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 5Archive 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 (talkcontribs) 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)

There are no consistency issues here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PrimEviL (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 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)

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 DjokovicNovak 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)