Jump to content

Talk:Novak Djokovic/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

Playing style?

as a top 10 player I think he deserves a playing style section like the other top players, can anyone better than me take care of this? Habibko 13:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Impressions

I think this deserves a mention —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.213.236.237 (talk) 15:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

They were added here but they were reverted, most likely because the information OR. Anyone wondering about this can see Djokovic's impressions at http://www.usopen.org (currently on the highlight reel). -- Yano 17:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)´
It could be mentioned under "personal." But definitely not by creating a trivia section with subjective evaluations of his impersonations.--HJensen, talk 21:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussion about his citizenship

Novak Djokovic's mother is Croatian and his Father is from Monte-Negro. So he is a Croat, he doesnt even live in Serbia but in Monte Carlo! greets.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.17.113.228 (talk • contribs) 15:23, September 11, 2007 (UTC)

He is a citizen of Serbia and plays his tennis for Serbia. He is Serbian. K. Lásztocska 16:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It's obviously he is Serbian. Some Croats are jelous,since their best sportsman are Serbs. So please, take no aspect to such nonsense talking. Look at picture --90.157.200.224 11:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

His father is NOT from Montenegro, he's from Kosovo, which until recently was a part of Serbia. 99.250.153.148 (talk) 22:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Jesus Christ enough with this stupid topic. His mother is Serb from Croatia. You forgot that 500 thousand Serbs lived in Croatia? Now after the war and ethnic cleansing commited by Croatian military forces in operation "storm", there are only about 200 thousand left. Not all people born in Croatia are ethnic Croats you know. You can see when she's on his matches, allot of times when match is tense, she crosses herself in Eastern Orthodox stile, which means she is Orthodox Christian, which means she is ethnic Serbian, cuz there are no Croatian Orthodox as you know (I don't even want to get in to this discussion). His father is from Kosovo and Metohija, as well as his uncle (father’s brother). Djokovic has some family in Montenegro, but 35% of Montenegro population declare themselves as Serbs (45% as Montenegrins, rest are Albanians, Bosniaks and Croats). So stop with this Croatian nationalist propaganda. Man is 100% Serbian, and that's the end of that discussion.

His father is a Serb from Kosovo, stemming from a Serbian Orthodox family and clan from Montenegro. His mother is Serb Orthodox from Croatia. He is simply SERB.

article

Instead of wasting time arguing about the article title, why not put that energy in actually improving the article contents? // laughing man 02:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia policy is worth following, and because making articles easy to find and understand is as important as improving article content. --Tkynerd 02:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
There are many redirects. We can make more if you think it's hard to find. In the first sentence, there is an explanation that he is called Djokovic in some English media. We can make it even more easy to notice if you think people won't notice it. --GOD OF JUSTICE 05:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I prefer HJensen's version. That way readers know up-front that they're getting a dollar's worth of accuracy at the cost of millions in practicality. -- Yano 19:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Moving it to the correct title would be an improvement to the article, if WP policies and guidelines mean anything at all. (I do sometimes wonder.) Though, cleaning up the rampant use of peacock terms would be a good step, too. (I'm tempted to speculate that both issues in fact have similar sources.) Alai (talk) 06:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

.ogg

It seems that when the .ogg file is played when you want to listen to the pronunciation of Novak Đoković, you only hear Novak, and not the surname. I recorded a new clip, and it's still the same. This is only if you play it on Wikipedia, but if you open the file with an external player, you hear the whole thing. Can we fix this somehow? --GOD OF JUSTICE 18:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It would immediately appear as if Wiki only "accepts" a certain length of a clip. I had similar problems with some music clips I made, where they are cut short of what I prepared. But then I just checked a "featured music clip" that was 2+ minutes, so it cannot be due to some general wiki principle concerning length. I am puzzled.--HJensen, talk 18:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Addition: I just tried to upload a revised version of your file here [1] (I just fiddled with the equalization to make a different file), just in order to check whether something weird had happened. But the problem persists. So, indeed, something weird is happening.--HJensen, talk 18:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Someone else mentioned this on my talk page recently. If you actually download the file, it plays fine. (Goto vorbis.com, and download the codec for your platform if necessary). There's definitely a problem with commons java applet player "Cortado". Can you guys try with codec please? // laughing man 19:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
(Codecs didn't make a difference for me.) I have temporarily "solved" the problem by "brute force". Since it appears that endings of soundfiles are cut off, I have simply added a second's silence to the file. Now it works. So I have now linked to this new version of GOJ's original file. God of J: Could you please replace it with yours on the Commons when you have the time? (I don't have a commons account.) Thanks!--HJensen, talk 22:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 Done --GOD OF JUSTICE 00:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Tournament finals tables - background coloring

I can not understand how some people don't see how confusing it is to color backgrounds of one table in one scheme, and the next one with same (or very similar) colors, that have a different meaning. Please respond, and let's fix this issue. Jdjerich 18:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean more precisely? All the BG coloring was discussed, I think, last summer. There must be some on the talk archives on the Tennis Project page. Haven't time to check today -sorry.--HJensen, talk 08:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
In section "Career statistics", table shows runner-up Grand Slam finals, and just few lines below you can see legend for table colors that shows the same color as one used for Tennis Masters Cup finals. Do you get it? Sorry for not being present when the discussion was underway, but confusion is still present, by my opinion. Jdjerich 12:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Politics

Novak has expressed quite a few pro-Yugoslav opinions in his public interviews (particularly in interviews since his reaction at the Montreal Open where he was announced as a Croat). Obviously he is not a politician but these comments are quite significant because he is the among the few (very few) popular figures to express such sentiments since the dissolution of Yugoslavia in the early 90s. Is it worth noting this in his wikipedia bio? (JBT 15:42, 26 October 2007)

Yes, I would think that it is. Please find some good references and add the text to the article :-) --GOD OF JUSTICE 00:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok I found this, which unfortunately isn't in English http://www.vecernji.hr/newsroom/sports/tenis/2923307/index.do
appropriate? (JBT 22:01, 26 October 2007)
I think it's appropriate, yes. Vecernji.hr is a reliable web-site. --GOD OF JUSTICE 01:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:2007-8-13-djokovic in montreal.jpg

Image:2007-8-13-djokovic in montreal.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 12:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Ranking

There seems to be a contradiction in the article. In the intro, it says "His highest ranking on the ATP Tour is World Number 2", but on the right side, player stats it says: "Highest ranking: No. 3 (July 9, 2007)". I am unsure which is correct, but I don't recall Nadal ever dropping from #2, even briefly, however, I may be wrong. (Neosystems (talk) 23:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC))

EDIT: Resolved (Neosystems (talk) 16:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC))

The difference between the two is Djokovic has reaching a career high ATP Ranking of 3, but the ATP Tour has both a Ranking and a Race position which are two different ranking systems. As of January 28, 2008 Djokovic has reached a ATP Ranking of 3 and an ATP Race position of 1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.227.137.102 (talk) 23:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


Weight

Novak is 80 kgs in weight, which converts to 176 lbs. But, on hear the infobox convertor converts it to 180 lbs. How can this be fixed? --Criticalthinker (talk) 21:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem; this is an effort to avoid spurious precision. Novak is not an ingot, which would be precisely 80 kg, or 176.4 lb; his weight should vary by some kg over the course of a day.
If we wanted to do something about this non-problem, we could take out the template and state the conversion by hand. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
That was unnecessarily rude and immature. Grow up. --Criticalthinker (talk) 03:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I regret having appeared to be rude; but on rereading, I don't see how: This is not a problem, and there is a straightforward fix for anyone who disagrees with me and thinks it is. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
No, you don't regret it. If you did really regret it you wouldn't have added that last part. I hate false apologies. Anyway, I've fixed it to my liking.

Kosovo

Novak Djokovic is very proud of his family connections to Kosovo and is a part of the Kosovo is Serbia campaign; he visits the Kosovo Serb enclaves from time to time and has even opened a tennis school in Zvecan for the local Serbs. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 20:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Are there any reliable sources for that? Per WP:BLP things claimed on talk pages can warrant sources. --HJensen, talk 22:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

:I could swear that I added an article from Time, which said that he supports Kosovo is Serbia movement. As for every other claims, I don't know. Was it removed? мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 03:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, misread. мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 03:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Speaking in front of 700.000. people on "Kosovo is Serbia" relly

He addressed the people through the video-link on 21.february 2008. in Belgrade.

BBC,CNN and others reported it...Its not hard to check...It should be added

89.216.101.61 (talk) 03:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It was there, but has been removed. I couldn't see why from the edit history (sorry if I have missed a valid argument). I have inserted it, as I think it is a rare political action from a professional top athlete. So I think it is worthy of inclusion (although the reference does not support the 700.000 crowd, but that is immaterial as I do not mention any number). --HJensen, talk 08:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
If it's not so hard to check, why doesn't the anon add it himself? мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 23:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I included it yesterday. :-) --HJensen, talk 10:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion concerning this article

Although this article already conforms to Wikipedia's Naming Conventions, there is a discussion that may affect the spelling of the player's name on other tennis-related articles. It is ongoing here. Please voice any opinions or concerns on that page. After the discussion concludes, the instances where the player's name is mentioned may be altered to conform to the standards of the English language and Wikipedia's Naming Conventions. Thank you, Redux (talk) 06:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Name presentation - Script order

I'd like to raise the following issue: I wish for it to be known that I wholly oppose this new measure which is aiming to remove diacritics from the names of articles in English. The "reasons" are pathetic and all down to sheer stupidity and ignorance. However, seeing as "backward" is "forward" on English Wikipedia, I am compelled to accept this. It now opens a new can of worms, that being the presentation of the individual's names. Since the popular choice is the remove diacritics so as to present the article as it would appear in tabloid and other subhuman media, it needs to be realised that you (who supported the removal of diacritics) have unwittingly shifted the name of the individual in question to the position of an exonym, though not in the technical sense I know. Still, where there is variation between English exonym and the autonym, it warrants a requirement for the local language spelling. So far, we are all agreed. Now the age-old policy for presenting names based on Serbian is to place the Cyrillic first, followed by its Latinic counterpart, a practice which one would expect with Arabic, Greek, Russian, Bulgarian, Macedonian, Persian, Ukranian and all other languages whose primary alphabet is non-Roman. If the Serbian Latinic name needs to be listed, it comes second; furthermore, there is no requirement for the "Gaj's alphabet" presentation. One clicks on Serbian language, and all of the information is there. The practice is to use the standard print for the Cyrillic, and immediate italics for the transliteration. Examples for subjects with parenthesised Serbian variations for one reason or another are as follows: Sylvester Levay, József Kasza, András Ágoston, Félix Lajkó and Magdolna Rúzsa; as well as Timişoara, Democratic Party (Serbia), Republika Srpska, Impure Blood (film), Tito and Me, Belgrade, Red Star Belgrade. The list is endless, there really is absolutely no reason why the two transliterations have to be listed by their page names, any more than for the follwing non-Serbian articles: Arben Xhaferi, Gülhan Şen, Pomaks and Macedonian Muslims. The diacritcs have been rejected, now no part of the local language name belongs to English, and therefore it is presented as a translation. As such, it follows the procedures as laid down elsewhere: no reason to give titles to the variations, and definitely no reason ever to place Latinic first except in cases where that Latinic name is still being used for the actual article (in which case, one can mention Serbian Cyrillic if one so wishes, eg. Vojislav Šešelj, Milo Đukanović etc.) The only other time Latinic can come first is when it is not placed by the title, but where it forms a part of the English speaking text (actual example: -cracy, from the ancient Greek krateín (κρατείν), meaning to govern). So please bare this in mind. Nobody would contemplate presenting Citizens for European Development of Bulgaria with the following translation: Latin: Grazhdani za evropeysko razvitie na Balgariya, Cyrillic: Граждани за европейско развитие на България. It is sloppy, misleading and irrelevant. Also, I ask Admiral Norton not to remove the second romanised name "Djoković", as indeed it is perfectly acceptable in every strand of society among persons who choose to write in the Roman script to use "Dj" instead of "Đ", it is not a practice confined to persons using old imported typewriters which could not produce the relevant diacritics; if it had been, the other letters would have had alternate forms. The point is that some even favour "Dj" in handwriting. Just check the search engines for articles where "Dj" plus the other diacritics are used in the same text and you'll find that there are millions of them. Evlekis (talk) 13:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should read WP:CIVIL again. Tennis expert (talk) 15:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, please keep in mind that this is the talk page for the article on the tennis player Novak Djokovic. It is not the appropriate place to share personal sentiments on general issues. --HJensen, talk 15:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
To Tennis Expert. My statement was in no way supposed to be uncivil. I accept that it was long-winded and opinionated in parts in a negative manner but I assure you that I was not attacking any one individual. I'll bare this in mind when I make future points, such as now: to HJensen, you're right that this is not the page to discuss other issues. But I was only using them as examples rather than discussing them, examples for the presentation question hanging over this page too. Naturally, this type of discussion at the moment has no centralised page, and so I mentioned the points here. My ideas for resolving this are actually positive. I know you have your reasons for wishing to present Novak's name as you did and I'm happy to read them. Thinking about it, I believe there is a third way in which we can all be happy if this present one does not please you. Evlekis (talk) 07:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
The centralized discussion of article-naming concerning tennis subjects took place here. Tennis expert (talk) 07:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Name (again, again)

The name for this article has undergone intense discussion on the talk page; see Talk:Novak Djokovic/Archive 1 and Talk:Novak Djokovic/Archive 2. Eventually, consensus was reached that the English spelling "Djokovic" should be used, not the Serbian spelling "Đoković". Obviously, by WP:CCC things are not set in stone forever, but making unilateral changes against consensus as, e.g., User:Pokrajac has been doing recently using arguments as "per all Serbian names" and "please stop depressing Serbian language, is not in accordance with WP:CONS. --HJensen, talk 05:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Again Again - yes

Tell me, HJonson!!

Do you agree do change the existing article names :

Søren Kierkegaard into Soren Kierkeegard

Niels Jørgen Cappelørn into Niels Jorgen Cappelorn

Jeppe Aakjær into Jeppe Aakjaer

Martin Andersen Nexø into Martin Andersen Nexø

according to the WP:UE

--Anto (talk) 20:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know whether this question is directed towards me, but I can nevertheless briefly offer my opinion on a case-by-case basis, even though this is the talk page on the Djokovic article, and not some random Danish writers. So any continued discussion should proceed at the relevant talk pages:
Søren Kierkegaard into Soren Kierkeegard
If Soren Kierkeegard can be verified as common usage in English, I am for it (however, I have never seen the "ee" spelling before).
Niels Jørgen Cappelørn into Niels Jorgen Cappelorn
If Niels Jorgen Cappelorn can be verified as common usage in English, I am for it.
Jeppe Aakjær into Jeppe Aakjaer
If Jeppe Aakjaer can be verified as common usage in English, I am for it.
Martin Andersen Nexø into Martin Andersen Nexø
That is not a suggestion for change.
--HJensen, talk 12:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


Random Danish writers- yes, this is not page about them.

With names containing letters "ø , æ " and other characters with whom are familiar only the speakers of North Germanic languages - but not English speakers! Like other non-English letters.

It is easy provable that writers about these persons usually prefer not to use them. Especially not in the title and especially not if they are amateurs.

So , herr Jonson , that is "commons English usage" as for Danish, Icelandic ,Spanish names. I saw there was a similar attempt on Kimi Räikkönen-but failed.


So ,the question what are those universal criterias which character are acceptable and which not??

But I am sure that you will figure something else as excuse not to obey WP:UE in this case. :(( --Anto (talk) 19:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Did you read my comment at all? I favored your (in a few instances peculiar move proposals - one was a no change proposal) if common English usage are in accordance with what you suggested (after all, this is the English wiki). Furthermore, "I'll figure out nothing", as that would be WP:OR which is not allowed. Why would I want to disobey WP:UE? Frankly, I am not so nationalistic that I get all heated up over a few letters. I actually feel a bit sorry for people whose national identity apparently resides in letters. Never mind, what are you actually trying to discuss here? --HJensen, talk 22:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, herr Jonson, I have read your comment completely-although it was nothing new that you might say. As you have ignored the fact that there cca 100 thousand of biography article with title that contains non-ASCII character (So automatically they are "common English names" -because anglophones use no diacritics-usually! ) As for Serbian sport people, Danish writers, Mexican singers.... It is the common practice using originaly name spelling for every person in all the Latin-script based wikipedias. Including this -English . And nobody protested .Until recently, when some people decided to become "bigger catholics than Pope himself"  :((
"I'll figure out nothing"-that is what you say. Now! WP:OR has no connection to this article. His name spelling is something verifiable-you can see it in legal documents! His anglified spelling has no any legal background as well its transliteration into Japanese or Hebrew script.
What you presume about somebody's identity is not matter of any discussion-epecially not this one. So, keep it for self, please!

--Anto (talk) 15:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

What does "What you presume about somebody's identity is not matter of any discussion-epecially not this one. So, keep it for self, please!" actually mean? I mean, I have no presumptions about anybody's idendity. As for legal backgrounds, I find nothing of that in WP:UE, so I am unsure of what to do about that. So what are you trying to argue for here? --HJensen, talk 16:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


I am telling you that name forms in English language sources are not dogma what you and other guys are trying to make it. --Anto (talk) 21:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Please don't "tell" me things. And please don't put words and actions into my (and other "guys'") mouth(s). Just present you own arguments. That is much easier to understand for others, and much more productive.--HJensen, talk 22:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


OK, we are sensitive a bit ???

I was referring to your sentence: [2]

I actually feel a bit sorry for people whose national identity apparently resides in letters

Which is obviously your "diagnosis" about somebody . This kind of describing your opponents is ... hmm ... I don't want to use that word. And NO - we are not interested in your feeling about somebody! If you want to talk to somebody about your feelings there are proper places for that. This is not one of it for sure. Nobody was talking about your national identity . --Anto (talk) 11:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Let's leave it at this. You apparently don't want to inform us about what you really want to discuss. I thought this was about nationality since you on this page came up with a number suggestions of changing article titles of Danish writers (me being Danish). You never reacted to my response, but continued to make comments that I had a hard time to understand, and you even wrote that "But I am sure that you will figure something else as excuse not to obey WP:UE in this case. :(( ", after I had agreed to those of your suggestions that actual involved changes. That, combined with your deliberate - but funny - misspelling of my username, made me believe you had a nationalistic agenda. I am glad to hear that you didn't. In any case, you likewise don't seem to understand me. When I write "I feel," it is an English style variant of "I think that"; it is definitely not intended as a literal expression of my inner feelings, and I certainly don't intend to diagnose somebody. I am not a medical doctor. Finally, why do you think that I see you as an "opponent"? I don't know what you are discussing, and the only thing I have understood, I agreed with.--HJensen, talk 12:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

There is actually a precedent where diacritics in article names have been retained in some cases thanks to a peaceful compromise. I think this might help a little: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles) Maybe there can be a policy on tennis-related articles based on this? мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 23:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Novak Djokovic vs Goran Ivanišević

There are no consistency issues here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PrimEviL (talk • contribs) 21:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Sigh.. Although I prefer to leave in the diacritics, I don't think this issue is worth such a lengthy debate that it has generated so far. мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 22:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I see no problem in both placing or removing all the diacritics, but, offcourse, it makes much more sense to permit the use of diacritics, specialy because there is only this single case, simply because Novak's name is exposed in american/brittish media... and that simply can't be a legit reason for a ruthless name change... --PrimEviL 23:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
The diacritics were removed per English-language Wikipedia policy and after a very long and often heated discussion. There was nothing "ruthless" about the removal. Tennis expert (talk) 00:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Yet, the diacritics weren't removed on this page(named above all because it's an article about other tennis player), nor they were on MANY other pages... I say "ruthless" - ruthlessnes was shown in the force to change the name in spite of all valid arguments were given(that Djokovic is not his real name - Dj in serbian language does stand for đ, that's correct, but c ≠ ć - it's just that simple; that english wikipedia uses native spelling in latin-script based languages) and the only argument pro the name change was the fact that it's represented as "Djokovic" in english media... Now, if you insist that this abomination of writing should be used, at least be consistent enough and change ALL names with diacritics into "english media" names... @elonka - thank you :) --PrimEviL 17:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
"Abomination," huh? That's a little harsh. In any event, there is a proposal to rename all tennis biographies on English-language Wikipedia in accordance with reliable English-language sources. That would often (but not always) result in the elimination of diacritics. By the way, I recommend that you review WP:OSE. Tennis expert (talk) 20:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I didn't intend to be gentle. If all tennis biographies are to be changed, ok, but, until it is done, i see no reason why this article should stand on his own like this. If it is a preceeding other articles name change, i guess i can start renaming each and every one of them, and as a reason for name change to link on this article? You simply can't have it both ways. As for WP:OSE - this is an arguement about a person's name, not about the form of an article... - you either write them all correctly or you write them all in "english media" way... again - you can't have it both ways. It's interesting, though, that before Novak didn't made it into top3 his name didn't make that much of a controversy... There are redirects for people that don't want to be bothered... But their slacking surely can't make a valid reason for a name change of a living person. That's just proving that a little bit of effort doesn't pay off in a long run. --PrimEviL 17:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
(1) See WP:CIVIL. (2) No one is changing the name of a living person. This is an English-language Wikipedia article, not a legal proceeding in Serbia. (3) As for changing the names of all English-language Wikipedia tennis articles to omit diacritics and citing this article as the reason, you're certainly welcome to try it. Let me know how it goes. Tennis expert (talk) 19:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
(1) I was nothing but civil. Being gentle has nothing to do with being civil. And the word "abomination" is a just name for the travesty of writing that is applied on some parts of Wikipedia(this one being the one of them). (2) The man's name isn't Novak Djokovic, it's Novak Đoković(or Djoković). So, yes, the name change has been done. If you can't see the letters with diacritics(and offcourse you can), let me know and we'll work something out. (3) So, you're admitingly mocking the fact that here it "can" be done and on other articles it "can't" be? Now, that's nice. --PrimEviL 19:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Names/words with diacritics used in this very article, other than his name written in serbian language(shall we purge them all?) - Đorđe(Đoković) and Pilić. The more tragic is the "removal" of diacritics/accents/umlauts on all names that normaly have them ONLY in this article... Once you follow the link, you get the proper names of: Nicolás Massú, Guillermo Cañas, Ana Ivanović(woah, a serbian name yet unchanged? O.o), Marko Đoković(the name of Novak's brother is properly written, yet his own - NOT), Tomáš Berdych, Björn Borg(Borg is not so well knows as Novak is, right? I mean, who would want to change a name of a totaly unknown person?), Radek Štěpánek, Jelena Janković and Nenad Zimonjić(omg, both Serbs, change their names, fast!!!). Now, on all of these persons pages the name of Novak Đoković is written properly. Yet, on this page, all of them are written in "english media" way... On the other side, on the current tournamets, on each and every page where Novak Đoković's name is written, all other names are stripped off their diacritics, and only in the case of Novak Đoković they don't reapear on the article about the player. So yes - i ask again - should there be ANY form of consistency on this encyclopedia... I don't say his name should be written properly per se(wich makes uncomparably more sense, but nevermind)... All i ask for is the consistency... Either place the diacritics on the names of all the players that have them in their native tongue(if it's written in latin script) or remove them all. Don't just laugh and mock, taunting me to "try and remove all the diacritics from all the names on wikipedia and see what will happend". There's no need for that. I know what will happend. Everyone will stand up for their own countrymen... As am i doing, but i speak on the general level - equaly for all. --PrimEviL 20:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
If you're going to trouble yourself with quoting me, at least do it accurately. This is what I actually said, "As for changing the names of all English-language Wikipedia tennis articles to omit diacritics and citing this article as the reason, you're certainly welcome to try it. Let me know how it goes." And I am all in favor of liberty, fraternity, and equality for all! Tennis expert (talk) 20:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Sweet, answering to the least important part of what i have written. --PrimEviL 21:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
For anyone interested, there is an active discussion about the use of diacritics on Wikipedia, ongoing at Wikipedia:Usage of diacritics. All interested editors are invited to participate. --Elonka 05:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Look at the archived discussions. All these arguments have been raised very recently. --HJensen, talk 20:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

@HJensen - Nothing good can come from reading closed arguements. I'm not planning to leave it as it is. I just don't want to start the pointless edit-war before i prove my point. Oh, yes, a little addition - on the majority of other wikis, his name is written properly. Most of those languages don't have the letter "ć". --PrimEviL 21:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I think one can learn tremendously from closed arguments. In particular, one can save lot of time by avoiding repeat discussions.--HJensen, talk 08:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
One might learn alot, but there is no gain in leaving the article in it's present shape... Do you care to provide me with at least 1 single reason why this article has to be so much different(check above) in writing standard to the other articles? I'm simply calling for consistency here and for common sense... --PrimEviL 10:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Cyrillic)#Serbian omg, there is a wikipedia convetion regarding the serbian language :O why not try to use it?--PrimEviL 14:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

" Again, repeating myself: :: The page you are referring to is not a policy. It even says "This is not a recommendation". --HJensen, talk 08:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC) " --HJensen, talk 16:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding my previous proposal(since some editors are wondering) - it was removed. And I was the one that removed it. I haven't changed my mind, I've just lost the will to fight the windmills here... If the list of articles using non-english letters isn't enough, that just proves my point. You guys(Tennis expert(lol@expert) and HJensen)will do whatever you want and you get away with it. I don't want to lose my nerves arguing with personas of your kind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PrimEviL (talk • contribs) Revision as of 19:43, 2 August 2008

Why this need for implicit name calling? What is my persona, and why is it relevant? Why can't we discuss this by presenting our arguments, trying to understand each other, instead of resorting to labelling? Saying that I and others "will do whatever you want and you get away with it" is not very kind.--HJensen, talk 22:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I usualy do not call ppl names, but, both of you are being apsurd. I have moved the article "Goran Ivanišević" to "Goran Ivanisevic", adjusting it to the rule used on "Novak Djokovic" page, someone reverted it and you weren't there to defend the "vandalism of balcans propaganda", yet, here you are, the champion of 26-letters. Is the english language so restricting only to the slavic languages or is that applied to all of them? ""Goran Ivanisevic" -Ivanišević -wikipedia":""Goran Ivanišević" -Ivanisevic -wikipedia"=24.32:1; both searches are restricted to english language only. In the first place, if you recall, I wasn't asking for this article to be properly named, I asked for consistency. I see that we've yet failed to achieve it. And I'm not asking for a single rule that would apply to all articles, i'm asking for equality of standards applied on each page. is that too much to ask for? --PrimEviL 00:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
But yet you now call me "absurd". I don't really think that is productive. You cannot judge people for what they are not doing on Wikipedia. That is simply not fair. I agree that consistency is good, in the sense that all articles should follow the same policies. But I cannot run around and checking every move suggestion on every article on wiki (that is why the WP:OTHERSTUFF is a relevant thing often to bring up). That is just not fair criticism. I have actually supported the move in question, when Tennis Expert made a suggestion for consistent naming of tennis bios. So I actually think I am doing what I can. "Absurd" is just unreasonable namecalling. And "champion of the 26 letters"; that I take as an insult. Please stick with the subject. This is getting ad hominem and not very WP:CIVIL. On the matter at hand, I cannot see the big difference between having the same rules for all pages and having "equality of standards". Are you saying that the former in inconsistent and the latter is not? --HJensen, talk 07:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok. I might've gone too far ad hominem, and I apologize. "Same rule" for all pages = all pages shall be named in the same manner - 26letter or not, wether they have same usage in anglophone media or not. "Equality of standards" = we will check if the persons in question are represented equaly in relevant sources(wich in this matter is the case) and use the same "standards" in their bio articles. For instance, bellow is mentioned that it's impossible to find "Novak Đoković" in "english-only" pages(wich simply isn't true, I had almost 5000hits, but that is uncomparable to "Novak Djokovic" search, and I'm aware of that, and, yet, that's even more than the number of hits you get when you check the other search about GI). Ok, some may believe in that. On the other hand, anyone willing to check will fail to come to the same conclusion. Now, tell me - if I go and revert Goran's page to "Djokovic" standard, how long will it take to be defenselessly reverted?--PrimEviL 13:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Apology accepted. We're cool. I can't say how long it will take before reversion, but you could put up a move request stating the arguments. If I see that request, I will support it as I have done before. --HJensen, talk 14:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
I'm closing this move debate, after 6 weeks, as a predictable no consensus (hence no move). I see a pretty even distribution of opinions (numerically, exactly 12:12 if I counted right), and not much more movement in the debate than repetition of the same old arguments known for years now.
The most important result, however, is: guys, it doesn't matter. It's WP:LAME. It's just not worth spending that much energy over. Wikipedia won't break down if this article is titled this way or the other. Consistency was never Wikipedia's foundation rock.
So, whoever opens the next chapter in the Great Serbian Će Battle, or the Berlin Sharp-S Street Fighting, or the Ultimate Icelandic Thorn War, will be required to write "Nobody cares whić of þe two spellings of Novak Djokovic is beßt" 100 times on the chalkboard before they are allowed to proceed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Requested move - 2008

Novak Djokovic → Novak Đoković — In the recent arguement there were no arguements opposing the namechange — PrimEviL 17:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

When I proposed that this article be titled using Djokovic, I presented extensive evidence that this was the convention as found in the English language. This evidence was convincing and resulted in consensus in favor of Djokovic. As far as I can tell, there has been no verifiable change to the facts of English usage since then. If the proposer can demonstrate them, I invite him or her to do so. Otherwise, I will reintroduce the evidence in favor of Djokovic. Respectfully, Erudy (talk) 01:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Survey - 2008

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
It's not disruptive or pointless and if you think it is, you are free not to participate. However, the discussion shouldn't occur here. WT:UE or some its split-offs would be better. — AjaxSmack 19:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the useless advice to yours truly. Tennis expert (talk) 19:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
So, there is no reason for any further discussion because yor POV has prevailed once? Because this is nothing else but a POV. Why have you stopped only at this article? anyway, return to your revert, i give up on this article, because there is no talk with ppl that are so stuck with their narrow minds. Good bye, mr. narrowminded. --PrimEviL 19:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Observation Too bad, since we were leading 2 to 1, but you wouldn't allow the change of the name, anyway, is that right, mr. "i'm-on-the-crusade"?--PrimEviL 20:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose No evidence has been posted that the move would reflect English convention. This article was moved to its current location on the strength of such evidence (see previous move controversies). Unless something has radically changed (and this is demonstrated by the proposers), the article should stay as it is currently titled.Erudy (talk) 23:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak support - I think there needs to be a policy within tennis related articles that determines when diacritics can be used. I think his name with diacritics is more accurate, but I doubt that the article move will solve the larger problem because it never has before. мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 16:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
It is not about "correct spelling", but common English usage; see WP:UE or his own official website. Hope that helps.--HJensen, talk 20:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
As I said, I cannot understand why some people think "common English usage" is more important than correctness. - MTC (talk) 07:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I know. But often on Wikipedia, one has to follow the policies, and not what you like things to be. Here, there is a policy calle WP:UE. Several times I run in to a case, where I think things are presented the wrong way; but I have to obey policies. Or then, of course, try to change policies. But this is not done on talk pages of individual articles.--HJensen, talk 10:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Common English usage is the de facto and de jure standard for article titles. The more "correct" title to Bill Clinton in William Jefferson Clinton. The "correct" title for Dog is Canis lupus familiaris. The "correct" title for Mao Zedong is 毛泽东 or at least Máo Zédōng. The "correct" title for United States is United States of America. Why does wikipedia and the wikipedia community eschew correctness in all of these high profile cases, wallowing instead of "common English usage"? Perhaps because "correctness", especially when it flies in the face of what is overwhelming convention, begins to look silly, pedantic, and confusing.Erudy (talk) 17:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Bill Clinton does have his "full name", Novak Đoković has no other alternative for his own and you're mixing issues here... Bill is the short name(a nickname) of the name William, "Canis lupus familiaris" is "correct" title if you're in vetenarian school, 毛泽 isn't intellegible by average reader of this wikipedia(including myself, i'll just have to believe you what's written there). As for US, to me it makes more sense that the article is United States of America and United States the redirect... But, once you open the USA article, the first bolded title isn't "United States", but "United States of America", once you open Bill Clinton article, first name you read is his "full name"... Yet, when you opet Novak Djokovic article, you don't read first his real name, but you have an honor to see the "english media" version of it. And since when is being "pedantic" wrong?--PrimEviL 03:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Wrong wrong and wrong! The personal name is something "registered" and with a document! "Djokovic" as such is nothing. Mentioning the names using non-latin scripts is meaningless because they require transliterration by default. "Bill Clinton" is the name used by himself and I guess for 99% of the world. Spelling "Djokovic" does not match to any of those criteria! Latin names of the dogs are ... hmm ?? What is the purpose of mentioning the words that is different in all language??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aradic-en (talk • contribs) June 17, 2008
I agree completely. "Bill Clinton" is indeed used on English Wikipedia because it is common English usage (which his name, "registered with a document", William Jefferson Clinton, is not).--HJensen, talk 20:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
The fact is that in some countries is commons practice to give long names. So, there are common usage of "short names" and "full names". At court ,in documents and fully official usage are used full names. In all other circumstances (that are 99% of usage). Such a practice is not in Serbia na many other countries.Circa 99% of people in Slavic countries have :1 given name+1 family name . "Novak Djokovic" is not short neither "Novak Đoković" full name. So case Djokovic vs.Đoković is not as Bill Clinton vs.William Jefferson Clinton --Áñtò | Ãňţõ (talk) 20:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
The discussion is not one on Serbian naming conventions (in Serbia). It is about English usage of a non-English name, and thus of its representation in the English Wikipedia. For that discussion, it can be relevant input that even English names can have different English usage (In any case, I guess that we agree that whatever is listed on a person's birth cetificate is not decisive?).--HJensen, talk 00:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Two things to say: 1.There is not thing called Serbian naming conventions (in Serbia). person has its own name. The press and elctronic media spell sometimes accurately sometimes not .2 Person's birth cetificate is not 100% decisive but it is one of the most important(and most reliable ,too) sources for its name spelling. Especially if it is the only name form used by himself-which is case here. --Áñtò | Ãňţõ (talk) 11:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Ok. Then "Serbian practice" or whatever is meant by "Such a practice is not in Serbia na many other countries". Morover, the statement "Especially if it is the only name form used by himself-which is case here." cannot be true (if I understand it correctly): Here the tennis player uses "Novak Djokovic" and here he uses "Novak Đoković". So that's two name forms used by the man himself. --HJensen, talk 15:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
His legal name is still Novak Đoković. Admiral Norton (talk) 21:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Unsourced; but Clinton's is still William Jefferson Clinton. Legal names are to be put in articles, not decide their titles. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Unsourced? Such an utterly empty claim. Do you by any chance have sources for another legal name Novak might bear? Or are we talking about someone who was not born in Serbia and could have the name "Novak Đoković" spelled differently on his birth certificate? Or, are you actually going to demand his birth certificate just to make sure? That would make an interesting precedent. Húsönd 00:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Unless his birth certificate has been published, no one can verify what is on it. If you are indeed an admin, and so unfamiliar with Wikipedia standards of verifiability, then I am scared for the future of this site. --Yano (talk) 20:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
It's a claim of fact; it is, as with WP:V, the responsibility of those who make it (and would draw conclusions from it) to provide evidence. It has little relevance even if sourced, but it hasn't been. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - I was looking him up after his spectacular loss at Wimbledon, only to venture on his talk page and see this. This is my humble opinion: "Novak Djokovic" is not his official name. It never will be. His official name is the one with the diacritics. If you see Novak Djokovic on TV, does that mean anything? Keep in mind, everyone, the only reason the non-diacritic version is used is because most (if not all) keyboards don't have support for Serbian letters. Yes, this is the English-language Wikipedia, but so what? The list that User:PrimEvil provided above tells us that is not consensus, not to the slightest bit. Until consensus is changed and diacritics are absolutely banned in this Wikipedia, the article's name should officially be "Novak Đoković". Just my say - CL — 20:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
It is not about "official name", but common English usage; see WP:UE or his own official website. --HJensen, talk 06:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
You actualy believe that he's the one moderating his own site?--PrimEviL 22:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
(And please see the talk page archives for the extensive discussions on this; no new arguments have really been presented recently that could change the consensus reached there.)--HJensen, talk 06:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I would agree to make it the "common English usage" only if that reflected the pronunciation. Djokovic (which technically would be Joe-ko-vik I'm assuming if no one knew the Serbian pronunciation) does not reflect the diacritic at the end of his name. This reminds me a whole lot of New York City. The project-wide consensus is to include state name at the end of the city name (like Salt Lake City, Utah), but New York opted to not follow the consensus. I'd be all for the article being named Novak Djokovic when the consensus changes. But if the consensus is to include diacritics (as per all the other articles that contain them), then why stray from the consensus here? Ugh, the multitude of Wikipedia policies and "consensus" makes me confused. CL — 06:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Yet at the same time "New York, New York" was moved to "New York City" because the former name is rarely used. Djokovic is obviously the more common name in the English-speaking world. I see your point. There is a consensus to move the article (for now at least), and even with the consensus against the article move, guidelines in Wikipedia never are absolute. I guess you can say that in the case of New York City, "New York, New York" is no more accurate than "NYC," but I just wanted to point out that your argument can go both ways. мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 09:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Support If we can verify through reliable sources the subject's real given name and the proper way of spelling it, I strongly disagree with stifling such information in favour of spelling that might be used more commonly for reasons of technical limitation, editorial preference or, sometimes, plain ignorance. More common usage does not equal correct usage. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 15:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
You are then suggesting that WP:UE should not be followed? --HJensen, talk 22:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
There are some exceptions that allow usage of of original spelling. Take a look!--Áñtò | Ãňţõ (talk) 18:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I know. I was just pointing towards the fact that the policy generally encourages common English usage, not "correct" or "accurate" usage (understood as, e.g., native language spelling) which is by many seen as a self-evident criterion. The policy shows that it is not self evident.--HJensen, talk 20:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
SWik78, We can readily meet your test with the name William Jefferson Blythe III (this is verifiably the correct spelling of a given name); should this be the new title Bill Clinton? Personally, I find this absurd. Much better to verify through reliable sources the name actually used to describe the person in the English language.Erudy (talk) 18:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
The page you are referring to is not a policy. It even says "This is not a recommendation". Did anyone read that? --HJensen, talk 08:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Isn't this an actual move request? After all, the title of the section is "Requested move", so…? Admiral Norton (talk) 11:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
There was a move request by the editor who started this so-called survey. But he withdrew the request almost immediately. So, no move request is pending currently. Tennis expert (talk) 18:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Unconditionally oppose per Erudy's evidence and WP:UE. I congratulate HJensen on dealing with Anto's textbook example of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. The rest of these are a curious mixture of nationalist trumpeting and metaphysical dogmatism - unfortunately, I'm a nominalist: names are words; the question is whether they are understood, not whether they comply with What Things Really Are. When you come with an argument based either on observable (and hence verifiable) fact or Wikipedia practice, do let me know. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Pmanderson wrote on 2 August 2008@17:54UTC - When you come with an argument based either on observable (and hence verifiable) fact or Wikipedia practice, do let me know.
PrimEviL wrote on 27 June 2008@20:17UTC - Once you follow the link, you get the proper names of: Nicolás Massú, Guillermo Cañas, Ana Ivanović, Marko Đoković, Tomáš Berdych, Björn Borg, Radek Štěpánek, Jelena Janković and Nenad Zimonjić.
Now, by saying - "verifiable fact" - you obviously don't assume that his birth certificate can be used, because anglophone media doesn't concur with it, right? Or, by saying - "Wikipedia practice" - you obviously assume that the counted articles can't be credited as such. So, tell me, have i let you know?--PrimEviL 19:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't demonstrate what he's called in English, any more than the birth certificates of Stanislaw Ulam or Jimmy Carter; and if it's in Cyrillic, it isn't even relevant. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
He's called in english exactly how he's called in serbian, as that is the only way he can be called. And if you have bothered even the slightest bit, you would know that the serbian language has both cyrilic and latin script. You are just wrong and you try to eliminate your opponents by labeling them as "nationalists", and that is just sad...--PrimEviL 20:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't label you; you label yourselves. For example, He's called in english exactly how he's called in serbian, is not only less than literate, it is plainly false, unless PrimEvil is declaring a Serb Truth to which mere facts are irrelevant. All Erudy's citations are in English, and call our subject Djokovic; the very first one is The Official Web Site of Novak Djokovic. (an exact cut and paste) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
There is no such thing as the "Serb Truth". I ask you - is his name "Novak Đoković" or not? And why is his name so fatal that it must be the only one spelled WRONG?! That is the bottom line. And I even don't insist that it must be written as such. All I ask for is that this single name is treated equaly to all others. Is that too much to ask?--PrimEviL 22:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
It is Đoković in Serbian Latin, and Djokovic in English; just as his native city is Beograd and Belgrade. As for the others: we'll get to them in time; submit a move request. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Dude, you're mixing up "different words" with "different spelling" - wether you write it properly or not, you'll say his name the same way, right? Belgrade is TRANSLATION(adopted one, not literal) of the name, "Djokovic" is diacritics-stripped TRANSLITERATION. You fail to see the difference? You're defending the Björn Borg article, yet here you're agains the proper name. Why double standards? Or you have a personal grudge agains NĐ? "Djokovic" is not his "english name", because he has only one name. "Djokovic" is simply an abomination of the word, created by english media, so their journalists wouldn't have to bother themselves with proper naming of the living person... I allways had a higher esteem for the Wikipedia.
About comments that "you can't leave chinese names in native spelling" simply doesn't stand, since chinese language is not written with the latin-based script, while serbian(as one of the options) is. --PrimEviL 03:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
If there were a systematic distinction between transliterations and transliation, Beograd and Belgrade would be different spellings, different transliterations from the Cyrillic, of the same name. Since, however, this rule is something PrimEviL has made up, because it's too much trouble for him to acknowledge that English is a foreign language and we do things differently here, I see little point to responding further.
Börg is different; English has assimilated the word - as may not be surprising; it is possible (if not likely) that the same may yet happen with Đoković. When this happens, the article will be moved; and anglophones will not protest - but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Please confine yourself, henceforth, to languages which you understand. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Are you trying to say that the actual names of the articles are Slobodan Milosevic, Franjo Tudjman, Goran Ivanisevic, Ana Ivanovic, Nenad Zimonjic, Jelena Jankovic, Radek Stepanek and that you won't be redirected to Slobodan Milošević, Franjo Tuđman, Goran Ivanišević, Ana Ivanović, Nenad Zimonjić, Jelena Janković, Radek Štěpánek respectively? And stop labeling people in order to remove them from conversation. And as of today, there is a move request again, set by User:Admiral Norton and, intentionaly, contested by our labeler here. --PrimEviL 20:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
No. that such placement is harmful to the encyclopedia (unless the diacritic has been adopted in English); the result of tolerating those equally ignorant of the English language and of Wikipedia's policies. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Why would the proper use of diacritics be harmful to an encyclopedia? {{foreignchar}} could teach interested readers about the usage, broadening their horizon if they wish to. Wouldn't a desperate attempt to force everything into a 26-letter principle be harmful to other languages than English? --Komischn (talk) 22:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
The proper usage of diacritics, which would use them when they have been naturalized, would be useful. What you demand, however, is improper usage, which would cross the ł in Stanislaw Ulam when he himself did not, nor does anyone else writing in English. Holding our readers' noses and compelling them to learn what we choose to tell them is (in this case and others) a violation of WP:V, and an abuse of the English language and its readers. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support I don't understand why should Đoković be any different then Borg, Štěpánek, or Ivanišević. Speaking about Borg, in Google (English) search "Bjorn Borg" spelling returns 2,950,000 hits, and "Björn Borg" only 2,570,000 hits, indicating that "Bjorn" spelling is much more common in English-speaking world. And at the end, if all the media is wrong about Đoković's name spelling (like it obviously is), I should say Wikipedia should be correct (and redirect and accompanying short notice do the job extremely well). --D1111 (talk) 20:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Actually, since convention exists (and it makes sense: how do you write Chinese names in original alphabet, and does it help anybody?) - I think you might be right. That also means that (most of) other articles have inconsistent titles. No need for bad feelings - I do use and edit Wikipedia often without logging in. And if I may say - it is not nice to call others vandals, liar or chauvinists only because they have different opinion, right? Peace ;o) --D1111 (talk) 23:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is not my first or last discussion about this and with time I have changed my thinking. This is English wikipedia and in my thinking we must use only english letters. Ć,Č,Đ and similar are not english letters !--Rjecina (talk) 21:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
For the sake of unity, Rjecina, for the sake of unity! Most articles about people from former Yugoslavia use diacritics where they are available, so why shouldn't Novak Đoković? For example, look at List of Serbs. Djokovic stands out like a black sheep. Admiral Norton (talk) 21:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
On many wiki places you will find my support for 1 solution for all articles. I am not opposing change of this article name, but I am supporting that all article names with non english letters be changed.--Rjecina (talk) 21:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong support This is not only the English-language Wikipedia but also the most-consulted Wikipedia worldwide, Wikipedia International. If people are looking for information, no matter where they are from, they're most likely to look it up here since English is one of the most widespread langugages in the internet and the English-language Wikipedia is the most extensive one. Some journalists even copy from Wikipedia. The English-language Wikipedia serves as a role model. One shouldn't deprive anyone of the original, proper way of how to write the name because some people disavow that there are more than 26 letters. --Komischn (talk) 21:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
    • No, it most certainly is not Wikipedia International; it is the only Wikipedia available to literate but monoglot English speakers. We should probably start an international Wikipedia, although it would rapidly become unintelligible as each bunch of national warriors diverged from English, confusing both the monoglots and all those who spoke any third language. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, you've got simple.wikipedia, so use your 26-letter principle there. English Wikipedia's polyglot users probably outnumber by far the monoglot users and I can bet you won't be able to find a user that both doesn't understand that Djokovic and Đoković are the same person, and is, by the way, able to read Djokovic properly. Admiral Norton (talk) 21:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't adhere to any 26 letter principle; I follow WP:UE: Spell as English does. The rest of this is sophistry: those polyglot readers whose other language is not South Slavic will find this change as least as inconvenient as monoglots will. (And there are readers who find the identity between Djokovic and Đoković a source of confusion; that came up in the first move request. Yet anyone who listens to tennis matches will have heard the name pronounced correctly.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree, some people will find difference between Pmanderson and PMAnderson a source of confusion. In fact, Djokovic would redirect to Đoković, and we do have {{foreignchar}}, so this "confusion" shouldn't pose a problem to readers. Admiral Norton (talk) 21:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Wishful thinking. This had {{foreignchar}} at the time. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, it's hardly my fault if someone refuses to read. Admiral Norton (talk) 11:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
It is, however, your fault if you insist on writing Serbian instead of English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Let alone the fault of insisting to read Serbian when it's just plain English. Húsönd 00:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Have you any evidence that Đoković is used or intelligible in English? There is none here. You are entitled to invent preferences; you are not entitled to invent facts. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Google has all the evidence you might need. Intelligible in English? Sure (for those who know how to read English in the Latin alphabet, that is). Entitled to invent preferences, not entitled to invent facts? Right you are, just as you're also apparently entitled to call the kettle black. Húsönd 18:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Oddly enough, Google's first hits are all for Djokovic, except for the Serbian version of our subject's webpage, which is not in English; thus providing no evidence at all. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Un-oddly enough, there's plenty of English-language sources using "Đoković" which are not among the first Google hits. It's not our fault that most websites and respective writers showing up at Google are still trapped with ASCII, but that's not a problem for avant-garde Wikipedia where good old friend Unicode has been around for a long time. "Djokovic" can be promoted worldwide for the sake of simplicity to people who are oblivious to the existence of "Đ", but we're still an encyclopedia here. Húsönd 00:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
So you say; but neither you nor anybody else has provided any. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Why keep bringing up Borg? That is WP:OTHERSTUFF: "The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do." I could just all well bring up Vienna: Why do all supporters here insist on Ðoković, while you do not support Wien instead of Vienna? Why these double standards? Vienna is just used because of stupid and imperialistic English media. Etc. etc. ad infinitum. Please come up with new arguments. --HJensen, talk 09:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
You didn't understand, my position is now neutral. As the matter of fact, I tend to agree with "Djokovic", because arguments for "Djokovic" and not "Đoković" make a lot of sense. Those arguments are:
However, these arguments work for Borg (among others) as well; 1. "Björn" is not English spelling, and 2. great majority of English sources has "Bjorn", including ATP records etc. I think Wikipedia should be consistent; either "Djokovic" and "Bjorn" (as per established guideline), or "Đoković" and "Björn" as correct in native languages. You can not use one argumentation in one case and opposite one in the other; they are simply analogous. --D1111 (talk) 10:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Vienna and Wien is on the same paralel as Beograd and Belgrade... it's the english NAME not english SPELLING. You pronounce Novak's name the same way i do. As for WP:OTHERSTUFF - D1111 has said it well - it's not the point in the article itself, it's the point in the arguementation used there not being valid here.--PrimEviL 11:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I simply do not understand your distinction between "names" and "spelling". Could you please reiterate, and in paricular how I should look at either definition in ration to the term "usage" (please WP:AGF I am not trying to provoke, I genuinly want to understand your argument). --HJensen, talk 17:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
You are pulling the differences such as "Belgrade" - "Beograd", "Vienna" - "Wien" - these are the "translations" of the city names, this isn't a "different way" to write them... one speaking german will never write "Wien", why should he? same with "Belgrade"... as for "Djokovic" - when typing in IM, i am writing Novaks last name like this... Why? it's more simple, it doesn't take time to change the keyset, etc... but those aren't valit reasons here. correct me if i'm wrong, but do you pronounce his name as "Joe-ko-vik" or as "IPA: ['ʥɔːkɔviʨ]"? If you go on the page with the serbian letter IPA you can list the letters down to the single one as "Đ-o-k-o-v-i-ć". --PrimEviL 19:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Now I am getting confused. You now introduce the concept "translations". I have never thought of Vienna as a translation. More like the English have named the city; have no idea how it came about. Just like København somehow in the English-speaking world became "Copenhagen" (it is not remotely an English translation). That is why on the English wikipedia these cities' articles are named "Vienna" and "Copenhagen" respectively. Due to their usage by the the English speakers. Then you bring up pronounication. Why is that relevant? (Btw, I try to pronounce his name by listening to the fine audio clip in the article; that also corresponds to how I have heard Enslish-speaking commentators pronnounce his name.). In any case, what do you understand by the term "usage"?--HJensen, talk 19:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
You should preach some of that "usage" mumbo-jumbo on other players pages after you change their titles. Until you decide to change them all let this one be too. Or are you trying to say that anglophone media isn't displaying players names as "Radek Stepanek", "Bjorn Borg", etc? If you are trying to narrow all the pages to 26-letter standard on this wikipedia, GL with that... --PrimEviL 21:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I am asking a simple question, and then you accuse me of "preaching". I don't understand. Why?--HJensen, talk 06:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
PrimEvil is making a point here. Vienna is a sort of a translation, since it bears only a remote connection to Wien. Similar with Copenhagen/København problem. On the other hand, Djokovic was made by removing diacritics. As you say, Djokovic is pronounced the same as Đokovič and Vienna isn't pronounced the same as Wien. There's the difference. Admiral Norton (talk) 10:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
"Sort of a translation", "Đokovič", I am still confused – sorry. I any case, I was asking about PrimEvil's understanding of "usage" and then I got told I was preaching "mumbo-jumbo". That kind of bewildered me as I am trying to understand what is going on. Simply because WP:UE in the first line states "Use the most commonly used English version of the name of the subject as the title of the article, as you would find it in verifiable reliable sources" (my emphasis). So, my wording" usage" was a reference to "commonly used" as mentioned there. Sorry if that was not sufficiently clear and could be perceived as preaching "mumbo-jumbo". (And I do not think that Dj is Ð without discritics; in D with stroke it says "Đ is considered a distinct letter".) --HJensen, talk 11:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
It says "Use the most commonly used English version". Djokovic is not an English version, just a transcription heavily employed by English language sources to keep the letter count at 26. Admiral Norton (talk) 14:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
(left)It doesn't really matter whether you call it a version, a form, or any other synonym. That is the intent of WP:UE; I was one of those who wrote it. Djokovic is what English uses, as the nickname Djoker (which would otherwise be unintelligible) makes clear. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
You don't get it. Djokovic and Đoković are the same version. They are prounounced the same, the only different thing is spelling. Djokovic and Đoković can both be regarded as transliterations of Ђоковић (anyway, Serbia uses Cyrillic as the official script to avoid the need to write every document two times; Latin is still the other script, in all other forms equal and equally used). While Djokovic is partly supported by media, Đoković is the original spelling. Djokovic is no more English than Đoković, neither is Đoković more English than Djokovic, though Đoković has an advantage. As I said somewhere before, Djokovic is a faulty transliteration. It can refer to: Дјоковиц, Дјокович, Дјоковић, Ђоковиц, Ђокович, Ђоковић (official Latin: Djokovic, Djokovič, Djoković, Đokovic, Đokovič, Đoković). For an attentive reader, choosing the correct of these six possible transliterations here shouldn't be a problem, but as you said before, some people just don't read the naming part and are confused even by {{foreignchar}}, so there is no other viable alternative, but to use the official spelling. And, of course, it doesn't really matter at all who wrote it and what does the author have to say about it, but what is written. It is not my fault you didn't clearly specify the terms. Admiral Norton (talk) 21:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I linked reliable sources below that support "Dj" being an acceptable transliteration. Unless you want to argue that the United Nations is not a reliable source, then your qualms should be settled. --Yano (talk) 21:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
That's a third spelling, which also muddies the waters. Maybe I should make a move request to move to Djoković? Or Đokovic? There are lots of different transliterations of Serbian available by all kinds of "reliable" sources (and, no, I don't consider UN reliable in linguistics, I'd be more willing to trust my great-grandma and she always mistook č and ć). The solution that comes to mind is the official Serbian alphabet, the one that goes abcčćddžđefghijklljmnnjoprsštuvzž and is both recognized by an important official authority and by Wikipedia (look at countless Serbian articles using the official transliteration). Admiral Norton (talk) 21:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Remember, Wikipedia is based on verifiable information, not what people's grandmothers told them.
Where does UN write about Novak Đoković? Tell me! Even look at it this way: let's say I acknowledge UN as a reliable source in this matter. Where does that bring us? It doesn't establish the use of Djokovic, that's sure. Admiral Norton (talk) 23:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  1. UNESCO, Mathematical Reviews, and the Ohio State University Linguistic Style Sheet establish that "Dj" is a linguistically acceptable transliteration. They do not single out "Djokovic" for special consideration -- and I shouldn't have to explain why... Suffice to say, most people can construct their own words using the table.
  2. "Djokovic" is established as being the most widely-used spelling, and the most familiar to English readers, by its overwhelming acceptance in virtually every reliable source.
Put those two things together, and you have compelling enough evidence to convince most people. It is certainly in line with Wikipedia's standards of evidence. --Yano (talk) 23:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Also note: Cyrillic can be transliterated into either Serbian or English, with different results. While "Ђоковић" in Serbian appears as "Đokovic," "Ђоковић" in English can appear correctly as "Djokovic." This is backed up by reliable sources linked below. And while the Serbian and English languages share a Latin script, they do not share the same alphabet. "Đokovic," for example, may look "familiar" to English readers, but it is still a foreign name in a foreign alphabet, and that is not appropriate (on the English Wikipedia) when we could instead use an English name proved correct and most widely used. --Yano (talk) 22:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
First, it is not "Đokovic", but "Đoković". Second, there is no official English transliteration. There is the official Serbian dual alphabet (Latin-Cyrillic) and there are various transliterations and transcription used in English, ranging from Đokovic (your own), over Djokovic (current title), to Djoković (UN). With all these different transcriptions, I'd say we should stick with his name in official Latin version/transliteration: Novak Đoković. Also, the WP:UE doesn't talk about foreign alphabets, it talks about foreign scripts, and Serbian Latin is Latin, not Arabic, not Cyrillic. Admiral Norton (talk) 23:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
And what makes "Đoković" "official"? --Yano (talk) 23:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
If Djokovic and Đoković are the "same version", as AdmiralNorton now argues, what does it matter which we use? And how many novel definitions and arguments can he come up with? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
But of course this is sophistry: the two spellings do differ, and we should use the one English uses. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I have said that you're preaching here, since other pages remain intact. And don't even bother to show that other stuff exist, because I'm not calling upon other articles themselves, but upon the reasons they still manage to remain as such. Go and change other article names and then defend them from changing, instead of using all your energy to prevent this one from being named the way it should be.--PrimEviL 12:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I was just asking a question, and you haven't aswered it. And why I should be preaching "since other pages remain intact" espaces me - but don't bother explaining. Your last remark, "the way it should be," convinces me that you are not that interested in discussing this issue. That was my attempt all the way. Luckily, Adm. Norton seems more interested in that. To him, the interpretation of WP:UE boils down to a question of what is meant by "version"? Has there been similar discussions in other areas? It could be interesting to hear what the take on "version" is. It is a bit vague, but when it is to be "as you would find it in verifiable reliable sources", then what? It seems to me that one is then stuck with whatever is found there. Even if that is a version that includes only 10 letters.--HJensen, talk 15:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
So, if we follow WP:UE as you & your friends propose, than we should rename Martin Jørgensen to Martin Jorgensen? -- Bojan  18:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
a) What is this "you & your friends" stuff? You sound like this is some tribal thing. It is not to me, as I speak for myself. b) This is the talk page for the Novak Djokovic article, so other articles are irrelevant here. c) If you must know, read further up on this page where someone tried to tease me with proposals on renaming articles of Danish writers. When I agreed to all the proposals given that the suggestions could be verified (except one that was not a proposal for change), then I just got other mysterious questions. So, please, just take my brief answer to your question for what it is, and move on with the discussion relevant here: Yes, if Jorgensen is verifiable as established English usage then "his" page should have that name. --HJensen, talk 21:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Them, what are you waiting for? Rename it. -- Bojan  04:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
It is obsolete. And Serbian language has few words where we have to write dj: nadjačati (not nađačati), podjebavati (not pođebavati) -- Bojan  18:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
The UN guide is accessible through links on the UNESCO website. It is presented as their current standard for Cyrillic transliteration. --Yano (talk) 18:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
@Yano: It's the UN guide, not the Wikipedia guide. And BTW that combination of diacritics and dj must have been done either by a mentally disturbed person or by someone using Windows-1252. If all other letters with diacritics are used, why not đ? Because it's not in the 1252 encoding, that's why! And please, don't tell me it's a ligature because it's not. Admiral Norton (talk) 21:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
These external guides do not mandate our spelling a name one way or another, but they do verify the correctness of a spelling that some were claiming was incorrect. Since Wikipedia bases its information on reliable sources, such as the United Nations and a 68-year-old peer-reviewed scientific journal, the matter of correctness has been thoroughly settled. Does that mean that Wikipedia has to adopt what these sources recommend? No. However, it does have the option of doing so, and many editors choose to support that option. --Yano (talk) 21:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
It is ludicrous to call yourself "many editors." Admiral Norton (talk) 23:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I didn't. If that blatantly abusive miss-the-point accusation is your only response to my sourced evidence and reasoning, then you are an obvious troll. --Yano (talk) 01:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
You did. From what I see in this discussion, you are the only one agreeing with the sources you put here. I haven't seen any editors agreeing with your sources that don't agree in anything themselves. Admiral Norton (talk) 14:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
On doesn't "agree" with sources. One "cites" sources. And Yano has just stated that many editors cite these sources. It was not a matter of people on this page commenting his citations. For what it is worth, I think his sources provides a good case for using "Dj" over "D with a bar".--HJensen, talk 14:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Maybe you should improve your reading comprehension before abusing other editors. --Yano (talk) 16:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per evidence of Erudy, especially English version of his own website. Restricting Google to English language websites, I cannot find any reliable sources using "Đoković", and none of the references in the article do either. There is nothing wrong with describing his name in the lead, without trying to force it down our readers' throats with an unfamiliar title which violates several policies and guidelines. Callmederek (talk) 20:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
So you say we should continue using the unofficial faulty transcription? Believe it or not, this man is really called Novak Đoković. Admiral Norton (talk) 23:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
The "Dj" transliteration cannot be described as unofficial, because the English language does not have a governing authority. Correctness is determined by usage and expert opinion. In this case, "Dj" is clearly accepted as being linguistically correct by both overwhelming use and reliable sources, including a University linguistics department, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, and a decades-old peer-reviewed scientific journal. And while the person in question is called "Novak Đoković" by some, he is also called "Novak Djokovic" by millions of others. --Yano (talk) 23:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Just look at Serbian alphabet article and please don't post links that don't contain any Serbian-related information hoping no one will check them. Also, I wonder how does every paper you present propose a different transliteration. I say stick to the Serbian official dual alphabet (read Serbian alphabet article if you still don't understand why is Đoković official) before keeping the article at various strange transcriptions, most of which aren't transliterations at all. Admiral Norton (talk) 14:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't matter how many transliterations there are so long as each one is confirmed by reliable sources. And since both spellings in question are correct, it comes down to choosing between one that is unknown and one that is widely known. --Yano (talk) 16:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
So, it seems we agree. Dump Djokovic and take Đoković. Djokovic is not backed up by your sources anyway, so there's no reason not to support this move. Admiral Norton (talk) 17:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
This user can no longer be taken seriously. --Yano (talk) 17:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't see any point you have made. All your sources show different transliterations of Đoković and yet you claim Djokovic-form transliteration is widely used. You are not making any sense. I'm not going to fight back with another WP:POINT statement and start a meaningless fight, but I'm really asking myself what was the point of this accusation of yours. Admiral Norton (talk) 20:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
It is, at least, unclear what the user is saying. The user wants "Đoković" and says that "Djokovic" is not backed by sources. It is indeed what the sources do. Finally, preferring "Đoković" over "Djokovic" corresponds to a "support" here, rendering the remark "so there's no reason not to support this move" kind of a self contradiction. --HJensen, talk 18:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Have you actually read what I wrote? It certainly doesn't seem that way. Admiral Norton (talk) 20:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, of course, what a silly question. Whether I have understood your intentions is a different matter. I just got confused that you say "so there's no reason not to support this move" while arguing for it. If there was some subtle double irony in your statement, I missed it. Sorry, but textual conmmunication sometimes clouds irony and subtleties. So maybe I just read your written letters too literally? It certainly seems that way. --HJensen, talk 23:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
You might be getting tripped up by the double negative, HJ. "There's no reason not to support this move" is like saying "There's no reason to oppose this move." In Danish, the rules are probably a little different. --Yano (talk) 23:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Indeed! I see it clear now; thanks Yano. Sorry for my confusion Admiral Norton. --HJensen, talk 06:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
No hard feelings on my side; I think I was a bit harsh, too. Admiral Norton (talk) 14:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per countless instances of our standard naming policy: In the absence of another naming convention, we follow the majority of reliable, English-language sources. Unless someone is arguing that the majority of reliable, English-language sources use diacritics in this man's name, then there's nothing to talk about. "Official name" has never been the standard here, and if it is to change, that discussion will have to take place is a much broader context. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, can you cite any instance of this policy enforced in Serbian? It's effectively dead in the water. Admiral Norton (talk) 16:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:NAME#Use English words is not applicable. This is a case of different spelling (Besançon vs. Besancon), not a case of a different English version (Firenze vs. Florence). Húsönd 17:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

I'd like to see diacritics in the title but I won't vote that way. Diacritics in the title would go against WP:UE, a valid guideline; it doesn't matter whether I personally like it or not. And per-case debates don't make much sense.

On the other hand, I won't vote the other way. It is not just a matter of my preference: while WP:UE says what it says de iure, the de facto situation is quite different; it has been that way for a long time. This, along with the outcomes of this and other similar discussions, shows that the current WP:UE is - in respect to diacritic characters from Latin-based alphabets - effectively dead in the water. GregorB (talk) 22:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, I'll repeat my argument from the survey: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Cyrillic) is very clear about it. Admiral Norton (talk) 23:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, repeating myself: :: The page you are referring to is not a policy. It even says "This is not a recommendation". --HJensen, talk 08:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, HJensen has just beaten me to the punch.... Yes, it is clear, but it is a description of the current usage, not a guideline nor a recommendation. In particular, it is apparently incompatible with WP:UE - but, as I said, WP:UE is not exactly alive and kicking in this respect. GregorB (talk) 08:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

moved from the survey section There are articles named after the "most common usage" and "the correct name" to support both sides of the argument. Naming articles (Bill Clinton, Dog v. any articles that contain diacritics) is never going to end this argument. мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 16:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Consensus

Couple of guys here insist about some "consensus" about the article . For that reason couple of guys persistently remove the original name form the article infobox. Where is that consensus at all?

I see only moving to the Novak Djokovic (initiated by Erudy). Voting for the renaming was done in only 6 days- well planned period obviously.--Aradic-es (talk) 12:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Fastest Serve Ever

Against Nadal at the Olympics, a Djokovic serve was registered at 155mph. Now, if you had watched the match you would realise that it was a problem with the speed gun. It was a slice serve out wide and it simply wasn't a 155mph serve. It also registered a Djokovic second serve at over 150mph. Could editors please stop perpetuating this myth by adding it to the article? For whatever reason the error has not been officially corrected. People have to use their common sense on this one, though. 92.235.56.88 (talk) 10:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I added a reference for the speed at the official Olympic Games website. Until you find a reliable reference saying the speed gun was faulty, the sentence stays. Admiral Norton (talk) 13:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
The burden of proof is the other way round. We must show that the serve speeds are recognized as records. The result page of the Olympics just show numbers, but the reader cannot from those see that they are records. We must find better refs since this is an apparantly disputed issue.--HJensen, talk 15:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I put back the sentence, but I wrote it another way, so that it doesn't imply it was Đoković's or world record. Feel free to remove it or change it if you don't like it. Admiral Norton (talk) 16:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Good rewrite! I moved it to the 2008 section where his run at the Olympics is mentioned. When references for the serves as records are found, then we can put it back into the lead. --HJensen, talk 16:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Guys, this is ridiculous. You need to use your common sense on this one. Did you actually see the serve? Here is a link to highlights of the match. The serve in question happens at about 4 minutes into the video clip and the serve speed comes up underneath the score in the top left hand corner.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/olympics/tennis/7564476.stm
It was a slice serve out wide, for crying out loud. He also had a second serve registered at 248kmh. That's right, a second serve. It was a speed gun fault. You do not go from hitting 200kmh flat serves to hitting 249kmh slice serves out wide. In fact, it is impossible to hit a slice serve anywhere close to that speed. Use your common sense. I'm removing any mention of the serve, since any reasonable person can see that it is a mistake. I urge you to watch the video clip. 92.235.56.88 (talk) 00:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
From a tennis perspective I agree with you 100%. I don't believe the speeds either. However, from an encyclopedia perspective you have no valid arguments. This place is not about common sense, but verifiability. And the official source gives these speeds. You just refer to what a "reasonable person" can see. That is not verifying anything, and would set a dangerous precendece for what is put into sports articles. My common sense also tells me that it is impossible to run 100m under 10 secunds. I just don't understand it. But the reliable sources tell me otherwise, so I would have to report them in an encyclopedia.--HJensen, talk 09:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
That is a poor analogy. Sprint times are closely monitored, as it determines the winner of the event. We have also seen countless sub-10 seconds runs. That is not the case with serve speeds. No one, not once in history, has even approached world record speed with a slice serve. In this instance, you have to use your common sense. It is one of those rare occasions where you should ignore a reference, otherwise you are lowering the standard of the article by including something that is completely false. We both know that it's wrong, yet you insist on including it. I am nothing if not empirically minded, but I am also a sceptic. You should not blindly include a reference that you know is wrong. Djokovic has never served over 220kmh, yet in this match he breaks the world record with a slice serve out wide and hits a second serve at 248kmh. Do you really want to report that as a fact? It is not the first time that this has happened. Recently, Andy Murray hit a medium paced serve against Djokovic in Toronto, yet it was registered at 245kmh. Brad Gilbert referred to it as a "juiced gun". Don't lower the article's standard by portraying a speed gun fault as a fact. 92.235.56.88 (talk) 11:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
It is a perfect analogy here. We use references, not what we think is right. Period. Note that I didn't insert the mention of the serve again.--HJensen, talk 11:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
You may use references, but you clearly do not apply common sense. And I don't need a lecture. Thanks. By all means put the serve speed back in. Report that Djokovic broke Andy Roddick's record with a slice serve out wide. Oh, and don't forget to include the 154mph second serve. That should really improve the article. Clydey (talk) 11:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Do you really consider confrontation with a different view as a "lecture"? Well, I may repeat: "Note that I didn't insert the mention of the serve again". Why do you then invite me to insert it? That is not really any sense. --HJensen, talk 11:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I was referring to the tone of your reply, not just the content. I invited you to insert the reference because you are seemingly in favour of it. I deal in facts, too, not blind faith. And while I appreciate what you are saying, we are dealing with a rare case here. That is why I think we should at least wait until it is verified as a world record before including it. We both know that it is wrong, so I see no upside to including it. Normally I would never challenge something like this, but this is the only time I have ever doubted the inclusion of an apparently sound reference. I know the speed gun is wrong, so I am reluctant to include it until it has been properly verified. Clydey (talk) 11:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry if my tone was wrong. I had no intentions of making sounds :-). I was just trying to discuss this, and see that we actually agree completely. I guess we just use different words here. I won't reisert it, but I could live with its inclusion where the speeds were just mentioned along with the cite, but with no mention of it being a record. Because no cite has been shown for that. And I don't think it will ever. I am also happy with the whole thing not being mentioned. Cheers. --HJensen, talk 13:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Follow up: I noticed on the Roddick page that the source for his record is this. That page seems to be a kind of a Wiki, which is not considered a reliable source here. Do you know of any more official sources? I couldn't find anything at the ATP site, which surprised me quite a bit. --HJensen, talk 14:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Managed to find an official source, finally. Scroll down the page to his 2004 highlights. I'm going to check Djokovic's in a minute.

http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/players/playerprofiles/highlights.asp?playernumber=R485 92.235.56.88 (talk) 19:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It isn't mentioned on Djokovic's page. At least not yet, anyway. 92.235.56.88 (talk) 19:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It probably never will.--HJensen, talk 19:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Clydey is absolutely right This strange interpretation of Wikipedia guidelines is foolish.
WP:Verifiability is the threshold for inclusion. That does not mean every bit of information that can be verified to exist on the internet must therefore be included. Quite the opposite. Read WP:Reliable sources. See the bold text for "reliable, third party, published sources"? The given reference on the Olympic website is a primary source, not a third party one. We have that standard precisely to avoid this kind of nonsense. Someone publishes factually incorrect information. Third parties, knowing it is factually incorrect, ignore it. We do not then need to "find a reliable reference saying the speed gun was faulty", as was quoted earlier. That's utter rubbish. Reliable sources do not write stories saying what did not happen ("In the news, Novak Djokovic did not break the service speed record today...") and it is not up to others to find sources to refute non-truths.
Compare Andy Roddick. When he hit his record-breaking serve, Associated Press wrote a story that was published by multiple reliable sources: St Petersburg Times, Seattle Times, Washington Post, and he has been routinely mentioned as the holder of the record since then: USA Today, CNN. Equally, previous serving records he broke were also deemed newsworthy and could be sourced: 153mph in USA Today, 150mph in The London Telegraph, 149mph on BBC, 149mph in The Australian Age. Reliable, third party sources (if you want you can use these links instead of the one on the Roddick page).
So where are the reliable third party sources confirming Djokovic's serve? Nowhere. Because it was a faulty speed gun. It was a small error, can be ignored and should be ignored, and instead it is being inserted into this page as if it were true. It is an embarrassment to see experienced wikipedia editors defending its inclusion like this. If you seriously, honestly, believe that Wikipedia rules prevent you removing this, then read WP:Ignore all rules. But there is no need to go that far. There are no reliable third party sources for this. Fatsamsgrandslam (talk) 19:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry if I have contributed to the embarassement. (I have, for the record, never said it should be stated as a record.) No need to call people names; please.--HJensen, talk 19:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Date format for this article

Looking at the Manual of Style, we find the following:

  • Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the more common date format for that nation; articles related to Canada may use either format consistently.
  • Articles related to other countries that commonly use one of the two acceptable formats [day month year or month day year] above should use that format.

Calendar date, which has a list of nations and related date formats, shows Serbia as using day month year format. Accordingly, I intend to change the dates in this article to the common format for Serbia. (That is, from March 12, 1945 to 12 March 1945. I see no good reason for this article to use American Dating format when International Dating format is indicated. If anybody has a good reason why American Dating format is appropriate, apart from personal preference, please let me know. --Pete (talk) 22:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

All you have to do is set-up the preferences in your account so that dates are displayed on your screen according to how you want to see them. There is no cause to change the date format in the article. Tennis expert (talk) 02:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Most users of Wikipedia aren't registered editors with accounts and date preferences. Something like 99% of users, actually. Second, date autoformatting is deprecated - Wikipedia's preferred presentation is to show dates without wikilinks. This is a recent change, but one unlikely to be overturned. --Pete (talk) 03:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I now see the source for your suggestion. But it is optional, and I oppose changing the dates in this article. You need to get consensus for the changes first. And, as discussed elsewhere, you should hold off until the controversy about date linking subsides in one way or another. Tennis expert (talk) 20:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Either you misunderstood the manual, or I did. But I read: Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country... In other words, the manual would not have us use what Serbia uses, but what an English-speaking country uses. This is largely to settle disputes between British and American editors. France, for example, has had centuries of important history with England, so it uses the British formatting. Mexico, meanwhile, has strong ties to its neighbor the US, so it uses the American formatting. --Yano (talk) 20:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
That is intended for such articles as California or Warwickshire, which have strong ties to the United States and England. In this context, English tennis players, or those playing for an all-England team, would use 28 August. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for wider input on discussion at Wikiproject tennis

Hi, there is an extremely long and muddled discussion going on at WP:Tennis about the tournament tables found on tennis player articles (i.e. this type of table). The dispute is over the "Tournament Name" column, with the options being to either use the "sponsored tournament name" - in other words, the name involving the sponsor, for example Internazionali BNL d'Italia - or the "non-sponsored tournament name" - in other words, Rome Masters. I appreciate that this conversation is very long and convoluted, so a brief summary can be found here, which is also where I request the discussion continues. Thanks, rst20xx (talk) 21:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Move protected

Since the title of this article has been changed four times in the last two days, with no apparent discussion, I have applied full move protection. Please open a discussion at WP:Requested moves or some other appropriate place if you disagree with the current title. EdJohnston (talk) 04:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Good call. The editor doing the changes has previously declared his strong feelings on this issue in this March 2008 diff where a unilateral move also was made. --HJensen, talk 09:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm surprised how everyone is turning a blind eye to the fact that ALL other articles on Wikipedia starting with "Đ" haven't been changed to "Dj", simply because, unlike Russian or other cyrillic languages, Serbian comes in two versions, cyrillic and latin, which makes it absurd to transliterate a transliteration. Wikipedia does not equal the American media. It will be moved to "Đ" eventually, when Nole becomes less controversial and Americans stop hating him for beating Andy Roddick. --GOD OF JUSTICE 17:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree with with Bože pravde (but not a comment of Andy R, lol), and I didn't write my opinion in this endless debate of his article talk page, because, articles like Ana Ivanović, Jelena Janković, Slobodan Milošević, Zoran Đinđić, Boris Tadić, Vojislav Šešelj, Franjo Tuđman, etc... all have čšćđž, why is this page unique? Why on this articles same rules don't apply? ... I think rules must apply for all articles on Wikipedia. --Göran Smith (talk) 18:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I suppose the simple reason article name stays that way here is because there are people to fight both sides of the argument, unlike other articles. As for Bože pravde, I have a question. Apart from you obvious dislike for American media, what do have to say about this? LeaveSleaves (talk) 18:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
"Battles" were fought on all of these articles, yet Novak Đoković remains the only one with a strange media quirk instead of his name. Admiral Norton (talk) 18:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
The following is a closed 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 no move. DrKiernan (talk) 09:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Fourth move request

Novak Djokovic → Novak Djoković or Novak Đoković — The surname ends with the ć, that should definitely be changed. As far as Đ or Dj is concerned, well, I don't really have an opinion either way. — Aecis·(away) talk 00:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Evidence

Comment by User:Erudy: extensive evidence has been presented that "Djokovic" is the conventional rendering as found in the English language. This evidence has been convincing and has resulted in consensus in favor of Djokovic. As far as I can tell, there has been no verifiable change to the facts of English usage since then. If the proposer can demonstrate them, I invite him or her to do so. Otherwise, I will reintroduce the evidence in favor of Djokovic. Respectfully, Erudy (talk) 15:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Support --PrimEviL 05:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC) i will say i support it, like allways, but there is an obvious persistance of keeping this name/page named inproperly, and as any major boost of "support" votes would be disregarded as "serbian wikipedia sockpuppets", i hardly see any point of even bothering about it. some people find that if you repeat a lie alot it becomes the truth. alas... a little bit encouragement is provided by the fact that this time it wasn't a wikipedian from serbia that tried to set it straight.
  • Support move to Novak Đoković – It is simply the correct name. Saying anything else would just be reiterating the same correct statements used many times already. MTC (talk) 07:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:UE.--HJensen, talk 11:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Simply, if we have č, ć, á, ö... why not Đ. --Göran S (talk) 12:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This article uses the most common English spelling, per Wikipedia policy. It is the same spelling used by the ATP, the Associated Press, the player himself, and every English-language source. This was explained ad nauseum in the past three move requests. Stop beating a dead horse. --Yano (talk) 12:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. Đoković is this guy's correct name, even if some people can't find it on their keyboards. — Emil J. 16:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support move to Novak Đoković. All other tennis players have articles with original diacritics except for this one. See Mario Ančić, Goran Ivanišević etc. Not to mention the most ridiculous example - Marko Đoković.--Avala (talk) 21:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:UE; however, it is clear from past diacritics cases that WP:UE can be ignored whenever there is a consensus to do so. Aside from WP:UE, I don't care whether the name of this article is changed. Tennis expert (talk) 21:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support "Novak Đoković" per WP:UE; This is the most accurate way to write the name of this person in the English language, as this name has a foreign origin and English allows diacritics to assist reading of the name the closest possible way to the original language. Húsönd 01:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose use English. Name without diacritics exists in ENGLISH LANGUAGE SOURCES, so use the English version of the name. 76.66.196.229 (talk) 06:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
"America" is also a foreign name, but the Serbian article exists at "Sjedinjene Američke Države". Isn't that "incorrect?" --Yano (talk) 13:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
For starters, that article is not about America, it's about the United States. And second, Serbian does have its own version of that foreign name. Not the case with Novak Đoković. Húsönd 14:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
The Serbian Wikipedia routinely misspells names by your logic. For example: Gaj Julije Cezar (Gaius Iulius Caesar), and Pope "Benedikt". If "Djokovic" is wrong, then so are "Cezar," "Benedikt," and "Američke." Or did you forget that language is determined by usage? --Yano (talk) 16:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
You speak about the language like you know it. But from a mere sight of your writing it is obvious that you don't. Serbian language is following Adelung's rule of orthography - "write as you speak and read as it is written" and it has declension system of 7 cases - "Američke" is the altered form of "Amerika"(litteraly - "of America". As for Latin names - "us" as a common ending isn't translated into serbian, hence you have - Gaj(intervocal "i" is being read as "j" in latin language) Julij("e" is being added for euphony) Cezar("ae" dyphtong is pronounced as "e", intervocal "s" is being read as "z" in latin language) - propper by a "write as you speak and read as it is written" language system. --PrimEviL 16:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Ignoring the obvious double standard, your explanation doesn't account for the fact that "Benedikt" actually spells his name with a C. Therefore the Serbian Wikipedia is flat-out wrong. As for English, "correctness" is determined by usage, and since English uses "Djokovic," Djokovic is correct in that language. --Yano (talk) 16:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
you realy need to work on that "sound-letter" system - check IPA for latin language "C" and serbian language "K". --PrimEviL 16:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
That has nothing to do with what is being argued here. "Djokovic" is the English spelling of the name, because it represents the correct sounds, just as "Benedikt" represents the correct sounds in Serbian. Both languages re-spell words to suit their own language, and both languages are allowed to do so. Case closed. --Yano (talk) 17:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Since when is the letter "c" pronounced as "ć" in english? If you aim to write to represent anglophone voicing, it should appear as something like "Jokovich". The given case is plain diacritic-stripping... not "propper spelling", because there isn't one that is covered by 26 letters of english language. btw, just because modern english doesn't use old english letters anymore, should those letters be also expelled from article names on english wikipedia? --PrimEviL 17:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
That's precisely why some users are against diacritics - they don't know or don't care that "ć" doesn't read like "c". They opt to err in their reading and assume that everybody else has to err as well. Ignorance loves ignorance. Húsönd 18:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support-all letters allowed. Why not Đ and Ć??

@PMAnderson:

  • Pedants are those who try to simplify and set all according to their (limited) world perception.
  • You are , actually, one those who are trying to impose some "National Truth".

--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 16:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe so, but he isn't one of them. --PrimEviL 10:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
In the face of the 18 sources collected above that favor Djokovic, including official tennis organizations, respected media groups, and the man's own website, I think it's ludicrous to make the claim that Novak Djokovic doesn't have a common spelling of his name in English. Parsecboy (talk) 13:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Could you tell a policy/guideline statement that obligates us to use Novak Đoković? LeaveSleaves 08:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Common sense. If this wikipedia does allow non-ASCII caracters, I see diacriticless names as cultural fashism. -- Bojan  10:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
That is over the top, and "common sense" is not an argument. If it was common sense there would not have been any debate here at all.--HJensen, talk 11:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Common sense is a perfectly valid argument. It's common sense that allows users to decide whether it is beneficial or not to apply guidelines to these or those circumstances. Húsönd 12:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

We've already discussed and debated this several times. The consensus is to keep the article as it's currently named. Tennis expert (talk) 00:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The current title violates the naming conventions on at least one clear point. The Serbian surname of this player ends in -ћ. This means that the title of this article should end in ć, just like similar names. See for instance Mario Ančić, Ivo Karlović, Roko Karanušić and Goran Ivanišević. Keeping it as is is not an option. The only question is whether it should remain at Dj or be moved to Đ. Aecis·(away) talk 00:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
And may I ask why we write this player's name as Novak Djokovic, but his brother's name as Marko Đoković? Aecis·(away) talk 00:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
This is not the second move request, but the fourth. All of your questions and concerns have been addressed. This article is where it needs to be. --Yano (talk) 01:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
It's not where it needs to be, because it contains a c instead of a ć. Read Wikipedia:Naming conventions and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Cyrillic). The Serbian Latin spelling should be used, and the Serbian Latin spelling of ћ is ć. I couldn't care less about Dj/Đ, but the c is incorrect. And could you please point out where the inconsistence between Novak Djokovic and Marko Đoković has been addressed? Aecis·(away) talk 01:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
The status of of naming convention used in his brother's or for that matter in any other player's article is not of concern here. And you should know that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Cyrillic) is neither a guideline nor a policy and hence shouldn't be quoted here as something that this article needs to abide by. There is no point in saying that Serbian spelling should be used. There is no policy binding us on doing that nor is there a consensus, as established in earlier move discussions. LeaveSleaves 01:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
And why is his brother's name of no concern? Why is Đoković okay for Marko and such a problem for Novak? Or the other way around, why is Djokovic okay for Novak and such a problem for Marko? What is the difference? Surely the arguments that apply to the spelling of one name also apply to the other name. Aecis·(away) talk 11:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus, and it is unfair to claim that the outcome of prior move requests reflects consensus, or even victory. Its a "wash": no difference either way, so don't bother. A new request won't succeed unless it involves a new and compelling argument why the article should be moved. --Una Smith (talk) 04:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Could anyone give a clear and concise argument why it's not possible to include the proper diacritic? What's wrong with using ć? And please do not point to previous discussions. Aecis·(away) talk 11:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

It basically follows from the guideline "Use English". This is English wikipedia, not Serbian wikipedia, so one names articles by the term commonly used in English. And most reliable sources (usually used to settle the issue about what is "common") use the anglicized version of his surname, "Djokovic" (as he does on the English part of his own website). So it is not a question about "right" or "wrong". It is a matter of common English usage. Like it is "Vienna" and not "Wien" on the English wikipedia (and "Беч" on Serbian Cyrillic wiki). Also, what is done (or not done) in other articles, do not constitute an argument, as this is normally considered other stuff; i.e., anybody can create an article on Wikipedia in some style, and should therefore not set some precedent. --HJensen, talk 17:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Please do not dodge my questions. Why is Đoković okay for Marko and not okay for Novak? Or the other way around, why is Djokovic okay for Novak and not okay for Marko? Does their surname end in ћ or not? And is the Serbian Latin letter for ћ the ć or not? The essay WP:OTHERSTUFF only applies to notability, not to spelling and naming, so using that as an argument is useless. And if you say that Novak uses the surname "Djokovic" on the English part of his own website, you are only partially right. He uses both. See for instance his personal profile (top right), which calls him "Novak Djoković". Aecis·(away) talk 18:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I tried to answer to the best of my capabilities. I am sorry if you regard it as "dodging". I'll leave it to others to come up with explanations then.--HJensen, talk 19:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I must agree with Aecis. I'll keep it short, because my argument is simple. We have so many articles with Đ, Č, Ć, Š, Ž, and why is Novak Đoković article only one changed to "English"? Can someone explain that? I think rules must be applied to all articles, change all without čćšžđ, or left them, but don't change only one. --Göran S (talk) 12:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I understand you point, but one could just argue that these articles are wrongly named; i.e. violates WP:UE. I like consistency, but it is difficult to acheive on WIkipedia when there so many different editors. My guess why this article is adhering to WP:UW, while many do not, is that Djokovic is a very big and current star. So there is more editors involved in the article. But is is not like some special force has changed the name into something deliberately "wrong". A consensus has established over the past years that the name of the article should be the English (no quotation marks) name.--HJensen, talk 15:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, Djokovic/ć is a big and current star. So is Radovan Karadžić, whose article uses diacritics. So was Slobodan Milošević, which uses diacritics. So is Ana Ivanović, which uses diacritics. Every single article we have about a person from the former Yugoslavia whose name ends in -ić, uses the correct diacritic under the Serbian Latin alphabet. What is so special about Novak Djokovic/ć' case? Why should he be an exception? Aecis·(away) talk 15:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
We are not responsible for what other editors have chosen for other articles. That has no bearing on how this article should be named. But since those other articles appear to be named in defiance of Wikipedia naming policies, a better use of your time might be to change them to use the most common English spelling. --Yano (talk) 17:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
The other articles do not need to be renamed, because they are correctly named. This title uses the c instead of the ć, is therefore incorrectly named and therefore needs to be renamed. Aecis·(away) talk 18:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
The thing is, there is no existing policy/guideline that defines or insists on usage of diacritics. There is however a guideline that specifies that we should apply the most common English usage to the title. This leaves us or for that matter editors on articles with such title problems to decide the title based on the consensus established on relevant talk pages. LeaveSleaves 18:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Leaving the policies and guidelines aside for a second, could you address the issue I've already raised twice? Why do we use Djokovic for Novak and Đoković for his brother? Surely the arguments that apply to one also apply to the other. Aecis·(away) talk 19:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, they are brothers, so they obviously have the same last name! Nobody can argue with that. We aren't exactly pronouncing them differently. Question here is, how you write (i.e. represent) the names. And here, I'm afraid, you can't really proceed in this move discussion by ignoring the guidelines. You see, I can make a similar reverse argument asking for Marko's article be moved. But my proposal won't stand until I provide a genuine argument for it, once again without ignoring existing guidelines. And remember, here we have each article on its own. What applies to one article need not necessarily apply to other. LeaveSleaves 19:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

the sources that are provided as the basis for the curent naming of the article show names of other players also in "proper english spelling" form. yet, those articles(don't pull WP:OTHER, cuz although articles aren't same, source is) are written with their normal(original) spelling. when talking about "tennis stars" - english versions of the official websites of ana ivanović and jelena janković also do not include letters with diacritics. their articles on wikipedia still aren't changed. i am starting to notice that it is ok to use other articles when you are trying to prove that Đoković article should stay like this, but when the simmilar aproach is used to prove it otherwise, some tennis experts are pulling the rank and WP:OTHER. and that's just neat. --PrimEviL 00:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

There's no conspiracies here. Just an application of Wiki language guidelines. All work here is volutary, and apparently nobody has wanted to spend time changing the name of the mentioned articles into their English ones. I don't think it is a fair argument to pull out other errors examples of names not in conformity with WP:UE to defend committing another violating WP:UE in this case.--HJensen, talk 14:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
So the use of the ć in all the other titles is an error? Then why did you say that "it is not a question about "right" or "wrong"."? Aecis·(away) talk 16:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Was that a reverse "dodge"? So I strike "error" and call it "examples of names not in conformity with WP:UE". And when I previously talked about there not being a right or wrong, I of course meant that nobody is disputing what his correct surname is in Serbian Latin spelling. Nor what the common used Anglicized spelling is. But I guess I should not have stuck my head into this hornet's nest for the fourth time. I seem unable to make myself understandable.--HJensen, talk 17:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy: if the most common spelling uses "ć," then we use "ć." If it uses "c," then we use "c." Therefore, one article can use "ć" while another uses "c." It's pretty simple. --Yano (talk) 17:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
It's pretty not. There are no titles with diacritics where a majority of English sources would use them. They are always absent in the majority of sources, for most English writers will either not have diacritics available on their keyboards or simply not care about accuracy. And then there's always the thought, why should I care to write "ć" if most readers won't know the difference between that and an ordinary "c"? Húsönd 13:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm a journalist myself, and we never use diacritics, simply because the system we use is not equipped to deal with them. We have to write Sigurdardóttir instead of Sigurðardóttir, Djokovic instead of Djoković, Havard Bokko instead of Håvard Bøkko, etc. Aecis·(away) talk 16:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

It would be so much simpler if we could just nuke diacritics and non-English letters, then there wouldn't arguments on why the eszett is an English letter, or the thorn is an English letter, or that diacritic modified letters are English letters. Right now, it just looks like western/central European bias, since monoglot anglophones are much more likely to know the Greek alphabet than these weird letterings, and we don't feature articles in Greek lettering. As for a better representation of the original form, I would say that it is even more so for ARABIC lettering, so why don't we just use those? Or the argument where "English" people live in close proximity to these, because England is in Europe, well Hong Kong has a large English speaking population, so why not use Chinese lettering? Or India, then use Hindi. For me, it appears that the English language Wikipedia isn't for English people, it's for non-English people who think they are English. Furthering the extent of this bias on English wikipedia is how many Cyrillic or Thai or Japanese redirects and dabs are deleted because they are not likely to be used even if they are the original language names. Meanwhile, we've got these things from western and central Europe that aren't even English anymore but exists as article names. 76.66.196.229 (talk) 06:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you honestly want to be taken seriously with such a remarkable sequence of nonsense? It's supposed to be a serious discussions; there's not point in making a point by adding absurd and ridiculous arguments. Húsönd 13:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
76.66, all of the languages you mention do not use the Latin alphabet. Serbian does (alongside Cyrillic). Aecis·(away) talk 13:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

@erudy - even if you spell it as "Novak Djokovic", he isn't "Novak D.", but "Novak Dj.". --PrimEviL 16:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

haven't you people got anything better to argue about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.215.199 (talk) 03:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment Aecis, I'm wondering if you read the closing statement by Fut. Perf. in the last move request here. Since you were the initiator of this move request, I think you've got something to type ;) Parsecboy (talk) 14:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes, I have read it. And surprisingly, I agree with Fut.Perf. about WP:LAME to some extent. Wikipedia will not break down if the name contains a c instead of a ć. The content of the article is more important than the title. But an accurate title imo makes the difference between good and better. And it's important to realize that a close never rules out a new request. An article that is kept in AFD once might be deleted the next time, because consensus can change. A consensus in favour of one title (or no consensus, defaulting in no change, with the previous move request) can be a consensus in favour of another title the next time. Aecis·(away) talk 22:06, 13 February 2009 (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.

what discussion was closed below? --PrimEviL 00:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

vote ratio is 9:8 in favor of the change. if you are to close the voting, rename the article(and the use of the name troughout the wikipedia) - otherwise don't do this. --PrimEviL 15:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

@hjensen - the majority of votes was in favor of change. what is this now? --PrimEviL 17:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess you should ask the administrator who closed the poll. My experience is that it takes "more than a majority" to overturn consensus. But maybe the administrator has some more precise answers at hand.--HJensen, talk 17:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
The move request was closed by an admin made notorious by his past closings... i call for unlocking this poll or for change stemming from the poll results... --PrimEviL 18:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Template Header

What do people think about this? I tried to revert it, but Husond is now reverting my reverts. Personally, I don't think three names belong in the template header, as all the other tennis headers only use one. This seems to be a matter for WikiProject Tennis. --Yano (talk) 15:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

No Wikiproject decides this kind of things. It is normal practice on Wikipedia to include the name of the subject in its original language on the infobox. Húsönd 15:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Whether you can find precedent to justify it or not, this edit is highly disruptive in the middle of a move request. Everyone involved is aware of that discussion, and really this addition is just another avenue for it. As frustrating as the matter is, provocative edits such as this -- and the entailing edit wars -- accomplish very little. --Yano (talk) 16:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
As for precedent, many Featured Articles only use the article title in the header: Anton Chekhov, Wail al-Shehri, Shahbag, Darjeeling, IIT KGP, Ghandi, Simeon I of Bulgaria, Prince Sadruddin Aga Khan, Anastasia Nikolaevna, etc. These articles are considered to be of the highest quality, so we should follow their normal practice. --Yano (talk) 16:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
There are also many articles that have native spelling in template header. Do not make a "per talk" call when you remove name, because there is nothing to make that call upon.--PrimEviL 15:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I would think there is something on this talk page to make that call upon. The current WP:CONSENSUS for the article's name is documented here on the talk page. Currently that consensus, in confirmity with WP:UE, calls for using the common English usage of his name. Like it or not, that version is "Novak Djokovic" as most sources show above.--HJensen, talk 17:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Consensus? :D count the votes, mate. --PrimEviL 10:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I know, but consensun is not the same as majority; see WP:PRACTICAL for details. --HJensen, talk 20:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
The discussion about the name of the article has ended with, as I see it, no consensus either way, defaulting in no change to the title. This discussion is not about the name of the article though, it's about whether or not the Serbian name (Новак Ђоковић) and its transliteration into the Latin alphabet (Novak Đoković) should be included in the infobox. Aecis·(away) talk 20:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Why? It seems odd to put a lot of versions in the info box. The latin and/or cyrilic Serbian spelling are in the first line of the article (as is convention)—this should suffice.--HJensen, talk 20:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Novak_Djokovic/Archive_3&oldid=1190128221"