Wikipedia

Talk:Ana Ivanovic/Archive 6

< Talk:Ana Ivanovic
Latest comment: 12 years ago by Cuchullain in topic Requested move 2012 x2
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9

Requested move 2012 #1

Latest comment: 12 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Moved per consensus. I've edited the article a hood many times, but consensus is crystal clear. and an admin is required to perform the move (and RM is, per usual, backlogged). Courcelles 20:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Ana Ivanović → Ana Ivanovic — per all the sources on her page bottom... WTA, ITF, Fed Cup and even her own personal website, it is spelled Ivanovic. Her official facebook page is Ivanovic also. Shouldn't this page go where the English sources tell us? Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Here is the link to her facebook page for reference. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Survey

Discussion

Any additional comments:
Comment Yes, move it to the common name, which is without diacritics. And the same should be done for Jankovic. MakeSense64 (talk) 09:08, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Further comments on RM

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Comment For almost all tennis players we use native names (Jelena Janković, Nenad Zimonjić, Janko Tipsarević, Ilie Năstase, Carlos Moyá, Marcelo Ríos, Björn Borg, Juan Martín del Potro, Robin Söderling, Tomáš Berdych, Gaël Monfils, Radek Štěpánek, Arantxa Sánchez Vicario, Amélie Mauresmo, Daniela Hantuchová, Petra Kvitová...). I do not understand why the situation is different with this article. --Aca Srbin (talk) 10:58, 20 March 2011 (CET)
Comment - or indeed people who don't play tennis...In ictu oculi (talk) 23:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment - There is a move discussion undergoing on at Talk:Jelena Janković, which will decide that the diacritic will be removed or not. --183.89.93.175 (talk) 10:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 2012 x2

Latest comment: 12 years ago203 comments32 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was No consensus to move the article from its current title.Cúchullain t/c 14:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Ana Ivanovic → Ana Ivanović –

I see the WP:TENNISNAMES clique managed to push their agenda through here as "consensus" with barely anyone else noticing it in time to object. I'm requesting we revert this bad move because it's got nothing to do with WP:CONSENSUS. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:57, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

    • What is your point with PROVEIT? You doubt we can't find English source that write her name properly? It is not our problem that men behind English sources are either dumb or lazy or dumb and lazy, so Wikipedia has to be inaccurate, too. As I understand COMMONNAME, it doesn't suggest we should not properly write names of foreigners, it list examples as Nazi party and Snoop Dogg. -- Bojan  Talk  01:31, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Reply. - @IIO. The way you are linking to "WP:Serbian names" is misleading. We have to read the whole naming convention, not just the section you link to. The very first thing that is mentioned in this naming convention is this (quoting):
"1. If a name or word has a conventional English spelling, that is used (see #Conventional names, below)"
The section you quote is only applied when (quoting section title): "When no commonly accepted form exists in English"
It is very clear from the sources for the article that "Ana Ivanovic" is the commonly accepted form of her name in English, so that's what we should use as the title for her article according to this naming convention.
If the people who voted here are really committed to applying our existing policy and guidelines, rather than voting for their personal preferences, then we will see how many are willing to change their vote on the basis of this WP:CYR you quote. Cheers. MakeSense64 (talk) 06:27, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
MakeSense64, WP:Naming conventions Serbian covers Serbian artists, politicians, journalists, footballers etc etc etc etc. It is isn't clear why tennis and ice-hockey should be different. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
The naming convention is not saying that. The first thing to check is whether there is a "conventional English name" for the given person. For little known Serbians that is probably not the case, so they follow the second section of that guideline: "When no commonly accepted form exists in English". That's why you find a lot of Serbian names with diacritics, because they are not (or little) known outside Serbia. But for those who do have a "conventional English name", that's the name we should use as the title. As a former number 1 tennis player who won the French Open, there is plenty of English-language coverage about Ivanovic, so we know what her "conventional English name" is (and she even uses it on her own website). If a Serbian footballer or journalist has a common "conventional English name", then we should use it too. If we cite naming conventions, then we should also be willing to use them. MakeSense64 (talk) 09:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Sorry MakeSense64, but the fact that you are unaware about Serbian people doesn´t mean others are too. Only with sporsman and politicians you have quite a list of known Serbian people. FkpCascais (talk) 09:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Of course I don't know every Serbian with an article on wp. That's why we have to look in English-language coverage to see if there is a "conventional English name". If there is, then he or she is probably known outside Serbia and then we use the "conventional English name". If not, then we can use the spelling taken from reliable Serbian sources. That's also what WP:ON tells us: "English usage overrides usage in other languages,...". MakeSense64 (talk) 09:50, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I get 15,800 Google News results for this subject. Out of these results, 8 are English-language news stories where her name is given with a diacritic. On GBooks, it's 513 (the first 91 look relevant) to 6 (2 relevant). WP:DIACRITICS tells us to, "Follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language." Her official Web site is diacritic-free. The Serbs switched to a Latin alphabet with diacritics only recently. Ten years ago, the proposed form would have been considered Croatian script. Kauffner (talk) 16:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi Kauffner, no need for duplicating long discussion on this RM, but just for the record, your search shows that 100% of sources which can take the ć do, which is the same as other Ivanovićs, am I correct? In ictu oculi (talk) 16:53, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm not following you. Why wouldn't a publisher be able to do it? Because of AP/wire service style? Or for tech reasons? Everybody's had Unicode for five or six years now. Nobody did this stuff before Unicode, but it is not something would have been especially difficult to do technically. Kauffner (talk) 17:51, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
There is some legacy of technical issues, for excample Romanian ț continues to cause problems. But more usually for reasons of cost. If you take the case of The Economist, it's one thing to employ proofreaders in house at St James's Street who can cope with French/German/Spanish/Portuguese, it's something else entirely to employ 30 proofreaders for all the Scandinavian/Slavic languages. And you can't rely on contributors/journalists being correct/consistent. The Economist doesn't have the resources of 1,000s of unpaid East Europe proofreaders that en.wp has. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:44, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
@Kauffner is right on here. Technical or other reasons why a name is spelled in English do not really matter. WP:CYR#Conventional names explains that "conventionally-used names" may stem from "anglicized versions" and even "simplified, more familiar-looking, or easier to pronounce for English-speakers", it's all equally acceptable as the article title as long as it is the most commonly used form in English sources. So our policies and guidelines do not ask for "accurate names" or "official names" in the title of articles, we generally use "common names" and the WP:CYR naming convention confirms that once again. MakeSense64 (talk) 06:39, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Kauffner is deeply missinformed about Serbian language. He has expressed a number of completely wrong statements without even bothering to confirm them. FkpCascais (talk) 09:37, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, let's repeat this discussion for the Nth time... the appeal to those policies is a red herring in the case of personal names of non-English people. "Ivanovic" did not become an English word by the act of stripping the diacritic - it's not anglicization, it's a technicality. In general, there is no apparent benefit in continuing to do it, especially for very simple cases like Ivanović vs. Ivanovic. Also please have a look at User talk:MakeSense64/Tennis names. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:46, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
The number one criteria for a good title is that it should be recognizable to as many readers as possible.
Do you really think that English readers don't recognize the c in ć, and instead are completely dumbfounded when they see it, and it somehow prevents or distracts them from reading the article? In other words, how do you define "recognizability"? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:20, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Secondly, it should inform the reader, tell him how this name is normally written.
Ivanović's name is in fact normally written as Ivanović. To write her name like that is not abnormal, it's not defying any norm or standard. It's outside the "standard" of UTF-8-free English-centric news world, but that as such is not an encyclopedic standard. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:20, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Both of these purposes are served by giving the name in the form that appears most commonly in the RS. As WP:UE puts it, "The choice between anglicized and local spellings should follow English-language usage." Her Serbian name can be given boldface in the opening either way. 11:23, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi Rambling Man, I'm somewhat confused about this comment and what exactly is different here from the long discussion on Talk:Jelena Janković only a couple of weeks ago. Kauffner clearly linked above showing that 100% of sources enabled to show ć had ć for "Ana Ivanović" and therefore Kauffner has satisfied the requirement for "reliable sources saying her name (not just a generic surname) is Ivanović" which satisfies verifiability. As WP:COMMONNAME stands we only need demonstrate that the diacritic enabled sources have ć for "Ana Ivanović", we do not need to demonstrate that diacritic enabled sources are in the majority - in fact WP:COMMONNAME specifically says to prefer a minority of sources for accuracy:

WP:COMMONNAME "inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined by reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources."

WP:COMMONNAME is not WP:MAJORITYNAME where fonts and availability of proofreaders are concerned. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:44, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Am I to understand from the above that this poor woman can't spell her name accurately on her own site? Kauffner (talk) 11:23, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi Kauffner, do you have a daughter? The young western girls who "buy my gear" are just as likely to be turned off by a Eastern European ć as her middle aged male fans are. If I was her marketing advisor I would advise her to keep any hint of Eastern Europeanness well hidden. Eastern European accents aren't sexy like French ones, Hermès. But we aren't marketing sports clothes to a subliminally xenophobic demographic here are we, we're contributing to an encyclopedia. And your own research demonstrates a cast iron case that the only reliable sources you could find (i.e. the only ones enabled to allow Slavic fonts) all of them produced the name Ana Ivanović. So why are you opposing what 100% of reliable sources say? In ictu oculi (talk) 14:05, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Aduti prelepe Ane Ivanović! I truly regret saying that - I just assumed that because Kauffner, Fyunck, MakeSense64 and Wolbo were saying it was so it was so, and that Miss Ivanović was going along with the anti-Serbian names lobby. If I'd had my head screwed on I would have realised that someone who is all but Serbia's most famous and popular citizen and proud of being Serbian wouldn't do that. So what do we have - a fully functioning Serbian website if you click the Serbian flag at the website top. Not French, German, Spanish, just Serbian. Is that the action of someone who wants to be the only deSerbianized Serbian BLP on en.wp? In ictu oculi (talk) 16:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
@IIO. That is called "denial". It is like somebody saying that 100% of elephants are white by sticking to the few sources that report a white elephant, while contending that all the sources who report grey elephants are not reliable. Thousands of articles in reliable English-language sources write her name "Ana Ivanovic", including on her own website. More than enough to say that it is the conventional English spelling of her name. That's all we need to know per WP:CYR naming convention you have quoted. MakeSense64 (talk) 13:58, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
I find it highly amusing how selective Wikipedia is in applying "real names" only to a select group of non-English names, instead of treating all non-English names equally. Consider that India is the largest English-speaking country in the world, but we don't allow Hindi character titles as pagenames, even though most Indians who can read can identify Hindi characters. Or that most native-English speakers went to school and learned the Greek alphabet in mathematics classes, but they too are disallowed generally as pagetitles. Meanwhile, we accept all these diacritics and non-English letters from a very small selection of glyphs worldwide, which most monoglot anglophones cannot read or interpret as "Acceptable" because they are "real English characters". Yet you find Hindi characters in English language textual sources from India, and Greek letters all over the place in English language documents from monoglot anglophones. How is it greatly inaccurate to drop the accents from some names, while it is accurate to use the non-native spelling for Moammar Ghadaffi, whose article lists a multitude of spellings in English, so would logically be considerably more accurately spelled with the original Arabic. Or that we don't use Germanic runes and original pronounciations to spell some Classical people's names, but instead use the Latinized versions. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 00:05, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
70.24.251.208, in what way is Wikipedia "selective"? All Latin-alphabet BLPs are at their Latin alphabet spelling on en.wp, whether they are English (Zoë Ball), American (Rudy Vallée) Dutch (Matwé Middelkoop, Michaël Zeeman), Irish (Máirtín Ó Cadhain), French (Édith Piaf), Czech (Václav Havel), Serbian (Category:Serbian politicians, Category:Serbian footballers). Name one category in any Latin alphabet language where Latin-alphabet names are stripped of diacritics in en.wp? This is the whole problem with this sudden move; this article has been consistent with en.wp Latin-alphabet practice since 2005 and was suddenly moved to be out of line with the rest of en.wp on the basis of 4 sports editors' votes, simply because it was not noticed. The move evidently does not have consensus and the article should be returned to status quo and "consistent with related articles." per MOS. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose English Wikipedia follows English usage, not non-English usage, where English usage can be widely established. We are English Wikipedia, not Slavic Wikipedia. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 03:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Same reasoning as for the Jelena Janković discussion. The diacritic gives important pronunciation information and can easily be ignored by those who don't know its meaning. European diacritics in the WGL-4 subset of Unicode can be viewed correctly on pretty much any computer that is still functioning today, and scholarly sources (which Wikipedia aspires to be) are much more likely to reproduce diacritics than some popular media. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 07:02, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Just got consensus in February, poor form to renominate so quickly. Jenks24 (talk) 14:57, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Also like to note the nomination is clearly flawed. I just noticed that I voted support in the previous RM, yet am not part of a "WP:TENNISNAMES clique" (I've never even seen that essay before now), and the RM clearly had consensus. To claim otherwise is absurd. Jenks24 (talk) 15:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Jenks24, I'm sorry if you felt I included you in that clique; instead, I included you in the "barely anyone else" above. The clique is MakeSense64, Fyunck(click) and Kauffner. I believe I previously identified the three of them by name before, so I thought I wouldn't be misunderstood. Obviously not everyone reads everything, so I apologize. I also realize this whole talk may sound excessively personal and confrontational, but after months of circular discussion about tennis biographies with them, I've lost patience. This handful of editors frame the "discussions" in a way that few others actually agree with after a modicum of thought, yet can't be discarded as abusive because they reference policies (after that modicum of thought - largely irrelevant ones). The pattern is visible from all other recent diacritics discussions - whenever more than half a dozen people are polled, an actual consensus is among the native English speakers who edit the English Wikipedia is far less discriminatory towards the occasional diacritic. Nevertheless, the clique continues to act against this consensus by fiddling with individual articles, trying to advance their position on a case-by-case basis, where there are usually fewer people paying attention. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
        • For the record, I wrote WP:TENNISNAMES and Fyunck and Kauffner have only done some minor editing or commenting on it (as did many others), and have not been heavy supporters of the essay. I have also not seen them quote TENNISNAMES in RM discussions, so to label them as "TENNISNAMES clique" is quite a stretch. But at least ,you admit that they are quoting policy, which cannot be said for most of the support votes here. Just look at the next 3 "support" votes for example. On what part of our policy is their vote actually based? Maybe it is good to point to the text in the RM box at the top of this section. It reads: "Remember to base arguments on article title policy,..". Votes like : "this is an encyclopedia" , "it is her accurate name" , "it is her official name" , "it is her native name" are not based on our titling policy. So they should not be counted. MakeSense64 (talk) 13:49, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
          • I've made my argument based on the WP:NAMINGCRITERIA policy already at Talk:Mate Pavić for example. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
          • Let me copy the gist of it here for easier reading:
            • This is not a case of Đoković vs Djoković. It's hard to argue that the problem there is just a simple diacritic, whereas in case of Ana Ivanović, it's a very easy and straightforward argument. (For more about Đoković, see my earlier post.)
            • English-centric organizations don't care about having e.g. UTF-8 support - but then, they don't have to, really - they're our reliable source for the person's tennis record, they don't have to be our reliable source for the person's proper name.
            • There is no hint of this person engaging in any sort of a procedure to change their last name when they started playing tennis internationally. No other sportsperson would do that either - their birth certificates and other documents by and large remain intact.
            • If you look at Serbian websites, there's a gazillion hits for "Ana Ivanović", which indicates clearly that sources which have support for this character do use it.
            • Wikipedia supports it also, so it should use it as well. The incoming redirect from the diacriticless name stays, obviously. That is the case for all almost other .rs sportspeople (and other people) and Ana Ivanović should not be an exception. Đoković is the only exception that I saw. (For more about Đoković, see my earlier post.)
            • The general issue has been in flux since at least 2005, see the relevant talk pages
            • Nobody's ignoring the "use English" guideline by using "Ana Ivanović" - we're simply placing more weight on the Wikipedia:Article titles policy which says that a name needs to be recognizable, natural, precise, concise and consistent. IMO - both versions discussed are as concise as possible, both are recognizable (although arguments could be made for each); because it's the canonical name, "Ana Ivanović" satisfies the precision requirement better; because of the widespread lack of diacritic support, "Ana Ivanovic" satisfies the naturalness requirement better; because of widespread practice of using diacritics for Serbian people on en:, "Ana Ivanović" also satisfies the consistency requirement better. So that's that.
            • My reading of the text and spirit of the "use English" guideline is to actually use English where English is used in the real world - it supports Florence over Firenza and Vienna over Wien and that's perfectly logical because the former words are actually English in nature. It shouldn't be extended to support using words that aren't actually real English words nor use normal English pronunciation rules, but instead an automatically-generated product of ASCII - in effect, a technical glitch, not a proper anglicization
            • When English speakers try to pronounce "Ana Ivanovic", and try to use English pronunciation rules, something like ana eye-venno-vick comes out and that is simply unlikely to get that person to respond :) Instead, the pronunciation necessarily shifts towards the original, foreign word - which is the whole point. The words "Ana Ivanovic" are not English just because we stripped a small diacritic off of it. Hence - why even bother.
          • --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
              • Reply. How many hits you get for diacritics spelling in Serbian sources is completely irrelevant, because we base titles on usage in English sources WP:UE. The idea that we need accurate or official names is refuted by WP:ON. Pronunciation is not a criteria to consider per WP:AT. What are your policy based arguments against using WP:CYR naming convention, which tells us to use the "conventional English name" if there is one? MakeSense64 (talk) 08:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
                • And the English sources use Ana Ivanović, they just strip the diacritic with no intention of actual anglicization (changing the name). Ana Ivanović is both her official and her common name; there's no "Ana I." or "Dr. Dre" or whatever to choose instead. Nobody argued for pronunciation being a criterion more important than WP:NAMINGCRITERIA; don't grasp onto straws there. The conventional English name is for all practical intents and purposes the same as the Serbian Latin name, we have no need to do an ad hoc transliteration of Serbian Cyrillic. I'm afraid I don't see anything in your reply that isn't wiki-lawyering. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:01, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support A pity the Feb RM received so little attention at the time. --HighKing (talk) 16:44, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose As per WP:AT it seems that the most commonly found form of the name in english language source is of the non diacritic form. --HighKing (talk) 12:29, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support because it is her official name. --Stryn (talk) 16:57, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Her native last name is Ivanović and we usually use the native names. --Aca Srbin (talk) 19:27, 13 May 2012 (CET)
Agathoclea's link is in French, not German. Le Petit Futé is a French backpacker's guide in the Lonely Planet vein. What's interesting however is that a student backpacker guide can spell Serbian names correctly :

"Surtout, le flambeau a été repris par Jelena Janković et Ana Ivanović, ... Au point qu'après la victoire d'Ana Ivanović à Roland Garros en 2008, 10 000 serbes s'étaient massés à Belgrade pour l'accueillir. Considérée en outre comme la plus belle femme du sport dans le monde, Ana Ivanović est très demandée dans le milieu de la mode." Le Petit Futé - Serbie

10 years ago, when the legacy of metal type was still affecting newspapers, Le Monde couldn't even spell Saint-Étienne correctly, now a backpacker's guide can get Serbian names right. This illustrates the change that is happening right across Europe, including Ireland, Scotland, Wales (diacritics) and England. Tony Wheeler hasn't quite caught up. Lonely Planet's latest Western Balkans follows Le Petit Futé for place names, but Francesco Ricci Bitti's rules for tennis players not Grasso's Historical Dictionary of Tennis. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:46, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Rambling Man you already know that BBC, The New York Times don't allow Slavic names so how can sources which don't allow Slavic names be more reliable sources for Slavic names than Grasso's Historical Dictionary of Tennis which gives Ana Ivanović? As before if you want a blanket ban on Slavic names on wp then start with Talk:Lech Wałęsa, where exactly the same applies, BBC, and The New York Times don't allow Lech Wałęsa either. But en.wp does. If you don't like en.wp then maybe start your own nyt.wp where Slavic names are not allowed. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:24, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Throwing straw man arguments around does not help your cause – no one is calling for a "blanket ban on Slavic names". Jenks24 (talk) 07:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Jenks24, I used to work in publishing (still have fingers in two pies) where we had to deal with diacritics and I was (and am) one of those opposed to use of East European diacritics for reasons of costs and complexity in that context, so when I speak I speak from experience. It is far from a straw man argument to say that the logic for preferring tabloid sources over encyclopedic sources has already been played out on Talk:Lech Wałęsa, Talk:Gerhard Schröder. The only difference between Ana Ivanović and Talk:Lech Wałęsa, Talk:Gerhard Schröder is that this Serbian citizen has been targetted for playing tennis under WP:TENNISNAMES. If the ITF tennis names argument is taken away then the only thing left is the "we follow the majority [= tabloid] sources" argument, which does amount to a blanket ban on Slavic names because tabloids have a blanket ban on Slavic names. According to this logic, the moment any East European is touched by a western tabloid source then their name must be stripped. This is no way to build an encyclopedia, and the decision not to take that route was already taken at Talk:Lech Wałęsa and other non-tennis bios. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per the rfm just a short while ago, almost all English sources spell it Ana Ivanovic, her personal webpage spells it Ana Ivanovic, her personal facebook page spells it Ana Ivanovic, the governing body of tennis spells it Ana Ivanovic, and her chosen registration name with the ITF is spelled Ana Ivanovic. Seems like an easy call. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:48, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Fyunck, two questions: (i) Knowing well how East Europe editors feel about some of the WikiProject Tennis and some of the WikiProject Hockey editors anglicizing East Europe living persons, why did you not have the courtesy to notify WikiProject Serbia when the Talk page is tagged WikiProject Serbia [show](Rated B-class, High-importance), the above RM happened in 7 days with only 4 sports editors participating. Do you consider that you have truly conceived wp-wide consensus on the basis of a RM where only 4 sports editors participated? (ii) why are you saying "her chosen registration name with the ITF is spelled Ana Ivanovic," under what definition of the word wikt:choice can the ITF registration rules be considered a choice? These aren't rhetorical questions, they are question questions. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:20, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
In almost all the rfm's I've ever been in, no one goes and notifies ALL the potential parties involved. If you are part of the Serbia project you should have been notified on the bottom of that page, just as at Project Tennis we are notified at the bottom of our project page. That how I have found out 99% of all the page deletion and page move requests. You have stood by a lot of other rfms in which 10-20 votes go your way... is that a true representation of wiki also? When you simply change 100s and 100s of English names to diacritics across all wiki projects and languages do you inform all the projects of that? Oh and by the way I notice that the administrator that put this page up for RfM didn't notify the categories of this article such as, Biography articles of living people, B-Class biography articles, B-Class biography (sports and games) articles, Mid-importance biography (sports and games) articles, Sports and games work group articles, WikiProject Biography articles, B-Class tennis articles, High-importance tennis articles, WikiProject Tennis articles, B-Class Serbia articles, High-importance, Serbia articles, WikiProject Serbia articles, B-Class Belgrade articles, Unknown-importance Belgrade articles, Automatically assessed Belgrade articles, WikiProject Belgrade articles, B-Class Women's sport articles, Unknown-importance Women's sport articles, Automatically assessed Women's sport articles. Did you chastise him also or are you a hypocrite that only does it when it's something you dislike?
As for your other query, all players are given a choice on how they would like their names spelled using the English alphabet. She could have chosen "Anna Evaniwitch", but she didn't. Tennis is a lot different than other instances in that the governing body has created in its bylaws to be forever in English. But the press isn't bound by that, the scoreboards that we see on tv aren't bound by that... She isn't bound by that when she creates an English website or a Facebook page, as at those places she can spell it however she wants in English. Even Encyclopedia Britannica occasionally spells the English tennis names without diacritics as in Nastase. She chose Ana Ivanovic. The fact is in English it's spelled Ana Ivanovic and that's where it should be. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Joy is absolutely right, tennis seems to be the only project where some of these moves were made. A consensus is needed. FkpCascais (talk) 01:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Also, as already mentioned, putting a foreign name into an English form is not done by simply removing the diacritic from the letter. People should be aware about the distinction of a diacritic and an accent. A diacritic in Ivanović case is a completely different letter, Ć is not an accentuated C, but Ć and C (or Č) are actually 3 different letters with three different sounds. Now, there are rules for turning foreign words into its English form, and they can be found for each specific language. As many can see Croatian language (shares the same Latin alphabet with Serbian) is not transliterated to English, and we even have the Romanization of Macedonian which actually indicates that Macedonian language words should be transliterated into English using the Gaj's Latin alphabet which is the Latin form used by Croatian and Serbian languages and the one that uses ć. So, I conclude that the pure fact of recomending the transliteration of Macedonian into Serbo-Croatian Latin it means that Serbo-Croatian Latin is actually accepted in English language. FkpCascais (talk) 01:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose As she is commonly know by English name. --101.108.9.54 (talk) 05:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi, just to let you know that sometimes Anon IP !votes will be ignored by the closing admin. You may want to register a name - it's pretty simple and only takes a couple of minutes! --HighKing (talk) 16:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
While I would also encourage you to register a username, I would also like to assure you that IP votes that are based in policy (such as this one) will not be ignored by the closing admin. Jenks24 (talk) 07:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
You seem to be arguing that "Ana Ivanovic" is an "English name" (?!), and you also made a mistake in spelling the word "known". That's... not a good way to argue for the use of English. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:08, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi Armbrust, WP:ENGLISH doesn't say that 99x diacritic disabled sports websites outtrump 1x Grasso's Historical Dictionary of Tennis. en.wp is diacritic enabled, sports websites are not. The majority sources argument would mean that 99x red roses are grey because in 99 black and white photos they are grey, and ignore the red rose in the 1x diacritic enabled photo = Grasso's Historical Dictionary of Tennis. It's clear from her own website that she is Serbian: " Ivanovićeva već neko vreme voli ovaj grad. “Uvek sam srećna kad dolazim ovde. Divno je videti kako raste, menja se i razvija, i što se to neprestano dešava.” ", and appears as Ivanović in 100% of English sources which are diacritic enabled. 16:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)In ictu oculi (talk)
I find it more telling that her personal website uses the diacritics while writing her name in Serbian, but clearly feels it's OK for her name to be represented sans diacritics in English. Jenks24 (talk) 07:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi Jenks24, that is an assumption, but I grant you that it's not an unreasonable assumption, that the subject of the BLP has looked at her website, and has no great problem with tabloid MOS that Eton Digital of Slough, the company contracted by Dan Holzmann her management, have used on the English side of the site. Further it looks like Spanish players are also stripped of diacritics, so the English side of the website is USAToday/Daily Mirror MOS not Guardian/Economist/NYTimes MOS, so it doesn't discriminate against East Europeans as Economist MOS does (and I say that having contributed to Economist Group publications using the old Economist MOS in the past which didn't even allow Spanish). But equally Miss Ivanović and Dan Holzmann and Eton Digital evidently went to some trouble to have a fully functioning Serbian side of the site as well. That's all fine and good. But here on wp we're not running a tabloid. This is an encyclopedia, all Serbian nationals on wp are given names in Gaj's Latin alphabet per WP:Serbian names and romanization of Serbian. We don't target one Serbian citizen for USAToday/Daily Mirror-MOS simply because she is pretty and plays tennis. You were one of the 4 who voted for this move from where the article has been since 2005. Are you still comfortable with it? Meaning are you comfortable that consensus is that this 1 Serbian citizen is different from the other 1,000s of living people in Category:Serbian people by occupation? I don't know whether your view is that Wikipedia should consistently use a low-diacritic MOS and all East Europeans should be anglicized (I think Kauffner favours this view, I may be wrong), or whether your view is as some others have expressed that if someone becomes notable in the "West" then they lose their full spelling? In ictu oculi (talk) 10:27, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
I'd say you should rather apply the Hanlon razor - the English part of the website was written by someone with an ASCII keyboard, while the Serbian part was written by someone with a Serbian Latin keyboard; they see the technicality for what it is, and have no encyclopedic standards to aspire to, so they simply let it be. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:38, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. @HighKing. It is not an "opinion" that english-language sources trump other sources, it is written right in our title policy and naming conventions. The only time we are supposed to rely on foreign sources to find an article title is when there is no coverage about the topic in English. That's clearly not the case for Ivanovic. See WP:AT , WP:ON and WP:CYR. Even for the body of an article we prefer English sources over foreign sources, see WP:V. In the same way Serbian sources will trump English sources if you are working on the Serbian wp. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:42, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Thanks for the responses, apologies if it frustrated some responders to answer the question. Seems to me in this case that most English language sources prefer to omit diacritics. Regardless of various reasons why that might be as argued above, since the non-diacritic form of the name is *most* common in reliable English-language sources, this is the form that should be used. As a sidenote, perhaps editors should take this discussion to the policy talk-page and open a discussion on how to deal with the names of people where both diacritic and non-diacritic forms of the name can be found in reliable english-language sources. --HighKing (talk) 12:29, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
  • That discussion was not on what to do if English sources showed equal usage of diacritic and non-diacritic names. That was a discussion about a personal essay and whether a project could do away with sourcing altogether and use a different system in determining an article title. It was certainly not a ground-breaking policy decision as it took place on an obscure essay talk page. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Wow, even more wikilawyering. That discussion was exactly about what you are doing, and both the RfC proposer and several of the people who responded explicitly stated that they do not care about your claims how the number of sources trumps everything else. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per Nymf and the discussion that followed his vote. Also I found the previous RM a outrageously inproper one as a High-importance Serbia article RM wasn't put on notice at Wikiproject Serbia (also B-Importance at other projects) and three editor (one is an IP) secretly voted the non-diacritic form and an admin closed it as fast as possible. It's so an unwiki manner I must express my concerns about such an act. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 09:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
The first poll was automatically listed right on the front page of Wikproject Serbia just like this one. If you mean the talk page then neither this poll nor the last were mentioned yet you criticized only this poll's creator. I guess here we have another shhhh.... "secret vote." Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
I think the issue is that as one the editors most actively involved in WP:TENNISNAMES you nominated this Serbian citizen for moving from where the article had been since 2005, on 21 Feb and then used it as a test case citing it in other moves, as indeed MakeSense64 just did again in the proposal to de-diacritize Talk:Jelena Dokić, which is what brought this move to Joy's attention. And the 19 March 2012 discussion, overwhelming consensus at User talk:MakeSense64/Tennis names#RfC: Can a wikiproject require no-diacritics names, based on an organisation's rule or commonness in English press? reflects overwhelming consensus against this Wikipedia:Requested moves/Tennis back in 2008 as well. These two large RfCs show clearly that when a larger group of editors are asked, the consensus reflects en.wp practice of correctly reflecting Latin-alphabet names - and this should be settled at Talk:Lech Wałęsa, not pull a tennis player out of line with normal en.wp practice simply because the English side of her English-Serbian website uses Daily Mirror/USA Today MOS, as we would expect any English website to do. The consensus of those RfCs was against this move. As such the article should be returned to status quo, per Grasso's Historical Dictionary of Tennis, the only diacritic-enabled English source that has been referenced in this discussion. The world of tennis will survive with this Serbian citizen having a correctly and fully spelled name on wp. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:36, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
As for your first sentence you are full of condensed allsoup once again...and over and over and over and over again. And if you think that a debate about an essay on "forbidding" diacritics (which I don't even recall !voting on) is the same as the policy of simply following the English sources along with using what is sourced at the governing bodies of tennis, then your logic is laughable. Maybe you need to go back and make up some new fibs to tell? I notice you've done it to Kauffner also and he's had to correct you. I follow the English sources and you seem to ignore them and censor them. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Fyunck, please answer this question do or do not the two large RfCs above, 2008, 2012, support (i) your/MakeSense64/Kauffner's preference for anglicized names for European tennis players, (ii) the kind of WP:STAGENAME-based edits you singly continue to make to BLPs like Saša Hiršzon when a RM has gone against you. Do they, yes or no?
As for the rest of the above, there are so many WP:PA in the above from "full of condensed allsoup" to the edit summary "(more dribble)" (do you mean wikt:drivel?) "fibs" that it'd be easy to be distracted, so I'll repeat the question:
  • (i) Do or do not the two large RfCs above, 2008, 2012, support your/MakeSense64/Kauffner's preference for anglicized names for European tennis players,
Yes/No
  • (ii) Does anyone support the kind of lede edits "Paul Féret known in tennis as Paul Feret" which you alone continue to insert into ledes even when a RM has gone against you.
Yes/No
In ictu oculi (talk) 23:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Can't be answered as the question is ridiculous. Perhaps I could reword it for you since you seem incapable of doing it from past experience. There were more than two debates on this, and 2008 was a debate on moves not an RfC so you blew it there bucco. I follow the English sources and governing bodies of tennis for ALL tennis players...I don't care where they're from. I don't single out European tennis players as you have said wrongly over and over and over and over and over before. I also don't care whether an RM has gone against me or for me. I had noticed that both common spellings of a name weren't being displayed so I turned a sentence like Muasa Tzszir into Muasa Tzszir (Bazarich: Muaša Tzšzir) to make sure all forms were visible to our readers if they are both quite common. If it gets moved or is at Muaša Tzšzir already then I make sure the opposite is true for our readers Muaša Tzšzir also known as Muasa Tzszir. That way all the info is at our reader's fingertips. I don't censor things as you seem to like in your 100s of pages moves and edits. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:26, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
I will repeat the questions:
  • (i) Did the March 2012 discussion, to which Joy linked, support removing diacritics from Latin-alphabet names?
Yes/No?
  • (ii) Does any other editor second the formula you have added into 100+ BLPs, and edit-warred with multiple editors to keep in, Saša Hiršzon ... professionally known as Sasa Hirszon"?
Yes/No?
In ictu oculi (talk) 00:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Even though you rarely answer my own queries, or you do so with falsehoods, these questions I can answer. (i) for the minor personal essay in question, "No." Nor did it support keeping them since that wasn't the purpose of the debate. (ii) Assuming you remove your snotty little "edit warred" and insert your own name into edit warring and censoring... then the answer is yes. Now you can go back and censor some more articles and make sure no trace of English remains. I'm not sure I've seen more disruption in articles since you started editing in tennis. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Fyunck
With all respect if you aren't edit-warring at Saša Hiršzon how come your edits are always on top of every editor who disagrees with Fyunck?
Maybe you don't understand the concept, but if 3 editors make an edit and you impose your edit on all 3, it isn't the 3 other editors who are edit warring, it is you. This is why of those 100x BLPs you inserting "Saša Hiršzon professionally known as Saša Hiršzon" it is always the Fyunck edit on top, no matter who disagrees. Whose edit is always on top?
(i) Thanks for admitting it.
(ii) Who?
Who supports your "Saša Hiršzon professionally known as Saša Hiršzon" edits
You say yes. Then who?
All the last edits are yours. in 100x of articles, so who else supports them?
In ictu oculi (talk) 10:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
@IIO. How some editors voted on a (poorly worded) RfC on a new essay that is hardly watched, that does not replace our existing policies and guidelines. Why do you never cite this very recent RfC that had much broader participation: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)/Diacritics RfC? The conclusion was: "There is general agreement that diacritics should be used for the name of a subject if the majority of English-language reliable sources use them, and there is agreement that if the commonly used name for the subject is an Anglicized version that everyone will recognize, it should be used. But these are items that already had consensus before the RfC started."
So, what has changed since last August?
Why are so many editors refusing to apply this policy, which is based on a long standing concensus to base article titles on the English-language usage. The "support" voters fail to explain on which AT policy their vote is based. MakeSense64 (talk) 05:26, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
MakeSense64
As far as I can judge what has changed since last August is that a small group of tennis and hockey editors have got more and more disruptive. I wasn't following this last August, but last August Ana Ivanović was, like Lech Wałęsa, happily sitting at her own name. Something happened since August to encourage you to draft WP:TENNISNAMES and something happened to encourage Fyunck to take Miss Ivanović and Britishize her, following Fyunck's own twice repeated argument that when his parents came to Britain they lost their Polish accents so therefore tennis players who play at Wimbledon should also lose theirs. And the two of you cooked up this analogy that Ana Ivanovic is actually WP:STAGENAME for Ana Ivanović like Cary Grant is a stage name for Archie Leach. Then the two of you got bolder and bolder and started doing more and more provocative things until you canvassed the attention of editors who have no interest in tennis at all but object to the disruption and silliness of it all.
There's your answer, last August Ana Ivanović was Ana Ivanović. In March 2012 she was WP:TENNISNAMED by Fyunck, Kauffner an IP and another user above. That's what changed from last August. With respect - you, Fyunck and Kauffner wrote it, you happened.
In ictu oculi (talk) 10:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
My goodness... I guess you really are incapable of telling the truth or else you really believe the load of horse manure you peddle. I never said because my family loses it's diacritics when we are in UK or US that "therefore" tennis players should lose theirs. Someone had said that people don't simply remove the diacritics when living in the US or UK and I said they are 100% Wrong... That my family does and plenty of other Polish families I know do so also. That doesn't mean ALL tennis players should do the same... I always say to follow the English sources. Ana Ivanovic IS her registered name per the governing body of tennis, per her own 2 websites, and per the US, UK, Canadian and Australian press. Because it is used in so many sources it is a pseudonym and it is the name most recognizable to most English speaking readers. You keep trying to censor that by disruption and bullying but I think most of us are getting used to that by now. I have no idea what "she was WP:TENNISNAMED by Fyunck" means at all. The nomination I wrote said, "per all the sources on her page bottom... WTA, ITF, Fed Cup and even her own personal website, it is spelled Ivanovic. Her official facebook page is Ivanovic also. Shouldn't this page go where the English sources tell us?" That is simply wiki policy and following the sources. Yes the FACT her registered name in tennis is spelled without diacritics is part of that, but only part. I follow the overwhelming English sources while you try to censor them.
You talk about Ivanovic "happily sitting at her own name" in August. Shall we look at your own hypocrisy here? Last August Édouard Commette was happily sitting at Edouard Commette but your disruption came along and simply moved it. Shall I go on? Camille Darsieres>Camille Darsières, Emmanuel Very-Hermence>Emmanuel Véry-Hermence, Jurgen Schreiber>Jürgen Schreiber, Etienne Ozi>Étienne Ozi... all happily sitting at a non-diacritic title last August. You simply picked them up and moved them. Shall I go on? There are 100s (probably 100s and 100s) of these moves by you and you have also done them at heaps of other language wikipedias as I see. I happened to do Ana Ivanovic by RM... those people you moved you did without an RM. Oh, and that TENNISNAMES essay you seem to love talking about so often... I see I made 3 edits in it's history...How many did you make? You also made 3 edits. Interesting. I guess we should start calling it the "In ictu oculi TENNISNAMES Essay" from now on. You have been disrupting, you are not telling the truth, and your hypocrisy knows no bounds. You seem to want to put yourself above the rest of us, traveling some wiki-morals high ground, when in fact it's more like a sty. Stop the bullying, stop the fabricating, stop the censoring, stop the edit warring, stop the disruptions, try for even one time to compromise, and maybe I'll take you seriously. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:35, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Fyunck, you have probably called me a "liar" "Pinocchio" or so on getting up to 40x now. You were asked by Bob Rayner four times to either present a diff or stop it, though it doesn't particularly concern me. As regards the argument from your own surname, you made the argument twice, the first time here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Poland/Archive_12#Removal_of_Polish-language_source_from_BLP_and_change_of_name. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:34, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
PS. again, with all respect to your family, as Prokonsul Piotr told you, you are American/British, not Polish, therefore your deaccented name is not relevant to whether a Serbian citizen's name should be anglicized for appearing in sports sources.
PPS. thank you for following me, but French MP Camille Darsières etc never appeared in the sports pages of an English tabloid newspaper etc. If you really think he should be at an "English name" (sic) then feel free to contest it. I make no apology for sane editing.
Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 22:57, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
You basically just did it here again. I don't give explanations to others about your shortcomings. I told you on my talk page and have told you you were mistaken so many times that it's getting old. I don't believe you anymore than OJ. You constantly miss-characterize positions and when someone tells you you're wrong you never answer...just go on with the same falsehoods. Knock it off, and quit acting like an innocent deer in headlights. It's getting laughable. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:59, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per much of what is above and doesn't need repeating. -DJSasso (talk) 14:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose because Reliable Sources don't have the diacritic on the c. Sorry, the supports are wrong on the matter.HotHat (talk) 23:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
    Several reliable sources have diacritics. What makes you say they don't? Nymf hideliho! 06:26, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
    Ah ha, Some may, but most do not however use them, we are to take which side has the majority in reliable sources, which is the argument that the pro-diacritics side always seems to forget. Per EN "The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language, as you would find it in reliable sources" and "The native spelling of a name should generally be included in parentheses, in the first line of the article, with a transliteration if the Anglicization isn't identical. Redirects from non-English names are encouraged. Where there is an English word, or exonym, for the subject but a native version is more common in English-language usage, the English name should be mentioned but should not be used as the article title." So, I ask you what is most popular with or without diacritic?HotHat (talk) 08:06, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
    Now, the subject comes up of UE, which states "The choice between anglicized and local spellings should follow English-language usage". Furthermore, it states "However, if there is a common English-language form of the name, then use it, even if it is unsystematic (as with Tchaikovsky and Chiang Kai-shek)." So we are to follow the most common name in the most english-laguage rs and take it even if "unsystematic"HotHat (talk) 08:06, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
    Lastly, I want you to look at CRITERIA, when it states under Recognizability "Titles are names or descriptions of the topic that are recognizable to someone familiar with (though not necessarily expert in) the topic." This means we must follow the layman name for the title without the diacritic. Look at Naturalness, when it states "Titles are those that readers are likely to look for or search with as well as those that editors naturally use to link from other articles. Such titles usually convey what the subject is actually called in English." This means we must make the name that most editors see in the english-language rs to be the name that get linked from such as on bracket and event pages, which she participates in. Finally, I ask you to look at percision, when it states "Titles usually use names and terms that are precise (see below), but only as precise as necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously." See it says we are not to be authorative and percise (i.e. synonyms: exact, detail, accurate, specific, particular, clear-cut, defined and fixed) unless it is to be not in conflict with any other articles, which this is clearly not the case here. I rest my case or cases as you see it.HotHat (talk) 08:06, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
HotHat, same question to you as to the other WP:TENNISNAMES editors who cite their reading of WP MOS UE and so on. If the WP:TENNISNAMES editors reading of WP guidelines is correct, then answer me this, why is it that out of 890,000 BLPs, only 20-30 of tennis and hockey articles follow the tennis-editors reading of WP guidelines? and the rest of the 890,000 are wrong, all messed up like Lech Wałęsa with those horrid foreign squiggles. Why is it that en.wp doesn't look like an IPA tennis website? Why is that? Do you think there's a conspiracy? In ictu oculi (talk) 10:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
No, I don't think their is a conspiracy, but the pro-diacritics side seems to want to avoid stare decisis policies that are enshrined on the english-language wikipedia. By the way, I suggest you chose a different example because Lech Wałęsa returns zero results and Lech Walesa returns 204 results. So, I ask you, which way we should follow now on your own example. Even Nobel Peace Prize does not have the diacritic on the e. I am beginning to think we need to use the un-diacritic title for his name and put the diacritic one as a sub-name like is done with Novak Djokovic.HotHat (talk) 19:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
HotHat, everyone here is well aware that the name Talk:Lech Wałęsa is not supported by the Times, nor any English newspaper. Which is exactly the point of Talk:Lech Wałęsa RM consensus; that en.wp gives diacritics to Latin-alphabet European names despite the fact that the vast majority of English sources are low-MOS. This is the case over all the 898,000 BLPs on en.wp. Since en.wp doesn't follow the low-MOS majority. The only people who pretending not to recognise the consensus of en.wp are a tiny group surrounding WP:TENNISNAMES, and yet I see the same tennis and hockey editors on their Talk pages lamenting the foreign names all over "English Wikipedia," so they at least are aware that the tennis-names is going against the grain of the Project and larger community consensus.
As regards stare decisis et non quieta movere ("to stand by decisions and not disturb the undisturbed") then I expect you to cross out Oppose and change to Support and allow Serbia's most famous female citizen to go back to Serbian spelling of her name per Grasso's Historical Dictionary of Tennis where the article was since 2005. 01:20, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
No, I was meaning that we should let the policies stand not the native name, which is against current stare decisis policies on wikipedia because we are to go by the most common name in english based sources. This is exactly why you In ictu oculi are wrong on the matter because we are not to follow the official/native name (accurate or else), which is because it is not the most common usage of her name and Lech Walesa, which the pro-diacritic supporters are forgetting. Both Ivanovic and Walesa should be without diacritic per EN, UE, CRITERIA that I cited above. Now, I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that you and others don't care about policy and about using english based rs ONLY! HotHat (talk) 02:21, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
HotHat, have you even read the policies you are citing? How do you explain that WP:UE gives "Søren Kierkegaard" as the example? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes In ictu oculi, I have read the policy that states "the choice between anglicized and local spellings should follow English-language usage". This means the one example you cite has achieved it status as being the most common used form of the name in English-language usage if it actually has. When clearly the diacritic-ed Ivanovic name has not!HotHat (talk) 03:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Soren Kierkegaard name is without diacritics by New York Times, Time and Newsweek, which the only rs source with the diacritics is Britanica. So, it may need to be discussed to see what the "English-language usage" actually is for his name, as well.HotHat (talk) 03:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
HotHat, by all means nominate Søren Kierkegaard if you really believe that the WP:TENNISNAMES editors' understanding of wp is correct and the rest of the Project's editors are wrong, and then after Søren Kierkegaard we can shift every other Latin-alphabet diacritic article as well. Assuming that 15~20% of en.wp's 4.4 million articles are Latin-alphabet place or personal names, it should only be 600-900,000 moves, towards the at least 20 of Fyunck's tennis players and 60 of Dolovis' hockey players are already diacritic stripped. Go ahead. And do Václav Havel, Lech Wałęsa, WP:UE examples Besançon and Göttingen at the same time. It's easy to target a Serbian tennis player who drops an accent on the non-Serbian half of her Slough-built website, but I'd like to see how you fare going into more serious wp territory. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:53, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
First-things-first, I am not a TENNISNAMES editor at all, which I barely do anything in the tennis community. My edits on here are most music related and specifically Christian. So, now that is out of the way, lets move onto discussing your stuff. We are not to follow the latin-alphabet, which is another misnomer you and the pro-diacritics side keep on believing in. We are to follow the English-language and the English-language alphabet only, which means we are to use the 26-characters that belong to it in making our article titles not characters from other foreign-languages like the pro-diacrics community is advocating for here and everywhere else.HotHat (talk) 04:23, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi HotHat. I was only going by your extensive comments at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tennis/Archive_10#Player_names_have_no_diacritics and other tennisnames discussions. I am aware that WP:TENNISNAMES (like the HockeyNames debacle before it) has pulled in editors who have no interest in tennis but share common cause with Fyunck and MakeSense64's opposition to European names. If your passion is Christian music then why not nominate the Mexican Christian singer Jesús Adrián Romero for anglicization? In ictu oculi (talk) 05:37, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
HotHat, if you really believe this, please go ahead and nominate the following articles to be renamed:
Unless you're willing to do so, we can't take seriously the last sentence you wrote above. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 04:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I think you pro-diacritic's backers love to threaten in order to get your way on here, not working! Let's keep it CIVIL.HotHat (talk) 05:22, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Resume is a lone word here, and the others' STAGENAME applies to them, but for ones with out IPIN or Stagename we must go by the English-language alphabet. In tennis the IPIN is the players stagename, which you all seem to be forgetting, and now like IMDb we must use IPIN for the Ivanovic, which means no diacritic.HotHat (talk) 05:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Originally, you made a flat statement that titles in the English Wikipedia must use only the 26-letter alphabet. That was the statement I challenged, and you responded by acknowledging that some titles do use diacritics, and even some dictionary words in English use diacritics. I don't agree at all that the "stagename" analogy applies (no need to rephrase In ictu oculi's arguments), but at least we agree on the essential: sometimes English Wikipedia articles can and should use diacritics. PS, not all the Zoës are entertainment figures where you could try to make a stagename claim; there is Zoë Baird (lawyer), for instance. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 06:27, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
PS, according to International_Tennis_Federation#IPIN, the IPIN is three letters and seven numbers, for instance ALB1003941; that's a serial number, not a person's name. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 06:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
HotHat I see you say "pro-diacritic's backers love to threaten in order to get your way on here, not working!" but the editing behaviour illustrates a different story. Take the example above: Revision history of Saša Hiršzon:
  • (cur | prev) 18:30, 18 May 2012‎ Fyunck(click) (talk | contribs)‎ . . (6,949 bytes) (+22)‎ . . (you can word it as you like but stop the censoring) (undo)
  • (cur | prev) 11:25, 18 May 2012‎ Joy (talk | contribs)‎ . . (6,927 bytes) (-45)‎ . . (for the Nth time, there is absolutely no consensus that this is WP:STAGENAME material, Undid revision 493107128 by Fyunck(click) (talk)) (undo)
  • (cur | prev) 23:21, 17 May 2012‎ Fyunck(click) (talk | contribs)‎ . . (6,972 bytes) (+45)‎ . . (Reverted to revision 482500469 by Fyunck(click): text removal. (TW)) (undo)
  • (cur | prev) 18:54, 17 May 2012‎ Bobrayner (talk | contribs)‎ . . (6,927 bytes) (-45)‎ . . (that's not a stage name) (undo)
  • (cur | prev) 07:23, 18 March 2012‎ Fyunck(click) (talk | contribs)‎ . . (6,972 bytes) (+45)‎ . . (talking at dispute resolution and looking at Sting (musician), Pink (singer) and Hulk Hogan, I'm trying their formatting on this article instead of the parenths.) (undo)
  • (cur | prev) 17:30, 13 March 2012‎ Prolog (talk | contribs)‎ . . (6,927 bytes) (-32)‎ . . (rv - unnecessary and non-standard, per talk) (undo)
  • (cur | prev) 23:24, 12 March 2012‎ Fyunck(click) (talk | contribs)‎ . . (6,959 bytes) (+32)‎ . . (fine it can be common name then... I'm not particular about whether its English or common or tennis, but wiki "POLICY" demands the alternative name per Wikipedia:Article titles) (undo)
  • (cur | prev) 22:45, 12 March 2012‎ Joy (talk | contribs)‎ . . (6,927 bytes) (-28)‎ . . (as has been discussed at length, there's nothing English about it, Undid revision 481579553 by Fyunck(click) (talk)) (undo)
  • Fyunck adds "Saša Hiršzon (English Sasa Hirszon) is a Croatian tennis player"
Well, apart from being a bizarre edit (e.g. François Mitterand (English Francois Mitterand)...") which is problem No.2, problem No.1 is that the constant battle of WP:TENNISNAMES group against wp convention (in this case WP:OPENPARA extends to the conviction that 3RR is okay when spread over several days against 3 or more different editors. There are 100+ BLPs which have been messed up with this nonsense, and that is at least as much of a problem as the belief that "Ana Ivanovic" is a WP:STAGENAME. It may seem to some that these antics could all just be cover for something which we are all too polite to name. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:10, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Comment: I am equally skeptical of the "stage name" claim, based on the supposed requirement for tennis players to register with an anglicized name. Paper application forms (for passport, etc) usually tell you to write your name in pen in block capital letters... does that mean you suddenly have a "stage name" of Mr. ALLCAPS, and Wikipedia articles must write your name that way forevermore? What's more, a careful reading of the IPIN registration instructions does not actually verify the claim that registration requires entry of a diacritic-less name, see explanation here. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 08:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Comment: The primary concern should be English 'only' readers, to whom these diacritics serve no educational value. To 'this' English only reader, the diacritics are mere decorations that clog up the name's appearance. The diacritics are simply being pushed by 'home country/mother language' pride. GoodDay (talk) 14:38, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Your pet peeves are not a basis for writing an encyclopedia. All those blue underlined words clog up articles, maybe we should get rid of them too. It is getting harder to assume good faith here: are arguments citing "stage names" and other inventive theories nothing but a cover for the true underlying motivation of visceral personal disdain for what you perceive to be "foreign"? The issue is not "pride" (some of us must have a dozen home countries and mother languages by now) but information and scholarly accuracy. Diacritics are often useful even if you don't actually speak a language: an "é" at the end of a word is perfectly understandable even to most people who don't speak French. And there is not even any particular reason to assume that the primary audience of English Wikipedia is monolingual native English speakers; there are many readers of English as a second language across the world who turn to English Wikipedia for its broader and more thorough coverage compared to Wikipedias in some other languages. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 17:06, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Then let those editors-in-question expand the language Wikipedias that are of their 'first language', instead of them pushing their 'non-English' symbols here. In otherwords - 'Take care of your own garden & stop trying to plant your seeds in mine'. GoodDay (talk) 17:11, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
I'll bring it up again: Zoë Baird. Not an entertainment figure, and therefore the "stage name" theory doesn't apply. Not one of those darn foreigners, either. To borrow your metaphor, if you think the "ë" is a weed, then you're not tending your own garden unless you make the effort to uproot it. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 17:21, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
In time, those non-English symbols will be removed. GoodDay (talk) 17:29, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
GoodDay, I think the above exchange brings it to the point where you need to have a chat with your mentors about the nature of en.wikipedia and whether it is an "English" or "international" project, and perhaps take something like Category:Irish people as a starting point rather than hockey or tennis.
P.T. Aufrette, GoodDay does apparently have license from WikiProject Hockey to remove Czech accents from hockey articles related to North America, so is licensed to do some "weeding." It isn't clear whether when Czech players return home their accents are de-weeded. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:47, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Mojibake with UTF-8 in 2012? Have you looked at the English Wikipedia lately? The use of non-ASCII characters is pervasive. I don't believe I've heard a complaint in probably more than five years now. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
No one is proposing a rename to "Ivanovich". And the "c-with-acute-accent" is part of the WGL-4 subset of Unicode, for all practical purposes no browser in use today is incapable of displaying it correctly. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 16:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Ana Ivanović is her name. Even the BBC allows their staff to spell their names as they should be. You can't make her English by anglifying her name. --Bas-Celik (talk) 23:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
You mean like where the BBC spells her name Ana Ivanovic right here or right here or right here? Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:43, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Can you see in the above line were Bas-Celik says "their staff"? "staff" means e.g. Slobodan Topović of the BBC World Service. We know that in mass-market English materials BBC stops at French and German diacritics, though again the pianist Jelena Dokić would appear as Jelena Dokić in BBC Music Magazine.In ictu oculi (talk) 01:35, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong support. I wouldn't mind if English Wikipedia doesn't permit diacritics at all. But what is the goal of Wikipedia? Spreading incorrect version only because reliable sources such as EPSN, BBC say so? (anyway, I don't understand role of reliable sources: somebody needs proof that Ана Ивановић is transliterated into Ana Ivanović O_o) -- Bojan  Talk  00:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi Bojan, unfortunately it's due to a common misunderstanding of Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources:

The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made.

ESPN is reliable for statements on when a tennis match was played, but is not reliable on WP:SERBIANNAMES since ESPN does not allow Slavic names. 100x ESPN type websites are not "reliable for the statement being made" and is not "the best such source for that context" Wheras 1x Grasso's Historical Dictionary of Tennis, and 100x Google Scholar hits for the orthography of surname Ivanović are "reliable for the statement being made" and are "the best such source for that context." This is WP policy, guideline, and applied across en.wp in all other areas except this article. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:34, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

If "No consensus" then "no consensus" should be a return to 2005-2012

It seems that the "votes" above are about 15 vs 15. In this situation, it would be incongruous if the 21 February 2012 4 person RM above was held over the 2005-2012 status quo of the article. This move took place before the noise of the WP:TENNISNAMES article which followed it and simply wasn't noticed. There is a real potential for disruption if the 21 February 2012 RM is allowed to stand. It will make this one BLP the only significant BLP on en.wp where a diacritic-stripped version of a European Latin-alphabet name is counted as correct. Somebody correct me if they know of any other example. Not examples of where someone has emigrated, not a stagename, not a transliteration using the old Gaj's latin alphabet before Đuro Daničić added Đ instead of Dj in 1882, but a completely simple case of a BLP where a name has had its diacritics removed for no other reason than tabloid sources are more common than reliable sources like Grasso's Historical Dictionary of Tennis. This is going to be the sole example on en.wp of a name we all know is incorrect being used in a BLP title on the basis of "sports sources." Unless anyone can name another BLP that is comparable? In ictu oculi (talk) 11:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

This RM was to move Ana Ivanovic → Ana Ivanović and as you correctly state there is no consensus to do so according to the votes and discussion. Therefore the only logical and allowable step according to the RM procedure is to deny the request and close it. That you now somehow try to twist and deny this clear reality only shows that your viewpoint on this issue has become so closed-minded and extreme that you are unable to accept that reality. Alas it fits your earlier efforts to interpret an outcome of the search in reliable English speaking media of 99% vs 1% in favor of Ana Ivanovic as a clear support for Ana Ivanović. It's simply baffling. And why do you continue to mention WP:TENNISNAMES when you know full well and have been explained many times over that no such thing as a WP:TENNISNAMES policy / guideline exists? It's just comes across as disingenuous. Sadly it seems indicative for your entire level of conduct in this discussion. --Wolbo (talk) 12:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Agree Wolbo.... I don't think we should be re writing the rules around here. If it winds up no consensus to move from Ana Ivanovic → Ana Ivanović then we don't move it. This is just one of those items where IIO, a co-writer of a failed essay, doesn't like the way things are going so invents some new way to avoid an inevitable conclusion. Typical. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment I think this proposal seems like sour grapes. Effectively it attempts to render the last few weeks of discussion moot, and ignores the fact there's no consensus to move the page back to the diacritic'ed version. Sadly (from an outside point of view) it looks like a transparent attempt to circumvent a lengthy, comprehensive and valid RM discussion that resulted in no decision to move from the current status quo. An alternative to this "proposal" is to revert to the original edition of the page, here which clearly uses no diacritic. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Rambling Man, it is not yet sour grapes, because the closing or relisting admin may choose to ignore the comment of 1-edit Bangkok IPs etc. Though I won't disguise the fact that I'm rather disappointed at the attitude of those editors who consider themselves sports fans, but are not inclined to respect the name of a living person in giving "her English name" to one of Serbia's most notable citizens. Anyway, I see that you haven't offered an answer to the question. Where is there a comparable case of a like-for-like accent stripping "Abcdéf → Abcdef"? Can you find one where the person has not emigrated? In ictu oculi (talk) 22:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid we're at cross purposes. I'm not in any way obliged to "offer.. an answer to the question". This is a discussion about Ivanovic and the sources that spell her name the way they do. You have one scholarly source saying one thing and hundreds of other, typically reliable sources saying another. You must be able to see that's a tough one to swallow for those opposed to the move? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Oddly enough, no I don't see that's a tough one. We've said before that 1x colour photo outweighs 99x black-and-white photos when establishing the colour of a rose, so everyone agrees that 1x Grasso's Historical Dictionary of Tennis is diacritically accurate, and the 99x tabloid sources are diacritically accurate. And we do have a guideline to take a minority of accurate sources over a majority of inaccurate ones. So the swallowing problem lies elsewhere. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:31, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
And for your next trick, you'll prove that the Encyclopedia Britannica is more reliable than Wikipedia... (Incidentally, I'm not sure what you wrote make sense, if you re-read it. And also, I wouldn't consider The BBC, The New York Times, the Daily Telegprah, the ITF, etc "tablod sources" really, I think that's a pretty massive misrepresentation of those high-quality sources) But we digress. You started this section to try to assert a "no consensus" as a "return to diacritics". Yet you've now restarted the same discussion as above. What is the point of this section now? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Try again, is there anyone who can offer a precedent for a "Abcdéf → Abcdef" rename for a BLP who hasn't emigrated? In ictu oculi (talk) 14:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I think you're misunderstanding. The disagreement here is with your proposal to revert to a diacritic version no matter the outcome above, not a revival of some kind of emigration name debate again. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:42, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Rambling Man, I understand your view.
Thank you. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:17, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
I'll rephrase the question: Given the unusual nature of an "Abcdéf → Abcdef" move, is there a precedent for a "Abcdéf → Abcdef" rename for a living person of this sort where nationality or stagename is not an issue? The only one I'm aware of was the attempt to "Abcdéf → Abcdef" Talk:Nico Hülkenberg on 18 March by a IP, which was rejected. Was there one before that? In ictu oculi (talk) 14:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Or relist

I have gone back as far as I can with RMs, opposition to foreign names didn't really gain momentum until 2010-2011 so it's possible that there was one before then, but if there was, it's evidently since been recorrected since none of us can think of any "Abcdéf → Abcdef" case similar to this one. Without being melodramatic, this really does appear to be a first in en.wp history. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

  • I have restored the full text of footnote [4] John Grasso Historical Dictionary of Tennis 2011 Page 225 "Among his students have been Ernests Gulbis, Novak Djoković, and Ana Ivanović." - given that the rationale of 2 of 4 'votes' for the for the 21 Feb RM was based on the the premise that reliable English sources and article footnotes didn't use the same WP:SERBIANNAMES MOS as en.wp does (in non-tennis articles at least) the following text should not be removed. John Grasso Historical Dictionary of Tennis 2011 is a source for the name, to remove the following text in quotation marks is not helpful while a RM is going on. On indeed going forward if this article is going to become the only Eastern European citizen on en.wp with a stripped down Latin-alphabet name. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Comment @IIO. That's a misleading shortcut you have created there (and should be moved up on the page or deleted). The section your shortcut leads to is pending on "When no commonly accepted form exists in English" (which is clearly not the case for a famous tennis player like Ivanovic). I also notice that you used the announcement of your new shortcut to once again try to bring more editors from the project Serbia to this RM: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Serbia#new_WP:SERBIANNAMES_shortcut. _ MakeSense64 (talk) 08:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 
Slavica Đukić Dejanović, President of Serbia
MakeSense64.
WP:Naming conventions (Cyrillic) guideline "When no commonly accepted form exists in English" refers to examples like Moscow not Moskva, Tchaikovsky not Chaikovski.
WP:Naming conventions (Serbian) doesn't generally have that issue since Serbian uses Latin:
File:Mirko Cvetkovic left.jpg
Mirko Cvetković Prime Minister of Serbia

Serbian

Shortcut

For Serbian:

  1. Serbian Latin spelling is used

See also #Alphabets, Gaj's Latin alphabet, romanization of Serbian

Serbian living persons on en.wp follow WP:Naming conventions (Serbian). See Category:Serbian footballers Category:Serbian athletes etc.
Ana Ivanović also followed WP:Naming conventions (Serbian) 2005-2012 until Feb 21 when it was nominated and moved as (apparently) en.wp's first "Abcdéf → Abcdef" move of this kind, with not one mention of the one reliable source on tennis names (which I note Wolbo has again truncated Grasso's Historical Dictionary of Tennis from the article, footnotes thereby removing mention of "Ana Ivanović" from reader visibility). In ictu oculi (talk) 09:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
At the top of the page it clearly mentions "Serbian" among the covered languages. Mainly Russian examples being given doesn't mean anything. We are supposed to use this for all the covered languages. E.g. also for Macedonian. Your shortcut is misleading because it skips the first part of the guideline. And now I notice you have just created yet another shortcut to it, which also bypassed the first part of this page: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Serbian). How many more shortcuts do you think to need to that Serbian section? Why was WP:CYR not good enough? MakeSense64 (talk) 10:05, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
No it wasn't good enough because you misread "When no commonly accepted form exists in English" as referring to not Belgrade for Beograd, but to the names of living persons. Take the case of Mirko Cvetković, left. In unreliable-for-spelling-European-names English sources, he will be Mirko Cvetkovic. So why are you not nominating Mirko Cvetković and Slavica Đukić Dejanović to be anglicized? In ictu oculi (talk) 10:11, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
That's nonsense. There is nothing in the WP:CYR guideline that suggests that the first part is for cities while the "When no commonly accepted form exists in English" section is to be used for names of living persons. You are once again making up unreasonable interpretations on the spot. And the section explaining "Conventional names" gives several examples of persons, making it even more clear that it also applies for persons. When are you going to accept that wp uses "conventional English names" if they exist? MakeSense64 (talk) 11:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
I will accept en.wp uses "conventional English names" when you provide 1 non-tennis article that does so. Please provide evidence that en.wp uses "conventional English names" In ictu oculi (talk) 00:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Seriously...

You people have just written 15,547 words arguing about one acute accent. You've kind of shot yourselves in the feet, because I doubt any admin is going to bother to read this whole discussion. I would love to close it as no consensus, but I stick by my self-ban in this topic area, but can I suggest to anyone still participating here: go and actually edit the encyclopedia, or go for a long walk through the forest and try to realise that WP:Wikipedia is not that important, let alone one diacritic in an article title? - filelakeshoe 15:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Filelakeshoe, a total waste of time but it's actually 15,547 words arguing about the first successful Abcdéf -> Abcdef of a European citizen on en.wp., and one that has been cited as a precedent since Feb 27 to attempt the same disruption on several other articles as well. This isn't going to stop here. Which is why it was done. No one just moves 1 article away from the other 3-400,000 In ictu oculi (talk) 16:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
@FLS. Did you also count how many of these words were produced by our friend In ictu oculi ? And this is just one RM, go have a look at the Jelena Dokic RM where he is producing equal walls of text.
I would happily take your suggestion to edit the encyclopedia, but I am on a self-ban to edit articles if I have to type characters that are not on my keyboard all the time. Contribution on wp is voluntary after all. MakeSense64 (talk) 16:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't have to have produce 1 word if you and Fyunck hadn't started moving articles which have been sitting correctly spelled since 2005 to WP:TENNISNAMES, creating redirects away from the correct spelling and now editing the diacritics guidelines at MOSPN. The disruption you and Fyunck between you[those in agreement with International Tennis Federation naming conventions] have caused to en.wp since January 15th is quite something. (And I didn't notice it until 13 March).
Now that said. This is still a simple RM. We have a living person. WP:BLP requires accuracy, and this living persons name, even MakeSense64 and Fyunck admit, is Ana Ivanović, daughter of Miroslav Ivanović and Dragana Ivanović. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't know how you can say that with a straight face. The disruption and censoring of tennis articles caused by you (In ictu oculi) since earlier this year is the most monumental I've ever seen in all my days here. And the amount of diacritic to non-diacritic page moves done by you across the board of this wikipedia and from what I can tell, different language wikipedias also, is scary. And it includes pages that have been happily sitting in place since 2004. I think if you look at simple page moves you've more in one day than I did in 2 years. Your gall is incredible to even bring this up and I can't fathom how anyone takes you "seriously" anymore. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:02, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Another section, another restart to the same old discussion which has clearly resulted in no consensus to move above. Can we just accept that and move on? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:49, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Rambling Man,
That is exactly the point of Joy's nomination, that there was no consensus and the article should go back to 2005-2012. If your definition of consensus is the above mess, then perhaps check the edits the day before the move proposal. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Eh? Joy's nomination was to make the page move. There's no consensus to do that. No consensus to move back. Is that clear enough? You had your chance(s) and the community found no consensus to move the page. And before you trot out "Abcdéf -> Abcdef" again, spare me. It's not getting anywhere, and each and every section of this talk page following the move request has resulted in you alone regurgitating the same arguments, as if you think a different result will magically appear. So far, no. And with the volume of discussion above, it's clear we've had a "community" discussion, and a discussion that's clearly resulted in no consensus in favour of Joy's proposal. It's very straight forward. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Rambling Man,
I apologise for "trotting out" that this is the first "Abcdéf -> Abcdef" rename of this kind on en.wp. I also apologise for "regurgitating" WP:IRS, [MOS:PN]] and the other guidelines. But if you count up the 'votes' you'll see that the majority is actually in favour of restoring 2005-2012 consensus, to bring this article back into line with all other East Europe articles on en.wp. Best regards. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
As I'm sure you know, this isn't about vote counting. You've admitted above that there is no consensus to perform Joy's requested page move. Yet, once again, you're using yet another section of this talkpage to re-commence the whole debate. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
@IIO. Do you have any evidence to back up your accusations of disruption by me since 15th January? Any example of diacritics related moves I have done (other than the RM for Jelena Dokic recently)? Any diff showing the "quite something" disruption I have done? Otherwise I would suggest you strike through your baseless accusations. (talk) 17:22, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The main diff I would offer WP:TENNISNAMES essay. The Ilie Năstase etc proposal and this one here were Fyunck. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Just a question: how many diacritics related moves have you done (just in the recent days alone)? And without any RM?
About 18 I'd think, maybe 20. I was saving them up until the Talk:Hégésippe Légitimus had run its course. This is the thing, when it is martiniquais politicians, no one will even participate in a RM, since it isn't a controversial move, per WP:MOVE. I only put those martiniquais politicians through RM to prove to one particular user that outside of tennis and hockey it isn't controversial - mainly of course because ATP websites aren't involved. And if anyone thought they were controversial I now have 4 tennis editors following my every comma so I wouldn't make an edit that wasn't fully sourced. You'll note that Fyunck followed me and checked in some 1920 sheet music to see whether the organist Édouard Nanny had an accent and reverted it and required a RM. Fine, no problem. It is a bit ridiculous though because correcting a spelling mistake, which is what a missing accent is outside WP tennis and WP hockey, should be see the mistake correct it, 5 seconds, 1 edit. But because I have 4 tennis editors following me now I have to laboriously document and source basic spelling. That is tiresome. But you're free to revert, follow my edits and revert like crazy if you wish. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
We don't need to rehash the discussion. But, you know perfectly well that RM are not based on WP:BLP but on WP:AT as is even stated in the standard box at the very beginning of this RM. And we are not discussing Ivanovic name , but the title of her article. MakeSense64 (talk) 17:22, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Not according to WP:TENNISNAMES, which you wrote, and not according to Fyunck who went through the article and stripped every instance of the name. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with my essay. The box at the top of this RM states, quoting for you: "Remember to base arguments on article title policy, and to keep discussion succinct and civil."
So why do you try to base the title of an article on WP:BLP? Perhaps, because you don't like the obvious conclusion if we apply WP:AT or WP:CYR to Ana Ivanovic? MakeSense64 (talk) 18:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
FWIW this is the edit where Fyunck removes all 138 mentions of the name immediately after Courcelles' close and is the edit where Courcelles restores 1 because the link to Commons is broken. So your statement that this is just about the title is not the case. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
@IIO. I am not responsible for Fyunck's edits. You still have not presented any diffs showing the disruptions you accuse me of.
1)Writing an essay is not disruptive. One of the purposes of essays is to generate discussion about wp's functioning, and the WP:TENNISNAMES essay has certainly succeeded in doing so since you are still quoting it every day.
2)I have not moved the Ilie Nastase article, in fact I have never touched it. No edits, no vote in the RM and not even a comment by me. So how is this an example of disruption on my part? I have not even moved BLP articles. Please bring relevant examples or strike out your baseless accusations. MakeSense64 (talk) 18:46, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
MakeSense64, I am primarily referring to here and to edits such as deletion of the diacritics section of MOS:PN which has been there since 2009. Your essay WP:TENNISNAMES was firmly rejected by a wide consensus and yet you are still making the same arguments here to support the first Abcdéf -> Abcdef of a European citizen on en.wp. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
The edit you mention was done after a discussion on the Talk page and after a several days wait. See: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Proper_names#Contrasting_phrases_in_MOS_and_MOSPN. That's not disruptive. And the section is still under discussion.
As for the essay I have written, I am not the first to mention it in RM discussions, others do it. Just look, Joy even started this RM by referring to the essay. Can you show any example where I am the first one to bring up the TENNISNAMES essay in a RM discussion? Or are you trying to say that because some essay was rejected, the policy based arguments mentioned in that essay should not be brought up anymore? That would be interesting.
You are still not showing any examples of disruption by me since January 15th. So? MakeSense64 (talk) 04:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I guess the reason being I'm loathe to go following people's edits. But you're right I shouldn't have lumped you in with Fyunck's edits like that based on an overall impression. I've now been and followed back your edits since this kicked off Jan 15th (which as I say is a month or two before I noticed it) and I find that first, you hardly make edits to article space at all. And secondly while there's a lot of Talk advancing the position of your proposed guideline WP:TENNISNAMES per User talk:MakeSense64/Tennis names, there are no "Roberto Maytín (born Carabobo, January 2, 1989) and professionally known as Roberto Maytin," type lede edits, there are no deletions of diacritic sources or text from diacritic footnotes sources, there are no preemptive creations of redirects from diacritic spelling to accent-less spelling, there are none of these edits, the only problematic edit was the deletion of the diacritic section from MOS:PN, where true you were only following another editor. I still feel however that there is some connection between your essay WP:TENNISNAMES and your advocacy of this view and the article-space edits of others. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
If you have finally realized that your accusations were baseless, then please go and strike them out where you made them (because many editors will not read this far down). I also invite you to come to my UserTalk and confirm that you have realized that your accusations were unfair. Because you have been beating around the bush there as well.
And what you "feel" is completely irrelevant. I could equally say that I "feel" there is some connection between your personal POV that all names on wp should be spelled according to Chicago MOS and your various edits and tons of article moves you are doing. Or that I feel that you are in a kind of "crusade" and that you are the type of person who thinks there can be only one true religion and only one correct spelling. But as I said, what we "feel" is completely irrelevant. Editors are allowed to have opinions and feelings about wp, they are even allowed to write essays about it, as long as they follow wp policy and guidelines in their activities there is no problem. Cheers. MakeSense64 (talk) 06:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
I've struck through above to make it clear it is those following your guideline not you personally. As regards the other point, rightly or wrongly you must know the difference is that of 4,000,000 en.wp articles around 15-20% of them relate to non-anglo Latin-alphabet countries and people (the Latin-alphabet zone) and there are 1,000s of editors editing in this zone following as described by existing MOSPN, I am merely a tiny one of those content providers. On the other hand the WP:TENNISNAMES zone consists of a tiny minority even among tennis articles, totally without precedent anywhere else in en.wp. It's because this is the first "Abcdéf -> Abcdef" rename of this kind on en.wp that it sticks out. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Can you please strike through the entire section? I am stilled mentioned there in connection with "disruption" and you have meanwhile admitted on my Talk page that you have found no evidence whatsoever for any of your contentions. Thanks
Your "other point" doesn't interest me anymore. Do you think a wrong argument is going to become true by rehashing it twenty times? MakeSense64 (talk) 08:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
I've struck through reference to yourself, and changed to [those in agreement with International Tennis Federation naming conventions].
As regards the other point, I don't think it will go away whether it is mentioned or not, en.wikipedia.org uses diacritics and, like this article, appears to have done so since 2005. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Her website uses Ivanovic, news services use Ivanovic, it's not as clearcut to me as with Jelena Dokic but we see all and exactly the same arguments used here to try to justify the diacritic as were used in that debate [7], and no new ones. Andrewa (talk) 13:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ana_Ivanovic/Archive_6&oldid=1147976585"