Talk:Novak Djokovic/Archive 1

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

Spelling of Djokovic

Before you change the spelling to the English spelling please notice what is at the head of the article

The title of this article contains the following characters: Đ and Ć. Where they are unavailable or not desired, the name may be represented as Novak Djokovic.

The proper spelling is available so please use it! Laboviorodruin (talk) 14:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed! We don't want to start THIS all over again! --HJensen, talk 19:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Where they are unavailable or not desired. See WP:NC(UE): "If you are talking about a person, country, town, film, book, or video game, use the most commonly used English version of the name for the article, as you would find it in other encyclopedias and reference works." Alai (talk) 17:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Read the part about diacritics - an issue where there is not agreement on. That was what caused all the stir regarding the name of this article.--HJensen, talk 23:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I already did, thanks. The lack of agreement on a general rule for non-English letters just means there's not a general rule for non-English letters: it does not negate the general principle of following the most common spelling in comparable sources in English. Where that spelling uses diacritics, or other non-English letters, as is often the case, we should do likewise. Where it's not, we shouldn't either. I think it's fairly clear which is the case here. Alai (talk) 04:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Just tell me one thing , Alai: why Đoković is not desired here?? Which diacritics are and which are not desired?

Wikipedia:Romanization says nothing about it! Romanization and transliteration are made for non-latin scripts for the languages that don't use Latin script. moreover for the Finnish is specifically written :

There is no WP ruler for Serbian names! --Anto (talk) 12:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Improvements

Seeing as how Djokovic is one of the rising stars of tennis, can we make him have a nice format like Federer or Roddick. Skislope15 01:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Myopic?

I just saw some of his off-court pictures on the official website. He is shown wearing colorless glasses. Does anyone know if he's myopic or what? We're not in a time when people wear glasses to be good-looking.

Height

I know he gets listed at 6'2", but he's clearly only the same height (if not a tiny bit shorter) than 6'1" Rafael Nadal (who's actually shorter than 6'1" listed Federer):

http://www.novak-djokovic.com/photo/2007_wimbledon/djokovic_wimbledon2007_27.jpg

He looks taller to me... But it's nearly impossible to tell from that angle 87.250.42.202 22:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Ha, I just noticed this. I recently changed his height to 187 cm (~6'-1.5") since that is what the ATP officially gives him. It also makes since, as he's only a little bit taller than 6'1" Roger Federer if even taller at all. He's definitely not a full 6'2", and probably no more than 6'1". --Criticalthinker 23:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Rumours

We don't have any reliable information about his mother contacting the English.There were rummors that A.Ivanovic will take Swiss passport and nothing happened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.66.175.86 (talk • contribs) 18:45, July 1, 2006 (UTC)

Name

At the Grand Slam event websites, he is listed as Novak Djokovic, but here he is listed as Novak Đoković. Is there a reason for this discrepancy? Hallpriest9 (Talk | Archive) 13:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

That is the proper spelling in Serbian. The letter Đ is often represented as Dj as some encodings do not support these extended latin characters set. // laughing man 15:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
And since this is the English Wikipedia, the correct spelling is Djokovic, per WP:UE. User:Hallpriest9's confusion is an excellent example of the reason WP:UE is needed and should be followed. --Tkynerd 00:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I found WP:UE quite confusing and inconslusive to be honest. But are you suggesting that the article is renamed?--HJensen, talk 13:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
WP:UE is admirably clear on this particular point: If a native spelling uses different letters than the most common English spelling (eg, Wien vs. Vienna), only use the native spelling as an article title if it is more commonly used in English than the anglicized form. There is no question in my mind; this article should be renamed. --Tkynerd 17:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
So articles like Užice, České Budějovice, Dolní Benešov, Dobruška, Kadaň, (the list can go on) should be renamed? The article on Tomás Cardinal Ó Fiaich isn't "Tomas Cardinal O'Fiaich". Come on, it's not bad the way it is now. Don't over-dramatisize. --Bolonium 21:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not "over-dramatizing" anything. I'm just pointing out that an English-language encyclopedia should use English titles for its articles. Nothing dramatic, just common sense. --Tkynerd 02:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I see your point, but your suggestion is bigger than Novak Djokovic article... Why don't you go at some Wikipedia article, and try to make your point be heard, and maybe we will change all the articles. --Göran Smith 03:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
This is a Wikipedia article, and the process has to start somewhere. Why not here? --Tkynerd 03:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Point taken. And note that, ironically, in the article it even says "commonly spelled "Djokovic" in English media" in the lead! So, I favor a name change. (But I still think that the WP:UE needs a brush up given all the incoherent lists of exeptions.... :-) ). This is an English Wikipedia, not a World Wikipedia. Renaming it would be consistent with the fact that we say "French Open" and not "Roland Garros". In case of doubts and disputes about english spelling of a particular name, let us use the ATP. And there it says in this case: "Novak Djokovic" --HJensen, talk 07:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
That's fine but I think WP:UE is refering to non-Latin alphabets. "Latin-alphabet languages, like Spanish or French, should need no transliteration, but Chinese names can use Pinyin, for example." It also says it's not written in stone, and there could be exceptions.
As previously suggested, if you do feel very strongly about this please bring this discussion to a larger place, perhaps the Tennis and Biography WikiProjects as I feel that Wikipedia should be consistent also. If so, add Björn Borg, Ilie Năstase, Carlos Moyà, Goran Ivanišević, Amélie Mauresmo, Jana Novotná to the list of other notable tennis players that have the native alphabets used, and I'm sure there's many more. // laughing man 14:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
The Tennis WikiProject is definitely not the place to bring this up, and I'm not at all certain that the Biography WikiProject is the right place either. In any case, to me your article smells of WP:OTHERSTUFF -- it sounds as if you think that by taking a stand on this issue for an article I happen to be specifically interested in, I am obligating myself to take on that issue for all of Wikipedia (or even just for significant portions of it). I reject that concept absolutely. --Tkynerd 01:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree; not even the ATP or WTA use those foreign characters in those names. --Bolonium 21:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
IMO, for tennis players the spellings used by the ATP and the WTA are about as close as we can get to "standard" or "widely accepted" English spellings for these names, especially since most English-language media use those spellings and they are, therefore, what most English speakers are exposed to and will recognize. --Tkynerd 01:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Please do read the first paragraph of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)#Disputed_issues. --Joy [shallot] 22:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
If you're addressing me: I've already read it several times. To my mind, the arguments in favor of diacritics are easily trumped by the simple principles of usability that are supposed to govern an encyclopedia. I maintain that If a native spelling uses different letters than the most common English spelling (eg, Wien vs. Vienna), only use the native spelling as an article title if it is more commonly used in English than the anglicized form is simple, clear, to the point, and the right principle to follow because it tends to maintain the usability of the encyclopedia. --Tkynerd 01:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I think in the particular issue at hand, we are beyond just putting an accent on or not (Moya or Moyà, not that big a deal to me). Here, it is concerning a letter I cannot create on the keyboard (I always copy paste the Đ). And it is always written as "Dj" in all English-speaking media. So I cannot see why we should maintain the name of the article.--HJensen, talk 06:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, you are really not making a conclusive argument. The encyclopedia is also supposed to be governed by a simple principle of accuracy - and his name is most accurately spelled the way he spells it natively. So this talk of simple principles gets us - nowhere.
On the other hand, there is actually very little usability lost for everyone who can't easily type Đ and ć - because there's a redirect at Novak Djokovic which gets them to the article. --Joy [shallot] 22:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry if I gave the impression of providing a conclusive argument. That was not my intent. My intent was to contribute to this discussion by giving one hitherto not stated argument, namely that of editing troubles. I am, however, fully aware that Wiki should put readers above editors; hence, the argument should not be given that much weight, as readers will be redirected. However, redirecting aside (which I think there should be as little of as possible), there is still the issue of what to call the tennis player in other articles - and that is an editor problem. Finally, your accuracy argument means, e.g., that all Chinese names should not be written in English, so I don't find it that too convincing, and definitely not conclusive :-). At least, it won't bring us anywhere either.--HJensen, talk 10:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Please read the comment that started this thread. The redirect creates confusion because the English transliteration of the name looks different from the Serbian original. Anything that triggers a "what the heck happened?" reaction from encyclopedia users detracts from the encyclopedia's usability. --Tkynerd 23:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, I can't really respond to this in a way other than - there's always going to be people getting confused by something. Does the encyclopedia fail to explain that both versions are used? Not all aspects of everything can be immediately obvious to everyone. When I go to awk, I end up at AWK (programming language), but I don't go about complaining about that (given that the reason for the lengthy title is explained in the first few lines of the article). It doesn't make the encyclopedia less usable just because I immediately learned something I didn't know before. (Gosh. Now that I typed that sentence, I realize the utter irony of that - it's the purpose of an encyclopedia to help people learn something.) --Joy [shallot] 17:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Of course there will always be things that are confusing to some people. Anybody who's answered questions at the Help desk knows that. But that just means it's appropriate to keep the confusion to a minimum. In the case of this article, the appropriate approach, outlined in at least one guideline that I can't find right now, is to use the English spelling as the name of the article, and the native spelling in the first sentence, in parentheses. It might look like this:
Joy (French: Joi) is a French fashion model.
(Of course I made that up. I think. I just used "Joy" because it's your user name and I happened to know the French word for it.) That manages to "help people learn something" while eliminating the confusion. A much wiser approach. --Tkynerd 18:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree completely. I fail to see your arguments Joy. What do you think is the best name for the article? You seem almost to be arguing that we could use any type of spelling for articles; native, English, with or without diacritics, etc., as long as the reader is redirected since that process has educational value per se. I don't think this is the point of the discussion. The point is: What is the appropriate name for this article? I think, as it should be evident, that "Novak Djokovic" is an excellent name. It is the way he is referred to in English. See, e.g., the 2007 draw of US Open for a recent prominent example. --HJensen, talk 19:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
This is very much an academic debate. There doesn't appear to be much confusion, and there isn't much evidence to undermine the appropriateness of the current name, simply because there wasn't a single move attempt since the original addition of diacritics a year and half ago. If the status quo doesn't actually bother anyone enough to change it, then we don't really have a problem. I also remain unconvinced that "use common English name" takes precedence over "use his exact name", as I tried to explain before, because both arguments may or may not apply. (I didn't try to respond to the mention of Chinese names, assuming that it was understood how you helped prove my point, that both arguments are partially applicable, but I guess it's good to spell that out.) --Joy [shallot] 01:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

(Restarting indentation) Well, no. It's actually simple. "Use common English name" takes precedence over "use the native spelling of his name" because this is the English Wikipedia and it is intended to be used by English speakers. Nor is it particularly academic (whatever that means); why should the English Wikipedia use a Serbian spelling, any more than the Serbian Wikipedia should use an English spelling (for an American person, for instance)? If the Bulgarian Wikipedia can do this (notice lack of redirect), and they should and do, then I think the English Wikipedia should use English spellings to eliminate confusion. The mention of Chinese names didn't "help prove [your] point" at all. --Tkynerd 02:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I may add that Joy's argument that there is no need to make a change, as there has been no debate for x moths is a poor one. I don't think that it is Wiki policy that things in general should stay unchanged, if it has been wrong long enough.--HJensen, talk 06:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I disagree that it's simple just because we're not on the native Wikipedia to the name. This is not an English spelling as such, it's just a poor man's transliteration for people (like journalists) who don't care about finding the right set of diacritics. Obviously, if a sufficient number of native English speakers wish to claim that it's all right to cut out those diacritics and form a new word which is easier to type but still equally hard to pronounce even remotely properly, and then claim that that's the canonical English spelling of the original word, I can't argue against that.
HJensen, the argument isn't "there has been no debate for x months", I have already pointed to the old general debate on this question that was unresolved. The argument is simply that nobody seems willing to even try to resolve the matter in your favour - which makes the matter fairly academic (where "academic" means "hypothetical or theoretical and not expected to produce an immediate or practical result", per WordNet dictionary).
In any case, I don't think I can explain my thoughts any clearer than this, so let's just agree to disagree. --Joy [shallot] 11:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not looking for you to agree with me necessarily; we can happily agree to disagree. But the article title needs to be changed. --Tkynerd 02:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
As an addition, I also oppose the argument that we in case of a change have to change all other article names (like the ones mentioned previously). I feel Wikipedia is an ongoing process, where we cannot expect internal consistency everywhere at all points in time. And also, it is like opposing a change by the argument that it is not implemented in another article (I actually think that kind of arguments are disencouraged and has a name, but I haven't time to check right now). In my book, any improvement is an improvement. --HJensen, talk 06:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that's exactly what I meant by bringing up WP:OTHERSTUFF above. Thank you. --Tkynerd 23:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Saw this thread from the Roger Federer page; why not mention this at WP:RfC to build a further consensus? oncamera(t) 00:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Good idea. I'll mention it there.--HJensen, talk 10:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Why not Dokovic?! I want to stress another issue, that can be interesting by my opinion. If letter "Đ" is written as "Dj", why don't we use "ch" for last letter of Novak's family name? In Serbian it is writen "Đoković", so where is the logic to write the first letter differently, and the last letter of the same word we write as a completely different letter - "c" instead of "ć" Jdjerich 23:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't know the answer to that (although I do know that transliteration is a complex, non-obvious process), but Wikipedia should reflect actual English usage, and actual English usage is to spell the name "Djokovic." --Tkynerd 01:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Novak Djokovic redirects here anyway. There are thousands of other articles, just like this one... It'll be tough changing them all to the English usage some people prefer. There are news posts in English that use "Đoković", like this one... --Bolonium 04:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
That news source is Serbian, as you have noted yourself in an edit, but reverted. But for the record, the policy of the web site is here. So no wonder they uses the Serbian spelling. Never mind, more importantly I think your argument that there are thousands of other articles that need to be changed if we change this one, is very inappropriate per wiki policy WP:OTHERSTUFF. Please keep the discussion to this article. We are not obliged to make consistency changes to thousands aricles if this article changes it name! As for your statement "the English usage some people prefer," I think it misses a very crucial point. This debate is not over preferring one language usage over another in general. It is about acknowledging that the article being dicussed is on the English Wikipedia. And in that version of Wikipedia it is the policy to give articles names that reflects what is commonly used in English; see again WP:UE. This is comparable to what happens at the Japanese Wikipedia. There, articles have Japanese names and spelling. Indeed, the article on Novak has a Japanese name, and his native name in native spelling is then mentioned in the lead (as I am able to guess from

this). This is not, I suspect, reflecting a preference of Japanese over Serbian per se, but simply a result of a choice based on a presumption that readers of the Japanese Wikipedia read Japanese. --HJensen, talk 08:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the Serbian spelling looks cooler but agree that it is against policy. I would support the policy being changed but that is a different topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.191.16.83 (talk) 09:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Change - As much trouble as I have with America's (or is it the english world's) history of changing non-english characters and names, I think that any article title that can't be easily typed or understood should be changed. Both links can be allowed to work it's just that the main article title should be the english, and all redirects shouls go there not here. Adam McCormick 01:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Change - I don't mind either way, really, but as Novak plays more tournaments, his name will be in English articles more often and it'll be commonly spelled Djokovic, thus falling in line with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Perhaps, though, there's a way to also include the spelling of Đoković in the opening? oncamera(t) 14:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • That is actually standard practice. See WP:UE, and for an example, see Elena Paparizou. So yes, if the article title is changed, the Serbian spelling should be in the opening sentence. --Tkynerd 02:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Elena Paparizou is Greek, Greek language has a different script from Latin. Serbian, unlike Greek, has both Cyrillic and Latin script. Greek needs to be transliterated, Serbian Latin, lucky for us, doesn't. --GOD OF JUSTICE 04:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Change - CBS, USA, the Associated Press, and the ATP all spell his name 'Djokovic.' Even Djokovic's official site uses this spelling: "The Official Internet Site of Novak Djokovic" @ http://www.novak-djokovic.com/. It's common sense that we should use the English spelling here and include the Serbian spelling in the opening line, as is customary. Yano 23:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Should an encyclopedia blindly listen to CBS? --GOD OF JUSTICE 04:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
@Tkynerd: Yes, but that's because it's in the Greek alphabet. You obviously won't find any Serbian articles written in Cyrillic. If this article's name is changed, then the Amélie Mauresmo, Björn Borg, Goran Ivanišević, Ilie Năstase and others should be changed as well. People are making a too big of a deal out of this. Novak Djokovic redirects here anyway. Why not just add {{foreignchars}} to the top of the page? The Goran Ivanisevic article uses that anyway. And besides, I think that this discussion should be elsewhere, like on a wikiproject, because it's beyond Djokovic's case. --Bolonium 23:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think what other articles do is relevant, as I believe Tkynerd said earlier. Speaking as someone who came here looking for information on Djokovic a few days ago, and whose reaction upon downloading the page was "Those crazy Wikipedians spell his name differently from everyone else!", I believe the current title only distracts from its subject. An encyclopedia article should not spell its subject's name differently from every other source -- not least the subject's own official homepage. Yano 23:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. But since people keep arguing in opposition to WP:OTHERSTUFF, then let me quote from it: "The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based on what other articles do or do not exist" Hence, for the issue of hand here, it is not a good argument against a name change that Borg should then lose an umlaut or not. Borg's umlaut is another discussion.--HJensen, talk 00:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
There are many references to "WP:OTHERSTUFF" which is simply an essay regarding deletion arguments. This is entirely different, and I feel that consistency in our entire encyclopedia is more important that the name of a single article. This article title should be consistent with other similar articles on "foreign" tennis players.// laughing man 16:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I merely thought that arguments deemed inappropriate in deletion debates were inappropriate in other debates also. That would seem consistent to me. :-) --HJensen, talk 18:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
But there is no clear consensus that those arguments are inappropriate in deletion debates, which is why that essay is an essay, not policy nor even a guideline. I think that much of that essay (in particular WP:BHTT) is simply wrong. --Trovatore 19:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
It's still fallacious to bring up "other stuff," because there will always be other stuff breaking the rules, and those other stuff exist under different circumstances anyways, with different editors and different sources; Borg and Mauresmo, for example, might traditionally maintain their diacritics in English print, not that it matters much, since their first names have nowhere near the same exposure as their last names do in print and on scoreboards, so their cases are in no way analogous. None of it changes the fact that everyone watching the US Open in English-speaking countries right now, everyone checking scores at official sources, everyone checking the player's official site, and everyone reading about the US Open in English print, is reading the name 'Djokovic,' not Đoković. Yano 20:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Point taken about "other stuff" not being policy. I tend to forget that. Policies aside, I think that opposing a particular name change using the argument that other pages should change names as well, is not a very convincing one as Wikipedia is an ongoing process. Surely, consistency would be fabulous, but we have to be realistic also, and that is why "other stuff" is a very sensible statement in my opinion - also in this case.--HJensen, talk 20:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose change per User:Attilios's comments below. I think the current title of the article is the only proper and accurate way to write his name. mirageinred 13:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I read User:Attilios's comments as reflecting that using the English name without diacritics was ok in this case.--HJensen, talk 15:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


Fomr what I see, also Encyclopaedia Britannica is written in English but extensively uses diacritics. See Arabic names. Anyway, I think the "Djokovic" translitteration is acceptable as it provides the correct pronounciation. I think, it's a different cases from Stepanek (true pronounce: "SH-tepanek), Canas (t.p.: "Canhas"), Moya (t.p.: "Moyà"), Montanes (t.p.: "Montanhes") etc. which, written this way, are something truly different (I write this to tell my opinion to HJensen who invited me to this discussion). Thus you see that ATP sources and similar are nothing trustworthy: they simply avoid to use any foreign character, without caring the pronounce at all. If we can be precise, as the use of foreign character is common practice in serious encyclopedias, we need to use them when needed to avoid confusion and bad pronounciations: so that's is not at least the Djokovic case. Ciao and good work. --Attilios 21:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Several points. (1) Britannica's practice is not controlling for Wikipedia. (2) "Extensively uses diacritics" is not the same as uses diacritics in article titles, which is the issue here. (3) Methods and standards of transliteration are not relevant to this issue; Wikipedia uses the form most commonly used and recognized in English to promote usability and comprehension. Here, that form is Djokovic. --Tkynerd 15:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support change "Djokovic" is how his name is spelled in English-language media. That should include Wikipedia. We can easily mention that it's spelled Đoković in Serbian, but given that even his website says "Djokovic", spelling it with the Serbian characters here seems unnecessary. K. Lásztocska 22:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC) I changed my mind, I now also oppose the change. K. Lásztocska 20:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Question It could be nice to hear your reasons for the change of mind.--HJensen, talk 16:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose change unless we also move Milo Đukanović, Zoran Đinđić, Dragan Đorđević, Predrag Đajić, and the many, many other instances where we use Đ over Dj. No compelling reason to make an exception in Đoković's case. Biruitorul 15:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: Again a resort to a variation of WP:OTHERSTUFF. Those articles should all be moved, assuming those people are best known in English with the revised spelling, but there is an excellent reason to move the Djokovic article now and deal with those later: Novak Djokovic is much better known to English speakers than they are (heck, two of those articles are stubs!), so this article is more likely to cause confusion. However, it should not be forgotten that the criterion is not absolute consistency at every cost; the criterion is usability, and the point is therefore to use, as the article name, the spelling that English speakers are most likely to be familiar with. --Tkynerd 15:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
      • A suitable redirect exists, and Đ is not that different from Dj, so the likelihood for confusion is small. However, if a proposal to remove all instances of Đ were made, I would be more sympathetic to that. Biruitorul 16:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose change - The arguments for change are absurd. Look at Novak's Serbian passport - NOVAK ĐOKOVIĆ. Wikipedia can't change people's names, this isn't CNN or CBS, this is an encyclopedia, not a commercial media web-site. There is a redirect from Djokovic, so I don't see what the problem is. --GOD OF JUSTICE 20:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I have tried to look at Djokovic's passport per your advice, but cannot find it. Have you yourself seen it? If not, how can you cite it? -- Yano 20:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Yano, you, who have never probably seen a Serbian passport in your life, want to give me a lecture on how Serbian names are written in Serbian passports? If your comment was serious, I can only tell you to that doubting that Đoković's name is written in Serbian in his Serbian passport isn't an argument, and if your comment was just a joke, it's not funny. --GOD OF JUSTICE 04:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
        • This is an encyclopedia. Quite simply, editors cannot cite what they haven't seen. -- Yano 04:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
          • And you can't claim that Đoković's name isn't Novak Đoković. Can we both agree now? --GOD OF JUSTICE 04:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: That's not an argument against the change -- or at least, it isn't one that can be taken seriously. It's normal for the users of languages to change the names of foreign things and people to forms that can be handled in the language. Like this. Or this. In English, he's referred to as Novak Djokovic, period. --Tkynerd 03:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Well said. Many forget that this is the English version of Wikipedia, and this is not about being "CNN or CBS" and/or changing people's names. I suffered from a similar misconception as "God of Justice" some time ago, with respect to a discussion about the proper name for French Open. I was in favor of renaming the article to "Roland Garros" as this is the original name. But I found out that on the English Wiki we use common English terms; in that case "French Open".--HJensen, talk 10:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
        • "misconception"? First of all, if Mr. Đoković wasn't as famous as he is now, no one that commented here would care if his last name was Đoković, Djokovic or Hadžimustafić, and now it's suddenly a big deal. --GOD OF JUSTICE 20:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
          • Of course. It follows that a popular subject will have more editors. It also follows that it will have more readers, which is why this is a larger usability issue than it is for less-notable subjects. None of that is surprising or relevant. -- Yano 20:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
            • Yano, you didn't get what I meant to say. The only reason that people want the name change is because there is always Wikipedia editors who have nothing better to do then to debate whether it should be Đ or Dj, instead of doing something useful and writing a new article. If they feel so passionate about all this, why not change České Budějovice, Užice, Slobodan Milošević (who, by the way, is way more well-known than Đoković, and mentioned in Western media millions of times) and many other articles. This is just a case of a bunch of editors who want to have it their way, to change a person's name just because Western media spell it WRONG. --GOD OF JUSTICE 04:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose change - There is a redirect from Djokovic, so I don't see what the problem is. --Göran Smith 21:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Why do you think the current title "ignores usability"? What happens if you go to the Novak Djokovic link? // laughing man 22:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
First of all, that's not what I said. I was referring to the idea of forcing a change on a whole bunch of articles without taking into account what is best for each article from a usability standpoint. Second, to answer your question: You get redirected to a different page, and if you're not familiar with Eastern European alphabets you probably wonder why the hell it happened, and you have to read way too far into the intro to find the reason for the discrepancy. --Tkynerd 01:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Tkynerd, do you think that the readers of Wikipedia are so stupid that they won't notice the words "commonly spelled Djokovic in English media" in the first sentence? If that's so, I bet thousands of people saw the title Slobodan Milošević, got so confused that this wasn't Slobodan Milosevic (how they saw it on CNN or whatever) and just closed the page, in a vain attempt to not further confuse themselves. They'll "probably wonder why the hell it happened"? Here's an answer, they didn't know the REAL name, and now they learned something (gee, isn't that what an encyclopedia is supposed to do, teach people stuff?)... "you have to read way too far into the intro" - yea, the first sentence of the article is so long, I can barely read it without losing interest... I haven't heard a single good reason for the name change, but do keep trying, it is a democracy ;) --GOD OF JUSTICE 04:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
WP:DEMOCRACY#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy.
If you haven't heard a single good reason for change yet, then you are refusing to get the point. -- Yano 18:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose change - Change just for the sake of changing doesn't make sense. If there are problems rising from current state of things, we should discus them here. Jdjerich 21:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
We have done so at length. The current article title goes against WP naming policies and confuses readers. -- Yano 22:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. And it should be obvious after this long discussion, no matter how you interpret some Wikipedia policies. The whole "article name should be the name that is most likely to be recognized by English speakers" refers more to when you have a topic like "Битка на Неретви" and then you translate it into the "Battle of Neretva" to make it understandable. People are not that stupid that they're going to get confused or freak out when they see Đ instead of Dj - they'll learn something new, mission of an encyclopedia - accomplished. :) --GOD OF JUSTICE 04:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
No, sorry. WP:NAME doesn't mean what you say it means, and that's why our article on Vienna is at Vienna and not at Wien, and why the latter is a redirect. The form English speakers are most likely to be familiar with is to be used. --Tkynerd 04:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid you didn't get my point. I have nothing against the Belgrade article not being called Beograd, people don't know what the hell Beograd is, but they know Belgrade. However, when it comes to Đoković, it's a matter of change of a person's name for the sake of some people not getting slightly confused. If I were you, I would use a more stronger argument by saying that, well, Boris Yeltsin didn't used to spell his name like that, but English speakers know him like that. My answer would be, unlike Russian, Ukranian and similar languages, Serbian has both the Cyrillic and Latin script, which makes transliteration unneccessary. And quite absurd. --GOD OF JUSTICE 04:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support change for all the reasons others have given above. Using "Đoković" violates Wikipedia naming conventions, which is to favor the common English spelling. —Lowellian (reply) 23:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose change for reasons that I already stated above. (I even put the foreign characters template at the top of the page.) And like I said, this discussion on names doesn't belong here; the result of this affects other tennis articles. Novak is no exception. --Bolonium 02:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: Discussion on the name of this article is, of course, proper here. Discussion on the names of other articles should be conducted on those articles' talk pages. --Tkynerd 04:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment on the comment: Those people that started this whole thing are being very biased in picking which tennis players have to undergo a name change on Wikipedia. Why not Guillermo Cañas, why not Jürgen Melzer, why not Nicolás Massú? Their argument: Well, just because their names are all wrong (and I wonder if they would dare to tell all these tennis players that their names should be changed in an encyclopedia so that people won't be "confused") doesn't mean that we shouldn't change this one. Despite all this, none of the other tennis players have a similar discussion on their talk pages. How are we to believe you? My advice: Write articles and spend less time on these name change Crusades, because all it's doing is annoying a bunch of people. --GOD OF JUSTICE 04:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
        • These comments amount to ad hominem. Please stick to discussing this article, the Request for Comment, and the relevant WP policies. Thank you. -- Yano 04:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose change - Those websites use incorrect form. Wikipedia doesn't have to. --BokicaK 04:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment How can you decide what is incorrect when it comes to common perception and common understanding? You can't. On the English Wikipedia we will have to live with the fact that names will be often be written in their English form. There is no inherent evil lurking in the background.--HJensen, talk 06:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment on the comment - how can one decide that it's better to write a person's name incorrectly in an encyclopedia? Can't English-speaking users just live with the fact that Đoković's name is Novak Đoković, and not Novak Djokovic? I don't know about the other editors of Wikipedia, but I consider wrong nformation in an encyclopedia very evil. --GOD OF JUSTICE 06:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
        • It is WP policy to base its entries on verifiable sources, not truth. See WP:Verifiable. Not that that matters, though, because the spelling 'Djokovic' is correct. It is a transliteration into the English language that English readers can understand and which virtually all English-language sources have adopted. We must follow their lead. -- Yano 06:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
        • For the God of Justice: I want to make one point very clear, so it cannot be misunderstood. I do not think anybody here is trying to "decide that it's better to write a person's name incorrectly in an encyclopedia". I sincerely hope you was joking there. We are discussing a simple point about how to best name the article about the tennis player in this English encyclopedia. Nobody is questioning what Novak's name is in his native language. We are therefore not trying to put "wrong information" into an encyclopedia, and we are therefore not trying to be "evil". It is not helpful for a frutiful discussion to present other editors as having suspectible motives.--HJensen, talk 08:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
          • It's very understandable to assume "suspectible motives" when you're not focusing on any other tennis player, but just Novak Đoković. --GOD OF JUSTICE 18:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
            • It is not, however, appropriate to make those ad hominem suspicions the focus of your argument in a policy dispute. The question here is how is this article exempt from the policies outlined in WP:UE and WP:V? More verifiable sources spell his name 'Djokovic,' so we should adopt the WP:UE policy. -- Yano 18:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose change. There is a widely accepted scientific way in which Serbian Cyrillic letters are transliterated into Roman alphabet, and according to it Serbian Ђ is only transliterated as Đ, not as Dj. This way is used by all Slavistic magazines published in English, and is also accepted by the Library of Congress and other renowned scientific institutions, that are, at least in my opinion, more important than what is used at the US OPEN. "Novak Djokovic" is, therefore, not common English and "Novak Đoković" Serbian, but on the contrary - "Novak Đoković" is in fact what this name is accurately transliterated into English. --George D. Božović 23:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support change - the guidelines seem to be clear, I find the arguing of Tkynerd and others consistent and ... polite. Cuon —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cuon (talk • contribs) 09:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There are probably thousands of articles on Wikipedia that could be changed this way so Novak Đoković talk is not the place for that. This is supposed to be an accurate encyclopedia and his name is Novak Đoković. For everyone else there is a wrong spelling mentioned in the article. Avala 11:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose rename. Arguments aside, the guy's name is Đoković, regardless of what we choose to call him - that's never been in dispute. To my way of thinking, there is absolutely no problem as long as, firstly, a redirect exists from Novak Djokovic so anyone who goes there will end up at the right place anyway (and learn how to spell his name correctly :)), and secondly, the article clearly states both versions in the lead. The above redirect method also works well for people with English keyboards such as myself. The cited policy was never intended to bastardise people's proper names - we have Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Slobodan Milošević, Jenő Fock, Gerhard Schröder (often written "Schroeder" in Western media), and even the city of Kırşehir. Orderinchaos 14:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose change. Sets a bad precedent when it comes to using diacritics; ultimately, the issue is people's laziness. So popular American broadcasters are too lazy to use his proper name, should Wikipedia abide by that? There is a redirect, and surely the intention of an encyclopædia is to educate? The issue of his name is explained quite prominently at the beginning of the article as well. I say this as someone who puts a lot of effort in to correcting diacritics in tennis articles. Yohan euan o4 17:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Misconduct

The above discussion has been tainted and the voting invalidated by user misconduct, specifically by forum-shopping, as seen here. This behavior is against policy.

In light of this, I ask those who opposed a name change, specifically the Serbian nationals and expatriates who voted with little regard to policy, to please recuse themselves. The voting pool was weighted unfairly. -- Yano 22:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I didn't know that rule. --Göran Smith 23:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with posting a requests for comment in a WikiProject that this article falls under the scope of. Göran Smith simply asked for a request for comment. It is no different than the RFC in the Tennis WikiProject above. // laughing man 00:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

You're right that this was technically an RfC, but people were voting at the same time to form a consensus needed to move the rename forward. While an RfC link attracts random Wikipedians -- who provide third opinions -- a link to a Serbian portal has a much higher chance of attracting biased voters.
That said, I trust Goran and accept his apology; I offer my own apology for thinking the case was more clear cut than it is.
That also said, however, I do not like how this dispute is being carried out. On one side, I see editors arguing WP policy -- not how WP should be designed to run, but how it is designed to run. On the other hand, I see Serbian nationals and expatriates pushing a jingoist POV that is clearly against the spirit of WP policy and its general application, a POV that is not in the best interests of English-speaking readers.
Remember, WP does not report the truth. It reports what others report. It consolidates information gathered from verifiable sources and it prints it, regardless of the truth. If the Associated Press, the ATP, and an official website report something, then we must as well. To do otherwise is Original Research or POV.
I am disappointed that some editors cannot understand this or even have pride in it. It is not a matter of being a slave to the media, but a matter of respecting readers and their language, of fairly reflecting and consolidating in our articles the best information that can only be found elsewhere piecemeal across many different places. To be the best information, it needs to be the most widely and authoritatively accepted information our readers are likely to encounter. That means the same information readers see on English-language TV, on English-language websites, and in English-language print.
Remember, WP is not a soapbox for educating people on obscure truths. It does not have a voice of its own. Its role is being the best tool online today for readers to interface with the cultural nerve. It supplies them with basic and accepted information, information they can repeat to their friends and on term papers with the faith that what they are repeating is the iteration most likely to be understood. -- Yano 04:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Um, I'm sorry, but if you actually read the start of the discussion above, you'll notice that before any of the Serbian editors started to comment, I (a non-Serbian non-jingoist editor) was trying to explain the other point of view to the said "editors arguing WP policy". Please don't try to reinterpret the debate, because you end up misrepresenting it. --Joy [shallot] 13:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, Joy, I didn't mean to include you. :-) I'm also moving your comment from being in-line my own comment to being separate, if you don't mind. I'd rather keep my comment uninterrupted/ -- Yano 23:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I stopped reading your arguments after you wrote "WP does not report the truth". Are you honestly going to argue that Novak Đoković's name isn't Novak Đoković?! Because unless you are, Wikipedia is going to witness, for the first time, a deliberate act of replacing the title, which is truthful, with something that isn't, just because some news sources don't have "Đ" in their keyboard. Luckily, Wikipedia does offer this letter, just look down at the Characters when editing any page. :) --GOD OF JUSTICE 04:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
No, apparently you stopped reading at the first word. I said that WP's role is not to report the truth, but to report what other verifiable sources are reporting; and they are all reporting his name as Djokovic, including the man's official website; in fact, even the Serbian section at his own website spells his name with a Dj. I quote from WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." How much more verification do you need? -- Yano 05:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Good summation above there Yano. And to "For the God of Justive": Your response proves Yano's points to perfection. You have now, by stating "stopped reading your arguments after you wrote "WP does not report the truth". Are you honestly going to argue that Novak Đoković's name isn't Novak Đoković?!" clearly shown that you do not argue here based on Wiki policies, but on what you would like Wiki policies to be. As I stated above, nobody questions what his name in native spelling is. But in (the English) Wikipedia we adehere to the rule of naming articles by using the common English term. You seem to have decided to ignore this, and this makes it very difficult to take your comments as valid input.--HJensen, talk 06:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Yano, Tkynerd, HJensen, and other vocal supporters of the move (I'll probably be harsh in the sequel but I assure you I do assume good faith): you're beating a dead horse. All those arguments have been recycled ad nauseam and they eventually lost in all previous debates. I'll address them one by one, with precedents and

  • WP:UE is widely regarded as not applicable to the topic of diacritics. That page has not been updated for a long time, but even in the current state it states that "There is disagreement over what article title to use when a native name uses the Latin alphabet with diacritics (or "accent marks") but general English usage omits the diacritics." In the field, all people names containing diacritics have eventually been moved to titles with diacritics. Relevant precedent can be found at e.g. Talk:Marián Gáborík, where a vocal group of WP:HOCKEY members managed to move that (and several other) articles to diacriticless format, causing inconsistency with other sportspeople articles and friction with editors from affected countries. After a long discussion, the wikiproject eventually changed the naming guideline (see WP:HOCKEY#Wikiproject notice). See also Village Pump archive on the subject.
  • It is generally accepted that a) English does use diacritics for rendering foreign names and b) transliteration and/or transcription are not even applicable to foreign languages that use Latin alphabet
    • The general exception can occur for people who once moved to English-speaking countries and can be reasonably proven that they anglicized their original names. cf. Arpad Elo
  • The argument that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a logical fallacy (namely overwhelming exception, if no one can find out a better one). Why? Because all other stuff exists with diacritics. You haven't presented a plausible argument why Novak Đoković should be an exception (other than the ones already recycled, and failed, such as WP:UE and WP:NC(CN))...

<end of rant> Duja► 07:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

  • You cannot assume good faith and warn of harshness "in the sequel" at the same time. Either you are here for a patient discussion or you are here to make threats.
  • First, what part of WP:UE's "There is disagreement over what article title to use..." do you think favors your position? "There is a disagreement" means there is no consensus, which means our position is as valid as yours. That other articles have adopted diacritics is inconsequential, because each article must be judged on a case-by-case basis. Instead of admitting that, opponents have consistently misrepresented us with the strawman that we are doing something less fruitful than we actually are -- that we are trying to re-write WP policy to eliminate diacritics from all article titles. This is contrary to our intent, portrays us as fools crusading against windmills, and undermines constructive argument before it begins. I repeat: we do not want foreign spellings removed from all articles. We want a transliteration for this article, because the transliteration is more familiarly known and accepted.
  • We have presented very plausible arguments as to why this article should be renamed. The opponents, however, have not presented a plausible counter-argument as to why it should not. Again, they are arguing how policy has been applied in a short period of time, taking a lack of consensus as an opening, if not mandate, to include native-spellings in article titles. That is not proof of their probity, only proof of their commitment to nativity according to how they think WP should be run, rather than how it is currently designed to run.
  • The policy is clear: WP:V, WP:UE, and WP:NC:
    • "If you are talking about a person, country, town, film, book, or video game, use the most commonly used English version of the name for the article, as you would find it in other encyclopedias and reference works." That means Dj.
    • "Generally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." English speakers have seen nothing but Dj in English-language print and media.
    • ""Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." I have never seen a verifiable source spell his name with a Đ. The first three or four pages of a Google search result in nothing but Djokovic. The only contrary source mentioned here was his passport, but his passport has not been published and no one here has seen it. Even Djokovic's official website spells his name with a Dj.
All you have in your corner is recent practice and a lack of consensus over diacritics. You seem to think that those two shadows of a doubt are enough to exempt this article from the above policies and guidelines. They are not. Until policy is overwritten to account for recent practice, the above still stands. This article is not "one of the exceptions." If you wish for policy to change, then I suggest you find the appropriate venue, because this is not it. -- Yano 18:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I said I would be harsh because the same arguments have been repeated ad nauseam, and eventually dismissed, and I'm really tired of wasting kilobytes of fruitless repetition. I will still repeat that you misread the policies, that diacritics are used in English literature, especially high-standard one (a goal the Wikipedia strieves to achieve), that they clearly represent cannonical spelling rather than "bastardized" anglicization, and that WP:NC(CN) and WP:UE do not affect the case at hand. Specifically, the article is out of scope of WP:NC(CN). The same arguments you pull can be applied to quite a large number of people who are primarily subjects of "lo-fi" (no offense intended) press, such as sporting journalism. Yes, Wikipedia is inconsistent, but prevalence of misspelled name should not affect the consistency that was once achieved in the domain of diacritics. That does not has anything to do with any nationalism of mine, but a general attitude that correctness should be preferred to lazy typing. We need not repeat the same mistakes that said "lo-fi" media do. Duja► 20:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Well said. --GOD OF JUSTICE 20:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Your view is still fundamentally flawed.
  • First, it is not WP's role to set precedents or champion obscure truths. It is to report verifiable information. By insisting on spelling names against common practice, against every verifiable source, and against the subject's own practice, you are pushing a jingoist Serbian POV.
  • Second, the Dj spelling is not incorrect. It is a transliteration for the benefit of English-language readers. Again, saying that it and every verifiable source is "incorrect" is your opinion, which is not NPOV. It is a POV, and it has no place in dictating this article's title. -- Yano 21:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
"Transliteration is the practice of transcribing a word or text written in one writing system into another writing system". Both writing systems in we're discussing here are Latin alphabet, thus, no transliteration is possible. Duja► 07:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. Once again, well said :) --GOD OF JUSTICE 07:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
You're mistaken. The Latin alphabet, as that article indicates, includes many, many letterforms not used in the English alphabet. The English alphabet is a subset of the Latin alphabet; hence, words in languages that use letters not used in English may require transliteration in order to preserve a semblance of the native pronunciation, as is the case here. --Tkynerd 17:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Even if I'm just a wannabe linguist, I can tell that what you're decribing is actually transcription. And we don't do it on Wikipedia in general, save for occasional historic case which entered English in transcribed way. The more accurate transcription would be e.g. "Novak Geokovich". Duja► 12:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I find "transliteration" defined as:
Keep in mind the Latin alphabet and the English alphabet are not the same.
Also, I can find no definition of "transcription" that supports your position. -- Yano 17:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Additionally, Duja, you say that this article is somehow "out of [the] scope" of WP:NC(CN), but provide no support for that contention. Interestingly, that page refers us to WP:NCP, where we read the following: General Wikipedia Naming Conventions start from easy principles: the name of an article should be "the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things". This boils down to the two central ideas in Wikipedia article naming:
1. the name that is most generally recognisable
2. the name that is unambiguous with the name of other articles
Several general and specific guidelines further specify that article names preferably:
1. don't add qualifiers (such as "King", "Saint", "Dr.", "(person)", "(ship)"), except when this is the simplest and most NPOV way to deal with disambiguation;
2. are in English;
3. are not insulting
This makes clear that the article name should be in English and should be the name that is most generally recognisable. These are usability criteria that, your bizarre comment about "lazy typing" notwithstanding, trump consistency considerations. There's also Wikipedia:Naming_conflict#Proper_nouns, where we see the following criteria:
The three key principles are:
* The most common use of a name takes precedence;
* If the common name conflicts with the official name, use the common name except for conflicting scientific names;
* If neither the common name nor the official name is prevalent, use the name (or a translation thereof) that the subject uses to describe itself or themselves.
The most common form of Novak Djokovic's name in English is unquestionably the one I just typed, so no recourse need be had to the third principle; the second one favors the transliterated spelling. --Tkynerd 00:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
And, if you scroll further down, the text under WP:NC(CN)#Exceptions reads: "The question of the use of diacritics in article titles is discussed at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)#Disputed issues.". Duja► 12:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Which says there is no consensus, which means this article title must change according to its consistency with other guidelines. -- Yano 17:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Not to mention that you earlier attempted to denigrate WP:UE with the comment, "That page hasn't been updated in a long time." Duja, do you want to rely on what that page says, or not? Also, why are you relying on WP:NC(CN)#Exceptions when you previously asserted that this article was outside the scope of WP:NC(CN)? --Tkynerd 22:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Now, what kind of argument is that? If it is written, on two pages (WP:NC(CN) and WP:UE) that case X is disputed and subject to exceptions, that obviously means that the remainder of the text does not apply to the case X. That does not mean that, if X is disputed, the remainder is applicable. It only means that X is disputed, and that X might easily be an exception. I said that WP:UE is outdated, because it refers to a poll from 2005, and in the meantime vast majority of the pages whose title contain diacritics have been moved to titles with diacritics. The practice has overcome the guidelines, thus all the pages satisfying X have became a rule rather than exception, as you can see from the large list below, which is only a tiny fraction of similar ones. Granted, such practice has not been enshrined in the policies and guidelines yet. Duja► 07:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
You're setting up a false dichotomy, that "If there are no special guidelines for case X, then there are no guidelines at all." That is not unlike someone named Bob saying, "Since there are no special laws for people named Bob, then I must exist outside the law." -- Yano 19:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree or not to RfM. Clarification

I see that those agreeing to the name change has written "agree" at the RfM, while those opposing have written "disagree". I am a bit confused. When I wrote agree, it was concerning being a party in the discussion not as an expression of my opinion on the issue (but I was indeed in doubt when I read through the page). But those who have disagreed to the RfM, is that because they don't accept being parties in the discussion, or because they have expressed their disagreement with the name change proposal? Just to clear things up.--HJensen, talk 04:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It's probably due to my comment on the RfM talk page that Laughing Man and God of Justice changed their mind. However, whatever might be the case, I'm of the opinion that mediation is a wrong venue: first, it's not a content dispute whether to include or exclude and/or how to phrase certain material, so that a middle ground can be reached — the end result can be only binary, and thus there's little to mediate. The dispute is based on fundamentally different reading of policies. Second, as I said there, the end result would affect the wider scope of articles; I grant that Wikipedia is inconsistent, but I frown upon purposeful introduction of inconsistency. Duja► 07:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I also frown upon purposeful introduction of inconsistency, so we agree there!--HJensen, talk 16:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
We are proposing consistency. It is WP policy to consistently use the spelling most familiar to English readers, i.e. Dj; it is not, however, WP policy to consistently use diacritics in every article where they can be used. By leaving this article title as it is, in a spelling that most English-speaking readers have never encountered, the opponents are introducing inconsistency into the application of naming guidelines. -- Yano 18:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Yano, no one can prove that the absolute majority of all English readers is most familiar with Dj instead of Đ, so stop using that argument. The Arbitration Committe has said that there is no concensus and the article stays like this, so stop bickering. --GOD OF JUSTICE 19:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
A lack of consensus on diacritics has nothing to do with whether or not this article "stays like this." It leaves it up to the editors to decide for themselves what is best for each individual article. If you would like to disengage from this particular discussion, then you are welcome to do so. -- Yano 20:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I know you'd like me to leave ;-) --GOD OF JUSTICE 07:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

'Dj' is a verified transliteration

I have verified "Dj" as a legitimate transliteration.

  • It is used systematically by UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization).
See their published transliteration table, where Ђ = dj: http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/file_download.php/bddd00074de99d810f9debda5bf46cf7serbian_en.pdf
Quote: "The system for transliteration (romanization) of Cyrillic used in this index is given below in the column headed “MR (new)”. It is the system that has been used in Mathematical Reviews since the beginning of 1983 ... The principal feature of these systems is that they are intended to be as phonetic as possible for speakers of English."
See their published transliteration table, where Ђ, ђ, and ђ = dj: http://www.lib.uoi.gr/online/mathrev/mrindex/cyrillic.pdf

I found several other usages, but these are the most compelling. -- Yano 20:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Đ and not Dj is the correct transliteration of the Serbian Ђ. Look at Scientific transliteration, where đ is given and dj was mentioned only as an additional way of transliteration. Moreover, Serbian Ћ is transliterated as ć only, not c at all. So you can't transliterate Ђоковић as Djokovic. Only Đoković or somewhat odd Djoković. All the Slavistic magazines use this way of transliteration, with all the necessary diacritics. --George D. Božović 20:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Oops - should have read more carefully earlier :) I've made the same point further down, that "Dj" is actually Дј and not Ђ. Also "c" would be pronounced "ts", not "ch". (I really should learn another language one day, living in Australia makes one lazy in this regard) Orderinchaos 18:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
The column in scientific transliteration transliterates from Cyrillic to Serbian, not Cyrillic to English. While both the English alphabet and the Serbian alphabet are subsets of the Latin alphabet, they are not the same. -- Yano 19:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Đ is not an English letter, so it can never be part of a "correct" transliteration into English, period. I also note that the same applies to ć. --Tkynerd 22:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
George, Dj was not mentioned "only as" an additional way of transliteration; that is a weasel phrase. It was mentioned as an additional way of transliteration, which means it is at least as correct as the other option. Additionally, the UN and Mathematical Reviews, the more reliable sources, use only Dj, and not Đ.
I will also note that the opponents of this move have not produced any reliable source that says Đ is an acceptable transliteration into English. I ask them to please do so. -- Yano 23:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Ultimately, I'd have to question the relevance of the standards at Scientific transliteration and its close cousin, ISO 9, to our article titles. The goal of those standards, as those articles explain, is to always use the same letter in the transliteration to represent the same sound. Since the inventory of sounds in any Slavic language is greater than 26, that kind of transliteration must use letters that are not part of the English alphabet. That doesn't mean we should do the same -- a one-to-one correspondence between letters and sounds is not our goal here; we're striving for usability for English speakers. For the same reason, the practices of journals of Slavic studies are irrelevant. --Tkynerd 00:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Notice the columns in ISO 9 and Scientific transliteration transliterate from Cyrillic to Serbian, not English. I included it only as an example of inconsistency between what some editors have said (that Đ is the only transliteration) and what another WP article says, as a matter of internal consistency. However, it has no bearing on Serbian- or Cyrillic- English transliteration, only Cyrillic-Serbian.
That said, I do not mind rendering the title as Djoković as a compromise. The ć is relatively inoffensive. -- Yano 01:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I do. ć, which I just had to copy and paste, isn't available on any English-language keyboard (unless you set your layout to an Eastern European one AND know how to compose it, which I don't) and it isn't an English letter. The name in English is "Djokovic." Thanks for clarifying what you meant by citing Scientific transliteration. --Tkynerd 02:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't completely like it either; it's a compromise, obviously. That said, I am admittedly less open to it now after your comment above regarding naming conventions. As far as I'm concerned, your quotations from various naming guidelines (some of which I had never seen before) close the book on the matter, and this article should be renamed "Novak Djokovic" according to naming guidelines.
Nevertheless, if the opponents to the "Novak Djokovic" rename are willing to compromise with the spelling "Novak Djoković," now that we have proven the scientific accuracy of the Dj transliteration, its preferableness in English (as opposed to Latin) transliteration, and its widespread use, I would like to hear them express that willingness now. -- Yano 03:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Djoković?! Now, this is the most absurd proposal so far. Yano, you have no idea how Wikipedia works. There is no consensus on this and the article can't be moved until there is one. You guys just want that "j" next to the D, not caring whether it matters that it's a wrong Serbian transliteration. Đoković is a Serbian tennis player, his name is in Serbian and is transliterated into Latin like the names of all foreign tennis players. If a wider consensus on WIKIPEDIA (not just this article) is reached to change ALL of those controversial articles, then we can talk about this article in particular, but before that, it seems that consensus will NOT be reached and you guys should focus on pushing this idea of yours on a grander scale. You know this article won't be moved until this is done. --GOD OF JUSTICE 07:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
First, please stop refusing to get the point. We have proven many times that this article can change without affecting other articles. Secondly, Djokovic is Serbian, but he is also an international tennis player known by different spellings in different languages. -- Yano 17:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
You, please stop denying that Đ is the correct translation of Ђ. Новак Ђоковић is known as Novak Đoković in all Latin-speaking countries, just because some low fi American sportscasters don't care enough to put the correct transliteration doesn't mean that an encyclopedia should blindly follow. --GOD OF JUSTICE 21:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  1. There are no Latin-speaking countries. Latin is a dead language.
  2. UNESCO, an agency of the United Nations, is not a "lo-fi journalist," and they transliterate Ђ as Dj into English, as does Mathematical Reviews. Both are reliable sources.
  3. Unless you start producing reliable sources of your own, so that the other editors and I can verify your claims, I cannot take you seriously any longer. -- Yano 21:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
It's sad that you are using a small typo to discredit me. --GOD OF JUSTICE 00:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not trying to discredit you. I'm asking you to please produce a reliable source that supports your statements, because so far you have insisted we take your word for things. Also, the difference between Latin and English is relevant. Any conflation of the two should be corrected. -- Yano 01:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I think he simply meant "any language which uses Latin alphabet" rather than the ancient language of Latin. Orderinchaos 17:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to mention. Serbs have two equal alpbabets — Cyrilic and Latin. On Serbian Latin Alphabet his name is Novak Đoković. Principle on this Wikipedia is to transfer non-english names written in Latin alphabet with diacritical marks if they have any. --Lošmi 12:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. --GOD OF JUSTICE 21:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Since when is that the "principle on this Wikipedia"? What's your source for that? --Tkynerd 22:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
The source is on Wikipedia itself. Just look at ALL the titles of articles about tennis players from countries that use Latin script. --GOD OF JUSTICE 01:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Those other articles use the Latin alphabet because their subjects are either better known by their Latinate names to English-speaking readers, or they were named that way contrary to naming guidelines by their editors. They are not of much interest to me, their existence does not support your position, and I fail to see why you keep bringing them up. -- Yano 01:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
But all Slavistic magazines, such as The Slavonic and East European Review, Slavic Review and others, and many faculties, institutes, and other scientific institutions (such as the Library of Congress, for example) transliterate Ђ as Đ, according to the Scientific transliteration (Đ and Dj are not equal; Đ is recommended over Dj in both the standard Serbo-Croatian Latin alphabet and the transliteration from Serbian Cyrillic to other languages with the Latin script). These scientific magazines and institutions are quite reliable sources too, if not even much more reliable than UNESCO and US OPEN, which have nothing to do with the linguistics and the Slavonic studies... There is a renowned scientific way in which Serbian Cyrillic names such as Новак Ђоковић are transliterated into the Roman alphabet, and an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia would have to follow it. It doesn't matter what kind of transliteration the English media uses - it is a simplified but wrong transliteration. It only matters what kind of transliteration the respectable institutions use. And UNESCO in my opinion does not count as "respectable" because it is not a linguistic and Slavistic institution. --George D. Božović 15:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
UNESCO and the U.S. Open (note correct punctuation and capitalization, since we're so on about "correctness" here) are reflecting actual English usage, which is what counts on the English Wikipedia. What journals of Slavic studies and other specialized institutions do is not aimed at a general audience, which Wikipedia is. WP:NAME says: Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists. That means the appropriate spelling is Djokovic. --Tkynerd 16:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Question is - which variety of English? As an Australian I frequently run into this issue. For instance, depending on my context, I could use "program" and "programme" in the same article and be entirely correct, while being incorrect in several other varieties including US and British English. If I was a member of the public in a European country (other than the UK) who speaks English, I'd be quite used to seeing diacritic orthography in English-language newspapers. At the end of the day, what the media do matters little anyway - they all follow their own style guides and Wikipedia has its own quite separate style guide and a very international audience (unlike most media). Orderinchaos 17:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  1. Every source we've found, from the US, the UK, Australia, and Canada, spell his name "Djokovic," so the question of British/American/etc. spellings doesn't come into play.
  2. The Association of Tennis Professionals is not the media, but it also uses the Dj spelling.
  3. The media matters a great deal. It can comprise upwards of 100% of the reliable sources in celebrity issues such as this one. It's also dubious to disregard what WP considers a reliable source. If you find news media unreliable, then your problem is with WP's criteria for reliability.
  4. Doesn't it indicate something to you, that despite all the international English-language news media having their own style guides, they have all adopted the "Djokovic" spelling? -- Yano 19:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I actually used to work in the Australian media for about three years, and am very familiar with style guides - so, unfortunately, no, it doesn't. I know of *many* things even in our official broadcaster's style guide which are just plainly wrong, which most employees are aware of, but the "convention" has existed for so long that they keep to it. Orderinchaos 19:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
What one broadcaster does is not analogous to what hundreds do. Similarly, what one broadcaster does is not analogous to what hundreds of sources do. Aside from being enough verification for its encyclopedic priority, the fact that such a wide and disparate collection of sources -- from international bodies (UNESCO) to peer-reviewed journals (Mathematical Reviews) to all the aforementioned news media -- have adopted the same Dj spelling should, at the very least, indicate the likelihood of its actual truth. -- Yano 19:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I genuinely find it sad that those on the move side of the debate are so patently unwilling to compromise, despite evidence all over Wikipedia that such moves are controversial, do not have consensus and are not clearly established by policy (except by a rather odd reading of an editing guideline that actually leaves something of a gap in situations like this) - and that those same editors (and some of those opposite) are willing to sacrifice policies much higher in the pecking order like WP:CIVIL, WP:CON, WP:EDITWAR, WP:POINT and WP:AGF. That some editors as far as I can see, prior to my arrival, attempted to force consensus by moving the article, ceasing only when an administrator intervened to prevent them from doing so, is not a good sign. I have made a good faith effort to resolve this and I acknowledge that my efforts in this regard have failed - we are still in a stalemate and cannot move forward or backward. Unless this situation is to change markedly in the next day or so I think we will need to ask ArbCom to rule on this as an article on one of the world's champion tennis players really cannot afford to be stuck in deadlock over something so basic (and some would argue so trivial) as what name we call him. Orderinchaos 20:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, we requested mediation, but all three of the involved opponents refused, whereas all three of the proponents agreed; here is the mediation page, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Novak Đoković. I also offered a compromise ("Djoković"), but God of Justice refused; see the diff here. I then proceeded with the move, because the opponents, having rejected dispute resolution, had effectively recused themselves from the consensus. It seemed to me, as a matter of good faith, that anyone refusing to produce sources, argue reasonably, or agree to mediation or any other form of dispute resolution, would not sabotage a good-faith effort, well-sourced and supported by impartial editors, to improve this article. At this point, however, I really would prefer an Arbitrator to step in. If someone would begin that process, I would be most grateful. -- Yano 20:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, Yano, just because you don't agree with mine and other people's arguments, doesn't make you right. It would be nice to stop presenting your crusade as a good-faith effort, you obviously have different motivations, since you have nothing against articles like Marko Đoković, Zoran Đinđić, etc. but rather focus only on Novak Đoković. If the Đ really bugged you on Wikipedia, you would ask for a wider policy change, but you don't care about that, now do you. --GOD OF JUSTICE 20:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't know who those other people are. I prefer to improve the articles of subjects I'm interested in. -- Yano 20:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Don't know who the first one is myself but the second one is very notable indeed - one of the leaders of the revolution against Milošević who became Prime Minister and subsequently got assassinated by criminal elements in Serbia. There was something of a West-East conflict on the spelling of his name also. Orderinchaos 23:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Okay folks, I'm gonna try and be as neutral as possible here, excuse me if I show a bias...Anyway, I've been reading skimming through the discussion, I saw many questions and comments (mostly raised by God of Justice) about how other articles use diacritics and such on their articles, but then again, the vast majority (sometimes even in the former Yugoslavia) substitute "Dj" for "Đ." Then again, he was born with that name, and he still is, and most likely will be, a Đoković. A similar discussion occurred on Talk:Sulejman Talović, though there was way less feedback on there than on this page. As you can see, the article retained the diacritic even though the majority of the media used "Talovic." I'm not endorsing any side of the argument...I mean discussion, but I'm just commenting on the outcome of a similar argument. Cheers - IT'S DA...Ανέκδοτο 03:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

"CBS and CNN"

It has been asserted, on this topic, that the spelling Djokovic is something that "CBS and CNN" use because they're lazy, and thus by implication, that it is an Americanism. It isn't, of course; proof is here and here. --Tkynerd 04:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Oops! I probably should have said that all the cited examples below (including the BBC, the Independent, and the Guardian, all UK publications) are external links to articles about Novak Djokovic. In other words, actual citations. I didn't think to find Australian examples, though. Thanks. -- Yano 04:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Good thing we're not working at cross-purposes; we'd probably drive each other crazy. :-) --Tkynerd 04:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
CNN is a good source -> CNN News Avala 19:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

His own website

I don't know if people care about this (as most have made up their minds, or do not want to change their priors). Some has also been mentioned before, but for the record: On his personal website one can observe the following three variations of his name:

So, none of the variations, uses Đ instead of Dj. Does anybody have some verifiable source that he has ever spelled his name with Đ? (Just so this whole thing doesn't turn out to be a travesty.) --HJensen, talk 16:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

That's because Internet protocols (yet) do not support letter "Đ". My own surname also starts with "Đ", and ends with "Ć", but I had to choose an user name using only "English" characters. If there is possibility, as there is on Wikipedia, I would always choose not to change it (as anyone would if in my place, I suppose). Jdjerich 18:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
This cannot be the whole argument of Novak's, as the top-frame image on the Serbian part of his site, indeed is an image, where one is not restricted by any internet protocols.--HJensen, talk 18:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, my friend, but if you ever did something concerning web-sites, you would recognize as a very bad idea to put image with something other than exact address of that web-site in the top frame. Jdjerich 18:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
It's not just the top frame. His name is consistently spelled Dj in the body of the Serbian text as well. -- Yano 19:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
No comment. Jdjerich 19:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Sure thing friend. That would be silly from a design perspective (and I know about web design). But not enough to know why at Wiki the Đ letter can be seen, but not on his site. Can you be more specific? --HJensen, talk 21:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Everyone who speaks Serbian knows how to read "Dj", but in principle it is only used if, for some reason, one is not able to use "Đ". This is sure not a place for this topic, but I would guess that guy who made that page was not aware of (or didn't wanted to) changing char-set settings to Central-European (for the page, or entire site). Jdjerich 22:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
You are right (about the web-technicalities are off-topic), I was just genuinly interested.--HJensen, talk 22:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I am from Croatia and I have an account but not in english wikipedia. Of course I am very familar with the spelling of his name. Some of you say his name is spelled in Serbian media with "Dj". This is not true, because this morphem has its own graphem in Serbian language. In Cyrilic version it's "Ђ" and in latin version of serbian, and in croatian it's Đ. "Dj" is NEVER used.
You may have seen it, but's a mistake. Or maybe text adapted to english speakers.
Now, regarding wikipedia, this is english wikipedia, true, but the English is the lingua franca, and thus it does make it to be "world" wikipedia. If it were a name of some Russian or Bulgarian player, then you'd write like Davydenko, or Sharapova. Because the Russians use only cyrilic and the name would have to be transliterated.
But the Serbs, use latin script, just as they do use cyrilic. They'be been usining it for almost 100 years, since they formed first yugoslavia with the croats and using latin script was a mean to make theese two nations more alike.
So..Serbs use cyrilic, but also latin. therefore, transliteration to english in unneccesary.
Just like you don't change Jiří Novák, Carlos Moyà, Björn Borg or Goran Ivanišević.
It would be like the Germans writing George W. Busch.
So it's Novak Đoković.
If you're concerned about the spelling then use Novak Djokovich. But it would be a wrong approach. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.3.15.28 (talk) 21:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
So why is the capitol of my country written as "Copenhagen" and not "Kobenhavn"? In Denmark we use latin letters as well, so transliteration is unnecessary. So, it's Kobenhavn. But, hey, things become common in the English, and this is the English Wikipedia, and I cannot help it. I learn to live with the way the world works, not how I want it to work.--HJensen, talk 22:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
The Serbian Wiki also takes liberties in transliterating your country's name: Данска, i.e. Danska. The Latin-alphabet version uses the same spelling: http://sh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danska.
It seems to me that some editors have some house cleaning to do before they complain about things here. -- Yano 23:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
And we all used to call Mumbai Bombay, but then the English speaking world changed that, because it was wrong. So, what's your point? Should we embrace wrong names, just because it's easier and might be socially acceptable in certain places? I don't think Wikipedia needs narrow minded thinking, we need to be more progressive. Country names are different than people names, names of countries are written in the way they are recognized by countries like America or England (and in some cases, there is a naming dispute, such as Republic of Macedonia and Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia). It's more of a matter of politics and diplomacy, when it comes to country names. Concerning your "Gaj Julije Cezar" 'evidence', there is a system of transliteration in Serbian (unlike in Croatian, on cr wiki they will mostly write Bill Gates, instead of Bil Gejts) where the word is spelled how it sounds (read more here) and this is totally off topic for this article, and for English Wikipedia as well. --GOD OF JUSTICE 05:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
There are no political or diplomatic reasons why "Američke" and "Danska" are spelled the way they are. Those are just the spellings that make sense in a particular language, and that's perfectly fine. It should give you some perspective, however, to wonder what it would be like if someone started enforcing nativity in the Serbian-Croat Wikipedia. How would you feel, for example, if a Dane moved the "Danksa" article to "Danmark?" What if he defended the move by saying that all your textbooks and news media were "wrong?" After all, both languages use the Latin script, so transliteration is completely unnecessary, right? -- Yano 06:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
If the community agreed on Danmark, I would have nothing against it. I am always for absolute correctness. If there is a redirect from Danska, why not. :) --GOD OF JUSTICE 19:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Indeed! And how can this be off topic. It points to the general point that noone can make oneself a judge of what is "right" or "wrong". In English-speaking countries Novak Djokovic has become that name (and he does nothing himself to prevent it). It is how it is. It is not a matter of "right" or "wrong". The Serbs here seems to insist on affecting how things have evolved. That is as dead a course as if I tried to move "Copenhagen" to "Kobenhavn" because the former is "wrong"!--HJensen, talk 07:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
First of all, I'm not a Serb. Second of all, if it were up to me, the Copenhagen article on Wikipedia would be Kobenhavn, what's wrong in calling a city how it IS called, instead of how we're USED to... :) --GOD OF JUSTICE 19:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
And my god: "Christiania" has been turned into Kristijanija! Who was it who said that an Encyclopedia should not repeat sloppy media? And that an Encyclopedia should educate people by stating the "truth"? I know that nobody even remotely call the place something like this. And yes, this is relevant for this issue. It demonstrates that any name can turn into another name in another language. This can be for a number of reasons, but we should stick to naming articles on the English wikipedia to reflect English-speaking readers' expectations. We should not try to rewrite history, by forcing local names onto other languages. And concerning this article, "Djokovic" is recognized in English, not "Đoković". Just as "Christiania" apparently is recognizable as "Kristijanija" some places outside of Denmark, and therefore, with probably good reason, is named so in wikis used by people that recognize the place by that name. I cannnot, and will not, change those peoples' perception of foreign names in their languages. Why is it then that the English wikipedia should try to push forward Novak's name in his native language, when this is not what English-speking people use or recognize? I just don't get it.--HJensen, talk 09:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Proceeding with the move

I am proceeding with moving this page to "Novak Djokovic," via the "Swapping two pages" mechanic. This might take several days. The current title, "Novak Djokovic (tennis)," is temporary. Note that

Therefore I believe we have reached the consensus that this article should be renamed. I believe I am justified in moving this article to "Novak Djokovic." Please do not propose a move back without reading the entire discussion above.

Before requesting a move back, please also consider if your reasons can satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability. To do that, you must first produce verifiable evidence that "Новак Ђоковић" is spelled "Novak Đoković" in transliterations to English or Latin. Then find and cite proof that this spelling (or transliteration) is prefered in English-language print and media over "Novak Djokovic." Also please note, "Novak Đoković" has so far only been proven to be a transliteration into the Latin alphabet and the Serbian language but not the English alphabet or the English language. En.wikipedia.org uses English.

If you were against the move, and you disagreed to mediation, then do not propose a move back without first requesting mediation.

I am doing this with good faith. I believe the move is best for English readers, I believe there is a consensus to move the page, and I believe the move adheres to the letter and the spirit of Wikipedia policies, to make edits that are reliably sourced, and to use English spellings where the English transliteration is verified as accurate and where the English transliteration is the spelling most commonly and officially used by reliable sources and, in this case, the subject himself.

-- Yano 01:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have to write these lines, but this discussion that I follow for almost two weeks has pulled me away from involving more with contributing to Wikipedia. If you people (thinking on Yano above all) find the most important thing to be name of an article, rather than its quality, it's a sad place to be. What problems have been caused by previous name of the article, before you changed it? Jdjerich 03:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yano, look what you've done. There's obviously no consensus and you CAN'T move a page until there is one. Stop this behavior or I will have to report you to an administrator. As Jdjerich said, the name Novak Đoković wasn't hurting anyone, but Djokovic is. It's against the policies of consensus, against the policies of foreign tennis players name transliterations and its against the general policy of naming an article on Wikipedia. What's worst, your crusade is driving hard-working editors away from Wikipedia. STOP THIS NOW. --GOD OF JUSTICE 03:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
You've reverted this article to an unsubstantiated foreign spelling. Please cite your sources for your spelling before changing it back. I encourage you to contact an administrator, in any case, though the correct forum is mediation. -- Yano 03:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
If I contact an admin, it won't be to mediate, you've been told already not to push for mediation, it would be for your aggressive behavior, for moving and changing the article without a consensus. Strike two, Yano, one more to go, and you're blocked. --GOD OF JUSTICE 03:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
On what grounds would you have Yano blocked? Yano is proceeding with a page move that is supported by policy after consensus was blocked, arguably in the absence of good faith, since mediation was attempted and also blocked. What rule, policy or guideline is Yano violating? --Tkynerd 04:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I have explained everything before. Don't make me repeat myself. --GOD OF JUSTICE 04:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
You have explained exactly nothing. Instead, you are wasting everyone's time with idle threats. If you can cite policy under which you would have Yano blocked, do so. If not, stop making empty threats. --Tkynerd 04:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The amount of incivility, point-making and bad blood on both sides is getting completely ridiculous. I address this to anyone who is involved - stand back, look at this discussion, and think that the whole thing is about the title of an article and which letters to use. Is it really worth this amount of violence and mud slinging? If you were to tell your mates at the bar that you scored a victory on this page today, would you get a response either of derision or clueless wonder? While I will freely admit I (as a British-born Australian) totally disagree with those who wish to move it to a more Anglo-friendly name, at the same time I can recognise they are acting in good faith. The move is not supported clearly and unambiguously by policy. NCP is a guideline, it uses words like most generally, should and preferably. The fact is also that, as I stated earlier tonight, many articles on en.wikipedia are correctly named with foreign characters, and for those who think that only cutting and pasting can generate them, I suggest looking further down the edit screen where you can click on the letters and they appear. Given that people here have rejected outside mediation as a way to proceed, the next place to decide would be ArbCom, and I'm not entirely sure any of you want to go there as they will review conduct as well as the issue and have the power to issue warnings, probations and other sanctions. Moving a page when there is no clear consensus to do so, against the wishes of a great many editors, when a redirect already exists, is not going to achieve much, nor is threatening others with admin actions. Orderinchaos 16:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a resort to WP:OTHERSTUFF, which is frowned upon with good reason. WP:NCP points out that the two primary principles of article naming on Wikipedia are to use the name that is most generally recognizable and is unambiguous with the names of other articles. That means Novak Djokovic is the right title for this article. As for the status of WP:NCP, the text at the top of the page says: This page is considered a naming convention on Wikipedia. It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. Any exception should be made for a reason, and here, there simply is no reason for an exception. As for what my friends might think of this discussion, my friends don't share a lot of my interests; that doesn't mean they're not valid. I think an English Wikipedia that is functional for English speakers is a worthwhile goal. --Tkynerd 16:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Strangely, as a person whose *only* fluent language is English, I have no problem at all with it. I think forcing a move against the community's wish (and whatever the status of NCP, WP:CON is core policy – and it couldn't be an accident that *every* Turkish, Serbian, Hungarian and German article I can find with special characters is named with modified Latin letters which are, after all, supplied by Wikipedia developers at the bottom of this edit screen) is seriously not a good way to go about things. The difference is actually quite critical - the ć is pronounced "ch" but c is pronounced "ts", while "Ð" and "Dj" are not actually interchangable in Serbian (one is "juh", the other is "d-yuh"), the proposed name would not even be correct English, let alone Serbian. Orderinchaos 16:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

No consensus

"No one person, and no (limited) group of people, can unilaterally declare that community consensus has changed, or that it is fixed and determined." Yano is such person, moving the page without community consensus. 5 editors (including one suspicious signature) have expressed their support for the change, while 10 have strong arguments against it. Even if the ratio was 5-5, there would still be no consensus, it would still stay Đoković. But the majority is against you Yano, and your "evidence" simply doesn't prove that Novak's last name is Djokovic, everything is showing that his last name is Đoković, and this is the correct Serbian transliteration into Latin script, used in Wikipedia, with ALL the letters of the Latin script provided down below, when you edit. Just like all foreign tennis players that have diacritics in their name, the Đoković article is no different and you have to accept that. --GOD OF JUSTICE 04:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

There are no "strong arguments" against it, only bare assertions unsupported by any kind of proof or even rational argument. "ALL the letters of the Latin script" are not used in English, which is the language of this Wikipedia. And since you blocked a good-faith attempt at mediation on this issue, it's a bit rich for you to argue that anything is now being done in the absence of consensus. Since consensus can't be reached and no compromise is possible, dispute resolution is the next logical step. But you blocked that. Live with it. --Tkynerd 04:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I respect your arguments, I would appreciate it if you did the same to mine. Secondly, don't make personal attacks, comment the article, not the user. Last of all, you have to accept that there is no consensus, the next step isn't just having it your (or Yano's) way, but accepting that the title "Novak Đoković" is correct and isn't hurting anyone, unlike your incorrect Serbian transliteration to Latin script. --GOD OF JUSTICE 04:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
First, I haven't heard any arguments from your side of the issue yet that I can respect. Second, I haven't made any personal attacks. Third, you have to accept that in the absence of consensus, dispute resolution is the appropriate next step. Since you helped block that, if you don't like Yano's attempted move, you must accept that you helped precipitate it. Finally, "Djokovic" isn't an "incorrect Serbian transliteration to Latin script"; it is the standard English spelling of the name. There are numerous citations on this page that prove this. Why are you arguing against this fact? --Tkynerd 04:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Wow, you just don't want to accept some things. I consider "it's a bit rich for you" a personal attack, no matter which word you used to cover up the word you probably wanted to use. The majority doesn't share your point of view and don't keep resisting, until there is a consensus (and currently, your POV is the minority POV) the article stays this way. We've heard your opinion and it's nice that you feel passionate about this, but it's not up to you to decide, the community does that. Also, here's some reading for those who, like Tkynerd, think I don't have any strong arguments [1] (note the Wikipedia policies I cited ;)) --GOD OF JUSTICE 04:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
WHAT MAJORITY? How do you know that my point of view is the minority point of view? You make it sound as if it's me against the community, when it's your side of the argument that is ignoring Wikipedia policy on the issue and then blocking attempts at dispute resolution so closure can be reached. And if you consider "it's a bit rich for you..." a personal attack, I'm afraid I can't help you. WP:UE was previously denigrated by Duja; do you agree that it should be followed? If so, you should have cited that entire sentence about correctness of translation: At the same time, when there is no long-established history of usage of the term, more consideration should be given to the correctness of translation, rather than frequency of usage (in a typical example of testing the usage by counting Google hits, if one version gets 92 hits, while another one gets 194 hits, it can hardly be decisive). This isn't the case with Djokovic; I got about 1,170,000 hits for his name on Google. Here is another interesting bit of evidence on the issue. --Tkynerd 04:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Remember, WP:DEMOCRACY#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy. A majority is inconsequential. -- Yano 05:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Correct, we function on consensus. If a majority strongly opposes a change, democracy or no democracy, it is fair to say that consensus does not exist for it. Orderinchaos 17:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
The Mediation Talk page was an inappropriate venue for continuing this debate. I quote Wikipedia:Requests for mediation: "There is no need for, desire to read, or acceptance of lengthy debates on the merit of mediation. If you wish to debate on whether to mediate, do it on the article's talk page, not here". If anything, your link demonstrates your own unwitting vandalism. Your points there, though they have already been refuted multiple times in the above discussion, should have been incorporated into this Talk page. -- Yano 05:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Hehe, you just don't give up, no matter how much the community is against you and your idea. Give it a rest. --GOD OF JUSTICE 05:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry -- when did the Wikipedia community shrink to encompass only a small number of Serbian-oriented users? --Tkynerd 05:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
You too, give it a rest. --GOD OF JUSTICE 05:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Impressively rigorous argument! As someone said, "Oh, I know you'd like me to leave ;-)," but hey. --Tkynerd 05:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Hehe, you know, I'm kinda starting to like you now, if only you'd be more open minded. I don't want you to leave, just use your energy to write articles and make productive edits, instead of fighting for a lost cause. --GOD OF JUSTICE 05:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
This is a productive edit, as it is in accord with Wikipedia policy and will promote usability and comprehension (which are also the main goals of Wikipedia policy). And I was referring to leaving this discussion, but it's great to know where your thoughts are running. --Tkynerd 05:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I love how you twist statements to your advantage. :) --GOD OF JUSTICE 05:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Please stop insulting each other, I don't like the way this is headed. Orderinchaos 17:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

All this is a bit sad to read. What started as a civil discussion (which I have learned from), it now just a bunch of implicit name calling. I still fail to the the argument against a name change, expect that I can sense from the above that it has something to do with national pride as judged from who is against, and who is not. That is why my original request for other opinions was a hope as to provide more balanced input. Now it is like "American Media and Its Followers" against "Serbian People," as all the new entrants in the discussion are apparently alerted through the Serbian Portal. I would just hope that people would stick with Wikipedia arguments. In the above, I, e.g., see no arguments from "For the God of Justice" just, sarcasm.--HJensen, talk 16:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I hope that with this post, you're not buying the "it's just lazy CBS and CNN" argument that was raised on the RfM page. Yano and I have proved that it isn't only American media that use the spelling Djokovic; that spelling is prevalent in English-language media all over the world. --Tkynerd 16:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
At the end of the day, if the media tell us there was nukes in Iraq, we report on that but we don't treat it as fact. Similarly, the guy's name - i.e. what his parents called him - is the present name, and the proposed name, while used by many (I would say ignorant) media agencies - is an inferior transliteration of something that is already readable in its original form anyway. I would support you if the article was named in Cyrillic and you were proposing a conversion to Latin characters, however. Ironically, I note your own user page suggests that you are fine with "Djurgården line", which also involves a non-standard keyboard character, so I'm not sure why your view on this differs. Orderinchaos 17:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for popping in. To our best knowledge, what Djokovic's parents called him begins with Dj, as indicated by both the Serbian- and the English- language sections of his official website. -- Yano 18:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
While using Ghits as a basis for anything is often regarded as flawed, I do find it interesting nonetheless that Новак Ђоковић returns 677 hits while Новак Дјоковић (Д = D) returns only 9, nearly all of the latter on a website related to Krajina which isn't even in Serbia. Meanwhile, 309,000 hits for Đoković and 47,800 for Djoković, only marginally less than for "Djokovic" without the diacritic. Forcing English-only, we have 17,000 for Đoković and only 750 for Djoković. Orderinchaos 18:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Genuinely confused here. Why would anyone combine Cyrillic characters and characters from a Serbian-to-English transliteration into one word (Новак Дјоковић)? The Dj comes from the Cyrillic-to-English transliteration (where Ђ = Dj), not the Cyrillic-Serbian (where Ђ = Đ). Note, "Djokovic" is the English transliteration, not the Serbian transliteration. -- Yano 20:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
J is a letter in Serbian. e.g. Jelena Dokic would be Јелена Докић. Similarly, I have seen Дј words in Serbian, it's pronounced "d-yuh" and transliterated Dj, unlike Ђ, "juh" and transliterated Ð. I am familiar with the Serbian-Cyrillic and Russian-Cyrillic alphabet (I got interested in them while working in the media, as I wanted to be able to pronounce the names and words correctly) although I never got around to developing language proficiency in Serbo-Croat, which I do intend to do someday. Also want to learn German and Italian. Here in Australia there's no real incentive to learn other languages because you only ever really have to deal with English, and so we have one of the lowest rates of foreign language competence in the world. Orderinchaos 20:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. And may I add that there are Ekavian and Ijekavian dialects of Serbian. I'd like to use an example to show what I'm talking about, the word for "girl" in ekavijan is "devojka", while in ijekavian it's "djevojka". However, as we all know, "dj" is not the same as "đ", while đ is pronounded juh, dj is pronounced d-yuh. There is a great difference between saying đ and dj, not only because of the pronunciation, but also the way the word is interpreted. Novak's last name isn't D-yuh-okovits, but Juh-okovich, which is written as Đoković, not Djokovic. If we put Djokovic, it would be the wrong pronunciation of his last name (not to mention the wrong transliteration, as we've said before). --GOD OF JUSTICE 20:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
(To both of the above:) We agree that "Djokovic" is not a correct transliteration into Serbian from the Cyrillic. We agree that "Novak Đoković" is a correct transliteration into Serbian from Cyrillic. However, we seem to disagree on whether "Djokovic" (and to some extent "Djoković") is a correct transliteration into English. Is that correct? -- Yano 21:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
We do not agree that transliteration is needed from Serbian at all, because Serbian language has both Cyrillic and Latin script, both of them equal and equally used. Not only does "dj" make a different sound when pronounced in Serbian and English, it's a wrong transliteration from Latin script, the same script used by all English-speaking countries and many others. --GOD OF JUSTICE 21:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
They're not the same script. While they all share some common ground, the Serbian Latin script, the Latin script and the English alphabet are each unique. If the UN, the international body of tennis professionals, and a century-old peer-reviewed journal find it necessary to transliterate between them, then it is verified as correct. -- Yano 21:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
You can't force something on the community of Wikipedia, why can't you understand that? The policy of Wikipedia has always been to put community consensus above all and the following articles:
České Budějovice, Moravské Budějovice, José Acasuso, Mario Ančić, Tomáš Berdych, Christian Bergström, Jonas Björkman, Björn Borg, Guillermo Cañas, Ctislav Doseděl, Nicolas Escudé, Gastón Gaudio, Andrés Gómez, Fernando González, Heinz Günthardt, Dominik Hrbatý, Goran Ivanišević, François Jauffret, Anders Järryd, Jan Koželuh, Karel Koželuh, Karol Kučera, René Lacoste, Nicolás Lapentti, Ivan Ljubičić, Nicolás Massú, Miloslav Mečíř, Ilie Năstase, Karel Nováček, Jiří Novák, Goran Prpić, Marcelo Ríos, Emilio Sánchez, Javier Sánchez, Tomáš Šmíd, Milan Šrejber, Radek Štěpánek, Henrik Sundström, Mikael Tillström, Ion Ţiriac, Nenad Zimonjić, Slobodan Živojinović, Élysée Palace, Çorovodë, Rădăuţi, Slobodan Milošević, Franjo Tuđman, Mátyás Rákosi, Velká Chuchle, Přední Kopanina, Ruzyně, Střešovice, Stodůlky (Prague Metro), Hůrka, Národní třída, Křižíkova, Bokmål, Zoran Đinđić, Vojislav Koštunica, Zoran Živković (politician), Niš, Pyrénées-Orientales, Côtes-d'Armor, Côte-d'Or, Deux-Sèvres, Haute-Saône, Brăila, Timişoara, Chevereşu Mare, Harkakötöny, Öregcsertő, Jászszentlászló, Bácsszőlős, Bácsszentgyörgy, Felsőszentiván, Kömpöc, Mátételke, Csengőd, Városföld, Fülöpjakab, Újtelek, Kéleshalom, Érsekhalma, Csólyospálos, Drágszél, Bácsalmás, Nyárlőrinc, Kunszállás, Homokmégy, Ágfalva, Árpás, Bágyogszovát, Bősárkány, Dénesfa, Feketeerdő, Gyömöre, Győrasszonyfa, Győrsövényház, Győrzámoly, Győrújbarát, Győrújfalu, Gönyű, Lébény, Mezőörs, Öttevény, Röjtökmuzsaj, Szárföld, Almásfüzitő, Máriahalom, Ácsteszér, Dág, Tárkány, Ászár, Dömös, Mogyorósbánya, Dunaalmás, Nagyigmánd, Dunaszentmiklós, Nagysáp, Tokodaltáró, Bajót, Epöl, Naszály, Bakonysárkány, Vértessomló, Vértesszőlős, Völkermarkt (district), Großkirchheim,....... (and MANY more)
...show that the overwhelming majority of users that edit Wikipedia do not support your point of view, and please stop your bad faith crusade before you're reported for trolling. --GOD OF JUSTICE 21:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Who's trying to "force something on the community of Wikipedia"? In my estimation, it would be the people who are defending a status quo they happen to like by blocking consensus and then blocking attempts at dispute resolution. If you wanted to let the community resolve this, you should have agreed to mediation. Oh well. PS Your latest argument is a classic example of WP:OTHERSTUFF. --Tkynerd 22:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I will add that many of those articles linked above are non-notable, even unheard of, to English-speaking readers. One, for example, is a stub for a village in Hungary. Population: 1,755. No discussion page.
In short, the Wikipedia community has not spoken in allowing those articles to be named the way they are, because the greater Wikipedia community, which is English-speaking, has never heard of those subjects, much less thought to edit them. So please do not mistake ignorance for acquiescence. -- Yano 22:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Among the Hungary villages, there is also Slobodan Milošević, perhaps the most famous Serb in recent history, and have you noticed that it still hasn't changed to Slobodan Milosevic? What makes you think that people will change their mind when it comes to Novak Đoković ?! --GOD OF JUSTICE 23:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
The two cases are not completely analogous. Whereas the only difference between "Milošević" and "Milosevic" is the use of diacritics, "Đoković" elides a character found in "Djokovic," the English transliteration, i.e. J. -- Yano 23:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Zoran Đinđić, Franjo Tuđman - Zoran was the first democratic Prime Minister of Serbia, one of those who led the revolution against Milošević and was assasinated in 2003, Franjo was the first President of Croatia. --GOD OF JUSTICE 23:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Point moot. There is a consensus to name articles according to the most common spelling among English-speaking readers. There is not, however, a consensus to universally include or exclude diacritics. -- Yano 22:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
You nailed the issue right there, thanks. --Tkynerd 23:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Until you get strong support from the large majority of editors for re-naming this article, you can thank each other all you like. Tkynerd and Yano are the only strong supporters of the move, while there are people (including editors who's native language is English) outnumbering you by a large proportion, against the wrongful move, with strong arguments. Also, it can not be proven that a majority of English-speakers don't recognize the last name Đoković, no matter how many UN language links you provide. --GOD OF JUSTICE 23:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
For the record: You can count me in among a "strong" supporter of a name change. Even though I have no idea what the difference is between "strong supporter" and "supporter". And you should not measure support by the number of posts. Then, of course, you would win easily.--HJensen, talk 08:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I, for one, am not a native English speaker but I think that using diacritics (and runes - check out Guðrún Ósvífursdóttir or Bolli Þorleiksson) is stupid. But this needs to be discussed more widely, as it could affect hundreds of thousands of articles. What seems to be a compromise proposal (use diacritics when there is no established English name but don't use them when there is) is unworkable - it is impossible to argue what is is established English name of every tennis player from Serbia or every wolf breeding ground in Hungary. Nikola 13:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, as I just clarified on the arbitration talk page, WP:NAME requires a case-by-case approach to this issue because the fundamental principle is: Under what name would the average English speaker expect to find the article? (That's a restatement by me, but I think it well summarizes the principles elucidated at WP:NAME and WP:UE.) That is a judgment that obviously must be made separately for each article. Most of the articles you refer to (tennis players from Serbia, wolf breeding grounds in Hungary) either are actually non-notable and should not have articles, or have not had sufficient coverage in English-language media and reference works for us to be certain what the appropriate name is; in those cases, using the name with diacritics, with appropriate redirects, seems to me the best approach. PS Þ, which I assume you were referring to as a "rune," is not a rune but a letter in the Icelandic alphabet. --Tkynerd 16:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Þ is a rune that today poses as a letter in Icelandic alphabet :) And, it is perfectly possible that a topic is notable, yet never had any coverage in English. Nikola 21:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
The page you linked to makes clear that it's a letter in the Anglo-Saxon and Icelandic alphabets. It's unlikely that a notable topic would not have coverage in English, but again: in those cases, using the name with diacritics, with appropriate redirects, seems to me the best approach. So I'm not sure what your point is. --Tkynerd 21:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
You're both right, I think. Thorn was part of runic alphabets, which preceded the modern Icelandic and Germanic alphabets, and was carried over into modern Icelandic. Also, I don't know what bothers me more, that Gudrun and Bolli are represented by generally incomprehensible characters or that there is ostensibly only one person interested in editing their articles. -- Yano 00:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Novak_Djokovic/Archive_1&oldid=1190123575"