Talk:Nikola Žigić

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Height of Жигић[edit]

I am not too sure that he is the worlds tallest current player: I havn't yet seen statistics to say he is 2.03, rather he is often placed between 198 and 202cm (Eufo.de lists him at 2,02) which I am sure is the same as Peter Crouch of Liverpool. The other thing is that 2,03 is not quite 6 feet 10 inches. Croatian tennis player Ivo Karlović is 6'10 but in metres it is more like 2'07. Evlekis 20 March 2007 Blocked sock:Evlekis.

He is not the worlds tallest football player, he is the same hight as the Monaco striker Jan Koller who stands a proud 202cm


He will be the tallest very soon,since Koller is going to retire this or next season. YXYX 12:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zigic is not the world's tallest player: Lacina Traore of CFR Cluj in Romania is 2.03m (source: http://www.cfr1907.ro/en/team/main-team/27/lacina-traore/). I have corrected the article on this basis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.183.11 (talk) 14:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Nikola Zigic[edit]

This article should be moved to "Nikola Zigic" as it is the common spelling in English articles. A Google search returns:

  • 651 of about 20,000 English pages for "Nikola Zigic" -"Nikola Žigić" -wikipedia. (see page 66 of the pages returned)
  • 174 of 174 English pages for -"Nikola Zigic" "Nikola Žigić" -wikipedia. (see page 18 of the pages returned)

The Google search returns false numbers it is necessary to go to the last page returned by each search to see the true numbers.

A search using site:uk

  • 158 English pages for "Nikola Zigic" -"Nikola Žigić" site:uk. (page 16)
  • 13 English pages for -"Nikola Zigic" "Nikola Žigić" site:uk. (page 2)

The UK search for "Nikola Zigic" returns sites that include

Non of the fourteen pages returned by -"Nikola Zigic" "Nikola Žigić" site:uk are for a newspaper, TV station etc. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 16:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest return the page to the original containing the diacritics. The name without the diacritics is neither an alternative spelling form in any language, nor an English language transcription, it is taken directly from sources which are either too dumb or too lazy to apply the diacritics which are a part of the Serbian language transliteration which is in turn the way in which it is carried into the English language. Evlekis (talk) 21:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC) Blocked sock:Evlekis.[reply]

See the WP:UE: "Use the most commonly used English version of the name of the subject as the title of the article, as you would find it in verifiable reliable sources ..." But what ever is agreed moving pages should be only be done with the move tab. Now that you have moved the page using cut and past you can only move it by placing a request at WP:RM. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved it back to the title with diatrics in order to perform a page history merge. For what it's worth, I believe we should use the version with diatrics; it's not our problem if the UK media are too lazy/don't know how to use them. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AFAICT You did not do a page merge the page histories (as the history on the other page was a cut and past move. The move you have made is contrary to Wikipedia guidelines. See WP:UE. If you want to place it under a different spelling then use WP:RM --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 08:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No idea what that acronym means, but I did perform a page history merge, as there were 7 edits to the redirect page which were edits to the article. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AFAICT is "As far as I can tell" (and has been used on internet news groups for at least 20 years), but I was wrong because here are the edits it is not clear to me why you would want to merge in some cut and past edits from another page as the first one the cut and past appears to show no change to this edit history. I have moved the page back as both WP:UE and WP:MOS#Foreign terms suggest that the spelling should be as used in verifiable reliable English language references and sources. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This move proposal is completely ludicrous. WP:UE should not apply to people's names, except to say that the names should be written using a Latinised alphabet. Obviously names in Cyrillic script or Chinese/Japanese/other East Asian language should be transliterated into a Latinised alphabet, but to remove diacritics is madness. In some languages, "c", "ć", "ç" and "č" are completely different letters, so to use this article as an example, "Nikola Zigic" may be a completely different person to "Nikola Žigić". – PeeJay 09:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it is a completely different person then we should use the spelling of the name given in the English language references, then there can be no misunderstanding as to which person the sources refer to. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not convinced that the English media knows what it's doing when it comes to foreign names. Most English keyboards don't have the letters with diacritics on them, and I think it's safe to say that many journalists are probably too lazy to look for the correct letter in their Character Map tool. Anyway, how are these for reliable sources? – PeeJay 09:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It does not matter if they are lazy what matters is as WP:NC says "article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." Whatever the reason (and have you considered that that organisations like Reuters have style guides that their journalists have to comply with for example the Economist style guide says "Put the accents and cedillas on French names and words, umlauts on German ones, accents and tildes on Spanish ones, and accents, cedillas and tildes on Portuguese ones ... Leave the accents off other foreign names."[1]) most English speakers looking for this person will be looking for "Nikola Zigic". Further yes some reliable sits on the net will spell his name using accent marks, but we should follow the Wikipedia guidelines over the spelling of names, and AFAICT the common spelling of this man's name in reliable English language sources is without accent marks. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than waste time with an RM, I've moved it back based on the unanimous support for diactrics at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Diacritics in article titles. пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good move, Number 57. Anyway, I don't see how "Nikola Žigić" is unrecognisable compared to "Nikola Zigic", and it's certainly unambiguous. In fact, given what I said before about diacritics making the difference between one letter and the next, "Nikola Zigic" is probably more ambiguous than "Nikola Žigić"! Anyway, there is a redirect from Nikola Zigic to Nikola Žigić, so I really can't see what the problem is. – PeeJay 14:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good move, but User talk:Philip Baird Shearer have reverted it.--Latouffedisco (talk) 16:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nikola Zigic → Nikola Žigić — To stop a move war. I think the name should be decided by the advice in WP:UE, others think it should be done by a local consensus. —Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Oppose move to Nikola Žigić I entered the WP:RM to stop a move war. I am opposed to moving the page to Nikola Žigić because most of the the references in the article used and the majority of reliable English language sources use Nikola Zigic. In such a case WP:UE is clear "Use the most commonly used English version of the name of the subject as the title of the article, as you would find it in verifiable reliable sources" --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – the man's name is Nikola Žigić, there are no two ways about it. When WP:UE says "Use the most commonly used English version of the name of the subject as the title of the article, as you would find it in verifiable reliable sources", I believe it applies more to people like Mao Zedong, whose name can be spelled "Mao Tse-Tung" depending on which Chinese transliteration method you use. In Žigić's case, however, there is only one way to transliterate his name from Serbian Cyrillic. The only difference between the correct name and the name that User:Philip Baird Shearer is suggesting is the diacritics, and we can redirect from the title without diacritics, so there really is no issue here. Add the appropriate diacritics to the title, and let's be done with it. – PeeJay 18:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If most reliable English language sources do not use accent marks (diacritics) why is it appropriate to add them to Wikipedia when Wikipedia is meant to rely on reliable sources and common usage? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, the most correct way to transliterate Mao Zedong's name is Máo Zédōng. Without the diacritic marks, the pronunciation and literal meaning of the name can fluctuate enormously. The diacritics are much more important in Mao's case than in Žigić's case, because they convey more information. Yet, our article is titled Mao Zedong. This is because it is the overwhelming convention for English usage. Putting the diacritics on the Mao article looks pedantic and misrepresents English usage. If there is strong evidence in favor of "Zigic" being English convention, then that's what we should title the article.Erudy (talk) 14:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - as per User:PeeJay2K3 and numerous editors on Football Project. The subject's real name uses the diacritics, enough of the sources and references do so as well, so common sense indicates we do as well. - fchd (talk) 19:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per the above, his real name is Žigić. "Use common names" and "use English names" are far, far overrated when compared to "use correct names", anyway. —Nightstallion 19:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This really wasn't necessary given the unanimous rejection of the non-diatrics version by 10+ editors in a discussion that just happened to take place away from this talk page. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose This is the sort of pretentious use of foreign languages which has been mocked since Fowler and Twain; if English does not call him this, so be it. Readers should be able to find names in our Wikipedia by looking for the spelling they are accustomed to. This way lies as an article on Beograd, and on Stanisław Ulam, which would be contrary to his autobiography. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Erm, that argument makes no sense. Beograd is typically known to the majority of English speakers as Belgrade, so there's no comparison there, while Ulam has obviously indicated the spelling of his name that he prefers through his autobiography. The other thing about Ulam is that he lived and worked in a country where the predominant language was – you guessed it – English. Žigić, however, has never worked in a country where English is the language spoken by the majority of people, having spent his entire football career in either Serbia (and Montenegro) and Spain. It is therefore unsurprising that little English language literature has been published about Žigić from the sources closest to him. Because of this, I believe that the best course of action is to simply transliterate his name from the Serbian Cyrillic original as accurately as possible, diacritics and all. – PeeJay 22:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • And evidence has been presented that Zigic "is typically known to the majority of English speakers as" Zigic. Do you have countervailing evidence? If so, present it; you will convince me. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, UEFA seem pretty content with using the correct diacritics for every player, and Žigić is no exception, as you can see here. Other English language websites I have found that use "Žigić" include FootballDatabase.com, FootballMercato.com (a site that links to transfer news stories in various languages, including English). OK, so very few sites use the diacritics, but I severely doubt that any Wikipedians would be confused by the appearance of a couple of lines above the letters of Žigić's name after searching for "Nikola Zigic". – PeeJay 23:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • With the exception of www.uefa.com what make the other sites reliable sources. Who publishes the information, what makes them anything other than blog sites? The majority of none web based media which might be considered reliable sources for what in the UK is called football are "mainstream newspapers" and they use Zigic not Žigić. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 07:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - yet another ex-Yugoslavia diacritics battle (maybe a special policy is needed). His name, as spelt in the modified Latin alphabet used to transliterate Serbian, is Žigić. That is correct, it is readable for English speakers, and the proper redirects are provided. Biruitorul (talk) 23:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Nikola Žigić is clearly the correct spelling of his name in the (extended) Latin alphabet. - MTC (talk) 06:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support his correct last name is Žigić, not Zigic. --Angelo (talk) 08:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Correct name is Žigić, which is understandable to an English-reader. Dancarney (talk) 09:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Correct name is Žigić. We should not be as lazy as some journalists who don't write diacritics and therefore pronounce names incorrectly.--Latouffedisco (talk) 09:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • His name is "Никола Жигић" who says that "Žigić" is his correct name in English? Do you have a reliable source that says that most of the journalists in the British media are lazy. It may be a style guide issue for example The Economist news magazine style guide states ""Put the accents and cedillas on French names and words, umlauts on German ones, accents and tildes on Spanish ones, and accents, cedillas and tildes on Portuguese ones ... Leave the accents off other foreign names."[2]. As the WP:PROVEIT policy and the guidelines WP:MOS, WP:NC and WP:UE all state that reliable sources should be used, to determine the name why do you want to use a spelling of a name that goes against both guidelines and policy? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It seems to me that most of the British media ignore diacritics completely. Claude Makélélé is mostly written as "Claude Makelele", and that's even on sites such as FIFA.com, Sky Sports, the Telegraph, the Guardian and even Chelsea F.C.'s own website. As for how we know that "Žigić" is the correct transliteration of "Жигић", I've never seen the name written with any other diacritics, so there's obviously something to it. You would have to ask an expert in the field of Serbian Cyrillic transliteration. – PeeJay 11:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • See Wikipedia:Don't stuff beans up your nose! If most reliable English language sources spell the man's name "Claude Makelele" then that is the name the article should use. Just because that article is not under the name that the Wikipedia polices and guidelines dictate is not reason why this article should be moved to a name that is contrary to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • If that's what Wikipedia's policies and guidelines say, then, considering the overwhelming support for this move, there's obviously something wrong with the policies and guidelines. – PeeJay 11:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I agree with PeeJay, there must be something wrong. However, en.wikipedia would have to move almost every foreign names (People, places etc...) as English is a language that doesn't use any diacritics. And Nikola Žigić (which give something like Jigitch when correctly pronounced) is the correct name in the extended latin alphabet. If there are diacritics, It's because his name has a special pronounciation, and we should respect it. Zigic is not pronounced Jigitch without these necessary diacritics.Moreover, the official Serbian federation site uses Nikola Žigić see here--Latouffedisco (talk) 14:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • The English language does use accent marks (diacritics) on some words -- often borrowed from foreign languages. The way to judge usage is from reliable sources. Therefore accent marks would not automatically be stripped from all article names (as you suggest), it depends on whether the references use them. As to usage, very very few English people understand how to pronounce a word via the accent mark indicators (other than perhaps a set relating to French, Spanish or German depending on which one they learnt at school). Besides this is a non issue, how many English speaking people know how to pronounce Southwark, Warwick and Dionne Warwick? I find it strange that people who presumably would agree to including facts in an article from English language sources, will not accept that the same reliable sources are able to judge better than they can on what is the "correct" spelling of a name in English. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 16:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Well, WP uses references from several languages, and the Serbian FA website is precious for ex-Yugoslavia players. I agree, very few people know how to pronounce some names correctly, but if an encyclopedia (this is what WP try to be) doesn't learn people how to pronounce foreign (or English) names correctly, It would be shame don't you think?--Latouffedisco (talk) 18:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to Žigić, I think the main problem with the case against, is that it seems to rely on the assumption that the English press made an informed judgement call to not include the diacritics, rather than not including them simply because they couldn't find the Ž key on their keyboard, and couldn't be arsed with the extra work involved in writing it properly. EP 18:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per common sense. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, per WP:UE. WP:UE says "Use the most commonly used English version of the name of the subject as the title of the article, as you would find it in verifiable reliable sources (for example other encyclopedias and reference works)." The best reference work I can think of from which to reliably verify information on a European footballer is the site of UEFA, the governing body of European football. It uses the version with diacritics. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note it says "for example", the Wikipedia policy WP:SOURCES states that "mainstream newspapers" are reliable sources and for a subject like this are more likely to be used as references than for academic subjects that appear in peer reviewed articles. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context." (WP:RS, its italics) In context of news about a footballer, I would expect the (top end of the) mainstream written press to be generally reliable. However, in context of spelling his name, I'd expect UEFA to be more reliable than even the top end of the written press. Struway2 (talk) 17:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you expect an international organisation based in Switzerland, to be more reliable than the English language press when it comes to the spelling of a person's name in English? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't believe you really think the country in which they have their offices affects the spelling of their English-speaking employees who write the English-language section of their website. In this context, I'd expect them to be more reliable because, as European football is their specialist subject, they have a greater interest in getting it right than do the English written press. While accepting entirely that anecdotal evidence is no evidence at all, I've recently corresponded with The Daily Telegraph concerning the spelling of Palicios and Duggary, and I suspect that restrictions of house style re diacritic usage had rather less influence in those cases than did a casual attitude towards accuracy. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it does; it makes it likely that their translator is a Swiss, without a native speaker's Sprachegefühl - or has been constrained by an unfortunate editorial policy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Feel for the language" works in English; uefa.com's editor-in-chief is David Farrelly, an Irish ex-Financial Times journalist appointed in 2001; and their chief writer is called Mark Chaplin. But this is getting nowhere; if whoever closes this discussion thinks my reasoning is inconsistent with Wikipedia policy, they are welcome to disregard it. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Struway2. As UEFA controls European football, and use diacritics, we should follow UEFA, which is a reliable source. Serbian FA also use diacritics. So, there are two main official references that use diacritics. WP should follow them.--Latouffedisco (talk) 13:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • UEFA is only one reliable source when there are many more reliable sources that do not use accent marks. The Serbian FA is not a reliable source for English usage. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe only one reliable source for you: but maybe UEFA knows football better than mainstream newspapers, no?--Latouffedisco (talk) 08:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Indeed, as I've said already, I'd place more faith in a source compiled by experts in the field, rather than one composed by general journalists, who are probably subject to an in-house style bible anwyay. - fchd (talk) 08:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • What makes you think that there is not an inhouse style for the UEFA web site? What both of you seem to be missing is that the Wikipedia naming convention state that "The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists." This favours using "mainstream newspapers" for guidance over the spelling of footballers names. Now if the spelling of the name was in the balance then an argument about weighting in favour of UEFA might carry some weigh, but to date with the exception of the UEFA web site no editor has come up with some other reliable English language publication that might support using accent marks. I searched on the UK because it is the largest English speaking soccer country, but a search on [Nikola Žigić site:au] in English, returns only 32 pages of which just 2 are with accent marks one of which is in Serbian (don't know why that came up) and the other is an internet forum (SFCU). This article in The Australian, this one in The Sydney Morning Herald and this one on Fox News's Australian website is indicative that Ausi as well as Poms spell the name without accent marks in reliable "mainstream newspapers". --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • And what you seem to be missing is the other advice provided at WP:NC, namely "These are conventions, not rules carved in stone." and "A redirect should be created for articles that may reasonably be found under two or more names (such as different spellings or former names)." All the editors above seem to agree that Žigić (amongst the hundreds of other articles with diacritics in the title) is something that "may reasonably be found under two or more names". Hence the "lazy" redirect which covers all problems. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • AFAICT no one is suggesting that redirects should not be used which ever name is chosen. But what you assert is that there is a correct spelling and a lazy spelling, yet you have not come up with a source that backs up you analysis. But even if you did, you do not seem to be arguing that the majority of reliable sources do not use accent marks for this man's name and your only justification for placing the article under a spelling of the name with accent marks is to suggest that we ignore Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I would remind you that WP:CON states "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, should never over-ride community consensus on a wider scale, unless convincing arguments cause the new process to become widely accepted." --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • But presumably you're not suggesting that the strong consensus here to move the page to the diacritic'ed title should be ignored are you? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Yes it is only a local consensus, the general consensus is that article content should rely on verifiable reliable sources. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It's the person's name. We have massive precedent for using the proper forms of names (Godel, Richard Hönigswald, etc) rather than using our keyboard layout as the basis for everything. "Nikola Zigic" should redirect to the proper form, not the proper form redirect to an improper one. The article should be located where it is most logical, and the most logicial is the proper form of the name. Celarnor Talk to me 10:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The massive precedent is to use the English language (as it is verifiably found) as the basis for everything. It is, after all, the English wikipedia. This includes proper names. See every Arabic, Chinese, and Russian name, plus a number of Latin alphabet names that come from languages with idiosycratic letters (Franz Josef Strauss, Novak Djokovic, etc etc.)Erudy (talk) 14:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Judging from the evidence marshalled by both sides so far, I'm leaning towards oppose. Even supporters have granted that the non-diacritic form is more widespread. There is some backing for the diacritic version, in the form of the UEFA website. However, I think the general convention is to go without diacritics.Erudy (talk) 14:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That conflict about diacritics makes me think about a same case in the French language: Académie Française denounce the non-use of accents on capitals in French in order to reduce fees see here, in French, sorry . I think we can draw a paralel with most diacritics.--Latouffedisco (talk) 16:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support A romanization. Matthew_hk tc 19:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments:
See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Diacritics in article titles

Taken from section above called #Move to Nikola Zigic

A Google search [on 13 April 2008] returns:

  • 651 of about 20,000 English pages for "Nikola Zigic" -"Nikola Žigić" -wikipedia. (see page 66 of the pages returned)
  • 174 of 174 English pages for -"Nikola Zigic" "Nikola Žigić" -wikipedia. (see page 18 of the pages returned)

The Google search returns false numbers it is necessary to go to the last page returned by each search to see the true numbers.

A search using site:uk

  • 158 English pages for "Nikola Zigic" -"Nikola Žigić" site:uk. (page 16)
  • 13 English pages for -"Nikola Zigic" "Nikola Žigić" site:uk. (page 2)

The UK search for "Nikola Zigic" returns sites that include

Non of the fourteen pages returned by -"Nikola Zigic" "Nikola Žigić" site:uk are for a newspaper, TV station etc.

In English there is no correct way to spell a word there is only usage. The Wikipedia:naming convention reflect this. The naming convention and its subsidiary pages are clear. The name should reside on the page that verifiable reliable sources use. Further it is no use arguing that a local consensus exists. Because as WP:consensus states "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, should never over-ride community consensus on a wider scale, unless convincing arguments cause the new process to become widely accepted". WP:UE: "Use the most commonly used English version of the name of the subject as the title of the article, as you would find it in verifiable reliable sources ..." --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PeeJay you wrote above "the man's name is Nikola Žigić, there are no two ways about it. When WP:UE says "Use the most commonly used English version of the name of the subject as the title of the article, as you would find it in verifiable reliable sources", I believe it applies more to people like Mao Zedong, whose name can be spelled "Mao Tse-Tung" depending on which Chinese transliteration method you use." Why do you think that using reliable sources only applies to people like Mao Zedong? Please read the very long conversations in the talk page archives of WP:UE and find the place where it was agreed that Wikipedians should decide what a man's name is without reference to reliable sources? The point about the Wikipedia WP:UE guideline is that verifiable reliable sources should be used in line with Wikipedia policy to decide the issue not what editors "think" is the correct name. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 19:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the Mao Zedong vs. Mao Tse-Tung issue is completely different from the Nikola Zigic vs. Nikola Žigić debate. In Chairman Mao's case, there were two (perhaps more) commonly-used, yet radically different variations of his name. In this case, WP:UE would have applied, as people would have had to use reliable third party sources to determine which was the more common spelling. In this case, I support the use of WP:UE. However, in Žigić's case, there is only one commonly used spelling of his name, and the issue is whether or not to use diacritics. In this case, I do not believe WP:UE applies.
Quoting directly from WP:UE, "Names not originally in a Latin alphabet, as with Greek, Chinese or Russian, must be transliterated into characters generally intelligible to literate speakers of English. Do not use a systematically transliterated name if there is a common English form of the name; thus, use Tchaikovsky or Chiang Kai-shek even though those are unsystematic." "Жигић" transliterates into the Latin alphabet as Žigić. Obviously, the characters used in that name are intelligible to English speakers, even if the pronunciation isn't, which would indicate to me that "Nikola Žigić" would be the appropriate title for the article. – PeeJay 19:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Having written those words, I would like to know how it can be made clearer that they mean exactly the opposite: the systematic transliteration of Жигић would be Žigić (at least in the system used for Serbian; Russian Cyrillic would transliterate it otherwise); but "there is a common English form of the name", and we should use it instead. (Btw, it is not true that Žigić is intelligible to most English speakers; this is one reason English sources do not use it.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So we should move Claude Makélélé to Claude Makelele and Lothar Matthäus to Lothar Matthaeus? That's ludicrous. Totally ludicrous. – PeeJay 22:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's a question of fact, to be determined by English usage in each case. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

fchd you wrote "The subject's real name uses the diacritics, enough of the sources and references do so as well, so common sense indicates we do as well." As he is a Serb his real name is "Никола Жигић". Higher up this section I have listed almost all the UK national newspapers and the BBC all using "Nikola Zigic" so that is what his "real name" is as far as naming an English Wikipedia article is concerned. What are the verifiable reliable sources that use Nikola Žigić which you allude? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 19:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My first ports of call for football article verification etc. are football websites - so the likes of UEFA.com, rsssf.com and footballdatabase.com - fchd (talk) 05:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What makes rsssf.com and rsssf.com reliable sources? Why do you think that any of these sites are more qualified to be a reliable source for football over "mainstream newspapers" as specifically mentioned as reliable sources by the Wikipeida Verifiability policy? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 07:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They are far, far more reliable. They are compiled by experts in the field. I have infinitely more trust in those sites getting things right than I would a national newspaper, especially a tabloid one. Also, if there are errors in the likes of rsssf, you can submit the mistakes, they will be checked and if necessary changed - something you won't be able to do with the likes of the Mirror or the Express sites. Truth and accuracy are even more important in my eyes than the name of the publisher or the format used. - fchd (talk) 08:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Who publishes them? Is there an editorial board? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 08:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A question for those who wish to ignore the Wikipedia policies and guidelines: Under what name should the Battle of Dien Bien Phu reside? Should the English version be under the French Diên Biên Phu or the Vietnamese Điện Biên Phủ and if the English should be under the Vietnamese should not the French Wikipedia also use Điện Biên Phủ? Is it not better to name the battle after the common English name, as used in reliable English language sources? If this is true for the battle, why should not the same rules apply to the name of this article?

The policies and guidelines you continue to point to are under discussion and, as such, aren't actually policies. Secondly, the Battle of Dien Bien Phu should redirect to the Vietnamese "Điện Biên Phủ" obviously. That's an easy question. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


Interesting reading people. To be honest I was in favour of the 'correct' spelling move but am now in two minds. To me, the most realiable source is what is printed on the back of his shirt - which is always printed WITHOUT diacritics - but I don't see the issue in the move and redirect argument 82.47.43.229 (talk) 16:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Nikola Žigić/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Gabriel Yuji (talk · contribs) 15:04, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this one soon. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 15:04, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • "He began playing football as a youngster with AIK Bačka Topola, and scored 68 goals from 76 first-team matches in the third tier of Serbian football." – 1) it would be interesting to date this events as you did with military service and Red Star Belgrade transfer; 2) it would be nice to clarify that a) the goals he scored were during senior matches, not during youth tournaments and b) that it was a three-year period; 3) "first-team matches" seems to imply he played from the start in all matches and did not came as a substitute in any of them but the source do not clarify it (and usually matches as substitutes are counted equally by databases).  Done
    • Not sure I agree, apart from the three-year time period. "first-team matches in the third tier of Serbian football" surely does clarify they were first-team matches, not youth competitions? and it doesn't imply starting each match: I'm sure some of them must have been as a substitute. I can change matches to appearances, if that would help. What I will change is "third tier of Serbian football", which should read Yugoslav, as it does in the body of the article...
      • Hm, now I see what "first-team matches" was standing for (I thought it to be the opposite of second-team, not youth team). So, it's fine. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 21:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Brief spells back in the third tier with Kolubara and Spartak Subotica preceded the start of his professional career with First League side Red Star Belgrade in 2003." — I thought his professional career started at AIK. Does the infobox is wrong? Or are you using "professional" and "senior" with different meanings? (and that would mean that AIK, Mornar, Kolubara and Spartak Subotica are not professional teams?)  Done
    • "Senior" means open-age (adult) teams, "professional" means being paid to work full-time as a footballer. The B92 source quotes Žigić saying he signed his first pro contract with Red Star in 2002 when he was 21, and before that he'd played in the lower leagues but that was amateur, they trained three times a week and played a game at the weekend: Prvi svoj profesionalni ugovor potpisao sam sa Crvenom zvezdom u 21. godini, 2002. Pre toga sam igrao u nižim ligama, ali je to bilo amaterski. Treniralo se utorkom, četvrtkom i petkom, a utakmice su subotom ili nedeljom.
      • Hm, I found it contraditory at first glance, but now I see. Interesting. So could it be clarified that the other teams are amateur ones? (well, probably saying Red Star is the first professional implies that others are amateur teams, but what's your opinion?) Gabriel Yuji (talk) 21:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I wouldn't bother, to be honest. In the quote above, Mr Žigić uses the word amaterski, but I don't know what that meant in context of former Yugoslavia in the late 1990s/2000. Whether strictly amateur, i.e. entirely unpaid, or more likely what in England is called semi-professional, i.e. the player gets paid enough during the playing season to encourage him to turn up every week, but football is something he does alongside his paid job or his studies. Struway2 (talk) 12:55, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In three years with the club, he won a second double in 2005–06" — would you mind to link to double (association football)? It took me a time to understand this sentence. You can alternatively reword it as "he won both the First League and the national cup for the second time". But I guess a link is just fine.  Done
    • reworded with link (which should have already been there, thank you for noticing its absence)
  • "In August 2006, Žigić moved to Spain to sign for La Liga club Racing Santander, where his goals and his partnership with Pedro Munitis helped them to a mid-table finish." — it's not a problem at all but I do find repetitive the use of "to" here; I'd suggest: "In August 2006, Žigić signed for Spanish club Racing Santander, where his goals and his partnership with Pedro Munitis helped them to a mid-table finish in La Liga."  Done
    • reworded
  • "He then moved to Valencia, but was unable to establish himself as a regular in the starting eleven; he spent the second half of the 2008–09 La Liga season back with Racing on loan, for whom he scored 13 goals in just 19 matches." — I guess a period would be better instead of a semicolon as we have two separate sentences. I think a preposition linking the two would work too.  Done
    • separated
  • "Žigić signed his first professional contract, with one of the biggest clubs in the country, Red Star Belgrade" — so, it seems the lead is correct about the "professional"(?)  Done
    • see above
  • "After trials in France with Saint-Étienne and Créteil, and a brief spell with Kolubara, 3 goals from 8 matches in the Serbian third tier, Žigić signed his first professional contract, with one of the biggest clubs in the country, Red Star Belgrade." — it seems to me that the "3 goals from 8 matches in the Serbian third tier" part would fit better inside parenthesis or dashes. Alternatively, you can split this passage into two sentences.  Done
    • reworded
Personal life
  • "His younger brother Branko also became a footballer, most recently for Serbian First League club Proleter Novi Sad" — when? See WP:RELTIME.  Done
    • fixed
Early carreer
  • "Žigić's parents did not want him to take football seriously until he completed his education" — probably secondary education, right(?), but strict parents may require college or technical. It would be good to clarify.  Done
    • Our article on education in Serbia, which is pretty much a translation of the Serbian equivalent, says that in Žigić's schooldays, children began primary school at 6 or 7 and completed 8 years, at which point they could either leave, or continue with three or four years of either academic or vocational secondary school, and then college/university after that. THIS lists a number of footballers and what they were qualified for if football didn't work out. It says Žigić completed the "mašinska škola" (mechanical engineering school) at Backa Topola; such schools trained their students for work in basic trades like motor mechanic as well as for higher-level technical roles. Although it's a fun piece, there's no reason to disbelieve the factual bits. It's also backed up by THIS – which isn't WP:RS so I can't use it – which says he graduated from "srednja mašinska škola", secondary mechanical school, (where he was taught by his uncle who encouraged him to play football) and then did his military service. I've added the mech eng secondary school to the personal life section.
      • Nice (and an interesting information about Serbia). Gabriel Yuji (talk) 21:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "for whom he scored 15 goals from 23 Second League appearances." — missing a source?
Red Star
  • "By the mid-season break, he had 12 league goals as well as the 6 in the UEFA Cup" — is the "the" before "6" necessary?  Done
    • Probably, yes. "as well as the 6 in the UEFA Cup" indicates to the reader that the 6 UEFA Cup goals are something they've already been told about; if none, or not all, or his UEFA Cup goals had previously been mentioned, I'd be more likely to simply write "...he had 12 league goals and 8 in the UEFA Cup". Or maybe "...and 8 altogether in the UEFA Cup", which carries an implication of the reader knowing about some but not all.
  • "Continuing the partnership with Marko Pantelić begun in the second half of 2003–04, Žigić continued to score freely in the new season." — not properly a problem but I would avoid repeating the same verb that close in the text.  Done
    • "Resuming the partnership..."
  • "His first goal, a header, appeared to have been scored from an offside position, but the second was spectacular" — is this someone's opinion? If it is, atrribute to them; if it is not, it is WP:NPOV to attribute this statement to Wikipedia. Also, a peacock word.  Done
    • replaced "spectacular", reworded to include "brilliant individual performance" attributed inline to Reuters' correspondent; probably safer to use English-language original for anything involving high praise (or the opposite). Struway2 (talk)
  • "but they failed to do so." — unsourced.  Done
    • fixed
  • "during which Žigić gave Red Star the lead with a header and Dušan Basta made sure" — a bit informal, don't you think so?  Done
    • reworded
Racing Santander
  • "he contributed eleven goals – ... – four assists and five penalties won in league competition" — does the dashes eliminate the necessity of a comma?  Done
    • Yes, I'd have thought so. Rule 2 here says they do, admittedly that's a US source, but it's the same in British English.
Valencia
  • "Speculation regarding moves to the Premier League, came to nothing." — why the comma? I guess the subject ("speculation") should not be separated from the main verb ("came").  Done
    • Typo, I imagine: might have originally included detail of which bits of the Premier League he'd been linked with, and the comma was left behind when the detail was removed
  • "Resuming his partnership with Munitis in the first game of his second spell, Žigić scored the only goal of the visit to Real Valladolid, repeated the feat at Getafe two matchdays later" — matches?  Done
    • Changed to "two weeks later": I think "matchdays" was meant to imply La Liga matches (there were intervening Copa matches), but it doesn't
Birmingham City
  • "Media speculation suggested the fee to be in the region of £6 million." — when you say "media" I assume a variety of sources but currently there is only one. Anyway, you can use the already mentioned The Guardian source, current ref #12, as it also gives this number.  Done
    • The BBC ref for his signing also gives that figure, but it wasn't repeated after that sentence; added Guardian ref as well
  • "He made his debut on the opening day of the season away at Sunderland" — you already linked to Sunderland in the above paragraph so it is not necessary. See WP:OVERLINK.  Done
    • fixed
  • "David Pleat wrote that 'Birmingham earned their victory through terrific teamwork and astute deployment of Žigić's strengths'." — to those not familiar with Pleat (and to avoid people needing to click on the link), you could add a brief description like "Sports commentator David Pleat..."  Done
    • "Football manager turned commentator"
International career
  • "His next appearance and first start came some 14 months later;" — is "some" necessary here?  Done
    • Not necessary, no, but it reads better with it there. Struway2 (talk)
Style of play
  • "Exemplified in a powerful performance on his debut for Racing" — POV?  Done
    • reworded
Notes, references and external links
  • "The nickname is a play on the name of Spanish comedy act the Dúo Sacapuntas." — probably common sense in Spain, but is there some source for it?  Done
  • Spotchecked affirmation #1: "During the Yugoslav Wars in 1999, Žigić's hometown was beneath the flight-path of NATO bombers heading for Belgrade; for much of that part of the conflict, the family home was without electricity or running water." — it is attributed to El Correo and the first paragraph of "Tiempos de guerra" covers all it.
  • Spotchecked affirmation #2: "A growth spurt from the age of 16 eventually brought his height to 2.02 m (6 ft 7 1⁄2 in), provoking suggestions that he might be better suited to basketball". — Politika backs up his 2.02 m but The Guardian says 6 ft 8 in. In the infobox, the 6 ft 1/2 in is supported by Rrezentacija.rs but it does not present his height in feet ("od čak 202 centimetra"). It is not a big deal but I guess it's better to follow the source. (Another source used in the article also gives 6 ft 8 in) The spurt at 16 is covered by the British newspaper but both The Guardian and Politika says the basket comparison was did when he moved to Red Star. Again, not a big deal, but where it is placed right now leads me to think it was said before the start of his carreer.  Done
    • Moved the growth spurt/basketball thing to his Red Star debut, which is at least implied in the Politika source.
    • As to the actual height, WP:UNIT requires the primary unit of measurement to be metric, so it's the height in metric that needs to be sourced, and the height in feet and inches is a conversion. There's complete agreement on 2.02m in reliable sources from his native country, from his clubs in Spain, and also from international sources such as FIFA (see e.g. the official squad lists for the 2010 World Cup). The result of conversion to feet and inches depends on the level of precision used: either nearest inch or nearest half-inch are commonly used, depending on a given publication's house style. MOS:CONVERSIONS suggests using "a level of precision similar to that of the source quantity value", which is probably why {{height}}, which is recommended for use with human height, defaults to nearest half-inch: {{height|m=2.02}} gives 2.02 m (6 ft 7+1⁄2 in), but a |precision= parameter can be added to make it convert to the nearest inch: {{height|m=2.02|precision=0}} gives 2.02 m (6 ft 8 in).
  • Spotchecked affirmation #3: "He scored twice in the 3–0 win in the Eternal Derby against Partizan, and celebrated by miming a basketball shot." — the source does cover the part of basket-like celebration but the game itself, its score and how many goals Žigić scored are not mentioned.  Done
  • Spotchecked affirmation #4: "By mid-December, Koeman had given Žigić two weeks to convince him he was worth keeping, Valencia had not scored for seven matches" — the given source indeed covers it on "Ronald Koeman le ha dado un plazo de dos semanas para que le convenza". I'm only partially in doubt whether or not to consider that December 20 is mid-December. Again, not a big deal, but I guess just "By December" is fine. For the second part, I cannot say by this that Valencia had not scored for seven matches. However, I think if it can be due my lack of experience with BDFutbol.  Done
    • Maybe change to "With the January transfer window approaching" (accurate but non-specific) and add the date of the Copa game? I've clarified the BDFutbol reference to include the need to click on the "Matches" tab, and discovered it was six matches without scoring, not seven...
  • Spotchecked affirmation #5: "He is dangerous from set pieces, scoring many headed goals, particularly in the earlier part of his career, and knocking the ball down for others: when he joined Red Star, the coach set out the team in a 4–3–3 formation, with Žigić at centre-forward and two wingers to feed those strengths." None of the two sources seems to have anything on "particularly in the earlier part of his career", although the rest is all there. Uefa source explains the second part (after the colon) on "Key forward" subtitle.  Done
    • Removed "particularly in the earlier part of his career" as unsourced (albeit true). Will put it back if I can find something non-trivial to justify it. Struway2 (talk)
  • For current ref #14 (Maxifoot and Le Parisien) you can use <p> to separate the sources. It's better than <br> I think. Currently, if I did not check the Wikisource I would not notice there is a space between the sources. You can apply it on other sources if you think it produces a good result.  Done
    • I wasn't aware of that: thank you.
  • His Premier League profile redirects to the main page.  Done
    • That's an odd one. The site normally reduces the content of a player's profile when he stops playing in the PL, but it seems to have lost Zigic's entirely. It didn't add much anyway, so removed.
  • The rest is fine according to Checklinks.

So, that's it. There are no major problems, only small (technical or wording) drawbacks, so I'll put on hold for seven days. Nice job, Struway2! Gabriel Yuji (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review, it's much appreciated. I've started replying/fixing issues, and will ping you when I think I've finished. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Gabriel Yuji: thanks again for taking so much trouble with this review. I think I've finished now. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:55, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Thank you for your patience and contributions to improve Wikipedia's quality! Now, it's a GA! Gabriel Yuji (talk) 14:53, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Nikola Žigić/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

He didn't score a hattrick against Athletic Club since the second goal that he was credited by some media was actually an own goal by defender Ander Murillo. You can check the video or other media.

Last edited at 15:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 01:17, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Nikola Žigić. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:14, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Nikola Žigić. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Displaying appearances for Serbia and Montenegro in the infobox separately from those for Serbia[edit]

Following the sources, e.g. the subject's profile at reprezentacija.rs, which describes itself as Istorija fudbalske reprezentacije Srbije (History of the Serbian national football team), and his profile at NFT, a well-used source for national team information, this article listed his 14 appearances for the team named Srbija i Crna Gora (Serbia and Montenegro) separately from the remainder for the team named Srbija. As far as I'm aware, it's standard practice is to use historically correct names for teams played for.

As an aside, the Serbian Football Federation has a numbered list of its matches on its website. At #1 is a friendly against the Czech Republic in August 2006. Nikola Žigić played in that match, and the reprezentacija.rs source lists it as his first for Srbija, all previous having been for the team called Srbija i Crna Gora.

Recently, editors have been persistently changing the infobox to display all his international appearances under the name of Serbia. There was no team named Serbia in 2004 when he started playing international football. I'd appreciate it if the editor(s) would either explain their reasoning here as to why they're going against the sources, or else leave the article be. Thank you. Struway2 (talk) 14:31, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nikola_Žigić&oldid=1209089956"