Talk:Andrea Petkovic

This article should be moved?

Andrea Petkovic was born in Tuzla, SFR Yugoslavia and therefore I am pretty sure that her spelling is Andrea (or Andreja?) Petković. Doesnt matter really if she currently lives in Germany, Florida or whatever and I dont think that she officialy changed her birth data (?). She didnt even obtain German citizenship until the age of 8. I have also removed some edits by certain users who added Bosniak parents since the cited web page only says about Serbian and not Bosniak. I also think that this article should probably be protected.Ratipok (talk) 19:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I guess her mother´s name "Amira" doesn´t sound serbian! She is aparrently the daugher of a serbian-bosniak marriage. To be more precise: Her fater Zoran is not serbian but bosnian serb which means that he belongs (belonged) to the serbian population in Bosnia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.193.250.112 (talk) 17:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Her mother is indeed a Bosniak (muslim) and her father a Serb from Bosnia. But her father is nevertheless serbian, no matter if he is from Serbia or from Bosnia. It is the same nation.--80.136.108.27 (talk) 09:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Your are right: her father is a serb, but it´s not okay to write that andrea is of serb ancenstry while her mother is a bosniak (bosian muslim). So why don´t we find an impression which includes both "serb" and "bosniak"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.193.250.112 (talk) 16:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

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.

It's been nearly three weeks and there is no consensus for a move. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

---

Andrea Petkovic → Andrea Petković – with diacritic as her last name is serbian.♫Greatorangepumpkin♫_Hey^{it's me}_{I am dynamite} 10:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Speedy move - be bold and move it. The diacritic is obviously correct. IgnorantArmies^?! 11:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep - you can't just do a speedy move when the page is listed on the Requested moves page. That's totally out of order. The WTA Player Database doesn't use the diacritic, and that should be the deciding factor here. Absconded Northerner (talk) 17:19, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

In fact, not a single one of the linked sources uses the diacritic. Unless reliable sources can be found that spell her name that way, this should be Speedy keep. Absconded Northerner (talk) 17:25, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course they don't. If you look at those players, you won't see any transliterated names, only romanized. It doesn't need any RS to proof that this is correct; it is fact that Serbian names often have diacritics, like Ana Ivanović. The title of the German version also uses diacritic--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫_Hey^{it's me}_{I am dynamite} 18:53, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but yes it does. Wikipedia is built around Reliable Sources, and you can't just say "Well it's obvious" to get around that. When other players' pages use diacritics it's because there are sources that do too. See the WP:COMMONNAME policy too. Absconded Northerner (talk) 18:59, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes we need just common sense, because it is fact that Serbian names use a diactric at the end (that ћ = ć). We have Ana Ivanović and not Ana Ivanovic, because it is transliterated. Without the ć you would read it as "Petkovis" and not "Petkovich"; that's why we have this diacritic.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫_Hey^{it's me}_{I am dynamite} 19:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

If you keep adding unsourced content, I will report you to the appropriate admin noticeboard for further action. Absconded Northerner (talk) 21:59, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course you can, why not? Because I know that I don't and won't add any unsourced content.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫_Hey^{it's me}_{I am dynamite} 10:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep - why would we want to move this from it's common English name? She's notable as a tennis player, the WTA and ITF use Andrea Petkovic and this is an English language wikipedia. Heck, in this case her own personal website (mostly written in german) also uses Petkovic, Andrea Petkovic webpage. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Move - The same situation is with other sportpersons who are competing for country where their origin is not (Jelena Dokić, Zlatan Ibrahimović, Nikola Karabatić, Aleks Marić, Csaba Szilágyi...). Andrea compete under the German flag, but she has a Serbian or Yugoslavian orgin. Her father is Zoran Petković and he played for Yugoslavia Davis Cup team. Her native last name is Petković and we usually use the native names. --Aca Srbin (talk) 13:11, 21 Augusy 2011 (CEST)

We don't "usually use the native names" - read the WP:COMMONNAME policy. Reliable Sources are used to determine the most-used version of the name, and so far nobody has found a single one that spells her name with a diacritic. Absconded Northerner (talk) 11:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

This is not a big deal. Ana Ivanović's Official Website doesn't mention the diacritic at all, but that doesn't mean we should move it to Ana Ivanovic. Again, WTA and ITF only use names without any diacritics, acutes, hooks, macrons, etc. because they use the romanized form of the name. Several keyboards, such as mine, can not write "ć", only "´c"; but you can write "á". This is why they use just "c". Petkovic is totally incorrect; we must respect the transliteration and we should not use the incorrect "c", only because we are the "English Wikipedia". PS: Stop pointing WP:COMMONNAME; it is redundant to this.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫_Hey^{it's me}_{I am dynamite} 11:46, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

No it isn't redundant. I'm pointing out that every source so far uses "c" and not "ć", which means the common name is Petkovic. COMMONNAME is site policy and must be followed in cases like this. You have failed to produce a single piece of evidence for your point of view so far. I haven't looked at Ana Ivanovic, but if a clear majority of sources use "c" then I'll submit a move request to use the more common name. That's the way policy works. Absconded Northerner (talk) 11:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. The majority of English-language reliable sources do not use the "ć" for Petkovic, so neither should we. In my opinion, the Ana Ivanovic article should also be moved, but that is really neither here nor there. If we persist with the whole "we must use diacritics if they are from Serbia", we will end up with Novak Djokovic at Novak Đoković, which would be ridiculous. Jenks24 (talk) 12:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Ridiculous? The correct spelling? No more ridiculous than Milo Đukanović being where it is instead of Milo Djukanovic [1]. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 15:31, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course they don't, because they can not write on a normal QWERTZ tastatur a "ć". It is much simpler to write just a "c". And please post some of your "majority of sources" here.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫_Hey^{it's me}_{I am dynamite} 14:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Not only for Ana Ivanović, for almost all tennis players and sportpersons 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)...--Aca Srbin (talk) 15:11, 21 Augusy 2011 (CEST)

The existence of other pages isn't relevant to this discussion. Presumably those players are usually referred to using diacritics. If not, then they should be moved. Nobody has yet provided a single source for Andrea Petkovic's name being spelled with a diacritic. In the absence of any evidence whatsoever, the page should stay here. Absconded Northerner (talk) 15:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

For the "majority of sources", just take a look at the ones already in the article. The Sydney Morning Herald, The New York Times, WTA, ITF, Fed Cup, etc. – none use the diacritic. In addition, just search google news. From the first page of hits we have: the BBC, the Boston Herald, The Daily Telegraph, Reuters, The Australian, ESPN, Channel News Asia, Taipei Times, the ABC, Fox Sports, SkySports, San Diego Union, Houston Chronicle, The Times, Gulf Daily News, Herald Sun, msnbc, and the list goes on. Not one uses the diacritic. To thrown the question back at you, can you provide some sources that diacritic should be used? So far all you have given is the German Wikipedia, clearly not RS. Jenks24 (talk) 17:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Again, read my comments first. Also all of these sources are in English. Second; there was a discussion at [2]; there are good arguments why her name should be written with a diacritic. Regards.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫_Hey^{it's me}_{I am dynamite} 11:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I did read your comment. You said "please post some of your 'majority of sources' here", which is what I did. Yes, those sources are all in English, as WP:AT recommends following English sources. But even the German sources do not use the diacritic for her name (even though they are perfectly able to and use diacritics for other words in the articles) – see this google news search of German-only sources. None use the diacritic. She is German and the German sources do not use the diacritic; this is the English Wikipedia and the English sources do not use the diacritic. To me, that is case closed, unless you are willing to provide some evidence to support your assertions. Jenks24 (talk) 13:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

But the German Wikipedia use the diacritic! And the consensus to inlcude the diacritic has been reached on its talk page, with good arguments. Again, are you able to write the "ć"? I am not. Indeed; journalists use the standard keyboard and they are not able to write this letter. That's why WP:COMMONNAME can not apply. Regards.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫_Hey^{it's me}_{I am dynamite} 15:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The Germany Wikipedia isn't relevant. You haven't provided a single reliable source that uses a diacritic. Unless you can do so, this discussion is over. Absconded Northerner (talk) 15:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

You need to read the sections posted before these but are immediately below rather than arguing amongst yourselves. Several viewpoints have been added and this matter is beyond sources. I won't repeat myself because it has all been written. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 17:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I've read them and the arguments are, I'm afraid, nonsense. If you're going to claim that a move can take place with not one single source in favour of it, you are quite simply wrong. Absconded Northerner (talk) 17:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh they are nonsense are they? You say this yet continuing to prate about the already refuted and trite "sources" argument. Sources are for content dispute, this is about what is authentic. It may surprise you that I only wish to see this article presented in its correct format whichever of the two variations that may be. Since you swear by "reliable sources", let's see you produce one in which Novak Djokovic is presented in the form as displayed on this text, along with Boris Tadić (Serbian president) on the same piece. There are hundreds if not thousands that list the two names on the same sections because the Serbian president attended Novak's Wimbledon final match. This is the point you are missing: if we are to use diacriticless names on Wikipedia, the argument needs to be that this is how the name is in English, in other words, how is has been officially adopted - variations of which are incorrect. Once the "new form" is fosilised, the forms pertaining to the origin become mere translations and sit behind the true English form. The only confusion concering this subject is that she represents Germany which is where she lives. But the so-called "reliable sources" argument is one that stretches beyond those living in foreign countries and to all subjects of all backgrounds everywhere. So unless you can prove me wrong (and I challenge you to), I contend that your "sources" are nothing more than publications that do not acknowledge diacritics in the first place, and this would not change whether they were to mention towns such as Međugorje (birthplace of Marin Čilić, possible if presenting a profile on the man). To that end, if you swear by WP:RS then you need to be looking at moving ALL diacritic topics to their non-diacritic forms, not just people but places, themes and topics too. Even the BBC doesn't touch diacritics, do we move the likes of Vojislav Šešelj, Milo Đukanović, Miomir Žužul and Veselin Šljivančanin et al. to their diacritic-free forms? If not, why not? Is it one relaible source for tennis players and another for political figures? If not, what when they are listed together? If you can produce ONE source that ackowledges diacritics with one person but not another (not necessarily Andrea Petković but any), then we can start talking about whether diacritic-free is true English or not and if this article warrants its status quo. Until then, you need to resign yourself to the fact that you are hiding behind arbitrary publications whose policy is to leave out diacritics. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 17:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

You're wittering now. Much as you dismiss the idea, this site works on reliable sources. You haven't produced any so you have no argument. Please stop wasting everybody's time. Absconded Northerner (talk) 20:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

If anyone is wittering it is you, you just don't get it do you? Sources=nothing for this issue. This isn't about content, so far we have had one good argument to move the page and one good argument to keep it. The good suggestion to move the article originated from the proposer and was based on authenticity in the home language, the good idea to keep the article page was based on Timbouctou's, Joy's and GregorB's concerted views that the subject's German citizenship and local activity may very well mean that she does not use the diacritic herself in everyday life. Your sorry arguments which are based on "reliable sources" as though someone tried to deny the Earth was round have no validity here whatsoever, you've made your point about five times, it was refuted the same number, and you still cannot grasp this. Your problem is part of a wider scenario whereby you really need to canvass to get all diacritic articles moved. Now then, let's develop this thought. Supposing I said, "all right, reliable articles it is". Tell me, is the British paper the Telegraph relaible? If so, you have a fair point looking at this for Djokovic[3], but if that is what should determine the name formats, why not use the same source for moving the Serbian president to Boris Tadic? Read the link, his name is there too... or is it "selective sources according to Absconded Northerner"? Let's see you get out of this one. 20:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I really don't see why you find this so hard to grasp. I keep repeating the point in the vain hope that you'll actually understand it and go somewhere else. It has never been refuted, and it's almost painful to hear you say that time and again while rushing off on tangents that have nothing whatsoever to do with the topic at hand. The rule is to use reliable sources. Where there is a variety of options in the sources, use the "official" spelling. In this case, there is no dispute between sources. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS? The ONLY spelling in use is "Petkovic".

You have failed to produce a single Wikipedia policy or essay to support your position. Instead, we're treated to a series of posts where you state your personal opinion and claim it trumps everybody else's facts. IT DOESN'T. Until you can produce an argument based on actual policy, please go somewhere else and bestow the fruits of your vast intellect on those more willing to receive them. Absconded Northerner (talk) 20:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

You are right about one thing, you and I are talking two different languages. Just to clear one thing, if you are admonishing me to go elsewhere, you've got another thing coming because I'm staying put. If you've got a problem with that, take it to the admins. Concerning your sorry arguments: I do not need to provide any source with a diacritic because you have not produced one yet that substantiates your claim. All you have given us is a list of publications that avoid any kind of diacritics for all subjects. I don't know if you have difficulties in reading (perhaps a return to preschool might do you good) but I am standing neutral here. I recognise the need to keep diacritics out at times but your arguments are wholly redundant: "reliable sources". Your original comments when you raised it? Fair enough, but it seems to me you like arguing and are one of those hell bent on defending your point beyond ridicule. If you're going to stand for "reliable sources" and are insisting that they all use "Andrea Petkovic", you need to find one that uses this form alongside someone or something else in which diacritics are acknowledged. The matter at hand is official English usage, that means it has to be adopted first. So, if you find an example to the effect of the following: Andrea Petkovic flew to Malmö to face Ana Ivanović, then we will consider your point. If it states this: Andrea Petkovic flew to Malmo to face Ana Ivanovic, that just indicates are diacritics are not used. So... on what grounds to we keep Ana Ivanović, Malmö and FK Radnički Pirot at their present locations? I want an answer this time, not a load of mouth. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 21:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Still you supply no policy. Evidently you can't read, so there's no point in writing more. Absconded Northerner (talk) 21:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Guys... don't you know? This is Wikipedia. If you haven't convinced someone of something after two or three exchanges, then you're not going to, so stop arguing. This is annoying for me to read when I'm trying to close this discussion, because you're both repeating a lot and going off-topic. Just present your case, and I promise, I'll read it. Don't argue about who is or is not "wittering"; it just makes you both look tendentious.

For your information, you're both wrong anyway. Wikipedia runs on consensus, and there is not a clear consensus in favor of eliminating diacritics in every case where sources omit them. There's also no clear consensus for ignoring sources and using what's correct in the original language. There are many cases of both on Wikipedia, and diacritics are one of the most contentious naming issues on this site. WP:COMMONNAME is being re-written because it's so controversial, so any argument that this is a simple, open-and-shut case is going to be completely ignored. I know this is a contentious issue, and any kind of argument is potentially convincing, and I'm going to read and consider all arguments presented.

Stop telling each other what not to say. It's very annoying, not to mention condescending to me. I can smell the difference between sense and nonsense; thank you very much. When someone starts typing words like, "Evidently you can't read", or "I want an answer this time, not a load of mouth." it smells even worse than nonsense. Please avoid posting such remarks. Thank you. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The fact that a policy is currently being discussed, and that there might be some change at an unspecified point in the future, doesn't really matter. I (and others) have supplied an argument based on current policy. Others have opposed this on nebulous grounds with absolutely no basis in current policy. The solution is perfectly clear here. Absconded Northerner (talk) 19:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

No. The solution is not perfectly clear, per the hundreds of move requests I've dealt with regarding questions precisely like this one. There is no current policy regarding diacritics, because there is no current consensus. The policy page is inaccurate and therefore irrelevant.

I'd prefer you not tell me what's what as if I'm some kind of fool. I've closed thousands of move requests, and I know the lay of the land pretty well. Would you like to see a list of about fifty to a hundred precedents in each direction, or more specific information on just how ill-supported any supposed "policy" about diacritics is? I'm prepared to supply you with abundant details, if you like.

Any RM regulars listening? How well-supported is our supposed "diacritics policy"?

If I'm wrong, I could use the reality-check myself, right? -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Why do these things always turn into such a stew? I have strong viewpoints on this (as I've expressed) but I feel for you "closers." You always know half the people will be unhappy and grumble when it gets contentious and you make a call. Just wondering, since you feel "the policy page is inaccurate and therefore irrelevant" do individual project guidelines play a roll when admins look at these things? I know Hockey Project has a pretty strong guideline/agreement... yeah it goes against wiki protocol to a degree but most adhere to it there and it works pretty well for them so administrators won't have to step in so much. I assume most wiki-projects do the same to try and head off certain issues like article names, scoring issues, notability, etc... Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I say that the policy page is inaccurate when it comes to diacritics. The state of "consensus" regarding diacritics on Wikipedia is about as tattered and torn as a policy can possibly be and still have people claiming it as an absolute. These people don't have a clue what's going on.

Most articles are dealt with by projects that are good at titling articles well early in the game, and then they never see WP:RM. A lot of articles pass through RM without being remarked upon, and whoever nominated those moves gets to do their thing, unmolested. A few articles get noticed by RM regulars and related thugs, and then all hell breaks loose, and nobody can predict where the dice will land.

Once there's an argument over diacritics, the loudest local consensus to arise wins (which suits me fine, especially when it's a responsible WikiProject!), or else the situation gets even more out of hand, someone finally closes it in a sort of admin-kamikaze dive, and it ends up on AN/I with three people getting topic-bans or else cancer.

I'm sorry to report that's the state of things, but it is. If anyone can find a way to make peace of the diacritics issue, I'll personally nominate that person for a Nobel Peace Prize. No joke. It's a mess. The sympathy is appreciated. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I cannot believe an admin can claim, with a straight face, that a policy is "inaccurate". It doesn't matter what you think. It doesn't matter what I think either - it's the policy! Follow it, please, and close this as "No move". There is NO alternative here. Not a single damn source has been produced with a diacritic, and it's utterly ludicrous that this debate is continuing! Absconded Northerner (talk) 23:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

This is where you're going to learn how far an imperious tone gets you. :D Closing admin, who won't be me, I recommend you do as ordered by this dictator.

See ya!

By the way, you're clueless about how policy works on Wikipedia. Go read WP:IAR 500 times, and learn from it. Now tell me what to do, and watch me jump! :D

I would have been inclined to agree with you, by the way, and close the discussion in your favor, but your personal manner in this conversation has inspired me to walk away instead. :)

You're right that what I think is irrelevant. That's why I never base things on what I think, but instead on where I know the consensus lies, or fails to lie. Have a nice life!!! :D -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

If you're going to be that childish, maybe you should hand in the mop and bucket? Absconded Northerner (talk) 09:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe. Good luck to you, issuing orders to people. I hope that works out for you. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

"Not a single damn source has been produced with a diacritic," – sorry but I don't think you have read my comments. Maybe you just ignore them. Regards.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫_Hey^{it's me}_{I am dynamite} 12:06, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Where? Looking over the discussion, the only "source" I can see you provide is the German Wikipedia (clearly not RS). Please correct me if I'm wrong... Jenks24 (talk) 04:23, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I just checked also... only the mention of the German wikipedia... we're trying to find the way name is spelled in common English sources. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support per nom, unless she has officially dropped the diacritic (the presence of the diacritic in the German wiki is a counter-indication of that). HandsomeFella (talk) 18:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. Note - The majority of English-language reliable sources do not use the "ć" for Petkovic, so neither should we is not a valid argument. The question is down to whether the source does in the frst place acknowledge diacritics or not. The fact that one doesn't is not an indication that all do not, and diacritics are compatible for all Latinic-script languages which is why the Serbian and Macedonian written languages have them in their Lainic forms. In the rare event that a source may use diacritics inconsistently, it will be down to ignorance on the part of the editor, suffice it to say that English has never adopted any part of the South Slavic languages without diacritics. For the purpose of these topics, there is no distinguishing "reliable" from "unreliable" because the whole reliability factor governs sources that can be used for the statements they produce, not their presentation. There is no source of any kind of state that the English language of any country has even adopted foreign names and chopped off the diacritics the same way Beograd became Belgrade, and München became Munich. This said, we need to establish exactly how the subject writes her own name in German and what official policy is in English seaking lands when adopting these difficult cases. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 20:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - a case where it's an immigrant or similar does not necessarily provide for a straightforward "yes, just use the diacritic". (Personally I've left alone at least one Australian sportsperson of Croatian descent for this reason.) A basis for an argument for the diacritic would be her original birth certificate - since she was born in Tuzla, it's a given that the diacritic was there at the time. But now, I've no idea how her official German papers look like, that something that would need to be verified first. Her web site drops the diacritic in text for both English and German, and there's no Serbian version. The stylized logo has a little quirk at the end that looks like a tennis ball, though it could be intentionally similar to an acute, too. Some links to e.g. authorized interviews in Serbian newspapers would be useful to demonstrate she keeps using the original form; or they could provide evidence to the contrary. Also, I should note that article history speaks against the diacritic - it was diacriticless since creation in 2007 until 2010-04, then again since 2010-06. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. (Edit conflict - Joy beat me to the punch with the argument here.) If we were to look into her (German) passport, which spelling would we find? My guess is Petkovic, without the diacritic. I'm aware that legal name may or may not be the same as the article title, but this would trump any argument that attempts to establish an analogy with, say, Ana Ivanović, because her (Serbian) passport retains the diacritics, of course. Of course, an analogy with Ibrahimović would still be valid. (An aside note: I feel that WP:RS is being misapplied in discussions about diacritics. When it comes to facts, WP:RS cannot be trumped, but when it comes to spelling, it can. Correctness trumps it, of course, once we agree in principle on what is "correct".) GregorB (talk) 21:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - from my experience with sportspeople of foreign origin the best solution is to go with the form as used in the country which the person represents internationally. For example there's Josip Šimunić, an Australian-born footballer who later represented Croatia - his original birth certificate is almost certainly diacriticless but ever since appearing for Croatia in 2001 his name is spelled in the original ancestral version with "Š" and "ć". An opposite example would be someone like Jason Culina, a guy whose last name is actually "Čulina" but since he is an Australian international the diacritic is rarely used. Zlatan Ibrahimović is something of an exception - his Malmo birth certificate probably did not have diacritics AND he is a Swedish international - but he wears the diacritic even on his Sweden shirt. With that in mind, I think the article on Andrea Petkovic is exactly where it should be since she is not a Serbian tennis player but a German one (and the opposite goes for her Serbian father, who is currently mentioned in the article without his diacritic). Timbouctou (talk) 09:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Note to Timbouctou - I see your points, I'm just stating that we can add the diacritic to her father's name and it will probably be unchallenged. At the moment, I don't wish to because it will generate inconsistency on the article. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - Agree with common name argument and Timbuctou's point. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 14:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Just a minor comment here. Timbouctou's point was based on the subject's country being Germany and that it seems German doesn't use the diacritic. I cannot verify this myself as I am not qualified to do so but if Timbouctou insists that it is redundant in German, I am happy to take his word for it. As for Wikipedia:Common name, this mainly recommends a preference for one variation over another where there are clear differences. The section dealing with modified letters has no prescribed course of action (which is why I raised the issue there). The issue of diacritics is slightly different from Chaikovsky vs Tchaikovsky. Even so, it is all a bit near the knuckle within a grey area. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 23:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Moving on

The message that follows is for everybody to have commented so far and is not a continuation of the discussion involving Absconded Northerner a few lines above.

I've looked at the categories of individuals of various backgrounds living in different countries and it invariably produces a mixed list - mixed in that the persons may or may not be born on the land in question, or they may hold citizenship there or just have a parent from that part of the world. The point is that there is no consistency with diacritics. I know every subject has to be based on its own merits but it appears we have no real policy. I think an article tends to stand according to how the original author created it.

Here are some lists:

• [4]
• [5]
• [6]
• [7]
• [8]
• [9]

These are just six of hundreds of examples that prove that there is no true Wikipedia protocol or of there is, it is ineffectively observed. I am sorry to Great Orange Pumpkin who proposed the idea of moving the page but I cannot lend support to the suggestion. This article needs to stay as it is until it is finalised (which will probably be never): either we glean information on how the young lady writes her own name or how this is taken by sources that might publish diacritics (which we are hard-pressed to find), or it goes the other way should we discover she doesn't use the diacritics (and this is more likely). Until now, there has been one true argument for the move (authentic in homeland) and one against (unlikelyhood of continuation of usage whilst living as German subject and resident). Be sure though that had this article been at the Petković page, I'd still have gone against a move until more information emerged, and it seems that 1) we have nothing; 2) the whole site is capricious in its practice. This is all I can say to summarise things. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 22:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Interesting read. The policy on diacritics is pretty much non-extent and I guess it's why we take things case by case. However I 100% disagree with your opinion that there are only two true arguments here and I would guess we would probably never get past that. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

What happened was, I didn't phrase it well. There may be several arguments for and against but I was referring to the points given above from the bulk of users. Unless I have missed something, but I've read it all several times. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 09:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

That is because your definition of "what is a legitimate source" is different from most of those who would disagree with you. I would never exclude a source just because they don't use diacritics in most of their publishing. That would rule out 99% of English sources. I know you disagree which is why I wasn't going to spell it out, but it's not simply a case of rephrasing things since many of us disagree with that premise. There are more than two valid reasons to keep it at Petkovic. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

You might be getting confused. I never mentioned "legitimate" anywhere (you may well be quoting somone else). As for reliable sources, I believe these are fixed and have been agreed upon before my arrival here, so there is no disputing those either. The question of whether we use diacritics or not is something too big for this article and has its place on a wider picture whereby we would aim to set a standard. As it happens, there are countless articles to have diacritics despite the "ruled out 99% of English sources" not using them. It doesn't make those publications less reliable here. Concerning the subject herself however, there may be a special reason to keep her diacritic-free which is her professional and personal links to the German state and not Bosnia; it is very possible she chooses not to use it in everyday life and this could be a clinching factor. Any other views that maintain "how the source puts it" is clearly canvassing for wider changes and is not anything specific to Andrea Petković herself. This talk page is supposed to focus purely on her, not the rights and wrongs of all pages. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 22:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that hers is a special circumstance. There are things going on that makes us look at things we might not usually look at. That doesn't mean we throw out other items that might help us make a decision regardless of those special circumstances. Talking diacritics is not too big for here, or any other article. I have been told by administrators multiple times that we take each article by itself as if from scratch and decide whether to move it or not. I do think I extrapolated your views on sources incorrectly... sorry. As I look back I believe it was GreatOP. My bad. As for diacritics there may be "countless" English sources for scientists and doctors and philosophers, etc... I really don't know because my research into sourcing them is tiny. I guess I would look at those case by case to see if it's a pretty close split and go with what I saw. Or more likely I let others decide because it's not a field I enjoy. As for tennis players I have researched a lot of English sources and it's usually a mountain compared to a thimble in favor of no diacritics. Tennis Project has generally agreed with that but many folks put the diacritics in anyway and it's really difficult to change without an administrators help. Many put tiebreak scores in prose also which is against tennis guidelines, and I'm constantly removing them. I'm sure more articles have tiebreaks in prose than not, but that doesn't make it right. Same with diacritics in tennis articles. As I said, your post was very interesting and made me think about this whole conversation. I just disagreed with your boiling it down to two reasons because I saw many posts above that used other reasons. Boiling it down to two reasons while mainly looking at her special circumstances.... now that makes more sense to me. That I can get onboard with. I just didn't limit it down that far. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:33, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, what you will find Fyunck, is that editors representing their point (including me) will rephrase themselves every time whilst we all jump up and down and it leaves this cloud of illusion that there are thousands of arguments when in actual fact there are a mere handful which are being recycled! WP with its millions of pages is too big to enforce strict guidelines on anything and this is why each topic be taken from scratch - I for instance didn't like Scotland being referred to as a country because I believed this title to be the exclusive preserve of sovereign states. Those in favour argued that the word "country" has several definitions and that the home nations of the UK meet atleast one requirement. This is going back, I haven't looked at the article for a long time. It may be a good idea that we all (everyone to have edited here plus others we can contact) start a new project page to reach a consensus for overall guidelines. Atleast there, the argument "most English sources don't use diacritics" WILL have validity as we are not being selective such as now (this one person as opposed to others who do have the modified letters). Again, I shall argue in favour of them as I suppose you will go against them but this is absolutely fine - different projects, different basis. Alternatively, we can fortify the MoS for tennis players so that they can have forms different from footballers. A note at the top of a tennis page can request that all editors refrain from diacritics unless they are ABSOLUTELY necessary (to avoid ambiguity if two persons' names are only different because of an accent but I know of no examples). We actually have this somewhere it may surprise you. Kosovo is a very sensitive issue for a cluster of reasons. After the declaration of independence in 2008, many editors wanted to change the settlement names into their Albanian form to represent the new entity's major language and they cited that English had no policy on names that barely appear in English media. The opposition used the argument that fewer than half of the world's states recognised Kosovo at the time (and just about still) and so the articles should remain in their exisiting form, Serbian. Although that is the case, it never stopped a move from Priština to Pristina (diacritic removed). It all happened amid another mass row with pro-independence editors pushing for Albanian Prishtinë and somehow the subject emerged and a consensus declared in its authors' wisdom that this would be "neutral". Is it? It is still Serbian except the diacritic is taken out and now amounts to nothing! They didn't follow suit with Peć, Đakovica or Uroševac and now we have to observe this arrangement. Side by side it is inconsistent and odd - even I say, if you start a route, finish it! More to the point, this arrangement has no currency outside of Wikipedia and therefore provides ammunition to those people you may know in life who are against WP - it has its fair share of opponents who claim it is unreliable you must know. ----Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 10:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to repeat myself, but I think the situation is clear. For almost all tennis players and we use native names or only last name (Ana Ivanović, 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)... And for almost sportpersons who are competing for country where their origin is not (Jelena Dokić, Zlatan Ibrahimović, Bojan Krkić, Nikola Karabatić, Aleks Marić. Sasha Vujačić...). I do not understand why the situation is different with this article. --Aca Srbin (talk) 22:32, 30 Augusy 2011 (CEST)

You make it sound like there is some underlying protocol in that's the way we do it. That is not the case and it's not clear. Most of those players names have been changed through the years of beating down, probably mostly by second language English speakers. It is not a Tennis Project guideline to use diacritics because it is not common English alphabet. I find it clear that the vast majority of English language sources do not use diacritics in those names... sources such as the organizations those players belong to and the press. So we don't use native names only... but certain people have absconded with the English language sourcing for those people and once changed it's tough to change back without administrative assistance. Then the polling often is deadlocked with result of no-change. If you take all the tennis articles and split them 50/50, with only administrators able to move them, then take a poll to move them one by one and it'll still be a 50/50 split. Sure a few will move either way but you get the idea. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - no indication the diacritic is frequently used in English language sources - WP:UE is policy and should not be overrided unless there is an overwhelming reason to do so. There simply isn't one here. Parsecboy (talk) 13:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

There isn't one anywhere. Had you read the comment mounted a few lines above yours by Aca Srbin, you'll have encountered a list of subjects that have diacritics as part of their presentation yet the external links are drawn from exactly the same sources we use here and everywhere. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 16:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:WAX. Parsecboy (talk) 17:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Fair point. I can't argue with that. It seems nothing on this site has a principle. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

A principle on this site is that we follow policy—WP:UE is one. We have to follow it in the absence of a compelling reason to not do so. Parsecboy (talk) 18:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

You introduce WP:UE then contradict your own self when saying "we follow policy" because now that just sends you back my original point which is why is the list above presented one way and this article another?! Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 21:55, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't perfect - I don't believe anyone has ever said that it was. There's a reason we cannot cite Wikipedia as a source for anything. Moreover, that some articles are titled contrary to naming policies doesn't mean all of them should. Have you never heard the saying "if all of your friends jump off of a cliff, are you going to as well?" Parsecboy (talk) 22:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I favour diacritics, that is no secret. There are cases however where I feel they do not belong. Those on the list presented by Aca Srbin are linked to their country of origin but this subject isn't, she is German and it is likely her title Petkovic is a transcription. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 22:46, 1 September 2011 (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.

File:Andrea Petkovic 2011.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Andrea Petkovic 2011.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:11, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that Andrea Petkovic career statistics be merged into Andrea Petkovic. The articles are of a reasonable size and merging them will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. MakeSense64 (talk) 16:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Year of birth

I've changed the stated year of Andrea's birth from 1990 to 1987 in line with the one given in her profile; http://www.andreapetkovic.de/en/on_court/profile Meltingpot (talk) 21:49, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110129234610/http://www.fhm.com/girls/andrea-petkovics-excellent-tennis-victory-dance-79658 to http://www.fhm.com/girls/andrea-petkovics-excellent-tennis-victory-dance-79658
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140606205710/http://www.tennisperspective.com/2012/01/petkovic-withdraws-from-australian-open-with-spinal-fracture.html to http://www.tennisperspective.com/2012/01/petkovic-withdraws-from-australian-open-with-spinal-fracture.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:34, 5 July 2017 (UTC)