most common in publications with a similar emphasis to Wikipedia's on accuracy, like an encyclopedia or a scholarly article (of which, admittedly, there are probably quite few on this topic). On this criterion, the example of referring to Vienna as Wien would undoubtedly fail, so that argument can be discounted. A Google scholar search for +Tuđman +Croatia -Tudjman (an analogous case, it seems; I used "Croatia" to guarantee English results) returns 224 results, and one for -Tuđman +Croatia +Tudjman, 2,360. So I'd say it's about 10-to-1 in favour of dj in scholarly writing. My support is only reluctant because most of the arguments I've seen supporting the move are based on uncritical and overbroad concepts of "most common," and I wouldn't want this to be seen as a decision vindicating those concepts. Joeldl (talk) 11:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Just to point out something, both Britannica and Encarta use "Djokovic", so we're not just using media sources as justification for the move. Parsecboy (talk) 14:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but there are 19 non-academic sources mentioned in the list. I understand that you're referring to the press because not that much has been written about him in academic sources. I'm saying that the proper approach is to see what academic sources do in analogous circumstances. I don't know what to think of Encarta. Djokovic's name appears in a table of Grand Slam winners there. Britannica seems like a good reference, but I'm not sure that you should put that much stock in a passing reference in a sports section of the "Book of the Year", which might be an oversight instead of being reflective of a general policy. However, I note that their article is on "Franjo Tudjman" [2], and that does carry some weight.[I'm not so sure any more, because that's the online edition and they may be avoiding non-Latin-1 characters systematically for technical reasons.] Joeldl (talk) 14:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I completely agree about the point about analogous and appropriate sources in the general case; I just don't believe it has any particular bearing here. What the sports pages of (what fancy themselves to be) "newspapers of record" does have significance in this case, as does how he's referred to by tennis bodies, events, etc. Given that his name is more likely to arise in tennis contexts than specifically Serbian ones, there's scope for outright confusion, as well as a perception of pedantry, if we insist on using the Serbo-Croatian Latin alphabet, since it's not instantly obvious whether a given eth/D-with-stroke is to be read in the Icelandic, the Serbian (et al), or the Vietnamese manner. For a different topic, with a different balance of applicable sources, the results could be entirely different, including for the same letter. (This is why having a letter-by-letter rule, or having a 'as many diacritics as you can eat on tennis articles' "convention" would be horribly bad ideas.) Personally, I'd even be agreeable to a degree of presumption in favour of original spellings where they have some reasonable update in English language sources (and especially where such usages are on the increase), rather than necessarily being the most common usage, which would tend to make WP the trailing edge of conservative usage (not the problem we have in practice, clearly). However, I wouldn't go so far as to say there is, or should be, a "pro-diacritics stance" in any generalised way. So while I agree you're correct to qualify your support, one would hope that it's pretty clear that many of the oppose arguments are considerably more problematic, given that they're not applying accepted conventions over-zealously, they're entirely ignoring them. Alai (talk) 17:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
For most purposes, I think the press is a good guide for us. But when it comes to issues of accented characters, it takes an approach that is so opposed to what you expect from an encyclopedia that we should stop relying on it. About the letter Đ specifically, I don't think there's anything worse about it than about Ñ, except that it's less familiar, because Serbian is less familiar than Spanish, and Ñ is never "transliterated" as ny. That's probably why Đ is avoided even in most academic writing (if you believe the Google Scholar results from my search) for names like Tudjman, etc., with which people are likely to be familiar in another form. What must be really frustrating for the pro-Đ side is that unfamiliarity becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy that way. As for the fact that he's a sports figure, I'd like to know what the print version of Britannica does with Ilie Năstase. If they have an accented form, then certainly that shows that, in their view, you shouldn't dumb things down just because somebody's an athlete. The online version of Britannica has "Céline Dion" where Wikipedia has Celine Dion, though she's probably mentioned more often in People than in academic journals. Joeldl (talk) 19:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting either a) a special case rule for sportspeople, or b) relying exclusively on the press. But a special case rule for sportspeople in favour of extended Latin characters has been asserted (with no basis, as far as I can see), and I'm pointing out why that would be especially jarring with common usage. If the press were clearly at odds with other usage in reliable sources we'd have more of a dilemma, but here they all (press, official tennis sites, Novak's own website, etc) agree in a remarkably clearcut manner. I suspect that Britannica does indeed something more akin to a "familiarity" scheme, perhaps even on a case-by-case per letter basis. You're correct in saying that both that sort of scheme, and our actual convention (as opposed to our widespread rogue practice) have an inbuilt conservativism, but if we're going to change that, we should do so explicitly, not by keeping a different convention, and then failing to apply it, which is implicitly the position of the opposers (or for those making such edits in bulk, fairly explicitly). As I say, I'd favour a degree of change, to build in some degree of presumption in favour of "official" and "original" usages, though clearly that would just move the borderline around, not eliminate it, and would hardly apply here. Alai (talk) 21:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I generally agree with the idea of favouring official and original versions. I think that Britannica probably does favour them quite a bit, but will only go as far as it can without seriously affecting comprehension. If Đoković were ordinarily rendered as Dokovic, I doubt we'd be having this debate at all at the moment. Joeldl (talk) 22:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Britannica also have an explicit house style that specifies which ext-Latin characters (and/or, which circumstances) are OK, and which are not. Or, they might be as ad hoc as we are, but just not have either firstly, lots of workers doing the opposite of what they're notionally supposed to do, as is the case with many of our "volunteers" (some of whom are bordering on being SPAs on this issue), or secondly, be doing so in public. I think that the "whole extra/missing letter" does add a level of cognitive jarring, over and above accents or diacritical marks generally, but that might equally be part of why it's not seen any real acceptance in English language sources in the first place. I'd favour renaming any case where the usage showed such a clear preponderance, however. At any rate, this individual is so "topically prominent", the usage elsewhere is so clear, and the systematic move away from that usage so determined and systematic, that if we can't apply the naming convention correctly here, I despair of being able to apply it anywhere. Alai (talk) 01:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, to any personal name written essentially in the latin alphabet - certainly a less important case than Florence. Anyway, I'm a bit sad because I learned something from all of this about Serbian names, but our readers won't. The realists here are obviously mature enough to accept that most readers don't care. Joeldl (talk) 02:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I assume that regardless of the outcome of this discussion, the intro will continue to say "Novak Đoković (anglicized Novak Djokovic)", or something essentially equivalent (such as "Novak Djokovic (in Gaj’s Latin script Novak Đoković)"). Whether we need to forcibly "educate" readers by crowbarring the latter spelling into every articles I remain to be convinced of. Alai (talk) 02:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose because changing the title of this article can be perceived as an attack against Serbian culture. For more details I have opened a topic at the end of the page. Tzuppy (talk) 15:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Or, it could be perceived as an attempt to apply the naming conventions correctly. Try to WP:AGF. Alai (talk) 15:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm trying to put this in the right place. Hold on a sec. Tzuppy (talk) 15:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
The whole purpose of this move is not to name him correctly, but to make one admin's job more convenient. I'm saying that there is at least de facto right for us to maintain this symbol of the culture and therefore we chose to exercise it or if necessary defend it. Tzuppy (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
And I'm saying that that's a huge assumption of bad faith, a total disregard for Wikipedia's naming guidelines, and a mass exercise in WP:ILIKEIT. Be cautious in assuming that "what you can get away with in the short term" is indeed a "de facto right". Alai (talk) 16:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Who is this admin, and how is moving the page making his or her job easier? User:Erudy, the one who proposed the move, is not an admin as far as I can tell, and he's also not "attacking Serbian culture" any more than he was "attacking German culture" when he proposed SMS Friedrich der Große (1911) be moved to SMS Friedrich der Grosse (1911), because common usage English language reflected much more of the expanded spelling variation. Openly assuming bad faith is inherently incivil, especially when there is no legitimate reason to do so. Please discuss the issue, and not what you think peoples' motives are here, because it's totally irrelevant to whether the page is moved or not. Parsecboy (talk) 16:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I am not saying that the person was attacking Serbian culture, I'm merely saying that it can be and is perceived as such. I am also telling that Serbian culture is not being shown the same consideration as Swedish culture (Björn Borg), Croatian culture (Mario Ančić) or Spanish culture (Carlos Moyà). And you are correct, using "Novak Djokovic" as a title indeed does not make the admin's job easier. Tzuppy (talk) 17:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I am truly baffled here. Why can a requested page move ever be seen as an attack on a whole culture? This has absolutely nothing to do about respect or disrespect for other cultures; I think you are showing very bad faith here. This is about following naming conventions for the English Wikipedia. It has nothing to do with "admin's jobs being easier or whatever". I really think you have chosen some poor arguments against the page move here. Please come up with some that are founded in wikipedia policies, instead you own personal perceptions about other peoples' motives. Thanks. (And note that the article was originally named "Novak Djokovic" and then unilaterally moved to the current name without discussion.) --HJensen, talk 18:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Then how come you are not paying respect to our culture as you are paying to Swedish and the others? And how come you people are pushing this issue for entire seven months?! Tzuppy (talk) 23:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
On what basis do you conclude that in order to "pay respect" to a culture, it's necessary to ignore Wikipedia naming guidelines in favour wholesale adoption of the orthography of the (approximately) corresponding language? This is simply upping the rhetorical ante, without adding any material argument. And please, quit it with the endless questioning of people's motivation. It's unseemly, it's uncivil, it lowers the tone of the entire discussion, and it encourages people to respond in kind. Alai (talk) 02:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I concluded that you are not paying enough respect to Serbian culture since you are using Swedish, German and Croatian native spelling and pressuring away Serbian native spelling. Tzuppy (talk) 16:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
How dare you, Tzuppy, to assume such bad faith? You write: "Then how come you are not paying respect to our culture as you are paying to Swedish and the others?" This is incivility, and I urge you to stop that behavior. It will only devalue the weight of your position. It appears as if you don't know the basics of Wikipedia. I urge you to take a break and read all the basics. --HJensen, talk 08:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to reply to this. Tzuppy (talk) 16:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Contrary to the above, applying Serbian language rules to a lang=en encyclopedia page, even though a Serbian version exists, is an attack on English culture. Are English wikipedians campaigning on sr.wikipedia.org to get sr:Енди Родик renamed? For god's sake, "Andy Roddick" does not appear in the lead sentence of that artilce. Why are Serbians not willing to apply the same principles to their own Wikipedia that they want to see here so badly? Do they not think Serbians need to be informed and educated? Double standards at work here, especially when you see how many opposers are Serbian. Fatsamsgrandslam (talk) 21:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
This comment lacks the good faith because it is clear that Serbian culture can never threaten US and English one for simple lack of numbers and influence. Tzuppy (talk) 23:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Once again, I must urge to to either assume good faith, or if you're utterly unable to, to keep your presumptions of bad faith to yourself. Alai (talk) 01:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't think the "ć" in his name is an issue; it's the Đ that alienates most of the editors, but then who would use Djoković? It's either Đoković for Serbians or Djokovic for those who use WP:UE to justify their argument. Arguments on both sides are starting to get... I don't know how to describe this without sounding uncivil; but the notion that anglicizing his name is an attack on Serbian culture is ridiculous at least, and the "double standard" is not much better. Fatsamsgrandslam, if it makes you any happier, "Andy Roddick" appears at the very top of the infobox of the Serbian article. мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 21:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
What is the difference between Đ and ć? If one can (or must) be tolerated, why can't the other? Tzuppy (talk) 23:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
By the naming guidelines (remember those?) each can/must be "tolerated" where they form part of the most common name in reliable, English-language sources. And each should be eliminated, where they're not. Cognitively, I suspect there's a difference in some people's minds because it represents the difference between "an omitted or additional accent/diacritical mark", vs. "a completely different spelling". Some people also seem to think that "diacritics" are an exception to the "use English" rule because of a notation that implementation of it in that case is "disputed". (I don't personally agree with either of those, but I offer these comments by way of explanation.) Alai (talk) 01:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
As I explained above, my opinion is that we should follow academic practice (scholarly works, etc.) in English in anglicizing foreign names. A Google Scholar search reveals a 10-1 preference in English-language scholarly articles for Tudjman over Tuđman. That's where Wikipedia's job stops. You're asking for speculation on why this academic preference exists. My guess is that once anglicizations like Tudjman (rather than Tudman) became established in the press, where using đ was not an option, English-speakers became used to those forms, and academic sources, even those that ordinarily strive for accuracy, could not adopt a form like Tuđman that would not be easily recognizable to most English-speakers. The difference with ć is that a person accustomed to seeing Milosevic will have no difficulty recognizing Milošević, hence that form has a higher likelihood of being adopted academically, for purposes of accuracy. I mentioned above that there is an interesting contrast between Spanish ñ and Serbo-Croatian đ, with the former never anglicized as ny. Tzuppy may have a point in the sense that this may be related to the lesser familiarity with Serbo-Croatian than with Spanish of English-speakers. But these are matters of English usage, and it is not advisable for Wikipedia to try to do anything about them. Joeldl (talk) 07:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
For your information Ć (lowercase ć) is entirely different letter than C in Serbian (Croatian, Bosnian, Montenigrin). Ć is pronounced "ty", where C is pronounced "ts" (and Č is pronounced "ch"). Furthermore, Ć cannot be an accented letter since it is a consonant. Are we to allow our culture to be influence by ignorance? Or outdated technical standards such as ASCII? Tzuppy (talk) 16:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Just a short addendum. According to article on diacritics both accent marks (as in ć) and overlays (as in case of đ or Polish ł) are equally legitimate diacritics. Also, in Serbian alphabet both ć and đ are considered separate letters and have distinctive places in alphabet, placed between č and d and dž and e respectively in Latin alphabet.) Tzuppy (talk) 05:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
As I said, Wikipedia's job stops at ascertaining what usage is in scholarly work (or would be, if it were a scholarly subject). So if you agree with the assessment of what usage is, then the other arguments you make are beside the point, unless you advocate going against informed usage in English, which I don't. However, with that qualification, it is possible to speculate on the reasons for scholarly usage. A person who has only seen Milosevic (as in the press) will immediately recognize Milošević, whereas a person who has only seen Tudjman will not as easily recognize Tuđman. What the classification of these characters is in the Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian alphabetic scheme does not change that basic fact.
You ask whether we are to allow our culture to be influenced by things like ASCII. It is a fact that the press does not often use accented letters in English. (Does the Croatian press use ł for Polish names or write Nguyễn Tấn Dũng? Does the Serbian press use special Kazakh characters in Cyrillic? For example, I personally have never seen Bulgarian characters used in Russian, academic or otherwise.) Once the press has made that choice, over which Wikipedia and academic authors have no influence, certain forms like Tudjman become fixed in people's minds, and using Tuđman then presents practical problems of lack of recognizability. Perhaps in future the press will change its practices. But you should consider the effect of using Kazakh characters such as ә, ғ, ң, ө, һ in Serbian before reading any special motivations into their current practice. Joeldl (talk) 06:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Serbian player, name contains diacritics in the Latin alphabet. As simple as that. This is not a case where common usage (in this case typing) would apply. The English language accepts all diacritics in the Latin alphabet and for the sake of accuracy, we as an encyclopedia should never remove them when they exist. The only reasons for the overwhelming predominance of "Djokovic" in detriment to Đoković are: unawareness of the existence of the diacritics; lack of them on English keyboards; or just carelessness and disregard for the ultimate accuracy. These reasons are by no means valid to justify moving this article. Húsönd 23:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Summarizing

Let me try to get everything from this posts.

FORMS

In English sources, most comonly it is written like Novak Djokovic. Not Djokovich. Wikipedia should use most common English name. In Serbian sources, when using only ASCII it is also written like Djokovic. On his web site, English version is using English alphabet and it is written like Djokovic.

Correct form in Serbian is Đoković. Novak is signing him as Đoković. It should not be relevant for English Wikipedia.

POLICIES

Wikipedia has disagreement over diacritics (letter ć). In ALL tenis player articles it is written with diacritics.

Wikipedia has no explicit rule on letter Đ. In ALL people articles it is written with letter Đ, not dj. All articles have redirect pages and comment on top for readers without Đ/ć letters.

OPINIONS

Looks like we have two opinions.

  • One what Wikipedia some thought should be and
  • one what Wikipedia is.

I am not saying which one is correct.

We have a rule that some want to apply only to this article. But is it a rule then?

SUGGESTION

My suggestion is to leave this article for the moment like it is and to move this discussion to some general discussion with this two topics:

  • Should diacritics be written in titles (and apply it to Novak Đoković, Tomáš Berdych, Fernando González, Carlos Moyà, Ivo Karlović and Guillermo Cañas)
  • Should Đ/đ be written like Dj/dj (and apply it to Novak Đoković, Franjo Tuđman, Dino Rađa, Milko Đurovski)

In the mean time, in order to get better response from editors comunity starter of this request (or some other supporters of this "rule") should request move for this 10 articles mentioned above. If I do not see submitting of mentioned "move requests" I would think that supporters of moving this page, are not supporting the rule itself. I am sure many others would do it also.

--Irić Igor -- Ирић Игор -- K♥S (talk) 18:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

"Dj" and "Đ" are absolutely not to be considered for equal from the grammatical aspect in Serbian language. I will remind there are words containing "dj" sequence, like "nadjačati" (to overpower). Yet this "dj" ain't "đ". It is "dj". As a reference that Đ and Dj ain't equal, I will mention 66th page of "Ivan Klajn - Rečnik jezičkih nedoumica", 2007, ISBN 978-86-515-0131-2. Mihajlo [ talk ] 19:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
A comment/quesiton I have raised to no avail: In the wiki article on Đ it says that it is a "distinct letter". I.e., it is not a letter with a diacritic. So, it appears to me that all the talk about diacritics does not belong here at all.--HJensen, talk 19:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Just to clarify. Đ, ć and also ñ are separate letters with diacritics, at least to my opinion.--Irić Igor -- Ирић Игор -- K♥S (talk) 21:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment again There is no doubt that Novak Djokovic is the most commonly used name in the English-speaking world. However, this is because the English media and the majority of English speakers omit diacritics which have different sounds of their own. No one is disputing that Novak Djokovic is the most frequently used name among English speakers. However, does this apply to an encyclopedia especially when the variations of his name can be redirected easily? мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 20:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
    • If there is "no doubt that Novak Djokovic is the most commonly used name in the English-speaking world," then we should use it. The reason is irrelevant; we are not language-reformers; we exist to communicate with the English-speaking world. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
The reason, indeed, is relevant. WP:UE has been interpreted many times as a policy that favors renaming the article to Djokovic. In short, the guideline is about naming the articles based on the most commonly used name in the English media. However, it lists "borderline cases" and "disputed issues," for which the guideline does not give clear directions.
One of the disputed issues is titles with diacritics. Under the section "borderline cases" the policy says, "When there is no long-established history of usage of the term, more consideration should be given to the correctness of translation, rather than frequency of usage" therefore discouraging using google hits or major news sites as an indicator to decide which title should be used for someone like Djokovic. Instead, it is better to consider "the correctness of the translation." Đoković is indeed the correct spelling. Djokovic is not. мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 23:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
addendum: In section "borderline cases" the guideline uses Turin as an example of "long-accepted English name." I just wanted to include this in case someone says that Djokovic has been used for months or years. мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 23:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Meaning what? That we can move this article in 400 years? Time is relative, and Novak is a young athlete, and he has in all his time in the international limelight (two years) been known by English-speakers as Novak Djokovic. So within his time span the use of Djokovic is "long accepted" in English. I haven't seen proof of anything else. It is, as stated in the summary given above, as if some would like to name articles with from other objectives than WP:EL (e.g., educational purposes, providing native "correct" names). It may be due to sloppy media and so on, but that is not something we can change. Sometime ago some Brits were sloppy and renamed "Wien" to "Vienna". Should we educate readers of the English Wiki then, and rename the "Vienna" article?--HJensen, talk 19:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Vienna has been used for hundreds of years, which is why the title of the article stays that way. In cases like Vienna, there is a "long-established history of usage of the term." Of course, relative to his career, Djokovic is the "long-accepted English name," but how can this mean anything when his professional career is so short to begin with? If time is relative and you therefore want to compare the "long-established history" of the name Djokovic to his short career and his much shorter period of fame, I believe I can also compare the athlete himself to Turin. мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 19:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

What UE actually says

from {{WP:UE#Borderline cases]]
Some cases are less clear-cut. There is a trend in part of the modern news media and maps to use native names of places and people, even if there is a long-accepted English name. For example, US newspapers generally referred to the Olympics in Torino even though most English texts still call the city Turin. However, newspapers in other parts of the English speaking world still use Turin. One should use judgment in such cases as to what would be the least surprising to a user finding the article. Whichever is chosen, one should place a redirect at the other title and mention both forms in the lead.
  • This asserts (without evidence, but it may be true) that local forms, such as Torino, are becoming more popular in some genres of English; but that one should still abide by the Principle of Least Astonishment, and the most common name. Here that would be Djokovic. This makes no reference to the antiquity of Turin at all.
At the same time, when there is no long-established history of usage of the term, more consideration should be given to the correctness of translation, rather than frequency of usage (in a typical example of testing the usage by counting Google hits, if one version gets 92 hits, while another one gets 194 hits, it can hardly be decisive.
  • This asserts, if read in full, that one should rely upon more than mere Google searches, especially raw www.google.com searches; and that if one does cite raw google, the ratio should be more than two to one. So we should, as many naming convention pages say. (And here we begin, in fact, with a fairly complete list of standard sources and no google searches; raw google can only be suggestive here, because Google does not distinguish between the two spellings. An effort to search on it does, however, reveal that the whole first page returned shows Djokovic without exception. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
    The point that it's making about numbers is not that the ratio is merely 2:1, but that numbers as small as 92 and 194 indicate that there isn't a long-established English usage. If it were 92,000 to 194,000, that would be much more decisive, although it's the same ratio. At least, that's how I've always read that bit. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Possible compromise

What about the article be named Novak Djokovic but the article starts out with Novak Đoković (anglicized Novak Djokovic)? мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 23:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps Đoković and Djokovic can be used interchangeably within the article, like color and colour. мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 23:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
We should indeed begin with Novak Đoković, for information and clarity. Alternating would tend to confuse the reader (Why are we doing this?) and would be unmaintainable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed with Septentrionalis; "Đoković" should be used first, with the explanation that it is Anglicized as "Djokovic", hence the article's location at "Djokovic". Also, from what I understand with other cases of alternate spellings (WP:ENGVAR, for example), it's generally best to stick to one version of a spelling, and it can be confusing and distracting to the reader to have the spelling switched constantly. Parsecboy (talk) 16:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I would not be opposed to this. In fact I would be content to see this adopted as general policy - the lack of clear policy directives on this issue (with both sides citing WP:UE, for example!) is I think a real problem, with the same arguments being constantly rehashed on every page where it arises. But I would like to hear what some of our Serbian (or neighbouring) contributors think of this compromise - it seems to me that they do have a legitimate perspective to offer, which it's not good enough just to write off as "nationalism". Vilĉjo (talk) 12:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it's stupid that WP:UE says that titles with diacritics are "disputed" and has little else to say. мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 01:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, it's outright inappropriate for WP:UE to say anything like this. The established convention is "common name in English". and there's no consensus for exceptionalism in the case of diacritics (or "extended Latin" characters, otherwise). Therefore the guideline page ought not to be muddying the waters like this, beyond noting that it's a contentious area. The general principle continues to apply. Alai (talk) 02:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Feel free to chime in at WP:UE. The present language on dispute is the remnant of a previous discussion with the advocates of always following local usage, and is severely dated. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I already felt free, long since churned into the archives. Alai (talk) 04:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's get back on track

This discussion has been going on for nearly 2 weeks now, and we still haven't reached a conclusion. Recently, it's become sidetracked with Tzuppy's unwarranted arguments about an alleged attack on Serbian culture. I'd like to get us focused again on the relevant discussion. It appears that mose of the primary participants in this discussion have agreed to the compromise above. I think we need to hear some more opinions about the proposed compromise, potentially Hjensen, Erudy, Joeldl, Yohan euan o4, Iricigor, and anyone else who wants to comment (not to say their opinions are more valid than others, they just seem to be more interested in the discussion). Comments? Parsecboy (talk) 04:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I see two ways out of this:
  1. We should start discussion on Wikipedia guidelines page about using diacritics in peoples' names, make it clear if they can be used, and if not start mass of changes including this article, or
  2. Leave this title as it is; there's no real compromise above, as topic is not about contents of the article, but title and suggestion is just change it.
I believe that original idea on Wikipedia was not to use diacritics. We should use common English names for some things (like Serbia, Belgrade, Kosovo, and not Srbija, Beograd, Kosovo i Metohija). I just don't believe that Wiki community would agree on first suggestion.

--Irić Igor -- Ирић Игор -- K♥S (talk) 22:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you clarify your second point for me please? The point you're making in that line is clear, but it seems to be contradicted by what you say below it, about using common English names for countries and cities. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 00:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is contradictory, atm. The point is that we do have Turin and Françoise Matraire, we do have Finland and Kimi Räikkönen, Czech Republic and Tomáš Berdych. I can go on for whole night. Any article moving for famous person would be (and is) strongly opposed. But if we would have clear rule on Wikipedia that we should not use ç ä ö á š đ ć, situation would be different. But that rule is never gonna be accepted, I think.
Also explanation why I see no technical problems is using them? You can easily find article Novak Djokovic, because you would be redirected to Đoković. You can also edit it without Đ and ć, I would perfectly understand Djokovic.

--Irić Igor -- Ирић Игор -- K♥S (talk) 01:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

We should not have a clear rule that ç ä ö á š đ ć should not be used. We should not have a clear rule that ç ä ö á š đ ć should be used. We should (and do) have a clear rule that we defer to English convention, rather than make up our own reality. There is no policy that "ç" is never used, or that it is always used. The policy is that "ç" is used when it is verfiably conventional.Erudy (talk) 03:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
The compromise (retitling Novak Djokovic but starting the article with "Novak Đoković (anglicized Novak Djokovic)") is acceptable to me. I certainly believe that the Serbian spelling is an important peice of information and should be presented immediately in the article. However, given the mass of evidence showing that the conventional English spelling is Novak Djokovic, I think it would be a major breach to leave the article titled as it is.Erudy (talk) 03:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Iricigor that the suggested "compromise" isn't really one. It is, however, the best way to actually inform people of the S-C script spelling, without insisting that it be given a prominence that has been demonstrated at length to be at variance with Wikipedia guidelines on naming practice. I also agree that WP practice is contradictory, both of other practice, and of our guidelines. Hence the need for moves like this, and numerous others where the same argument applies. As Erudy says, we have an existing rule (but not actually a policy, strictly speaking) to use the existing convention, and we should apply that as consistently as possible, until such times as that guideline is itself changed. Alai (talk) 00:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Win-Win, but technical! Is it possible to push for technical solution for this? I know that it is possible from programmers point of view. We can add some special mark or category to redirect page that would change its behavior. This change would be that redirected page should start with its own title (for example Novak Djokovic) and text below should write redirected to Novak Đoković. Or something like that. In this way everybody would be happy... --Irić Igor -- Ирић Игор -- K♥S (talk) 08:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
That would be somewhat subverted by the several people that not only want this article to be at its "correct" name, but that insist on the link text and link bodies in every other article use Gaj’s Latin, as well (essentially regardless of context, it would appear). I'm also not at all sure it's a "win", even if implemented (and not so subverted): the point of the convention is to be seen to be following normal English usage, not to be doing our own stylistic thing, and then kludging support for those poor benighted fools using "ASCII". But I'm certain it's beyond the scope of this present discussion; it might be better to bring this up at WP:NC(UE), or indeed at the village pump. Alai (talk) 20:09, 22 March 2008 (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.

Burden of proof concerning move

The burden of proof appears to lie with those wanting the page to be moved to "Novak Djokovic". That is, some editors can oppose (and obviously do), and things will not change. In that respect it is interesting to note that the article was born as "Novak Djokovic" and unilaterally moved without discussion to "Novak Đoković" on March 8, 2006. See the move log. Hence, from a historical perspective, it is peculiar that we are now spending ressources on a suggested page move that just undoes a prior uncontested unilateral decision. Maybe that is what happened to all other articles involving "Đ"? I don't know, but when it is first changed, it gets impossible to reach a consensus for a move to a name involving "dj". There will always be somebody against. (And if consesus is reached, someone will just unilaterally revert, and wait until a sufficient number of opponents have appeared. This happened here.)--HJensen, talk 19:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Actually, no; there was clear consensus, almost unaminity, for Djokovic above, under #Proposed Move; this at least makes the burden equal on both sides, absent a clear demonstration of consensus to change again. To rule otherwise would be to abet disruptive unilateral moves. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You are right about possible development in future. Also, there can be a lot discussions like this. For each article separate one. I think that the root cause for this problem is unclear guideline on Wikipedia. There should be clear guideline on whether titles should use:

  • đ or dj
  • ć or c,
  • à, á or a
  • ñ or n
  • č or ch

--Irić Igor -- Ирић Игор -- K♥S (talk) 21:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

There is clear guidance. We should use them when English does, and not when it does not. There is a minority which loudly opposes each half of this. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no clear guidance on letter Đ! Do not read and quote just the first sentence! --Irić Igor -- Ирић Игор -- K♥S (talk) 22:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

There doesn't need to be clear guidance for every single non-standard character. When there is a widely used standard English spelling, it should be used. That's all we need. Parsecboy (talk) 23:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

If that is all we need, than that would be all that is written. But that's not the only thing that is written. Also, I think that Naming conventions (people) WP:NCP is more appropriate for this discussion. Over there, you can see that convention creators are using diacritics in article names. There are no guidelines that one should not use them. --Irić Igor -- Ирић Игор -- K♥S (talk) 23:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The other relevant thing to consider is that we as editors do not decide what is right. We take what reliable sources state, and use that. "Djokovic" is the preferred English spelling, that much is incontrovertible. It therefore follows that it should be used as the article name on the English Wikipedia. Parsecboy (talk) 23:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I just found this. Talk:Kimi Räikkönen#Proper spelling of his name. The same discussion like this, but the article is still Kimi Räikkönen. Lists mentioned in that article are interesting. --Irić Igor -- Ирић Игор -- K♥S (talk) 00:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It helps more if you explicitly lay out the arguments that were used against renaming the article. мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 03:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
To be frank, a lot of WP:ILIKEIT and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Including a reference to this talk page. Alai (talk) 02:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I think it's sort of funny that the discussion there cited this page as justification for why it should remain at "Räikkönen". And what ever happened to not citing Wikipedia as a source? Parsecboy (talk) 02:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
The phrase "more honoured in the breach than in the observance" springs to mind. Alai (talk) 02:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
It certainly does. Parsecboy (talk) 02:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Also the argument, put several ways, that Räikkönen us correct in Finnish. Irrelevant there, as here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Respect for Serbian Culture

It has been clear that Serbian culture is not awarded the same respect as other European cultures that are older or come from countries that are wealthier or don't enjoy bad reputation Serbia does. Now, there is a clear precedence of Swedish culture and their tennis player Björn Borg, Croatian culture and their president Franjo Tuđman and many, many others. Now, before the other side starts "persuading" me that they're not attacking Serbian culture, I must remind you that Wikipedia must not only remain impartial, but also must maintain the appearance of impartiality. Therefore, in situation when local name forms are tolerated in articles related to other cultures, they must be tolerated in Serbia's as well, especially in situation when we're talking about such a powerful positive symbol of our culture. For those who want to change the name of this article, try changing the name of Mario Ančić, for instance, and see how long does it survive. Wikipedia is about promoting multiculturalism and maintaining cultures that are under threat and to that end some effort must be made on part of Wikipedia staff. Clicking Đ and ć couple of times more is this reasonable effort that must be made to show that you guys respect our culture. Tzuppy (talk) 15:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

You shouldn't be asking "those other guys got to ignore convention, why don't we?", but rather, "when do the conventions get applied elsewhere"? In the case of Tudjman, things seem similarly clear-cut -- and it's the same alphabet, if not to say, the same letter that's at issue, and not too much different as regards prevalence of English usage, so I'd hope the answer to the latter question would be, "soon". Alai (talk) 15:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Our Latinic alphabet is the same as Croats'.Tzuppy (talk) 15:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I do believe I just said that. Alai (talk) 16:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Than what part do you disagree with? Tzuppy (talk) 17:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
What part of what I said was unclear? Alai (talk) 17:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Do you support or oppose renaming of the article? Tzuppy (talk) 23:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
No, that part of what I said was not unclear. I support it, for reasons that are adequately set out in the naming guidelines, and in my numerous arguments, above, from same. Alai (talk) 01:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Than what (on Earth) are you talking about in these answers? Tzuppy (talk) 16:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
If, in addition to insults, assuming bad faith, ignoring Wikipedia guidelines, displaying a lack of basic knowledge of English language publishing practices, and insisting on your "right" to make wholly specious arguments, you're going to neither make an effort at elementary reading comprehension, nor to state what part of a statement might be unclear to you, I see very little point in continuing this "dialogue". Alai (talk) 01:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is about promoting multiculturalism and maintaining cultures that are under threat and to that end some effort must be made on part of Wikipedia staff.
False; Wikipedia is about writing an encyclopedia. We do not exist to foster movements of nationalist self-pity; nor do we concede the claims that eny bunch of patriots wishes to make because they are poor Infant Samuels, innocent and endangered. That's the Sympathetic Point of View, and Wikinfo specializes in it; they were forked off to do so. Go there. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Every project so important as Wikipedia has both moral and legal obligation to promote tolerance and multiculturalism. Tzuppy (talk) 05:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe we have a section about this. If editors feel that Tzuppy's comment is ridiculous, the best approach is to ignore them. мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 21:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

We have this ridiculous section because Tzuppy created it (in addition to assorted other ridiculous comments elsewhere). Alai (talk) 01:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I went to great lengths to make this section more civil than most of this discussion so far and for that I am explicitly insulted? For seven months this discussion has moved nowhere and you people still won't drop it. I still cannot understand why. I have explained our case clearly and politely and cannot see anyone who support the notion doing same. Tzuppy (talk) 05:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Tudjman/Tuđman

Given that this was one example used to justify keeping this article at the previous version, there may be editors here who are interested in this new move proposal: Talk:Franjo_Tuđman#Requested_move. Parsecboy (talk) 18:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

MOVING THE PAGE WITHOUT A CONSENSUS

Do NOT further complicate things by moving the page while there is NO consensus on whether it should be moved. Please read this page. Thank you. --GOD OF JUSTICE 19:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Was there a consensus to move it to "Novak Đoković"? -GTBacchus(talk) 20:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Please do not do cut-and-paste moves. They mess up the article history, which is a problem because we need to keep the contributor history with the article to satisfy the conditions of our GFDL license. I have been questioned about this move closing, and I requested review at WP:AN#Request review of pagemove. If you have any further questions, please ask me, but do not "move" the page by simply copying contents to the other title and redirecting. That breaks things. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
A repetition of my post at GTBacchus' talk page: "Please note that initially the page was (in 2006) removed from Novak Djokovic to the Serbian version, without any discussion (see move history here). Hence, I think it is very peculiar that the burden of proof (i.e., gaining sufficient clear "majority") rests with those that actually want to keep the status quo of 2006. The current lack of consensus is, given the page's history, indeed an argument for keeping it at Novak Djokovic. There is no, and has never been, a consensus for moving it to "Novak Ðjoković" " --HJensen, talk 20:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I fixed a circle redirect that was created somehow in this whole argument you're having here. I think I picked the right page that was the orig. work, if I'm wrong, please correct. Matthew Glennon (talk) 20:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it was a circle redirect for a moment while I was fixing the cut-and-paste move. I think it's all sorted out now; thanks. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Historical background

considering that he was a speaker at the protest, that he regularly visits the Serbs in Kosovo out of solidarity, that he donates to them and that he founded a Tenis school in Kosovo, mentioning is origins' connection to Kosovo of which he's proud is relevant I'd say. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 13:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It is original research that your account of his ancient family history should have anything to do with his appearance at the rally to which you don't refer. And that is not allowed on wikipedia.--HJensen, talk 16:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Novak_Djokovic/Archive_2&oldid=1190123589"